Am I being a size-queen??

DeVore

Reckon that subject line should get a few clicks...

Anyway, I have lost access to the Canon 350D I used before. Now I loved that Canon because it allowed me to experiment with settings but if I got scared I could run home to the Auto setting and just point and click.

Now I am on the hunt for a replacement and it seems like a good time to pick up bargains as the same 350D seems almost half price from the amount we paid for the first one...

That said, it was a big enough beast to carry around. I loved the shutter speed for snapping sports or fast moving targets but it isnt something you can just slip in your pocket.

Now I'm looking at small digital cameras that are 8 megapixel and small enough to stick in a jacket pocket.

The thing is, I feel like I must be losing out if I don't have a big replaceable lens... not that I ever replaced the last one.

What are the downsides of the small, brushed metal style pocket-sized digitals?

DeV.

Calina

DeV, before you make a decision to go compact or not, it's worth looking at the photographs you took with the 350D and considered whether you could do them with a compact or bridge.

For me the downsides are 1) get lost in handbag b) in the case of the sony I had a non-replaceable battery was a bit of a drag c) doesn't impress boys but that's maybe not an issue once you say you're DeV. Interestingly enough I stopped using the compact pretty much the minute I bought the SLR.

Realistically, it might be worth looking at a bridge rather than the compact but to all intents and purposes, a lot depends on the photos you are taking as well and I know precious little about those.

ShakeyBlakey

http://www.flickr.com/photos/78645925@N00/

Devs flickr

Calina

Based on that I would recommend sticking with a DSLR. You have some beautiful things in that flickrstream.

nilhg

Could you tear your self away from Canon, as dpreview calls it.. the little wonder

Thirdfox

Or the highly pocketable Nikon D40/60 (same size, one is newer and costs more).

Do you not have an investment in Canon equipment though (flash, lenses etc.)?

If not then it might be a good opportunity to have another look at all the competitors out there (especially Olympus and Pentax). They do nice kit lenses from what I hear and a limited Pentax pancake lens on a K200D would be a very compact dSLR I think.

Then again - if you're not shooting in low light, Canon Powershots A*** are pretty good, as are Panasonic Lumix ones (some come with a wide angle 10x zoom lens - very impressive for such a small camera). But there's a reason why you spend 600 euro on lenses to get the equivalent 10x zoom on a dSLR (and 600 is just the cheap version!)

YogiBear

I really like the "Perspective" shot.. you should go with your arty side!

thebaz

DeVore wrote: »

What are the downsides of the small, brushed metal style pocket-sized digitals?

DeV.

i used to swear by the p & s, but rarely use one now , you get better shots and have more flexibility with DSLR , in particular better ISO , lens flexibility , bigger sensor , better DOF -- still use my P & S (bridge) -- in my short experience olympus make the best non dDSLR , with good overall quality , some of the other makes have poorish quality , but are well marketed .

mathias

Actually , looking at the price of that Olympus flat slr , and the price of a G9 , I may well pick up one of those as a replacement for my aging sony compact ... it makes sense ...so it does ! especially with that 25mm lens.

mloc

Can't forget the fact that because the sensor size on the DSLR is several times larger than that of a compact, in terms of image quality, you'll get much better results from even a 5 megapixel SLR compared to most, if not all, compacts of even much higher MP.

Quite difficult to get low DOF effects with compacts too. Basically unless size is essential, I'd go with the SLR.

mathias

I use Canon ( 5D and 20D at the moment ) for all the serious stuff , but sometimes they are just too heavy to be carting around , especially on holiday when Im walking around with the Missus , for that I have a compact , but its limitations are annoying ,( its only a cybershot ) especially the low light and lack of any kind of High ISO , So for a while Ive been looking for a replacement compact ,

The G9 was high on the list , looking about the best of a bad lot , but looking at that new olympus , on paper at least , it is the same weight ( or thereabouts ) as the G9 , it is not much bigger , and with that pancake lens at a 50mm equivalent this looks like the ideal candidate.

And the price is excellent.

This could be a winner , no reviews anywhere yet , so I'll wait for those , but its got to be better than a compact !!

elderlemon

Devore,
I'd stick with an SLR if I were you. Looking at your flickr stream you would love something like the 350D and the wide angle 10-22 (or the sigma one) Seems like this would be perfect for the kind of photos you take.

Oriel

Batteries and shutter lag would be a big downside of point and shoot.
Needless to say, I could never go back.
Look into getting a nifty bag to carry it around in.

Stephen

I could never go back to a compact P&S myself either. It can be a bit of a pain lugging the dSLR and all the stuff that goes with it around when you're travelling but its worth it

Dades

Methinks once you've got used to a dslr, a compact will only complement it, not replace it.

Re your flickr - was in Cesar Manrique's house last year too - it's only mad!

Mellor

Nice Flickr Dev,
I was going to go for a compact if its just for Antes up reports or family shots, but seeing as you have quite a few art shots, go dSLR,

Stick with Canon, as you know it, and go for 350, 400 or 450
The price range is pretty big, you jsut have to decide if you want to pay the extra price for a slightly larger sensor and a maybe a new feature or two

Duchovny

Well for my personal opinion, i have 350D and upgraded it to 40D, i also have 2 compact cameras, and you just can't compare the photos and all the features you can get with a 350D, Pixels are not everything, if you used to have 350D and use always in the auto mode, then i think a compact camera would be your best choise, now if you use the creative zone of the camera then you will lose most of that if you change for a compact camera.

Third_Echelon

... for a decent price.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055250784

Mellor

350D for €462
http://www.pixmania.com/ie/uk/88654/art/canon/eos-eos-350d-ef-s-18-55-i.html

Fionn

it's probably unfair to compare a P&S to a DSLR
they might be similar in so far as they capture images but thats where the similarity ends and they're really aimed at different markets anyway.
The main prob with all the compacts is with the sensor it doesn't matter how many pixels they cram onto the sensor remember it's the size approximately of a fingernail, until they resolve that particular issue the compacts will not produce anything comparable to a DSLR, other factors include poor ISO, shutter lag lens quality.

DeVore

Thanks for the replies (and for the kind words about my flickr stream!).

I didn't use much of the pro-controls on the DLSR but thats the sort of thing I want to develop with my photography.

I have no investment in Canon equipment so nothing to tie me to them except that I know their system a little now and I have found them very good before.

The last point of interest is that Fajitas brought his camera to the drinks night recently and took some terrific pictures with it. The lens seemed just the kind I have been looking for, it had a tight focal point (warning: DeVore is attempting to use technical lingo about camera's. This may be a load of arse.). It gave a lovely out-of-focus-ness to the background which a lot of my images would have benefitted from as all my stuff is shot with a 55-70 (?) standard lens that comes with the 350D. I found that was great for panarama's but everything was flat when it came to anything close up.
Plus I like Macro style photos and would like to get into that.

I suppose I've nearly answered my own question there... havent I.

DeV.

Thirdfox

We'll convert you to Nikon yet

Longer focal length lenses give a smaller depth of field (more blurring) and also bigger aperture lenses like a f2.8 or f1.8 lens gives lovely bokeh (background blur) to subjects.

The kit lens that comes with nearly every dSLR is the 18-55mm lens and it's usually "slow" meaning a small aperture of f3.5-5.6 so less subject isolation in pictures (which can be a good thing depending on what you need).

Have a feel of the other brands before re-investing in Canon. You have a great chance to start afresh (not many photographers can say that!) and now that you know what you want you can choose the best system to buy into.

DeVore

yeah 18-55 is what I got with the 350D but it did seem to make everything sharply in focus regardless of varying differences. I thought that was great at first, but later I noticed that I really liked the type Fajitas has... (what is that one called?)

I would probably want both tbh...

Is there a compelling reason to switch at this point? I have kinda gotten used to the Canon but I am not blinkered about such things, especially if there is a decent price difference in lens etc....

Is secondhand an option? I suppose it could be...

DeV.

Oriel

DeVore wrote: »

yeah 18-55 is what I got with the 350D but it did seem to make everything sharply in focus regardless of varying differences.

The lens wouldn't have done much, as it's a pretty poor lens to be honest - there have been many complaints about that kit lens. The majority of work would have been by the camera, which the point and shoot wouldn't. Again, point proven.

Oriel

DeVore wrote: »

Is secondhand an option? I suppose it could be...

Oops, didn't see that. Second hand equipment is always a good option in photography - unlike computers or cars (for example), photography equipment, especially a lens, holds its value very well, as long as it's in good condition.
If you are thinking about holding onto a point and shoot camera, then you could get a second hand DSLR for the same price as a new bridge camera.

But let's not get away from the original point, are you prepared to carry a DSLR camera around with you?

mathias

The main prob with all the compacts is with the sensor it doesn't matter how many pixels they cram onto the sensor remember it's the size approximately of a fingernail, until they resolve that particular issue the compacts will not produce anything comparable to a DSLR, other factors include poor ISO, shutter lag lens quality.

Well , The good news here is that this limitation could well be coming to an end with the likes of the Olympus E 420 and the Sigma DP1 ,

The Sigma is a point and shoot with an aps-c size sensor ..
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030807sigmadp1.asp

The olympus , not out till may , is a compact sized D-slr , with a pancake 25mm ( 50mm equivalent) lens.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0803/08030501olympuse420.asp

both of these are in the same ball park price as say the Canon G9 , and could be the start of the death of the tiny sensor compact with all the issues they have.

thebaz

mathias wrote: »

Well , The good news here is that this limitation could well be coming to an end with the likes of the Olympus E 420 and the Sigma DP1 ,

.

i use a 3 year old olympus bridge , the zooped up later versions , in particlar panasonic, were nowhere near its quality -- so i'll keep faith with the old slr , its not too bad (portability) with a 50 lens attached

Fajitas!

DeVore wrote: »

I suppose I've nearly answered my own question there... havent I.

DeV.

Mmhmm.

I had my 5D with 24-70 at the mod beers, but the 17-55 range is quite similar on the crop bodies like the 400D and Nikon/Oly equivilants.

DeVore wrote: »

yeah 18-55 is what I got with the 350D but it did seem to make everything sharply in focus regardless of varying differences. I thought that was great at first, but later I noticed that I really liked the type Fajitas has... (what is that one called?)

I would probably want both tbh...

Is there a compelling reason to switch at this point? I have kinda gotten used to the Canon but I am not blinkered about such things, especially if there is a decent price difference in lens etc....

Is secondhand an option? I suppose it could be...

DeV.

If you were to go for the Sigma 18-55 2.8, it would give you a pretty good all round lens, good for low light and all that. I guess the biggest difference between mine is that it'll be that bit wider, and have better build quality. But you don't want to spend what I'm spending on gear...


...


Yet.


Second hand could be a very good option, having a look on eBay could pick you up some great deals.

Thirdfox wrote: »

We'll convert you to Nikon yet

Stephen

Us Nikonians are a persecuted minority around here

Fajitas!

It's bad enough that you're from Kilkenny

Stephen

ho-ho! dirty land-grabbing baxtards!