Phil's comparison to high-end digicams

Karl Gnter Wnsch · Sep 5, 2003

Sheld said:
If I was going to the the 300D, I'd get the 55-200 lens, but I'm
kind of a cheapskate, and I like small/compact lenses.

Then the 55-200mm lens won't fit your bill too much as it will extend quite a lot when zooming in.

Sheld said:
Its
approximately the same size as the 18-55 lens.

Yes it is when at 55mm.

Sheld said:
But I've heard
great things about the 28-135 ...

That's one heck of a lens and with the built in IS technology this will be a much bigger advantage over the Sony lens. Esp. as all lenses deliver their best sharpness stopped down a few steps.

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

RATPhoto · Sep 5, 2003

waterskier said:
I also just ordered the Scott Kelby book on digital photography for
photoshop. I really liked his down and dirty tricks book and I hope
this will help me to manipulate digital photos better.

Skipping most of this message but I will talk to this. I own the Scott Kelby book and think it does a decent job of what it is trying to do. I like (and use a lot) some of his tricks. For example, I really like the one softening technique used for glamour photography.

I also bought Katrin Eismann's book on photo retouching (edition II). I highly recommend this book. If I had to choose just one book for photoshop this would be the one (from a photographers perspective).

DigitalDoggie · Sep 5, 2003

Regardless of what one thinks, the review itself is a work of art. Perhaps no camera, anywhere, anytime, has had a better review done on it.

Phil Askey said:
Henk Van Wulpen said:

Admittedly however, a camera review is maybe not the place to point
to these differences. And on second read, the review is not as much
trying to send digicam users towards DSLR as I first thought it was.

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

--

Sony SevenSeventeen, Canon SFourHundered, Canon SNineHundred Printer, Canon SForty (Wife), Sony NZNinety PDA w/ two meg camera (kid), Olympus CTwoThousand (Dog) - There.... a search friendly list of equipment.

Spiky · Sep 5, 2003

Henk Van Wulpen said:
Charles Robinson said:

With the exception of your points about sensor cleaning and LCD
preview, the points you bring up are points that have ALWAYS kept
people from using SLRs - even way before the digital era of
photography.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I meant. But the point is that today digital
photography has become a mass market, much more so than what film
photography has ever been. Everyone is slapped in the face with
commercials, ads and hypes. As a result consumers are more likely
to fall for it, while in the film days, people looking at SLRs knew
what they wanted.

I'm sorry, but that's the dumbest thing I've heard in awhile. The mass market for cameras started around 1900. Have you never seen a photograph in a non-pro's home? EVERYBODY has a camera of some sort. The only difference between film and digital on this topic is film vs digital film.

Henk Van Wulpen58869 said:
When I think of it, I'd better stop now and let everyone buy the
stuff. It will be good for the 2nd hand market in a few years when
people start selling their stuff because they're fed up with
changing lenses and dragging stuff around .

Keep it up. People love being mocked.

Donald Cooper · Sep 5, 2003

Hey Henk,

I was trying to get you off the hook by pointing out that you weren't really complaining about Phil's review. And this is the thanks I get! Thanks a bunch. LOL

Seriously, I understand what you're saying. But honestly, at the announced prices of the 828 and the A1 I think I'd advise friends to get the 300D for the better handling.

The 828 in particular is really a big fella so size isn't that big a deal. Stick a Tamaron 28-200 on the Canon and for the same price they'll have far better range for about the same price. If they want the short end they can do nicely for $100 more.

Basically the A1 and the 828 are really nice cams but their prices are hard to swallow given the 300D. I do however think the long zooms (Kodak, Minolta, Panasonic, Olypus) are still great buys. They're light and a lot of fun and a lot less dough. And of course the smaller cams will still fit the bill for most. But the 828 and the A1, I don't know about them at this point. There will have to be some major price adjustments to even things up, IMHO.

Donald Cooper · Sep 5, 2003

All your points are very good ones, except the "convenient to carry" one -- the 828 is over 2 pounds and pretty dog gone big so I don't think we can say it's more convenient.

But I don't think the thought process will work like youi've done it. Your way is far too nuanced. I think it will be more like this:

Prospect: "So which one do you recommend?"

Salesperson: "Well, this dSLR will have better performance, it's the Pro camera. An when the new models come out next year you won't lose your investment in the lenses".

Prospect: "Oh, I'll take that one." (Thinking that (1) "hey, I can shoot like a Pro"; and (2) "I sure don't want to lose the investment" (remembering the absolute pouding they took in their 401(k) the last three years)). LOL

I'm not BTW saying I agree with this. I just think this is the way it will turn out.

GoNzA10 said:
My view is this:

Prosumer (pro's against 300D):
-Total control of everything!! No limitations.
-A lot of nice (less important) features like time lapse photography.
-Live preview (many many people like that better than of the OVF, I
don't)
-Capability to upgrade to wide angle and tele with converters. One
WA and one tele converter is all many amateurs need. And they use
to be cheaper than stand alone lenses (well, they might be of worse
quality though...).
-Easier to carry.

300D (con's against prosumer):
-Lack of total control over many "big" things.
-Less "nice" features standard in many prosumers.
-No "swivel LCDs" (some people changing to 300D will miss them).
-Bigger, heavier, not suitable for everyday use for many people.

Saying that, I'd like to buy 300D as soon as I can afford it (if I
could afford a 10D I would buy it, but it's a big money difference
that I should have to think about even if I could afford it).

Changing/upgrading lenses is far low in my priority list (and, I
guess, many other people's lists)

Pro's of D-SLR (in this case 300D, the first "affordable" D-SLR):

FASSST AF and RELIABLE!!

Very LOW high ISO noise

High(er) dinamyc range and better overall quality against prosumers

Optical viewfinder (95%!!! even Nikon N80 or Canon Elan 7 are

just 92%, I think this should be mentioned in big letters in
reviews, comparing 300D and film SLRs).

[things I can't remember now] ;-)

Interchangeable lenses

Jan59 · Sep 5, 2003

I don't know this article but if enough people would be interested, I can translate it for them.

I'm a Dutchman and my second mother tongue is Englsih.

Jan

Donald Cooper · Sep 5, 2003

Karl,

I think the strength of the 300D is apparent, but .....

1. I don't think the format idea works since a 3:2 is really 6X4 and all these images have way too many pixels for this. At other formats you don't really use 3:2. (7X5 or 8X10 for example).

I think the better argument here is that the difference in most instances is trivial, especailly when printing (250 ppi max) or viewing on a monitor at 96 dpi.

2. We don't know how noisy the Sony images will be. We'll have to wait on this and see. My guess is we're still looking at two stops.

3. I think Sony compression and image processing in general is very good. I wouldn't knock it. (I would LOVE to have the Sony digital zoom by the way. It's outstanding).

Karl Günter Wünsch said:
Just look at the size:

6Mp (3:2 image format, Canon): 3072x2048
8Mp (4:3 image format, Sony): 3264x 2448
7.xMp (3:2 image format, Sony): 3264 x 2176

So the advantage the Sony musters resolution wise will be at most
200x400 pixels but when cropped to the same image format this
shrinks down to 200x128. Not really something I would call
significant. But this comes at quite a high price. Take the Sony V1
sensor as a benchmark and then extrapolate it's noise to the 828
and you'll see that this sensor will have much more noise than the
Canon.

Since Sony unfortunately (at least when looking at Phil's
compression tables) chose to limit the Sony to really shoddy
compression - 2.4 Mb for a noisy 8Mp (24 Mb) is nothing short of an
insult (as are the compression ratios on the current Fuji S5000)
and will lead to greatly reduced picture quality as the noise will
make compression less efficient and less efficient compression
leads to compression artefacts that mess up a lot of pictures. RAW
(19Mb) and TIFF (23Mb) both will be virtually unusable on the Sony
for sheer size and writing times.

Dave Oddie · Sep 5, 2003

waterskier said:
waterskier said:

The 28-200 zoom at f2 to F2.8 would also cost you a mint to
replicate on a D300 so for those whom this focal length range is
more than enough the total outfit cost for the Sony is the camera
alone. For the EOS 300D owner the cost STARTS with the camera and
if they are not the "typical" Rebel owner then they will be
hankering after lenses, flash system and so on.

Click to expand...

I don't think that you can compare F2 on an F828 to F3.5 on a 300D
as apples to apples.

You can to a degree. How much will it cost to add an F2 28mm equivalent lens to the 300D?

waterskier said:
The 300D by design can make use of much less
light than the F828.

Ok, the Canon can work to 400 ASA without compromising the picture quality. That is two stops, pretty much what you lose when fitting slow zooms to a 300D.

However, you are writing off the Sony before its been tested. It has a new CCD design and you don't know how it will compare noise-wise yet.

waterskier said:
Plus the 28-135mm canon lens has Image
Stabilization which is good for a couple stops when not on a tripod.

How much does that cost? Add it to the cost of the 300D and you are already beyond the price of the all-in-ones. It's also less flexable lens at 45 to 216m due to the crop factor.

Also we are not just talking the Sony here, what about the Minolta A1 that comes with built-in image stabalisation?

waterskier said:
Think of it this way. The F828 has a sensor 1/6th the size of the
Canon sensor. Now look at how much light is lost between an F stop.
The Sony is already at a much higher F stop be design.

Eh? The Sony has an ISO range of 100-800 so it only misses out on the 1600 ISO setting, which is one stop. It's "best" ISO is 100, same as the Canon's. So you will be able to stick at ISO 100 with the Sony while you have to move up to 200 or 400 with the Canon.

If the nooise of the Sony is as good at 100 as the Canon is at 400 then with the cheaper (slower) lenses noise performance is effectively equal.

We will have to see how it goes.

Of course you can fit faster lenses to the 300D but then you run into a huge expense in comparision.

waterskier said:
This is why the F828 will probably be noiser at ISO400 than the
Canon is at ISO 1600.

We will have to wait and see.

waterskier said:
The Canon 300D zoomed out to a 200mm equivalent at F5.6 vs. F2.8
for the Sony will probably have a very noticable advantage. Also
since the Sony is less likely to be on a tripod, the Image
Stabilization advantage of will make this difference even more
noticable.

What? Is everyone who buys a 300D going to buy a 28-135 IS lens as well?

I think many will buy the 55-200 as there tele lens and camera shake will be no less likely with the 300D.

If it bothers you that much there is always the Minolta A1 with its built in anti-shake mechanism. It also has a progressive CCD which is 14 bit compared to the 12 bit one in the Canon.

I reckon the race is not as cut and dried as you may think.

Dave

Dave Oddie · Sep 5, 2003

Phredd said:
Dave Oddie said:

I think you are going a bit far. Don't forget there have been
discussions on here recently about the type of people who bought
the film Rebel. Some never buying another lens.

Click to expand...

The $300 film Rebel market is quite different from the $1000
Digital Rebel market. Those ready to invest $1000 in a high-end
camera will likely buy another lens when they feel the need.

I tend to agree with you but there will be people with high disposable income who shell out for the latest and greatest gadgets who will view the Sony as a better buy.

Phredd said:
There
are just too many advantages to the DSLR versus the SLR-like camera
that most educated photographers will not pay the same or, in some
cases, $100s more for a camera that "comes close" to an SLR.

I want a DSLR for sure but I still think there is a market for sophisticated all-in-one SLR type cameras. The All-in-one style of camera is not new and has been around a while in 35mm. It is just a different form factor.

If the new CCD's in the Sony and Minolta offer improvements in noise performance then people can make a choice of convenience or flexability.

Phredd said:
Phredd said:

The 28-200 zoom at f2 to F2.8 would also cost you a mint to
replicate on a D300 so for those whom this focal length range is
more than enough the total outfit cost for the Sony is the camera
alone. For the EOS 300D owner the cost STARTS with the camera and
if they are not the "typical" Rebel owner then they will be
hankering after lenses, flash system and so on.

Click to expand...

$1000 buys a 300D with an 18-55 as a starter. There may be some
that prefer the Sony, but my bet is that it will be a minority.
Just a difference in opinion here.

True but you have to budget for more than the starter lens with the 300D to get the advantages lens-wise. That may still be out of reach for some despite the "low" price of the 300D.

Phredd said:
Phredd said:

In fact if you think sales of these cameras are going to be hurt by
the 300D then you need to add another camera to that list of
cameras under threat - the EOS 10D.

Click to expand...

It's apparent that Canon is well aware of this potential. They
seem to have done a good job of differentiating the 300D ($1000
with a good lens) and the 10D ($1500 plus much more than $100 for
an equivalent lens) with build quality and features.

In which case they have also differentiated the 300D from cameras like the Oly E1 (better build quality and features) which was my point.

Dave

Matt105483 · Sep 5, 2003

Henk Van Wulpen58869 said:
I'm a bit surprised or even disappointed at how Phil compares the
300D to equally priced high-end digicams and assumes that the 300D
will eat out a huge chunk of that market. He is making a common
mistake : not everything is perfect in the (D)SLR world. It seems
to be commonly kept silent that there are some important drawbacks
to SLRs too :

I am glad he does compare them! after all these cameras are possible options for D300 customers ...

If you are not interested in the comparison then just dont look at it ... for the others ... let it be

Henk Van Wulpen58869 said:
they're chunky and/or heavy, especially with the lenses you

need/have.

to have a comparable optical range as a compact digicam, you

typically need 2 or 3 lenses (one or two zooms, plus macro) adding
up to the price again.

switching lenses all the time is cumbersome.

not everyone is comfortable with sensor cleaning.

there is no LCD preview that allows you to take pictures from the

weirdest angles or positions.

no comments to the above .... "drawbacks" ...

Henk Van Wulpen58869 said:
they look more expensive, hence more attractive to thiefs.

please ....

another drawback ... they use up more of that precious gravity in your house

Henk Van Wulpen58869 said:
Although Canon surely wants us to believe otherwise, I'm convinced
that for a lot of people an all-in-one digicam is a better choice
than a DSLR. The advantages and disadvantages of both models

you are correct but whats the point? Do you want canon to stop makeing SLR's now ?

Henk Van Wulpen58869 said:
(compacts vs SLR) IMHO makes that the way both are best/typically
used is different. I'm therefore a bit disappointed that Phil seems
to further feed the common misconception that a DSLR is always
superior to a compact digicam.

I wonder why people dont get it ... there isnt so much camera (type) A superiour to camera (type) B.

There WILL be camera (type) A NOT suitable for someones particular requirements ....

Instead of wageing religiuos wars about how bad the one is and how good the other is ... why not choose whats good for YOU???

Matt

Henk Van Wulpen58869 said:
Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100

waterskier · Sep 5, 2003

RATPhoto said:
I also bought Katrin Eismann's book on photo retouching (edition
II). I highly recommend this book. If I had to choose just one book
for photoshop this would be the one (from a photographers
perspective).

What are the key strengths of this book out of curiousity?

Dave Oddie · Sep 5, 2003

waterskier said:
With the F828, I was figuring in the purchase of a F32X external
flash unit because of my assumption that it will need more light to
get a decent shot. So we have a $1350 list price for that
combination.

Seems to me like your trying to make the cost of the Sony match what you need to pay for the 300D combo to justify your choice

Am I correct?

waterskier said:
With the 300D and a 28-135 lens I have a list price of $1300 or
$1400 if I keep the 18-55. More importantly I can take a shot at
dusk.

You can take shot in total darkness with the Sony.

waterskier said:
I can take a picture as fast as I need to with the 4 picture
buffer and I don't need to worry about flash nearly as much.

Why are you going on about flash? Are you going to be shooting at high ISO all the time on the 300D so you don't need flash?

100 ISO on the Sony is the same as 100 ISO on the Canon - but the Sony has a faster lens than those you want for the 300D, so if you wish to stick at 100 ISO its the Canon that will need the flash first.

waterskier said:
I also
like to take actions shots where IS could be of great value to me

Buy a Minolta A-1. Better zoom range than the 28-135 and also has IS built in. Saw some action shots in a preview test in a magazine only this week.

waterskier said:
The higher ISO ability with low noise of the Cannon should make a
big difference to me.

Now I am making a lot of assumptions based on the difference in
sensor size, but so far no CCD has had the low light performance of
the recent Canon CMOS sensors.

You mean noise performance not low light performance surely? In terms of sensativity Both the A1 and 828 go from 100-800 ISO so the Canon is only better by one stop at 1600 which is negated by the slower Canon lenses.

The crucial difference to look out for is noise performance.

waterskier said:
I really wanted to like the F828 because I would love small video
snips to edit into other footage I take, and my a PD150 is way to
bulky to take on a vacation. On the other hand when I really want
to take a picture, I want to make sure I can actually capture it,
which is the same reason I have a bulky camcorder.

The preview I saw of the 828 on imaging resource implies it is a very fast camera - as fast as D-SLR's.

waterskier said:
This has been a really tough decision to make for me. I'm guessing
that much of the F828's resolution is wasted because of the S/N
ratio and I would rather have a clean 6MP image than a noisy 8MP
image. I believe both will res up to 11x14 well enough for my
personal needs.

I'm curious what many of you think about this.

If you think they will both do 11x14 enough for your needs then you can choose either despite your reservations over the Sony.

I think you should wait and see just how well (or badly) the 828 and the Minolta A1 compare to the 300d. The Minolta sounds ideal if you are going to be sticking mainly to one lens, the 28-135 on the 300D.

For me I want a lens wider than the 28mm equivalent of the 18mm-55mm. I use a 21mm a lot on my film SLR so unless there is a bayonet add on lens that works with the Sony and Minolta that gives me that, it will have to be a D-SLR for me so I hope canon don't wait too long in bringing out a super-wide EF-S lens.

Dave

Sanjeev Das · Sep 5, 2003

What's wrong with comparing with the prosumer cameras? If I am in the market for a prosumer camera in the same price range as the 300D, of course I will be interested to know how the image quality of the prosumer cam compares to the dSLR. If I am not aware of the advantages I am giving up by going to the dSLR then it is my fault, not the reviews.

Sanjeev

Henk Van Wulpen said:
I'm a bit surprised or even disappointed at how Phil compares the
300D to equally priced high-end digicams and assumes that the 300D
will eat out a huge chunk of that market. He is making a common
mistake : not everything is perfect in the (D)SLR world. It seems
to be commonly kept silent that there are some important drawbacks
to SLRs too :

they're chunky and/or heavy, especially with the lenses you

need/have.

to have a comparable optical range as a compact digicam, you

typically need 2 or 3 lenses (one or two zooms, plus macro) adding
up to the price again.

switching lenses all the time is cumbersome.

not everyone is comfortable with sensor cleaning.

there is no LCD preview that allows you to take pictures from the

weirdest angles or positions.

they look more expensive, hence more attractive to thiefs.

Although Canon surely wants us to believe otherwise, I'm convinced
that for a lot of people an all-in-one digicam is a better choice
than a DSLR. The advantages and disadvantages of both models
(compacts vs SLR) IMHO makes that the way both are best/typically
used is different. I'm therefore a bit disappointed that Phil seems
to further feed the common misconception that a DSLR is always
superior to a compact digicam.

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100

waterskier · Sep 5, 2003

Member said:
2. We don't know how noisy the Sony images will be. We'll have to
wait on this and see. My guess is we're still looking at two stops.

3. I think Sony compression and image processing in general is very
good. I wouldn't knock it. (I would LOVE to have the Sony digital
zoom by the way. It's outstanding).

I'm sure it will be a landmark camera and one that I would love to have.

Where I am guessing it will fall short will be AF time, depth of field, low light capability without flash and high speed action shots. As a portrait camera I bet the 828 will do a great job and if the glass is really good and it can focus well I'm sure some shot out of the 828 will be better than the 300D

I also think that it is a bit silly to discount a 30% increase in resolution. For 8x10's the 3:2 will cost me in more cropped area on the Canon than the F828 will.

Unfortunately I can only afford one camera right now and I think I will stand a much better chance of getting a high quality picture under many of the conditions I will be shooting using the 300D.

waterskier · Sep 5, 2003

Dave Oddie said:
Seems to me like your trying to make the cost of the Sony match
what you need to pay for the 300D combo to justify your choice

Am I correct?

Actually you are wrong. I was pretty pumped about the 828 last week and was intending to purchase the F32X to go with it. My thinking was that it was cool to have EVF night vision, and laser focusing in the dark hooked to a flash which metered directly off of the camera. No pre-shot AF assist flashes sounds pretty nice.

Then I started talking with some 717 owners and finding out about some of the limitations (sometimes sever) of that camera and especially at the CCD size. I read the luminous landscape page about S/N calculations as well.

I was also concerned about taking shots from a ski boat without IS although I actually like a long depth of field for most of my shots.

Dave Oddie said:
You can take shot in total darkness with the Sony.

But a really nice shot at dusk in really low light that you can't fill flash or that can't be lit up by IR just won't happen. I also don't want B/W pictures.

Dave Oddie said:
Why are you going on about flash? Are you going to be shooting at
high ISO all the time on the 300D so you don't need flash?

For mountain bikers in the evening, bar shots, dawn pictures of the slalom course on the lake etc.....

Dave Oddie said:
100 ISO on the Sony is the same as 100 ISO on the Canon - but the
Sony has a faster lens than those you want for the 300D, so if you
wish to stick at 100 ISO its the Canon that will need the flash
first.

The problem is that at high ISO's the Sony will fall apart whereas the Cannon will be relatively noise free. This is a huge difference. It's not just haveing an ISO range to pick from, but actually getting a good picture at that ISO range.

Dave Oddie said:
You mean noise performance not low light performance surely? In
terms of sensativity Both the A1 and 828 go from 100-800 ISO so the
Canon is only better by one stop at 1600 which is negated by the
slower Canon lenses.

I think you are missing something here. The ISO 400 on the Cannon will be much cleaner than the ISO 400 on the Sony and at 800 the Sony will probably be barely useable. Yes, I am talking about noise.

Dave Oddie said:
The preview I saw of the 828 on imaging resource implies it is a
very fast camera - as fast as D-SLR's.

That's a good thing.

Dave Oddie said:
If you think they will both do 11x14 enough for your needs then you
can choose either despite your reservations over the Sony.

What I don't think is that I will get a shot worth printing nearly as often with the Sony because of AutoFocus speed, and it's ability to deal with low light high speed shots.

Dave Oddie said:
I think you should wait and see just how well (or badly) the 828
and the Minolta A1 compare to the 300d. The Minolta sounds ideal
if you are going to be sticking mainly to one lens, the 28-135 on
the 300D.

I'm expecting to use the 18-55mm for indoor shots, family pictures etc... but nothing too exciting. I agree with you. My current DC4800 is a (28mm-84mm equiv) and it still seems to narrow for me.

For my PD150 my only way to get wide is to use a Century Optics .65 WA bayonnet.

quietguy · Sep 5, 2003

...have compared and discussed all the diffrences, pros & cons, and other intangibles between different camera designs and cetegories would have not only been way outside the realm of a new digicam review, but would also be a better book topic than review topic.

If people aren't sure whether they would be better off with a $1000 DSLR or a $1000 fixed lens prosumer model with a tiny sensor, they should not only read reveiws of both types of cameras, but also become at least reasonably knowledgable as to the advantages and disadvantages of each type. That, or they can go to their local camera store and ask the salesperson to recommend something (and take their chances, depending on the knowledge and bias of the salesperson!)

The fact is that there are many different types of digicam buyers in the world, and I can't imagine how anyone could expect someone reviewing a DSLR to devote a half page or so to listing warnings about the dangers or drawbacks of DSLR cameras in general! If Phil or any other reviewer were to do that, then, to be fair, the next review they did of a fixed lens digicam would have to include a half page of warnings and cautionary notes describing the horrible noise at anything above ISO 100, the problems associted with trying to add 3rd party wide angle and telephoto lenses to cameras that were not designed for them, how pixel pitch and sensor size effects image noise and dynamic range, etc., how limited the prosumer digicams are to bright daylight shooting conditions (due to their low usable ISO settings) and how many people find them easy and fun to use at first but then soon "grow out of them" and often wish they had purchased a camera with more capabilities and better image quality, etc., etc.!

The point is that there are equally valid arguments that can be made both pro and con with regard to any camera model or design. And it's not the reviewers' job to include a "Guide to Digital Cameras and Digital Photography" book with each review they write! Such books are out there, by the way, and people who don't know all that much about digital photography or digital camera design should do some research and/or read some of these books. I suspect many people do so.

Sure there will be a few people who will buy a DSLR who shouldn't. But there are probably just as many people who will buy a fixed lens prosumer digicam and later seriously regret their decision. Either way, it's not Phil's job or the job of any reviewer to try to educate everyone about every possible factor involved in the selection and purchase of a digital camera.

Most people know there are two sides to most issues... perhaps it would be helpful and educational if more people were to spend a little time and effort in an attempt to understand the other side of an issue before (or perhaps instead of) immediately knee-jerk reacting and/or attacking the views (or efforts) of others on this forum.

And to Phil: Good job (as usual) and thanks for all the time and effort you devote to all your reveiws. (But why didn't you zoom in on the top of the London Bridge like you usually do??? How can a review be fair and unbaised without the bridge pics? And why didn't you compare side-by-sde photos taken with the Sony F717, the Fuji S5000, the E1, the S45, the Coolpix 800, and what about the....) (just kidding!!!!!)
Take care all,
qg

randy jk · Sep 5, 2003

Different strokes for different folks. At one time, everyone seemed to be buying toy cameras, instamatics with goofy flash cubes. Then it seemed everyone had 35mm but a huge core never really took advantage of interchangeable lenses or used manual features when auto mode became the rage. Point and shoot has been very popular due to convenience and small size and when you look around, they dominant the market.

As an emerging technology, digital had to move into the P+S form factor to keep costs down. But now, DSLR price point is coming way down and there is going to be a collision at the high end of the digicam market. The price of each will fall and the capabilities of each will increase. And both will survive because each will adapt to meet the needs of their perceived target market. If the mfgs. do their job right, there will be "bigots" on each side convinced their format is best. And thats just great.

pdqgp · Sep 5, 2003

So don't think about it

2003 Taffeta White & Ivory AV6 EX Sedan w/Navi
3M Clear Protection Bra on all sides
17" Honda Rims / Michellin Pilots / Locking Lugs
Catz Rising White 4300k HID's
OEM Rear Wing
Shaved Emblems but with Gold H's
Door Visors, Moonroof Visor and Mud Gaurds

Jogger said:
The 3 series has huge potential when you option it out with all the
goodies (or you could even go for the M3!). Similarly, the 300d has
huge potential if you accessorise it to death....but, the package
that is available does not have the functional abilities of a high
end prosumer digicam, ie. you will need to accessorise it to
maximise its potential. Similarly, why would you buy a 300D if
you're not going to invest in lenses etc.

The loaded Accord however comes with everything you need but there
are few (err....less) options to be had. It will meet the needs of
a lot of people and its nameplate isn't as prestiges ae the bimmer.
Its also FWD which means that its not a serious car (right!).

Henk Van Wulpen said:

I'm a bit surprised or even disappointed at how Phil compares the
300D to equally priced high-end digicams and assumes that the 300D
will eat out a huge chunk of that market. He is making a common
mistake : not everything is perfect in the (D)SLR world. It seems
to be commonly kept silent that there are some important drawbacks
to SLRs too :

they're chunky and/or heavy, especially with the lenses you

need/have.

to have a comparable optical range as a compact digicam, you

typically need 2 or 3 lenses (one or two zooms, plus macro) adding
up to the price again.

switching lenses all the time is cumbersome.

not everyone is comfortable with sensor cleaning.

there is no LCD preview that allows you to take pictures from the

weirdest angles or positions.

they look more expensive, hence more attractive to thiefs.

Although Canon surely wants us to believe otherwise, I'm convinced
that for a lot of people an all-in-one digicam is a better choice
than a DSLR. The advantages and disadvantages of both models
(compacts vs SLR) IMHO makes that the way both are best/typically
used is different. I'm therefore a bit disappointed that Phil seems
to further feed the common misconception that a DSLR is always
superior to a compact digicam.

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100

Click to expand...

--
-tim

Canon 1 0 D, 24-70mm/f2.8 L-Series, 75-300mm/f4-5.6 IS, 35mm f2, Canon 4 2 0EX Speedlight
Sony 7 1 7, Nikon 9 9 5 & Konica KD-4 0 0 Z
Accessories....tons of course
http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp

randy jk · Sep 5, 2003

The huge draw for me in DSLR is the size of the image sensor (way bigger than digicam) which means bigger/higher quality pixels and the superior lenses available to the shooter. Lets face it, the camera is a box, the lenses are a huge factor.

If high speed action photography is important, if razor sharp crisp pictures are important, if shallow DOF is important, DSLR is what fits the bill today. If none of these are important by all means buy a digicam.

But nothing is set in stone, it could all change tomorrow!

Phil's comparison to high-end digicams

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Donald Cooper

Guest

Donald Cooper

Guest

Well-known member

Donald Cooper

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts