If you could have any body and any lens to go on it, what would you choose?D3 w/ 14-24 f/2.8, please.
Hasselblad H3D
>>145830You do realize those are just about awful for everything except still lifes and studio work?
>>145832Who cares, imagine the size of my photo-penis
D3, 70-200 2.8H3D would be nice, in the studiobut it just wont cut it to whip out at partys...."hey look everyone...whoops, there goes $30K"
D3 with 85/1.4 I guess.Or Canon EOS 1Ds mark III with 85/1.2L
Leica M7 with 35mm f/1.4 summilux
pentax 6x7anyone tries to steal it from me i'll just bat them over the head with it
>>145856Why not carry around a baseball bat and protect your camera :DI would like a Canon EOS 1Ds M3 please with the 200mm macro lens, and a few tilt/shift lenses, and with fries on the side.
Pentax 645D would be niceshame they have put it off for now :(
>>145862Between a pentax 67 and a baseball bat, I'd rather have the pentax. A little unweildy but you connect and they won't be getting up. :P
M8+Noctilux.Mmmmmmm f/1.0 *fapfapfapfapfap*
>>145868Make that M6 and im in.
>>145830>>Hasselblad H3D>>145832>>You do realize those are just about awful for everything except still lifes and studio work?Which is EXACTLY why i would have it.
D3 with 24-70 f2.8 G...But then again, I am buying that lens anyway...
5d MKii(you all know its coming sooner or later...) and an 85 1.2 simply cos i fuckin love 50mm on my 30D for every-god-damn-thing.
Hasselblad H3D just so I can sell it and buy a prosumer body and an arsenal of lenses.
>>145871>>145868>>145843Leica FagsLeica M8 + Noctilux f/1.0.Then I'd sell them, get money, and get a D3 and 70-200 f/2.8
>>145832That's not remotely true, actually.That said, I don't like the way they're laid out.So, to that end: Mamiya RZ67 Pro-IID with a Phase One P45 and 110mm f/2.8.
1Ds III with a 50mm 1.2L
OP nailed it for me, I think.
realistically, a pentax 6x7 with a 55mm,ideally, a mamiya 7ii with a 43 or 65mm
Nikon D300 and a 80-200 F2.8 VRHoly fucking hell
>>145899this
>>145905This.
D3 w/ 300 2.8 AFS VRright now I have a d300 with a 70-200 2.8, so im not toooo far off from the dream cam.. only another 10 grand to go
i win.canon 7 with f/.95 lense.
Nikon D40 with an 18-200 VR.
A900 + 100-400/2.8 (yes thats a canon lense)
nice try sony fag, but there is no such thing as an A900 yet.if your going to play that game, then ill take a nikon D5 with 10-500mm f2.8
>>147238bitches didnt say any body currently in existence. Also learn to quote.
>>147238>>147240She does have a point there. Someone else mentioned the 5D Mk II and nobody jumped on them.
>>147233If you're going to mate a nonexistent camera with a nonexistent lens, why not make them both the same brand?
>>147307Because she knows that if Sony were to make a 100-400 f/2.8, it would suck? ;)
I thought I had demonstrated that you don't need any of this fancy gear!Nikon D40 and the Nikon 18-200 4-5.6 vr is all you need! You can even leave it on auto for everything! CLICK MY LINKS! BUY SHIT!
>>147329I lol'd so hard I fell off of my chair, hit my nuts on my TRIPOD and vomited all over the placeI guess you were right about the tripods
Nikon D6 with Nikkor 2-800 f1.2 G AF-S ED-IF with thermal imaging auto histogram analysis into RAW-MPEG-8 translation.... or M6 with clean, low-light glass and 50 lbs of bulk Tri-X and a few dozen gallons of Accufine.
>>147322More because i dont ever expect a 100-400 throw lense from sony :PPrehaps the 50-500/2.8 sigma then if they ever bother to dynax it.
Hasselblad H9000D and a 1-9000 f.0001FACKIN BIG PENIS
M4 with 35mm 1.4 voigtlander nokton.Or, EOS 5D MkII if the latest made up specs are right, with my 105/2.8 super-takumar.