[ALEXIS_DH]

i have this sony point and shoot camera, and i´m thinking about getting something better.

am fairly new, and know the basics. i´d probably be taking a lot of portrait photos, and action shots. i dont care much about expandability (i just want to buy one thing and be done with it, i dont think i´ll be dropping money into more lenses in the future).

so far, i´ve covered the basics of photography (i think i´ll take a class in the next months) and i´ve narrow down the choices to:

e500.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BK39N4/ref=noref/002-2001177-1506408?ie=UTF8&s=photo
350d
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-Rebel-XT-f3-5-5-6/dp/B0007QKMQY/sr=1-3/qid=1159125050/ref=pd_bbs_3/002-2001177-1506408?ie=UTF8&s=photo
d50 (one lense)
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-Nikkor-28-80mm-3-3-5-6/dp/B000HNH7P6/sr=1-16/qid=1159125099/ref=sr_1_16/002-2001177-1506408?ie=UTF8&s=photo

they all come with the body plus 1-2 lenses for around 600-800 bucks, which is good to me.

i saw the canon for $1400 (body only) at the mall here in lima. way too expensive. i´ll be in miami in 6-7 weeks and i think i´d get it up there.

what kind of difference should i expect from jumping into slr cameras? which one of those 3 is "better"??

i dont think i´ll have much chance to test them, i´ll probably have to make the decision without testing them all and buying from the internet.

durability is a primary concern. since am gonna be too far to claim warranty.
am a bit concerned about the weight.
2-3 lbs for camera+lense sounds kinda heavy. i dont know if that´d be practical for everyday use.
what about the lenses included? are there any other cameras in that price range (or a bit higher) worth considering?

so guys, i value your opinion a lot. i ended up doing my car audio pretty much by toshi´ and kornphlake´s recommendation. boston s60 6.5" components on a kenwood 4x75w amp plus the head i already had. it sounds great. no need for an subwoofer yet.

thanks

btw
i was looking what kind of pictures the e500 takes, and this pictures are supposed to be taken with the e500. some look kinda bad, almost like if they came out of my sony... is that because of the camera or the photographer sucked?
http://www.silvaspoon.net/greek.html

 

[maxyedor]

I would go to a camera shop and play with them in person. My personal preference is the Canon, as the ergonomics work much better for me. My second choice would be the D5O, and way back in far last place would be the E500. I had a whole grip of loaner gear from Olympus a few months ago and honestly it was pretty sh1tty. If you can swing it I would opt for a Canon 20d or 30d, they have a magnesium body that will far outlast the plastic of the other bodies.

If you can swing it, I would buy a grip of Rebel XTs and sell them in Peru, they go for 6-8 hundred here so some profit could be in order.

 

[binary visions]

Why are you going with a DSLR if you have no interest in any further lenses?

Buy a high quality point-and-shoot.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Why are you going with a DSLR if you have no interest in any further lenses?

Buy a high quality point-and-shoot.

the olympus was the one that initially got my attention. it has two lenses! 2 lenses can´t be wrong!

you are talking something like a panasonic lumix?

what´d i loose/win by going that road?? i thought about an slr, because basically i started to research what to get, and everywhere on the internerd said "get a slr or you suck".
i´ve never had a camera with manual exposure, apperture and focus settings... that´s something i´d like to have.

80+% of stuff i shoot is usually within 10 meters in front of me. so i guess i´d not need 10 different lenses. probably 2 (maybe 3?) would suffice. is that guess right?

and a high quality point-n-shoot is roughly around the price of those slr. care to expand more on your suggestion?

 

[Transcend]

The olympus is pretty crummy compared to your other 2 options. Stay with one of the bigger brands. Try them both, see which interface you prefer. The Nikon's have much more noise in low light images, but have a higher flash sync than Canon.

I tried both and then went Canon. 2 crap lenses is a much worse investment than 1 decent lens. Lenses rarely lose value (especially canon ones in my experience) so this will be the majority of your investment.

if it was me, I'd get one higher end zoom and a decent body (350d/400xti).

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

The olympus is pretty crummy compared to your other 2 options. Stay with one of the bigger brands. Try them both, see which interface you prefer. The Nikon's have much more noise in low light images, but have a higher flash sync than Canon.

I tried both and then went Canon. 2 crap lenses is a much worse investment than 1 decent lens. Lenses rarely lose value (especially canon ones in my experience) so this will be the majority of your investment.

if it was me, I'd get one higher end zoom and a decent body (350d/400xti).

couple questions.

given my budget, the canon (plus the 3.5-5.6 lens it comes with), plus this $80 lens (f/1.8 fixed looks it´d do the deed for portraits and general stuff like that on daylight)
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/sr=8-4/qid=1159138444/ref=pd_bbs_4/002-2001177-1506408?ie=UTF8&s=photo
most of the time, i shoot with my target within 30ft. will i survive with only 1 or 2 lenses?
whats your opinion, given my budget and use, is money better spent on a basic slr camera and 1 (max 2) lenses, or doing as BV suggests?

what would i gain by going to a HQ point-n-shoot?

i dont plan to spend any more money on lenses in the future.
i´d like to take better photos, but not more than keeping thousands of dollars in my pocket.

 

[Transcend]

The 18-55 is a *decent lens. not spectacular. The 50mm 1.8 is a MUCH faster lens, obviously, but focuses pretty slowly as it lacks USm (I believe the kit lens does as well).

I would personally get the body only, a 50mm 1.8 and then wait until you decide if you want longer reach or wider, and purchase what you need. No point in doubling the 50mm range with 2 not so spectacular lenses.

The 1.8 takes nice sharp shots, but it can have really bad vignetting and halos in broght sunlight and high contrast areas. It also focuses pretty damn slowly. Great for low light work though and a steal at $70usd.

I'd wait a bit, save some cash and maybe get a 70-200 f4 if you want more range, or maybe one of the cheaper wides if you want something wider. I would definetly get at least one zoom eventually, just to give you some options.

My dad just got a canon S3, spectacular shots, awesome zoom (equal to around 36-430mm!) and full manual options. If you don't want to deal with lenses, and want portability, you cannot go wrong. god zoom, 800ISO, and includes built in Image Stabilization (great at full zoom). Digic 2 processor, UD glass, 9 point AF etc.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022111canons3is.asp

Oh and edit: only around $500usd. SMOKING deal.

 

[narlus]

the kit lens is probably the best bet for a cheap, wide angle option...not too many lenses can get down to 18mm and stay at that price point. sure, it's got it's flaws but if you know what you are doing, and avoid circumstances where the lens will pbviously fail, you can get very good pictures.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

The 18-55 is a *decent lens. not spectacular. The 50mm 1.8 is a MUCH faster lens, obviously, but focuses pretty slowly as it lacks USm (I believe the kit lens does as well).

I would personally get the body only, a 50mm 1.8 and then wait until you decide if you want longer reach or wider, and purchase what you need. No point in doubling the 50mm range with 2 not so spectacular lenses.

The 1.8 takes nice sharp shots, but it can have really bad vignetting and halos in broght sunlight and high contrast areas. It also focuses pretty damn slowly. Great for low light work though and a steal at $70usd.

I'd wait a bit, save some cash and maybe get a 70-200 f4 if you want more range, or maybe one of the cheaper wides if you want something wider. I would definetly get at least one zoom eventually, just to give you some options.

My dad just got a canon S3, spectacular shots, awesome zoom (equal to around 36-430mm!) and full manual options. If you don't want to deal with lenses, and want portability, you cannot go wrong. god zoom, 800ISO, and includes built in Image Stabilization (great at full zoom). Digic 2 processor, UD glass, 9 point AF etc.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022111canons3is.asp

Oh and edit: only around $500usd. SMOKING deal.

thanks.
that s3 sounds nice. am checking it out right now.
do you think s3 > 350d + 50mm-1.8 (and nothing else or maybe the kit lens) ???

buying just the body and de 50mm-1.8 lens sounds interesting.

but that 70-200f4 looks pretty high end. way too much for me i think, i actually dont think i´ve used the zoom on my sony that much. and at almost 600 bucks FOB for a lens i´d probably just never buy it.
so getting something to have the chance to buy something i´d probably never buy (unless i really get into photography, which i probably wont, and then $600 is like 2 months worth the salary of my 2 housekeepers combined, and for a lens???, nigga please!) doesnt make much sense.

what would happen if i want to take a picture (say a mountain or a whole building from 100 yards) with the slr without any lens (or the 1,8) VS taking is with the s3??
would the tradeoff at the distance be bigger than the theoretical gain at close range?

EDIT: TYPO, not 150, but 50mm

 

[Transcend]

I don't understand your question. You can't take a picture without a lens on a SLR? Also, your housekeepers are cheap!

The 70-200 is pricey, but it is an L lens. I don't deal with much non L stuff, so it's hard to give you any recommendations.

I know canon just revised one of the 70 or 80-300 consumer lenses or whatever it is. One of them REALLY sucks, so be sure to find out which one was updated. You may want to consider IS at this range as well, especially if you take still objects (won't be of any use on a moving object).

edit: it is 50mm, not 150. It is about the same field of view as your DIRECT human vision (not including peripheral). You will get the same idea of depth etc, but it will be slightly narrower due to the 1.6x field of view crop on a 350d (basically, it cuts off what you'd see on a 35mm lens as the sensor is smaller than film). A 35mm is about the same angle of view as the human eyes on that camera, but the depth compression will not be due to being such a side lens. It will distort depth perception.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I don't understand your question. You can't take a picture without a lens on a SLR? Also, your housekeepers are cheap!

The 70-200 is pricey, but it is an L lens. I don't deal with much non L stuff, so it's hard to give you any recommendations.

I know canon just revised one of the 70 or 80-300 consumer lenses or whatever it is. One of them REALLY sucks, so be sure to find out which one was updated. You may want to consider IS at this range as well, especially if you take still objects (won't be of any use on a moving object).

edit: it is 50mm, not 150. It is about the same field of view as your DIRECT human vision (not including peripheral). You will get the same idea of depth etc, but it will be slightly narrower due to the 1.6x field of view crop on a 350d (basically, it cuts off what you'd see on a 35mm lens as the sensor is smaller than film). A 35mm is about the same angle of view as the human eyes on that camera, but the depth compression will not be due to being such a side lens. It will distort depth perception.

i dont think i´d be comfortable with just one fixed lens. maybe the addition of a lesser quality (but adjustable) like the 3.5-5.6 kit lens would make it better

what distance would those 2 lenses cover "somewhat" optimally? 95% of my pictures happen within 10ft and 40ft. i like to take a lot of pictures of people too. my niece if 7 months old, so he´d be the victim of many pictures. so a camera/lens that works good on skin tones and textures would be desirable.
i dont care much about telephotos, or wiiiiiide pictures. (i could almost always just take 2 steps back).

oh, my question is, what would happen if i take a picture with the slr, of say a mountain or a building, without a lens (or with the 50mm lens)??
was how would a picture taken by the SLR (sans lens, or with the kit/1.8) fare when combined to the same scenery taken with the S3??

would the slr at close range be better enough than the s3, for this to overcome the suckness because of the lack of appropiate lense at far??
would you recommend the s3 (or other point and shoot) over the 350d and limited lenses?

 

[Transcend]

again, you can't take a picture without a lens. Also, that 3.5-5.6 zoom lens is the same basic range as your 50mm 1.8 would be. The 50mm 1.8 would be A TON better in low light however. I'd be more likely to get the 50mm and an 80-300 though just to offer a bit more versatility.

50mm is already pretty long on a 1.6x

 

[narlus]

again, you can't take a picture without a lens. Also, that 3.5-5.6 zoom lens is the same basic range as your 50mm 1.8 would be.

at the long end, sure, but what if he wants a wide shot? a 50mm prime is gonna be pretty useless for tight city shots or landscapes. for $100 it gives a lot of versatility. i know the limits and i sprung for the tokina 12-24 but that was $500. i still want to replace the kit lens, but the lenses i am most interested in are a lot of dough (the 24-70, and the 17-55 IS; both at least $1100). unless you look to sigma/tamron/etc, there's not a better, but still fairly inexpensive, alternative (and even those are a few hundred dollars).

 

[biggins]

get the canon and call it good....it is an awesome d-slt to learn on and will accept tons of lenses for future upgrades......the 18-55 kit lens will do fine for within 30 feet and focuses pretty fast...i still shoot with that lense a lot...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

get the canon and call it good....it is an awesome d-slt to learn on and will accept tons of lenses for future upgrades......the 18-55 kit lens will do fine for within 30 feet and focuses pretty fast...i still shoot with that lense a lot...

great.

am checking out the pictures of the 350d and the s3 in amazon..
god i hate people. they buy a $700 camera/lens, and then post pictures they took with $1000s worth of extra gear.
why would i want to see what the pictures, with a $1000 lens sold separetely, look like???? jeez....

 

[Transcend]

because most people don't get the kit lens.

 

[narlus]

great.
god i hate people. they buy a $700 camera/lens, and then post pictures they took with $1000s worth of extra gear.
why would i want to see what the pictures, with a $1000 lens sold separetely, look like???? jeez....

i'm not a car tuner, but isn't this the same sort of scenario? people put more $$$ towards performance?

the tools help, but they are not the be-all/end-all...that said, they can certainly help!

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

i'm not a car tuner, but isn't this the same sort of scenario? people put more $$$ towards performance?

the tools help, but they are not the be-all/end-all...that said, they can certainly help!

yeah, but i want to see what the actual item on sale does.

keeping the car analogy, i want data of the car am buying, not of that car with 130% of the original car price worth of modifications would run.

amazon should sort them into "this is what you get" and "this is what you can get".....


am not feeling the love here, does that kit lense suck so much, that i´d just be better off getting the s3, because the improvement would not be worth it? or is just hair splitting between 1337 photographers? considering my background, coming from a 5MP $380 camera with no manual controls whatsoever....

because at this point, am kinda certain its going to be a canon (talk now or forever hold your peace nikon fans), just checking whether a high-end point and shoot, or a 350d with 1-2 lenses...

am checking out tamron lenses.. i see the 350d body only, is 550 in the US... are there any sub 200 lenses better than the kit lense?
should i really go thru this hassle instead of the s3???

 

[Transcend]

The S3 DOES have a better lens on it than the kit lens is. That said, you can buy a hell of a lot nicer lens for the 350d if you decide to drop the money on it.

Most people buy a camera body and then lenses. This is why you will see pictrues that BEST exemplify what the body can do, not what the cheap kit lens can do. The body in this case is MUCH better than the lens, and can really shine given the proper glass.

You have to realize that the quality of lenses can vary a ton, even in the same focal length. Things like type of glass, type of coatings, focus motor, build quality and build materials all come into play when it comes to quality/price. What may not seem like a big difference (50mm 1.8 vs 50mm 1.4 and now the 50mm 1.2) is actually a HUGE difference optics wise.

Absolute best place for canon lens reviews:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

It's a bit subjective, but he compares lenses to one another, so you will find it handy.

Here is just a bit that he has to say about that lens, read the entire review. Keep in mind that the guy gets to play with absolutely ever lens canon has ever created, including the mythical 1200mm 5.6 ($80 000).

"The Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens is a really cheap lens if purchased as part of a Canon DSLR kit.

But the price is not the only cheap thing about this lens.

The lens mount is plastic. In fact everything on the outside is plastic except for the glass on the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens. There are advantages to this construction - light weight (the 18-55 is extremely light) - and of course cost.

There is no distance window on the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens. The tiny manual focusing ring is barely usable and is located on the end of the extending objective end of the lens. There is no USM focusing motor (on the kit model) which means there is no FTM (Full Time Manual) focusing.

Even without USM, focusing is not slow or loud. It is not going to break any records, but it seems fine for its intended market.

The Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens exhibits barrel distortion on the wide end of the focal length range. The distortion dissapears at around 28mm.

The Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens has noticeable light fall-off with a wide open aperture - especially on the wide end of the focal length range. I would expect more vignetting from an EF-S mount lens than an EF mount lens mounted on the same 1.6x FOVCF body, and there is. However, the 18-55 performs better than the Canon EF-S 17-85mm Lens at the lower focal lengths in this regard.

The Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens has reasonable center sharpness, especially when stopped down. Corners are very soft on the wide end of the focal length range. Even with the lens stopped down, corners are still soft.

With narrow wide apertures and no IS (image stabilization), the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens is a slow lens for stopping motion (subject or camera). Expect to need good light or a bright flash for this purpose. It also does not easily create a blurred background.

The Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens exhibits CA (Chromatic Aberation)."

This is his review of the $80 50mm 1.8 that everyone has recommended.

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens is Canon's bargain Lens.

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens is about as cheap as you can get a lens for - and this is a good lens. It is very sharp, tiny and light - possibly the lightest lens Canon makes. And with an f1.8 aperture, this Canon 50 is quite fast.

Sharpness performance wide open (f/1.8) is decent, but the Canon 50 f/1.8 is very sharp at f/2.8 and beyond. It is slightly sharper than even then Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens.

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens' biggest drawback in my opinion is the sometimes poor looking bokeh (foreground/background blur quality) compared to the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens. The 50 f/1.5's 5-blade aperture is one of the corners cut to get to this price point - and is the cause of the sometimes-poor foreground/background blur quality.

I also prefer the color I get from the Canon 24-70 L and the Canon 50 f/1.4 over the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens, but the 50 f/1.8 is not bad. Colors produced by the 50 f1.8 at wide apertures seem a little more washed out than the two Canon lenses I referred to above.

Read the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens review for a list of the differences.

Focus speed is not stellar, but fine in good lighting with subjects that are not moving too quickly. The manual focus ring is very tiny - it is not easy to use. There is no focus distance scale window.

Light fall-off is noticeable through f/2.8 or so on a Full Frame body. When mounted on a 1.6x FOVCF body, light fall-off is noticeable wide open. On a full-frame body, Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens vignetting clears up about a stop later than the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens (the 50mm f/1.4 @ f/2 is similar to the 50mm f/1.8 @ f/2.8).

The Canon 50 f/1.8 is one of Canon's louder lenses - you know when it is focusing But this is not a wildlife lens - the noise probably won't bother most people. I suppose a positive aspect of this is you know when it is working - and when focus is locked.

Another drawback is the cheap build quality including a plastic lens mount. Considering how light the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens is, I think the plastic lens mount is adequate for strength. You might get more wear than you wish if you are changing the lens frequently.

The Canon 50 f/1.8 really feels like a toy (and not a Tonka). See the size comparison picture below ...

 

[pinkshirtphotos]

get a kodak z7590
http://www.hcor.net/postx27544-0-0.html
all thoes pix were taken with that camera the thing is awsome
has a full manual setting
light sensor
pop up flash wiht adjustability

lowst iso is 80
lowest fstop is 2.8
fassest shutter is 1000 on manual 1600 on priority
no need to buy a lense but you can buy a screw on adaptor for a fish eye and the such also u can put on filters.

 

[Transcend]

no need to buy a lense but you can buy a screw on adaptor for a fish eye and the such also u can put on filters.

Um, ya. The quality in those screw on pieces of plastic comes NOWHERE NEAR what a nice piece of glass would get you, even an $80 piece of glass.

Better zoom on canon, less noise in low light images, proven image stabilization, slightly larger picture, 1/3 stop exposure comp, 1/3200 max shutter speed (all completely manual if he wishes), f 2.7-3.5 MAX. 430mm 3.5 is pretty damn impressive on a dinky little PS. Oh and second curtain flash if he wants, although pop up flashes in general are pretty damn useless anywhere but inside a small room.

He will be much better off with an S3 than that, sorry man.

 

[binary visions]

All this discussion should be taken into account before you make your purchase, of course, but you can spend less money and have a hell of a lot more convenient package by buying a camera such as the Canon S3, or the Sony DSC-H5.

Enormous zoom range, fast operation, built in image stabilization... You lose three basic things by going with one of those instead of a DSLR:

- Low light ability: a DSLR will have clean high ISO, whereas the point and shoot will not
- Autofocus not as great: a DSLR has a different kind of auto focus from the compact camera, and it is better, faster, and more reliable. The compact cameras have gotten a lot better, though, and are pretty darn good now
- Optical viewfinder: some people love it, some people prefer the live preview that a compact offers. I don't think there's any better way to compose an image than through an optical viewfinder, though.

There are lots of great things about a DSLR, but none of them are any good if you won't lug the thing around with you, or if you don't take advantage of the inherent flexibility. Sticking a kit lens on there and forgetting about it doesn't take advantage of the main benefit of having that SLR, which is having an array of high quality, high performance lenses to suit whatever situation you're in.

Just something to think about.

 

[binary visions]

By the way, I'm not really trying to discourage you from getting a dSLR since they're awesome cameras and would serve you well. You just need to evaluate your needs so you don't end up with a camera that you consider to be a bulky brick that you won't take anywhere. Also, you simply cannot get the 400+ mm zoom of the S3 or H5 without spending quite a few bucks if you go the DSLR route - I don't know how much that matters to you. If you like taking pictures of birds or wildlife, though, it will matter.

 

[Kornphlake]

In my opinion the average consumer won't be able to tell much difference between an entry level DSLR and a high end point and shoot except the impact to the wallet. If you are an experianced photographer and need manual controls, hot shoe flashes and more sophistocated metering then the DSLR offers some advantages. For photos of friends and family a good point and shoot will be easier to use in most cases and will take pictures that look just as good as a more expensive and more complicated DSLR. DSLRs are built to be easier to use in manual modes than a point and shoot, on the other hand the program modes are really no better and in some cases less sophisticated than a point and shoot.

 

[pinkshirtphotos]

Um, ya. The quality in those screw on pieces of plastic comes NOWHERE NEAR what a nice piece of glass would get you, even an $80 piece of glass.

Better zoom on canon, less noise in low light images, proven image stabilization, slightly larger picture, 1/3 stop exposure comp, 1/3200 max shutter speed (all completely manual if he wishes), f 2.7-3.5 MAX. 430mm 3.5 is pretty damn impressive on a dinky little PS. Oh and second curtain flash if he wants, although pop up flashes in general are pretty damn useless anywhere but inside a small room.

He will be much better off with an S3 than that, sorry man.

the screw on things are glass and arent a pos. also the cam has a lowest shutter of 16seconds and the highest fstop is 8.

 

[binary visions]

In my opinion the average consumer won't be able to tell much difference between an entry level DSLR and a high end point and shoot except the impact to the wallet. If you are an experianced photographer and need manual controls, hot shoe flashes and more sophistocated metering then the DSLR offers some advantages.

Yep, and even at that, all the high end point and shoots allow full manual control, many offer hot shoes, and metering is pretty damn good.

Oh, and Transcend, many of the add-on lenses are quite high quality. I think you might be suprised. I have a 1.7x teleconverter for my Sony and it's actually a really, really nice piece of glass. Freakin' heavy, too.

 

[Kornphlake]

Yep, and even at that, all the high end point and shoots allow full manual control, many offer hot shoes, and metering is pretty damn good.

Oh, and Transcend, many of the add-on lenses are quite high quality. I think you might be suprised. I have a 1.7x teleconverter for my Sony and it's actually a really, really nice piece of glass. Freakin' heavy, too.

Manual controls on a lot of point and shoot cameras are very difficult to use, you have to be looking at the LCD to make the adjustments and you have to confirm the setting before hitting the sutter button. It's not a huge deal breaker for the average guy, but an inconvenience to someone who has used a SLR that was purpose built with manual controls in mind.


BTW I'm glad those speakers are working out for you, with that much power I'm sure they sound great even without a sub.

 

[Transcend]

Manual controls on a lot of point and shoot cameras are very difficult to use, you have to be looking at the LCD to make the adjustments and you have to confirm the setting before hitting the sutter button. It's not a huge deal breaker for the average guy, but an inconvenience to someone who has used a SLR that was purpose built with manual controls in mind.


BTW I'm glad those speakers are working out for you, with that much power I'm sure they sound great even without a sub.

This is why i recommend the S3. Even the elph series has great controls, but it's not what he is looking for at all. The s3 fits the bill perfectly, and is probably better than an SLR for him.

 

[narlus]

for those thinking that the canon 'kit lens' is a 'sh!t lens', here are some photos which show you can get fantastic results under the right conditions and shooting skill.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=185522

 

[Silver]

Hold them both in your hands before you order anything. When I was making that decision, the Rebel was out of the running because the grip felt like total ass in my hands. I have a friend with small hands who loves the Rebel and can't stand the way my D50 feels. Point and shoots are the same way, especially the larger ones.

btw
i was looking what kind of pictures the e500 takes, and this pictures are supposed to be taken with the e500. some look kinda bad, almost like if they came out of my sony... is that because of the camera or the photographer sucked?
http://www.silvaspoon.net/greek.html

Photographer sucks.

 

[sneakysnake]

Ok, this is sort of off topic but I have a question. I'm starting to look into either a d50 or a rebel xt. Can I just go down to my local camera shop and rent a rebel xt for a day or two. Or do shops even do that? If most shops do do this then what can I expect to pay for the rental?


thanks

 

[Transcend]

Yup. most big shops will have rentals of lenses and bodies. Probably between $50 and $150 a day for a body (1dmk2 is $150 a day - so dramatically less for what you want).

enjoy, it's a good time.

 

[narlus]

that's a smoking deal...the local place near me (Calumet) rents the 1DMkII for $250...

http://webres.calumetphoto.com/webres/pdfs/Camb.pdf

i've found that www.rentcameragear.com has great deals and service for lens rentals (far cheaper than Calumet, whom i've also rented from).

 

[Transcend]

Wow, I am just talking locally. That's crazy pricey! Had to rent one as a backup once for a championship tourney.

 

[Silver]

Ok, this is sort of off topic but I have a question. I'm starting to look into either a d50 or a rebel xt. Can I just go down to my local camera shop and rent a rebel xt for a day or two. Or do shops even do that? If most shops do do this then what can I expect to pay for the rental?


thanks

At the price you'd pay for those, I'm not sure renting is a good deal. You can certainly go down and try them out though. Rumors of a D60 are starting to filter out though, so if you can wait until xmas...

 

[narlus]

why get a D60 when the 400D is out now?

 

[Silver]

why get a D60 when the 400D is out now?

That wonderful Canon low end grip, for one... :biggrin:

 

[SilentJ]

This is why i recommend the S3. Even the elph series has great controls, but it's not what he is looking for at all. The s3 fits the bill perfectly, and is probably better than an SLR for him.

Just picked up an S3 for myself tonight.

I had been fighting with myself over picking up a dslr for well over a year - I just couldnt/cant justify it. I'd been shooting Pentax film SLRs for a long time and have the lenses, but their dslr's leave quite a bit to be desired. I'll likely keep one of the bodies to play around with now and then...of course, even now I use my Holga for artsy prick purposes more than my slr.

 

[maxyedor]

that's a smoking deal...the local place near me (Calumet) rents the 1DMkII for $250...

Not to sure if Calumet does it or not. But the place I get all my stuff at has me set up on a pro accout. As a perk I get dirt cheap rentals. I think I payed $80/day for a 1DsMk2 last time I needed one.

For those that want to rent a Rebel XT for a couple of days, Samys charges $75/day, so if you want to rent it for 2 or more days you will be better off buying it (unless they take the rental cost off of purchase price), and if you don't like it, just sell it, it will cost less in the long run.