Damn i just bought the S3 IS and now i want a DSLR

[foghorn67]

Canon Rebel XT bodies at 500 dollars used LNIB. Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX HSM for 500-550. 50 1.8 by flipping over some couch cushions.

 

[funboy6942]

Shudda bought the new Panasonic cameras with the manual focus ring
Much better camera IMO then the canon with the mega zoom and IS.

Linkage

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: funboy42
Shudda bought the new Panasonic cameras with the manual focus ring
Much better camera IMO then the canon with the mega zoom and IS.

Linkage

Why does it use a proprietary battery?

Another question... why don't these damn uberpixel cameras use bigger CCDs? That would greatly alleviate the noise problem.

 

[virtuamike]

Damn Nikons and their crappy high ISO

#1
#2

Either ISO800 or 1600 from the D200, taken on Sunday in the middle of the night. No noise reduction set in camera or during processing. Canons are cleaner, but that doesn't make Nikon unusable.

The biggest mistake is buying into a brand for the body. They get updated so fast that you'll go broke trying to keep up. Smart money is investing in quality lenses. I was shooting the Chinese New Year parade alongside the "official" photographer and nothing was uglier than seeing his shiny new Canon with a Sigma on it, a lot of good that high ISO will do you with slow glass that needs to be stopped down even further to get decent results. I cried no tears when he dropped his lens (noob).

Now on the other hand, walking through the photo pits at the Giants game and seeing all the SI and AP guys with their 1D's and bags full of L, that was intimidating.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: funboy42
Shudda bought the new Panasonic cameras with the manual focus ring
Much better camera IMO then the canon with the mega zoom and IS.

Linkage

Why does it use a proprietary battery?

Another question... why don't these damn uberpixel cameras use bigger CCDs? That would greatly alleviate the noise problem.

Bigger CCDs aren't cheap. Higher profit margin in using them for DSLR's.

 

[funboy6942]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: funboy42
Shudda bought the new Panasonic cameras with the manual focus ring
Much better camera IMO then the canon with the mega zoom and IS.

Linkage

Why does it use a proprietary battery?

Another question... why don't these damn uberpixel cameras use bigger CCDs? That would greatly alleviate the noise problem.

I have a FZ5 and before that was a FZ3 and i would love to get the FZ30 but no money for that or justify the change to have a manual ring (as of yet). The battery is great though. I get over 300 shots and got 2 more off ebay for under $20. Now if you need to take almost 900 pics buy more. Other then that using its own it charges the flash faster and it last longer to take more pictures and even more if you keep the lcd off. Im glad it takes its own and your a dummy if you dont buy a few more and forget to chage them or take them with you on a trip
With a Aa battery and you forget your rechageables your only look for a few pics for it will drain the batteries faster then a whore after your $20.

<---- hugs his FZ5 and says he will never trade it for another canon S2 IS like he did with the FZ3.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Damn Nikons and their crappy high ISO

#1
#2

Either ISO800 or 1600 from the D200, taken on Sunday in the middle of the night. No noise reduction set in camera or during processing. Canons are cleaner, but that doesn't make Nikon unusable.

The biggest mistake is buying into a brand for the body. They get updated so fast that you'll go broke trying to keep up. Smart money is investing in quality lenses. I was shooting the Chinese New Year parade alongside the "official" photographer and nothing was uglier than seeing his shiny new Canon with a Sigma on it, a lot of good that high ISO will do you with slow glass that needs to be stopped down even further to get decent results. I cried no tears when he dropped his lens (noob).

Now on the other hand, walking through the photo pits at the Giants game and seeing all the SI and AP guys with their 1D's and bags full of L, that was intimidating.

ah, but b/w photography lends itself against noise well

and what's w/ the sigma bashing... there are some good ones out there.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: blurredvision
Wait a second guys.....we're talking about DSLR's and low noise at high ISO's, and nobody has mentioned the Nikon D50? To the OP, try to get a bit of this Canon nonsense out of your head for a second, and check out the D50. Widely considered THE best DSLR when it comes to low noise at high ISO.

Want proof? I'll send you a couple of pics later tonight to prove myself (after I get home from work). Plus, the D50 kit is as cheap as all the other prices listed here, and you'll have plenty of money left for a very decent telephoto to compliment the kit lens.

Just keep in mind that in the DSLR world, you won't always get better looking pictures just by spending more money.

You make an incredibly good point. It does seem that Nikon's sensors are becoming incredibly good at high ISO, with the D50 being the champ. But you've got to live with the D50's shortcomings relative to other cameras on the market.

From DPReview on the review of the D80: "High sensitivity (ISO) noise levels higher than Canon EOS 400D"

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page29.asp

Even so, from looking at the pictures it's not too far off.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Retracted, already addressed.

As far as low noise, even the relatively noisey Sony Alpha DSLR produces very use-able photos at 1600. Any DSLR is going to be worlds better than the S3IS just because of sensor size.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
The biggest mistake is buying into a brand for the body. They get updated so fast that you'll go broke trying to keep up. Smart money is investing in quality lenses. I was shooting the Chinese New Year parade alongside the "official" photographer and nothing was uglier than seeing his shiny new Canon with a Sigma on it, a lot of good that high ISO will do you with slow glass that needs to be stopped down even further to get decent results. I cried no tears when he dropped his lens (noob).

Yeah, he should have used the Canon kit lens. :roll:

Here's the deal, non L-series Canon lenses are on par with Sigma or Tamron; some are good, some aren't. Both Sigma and Tamron's "Pro" lenses offer some great lenses (Sigma EX and Tamron SP).

I've made the mistake of judging Sigma on some of their low-end lenses. A $1,000 Sigma is not going to be appreciably different in quality than a $1,000 Canon lens, and a $300 Sigma is very likely better than a $300 Canon lens because Canon can con brand-whores into paying more for even their low-end lenses.

ZV

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
Even in the P&S realm, canon's color quality and sensitivity is better than SONY or KODAK. Nikon is a close second.

canon's P&S color is due to in-camera processing. they also don't do as much sharpening as other brands *cough*panasonic*cough*.

a canon G7 might have been perfect for you if canon had bothered with RAW format for it. but noooo, they don't want to impact d-reb sales (giant ca$h cow).

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
Even in the P&S realm, canon's color quality and sensitivity is better than SONY or KODAK. Nikon is a close second.

canon's P&S color is due to in-camera processing. they also don't do as much sharpening as other brands *cough*panasonic*cough*.

a canon G7 might have been perfect for you if canon had bothered with RAW format for it. but noooo, they don't want to impact d-reb sales (giant ca$h cow).

I'm not sure why they thought it would eat into their dreb sales. They are still two very different markets. I dunno.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: TheGoodGuy
Even in the P&S realm, canon's color quality and sensitivity is better than SONY or KODAK. Nikon is a close second.

canon's P&S color is due to in-camera processing. they also don't do as much sharpening as other brands *cough*panasonic*cough*.

a canon G7 might have been perfect for you if canon had bothered with RAW format for it. but noooo, they don't want to impact d-reb sales (giant ca$h cow).

RAW in any non DSLR though is not very good. They tend to lock up for 10-20 seconds while writing a RAW file. Granted, this has more to do with the in-camera software and hardware that is implemented, but they just aren't fast at saving RAW files.

ZV

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: virtuamike
The biggest mistake is buying into a brand for the body. They get updated so fast that you'll go broke trying to keep up. Smart money is investing in quality lenses. I was shooting the Chinese New Year parade alongside the "official" photographer and nothing was uglier than seeing his shiny new Canon with a Sigma on it, a lot of good that high ISO will do you with slow glass that needs to be stopped down even further to get decent results. I cried no tears when he dropped his lens (noob).

Yeah, he should have used the Canon kit lens. :roll:

Here's the deal, non L-series Canon lenses are on par with Sigma or Tamron; some are good, some aren't. Both Sigma and Tamron's "Pro" lenses offer some great lenses (Sigma EX and Tamron SP).

I've made the mistake of judging Sigma on some of their low-end lenses. A $1,000 Sigma is not going to be appreciably different in quality than a $1,000 Canon lens, and a $300 Sigma is very likely better than a $300 Canon lens because Canon can con brand-whores into paying more for even their low-end lenses.

ZV

Had he been shooting with something faster than a Bigma, I would've had a different opinion. But for night event coverage? Come on, he could do better.

 

[Ika]

I'm in the same boat. I just need to bite my tongue and take different kinds of pictures.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Had he been shooting with something faster than a Bigma, I would've had a different opinion. But for night event coverage? Come on, he could do better.

Being an owner of the Bigma, I'd have to agree that it's no where near a good lens for night event stuff. But then again maybe that's all he had, and it wasn't important enough for him to go out and rent a brighter lens?

And he dropped the Bigma? Did it destroy the ground?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Had he been shooting with something faster than a Bigma, I would've had a different opinion. But for night event coverage? Come on, he could do better.

From an image quality standpoint, the Bigma is an excellent lens. Yes, it's f/4-6.3, but you find me a faster 500mm lens even at twice the price. Or maybe he should just be using a lens that is $7,000 or more.

If he was using a 1DS or something, then I'll agree that it's a little odd, but with a D20 or D30, I don't see any reason to expect a different lens than the Bigma.

ZV

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Had he been shooting with something faster than a Bigma, I would've had a different opinion. But for night event coverage? Come on, he could do better.

Being an owner of the Bigma, I'd have to agree that it's no where near a good lens for night event stuff. But then again maybe that's all he had, and it wasn't important enough for him to go out and rent a brighter lens?

And he dropped the Bigma? Did it destroy the ground?

Bigma went bye bye. He had a waist bag and missed the bag when trying to put the lens away, didn't survive.

And if he's the "official" photographer then yeah it's probably important enough to rent something better. Hell I was with KTVU and he tried to kick me out. Karma, it's a bitch.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Had he been shooting with something faster than a Bigma, I would've had a different opinion. But for night event coverage? Come on, he could do better.

From an image quality standpoint, the Bigma is an excellent lens. Yes, it's f/4-6.3, but you find me a faster 500mm lens even at twice the price. Or maybe he should just be using a lens that is $7,000 or more.

If he was using a 1DS or something, then I'll agree that it's a little odd, but with a D20 or D30, I don't see any reason to expect a different lens than the Bigma.

ZV

There really was no need for something as long as the Bigma. We were shooting next to the TV crews. Should've went shorter and faster. And if he couldn't afford it, then rent.

And I'm pretty sure he had a 1D.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Had he been shooting with something faster than a Bigma, I would've had a different opinion. But for night event coverage? Come on, he could do better.

Being an owner of the Bigma, I'd have to agree that it's no where near a good lens for night event stuff. But then again maybe that's all he had, and it wasn't important enough for him to go out and rent a brighter lens?

And he dropped the Bigma? Did it destroy the ground?

Bigma went bye bye. He had a waist bag and missed the bag when trying to put the lens away, didn't survive.

And if he's the "official" photographer then yeah it's probably important enough to rent something better. Hell I was with KTVU and he tried to kick me out. Karma, it's a bitch.

How the.... how do you miss the bag... with a Bigma?! The bag that the Bigma needs is the size of a small trash can...

I have a hip bag also and I can't imagine "missing" the bag with a lens...

As far as being "official" goes, eh. Maybe the officials didn't really care about getting top quality stuff? Maybe they just wanted to save some money and hired the neighbor's son or something. *shrugs*

Yeah, definitely not a place for a Bigma. I'd probably have used my 30mm and 50mm primes, the 10-20mm for the occasional wide action shot with artistic motion blur of dancers or something, and my 180mm prime in my bag for... the very rare extreme face shot and a "just in case" telephoto... because I'm paranoid

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: blurredvision
Wait a second guys.....we're talking about DSLR's and low noise at high ISO's, and nobody has mentioned the Nikon D50? To the OP, try to get a bit of this Canon nonsense out of your head for a second, and check out the D50. Widely considered THE best DSLR when it comes to low noise at high ISO.

Want proof? I'll send you a couple of pics later tonight to prove myself (after I get home from work). Plus, the D50 kit is as cheap as all the other prices listed here, and you'll have plenty of money left for a very decent telephoto to compliment the kit lens.

Just keep in mind that in the DSLR world, you won't always get better looking pictures just by spending more money.

You make an incredibly good point. It does seem that Nikon's sensors are becoming incredibly good at high ISO, with the D50 being the champ. But you've got to live with the D50's shortcomings relative to other cameras on the market.

From DPReview on the review of the D80: "High sensitivity (ISO) noise levels higher than Canon EOS 400D"

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page29.asp

Even so, from looking at the pictures it's not too far off.

You say that you have to live with the shortcoming of the D50, however I was basing my suggestion on the fact that the OP decided to go with the S3IS for low-light shooting, therefore I'm sure a D50 would be well within his operating range. For 90% of the amateurs out there, the D50's feature set is way more than enough.

Also, I'm not sure why you brought the D80 review into your post, as we know the D80 is like a little brother to the D200, which also isn't known for any glowing high-ISO, low-noise pics. The D50 is a bit different internally.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Had he been shooting with something faster than a Bigma, I would've had a different opinion. But for night event coverage? Come on, he could do better.

From an image quality standpoint, the Bigma is an excellent lens. Yes, it's f/4-6.3, but you find me a faster 500mm lens even at twice the price. Or maybe he should just be using a lens that is $7,000 or more.

If he was using a 1DS or something, then I'll agree that it's a little odd, but with a D20 or D30, I don't see any reason to expect a different lens than the Bigma.

ZV

There really was no need for something as long as the Bigma. We were shooting next to the TV crews. Should've went shorter and faster. And if he couldn't afford it, then rent.

And I'm pretty sure he had a 1D.

Ah, OK. My impression was that he was the "official" photographer in the same way the vintage racing clubs here have "official" photographers. They're hobbiests who are crazy enough to volunteer to take photos all weekend and also sign the waiver saying that they won't sue if a car comes off the track and hits them.

ZV

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Had he been shooting with something faster than a Bigma, I would've had a different opinion. But for night event coverage? Come on, he could do better.

From an image quality standpoint, the Bigma is an excellent lens. Yes, it's f/4-6.3, but you find me a faster 500mm lens even at twice the price. Or maybe he should just be using a lens that is $7,000 or more.

If he was using a 1DS or something, then I'll agree that it's a little odd, but with a D20 or D30, I don't see any reason to expect a different lens than the Bigma.

ZV

I would have used the 70-200IS.

 

[drifter106]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Well, Canon DSLRs will give you the least noise at high ISOs, but none of them have in-camera IS. If you want to go the DSLR route you could pick up a XTi, or a used 20D or XT for cheap. As for lens choice, that's kind of a toughie. The closest lens with the range you're looking for is either the Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro Super, or the Canon 70-300mm, with the Sigma being better. They're both around $200, BUT they are not particularly bright lenses. I think your S3 is even brighter than these two lenses. With this in mind, since these lenses are so dark they'd actually be "making up" for the extra speed that you get from a higher ISO, and you'd probably end up with a wash. At ISO 800 you'd still be getting around 1/20-1/40, and with ISO1600 you'd be getting around 1/40-1/80. Better, but with noise definitely apparent.

Keep in mind that DSLRs like the Rebel, 20D, 30D, D50, D80, Pentax stuff, have a crop factor of either 1.5x or 1.6x. This means a 70-200mm mounted on a 1.6x crop factor Rebel would be equivalent to a 112-320mm lens. A 70-300mm would be equivalent to a 112-480mm lens (The S3 is 36-432mm equivalent). I'm not too sure what to do. I've done a little concert photography before and I've found that a 70-200mm f/4 on a XT is often too slow. The 70-300mm lenses I mentioned above would be worse. The 70-200mm f/2.8 lense from Sigma would be better, but you're sacrificing the reach of a 300mm, and taking a hit of about $500.

What you CAN do with a DSLR though is push your pictures later in RAW software or photoshop. Basically set the camera to the minimum shutter speed you need to take the picture, and take the picture. It'll be underexposed, perhaps severly in some cases, but later you can increase the exposure value in RAW software and bring out a lot of detail in the image. For example, you need 1/30s at ISO1600 and f/4 to get a properly exposed shot. But to get a shot with no motion blur, you need a shutter speed of at least 1/80s. Simply switch the camera to manual or drop your exposure compensation so that your shutter speed is now at 1/80s, and shoot at that. Later on in the computer, you'll see that all the images are dark, but because of the flexibility of RAW and DSLR sensors, you can increase the exposure value to bring out lots of details in the shadows.

There is a limit to how much detail you can bring out though. Push the picture too far and you'll get blotchy details.

Can you post without whoring Canon out to people? It's strange that the professional camera world manages to take perfectly good photos using Nikon and Canon, and plenty of other brands, but to hear a little ATOT kid talk, Canon is the ONLY option :roll:

Take your fanboyism elsewhere.

I believe all my statements are fair... TGG stated that high ISO is a big priority. Nikon and Canon people will both tend to agree that Canon has the best high-ISO performance, therefore my recommendation that he go for Canon. If he'd wanted ergonomics and high-ISO performance weren't paramount, I'd probably suggest a cheaper Pentax or something. It's mostly about the glass anyway.

Not to mention my post IMO was quite informative apart from what you'd call "brand whoring."

well said...

 

[SampSon]

Is being a photog the new geek hype? It's like the whole geek community is frantically running around trying to learn the most about a subject they are just being exposed to.
Then the thread always degrades into a "brand whore" argument amongst people who barely have an amateur understanding of the equipment and environment they are speaking of...

There are so many forums and internet sites devoted to photography and a HUGE supporting community. It seems that just about every photog thread on this forum starts as some geek attention whoring thread (look at my gear and my skills) and ends up in some tangent argument. Case in point: OP's lack of consideration of FOV crop with dslr CCD's.