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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 5, 2008, 6:47 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

TCav - you left out the Pentax K2000, which is smaller and lighter than the Pentax K200 andthe Sony A200:

K2000 - 18.5 oz (525g) body only
3.6 x 4.8 x 2.7"

A200 - 18.8 oz (532g) body only
3.9 x 5.2 x 2.8"

Not a lot of difference, but enough that it might make a difference to some.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2008, 6:55 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Extending the small and light conversation a bit, perhaps we ought to try some thinking outside of the box.

Consider this digicam combo that meets the requirements of small and light, the full IS requirements, IQ/photo quality with ease. Maybe the OP should consider carry two small, light , high quality cameras such as the Panasonic FZ-28 (for long zoom, it can go up to 500mm - in 35mm terms) and a Panasonic LX-3 with it varey fast F2.0 lens to handle to close range and macro work, all with a highly proven OIS system.

Thattwo camera system would handle all of the OP's requirements with absolute ease at about $(US) 640.00. Take a look at the attached photo sample from the Panasonic FZ-28 for starters. It could be a very REAL solution for Finny's needs.

I am beginning to believe that you do not always need a DSLR camera to get the result (read IQ/photo quality)that you desire. Just look at the photo sample and if you desire, I will be happy to provide more samples.

Sarah Joyce
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2008, 7:10 PM   #33
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10
Default

You guys are great! Thanks for all the replies. I went back to the shop to try Pentax, but they don't carry the KM (2000). Nor do they carry Olympus or Panasonic at all. While there I made the mistake of playing with a Nikon D90 for the heck of it. Nice camera. Bigger and heavier and more expensive than what I was looking for, but boy did it take a bunch of good photos while I roamed around the shop, and it sure felt good in the hand despite the added weight. It would be an excellent rig for the food photography and family shots, if a bit heavy for trekking into the wilderness. Oy. This is harder than buying a car!
Finspot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2008, 8:11 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Finny-

I happen to disagree, this is much LESS difficult that buying an automobile. The Nikon D-90 is a great camera, but it is a heavy brick of a camera that you may really want to pack along on yor treks! And it requires multiple lenses, that also adds to the heavy pack.

Did you seriously consider my suggestion of combining the Panasonic LX-3 and the FZ-28 to provide a really comprehensive answer to your original requirements. At, I must add, a price substantially lower than the cost of a single Nikon D-90.

If we keep fliting off of the original topic without any real strategy or particular design or flow, I sincerely believe that we are not offering you the help that you originally asked for, and expected,when you madeyour original post. If things have now changed, Finny, please let me know, and we (the posters to this thread) will be out of here and we will move on to the new postings.

Have a great weekend!

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2008, 8:17 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

mtngal wrote:
Quote:
TCav - you left out the Pentax K2000, which is smaller and lighter than the Pentax K200 andthe Sony A200 ...
Yes. Thanks for catching that. I've editted my original post to include the Pentax K2000, and corrected my arithmetic.

K2000: 20.8 oz. incl. battery. Kit lens: 7.8 oz. Total: 28.6 oz.

A200: 18.8 oz. Battery: 2.8 oz. Kit lens: 8 oz. Total: 29.6 oz.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2008, 9:03 PM   #36
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10
Default

Sarah, my apologies for flitting off topic. I'll look into your suggestions re: Panasonic as soon as I find a place where I can check 'em out. As T-Cav mentioned in an earlier post, my desires are somewhat contradictory, and now I'm trying to figure out if I want to throw one of my original requirements to the wolves, specifically size/weight.

You've all been extremely helpful and I don't expect you to keep batting this ball around as I try to come to a decision. Thanks all!!

Finny
Finspot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2008, 9:40 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Finspot wrote:
Quote:
... and now I'm trying to figure out if I want to throw one of my original requirements to the wolves, specifically size/weight.
Is your hiking on relatively flat terrain? Where I've done most of my hiking is in Shenandoah National Park. The main road ('Skyline Drive') runs across the tops of the mountains, and most of the trails are downhill, except for the return trip. Carrying superfluous gear always feels all the more unnecessary when hiking back to the car, when you're tired and its getting dark. But the fine for littering is stiff.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2008, 10:31 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

TCav and Finny-

Please analyze TCav's email. We are once again back on the pivotal topic: getting high quality photos when on a trek across any terrain, with the least size and weight of the camera gear! That is it, in one single nutshell!

We keep arriving back at the very same point every time, folks! It is all about the size and the weight of the camera gear that you have to carry to record the data that you treasure and desire to record..

So, using that parameter, let's return to the REAL discussion. I will once again challenge you to be bold enough to think outside of the traditional solutions box. What Finny really needs, is not really a camera with the bulk and the weight of the Nikon D-90 that he handled today (12/05). It is way too heavy! He really needs something a good bit lighter and less bulky.

If that is correct, Finny, please chime in with your affirmative answer. Otherwise, please, Finny,share your thoughts and we will proceed from there with a newly caftedsolution.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2008, 4:09 AM   #39
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Well let's keep it in perspective. The K20D or D90 are not HEAVY cameras.

Really heavy are the big view cameras, where your whole camera bag can weigh 30-40lbs.

The difference between a K200D (650g)and a K20D (800g) is only 150g, a 1L bottle of water weighs 1kg!! The difference is not that serious unless you are VERY sensitive to weight.

Of course everyone has a cut-off point somewhere, but also don't forget you can potentially save weight on lenses by using primes instead of zooms when hiking.

However I still am not convinced that the G1 is the wrong solution. It doesn't have a dedicated Macro lens yet, but the Olympus/Sigma/Tamron Macro 4/3 lenses will soon be available with adapters if they are not already. And as I said before, the OP might not need 1-1 Macro. For food photography the standard zoom lens will probably be just fine.
peripatetic 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 9:47 PM.