"Your money is better spent on an SLR". Is it?

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/

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/

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).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

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).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

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

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

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.

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.

In article ,
says...
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.


A Canon body and an "L" lens is in my future, but NOT currently within my
budget.

I have a shoot in January, and a shoot in February, which should then afford
me the body and lens before the busy season which starts for me in April.

After April first I have a 2 or 3 day shoot every weekend until October, and
I'de like to have it by then.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

In article ,
says...
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.


A Canon body and an "L" lens is in my future, but NOT currently within my
budget.

I have a shoot in January, and a shoot in February, which should then afford
me the body and lens before the busy season which starts for me in April.

After April first I have a 2 or 3 day shoot every weekend until October, and
I'de like to have it by then.


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.