Mid or Prosumer Choices Canon A95 vs 300D ?

I'm considering buying my first digital camera and have chosen the Canon A95
as my starting point. After some years away from photography, I'm prepared
to retire my trusty old Nikon FE. My intended uses are pretty typical,
ranging from soccer games to an occasional (ok, very rare) shot that gets
blown up and displayed.

I also want to consider a prosumer level camera instead of the A95, and
figure that if I buy more camera than I need at the moment, I'll most likely
grow into it. At around $350 for the A95, I don't want to use that as just
a temporary stepping stone to a more serious camera. I may find it better
to plunge in with bigger dollars and skip that step altogether.

After some study, I'm looking hard at the Canon EOS 300D SLR and the new
Nikon 8800. My sense so far is that the Canon 300D is feature poor, but
takes pictures as only an SLR can. The Nikon is solidly built and feature
rich, but probably cannot compete with the 300D for imaging. I'm tempted to
say that quality of image is everything to me, but I realize that the vast
majority of shots I will take will be casual snapshot or e-mail quality. Do
I want to give up usability for those once-a-year masterpieces?

I'm caught in a catch-22 here because, not having owned a digital camera
before, I don't have much sense regarding which features will be most
important to me. However, I am assuming that any generally popular, well
made, and well reviewed camera will work well for me.

Can anyone comment on these choices, particularly with respect to moving
from my old Nikon SLR to any of these digital models (image quality-wise)?
Thanks in advance for any ideas.

- Magnusfarce

Oops, something I forgot to add earlier. The 8800's predecessor, the 8700,
can be had for about $450, and isn't terribly different from the 8800. Any
thoughts?

- Magnusfarce

In article ,
"Magnusfarce" wrote:

I'm considering buying my first digital camera and have chosen the Canon A95
as my starting point. After some years away from photography, I'm prepared
to retire my trusty old Nikon FE. My intended uses are pretty typical,
ranging from soccer games to an occasional (ok, very rare) shot that gets
blown up and displayed.

I also want to consider a prosumer level camera instead of the A95, and
figure that if I buy more camera than I need at the moment, I'll most likely
grow into it. At around $350 for the A95, I don't want to use that as just
a temporary stepping stone to a more serious camera. I may find it better
to plunge in with bigger dollars and skip that step altogether.

After some study, I'm looking hard at the Canon EOS 300D SLR and the new
Nikon 8800. My sense so far is that the Canon 300D is feature poor, but
takes pictures as only an SLR can. The Nikon is solidly built and feature
rich, but probably cannot compete with the 300D for imaging. I'm tempted to
say that quality of image is everything to me, but I realize that the vast
majority of shots I will take will be casual snapshot or e-mail quality. Do
I want to give up usability for those once-a-year masterpieces?

I'm caught in a catch-22 here because, not having owned a digital camera
before, I don't have much sense regarding which features will be most
important to me. However, I am assuming that any generally popular, well
made, and well reviewed camera will work well for me.

Can anyone comment on these choices, particularly with respect to moving
from my old Nikon SLR to any of these digital models (image quality-wise)?
Thanks in advance for any ideas.

- Magnusfarce

A DSLR can do many things that no compact camera can. One thing is very
fast response times. The other things usually involve buying expensive
lenses. The Canon DSLRs also have the unusual ability to take long
exposures.

It depends on what you want your camera to do and how much you're
willing to pay for it. It might even make sense to buy both a nice DSLR
and a cheap pocket camera.

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
A DSLR can do many things that no compact camera can. One thing is
very
fast response times. The other things usually involve buying
expensive
lenses. The Canon DSLRs also have the unusual ability to take long
exposures.

It depends on what you want your camera to do and how much you're
willing to pay for it. It might even make sense to buy both a nice
DSLR
and a cheap pocket camera.

Or you could buy inexpensive lenses for the dSLR like 18-55mm,
50mm/1.7, 75-300mm. They won't very sharp or very fast but will
definitely beat the ones on your A95 or most (I said most) prosumer
cameras.

Cheers,

Siddhartha

"Magnusfarce" writes:

Oops, something I forgot to add earlier. The 8800's predecessor, the 8700,
can be had for about $450, and isn't terribly different from the 8800. Any
thoughts?

I dunno, I count VR (vibration reduction) to be supremely important after
having it in my Olympus C-2100UZ. Too bad the lens they have on the 8800 is so
slow at telephoto (f/5.2) that it removes the 8800 from serious consideration
as an upgrade path from my camera.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote:

Or you could buy inexpensive lenses for the dSLR like 18-55mm,
50mm/1.7, 75-300mm. They won't very sharp or very fast but will
definitely beat the ones on your A95 or most (I said most) prosumer
cameras.

Just as example, one of countless, does anybody actually have
comparisons between say an Oly C8080 result and a Canon 20D? I don't
mean terrible, spirit-crushing, boring and repulsive 'test shots'. I
mean actual, composed, Photoshopped, cleaned, and finalized
photographs - cover art, coffee book, hues and curves, pro
composition, interesting subject, and so on. Not to keep making the
point, but good photographs by people who understand photography, not
merely camera equipment?

I mention it only because I suspect there's nothing like that on the
web, and even that the majority of actual, real photographs are still
made with film. And I suspect the no less important family snaps of
the kids and grandma are satisfactorily captured with cell phones, as
far as it goes. Snaps and record shots are important, but not
technically demanding, at all.

Does anyone know of a site, that doesn't require one to download 10
megabyte 2nd-rate digital record photos? Has anyone taken the time to
isolate portions of film, in small 200K jpgs, say, from good photos,
and compared with finalized zooms of similar photos from various
cameras. Or would it take a photographer to do that? And has one done
so, at least that he or she wants to make public?

Figure one can ask. Maybe a photographer has.

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

In article ,
"Magnusfarce" wrote:


I'm considering buying my first digital camera and have chosen the Canon A95
as my starting point. After some years away from photography, I'm prepared
to retire my trusty old Nikon FE. My intended uses are pretty typical,
ranging from soccer games to an occasional (ok, very rare) shot that gets
blown up and displayed.

Snipped bits out

Can anyone comment on these choices, particularly with respect to moving
from my old Nikon SLR to any of these digital models (image quality-wise)?
Thanks in advance for any ideas.


A DSLR can do many things that no compact camera can. One thing is very
fast response times. The other things usually involve buying expensive
lenses. The Canon DSLRs also have the unusual ability to take long
exposures.

The kit lens with the 300 D is quite serviceable. $100, 18-55 mm.

For almost any sports pic taking, a DSLR is far more satisfactory than a
digicam. Shutter lag rears its ugly head in the digicams, and not
viewing through the lens is annoying, but less of a problem. I have done
sports with a digicam, and that is the hard way.....

John McWilliams

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 16:04:50 -0700, "Magnusfarce"
wrote:

I'm considering buying my first digital camera and have chosen the Canon A95
as my starting point. After some years away from photography, I'm prepared
to retire my trusty old Nikon FE. My intended uses are pretty typical,
ranging from soccer games to an occasional (ok, very rare) shot that gets
blown up and displayed.

I also want to consider a prosumer level camera instead of the A95, and
figure that if I buy more camera than I need at the moment, I'll most likely
grow into it. At around $350 for the A95, I don't want to use that as just
a temporary stepping stone to a more serious camera. I may find it better
to plunge in with bigger dollars and skip that step altogether.

After some study, I'm looking hard at the Canon EOS 300D SLR and the new
Nikon 8800. My sense so far is that the Canon 300D is feature poor, but
takes pictures as only an SLR can. The Nikon is solidly built and feature
rich, but probably cannot compete with the 300D for imaging. I'm tempted to
say that quality of image is everything to me, but I realize that the vast
majority of shots I will take will be casual snapshot or e-mail quality. Do
I want to give up usability for those once-a-year masterpieces?

I'm caught in a catch-22 here because, not having owned a digital camera
before, I don't have much sense regarding which features will be most
important to me. However, I am assuming that any generally popular, well
made, and well reviewed camera will work well for me.

Can anyone comment on these choices, particularly with respect to moving
from my old Nikon SLR to any of these digital models (image quality-wise)?
Thanks in advance for any ideas.

- Magnusfarce


Magnusfarce,
if you are seriously trying to decide between the
Canon A95 & the Digital Rebel/300D, then I'll offer my advice for your
consideration.

1 Your comparing apples & oranges here P&S/DSLR.

2 As you have stated your primary needs are "the vast
majority of shots I will take will be casual snapshot or e-mail
quality". Thus the A95 should do just fine to meet virtually all of
your needs.

3 The A95 has it's own merits that are not inexpensively or
easily replaced with a DSLR. P&S Digicams like the A95 have much
greater "Depth Of Field" (DOF) than a DSLR will have because of the
difference in sensor & lens size. Thus is you want to capture casual
pictures with wide DOF, the A95 will be much easier to do this with.

4 The A95 will cost less than 1/2 as much & will not be made
obsolete by the future purchase of a DSLR unless your willing to carry
a DSLR around everywhere you might need/want to take a picture. Far
easier to carry around the A95 for most events & only take the DSLR
when you are in need of it's special abilities that the A95 can't
easily match.

5 No, I don't own an A95 but I do own a Canon A40-2MP,
A60-2MP, A70-3.2MP, G2-4MP & the Digital Rebel/300D. Each of these
cameras still gets used on a fairly regular basis, each with different
purposes. The Canon A-series has been widely successful & popular
because it seems to have a very good balance of size, price, features,
& manual controls, if the owner wishes to use them. Additionally, the
A-series takes 4 "AA" batteries & Compact Flash, both of which are
readily available almost everywhere & still the least expensive,
though other flash media is becoming more competitive.

Ultimately the choice is yours to make. Compare the review
sights & decide for yourself which best fits "your" needs but be
warned of 1 thing: There are a lot of hidden costs in owning a DSLR,
as I have found out the hard way. I purchased mine with the 18-55mm
kit lens (well worth the extra $100) which may do just fine for you
for most of your needs. The added hidden costs that I encountered
were largely self-imposed, extra batteries, extra larger Compact Flash
cards, nice camera case, extra lenses, protective lens filters
(optional & controversial), lens hoods, portrait/vertical grip,
quality tripod, wired remote shutter release & etc......

Wherever I go I almost always have a digital camera with me.
My DSLR only goes with me on selected photo-shoots where it's virtues
are needed. On the other side of the coin, the A95 would make a
reasonable backup to a DSLR without taking much room. As the saying
does "a solid hit with a .22LR is better than a loud miss with a .44
Magnum", in other words a smaller picture taken with an A95 is worth
more than a miss with a DSLR, either because it was not set correctly,
or could not be made ready quickly enough or most likely, because you
did not have the DSLR with you when a photo opportunity presented
itself.

Just some things to consider.

Respectfully, DHB


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."----Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

"Magnusfarce" wrote in message
news
I'm considering buying my first digital camera and have chosen the Canon
A95
as my starting point. After some years away from photography, I'm
prepared
to retire my trusty old Nikon FE. My intended uses are pretty typical,
ranging from soccer games to an occasional (ok, very rare) shot that gets
blown up and displayed.

I also want to consider a prosumer level camera instead of the A95, and
figure that if I buy more camera than I need at the moment, I'll most
likely
grow into it. At around $350 for the A95, I don't want to use that as
just
a temporary stepping stone to a more serious camera. I may find it better
to plunge in with bigger dollars and skip that step altogether.

After some study, I'm looking hard at the Canon EOS 300D SLR and the new
Nikon 8800. My sense so far is that the Canon 300D is feature poor, but
takes pictures as only an SLR can. The Nikon is solidly built and feature
rich, but probably cannot compete with the 300D for imaging. I'm tempted
to
say that quality of image is everything to me, but I realize that the vast
majority of shots I will take will be casual snapshot or e-mail quality.
Do
I want to give up usability for those once-a-year masterpieces?

I'm caught in a catch-22 here because, not having owned a digital camera
before, I don't have much sense regarding which features will be most
important to me. However, I am assuming that any generally popular, well
made, and well reviewed camera will work well for me.

Can anyone comment on these choices, particularly with respect to moving
from my old Nikon SLR to any of these digital models (image quality-wise)?
Thanks in advance for any ideas.

- Magnusfarce


Try the Nikon D70, it has more features than the 300D, doesn't cost a bunch
more than it or the Nikon 8800, and will take your old Nikon lenses.
The Canon 300D is not a prosumer camera, but instead, an entry level DSLR.
The D70 fills the same niche for Nikon, but is, IMHO, a better choice,
especially if you already have Nikon lenses. The Nikon D100 (soon to be
replaced) and the Canon 20D are prosumer cameras.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

In article ws.com,
Mark Johnson wrote:

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote:

Or you could buy inexpensive lenses for the dSLR like 18-55mm,
50mm/1.7, 75-300mm. They won't very sharp or very fast but will
definitely beat the ones on your A95 or most (I said most) prosumer
cameras.

Just as example, one of countless, does anybody actually have
comparisons between say an Oly C8080 result and a Canon 20D? I don't
mean terrible, spirit-crushing, boring and repulsive 'test shots'. I
mean actual, composed, Photoshopped, cleaned, and finalized
photographs - cover art, coffee book, hues and curves, pro
composition, interesting subject, and so on. Not to keep making the
point, but good photographs by people who understand photography, not
merely camera equipment?

I mention it only because I suspect there's nothing like that on the
web, and even that the majority of actual, real photographs are still
made with film. And I suspect the no less important family snaps of
the kids and grandma are satisfactorily captured with cell phones, as
far as it goes. Snaps and record shots are important, but not
technically demanding, at all.

Does anyone know of a site, that doesn't require one to download 10
megabyte 2nd-rate digital record photos? Has anyone taken the time to
isolate portions of film, in small 200K jpgs, say, from good photos,
and compared with finalized zooms of similar photos from various
cameras. Or would it take a photographer to do that? And has one done
so, at least that he or she wants to make public?

Figure one can ask. Maybe a photographer has.

www.dprevew.com has crops and unedited sample photos for a variety of
real-life conditions. They're not ultra-exciting but they show you what
you want to know.

The Canon 20D and Oly C8080 are both going to be perfect when it comes
to color fidelity and contrast. The 20D has the advantage in low light,
edge sharpness (with a good lens), responsiveness, and versatility.