Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister
), 2x teleconverter, 3x macro-focusing teleconverter, and a pile of brand-new filters. I paid full price for a tripod and a bag though, they weren't cheap. I never planned on getting into photography, but you get your money's worth for the old stuff! ebay was good for fairly fresh cold-stored film as well.If you want an image stabilized camera (IS does make a difference in low light or when you can't use the flash) make sure you're certain is Optical stabilization or "lens based" stabilization. In these cameras the lenses are actually shifted to conteract your natural shaking when handholding the camera, not sure about the point and shoots but some DSLRs shift the sensor instead to counteract shake. Lens based is best, sensor shifting is arguably just as good. The "electronic" stabilization isn't worth anything. It's just boosting the sensitivity (ISO) of the camera in order to obtain a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the subject. This leads to noisy/grainy UGLY pictures.tvguru wrote:I'm not sure how the image stabilization works on that Canon, but on quick review noticed that the Nikon is optically stabilized. Supposed to give better results then electronic stabilization.
Edited: Terminology
The higher-end SLR-styled point and shoots from Canon (like the S5-IS) are lens stabilized, and all Canon SLRs require IS lenses to get image stabilization (the bodies won't do anything). Not sure about the lower end cameras or other manufacturers.Mode C wrote: If you want an image stabilized camera (IS does make a difference in low light or when you can't use the flash) make sure you're certain is Optical stabilization or "lens based" stabilization. In these cameras the lenses are actually shifted to conteract your natural shaking when handholding the camera, not sure about the point and shoots but some DSLRs shift the sensor instead to counteract shake. Lens based is best, sensor shifting is arguably just as good. The "electronic" stabilization isn't worth anything. It's just boosting the sensitivity (ISO) of the camera in order to obtain a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the subject. This leads to noisy/grainy UGLY pictures.
Hope that helps.
Canon used CF in their SLRs, but they've started to move away from it with the XSi.Dust Devil wrote:Also check the media card type. I still prefer CompactFlash but it's getting harder to find small cameras that take it. The higher end cameras from Nikon still use it. Not sure about Canon.
The S5 is a great camera, but it still has alot of drawbacks over an SLR. Small glass elements in the lens, and tiny sensor pitch being two big ones. The small sensor leads to big problems with hilights in alot of photos, and there a big issues with fringing on high contrast edges. Manual focus is nearly unusable on the S#-IS series. The camera might as well not have the higher ISO levels available, the noise is horrible over 200, which lets a good SLR zoom, like Canon's 28-300L (45-480mm equivalent on most Canon SLRs) spank it despite having a higher F number throughout the zoom range. It's a point and shoot, albeit a very good and advanced one. It still doesn't hold up well against an SLR for anything except portability.BoostedNihilist wrote:12x zoom. This kicks the crap out of a 4x or even a 10x, it is equiv to 36-432mm 35mm standard.. this is bloody amazing, you would need at least two lenses to get this kind of zoom out of a digital slr with any decent apeture.
yup...small penguin wrote:I
Reasons to consider the S5 over a typical point-and-shoot:
-Better zoom
-More functions (Manual mode, colour swap, colour accent, etc)
-Better grip while flying
Canon's new 40D and XSi have liveview, but after using an SLR for a year and a half (and trying to use my co-worker's S3), I don't miss it. You're also unable to switch lenses. Want wider than 36mm? Sorry, not yours (edit: ok, so there's a 1.5 tele and 0.75 wide converter available... still doesn't add much). The 432mm equivalent at full zoom doesn't compare to the image quality you can get out of a good SLR. The S5 isn't meant to replace an SLR, and it isn't meant to replace a point and shoot that'll fit in your shirt pocket, either. It's intended for a different market, and it's price, features, and resulting image quality reflect that. If you want to take pictures of you and your friends at the bar, get the tiniest P&S from Canon or Nikon you can find. If you want to get decent pictures without lugging around a backpack full of lenses, or getting divorced because your wife saw the credit card bill, get an S5, G9, or something in that range. If you want to do photography, get an SLR, and pay through the nose for years afterwards.Reasons to consider the S5 over a typical DSLR:
-Record videos
-Use the LCD screen to take pics rather than the viewfinder
-No need to switch lenses
-No long bulky lenses (at "12x" zoom, a DSLR lens is about 25cm long, whereas the S5 is about 8cm)
I own a Canon DSLR with a wide angle zoom, telephoto zoom and a prime lens as well as other accessories like flashes and filters. This can be a bit of a pain to carry around especially if you want to enjoy your vacation. But if you want a camera with a very large zoom range and don't want to carry around a lot of lenses the "super zoom" p&s cameras are good, but aren't giving you the same quality as a DSLR, especially in low light (small lenses and sensors vs big ones). But one compromise I've been looking at for my next vacation is the Sigma 18-200 mm Optically Stabilized lens (11x zoom) which is built for most DSLR mounts. If you have a Nikon DSLR you can go with the Sigma or you have the option of the Nikkor 18-200 which has the added benefit of a f5.6 vs 6.3 aperture at the 200mm end. However it's significantly more expensive for what reviewers consider a marginal or nonexistent increase in performance. This is similar to the 28-300mm lens for film cameras but for DSLRs with smaller than full frame (35mm) sensors. The 28mm end might not be wide enough for some uses on a DSLR.grimey wrote:If you want to get decent pictures without lugging around a backpack full of lenses, or getting divorced because your wife saw the credit card bill, get an S5, G9, or something in that range. If you want to do photography, get an SLR, and pay through the nose for years afterwards.
I went with Canon as well. Sigma 10-20mm, Canon 16-35mm f2.8L, Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon 100mm f2.8 macro, and Canon 200mm f2.8L, a 430 Speedlight, plus uv and polarizing filters for most of the lenses. Put a laptop in the back of the backpack, and I have to play nice with the counter agents at a couple airlines to not have to check the bag due to weight. It kinda fits under the seat of a Saab 340.Mode C wrote:I own a Canon DSLR with a wide angle zoom, telephoto zoom and a prime lens as well as other accessories like flashes and filters.grimey wrote:If you want to get decent pictures without lugging around a backpack full of lenses, or getting divorced because your wife saw the credit card bill, get an S5, G9, or something in that range. If you want to do photography, get an SLR, and pay through the nose for years afterwards.
....
Get one of those small slr bags that will fit the camera and the one lens mounted on it and a good neck strap from Lowepro (not a fan of the strap the comes with the camera) and you're good to go for your vacation. Of course this is an expensive option but it will give you some better pictures.
Ignore digital zoom, it's useless. The Canon gives you significantly more range at the wide angle end, and they're almost even for telephoto (9mm makes little difference at the telephoto end, it's less than a 10% difference in the focal length. 10mm at the wide end is significantly more noticeable). 28mm is wide enough for most things you might want to do with it, going to 38 as the widest possible on the Nikon will be noticeable compared to the Canon, but could still be wide enough for what you need. 105/114mm would be good for portrait shots, but don't expect to be able to zoom in very far, it's pretty short as far as a telephoto lens goes.Zagarino wrote: If this could be simplified to me too, that would be great ... :
Canon Focal Length - 4.6-17.3mm f/2.8-5.8 (35mm film equivalent: 28-105mm)
Nikon - 6.3-18.9mm (35mm [135] format picture angle: 38-114mm); f/3.3-4.2; Digital zoom: up to 4x (35mm [135] format picture angle: 456mm)
and also the optical zoom comparison between both.. ? any comments on that.
Thanks again
What he said....Zagarino wrote:Still got a question about Optical lens shift VR image stabilization VS canon's Optical Image Stabilizer (IS) System
Do they offer the same features in regards to the image stablization .. a newb when it comes to this equipment as you noticed.
Northern Skies wrote: On the opposite end, I would never buy anything from sony.
Rumour has it sony builds all the sensors used in most of these cameras anyways.the_professor wrote:Northern Skies wrote: On the opposite end, I would never buy anything from sony.
I've owned a few Sony compacts, and they've been great. They take great shots, durable, lots of features. Canon and Nikon are excellent as well. The latter two are the grand-daddies of the industry.
|
|
Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!
We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal
behavior is apparent.
All rights reserved.
