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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:28:04 -0700, Big Bill wrote:
On 24 Jun 2004 13:46:24 -0700, (Georgette Preddy) wrote: No one is saying you have to use one, but I believe everyone who has used both would agree that they are optically superior in a Biblical sense. Could you explain that? I *really* want to know about this. sigh I guess this will remain a seret that 'preddy' will take to his grave. Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|