Stuck between these choices for a camera. HELP?

[Tejas Ramakrishnan]

Hi all,

First of all, feel free to correct any of my mistakes if i made them in describing the following. Also, please do suggest any camera you feel important when regarding those mentioned here.

Okay, so, I am planning to upgrade to a decent camera from my small Point and Shoot Canon Powershot SD1300 IS.
My budget is around $500-$700 (INR 25000 to 35000).
Choices. 1 DSLR and 3 P&S:

1. Canon EOS 1100D with 18-55 std lens (or the Digital Rebel model as it is called in many places.) (Will be available here (India) by May 2011 for 35K rupees)
2. Canon Powershot G12
3. Nikon Coolpix P7000
4. Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

All these cost around the same, in fact the DSLR among this costs the least. I cannot afford a better DSLR and know that it is an entry level DSLR, but will it be a better choice than the Canon Powershot G12 which is the next best choice i have among these.

I would be doing landscapes, clouds and macro shots mostly, so have trouble identifying which one would be the better one for me. I am not planning to invest in lenses any time soon for the DSLR if I buy it, so will that limit what i can do with it compared to what i can with the G12..? Weight is a slight issue.
I would be grateful for a reply....

If there are any other suggested models, i would love to read about them as well.

 

[alanscape]

I have the G11 and other cameras for my work.

The G11 is available at a lot less than the G12 (have a look at the review) and I have been very pleased with the results, especially the macro.

If you're not going for lenses and setting out on the inevitable DSLR spending road, I can recommend the G11.

They hold their value nicely too.

 

[beagle1]

Hi all,

First of all, feel free to correct any of my mistakes if i made them in describing the following. Also, please do suggest any camera you feel important when regarding those mentioned here.

Okay, so, I am planning to upgrade to a decent camera from my small Point and Shoot Canon Powershot SD1300 IS.
My budget is around $500-$700 (INR 25000 to 35000).
Choices. 1 DSLR and 3 P&S:

1. Canon EOS 1100D with 18-55 std lens (or the Digital Rebel model as it is called in many places.) (Will be available here (India) by May 2011 for 35K rupees)
2. Canon Powershot G12
3. Nikon Coolpix P7000
4. Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

All these cost around the same, in fact the DSLR among this costs the least. I cannot afford a better DSLR and know that it is an entry level DSLR, but will it be a better choice than the Canon Powershot G12 which is the next best choice i have among these.

I would be doing landscapes, clouds and macro shots mostly, so have trouble identifying which one would be the better one for me. I am not planning to invest in lenses any time soon for the DSLR if I buy it, so will that limit what i can do with it compared to what i can with the G12..? Weight is a slight issue.
I would be grateful for a reply....

If there are any other suggested models, i would love to read about them as well.

Instead of the 1100D I would get the older Canon 550D (T2i) and 18-55IS kit lens - plenty of good features at a good price

 

[mackey1001]

I would be doing landscapes, clouds and macro shots mostly, so have trouble identifying which one would be the better one for me. I am not planning to invest in lenses any time soon for the DSLR if I buy it, so will that limit what i can do with it compared to what i can with the G12..? Weight is a slight issue.

Well if you want a high quality camera that is portable, and be able to take with you more often, the G12 and LX5 are both great choices. With the DSLR you really need good glass and multiple lenses (one for macro) which if you're not able to purchase may be pretty limiting for you. The kit lenses are often only so-so. Didn't like the kit lens when I had a T2i.

Good luck.
-M1

 

[Tejas Ramakrishnan]

I understand the point in the above comments. I thank you all for providing those answers to my questions.
I have a few more....

As of now, The Canon Powershot G12 costs about Rs.32,000 here in India. The EOS 1100D costs much lesser, so i might be able to afford a decent macro lens to complement the 18-55 kit lens...

Even though i mentioned that i wouldn't be buying lenses for it soon if i buy a DSLR, i might in the future when i need to get certain sides in. The issue is that it might be difficult for me to later upgrade with a DSLR if i go for the G12 now.

I am tied between buying the G12 and Raynox 250 Diopter adapter and maybe some filters also to complement features on different photography scenarios. But this will put me back by $700-$800.... (Rs.32000 = $700+)

But if i go for the EOS 1100D or 1000D or 550D with kit lens and also add a EF50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, which might give me ample options to shoot landscapes and also macro, i might spend around $700-$800, same as above. But with this, i have the option of adding lenses in the future and expanding capabilities unlike on the G12....

I am looking at spending the optimum and if the investment will hold good for the future i am prepared to take it.

Please suggest an option in view of this. Will the above config of DSLR+lens give me all the capabiilties of the G12 and more..? Then i will take it..

 

[PeterLeyssens]

Tejas,

The EOS 1100D costs much lesser, so i might

Even though i mentioned that i wouldn't be buying lenses for it soon if i buy a DSLR, i might

I am tied between buying the G12 and Raynox 250 Diopter adapter and maybe some filters also to complement features on different photography scenarios. But this will put me back by $700-$800.... (Rs.32000 = $700+)

But if i go for the EOS 1100D or 1000D or 550D with kit lens and also

Please suggest an option in view of this. Will the above config of DSLR+lens give me all the capabiilties of the G12 and more..? Then i will take it..

You have a lot of conditionals about the DSLR in your post. You should look at it like this:

• A good compact includes a good lens. The DSLR+kit gets you a mediocre lens.
• A good compact includes a macro lens. The DSLR doesn't.
• A good compact is compact. The DSLR isn't.
• A good compact will give you great result up to at least ISO400. The DSLR goes higher, at least ISO1600.

You want to be able to extend later. Sure, but first look at your needs now. Also take a look at some less common and maybe older cameras, like the Ricoh GX200. The lens of such a camera (or the LX3 that I have, or the current LX5/S95/XZ1/... batch) is really quite good. The GX200 does extreme macro as well (focus as close as 1mm away). Others do decent macro, too. If your macro is about flowers, you don't need to get an expensive macro lens: those are more for when you need to photograph things of a few millimeter and they should fill your entire frame.

Here are a few macro shots of the compacts I mention: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1033&message=36612343&changemode=1

As you are currently thinking about which part of the wonderful world of photography to dive into, an all-round camera like a good compact would be best. A DSLR is really only better if you want to shoot car races in the dark (i.e. high ISO and fast moving things) or if you need extremely wide/long/macro lenses.

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
NAP (Nearly a PAD (Photo a Day)) at http://nap.techwriter.be

 

[trekkeruss]

As of now, The Canon Powershot G12 costs about Rs.32,000 here in India. The EOS 1100D costs much lesser, so i might be able to afford a decent macro lens to complement the 18-55 kit lens...

If you are willing to carry a bigger camera, you may as well go with the DSLR. Whatever the case, I would suggest looking at the 500D or 550D as opposed to an incoming model, assuming the price is similar.

I am tied between buying the G12 and Raynox 250 Diopter adapter and maybe some filters also to complement features on different photography scenarios. But this will put me back by $700-$800.... (Rs.32000 = $700+)

If you buy the G12, you do not need diopters to shoot macro. The camera can focus all the way down to about 1 cm.

 

[Tejas Ramakrishnan]

I get it.
Thanks to all of you for your comments.

I am more inclined to the G12, but getting into spending such an amount for a limited option camera was what pointed me towards a DSLR.

Peter, your comments were detailed i noted some important facts there...

Since you say that the G12 has got a good lens, better than the one coming with the DSLR i mentioned, it does take a better picture, right...? I understand that the skill of the photographer comes in, but what if the same photographer goes with both, which would come better...?

Also, i heard that DSLRs have larger image sensors, so it must have an innate ability to take more photons in and hence better photos right..?

I am confused here... I understand that with the EOS 550D, i can use the Raynox diopter to take macros.... Is this correct?

 

[PeterLeyssens]

Hi Tejas,

I am more inclined to the G12, but getting into spending such an amount for a limited option camera was what pointed me towards a DSLR.

Well, it depends. A good compact is in some ways less limited than a DSLR if you can only afford the kit zoom. When you start adding lenses, count on at least €400 for each lens... which doubles, then triples, then quadruples the amount of money you spent...

Since you say that the G12 has got a good lens, better than the one coming with the DSLR i mentioned, it does take a better picture, right...?

In some cases, yes. In other cases, no. Here are the advantages of a compact vs a DSLR:
DSLR:
+ large sensor = better in low light (noticable from ISO 400 or 800 and up)

+ you can add lenses later for specialist purposes (extreme wide angle, extreme tele, extreme macro)
+ fast focusing for extremely fast moving objects
+ optical viewfinder

• large, bulky, heavy: you may get tired of lugging the camera around, you may get tired of being so noticeable when making photos, you may find excuses and not take the camera everywhere, you may want a camera bag which is an extra expense
• becomes expensive when adding lenses
• most kit lenses are just okay (e.g. distortion when used as a wide angle)

high quality compact:
+ lens frequently better than DSLR kit lenses

+ lens frequently a lot faster (more light capture) so you don't need to work at high ISO all the time. For example, the Olympus XZ-1's lens is 2 stops faster than the Canon 18-55, so you can work at ISO400 when the Canon has to use ISO1600.
+ lenses frequently offer a macro mode
+ very small, so it's easier to carry everywhere

• smaller sensor = not as good in low light (though the faster lens may help)
• slower to focus
• some people don't like working with an LCD or an electronic viewfinder

Note that I use "extreme" a lot for DSLRs. Here's a bit of explanation:

• wide angle: most quality compacts offer a lens of 28mm equivalent. This is quite a good wide angle and was considered almost a super wide angle until recently. My LX3 (LX5 predecessor) goes as wide as 24mm, which is sometimes practical. Any wider is a super wide angle and usually only for very specialised use because it gives a very special effect.
• tele: most quality compacts offer a lens of up to around 100mm equivalent. This is good for portrait work. If you look at tele zoom lenses, it seems like 300mm is quite normal. But when I learned photography, a 300mm was close to a telescope: a perfect lens to make photos of the moon with.
• macro: most people just want to take nice close-ups. A macro lens will give you 1:1, in other words, if you have something that is about 1.5cm-2cm, it will fill the whole photo. This is about the size of your thumb nail, so it's quite extreme.
• focusing: you should realise that compact cameras give you quite a bit of depth-of-field, i.e. a lot is in focus. If you make a portrait photo of a kid, this helps, because the kid may move and it will still be in focus. Also, anticipation helps even with extreme sports (e.g. horse races: you focus on one part of the track and when horses enter it, you make the photo). So the very fast focus of a DSLR is not necessary except if you are dealing with extremely fast and unpredictable action.

I'm not saying DSLRs aren't good cameras. They are the standard for a reason. But since the 1980s, the evolution has gone so fast that most offer far too much for regular users. Only if you are certain that you need things that cannot be done with a good compact (a lot of low light work, specialised lenses, very fast action), I would consider a DSLR, but then it would have to be a complete and expensive setup. I've gone from a film SLR & rangefinder to a DSLR and sold it really quickly. I now have a compact and an Olympus E-P1.

I am confused here... I understand that with the EOS 550D, i can use the Raynox diopter to take macros.... Is this correct?

I don't know about these lenses, sorry. Some compacts, like the GX200 from Ricoh, also offer some accessory lenses.

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
NAP (Nearly a PAD (Photo a Day)) at http://nap.techwriter.be

 

[MaryGierth]

I am more inclined to the G12, but getting into spending such an amount for a limited option camera was what pointed me towards a DSLR.

Well, it depends. A good compact is in some ways less limited than a DSLR if you can only afford the kit zoom. When you start adding lenses, count on at least €400 for each lens... which doubles, then triples, then quadruples the amount of money you spent...

Since you say that the G12 has got a good lens, better than the one coming with the DSLR i mentioned, it does take a better picture, right...?

In some cases, yes. In other cases, no. Here are the advantages of a compact vs a DSLR:
DSLR:
+ large sensor = better in low light (noticable from ISO 400 or 800 and up)

+ you can add lenses later for specialist purposes (extreme wide angle, extreme tele, extreme macro)
+ fast focusing for extremely fast moving objects
+ optical viewfinder

• large, bulky, heavy: you may get tired of lugging the camera around, you may get tired of being so noticeable when making photos, you may find excuses and not take the camera everywhere, you may want a camera bag which is an extra expense
• becomes expensive when adding lenses
• most kit lenses are just okay (e.g. distortion when used as a wide angle)

high quality compact:
+ lens frequently better than DSLR kit lenses

+ lens frequently a lot faster (more light capture) so you don't need to work at high ISO all the time. For example, the Olympus XZ-1's lens is 2 stops faster than the Canon 18-55, so you can work at ISO400 when the Canon has to use ISO1600.
+ lenses frequently offer a macro mode
+ very small, so it's easier to carry everywhere

• smaller sensor = not as good in low light (though the faster lens may help)
• slower to focus
• some people don't like working with an LCD or an electronic viewfinder

Note that I use "extreme" a lot for DSLRs. Here's a bit of explanation:

• wide angle: most quality compacts offer a lens of 28mm equivalent. This is quite a good wide angle and was considered almost a super wide angle until recently. My LX3 (LX5 predecessor) goes as wide as 24mm, which is sometimes practical. Any wider is a super wide angle and usually only for very specialised use because it gives a very special effect.
• tele: most quality compacts offer a lens of up to around 100mm equivalent. This is good for portrait work. If you look at tele zoom lenses, it seems like 300mm is quite normal. But when I learned photography, a 300mm was close to a telescope: a perfect lens to make photos of the moon with.
• macro: most people just want to take nice close-ups. A macro lens will give you 1:1, in other words, if you have something that is about 1.5cm-2cm, it will fill the whole photo. This is about the size of your thumb nail, so it's quite extreme.
• focusing: you should realise that compact cameras give you quite a bit of depth-of-field, i.e. a lot is in focus. If you make a portrait photo of a kid, this helps, because the kid may move and it will still be in focus. Also, anticipation helps even with extreme sports (e.g. horse races: you focus on one part of the track and when horses enter it, you make the photo). So the very fast focus of a DSLR is not necessary except if you are dealing with extremely fast and unpredictable action.

I'm not saying DSLRs aren't good cameras. They are the standard for a reason. But since the 1980s, the evolution has gone so fast that most offer far too much for regular users. Only if you are certain that you need things that cannot be done with a good compact (a lot of low light work, specialised lenses, very fast action), I would consider a DSLR, but then it would have to be a complete and expensive setup. I've gone from a film SLR & rangefinder to a DSLR and sold it really quickly. I now have a compact and an Olympus E-P1.

I am confused here... I understand that with the EOS 550D, i can use the Raynox diopter to take macros.... Is this correct?

I don't know about these lenses, sorry. Some compacts, like the GX200 from Ricoh, also offer some accessory lenses.

Peter.

You make a good case for the G12 as compared to the T3 but the problem I have is that they cost the same or the dslr slightly less. I think overall the T3 is a better value. Taking cost in to account what do you think?

 

[MaryGierth]

Hi all,

First of all, feel free to correct any of my mistakes if i made them in describing the following. Also, please do suggest any camera you feel important when regarding those mentioned here.

Okay, so, I am planning to upgrade to a decent camera from my small Point and Shoot Canon Powershot SD1300 IS.
My budget is around $500-$700 (INR 25000 to 35000).
Choices. 1 DSLR and 3 P&S:

1. Canon EOS 1100D with 18-55 std lens (or the Digital Rebel model as it is called in many places.) (Will be available here (India) by May 2011 for 35K rupees)

I saw on youtube that the camera will be available in 3 packages - body only, with 18-55 (non-IS) and with 18-55 IS. The IS lens is considered a much better lens than the non-IS lens. Lenses will make or break the quality of your photos. I wouldn't get a mediocre lens.

 

[MaryGierth]

Hi all,

First of all, feel free to correct any of my mistakes if i made them in describing the following. Also, please do suggest any camera you feel important when regarding those mentioned here.

Okay, so, I am planning to upgrade to a decent camera from my small Point and Shoot Canon Powershot SD1300 IS.
My budget is around $500-$700 (INR 25000 to 35000).
Choices. 1 DSLR and 3 P&S:

1. Canon EOS 1100D with 18-55 std lens (or the Digital Rebel model as it is called in many places.) (Will be available here (India) by May 2011 for 35K rupees)

I saw on youtube that the camera will be available in 3 packages - body only, with 18-55 (non-IS) and with 18-55 IS. The IS lens is considered a much better lens than the non-IS lens. Lenses will make or break the quality of your photos. I wouldn't get a mediocre lens.

It seems to me that you are kind of leaning toward the dslr. I would recommend (as someone previously did) the 1000d with 18-55 IS rather than 1100d with non-IS, if thats a possibility. You really have to get the best combination of body and lens. It just doesn't make sense to get a good body and average (or worse) lens. If you can't get the IS with either body (due to availability or your budget) then thats another plus for the g12.

 

[PeterLeyssens]

Mary,

You make a good case for the G12 as compared to the T3 but the problem I have is that they cost the same or the dslr slightly less. I think overall the T3 is a better value. Taking cost in to account what do you think?

Not just for the G12, also for other quality compact like the LX3/5, S90/95, XZ-1, the Ricoh GX200 and so on.

There's a bit of a problem when comparing a DSLR + kit zoom to a quality compact. The first impression is indeed: "woh, look, I can get a DSLR for the same price !". But the lens is much slower at f3.5 (at best) against the common f2.0 for the compacts. Also, the lenses frequently have less distortion in these quality compacts. And you may get a decent macro for the same price.

Again, it depends on what you want. If you need the flexibility, then a DSLR is obviously better, but you should be prepared to pay a (large) multiple of the initial price of the DSLR + kit zoom. For example, I'd want at least a good wide angle zoom + a portrait length macro, which both will cost more than the DSLR + kit zoom. So my setup would be around €2000, not €500. With a compact, I get a few of the extra features (wider angle in some, macro) and I can still carry the camera easily.

Concluding: it's about what you want to do. If building an extensive system is a requirement, go DSLR. Otherwise, don't underestimate how good compacts are these days.

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
NAP (Nearly a PAD (Photo a Day)) at http://nap.techwriter.be

 

[chuxter]

Hi all,

First of all, feel free to correct any of my mistakes if i made them in describing the following. Also, please do suggest any camera you feel important when regarding those mentioned here.

Okay, so, I am planning to upgrade to a decent camera from my small Point and Shoot Canon Powershot SD1300 IS.
My budget is around $500-$700 (INR 25000 to 35000).
Choices. 1 DSLR and 3 P&S:

1. Canon EOS 1100D with 18-55 std lens (or the Digital Rebel model as it is called in many places.) (Will be available here (India) by May 2011 for 35K rupees)
2. Canon Powershot G12
3. Nikon Coolpix P7000
4. Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

It's really difficult to compare a dSLR with a P&S, as they are quite different. And the worst part is that some of the major advantages to them are very subjective...size, feel, heft, stability, etc. Also, a photographer with a dSLR tends to stand out more than with a P&S...that can be perceived as good or bad? IE, do you want to be perceived as a "professional" or do you want to be discreet?

Let's take one issue: Macro-photography. One your your posters says that a P&S is better because it has macro capability w/o adding a special lens. BUT, the macro capability of dSLRs and P&Ss is quite different. Just consider that in the P&S world, macro capability is touted by stating how close the front of the lens can get to a subject...BUT in the dSLR world, getting close to the subject is understood to be a bad thing! The dSLR guys want more working distance, not less. Why? Well, because if you try to take a picture of an insect immediately in front of the lens, there is no way to illuminate it from the front side! Duh!!!

And the optical characteristics of a P&S lens when shifted to "macro mode" are compromised. A special "macro" lens mounted to a dSLR will give you much better images, w/ one exception: DoF. The very short FL of P&S camera lenses results in greater DoF than the long FL macro lenses used on dSLR cameras.

BTW, I keep my Nikon 5700 camera because it has a wide DoF and a nice macro-mode. But I can, with some work, get better macro images with my D300.

All these cost around the same, in fact the DSLR among this costs the least. I cannot afford a better DSLR and know that it is an entry level DSLR, but will it be a better choice than the Canon Powershot G12 which is the next best choice i have among these.

I would be doing landscapes, clouds and macro shots mostly, so have trouble identifying which one would be the better one for me. I am not planning to invest in lenses any time soon for the DSLR if I buy it, so will that limit what i can do with it compared to what i can with the G12..? Weight is a slight issue.
I would be grateful for a reply....

If there are any other suggested models, i would love to read about them as well.

Although, I am a Nikon guy, I would not recommend any Nikon P&S.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
"The voices in my head may be crazy, but they have good ideas!"

 

[Tejas Ramakrishnan]

Peter,
Your comments clearly makes me understand the situation...

I understand the potential value of investing in a DSLR and also the value a compact offers...

I prefer the G12 because of the compactness it offers...

I was looking to get EOS 550D with the 18-135 mm lens with IS which costs 2.5 times the G12, so the G12 is way better in terms of money too, for me....

 

[MaryGierth]

Hi all,

First of all, feel free to correct any of my mistakes if i made them in describing the following. Also, please do suggest any camera you feel important when regarding those mentioned here.

Okay, so, I am planning to upgrade to a decent camera from my small Point and Shoot Canon Powershot SD1300 IS.
My budget is around $500-$700 (INR 25000 to 35000).
Choices. 1 DSLR and 3 P&S:

1. Canon EOS 1100D with 18-55 std lens (or the Digital Rebel model as it is called in many places.) (Will be available here (India) by May 2011 for 35K rupees)

I saw on youtube that the camera will be available in 3 packages - body only, with 18-55 (non-IS) and with 18-55 IS. The IS lens is considered a much better lens than the non-IS lens. Lenses will make or break the quality of your photos. I wouldn't get a mediocre lens.

It seems to me that you are kind of leaning toward the dslr. I would recommend (as someone previously did) the 1000d with 18-55 IS rather than 1100d with non-IS, if

I getting the model numbers mixed up. I meant a T2i not 1000d.

thats a possibility. You really have to get the best combination of body and lens. It just doesn't make sense to get a good body and average (or worse) lens. If you can't get the IS with either body (due to availability or your budget) then thats another plus for the g12.

 

[MaryGierth]

You make a good case for the G12 as compared to the T3 but the problem I have is that they cost the same or the dslr slightly less. I think overall the T3 is a better value. Taking cost in to account what do you think?

Not just for the G12, also for other quality compact like the LX3/5, S90/95, XZ-1, the Ricoh GX200 and so on.

There's a bit of a problem when comparing a DSLR + kit zoom to a quality compact. The first impression is indeed: "woh, look, I can get a DSLR for the same price !". But the lens is much slower at f3.5 (at best) against the common f2.0 for the compacts. Also, the lenses frequently have less distortion in these quality compacts. And you may get a decent macro for the same price.

Again, it depends on what you want. If you need the flexibility, then a DSLR is obviously better, but you should be prepared to pay a (large) multiple of the initial price of the DSLR + kit zoom. For example, I'd want at least a good wide angle zoom + a portrait length macro, which both will cost more than the DSLR + kit zoom. So my setup would be around €2000, not €500. With a compact, I get a few of the extra features (wider angle in some, macro) and I can still carry the camera easily.

Concluding: it's about what you want to do. If building an extensive system is a requirement, go DSLR. Otherwise, don't underestimate how good compacts are these days.

Peter.

--

I don't underestimate the G12 or other advanced P&S cameras and I do highly value the compact size of the G12 as compared to the dslr. I was just hoping to get a little more info from you for the OP.

My only comment on your analysis is that you conclude that a dslr is for people who want to build a big system. I think many people own dslrs and only have a few lenses and maybe a flash. It seems like the system Tejas would want is a walk around lens and a macro. This would be a perfectly reasonable requirement or plan for buying a dslr.

But if he has no plans for another lens and can't get a good one to begin with I think the G12 with its compact size maybe a better value.

 

[Tejas Ramakrishnan]

@Mary... Your point seems like the way i want to go,... THat was the reason i was leaning onto the DSLR....

I will be happy with the 550 or 600D and an18-55 with IS.... If the need arise, i could buy lens later, right..?

With a good quality 18-135, and maybe a macro later on or the raynox diopter adapter, won't i be able to rival pics from G12s...?

 

[MaryGierth]

@Mary... Your point seems like the way i want to go,... THat was the reason i was leaning onto the DSLR....

I will be happy with the 550 or 600D and an18-55 with IS.... If the need arise, i could buy lens later, right..?

You can get a lens any time and you might want to look at used lenses too.

With a good quality 18-135, and maybe a macro later on or the raynox diopter adapter, won't i be able to rival pics from G12s...?

I would think the 18-55IS would produce images at least as good as the g12. But I have Nikon dslr. A Canon user would have to comment on how the IQ compares.

My other thought as I read thru this is that it seemed like you really wanted a dslr. I would hate to see you settle for something less than what you really want especially if you would be unlikely to have the opportunity to change from the g12. While I have a dslr, the thing I love about a g12 or s95 is its a camera you could have with you all the time which is important to me but maybe not to you.

Like Chuxter said its hard to recommend one camera over the other because they are so different. They are both great cameras and can get excellent images from either. The g12 is compact, the dslr more expensive but more flexible considering you buy additional specialized lenses.

Since you haven't gotten any comments on the Raynox you may want to post your questions in the Canon slr forum or the Canon Talk forum. I have seen some excellent marco taken with this filter and I believe you could use it with a dslr or g12.

 

[chuxter]

With a good quality 18-135, and maybe a macro later on or the raynox diopter adapter, won't i be able to rival pics from G12s...?

The Raynox adapter is intended for a fixed-lens camera (where it's not possible to switch lenses). It can be used on a dSLR, but it's much better to just get a macro lens. Consider this...

The Canon 18-135 lens has 16 glass elements (that means 32 glass surfaces that each have to be AR coated to limit reflections), then you add a Raynox corrective lens with 3 glass elements (adding another 6 surfaces)! Compare that with a Canon 60mm Macro lens...it has only 12 glass elements or the stunning Canon 65mm Macro lens with only 10 glass elements or the Sigma 50mm macro with only 10 glass elements. [BTW, my 60mm f/2.8 D Micro-Nikkor macro lens has only 8 glass elements...that's one reason I like it]. More glass elements produces more light scattering and thus less contrast. There is a BIG difference in 19 glass elements and 8-12 glass elements!

With the 18-135 lens, and a 1.6 crop sensor, you will get better pix than the G12 with a 6.1-30.5 lens and a 1/1.7" sensor (that's a crop ratio of 1/4.55! so the Canon dSLR is 2.84X bigger). And the D\G12 only has a 28-140 FF range (5X) so a Canon dSLR w/ 18-135 (7.5X) will give you a 29-216 FF range. The IQ difference will be about equal to the sensor size difference, IE, 2.84X better with the dSLR.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
"The voices in my head may be crazy, but they have good ideas!"