Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 3, 2007, 10:39 PM   #61
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
Interesting subject, but I think a better question is how many of the photos would have been WORSE with IS. I'd guess there would be no disadvantage if you used the feature if you had the option. If you felt as if you needed to demonstrate your abilities without stabilization, you could switch it off, but if you desired the benefit when it wasn't available, your out of luck.
Please re-read the posts. IS comes with a cost. Just like any other feature. Right now IS is not available on every camera/lens combination. So, when you choose IS you pay a price. If you are willing to pay that price, then as I have said continuously go ahead and pay it. But, whether you like it or not by choosing a system with in-body IS you have paid a price. EVERY SYSTEM HAS BENEFITS so by choosing any system you lose out on the features offered by the other systems you didn't choose. If you choose a Canon camera you've given up in-body IS. If you choose an Oly, you give up on high iso performance, wide angle (how much is a 17mm equiv. in the Oly system again?) and the choice of many third party lenses.

So, the question still comes down to (and, read carefully: the answer will vary by person): is the benefit IS provides worth the price you paid to get it. As simple as that. Just like every other feature offered. My whole point is that, in my opinion if I were to rank the top 10 features - IS wouldn't be in that top 10. For you or anyone else it might be. But it is NOT a given that any new DSLR buyer should just buy a camera with in-body IS because it's absolutely essential. It's no more globaly essential than good ISO 3200 performance.

So again, it's not just a matter of turning it off. It's a matter of: is it worth paying for in the first place. There is no single answer. I just refute the notion that it is alway essential and thus always worth the price to buy it.






JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2007, 10:59 PM   #62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Sorry. but I think we are saying the same thing. It comes down to a decision. I agree with everything you said.

The "cost" of in body stabilization is currently choosing a Pentax with that feature, or the Sony. Both are entry level choices that are priced on a par with the non-stabilized competitors. You do have to weigh the performance of those systems as a whole.

Olympus hasn't released in body stabilization yet, but has released pricing. Its a $100 difference, which I consider quite minor in the scope of things. Cost, yes, but such is a minor factor at these prices.

Nikon/Canon use lens based stabilization. Certainly more expensive to fill a line of lenses, but also more effective all in all.
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2007, 11:43 PM   #63
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
You do have to weigh the performance of those systems as a whole.
Yep that's my point. If the pentax system offered every lens and every feature that Nikon did there would be no additional cost to choosing Pentax over Nikon. Right now it doesn't. So the cost is those lost features/lenses/upgrade pathswhatever.

It is absolutely valid to say for a given person the gain of in-body IS is worth the features/accessories/camera bodies you give up by entering the Pentax system.

It is also equally valid to say the things that say Nikon offers (or Canon or whoever) that Pentax does not are not needed.

But it's also equally valid to say: you know what, for a given individual - "I don't really see myself taking a lot of low light, slow shutter speed hand held shots. I think lens choice and availability is important or an upgrade to a full-frame camera or the ergonomics of the Nikon" or whatever.

So yes, it does sound like we're on the same page.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2007, 2:05 AM   #64
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
The "cost" of in body stabilization is currently choosing a Pentax with that feature, or the Sony. Both are entry level choices that are priced on a par with the non-stabilized competitors.
The Pentax K10D is hardly "entry level" and very much on par with The Canon 30D and Nikon D200.

Other than the very minor JPEG issue some see.... I'm still trying to find the trade off points for the Pentax in cam IS.

1. Many functions and features neither of the competitors have.
2. Can use any lens ever made for Pentax, and give them IS (Again can't be said of C or N, even not counting the IS factor) There is lot of great old Pentax glass out there.
And as far as I am concerned that far out weighs the sligt less choice of current 3rd party lenses... and that is changing as Pentax regains its major player status.

So far no regrets in ditching Canon for Pentax. In lens IS maybe slightly better, but given the cost differential, no where near that much better. And is only available on new higher end lenses.

But yes it is ALL individual choices.... but given no great loss of other features (And I have found none with the P K10D, and several that C & N don't have) I can't see why not the SR... that is easily disableable when desired.

And I consider both SR and Dust Removal far from just needless/useless sales gimmicks.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2007, 8:25 AM   #65
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

We keep seeing many different points of view on thepros and cons of IS, but the original post is based on someone looking at the entry level market.There are obviously different levelsof photographers in that arena. With that knowledge in handit seems to me thatthat most "beginning photographers" looking at entry level DSLRs would benefit the most from IS, especially those that have trouble with the basics like holding a camera steady. Yes there is a price to pay if the choice they made meanschangingout systems later, but that doesn't always happen.


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2007, 10:21 AM   #66
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 22
Default

Hi! I am the original poster of this now lengthy thread. My confusion was about which variables to weigh most heavily in my move up from point and shoot to Dslr.I know the industry wants to keep them coming to keep people upgrading, but I gotta figure some aremore important than others. In many of the discussion on this and other forums, the folks with experience often ask "what do you want your camera to do" or "what is your purpose [or goal}". That is hard to say for someone who has no experience with one of these machines! But I must say that reading this thread, other threads in this forum, and other forums has helped a great deal. Ive learned that the advertised features are not necessarily the most important ones. I've learned what features some consider important and why. From this, I think I've refined my feature list enough to actually make a more informed decision. Essentially, dust reduction is no longer in my topeight varialbes, and IS, while still on my list, comes in number 5 or 6 now........It seems IS should in most cases, be turned off when using a tripod (which I will do about half the time), and also turned off when panning. While I still thing the feature is useful for my birding purposes (telephoto) or low light indoor purposes, it is no longer top three or four for me. So, thanks to the many contributors, the my new list is thus:

1. Price (big surprise) . 2. Ergonomics (feel in the hand) 3. Quality of kit lens (because it will be two years till I can afford to upgrade.) 4. Exterior or easily accessible manual control. (especially ISO, WB, exposure compensation, and perhaps bracketing. 5. viewfinder 6. IS, VR or AS. 7. Lens catalogue (this fell to here because of all the third party lenses available). 8. Recording media.


Handling the cameras is diffucult with the security devises attached! I was to the store and would buy the D-80 if I had the money, but I don't......I like the E500, D40. They did not have a K100. (Reading a lot about white balance issues with this anyhow) . The rebel XT felt awkward, bit me a little.....I must say the Alpha felt great, but so many people have so many questions, I am not confident enought to buy it. I was just wondering, Sarah seems to have almost every camera......Could she possibly spare one? I would not be so fussy about which.

In any event, thanks everyone, for all of your insight. I understand many will disagree with my list......keep talking and I will keep learning.

John (jpmann66)



jpmann66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2007, 10:33 AM   #67
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

John-

I tip my hat to you for staying with this thread all the way until the finish, or near finish. It sounds like it has been helpful to you.

MT/Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2007, 10:58 AM   #68
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

jpmann66 wrote:
Quote:
Handling the cameras is diffucult with the security devises attached! I was to the store and would buy the D-80 if I had the money, but I don't......I like the E500, D40. They did not have a K100. (Reading a lot about white balance issues with this anyhow) . The rebel XT felt awkward, bit me a little.....I must say the Alpha felt great, but so many people have so many questions, I am not confident enought to buy it. I was just wondering, Sarah seems to have almost every camera......Could she possibly spare one? I would not be so fussy about which.

Actually, you bring up a good point about handling cameras. While it is difficult with the wires attached at least you should be able to get a good feel for the ergonomics of the camera. In my opinion eronomics are one of the most important features to a camera. I don't suggest that you simply choose one with the best ergos as your first choice, but once you narrow down the field, it could make quite a difference in how you feel about using the camera. There is nothing worse than a camera you hate to use use becuase it feels too heavy, too light or just not right. Of course, it should meet your basic photographic needs first. If you are not happy with trying out cameras that are tied down, I reccomend trying a local camera store as opposed to the "Box" stores.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2007, 12:48 PM   #69
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

jpmann66 wrote:
Quote:
3. Quality of kit lens (because it will be two years till I can afford to upgrade.)
The kit lens isn't important. You can always buy just the body and whatever lens you want. Since you say that a primary use of the camera is Birding, you might get a body and a medium telephoto zoom instead. That would be good for Birding and still useful for general purpose photography. Maybe something like a 50-150mm (depending on the crop factor of the camera you choose.)

jpmann66 wrote:
Quote:
7. Lens catalogue (this fell to here because of all the third party lenses available).
Since you needn't get the kit lens, this should be a bigger part of your purchasing decision.

jpmann66 wrote:
Quote:
9. Software included.
Time for a poll.

How manypeople here have even installed the software that came with theirdigicam?

Not me.

TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 4, 2007, 1:02 PM   #70
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
jpmann66 wrote:
Quote:
3. Quality of kit lens (because it will be two years till I can afford to upgrade.)
The kit lens isn't important. You can always by just the body and whatever lens you want. Since you say that a primary use of the camera is Birding, you might get a body and a medium telephoto zoom instead.

It depends onthe kit. The standard lensthat was packaged with my KM 7D was mediocre but I got mine with a 28-75mm 2.8 D lens that retailed for 300 dollars by itself and for 50 dollars more than the body only price. So in that case it was a no brainer. I do agree that most kit lenses are below par, but there are those that have taken good pictures with some of the basic lenses I would never use.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:14 AM.