Resdy to buy

"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:52:00 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:22:06 -0400, "Peter"

wrote:

"jim" wrote in message
...
I've putzed around with digital cameras for years and am now ready to
take
the plunge and purchase a DSLR. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a Canon
EOS
Rebel XSi. Any input from you posters would be appreciated. Really I
don't want to compare brands, just some input with Canon cameras and
their reliability, photo quality, etc., would be greatly appreciated.


You certainly set out troll bait. However, if you can get to a brick and
mortar store, pick the one you feel handles best for you. However, you
never
state what type of photography you plan to do. For general purpose, what
you
propose wily be just fine. Even if you make a mistake, it's only money
and
correct it on the next upgrade.

Keeping in mind that any salesperson in any camera store has a
financially-biased conflict-of-interest that is too great to give you
the
best advice. If they can sell you a camera that will ensure that you
have
to be back to the store to buy another $6,000 worth of accessory lenses,
sturdy and expensive tripod to be able to use any of the longer lenses,
sensor cleaning kit, strong pack to store it all in, etc.; or sell you a
one-time-sale-only camera that you can carry in one roomy pocket with
equivalent image quality for $350; guess which camera they are going to
STRONGLY advise that you buy?



Troll point proven. Knew it couldn't resist.

Only proving that you've NEVER been in any camera store before. Or you'd
know that what I typed is the truth. Hell, you haven't even owned any
camera before, you're just another pretend-photographer TROLL parroting
what you read all the other pretend-photographers spew. Also proved.

I find it truly amazing how everyone is wrong and you are the only one who
stumbled on the truth. If superzooms outperformed DSLRs so consistently,
why don't the world's top photographers toss aside their expensive cameras
and take them up? hmmm.

On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 02:40:54 -0400, "Tim Conway"
wrote:


"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:52:00 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 22:22:06 -0400, "Peter"

wrote:

"jim" wrote in message
...
I've putzed around with digital cameras for years and am now ready to
take
the plunge and purchase a DSLR. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a Canon
EOS
Rebel XSi. Any input from you posters would be appreciated. Really I
don't want to compare brands, just some input with Canon cameras and
their reliability, photo quality, etc., would be greatly appreciated.


You certainly set out troll bait. However, if you can get to a brick and
mortar store, pick the one you feel handles best for you. However, you
never
state what type of photography you plan to do. For general purpose, what
you
propose wily be just fine. Even if you make a mistake, it's only money
and
correct it on the next upgrade.

Keeping in mind that any salesperson in any camera store has a
financially-biased conflict-of-interest that is too great to give you
the
best advice. If they can sell you a camera that will ensure that you
have
to be back to the store to buy another $6,000 worth of accessory lenses,
sturdy and expensive tripod to be able to use any of the longer lenses,
sensor cleaning kit, strong pack to store it all in, etc.; or sell you a
one-time-sale-only camera that you can carry in one roomy pocket with
equivalent image quality for $350; guess which camera they are going to
STRONGLY advise that you buy?



Troll point proven. Knew it couldn't resist.

Only proving that you've NEVER been in any camera store before. Or you'd
know that what I typed is the truth. Hell, you haven't even owned any
camera before, you're just another pretend-photographer TROLL parroting
what you read all the other pretend-photographers spew. Also proved.

I find it truly amazing how everyone is wrong and you are the only one who
stumbled on the truth. If superzooms outperformed DSLRs so consistently,
why don't the world's top photographers toss aside their expensive cameras
and take them up? hmmm.

Because their idiotic employers demand they use certain cameras. I know of
one architectural photographer who regularly uses a compact with an
articulated LCD viewfinder so he can get into those tight spots. He can't
tell his editor nor employer he is using one or they will reject his
photography. To compromise he edits the EXIF info and submits them and they
are still published in prestigious magazines. His ****ingly stupid editor
and employer, none the wiser.

Perhaps you should get your head out of your trolling know-nothing ass and
learn something about the REAL world.

On 05/09/2010 01:57, Superzooms Still Win wrote:

Expect to pay about $6500 more (I did the math) in DSLR glass if you want
to obtain just as good image quality with the same zoom range in a DSLR as
already exists in a $300-$350 superzoom.

Show us the math... because I'm far from that and I definitely have
better image quality than I ever had with my superzoom.

--
Bertrand

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 11:09:50 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: "jim" wrote:
: I've putzed around with digital cameras for years and am now ready to take
: the plunge and purchase a DSLR. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a Canon EOS
: Rebel XSi. Any input from you posters would be appreciated. Really I don't
: want to compare brands, just some input with Canon cameras and their
: reliability, photo quality, etc., would be greatly appreciated.
:
:
: What makes you think you need a DSLR? What will you use it for that
: demands that you absolutely must have a DSLR?
:
: There is now a wide selection of P&S and superzoom cameras that offer
: very good image quality. They neatly avoid the hassle and expense of
: interchangeable lenses. They also avoid the hassle of expensive
: sensor cleaning because - except in extreme circumstances - dust just
: cannot get in.
:
: Entry-level DSLRs come with kit lenses that are optically mediocre.
: All the budget priced lenses for DSLRs are similarly mediocre. To get
: lenses of a quality that justifies having a DSLR, you are going to
: have to pay considerably more.
:
: So why not consider a top of the range zoom P&S, or a superzoom? You
: can probably find one that provides all the features and performance
: that you will ever need.

That's a bit patronizing, don't you think? What reason do we have to suppose
that Jim's reasons for upgrading to a DSLR aren't valid? He's told us that
he's already a digital camera user, and he's done enough homework to narrow
his search to a particular well-established brand. You're asking him to go
through the process again with us involved. Does everyone who asks a similar
question in this newsgroup have to do that? Are we so experienced and smart
that a decision made without our input should automatically be questioned?

Bob

On 9/4/2010 3:40 PM, jim wrote:
I've putzed around with digital cameras for years and am now ready to
take the plunge and purchase a DSLR. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a
Canon EOS Rebel XSi. Any input from you posters would be appreciated.
Really I don't want to compare brands, just some input with Canon
cameras and their reliability, photo quality, etc., would be greatly
appreciated.

You might want to consider the T1i instead, the extra capability and
resolution is worth it.

You also need to decide which lenses to buy. I'd suggest the EF-s 10-22,
EF-S 18-200mm IS, and the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, though to start just the
EF-S 18-200mm IS is sufficient.

The kit lens that comes with that camera is not great.

$684 Body
$589 EF-S 18-200mm IS
$765 EF-s 10-22
$101 EF 50 1.8
$443 Speedlite 580EX II (if you expect to do a lot of indoor photography)

So you're at about $2500 to get started, not including filters or other
accessories. I'd avoid the kits that include the EF-S 55-250 IS lens as
that's a low end lens. The lenses in the list I provided are all close
to L quality lenses in optics.

On 05/09/2010 16:32, Bruce wrote:
wrote:
On 05/09/2010 01:57, Superzooms Still Win wrote:
Expect to pay about $6500 more (I did the math) in DSLR glass if you want
to obtain just as good image quality with the same zoom range in a DSLR as
already exists in a $300-$350 superzoom.

Show us the math... because I'm far from that and I definitely have
better image quality than I ever had with my superzoom.


Today's superzooms are a long way ahead of where they were only a
couple of years ago. At that time, stepping up to a DSLR meant a
considerable improvement in image quality. That is much less the case
now than it was then. DPReview's recent group test of superzooms
makes interesting reading:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q110superzoomgroup/

Because you call that good pictures? make this simple test: load this
picture (the first I tried...):

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/q1...5_CIMG0507.JPG

into your favorite photo editing software, and use the magic wand on one
of the masts. See how jagged the selection is. In that same picture, the
big motorboat on the right is a riddled with a greenish (on white) and
blueish (on dark) color aberration.


There are also some very high quality compact P&S cameras that have
excellent 3X or 4X zoom lenses with plenty of attention paid in the
design to the control of noise. These cameras, which include the
Canon S90, Panasonic DMC-LX5 and the Samsung TL500, plus the slightly
larger Canon G11, are capable of producing results that are
practically indistinguishable from those made with DSLRs.

from far away. And when conditions are good (good light, enough time to
focus....). And we aren't talking about superzooms anymore.

At low ISOs, DSLRs with the usual poor quality consumer-grade kit
lenses would struggle to produce results that equalled those from
these point and shoot cameras.

because in a $350 P&S it isn't consumer-grade optics? And my experience
is that at low ISO, my DLSR already does a lot better than superzooms
(and thanks for the pointer to pictures that confirm that my 2-year old
DSLR is still better than the current superzoom offerings).

Probably more than 90% of DSLR owners would find that their needs are
better served by a small-sensor camera, either one of the high quality
compacts or one of the leading superzooms. But to many people, a DSLR
is a badge that says a lot more about them than their results ever do.

I still don't see the math... what DSLR body, lens... etc, would you
use? Still all talk and no show?

--
Bertrand

On 05/09/2010 18:41, SMS wrote:
On 9/4/2010 3:40 PM, jim wrote:
I've putzed around with digital cameras for years and am now ready to
take the plunge and purchase a DSLR. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a
Canon EOS Rebel XSi. Any input from you posters would be appreciated.
Really I don't want to compare brands, just some input with Canon
cameras and their reliability, photo quality, etc., would be greatly
appreciated.

You might want to consider the T1i instead, the extra capability and
resolution is worth it.

You also need to decide which lenses to buy. I'd suggest the EF-s 10-22,
EF-S 18-200mm IS, and the EF 50mm f/1.8 II, though to start just the
EF-S 18-200mm IS is sufficient.

The kit lens that comes with that camera is not great.

It's adequate... It's the IS version, much better than the previous
generation sold with the 300D/350D/400D and the 1000D. My only gripe
against it is that at 18mm its distortion isn't regular and is very
difficult to correct by software (mix of barrel and pincushion...) so
that doesn't make it the perfect lens for architecture.

And the 55-250 isn't that bad either for the price (but too short for
what most people would use a zoom for). I eventually sold mine and
replaced it with a 100mm f/2.8 macro (old version, sans IS, which is a
bargain those days) and a Sigma 120-400.


$684 Body
$589 EF-S 18-200mm IS
$765 EF-s 10-22

I wouldn't even talk about such a lens unless I know the OP is in the
kind of photography that requires it.

$101 EF 50 1.8

Yes, can be useful.

$443 Speedlite 580EX II (if you expect to do a lot of indoor photography)

Or look into Metz/Sunpak. Or find an old flash unit at a garage sale and
use it in manual mode.

So you're at about $2500 to get started, not including filters or other
accessories.

or at whatever the Rebel sells nowadays, and not a penny more.

I'd avoid the kits that include the EF-S 55-250 IS lens as
that's a low end lens. The lenses in the list I provided are all close
to L quality lenses in optics.



--
Bertrand

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 16:22:43 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 11:09:50 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: : "jim" wrote:
: : I've putzed around with digital cameras for years and am now ready to take
: : the plunge and purchase a DSLR. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a Canon EOS
: : Rebel XSi. Any input from you posters would be appreciated. Really I don't
: : want to compare brands, just some input with Canon cameras and their
: : reliability, photo quality, etc., would be greatly appreciated.
: :
: :
: : What makes you think you need a DSLR? What will you use it for that
: : demands that you absolutely must have a DSLR?
: :
: : There is now a wide selection of P&S and superzoom cameras that offer
: : very good image quality. They neatly avoid the hassle and expense of
: : interchangeable lenses. They also avoid the hassle of expensive
: : sensor cleaning because - except in extreme circumstances - dust just
: : cannot get in.
: :
: : Entry-level DSLRs come with kit lenses that are optically mediocre.
: : All the budget priced lenses for DSLRs are similarly mediocre. To get
: : lenses of a quality that justifies having a DSLR, you are going to
: : have to pay considerably more.
: :
: : So why not consider a top of the range zoom P&S, or a superzoom? You
: : can probably find one that provides all the features and performance
: : that you will ever need.
:
: That's a bit patronizing, don't you think?
:
:
: It is sincere advice, sincerely given. Certainly not patronising.

I didn't say it wasn't sincere. But if I were the OP, I'd consider it
patronizing. If he doesn't, fine.

: What reason do we have to suppose
: that Jim's reasons for upgrading to a DSLR aren't valid?
:
:
: Because at least 90% of DSLR owners have no need of a DSLR.

Irrelevant if true, and a subjective judgement in any case.

: He's told us that
: he's already a digital camera user, and he's done enough homework to narrow
: his search to a particular well-established brand. You're asking him to go
: through the process again with us involved. Does everyone who asks a similar
: question in this newsgroup have to do that? Are we so experienced and smart
: that a decision made without our input should automatically be questioned?
:
:
: The OP stated "Any input from you posters would be appreciated." If
: the OP considers my advice irrelevant I am sure he is capable of
: ignoring it without any assistance from others.
:
: Different people have different opinions. The primary purpose of
: Usenet newsgroups is so that people can discuss - and potentially
: learn from - a variety of opinions.
:
: If you believe contrary opinions should be banned, as you appear to
: imply, then there would be absolutely no point to this newsgroup.

How can you possibly read that into what I said? All I did was point out that
the OP asked us a rather specific question; and rather than try to answer it,
you began to question the decisions (already made) that motivated the
question. In the absence of any evidence that those decisions were made in
haste or on insufficient research, I thought it was patronizing.

: There are quite a few one-brand online photo discussion forums where
: contrary opinions are banned. Perhaps you should join one of those
: rather than expose your over-sensitive persona to other Usenet users'
: independence of thought? ;-)

I assume that's an allusion to the fact that I'm a Canon owner, which is
silly. I don't care what brand of camera he buys or why he's leaning towards
Canon. My reference to a "well-established brand" was only in the context that
if he were about to pick, say, a Sigma or Sony or Olympus DSLR, there *might*
be more reason to doubt that he had done his homework. If he were leaning
towards Nikon or Pentax, I'd have said exactly what I did say.

Bob

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:08:54 +0200, Ofnuts
wrote:

On 05/09/2010 01:57, Superzooms Still Win wrote:

Expect to pay about $6500 more (I did the math) in DSLR glass if you want
to obtain just as good image quality with the same zoom range in a DSLR as
already exists in a $300-$350 superzoom.

Show us the math... because I'm far from that and I definitely have
better image quality than I ever had with my superzoom.



Well, none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys are going to do the math, so how
about if I do it....

Let's see, with a "crop factor" of, say, 1.6x, that extra expense of ~$600 for
the 18-200mm gives you 28mm-320mm, we're still missing the 320mm-560mm range.
We're in for $675+$600=$1275 (camera + upgrade lens) so far. Is it still worth
the expense for lenses that may not beat the detail recorded by the $340 P&S?
How much more for the 320mm-560mm reach of similar or better quality?

We'll need a 200mm-350mm. Hmm... best I can come up with in a search is the
200-400, with an average price of $5,250.

So now we're at $6,525 to possibly match or slightly beat the performance of a
$340 P&S camera. Let's not forget that we might miss some very very important
shots with having to change lenses in time.

We've also added 115.5 oz. for the 200-400mm one, that's an extra 7.22 lbs. Add
in another 19.8 oz. for the 18-200mm one, that's an extra 1.24 lbs. Add in the
weight of the camera, 18.5 oz. (1.16 lbs.) and we're hauling 9.62 lbs. around,
for many miles a day (when you're a pro).

The $340 SX10 is 1.32 lbs. with lens.

Nope, sorry, can't see it. I can't see how a POSSIBLE slight increase in image
detail for $6,525 and 10lbs of gear in any way competes with $340 and 1.3 lbs.
of gear. Plus the missed shots from changing lenses, cleaning sensors, poor
low-temperature performance, etc. etc. etc.

The DSLR kit-glass already lost greatly to the P&S glass, I doubt the more
expensive glass will resolve more than 4x's the amount of detail needed to win.
Even if it did, the weight and cost already threw the DSLR out the window and
onto the concrete below. (Let us not forget the 25point list too, I couldn't
live with that obnoxious shutter noise and all those focal-plane shutter
limitations, to name but 2 of the 100's of reasons.)

If this doesn't prove that "A fool and his money are soon parted," I don't know
what else would.

It was interesting to do that. I knew it was going to make any comparable DSLR
look bad, but not THAT bad! No wonder none of the DSLR-trolls and fan-boys
wanted to answer, remaining so silent or continually red-herring evasive. All
that crates-of-eggs omelet on their face was preventing them from answering.

On Sun, 05 Sep 2010 15:32:51 +0100, Bruce wrote:

Ofnuts wrote:
On 05/09/2010 01:57, Superzooms Still Win wrote:
Expect to pay about $6500 more (I did the math) in DSLR glass if you want
to obtain just as good image quality with the same zoom range in a DSLR as
already exists in a $300-$350 superzoom.

Show us the math... because I'm far from that and I definitely have
better image quality than I ever had with my superzoom.


Today's superzooms are a long way ahead of where they were only a
couple of years ago. At that time, stepping up to a DSLR meant a
considerable improvement in image quality. That is much less the case
now than it was then. DPReview's recent group test of superzooms
makes interesting reading:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q110superzoomgroup/

There are also some very high quality compact P&S cameras that have
excellent 3X or 4X zoom lenses with plenty of attention paid in the
design to the control of noise. These cameras, which include the
Canon S90, Panasonic DMC-LX5 and the Samsung TL500, plus the slightly
larger Canon G11, are capable of producing results that are
practically indistinguishable from those made with DSLRs.

At low ISOs, DSLRs with the usual poor quality consumer-grade kit
lenses would struggle to produce results that equalled those from
these point and shoot cameras.

Probably more than 90% of DSLR owners would find that their needs are
better served by a small-sensor camera, either one of the high quality
compacts or one of the leading superzooms. But to many people, a DSLR
is a badge that says a lot more about them than their results ever do.



Well said.