A&P Decisions and choices

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Wty84, May 2, 2005.

  1. Wty84

    Wty84 Guest

    I will be purchasing a digi cam here in the next couple weeks, but am still unsure. This camera will be primarilly used at racetracks and sporting events. I am assuming with this in mind the optical lens is very important, but at the same time so are megapixels. I have found the Powershot S1 IS has everything I need and want, but only 3.2 megapixels. Since I am a Newbie to all this I dont know if that would be fine. Once again this camera would be used just to take pictures at sporting events, and posted on the internet. I guess is what Im really trying to say is, what is a good baseline for optical lens and megapixels to go with for what I'm doing.
     
  2. dtfromep

    dtfromep New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,674
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Saint Paul, MN
    If you want flexibility and expandability, look into new/used DSLR cameras like the Canon 300D/350D. There are countless lenses you can purchase with monster zooms & IS if you can afford it.

    Otherwise, just read some reviews and pick the one at the feature/price point you are looking for. Are you planning on making large prints? If not, the S1 IS is probably a good camera if it fits the bill.
     
  3. Wty84

    Wty84 Guest

    Yes the IS fits the bill. I will check out the Cannon 300D and 350D as well. Anyone else Im open to suggestions.
     
  4. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Don't get caught up into megapixels so much. 3 megapixels is good enough to get prints done (4x5-ish) maybe even a 8x10 at decent quality. You don't need anything more than 2 megapixels if your'e just going to do :riaa: online galleries either. It's just a marketing gimmick. :riaa:
     
  5. Wty84

    Wty84 Guest

    Btt
     
  6. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    My answer not good enough? :wtc:
     
  7. Wty84

    Wty84 Guest

    No I definately appreciate everyones input. I think I am gonna go with the S1 IS. However, if I get into the photography and have funds I might look at a DSLR.
     
  8. mucky

    mucky .

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2001
    Messages:
    44,972
    Likes Received:
    0
    One thing I hate about the S1 IS is the lack of an AF assist lamp. If you ever used a camera that doesn't have this, you'll hate using it in low light because the autofocus will be very slow or won't work correctly at all. The S2 IS fixes this and adds this feature. Another thing I hate about the S1 is high amount of purple fringing. Not sure if the S2 fixes this, but the amount if higher than normal.

    I would suggest taking a look at the Panasonic DMC-FZ5. Nearly same features, but better lens, larger CCD sensor, higher MP count, and about the same price.

    Here's a review on it:
    http://www.megapixel.net/reviews/panasonic-fz5/fz5-gen.php
     
  9. insomnia

    insomnia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    46,883
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Korea
    I had a 2 megapixel for about a week and took it back, it was terrible resolution :eek3:
     
  10. Wty84

    Wty84 Guest

    Mucky- I greatly appreciate your recommendation.



    After looking at the DmC fz5 I am leaning more towards that. Yes it might be a little more expensive, but it has more megapixels. I for some reason dont really feel comfortable with a camera that has only 3.2 megapixels. The FZ5 also exceeds my criteria of trying to find something with atleast 4 megapixels and 12xzoom. Once again I dont know much about this stuff yet, so if anyone has any input on the DMC Fz5 I would appreciate it.
     
  11. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    300d is at good prices right now and its still a good camera
     
  12. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    You're right, the 300D is at an awesome price point for people who are purchasing digital cameras right now. The problem is, you don't buy just a dSLR. The majority of people don't stop there. Compare the 300D to the Canon S2 IS for example. The S2 IS is a smaller point and shoot camera with an effective focal range of something like 36-400mm. the 300D kit comes with a 18-55mm lens. Yeah, just to 55mm... Let's just make the comparison real quick.. 55? vs.. 400? Let's see how many "cheap" lenses it would take to cover that range...

    hmm..

    hm....

    Theres the Sigma 50-500mm, not nearly as fast as the S2 lens and it weighs like 4lbs. It costs a whopping 800 dollars, nearly twice the price the S2 will go for. That's for the LENS ALONE. Wait, 2x the price for just the lens? :hsugh: Then you're lugging around a lens they call the BIGma. It doesn't get it's name from an oxymoron.... It's huge.

    So maybe we'll break it down and do some other lenses. The 75-300 maybe and something that goes to 400.. hmm.. :dunno: A 400mm prime? $$$, a zoom that hits 400? $$$ Ok, let's forget about a 400mm lens and just focus on making the 300D a good walk around camera.

    Let's dump the kit lens and save 80-100 and grab the 18-200mm focal length lens from Sigma or Tamron. 300-400 dollars. Add that to the 500 the 300D costs and you're hovering at about a grand. That's for a barebones kit. 300D, consumer lens. The quality? Not too much better than the S2.

    And .. wait, what's this? The S2 IS takes video? :eek4: I don't think the 300D does that, hell the S2 IIRC takes continuous pictuers at 2.5fps until the card is full. Those are 300D crusing numbers. Is the S2 better than a dSLR? In some regards, yes. It's more compact, better for point and shoot action, and a better camera to lug around.

    It's funny you call my a resident asshole. :hsugh: Why? Because I recommend people buy the best lenses they can afford for their dSLRS? Look at you, someones asking about a point and shoot and you recommend them a dSLR. That makes you better, how?

    Honestly Wty84, if you can wait, I'd wait for the S2 to come out. It has a better lens, better features ( like stereo sound for 60 min during recording etc ) and it should be a great carry around camera. If you can't wait though, 3.2 megapixels isn't going to exactly hold you back, especially if the shots you're going to primarily take are for the web to share with friends, post on galleries, etc.
     
  13. CRC

    CRC New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    14,893
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    PDX
    If you are just doing internet pics, 3.2mp is more than enough. I have a 4MP camera and I shoot at 1024x768 and they come out fine.

    OMG MEGAPIXELS EQUAL PICS THAT ARE SUPER!!J:JFLjs;f
     
  14. sony

    sony Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    112,721
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I have a 8MP camera and I take all my shots at 1728 x 1152.. :rofl:
     

Share This Page