A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why go dSLR?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old June 25th 04, 07:55 PM
Phil Wheeler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why go dSLR?



David J Taylor wrote:
"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...


David J Taylor wrote:


"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
. ..
[]


Alas .. not for me. I like to shoot in museums and cathedrals. No


P&S

(but those with IS lenses) will cut the mustard.

Phil


Eh?

I shoot in similar circumstances and I find I can hold a P&S a lot
steadier than I ever could a 35mm SLR with its bulky lens! Take the


Nikon

990 range swivel body cameras - you can place the blody on a flat


surface

(a pew for example) and swivel the lens to frame your image. No


problem

with 1 second exposures then..... You would need a tripod to do that


with

an SLR camera.


You must have missed my IS (Image Stabilized lens) statement above. I
can do handheld very easily at 1/10 to 1/2 sec exposures. Never use a
tripod.

Phil



No, I saw your statement about IS. You seemed to be saying that what I
have been doing with P&S digital these last six years was impossible
without IS lenses. Not so.


Not at all. I was responding only to your statement above that I would
need a tripod. Since I do not need 1 sec exposures (shoot no lower than
ISO 400 ever) and have IS, I do not need a tripod.

I was not saying you could not do what you report; I'm sure you can.

Phil

  #62  
Old June 25th 04, 08:09 PM
David J Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why go dSLR?

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...
[]
Not at all. I was responding only to your statement above that I would
need a tripod. Since I do not need 1 sec exposures (shoot no lower than
ISO 400 ever) and have IS, I do not need a tripod.

I was not saying you could not do what you report; I'm sure you can.

Phil


Phil,

Many thanks for clarifying that. Yes, I quite see what you mean.

Sadly, the only IS system I have tested (the Minolta A2) would not work at
the low shutter speeds we are both talking about, and this failure was one
of several reasons I returned the camera for a refund.

Cheers,
David


  #63  
Old June 25th 04, 08:16 PM
Phil Wheeler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why go dSLR?



David J Taylor wrote:

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...
[]

Not at all. I was responding only to your statement above that I would
need a tripod. Since I do not need 1 sec exposures (shoot no lower than
ISO 400 ever) and have IS, I do not need a tripod.

I was not saying you could not do what you report; I'm sure you can.

Phil



Phil,

Many thanks for clarifying that. Yes, I quite see what you mean.

Sadly, the only IS system I have tested (the Minolta A2) would not work at
the low shutter speeds we are both talking about, and this failure was one
of several reasons I returned the camera for a refund.


David,

I've not tried the Minolta system nor the Panasonic. I got hooked on IS
with my Oly C-2100UZ which uses the Canon IS. But at 2 megapixels, it
is a bit limited.

The new Canon S1 IS (3.2 Mp) intrigues me. But at $499, I'm not too
tempted. If it were 4 or 5 mp I would be. It is much more compact than
even my 2100UZ (which I still use) -- but the change from 2.1 to 3.2 mp
does not seem worth the cost (especially when I have a 6.3 mp dSLR with
IS lens already).

Phil

  #64  
Old June 25th 04, 08:38 PM
David J Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why go dSLR?

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...
[]
David,

I've not tried the Minolta system nor the Panasonic. I got hooked on IS
with my Oly C-2100UZ which uses the Canon IS. But at 2 megapixels, it
is a bit limited.

The new Canon S1 IS (3.2 Mp) intrigues me. But at $499, I'm not too
tempted. If it were 4 or 5 mp I would be. It is much more compact than
even my 2100UZ (which I still use) -- but the change from 2.1 to 3.2 mp
does not seem worth the cost (especially when I have a 6.3 mp dSLR with
IS lens already).

Phil


Yes, I looked at the Canon briefly as well, but as I'm now coming from a
compact and light 5MP Nikon 5700, the step-down in pixels and wide-angle
coverage put me off. The weight is certainly great, though! I find
carrying too much kit tiresome these days. I would like something like
5MP (perhaps 8MP), 28 - 280 (200 OK) mm zoom in my next camera, but not a
DSLR requiring interchangeable lenses and a separate flash gun.

Cheers,
David


  #65  
Old June 25th 04, 09:16 PM
Phil Wheeler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why go dSLR?



David J Taylor wrote:

The new Canon S1 IS (3.2 Mp) intrigues me. But at $499, I'm not too
tempted. If it were 4 or 5 mp I would be. It is much more compact than
even my 2100UZ (which I still use) -- but the change from 2.1 to 3.2 mp
does not seem worth the cost (especially when I have a 6.3 mp dSLR with
IS lens already).

Phil



Yes, I looked at the Canon briefly as well, but as I'm now coming from a
compact and light 5MP Nikon 5700, the step-down in pixels and wide-angle
coverage put me off. The weight is certainly great, though! I find
carrying too much kit tiresome these days. I would like something like
5MP (perhaps 8MP), 28 - 280 (200 OK) mm zoom in my next camera, but not a
DSLR requiring interchangeable lenses and a separate flash gun.


I do know what you mean. I climbed 3000 ft last month in NW Greece with
my 300D and a spare lens, battery etc. -- probably 4 lbs in all -- slung
over my shoulder. But then I used to do the same with a 55 lb backpack
(now, at 67, I'm down to 35 lbs arrying wt, max).

I sort of think of it as water. Two quarts is four lbs :-)

I do have a Pentax 43WR (4 mp, water resistant) for bad days or if I am
really too lazy to carry the Canon.

Phil

  #67  
Old June 26th 04, 04:42 AM
Paul Wylie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why go dSLR?

Phil Wheeler wrote:
[...]
I've not tried the Minolta system nor the Panasonic. I got hooked on IS
with my Oly C-2100UZ which uses the Canon IS. But at 2 megapixels, it
is a bit limited.

[...]

I also own an Oly C-2100UZ which I love, and which spoiled me with its
excellent IS. Sadly, Minolta's is vastly inferior (it's digital shake
compensation, not lens-stabilization as the Oly and Canon cameras use).

I returned the A2 for a refund last week and ordered a Digital Rebel,
which just arrived today. The battery is still charging, and I can't wait
to play with it. I know it doesn't have IS on the included lens, but
Canon offers IS even on some relatively low-priced lenses, so I'm eager to
try the 75-300 f/4-5.6 EF IS USM lens. It's a helluvalot more than a 4 MP
version of the C-2100UZ would have cost, but it's a much more flexible
camera.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
  #68  
Old June 26th 04, 05:09 AM
Phil Wheeler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why go dSLR?



Paul Wylie wrote:
Phil Wheeler wrote:
[...]

I've not tried the Minolta system nor the Panasonic. I got hooked on IS
with my Oly C-2100UZ which uses the Canon IS. But at 2 megapixels, it
is a bit limited.


[...]

I also own an Oly C-2100UZ which I love, and which spoiled me with its
excellent IS. Sadly, Minolta's is vastly inferior (it's digital shake
compensation, not lens-stabilization as the Oly and Canon cameras use).

I returned the A2 for a refund last week and ordered a Digital Rebel,
which just arrived today. The battery is still charging, and I can't wait
to play with it. I know it doesn't have IS on the included lens, but
Canon offers IS even on some relatively low-priced lenses, so I'm eager to
try the 75-300 f/4-5.6 EF IS USM lens. It's a helluvalot more than a 4 MP
version of the C-2100UZ would have cost, but it's a much more flexible
camera.


I also have a Digital Rebel: Love it! My Canon 28-135 IS makes an
excellent walkaround lens. I've had a Canon 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 for a
number of years; works good for my needs -- or I would go for the 75-300 IS.

BTW -- be sure to try ISO 800 or even 1600 with the kit lens. I've
gotten some nice results that way. But most shots are at ISO 400.

Phil

Phil

  #69  
Old June 26th 04, 11:50 AM
David J Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why go dSLR?

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...
[]
I do know what you mean. I climbed 3000 ft last month in NW Greece with
my 300D and a spare lens, battery etc. -- probably 4 lbs in all -- slung
over my shoulder. But then I used to do the same with a 55 lb backpack
(now, at 67, I'm down to 35 lbs arrying wt, max).

I sort of think of it as water. Two quarts is four lbs :-)

I do have a Pentax 43WR (4 mp, water resistant) for bad days or if I am
really too lazy to carry the Canon.

Phil


Oh, Phil, you clearly have much more energy than me - and I owe you 12
years! I just checked and my Coolpix 5700 (35 - 280mm) with case, spare
battery, spare CF card, and lens cap weigh in at 1 lb 12 oz (0.8 kg).
Quite enough for me! Another couple of spare batteries and a lens cloth
in my body pouch.

Cheers,
David


  #70  
Old June 27th 04, 07:22 PM
Roland Karlsson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why go dSLR?

"David J Taylor" wrote in
:

I would be keen to see something along those lines succeed! But the
current mantra is: "It has to be 35mm to suit our existing lenses". You
would have thought that the manufacturers would have been keen to lock
buyers into a new range of lenses, wouldn't you? Is the 4/3 system the
answer?


Nope - the 4/3 system is not the answer. It is a rather big
system based on a rather big mount with a rather big distance
from sensor to lens. Nope - not compact.


/Roland
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.