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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Bruce Graham writes:
In article , says... For the money, for doing available light and snapshot work, you can do a lot better with a P/S 4Mp digicam that comes with a nice f/2.0 lens (my Canon G2 comes to mind) than you can with my digital Rebel and it's kit lens which is several stops slower, and hence not as well tuned to available light photography. There are scenes my G2 shoots much better than my Rebel. Doesn't the better sensitivity of the Rebel sensor overcome the slower lens disadvantage for available light photography? Tis an interesting question as to whether the Rebel is better two ISO stops slower or not for available light. It's something I'll play with. I tend to be shyer about going into the higher ISO's on the rebel than perhaps is warranted. -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Bruce Graham writes:
In article , says... For the money, for doing available light and snapshot work, you can do a lot better with a P/S 4Mp digicam that comes with a nice f/2.0 lens (my Canon G2 comes to mind) than you can with my digital Rebel and it's kit lens which is several stops slower, and hence not as well tuned to available light photography. There are scenes my G2 shoots much better than my Rebel. Doesn't the better sensitivity of the Rebel sensor overcome the slower lens disadvantage for available light photography? Tis an interesting question as to whether the Rebel is better two ISO stops slower or not for available light. It's something I'll play with. I tend to be shyer about going into the higher ISO's on the rebel than perhaps is warranted. -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:03:28 GMT, Wright
wrote: I have been reading all of the posts in this thread and finally decided to weigh in. The best camera for anyone is the camera that they will USE! For a person who would not want to be bothered by a complex SLR, or want to carry a few extra lenses, a point and shoot would certainly be the better choice. That said, I would think that the person who would hang around in a group like this one for any length of time has a more than casual interest in photography and, long term, would be happier with the SLR. Point and shoots can take some amazingly good photos but will never match the SLR for flexibility in a variety of situations. Chuck Our situation can't be that uncommon. My wife and I have a good film SLR (F5) and three lenses, all autofocus: 105 MicroNikkor, 70-400 VR zoom, and 28-200 zoom. It seemed a no brainer to get a D70 body. Now if we are walking around we can have two lenses mounted ready to go, for the price of a good point-and-shoot. The 28-200 zoom is very light, with two aspheric elements. It is not in a class with the other two lenses, but it is a handy snapshot lens on the D70, which doesn't see the distortion around the edges at short FL that the film camera does. Used that way, it is a handy, not very heavy, snapshot camera. With Photoshop $$$ it will do more with the other lenses as well. Without those lenses in hand it might have been very different. Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 05:03:28 GMT, Wright
wrote: I have been reading all of the posts in this thread and finally decided to weigh in. The best camera for anyone is the camera that they will USE! For a person who would not want to be bothered by a complex SLR, or want to carry a few extra lenses, a point and shoot would certainly be the better choice. That said, I would think that the person who would hang around in a group like this one for any length of time has a more than casual interest in photography and, long term, would be happier with the SLR. Point and shoots can take some amazingly good photos but will never match the SLR for flexibility in a variety of situations. Chuck Our situation can't be that uncommon. My wife and I have a good film SLR (F5) and three lenses, all autofocus: 105 MicroNikkor, 70-400 VR zoom, and 28-200 zoom. It seemed a no brainer to get a D70 body. Now if we are walking around we can have two lenses mounted ready to go, for the price of a good point-and-shoot. The 28-200 zoom is very light, with two aspheric elements. It is not in a class with the other two lenses, but it is a handy snapshot lens on the D70, which doesn't see the distortion around the edges at short FL that the film camera does. Used that way, it is a handy, not very heavy, snapshot camera. With Photoshop $$$ it will do more with the other lenses as well. Without those lenses in hand it might have been very different. Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC Let's Put the XXX back in Xmas |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In article om,
et says... In article , says... But that was not my point. The original proposition was that anyone spending enough money on a non-SLR that could have bought them an SLR was spending that money unwisely. "But your money WOULD be better spent on an SLR, which is why the Canon Digital Rebel did sneak into this guide" I disagree with this statement, and invited comments. Clearly there is a place both high-end non-SLRs and for low-end SLRs, and the comments made may help people who are looking at spending that amount of money to decide what their next purchase will be. David I agree with you David. For reasons I have posted many times (dirt problems) I have stayed away from taking a DSLR into the horse show ring. I tried with the Digital Rebel, and even though I never removed or changed the lens, I couldn't get past about the 3 hour point without dust contamination on the sensor. I have looked at and dont like the cameras that have the ultra-sonic cleaner, so Im waiting for Canon to come up with something similar. For now, I do my business with a Sony F 828, and a Fuji S7000 (shooting raw whenever possible) and its getting me through, though I would LIKE to use a better camera. The Canons are well built, and well designed, but the dirt STILL gets in where it shouldn't (the Rebel isnt the only one I tried). If you were using a Canon consumer zoom, they change volume as you zoom and so suck outside air into the lens and so into the camera. I think the L lenses mainly zoom internally and at constant volume and so don't suck dirt. I don't have experience of these, I've just read about it, but it may be a pointer to help you. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
photograph books and money :) | n | Digital Photography | 6 | November 20th 04 02:16 PM |
Real Money Real Fast | Greg | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | November 5th 04 01:06 AM |