Upgrading from a Canon G2....?

[dragonluvr]

Ok, I guess I wasn't clear in my earlier post so I am rewriting it. After reading through the reviews and checking camera's out in the store, I am leaning toward either the Canon A620 or the Sony DSC - W7.....Which should be a step up from my G2 @ 4mp, correct?

What I am also thinking is I don't use my 35 mm much anymore--but I just love it.... I don't really want to get rid of it;but would it be easier and/orbetter get the Canon Digital Rebel XT @ 8mp vs.using my35mm? right now, I would be hard press to tell the difference in the photos of which was shot with my digital or 35mm (they are only at 4x6 size--and I don't tend to enlarge) or would getting the smaller compact camera be a better wiser choice?

I just tend to take the digital with me more, as it is more practical.....does anyone feel the Rebel is 'too much' to take a long?

[JimC]

dragonluvr wrote:

Ok, I guess I wasn't clear in my earlier post so I am rewriting it. After reading through the reviews and checking camera's out in the store, I am leaning toward either the Canon A620 or the Sony DSC - W7.....Which should be a step up from my G2 @ 4mp, correct?

Notnecessarily. I personally think the sensor in the older G2 is a better one based on images I've looked at (although I'm sure many would differ with me there).

The lens on your G2 is also much brighter (starts out at f/2.0, which is twice as bright as f/2.8 where most other models start out). So, for lower light use, your G2 would be hard to beat without going to a DSLR. You'd probably get better peformance from a newer model (AF speed, etc.). But, not necessarily better photos (especially if you shoot much in less than optimum lighting).

Newer models probably have more sophisticated image processing (and the lens on the G2 did cause a bit of CA/Purple Fringing in some conditions). But, a lot of users really liked this camera.

What I am also thinking is I don't use my 35 mm much anymore--but I just love it.... I don't really want to get rid of it;but would it be easier and/orbetter get the Canon Digital Rebel XT @ 8mp vs.using my35mm? right now, I would be hard press to tell the difference in the photos of which was shot with my digital or 35mm (they are only at 4x6 size--and I don't tend to enlarge) or would getting the smaller compact camera be a better wiser choice?

You don't need more megapixels for prints this small. Even 2 Megapixels is plenty for 4x6" prints (if the other image quality characteristics are good). Megapixels is only a small part of what makes good images.

A DSLR does have some other benefits (for example: more control over Depth of Field if you need a shallower depth of field to help subjects stand out from distracting backgrounds by using larger apertures, higher ISO speeds with lower noise compared tonon-DSLR models). But, yes, as a general rule, I've found that the larger and heavier the camera, the more likely you'll leave it at home.

Try one out in a store and see how it feels. Or, just bring your old 35mm along with you for a while, and see how it compares to bringing your G2 along.

[dragonluvr]

Thank you JimC for your reply.

I love shooting with my 35mm camera but have enjoyed the part of digital where I get 'instant' results and can see if what I was hoping for in my shot came out.

Example: did an awful job of shooting my two boys while playing basketball....the shots were just awful.....BUT I didn't know that till I the film was processed.

I am thinking the DSLR will be best and keep my G2...I have been please with my results with it, but like the flexibility of being able to change lenses with the DSLR (one of which I feel limited with on the G2).......so, guess the decision is made :-)

Rebel XT, keep the G2.....

[JimC]

dragonluvr wrote:

I love shooting with my 35mm camera but have enjoyed the part of digital where I get 'instant' results and can see if what I was hoping for in my shot came out.

Example: did an awful job of shooting my two boys while playing basketball....the shots were just awful.....BUT I didn't know that till I the film was processed.

Basketball is going to be very tough on any camera. I'd make sure to consider using a bright prime for this purpose (most zoom lenses are not going to "cut it" if unless you can stand a certain amount ofmotion blur).

With film, try Fuji Super X-TRA (they make some ISO 800 and 1600 stuff that's not too bad). But, again, you'll need a bright lens.

With Digital, the Canon DSLR modelsare pretty good in the noise department at higher ISO speeds.

I am thinking the DSLR will be best and keep my G2...I have been please with my results with it, but like the flexibility of being able to change lenses with the DSLR (one of which I feel limited with on the G2).......so, guess the decision is made :-)

There is no "perfect solution". Make sure to visit the Canon Lenses Forum where you'll get some tips on lenses for use in low lit venues like gyms.

[dragonluvr]

Thank you again Jim.....

Glad to know that it's just not me, as the photographer, with the awful shots and that it is hard shooting that type of sport inside (first time for me). Most of the time, my lens does a pretty good job on most things, but I guess the lighting is just 'not enough'.....

oh I don't think ANYTHING is perfect, just think/like the more instant results with digital. At least I could have SEEN that the pictures were not that great and played with the shots more, tried different settings, etc., vs. I thought they were ok on my 35mm! what a shock when I got them back :? oh well, first time doing basketball, so live and learn :-)

Still am thinking this is the way to go, instead of buying the smaller compact more megapixel one....I can keep my old digital till it dies, then move up to another compact or maybe won't even want to buy that time?! :-)

[JimC]

dragonluvr wrote:

Thank you again Jim.....

Glad to know that it's just not me, as the photographer, with the awful shots and that it is hard shooting that type of sport inside (first time for me). Most of the time, my lens does a pretty good job on most things, but I guess the lighting is just 'not enough'.....

If you've got any brighter primes (50mm f/1.4, 50mmf/1.8; 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2, etc.), give them a try using some higher ISO speed film. Of course, one downside to shooting at larger apertures is a shallow depth of field, too (making your focus more critical). You can pick up a Canon 50mm f/1.8 for under $100 most places now if you you can get close enough to use it.

Most DSLR models can shoot at ISO 1600 (or even 3200 with some). So, that helps a lot (each time you double the ISO speed, a camera can use shutter speeds twice as fast for the same aperture setting and lighting conditions). Also, you can take a lot of photos quickly with a DSLR (increasing your percentage of keepers without too much motion blur).

Not having any film to develop is a big plus, too (not to mention that most high speed color negative film is pretty grainy). With a DSLR, you'll have a similar issue (noise) to deal with at higher ISO speeds. But, most of the modern DSLR models are pretty good in this area (especially if you won't need larger prints).