Ya, a good race. Sorry to see Ferrari take 2nd in the constructor's, I was hoping McLaren would knock them down to third.
I wondered what happened to Vlingo.
My favorite part:
In 1999, for instance, two men received a patent for a crustless, sealed peanut butter and jelly sandwich. (The J. M. Smucker company acquired the patent and used it to sue other food makers. In 2007, after press scrutiny, federal officials canceled the patent.)
Patented peanut butter and jelly sandwich :lol:
I think an apology and maybe an explanation would have been in order. The fact they brought your bike back makes me think it was a legit person making the theft claim. If it was a scam I would think they'd say it was their bike.
1.5x is the crop factor. 24mm is pretty damn wide still on a crop, I think (I shoot with a 28mm on crop, and it's pretty wide). 17-55 would be still 1.5x crop too.
Yes, but 24mm equates to about 36mm while 17mm equates to around 25mm which is much closer to the 'classic' wide angle 24mm field of view. Just try both lenses in the shop and see which one is wide enough.
I guess it all comes down to if he thinks there is a chance he will ever switch to a full frame camera.
It'd be better if he went straight for the 24-70mm over a 17-55 because if he ever upgraded to a FF body, he'd have the 24-70 and not worry about selling the 17-55 (though it can be used on a FF you'd just get vignetting or the body would go into crop because of the lens).
True but on a DX camera won't that 24-70mm have a field of view equivalent to 36-105mm FF? Not sure but that might not be wide enough for some people. There is a reason that DX zoom starts at 17 vs 24mm.
Not as $$$ as the 24mm F1.4…
I think the two zooms he is looking at would be around $1,300 so it's not really that great of a leap. That zoom you pointed out is for full frame, this DX zoom is more reasonable:
For a prime I was thinking more along the lines of something like this:
The one I listed above would be more of a portrait lens on a D7000 at 75mm equivalent.
is there a reason why i shouldn't?
Maybe instead of getting two cheaper lenses get one higher quality zoom. I'm sure Nikon makes something in the 24-70mm f2.8 range. Or maybe the smaller zoom you intended and a couple fast prime lenses.
It's not very often I take the 25mm (50mm full frame equivalent) f1.4 off my camera. I also have 28-84mm and 200-600mm equivalents but they don't get very much use. My next lens will be a 24-70mm equivalent f2.8
Obi_Wan - I'll probably start with mostly landscape, and architectural shots, and long exposure. Main reason I want this camera is to have full control over it and nice clarity. I don't mind having the larger camera because I don't plan on bringing this sucker riding.
Next time you're at the camera shop have a look at an Olympus OM-D E-M5 or a Panasonic GH2 (the GH3 is out soon though). You have full manual control over everything on most micro 4/3 cameras. The lens selection for micro 4/3 is pretty good now and as I mentioned, image quality between it and an APS-C DSLR isn't that great. If you were getting into sports photography I would say stick with a full sized DSLR but it seems like you're not.
Nothing wrong with the setup you've chosen but keep an open mind. As I mentioned, I got tired of lugging an SLR setup around and eventually got to the point I wouldn't even take it with me on vacation.
I've had good experiences with Kerrisdale Cameras in the past.
On a side note, what are you going to use the camera for? I switched from an SLR to a micro 4/3 setup a while ago and haven't looked back. So much easier to pack around than a full sized SLR.