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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 14, 2009, 4:16 PM   #171
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
the built in pop-up-flash is better than most p&s flashes, but of course much worse than a dedicated external flash.
Thank you!!! If this is the case, I can live with the popup flash for now, because I have lived with the P&S so far. If I am also gaining a wider aperture, then there will be even more situations in which I will be happy. Now we're getting somewhere. I am losing the shutter lag, gaining IQ and getting a wider aperture, which should help in some of my low light situations...if the IS is effective, and I am not gaining too much in weight or bulk, then I think I may actually have a workable solution!
javacleve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2009, 4:23 PM   #172
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

to throw in more confusion. i guess you could pop a sigma 18-50 2.8 or a tamron 17-50 2.8 on a Sony A500 with its built in image stab. it wouldn't be long enough for sports but you would have a reasonably fast aperture, image stab, and wide enough for family or whatever shots.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2009, 7:58 PM   #173
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

javacleve-

We all know that among your top priorities is that your DSLR camera be both small and light in weight. Have you considered the brand new Pentax KX model? It is being marketed as a Canon XSi competitor.

It will not arrive until November 2009 in the market place, but just looking at the specifications, it is surely very impressive, at least on paper. I think it might be worth a look.

In the meantime the model that it is replacing, the Pentax K-2000 is being closed out at an amazing price. For example, Amazon has the K-2000 body with BOTH the Pentax DAL 18-55mm lens and the Pentax 50-200mm lens priced at $539.00.

When you consider that the Pentax 50-200mm lens sells for $200.00, that makes the K-2000 body and kit lens priced at $339.00, a rather amazing price. The K-2000 is an equally small and light DSLR camera that might also appeal to you.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2009, 11:52 PM   #174
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 629
Default

I am a 'little' confused..or perhaps a little 'dim' about 'bright lenses.

I know the lower number means wider aperture butb how the numbers translate into brightness is what I am foggy on.

As you know I am trying out the oly 620..the kit lenses 14-42 I believe is 3.5 to 5.6

The 40-150 lenses is 4-5.6.

Some have suggested a 2.8 for indoor family shots. Does that mean the 14-42 at 3.5?? is a little dim???
littlejohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 12:00 AM   #175
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtclimber View Post
javacleve-

We all know that among your top priorities is that your DSLR camera be both small and light in weight. Have you considered the brand new Pentax KX model? It is being marketed as a Canon XSi competitor.

It will not arrive until November 2009 in the market place, but just looking at the specifications, it is surely very impressive, at least on paper. I think it might be worth a look.

In the meantime the model that it is replacing, the Pentax K-2000 is being closed out at an amazing price. For example, Amazon has the K-2000 body with BOTH the Pentax DAL 18-55mm lens and the Pentax 50-200mm lens priced at $539.00.

When you consider that the Pentax 50-200mm lens sells for $200.00, that makes the K-2000 body and kit lens priced at $339.00, a rather amazing price. The K-2000 is an equally small and light DSLR camera that might also appeal to you.

Sarah Joyce
yes, I think if we take the gymnastics out of the equation, there are a lot more options. I think everyone was recommending the Canon T1i because there would be the option in the future of going with a longer lens for the gymnastics? and perhaps, the overall availability of lenses with the major brands (Canon and Nikon, specifically)?
There are just so many different factors I don't know quite what to think any more!
javacleve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 12:05 AM   #176
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlejohn View Post
I am a 'little' confused..or perhaps a little 'dim' about 'bright lenses.

I know the lower number means wider aperture butb how the numbers translate into brightness is what I am foggy on.

As you know I am trying out the oly 620..the kit lenses 14-42 I believe is 3.5 to 5.6

The 40-150 lenses is 4-5.6.

Some have suggested a 2.8 for indoor family shots. Does that mean the 14-42 at 3.5?? is a little dim???
wider aperture = lets in more light (therefore called "bright")
It's all relative, though...I would consider 3.5 a little dim, because I like to use natural light as much as possible. If you are using a flash, though, you don't need the wider aperture.
My film camera (Nikon N80) has a zoom lens that starts at 2.8 and ends up at 4 at the zoom end, and I am not happy with it for low light. Today I tried it again, just for kicks, with 800 speed film. Zoomed out (f4) I was getting a shutter speed at 1/30 in my daughter's ballet studio. Obviously way too slow for a good shot. So I was stuck with either taking a wider shot (and even then, the shutter speed was only 1/125 I believe) or using flash.
Now, a ballet studio may be an extreme condition for some people...but this is what I seem to run into all the time. I did post a P&S shot in that same studio, which was rather noisy and not perfectly sharp--but it wasn't AWFUL, and I did get the shot at least.
javacleve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 12:30 AM   #177
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 629
Default

3.5 seems to be the standard for most kits lenses...btw, did you notice..you are a 'senior member' now.......better get a camera soon..


Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
wider aperture = lets in more light (therefore called "bright")
It's all relative, though...I would consider 3.5 a little dim, because I like to use natural light as much as possible. If you are using a flash, though, you don't need the wider aperture.
My film camera (Nikon N80) has a zoom lens that starts at 2.8 and ends up at 4 at the zoom end, and I am not happy with it for low light. Today I tried it again, just for kicks, with 800 speed film. Zoomed out (f4) I was getting a shutter speed at 1/30 in my daughter's ballet studio. Obviously way too slow for a good shot. So I was stuck with either taking a wider shot (and even then, the shutter speed was only 1/125 I believe) or using flash.
Now, a ballet studio may be an extreme condition for some people...but this is what I seem to run into all the time. I did post a P&S shot in that same studio, which was rather noisy and not perfectly sharp--but it wasn't AWFUL, and I did get the shot at least.
littlejohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 12:37 AM   #178
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlejohn View Post
3.5 seems to be the standard for most kits lenses...btw, did you notice..you are a 'senior member' now.......better get a camera soon..
bwaa haaa haaa guess I'm wordy!
javacleve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 12:43 AM   #179
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
bwaa haaa haaa guess I'm wordy!

16.56 posts per day...???

Nahhh not wordy...just full of questions...like a kid

its all good btw...and it saves ME a lot of typing...LOL
littlejohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2009, 12:49 AM   #180
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 350
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by javacleve View Post
yes, I think if we take the gymnastics out of the equation, there are a lot more options. I think everyone was recommending the Canon T1i because there would be the option in the future of going with a longer lens for the gymnastics? and perhaps, the overall availability of lenses with the major brands (Canon and Nikon, specifically)?
There are just so many different factors I don't know quite what to think any more!
Also, I think it keeps coming back to the ISO (the T1i having the 3200)...I keep confusing myself, and wanting to look at a more entry-level solution (for cost, weight, and because I cannot really do the better models justice unless I'm willing to get extra lenses and a flash), and then I remember the ISO thing. LOL
javacleve 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 4:47 PM.