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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 12, 2005, 12:59 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
u_luv_it's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 13
Default

Thanks for the advice all. I think I need to head down to the local Jessops (UK) and see the cameras first hand, rather than risk getting one blind from the web.

Cheers
u_luv_it is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2005, 1:38 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 935
Default

I reckon I'd use a tripod anyway for zoomed distance shots, even if there is image stabilisation built in.
Kenny_Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2005, 4:05 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Thon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 105
Default

I own a C770UZ (love it and will always recommend it, just be warned, NO IS) and have been very very much the lone ranger here that still thinks that IS is more of a handy tool than a necessity in an ultrazoom. Having IS is nice and one must also remember that IS has its limits and not all shakes can be eliminated. PhilR put a very valid point forward on the IS, it's not crucial and in many cases, having good shooting habits/postures are more important than IS, I mean photography is not only about IS, but it's the fun/creative way to record what we see.

I've also put up a small article in this forum on how to choose a camera based on my own real experiences of advising my own friends on what to get as their 1st camera.
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...83&forum_id=87
It's not about getting the biggest or newest of everything. But rather getting what you actually require and like. Why get a 8MP camera with 10X when you do not actually print bigger than 5X7 and mostly shoot landscapes only. You should be getting a 5MP (or less) wide angle camera.

In your case, if you think that the FZ3 is too plasticky, then go for an all metal camera. Try the Olympus C770UZ or C765UZ (1/2 metal 1/2 plastic). But just remember to get a small lightweight tripod with it. I've got a really cheap one for about US$15, not fancy but good for travelling.
Thon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2005, 9:37 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 162
Default

PhilR. wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't know why you would think that just because I said IS wasn't crucial, that it meant that IS wasn't a big deal. Anyway -- IS does *not* make a difference every time you shoot. If your shutter speed is high enough, then IS won't matter at all. IS only make a difference if the light levels are too low to shoot handheld, and that does not happen every time one shoots. IS will also *not* give you the ability to "always get the shot". In fact, no camera will allow you to always get the shot. It is possible to shoot outside the parameters of any camera, IS or no. IS does help, indeed sometimes a lot, but it does not perform miracles. If you think that your IS camera will allow you to "always get the shot", then you have been greatly misinformed. If so far all your photos have come out just fine, then good for you - you are cruising down the middle lane of photography...
Quote:
IS makes a difference every time you shoot with it engaged. The fact that one can get a shot in 1/4-1/8 the light is very impressive.
Quote:
And your point is? I know what pictures are there - I use an FZ w/IS and I know what it is capable of. Thepictures of which you speakare indeed impressive, but then again I didn't say they were not. In fact, I said thatIS can help, as those pictures you mention prove. Perhaps you should re-read my post.
Quote:
My point is that you couldn't take a 48X zoom shot without IS, unless you're zoomed into the sun of a lightbulb.
Quote:
Certainly you can assume that, even though no one said if he/she would even consider it. I only answered his question, and stated other options if they so desire. If you want to state what you think they desire, that's up to you. As for me, I won't assume anything...
Quote:
I think it is obvious that you believe that I'm trying to say that IS isn't needed or wasn't useful, since you are trying to prove they are. If I thought that IS wasn't useful, I wouldn't have purchased a Panasonic. But despite the fact that it is indeed helpful (a point on which we seem to agree), it *isn't* crucial. If it were crucial, then we wouldn't have all those wonderful photographs from the decades before IS became available. Instead of trying to use your limited photographic knowledge toprove a useless point, I'd like to seeyou try to explain toeveryonehow those Oly and Fuji mega-zoom camera users get such good photos without IS, or how we got along during thedecadesbefore IS was invented.....

PhilR.
Quote:
You don't need to resort to personal attacks there. I think we can all talk about this in a mature manner and I don't believe I said anything to deserve your personal attacks. As far as being a useless point, I thought whether or not IS is useful was the entire point of this thread. Before IS was available I doubt there were as many big zooms out there.There are still cameras today with no zoom and no doubt they were very prolific decades ago. Secondly, the fact that cameras today don't have IS does not mean much to me. I'd like to see them get the same shots as a camera with IS does. On some shots this may be possible but I can guarantee you that there will be some they just can't get. IS enables you to take your camera anywhere and always get the shot, without a tripod and in much less light. There are people who got along without electricity and people who still do it today and enjoy life. We don't consider electricity a "novelty" that isn't "crucial".
Quote:
tacticalnuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2005, 10:13 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 440
Default

tacticalnuke wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You don't need to resort to personal attacks there. I think we can all talk about this in a mature manner and I don't believe I said anything to deserve your personal attacks.
Quote:
You must be fortunate in that you have never seen a "personal attack", since you cannot recognize one when you see it. A personal attack would be to call someone names, say untrue things in order to degrade, etc. None of these things happened in mypost. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean that I "attacked" you. Believe me, if I were to attack you, you will know it. Of course that type of behavior would get me banned, which is one reason why I would not stoop to such behavior in a public forum. To point out that the statements you made were so much misinformation is not an attack - it is merely pointing out the truth, and you are welcome to disagree.
Quote:
As far as being a useless point, I thought whether or not IS is useful was the entire point of this thread.
Quote:
You still don't get it. It's not that IS is or isn't useful - it's that you were trying to prove that it was, even *after* I said as much. The sad partis that in trying to prove your point, you made statements that have no basis in reality, and merely serve to show your level of photographic knowledge.
Quote:
IS enables you to take your camera anywhere and always get the shot, without a tripod and in much less light.
Quote:
If only that were true.....
Quote:
PhilR.
Quote:
PhilR. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2005, 11:09 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 838
Default

hmm... :P

Could we have some peace?
Sivaram Velauthapillai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 13, 2005, 3:06 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 162
Default

PhilR. wrote:
Quote:
[b]You must be fortunate in that you have never seen a "personal attack", since you cannot recognize one when you see it. A personal attack would be to call someone names, say untrue things in order to degrade, etc. None of these things happened in my post. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean that I "attacked" you. Believe me, if I were to attack you, you will know it. Of course that type of behavior would get me banned, which is one reason why I would not stoop to such behavior in a public forum. To point out that the statements you made were so much misinformation is not an attack - it is merely pointing out the truth, and you are welcome to disagree.
Like this?
Quote:
You still don't get it. It's not that IS is or isn't useful - it's that you were trying to prove that it was, even *after* I said as much. The sad part is that in trying to prove your point, you made statements that have no basis in reality, and merely serve to show your level of photographic knowledge.
Rather than actually debating the point you've become extremely flustered that I *gasp* disagree with you. You resort to saying I have no photographic knowledge and that my statements have no basis on reality. So step down off the high horse cowboy and we'll talk about this.

I love the line "believe me, if I were to attack you, you would know it." It's like an online threat. I'm wetting my pants behind my keyboard now. :?
tacticalnuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14, 2005, 3:45 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Thon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 105
Default

Sivaram Velauthapillai wrote:
Quote:
hmm... :P

Could we have some peace?
No worries Siva,

Just let the 2 "kids" fight it out. Funny how this IS thing makes people feel and act.

1 small correction to tacticalnuke.

I've used cameras with IS and without IS. Yes, I'd love to have to have IS on my C770UZ, BUT, yes BUT, I certainly do not feel crippled by the lack of it.

What PhilR said is very very valid. IS only helps to take a photo 2-3 f-stops slower that it possibly would by hand. And by that, if you can take a 1/100th s shot handheld at 300mm zoom, then with IS you can probably go down to 1/50th s, 1/30th s and maybe a bit more. Any slower, you'll most probably need a tripod. And we must not forget, IS only helps reduce, not fix, camera shake, so even with IS, we might still have the possiblity of camera shake.

And if tacticalnuke says that he can get the shots ALWAYS with IS, then I must congratulate him on having very steady hands and not just the IS.

And back to the main topic here: Image Stabiliser & camera choice - is it critical?

Now this question here is actually difficult to answer, because there are 2 ways of looking at it.

For me personally, I put more value nto picture quality, manual controls and compactness (portability) more than the IS itself.

For some, compactness is not a major issue, thus a larger camera such as the FZ20 will be ok and even perfect. I'd get a FZ20 if they can make a similar model with the same features and about 30% smaller.

Getting a camera is about photography, not to show-off how savvy/rich you are. Get to know the strengths and weaknesses of each camera in your list and see if the weaknesses can be overcomed or if you can live with these weaknesses, and enjoy photography.
Thon 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 2:38 AM.