Steve'sDigicams

Mark S. · Jan 31, 2006, 11:47 PM

Thanks again everyone.

I have a Canon S2 IS now. I take alot of super macro shots, shots of boating/water sports and then general tourist shots on vacations or at the zoo or whatever. I just want to get away with not hauling around alot of lenses. I realize I will need a seperate macro lens for super closeups, but it would be nice to have just one other lens for everything else but perhaps I'd be defeating the purpose of a DSLR. On the other hand, regardless of what I plan to do with it, I will have clearer blown up shots and nice clear pics at high ISO.

By the way, why are DSLR cameras still crystal clear at 800 + ISO when my camera is extremely grainy at even 400 ISO? Does it have to do with the size or quality of the sensor? or both maybe?

Thanks again,

Mark

Nagasaki · Feb 1, 2006, 4:42 AM

Mark S. wrote:

Quote:

By the way, why are DSLR cameras still crystal clear at 800 + ISO when my camera is extremely grainy at even 400 ISO? Does it have to do with the size or quality of the sensor? or both maybe?

This is mainly due to the sensor size. Each pixel covers a larger area so is able to gather more light.

peripatetic · Feb 2, 2006, 3:24 AM

You don't say what your budget is, but if I were in your shoes and I could afford it I would consider the new Nikon 18-200 VR lens, and get an appropriate body to go with it. D50/D70/D200 depending on how much you want to spend.

Unless Canon come out with a new equivalent lens at the end of the month, it would seem to be the best quality superzoom available by some considerable margin, and has an excellent image stabiliser.

If that's too expensive then consider the KM5D + 18-200.

Kanon · Feb 4, 2006, 7:15 PM

I have a Rebel 300D [previous model to the XT]. I bought it so that I could interchange lenses. I didn't purchase it with the 18-55mm lens. Instead I bought a 28-85mm then the 135mm F2.8 which are fine for my needs. Just recently I bought a EF300mm F/4.0L IS USM lens. Not cheap but wow does it take nice pictures. Never had an L lens before. Buying an expensive camera and a cheap lens gives you cheap pictures so to speak. Like I also do some fly-fishing. Wouldn't think of loading my reel with an inexpensive fly line thinking that my expensive rod and reel will cast that line like a pro.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Jan 31, 2006, 11:47 PM	#11
Mark S. Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4	Thanks again everyone. I have a Canon S2 IS now. I take alot of super macro shots, shots of boating/water sports and then general tourist shots on vacations or at the zoo or whatever. I just want to get away with not hauling around alot of lenses. I realize I will need a seperate macro lens for super closeups, but it would be nice to have just one other lens for everything else but perhaps I'd be defeating the purpose of a DSLR. On the other hand, regardless of what I plan to do with it, I will have clearer blown up shots and nice clear pics at high ISO. By the way, why are DSLR cameras still crystal clear at 800 + ISO when my camera is extremely grainy at even 400 ISO? Does it have to do with the size or quality of the sensor? or both maybe? Thanks again, Mark

Feb 2, 2006, 3:24 AM	#13
peripatetic Super Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,599	You don't say what your budget is, but if I were in your shoes and I could afford it I would consider the new Nikon 18-200 VR lens, and get an appropriate body to go with it. D50/D70/D200 depending on how much you want to spend. Unless Canon come out with a new equivalent lens at the end of the month, it would seem to be the best quality superzoom available by some considerable margin, and has an excellent image stabiliser. If that's too expensive then consider the KM5D + 18-200.

Feb 4, 2006, 7:15 PM	#14
Kanon Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 115	I have a Rebel 300D [previous model to the XT]. I bought it so that I could interchange lenses. I didn't purchase it with the 18-55mm lens. Instead I bought a 28-85mm then the 135mm F2.8 which are fine for my needs. Just recently I bought a EF300mm F/4.0L IS USM lens. Not cheap but wow does it take nice pictures. Never had an L lens before. Buying an expensive camera and a cheap lens gives you cheap pictures so to speak. Like I also do some fly-fishing. Wouldn't think of loading my reel with an inexpensive fly line thinking that my expensive rod and reel will cast that line like a pro.