Need help deciding between the G9 or the S5. Will be taking pictures both indoor and outdoor, and I have a tripod so long shutter speeds are not a problem.
Let me hear your recommendations! Thanks.
Printable View
Need help deciding between the G9 or the S5. Will be taking pictures both indoor and outdoor, and I have a tripod so long shutter speeds are not a problem.
Let me hear your recommendations! Thanks.
Go with the PowerShot G9.
Any particular reason?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashraful
Or what about THIS camera? The Fujifilm Finepix S9100?
Canon PowerShot G9 has some good features, which the S5-IS doesn't have - 3 inches LCD, up to 1024 x 768 AVI, RAW support.
The S5-IS uses 4 x AA Alkaline battery, and doesn't come with a charger. :( You will need to buy a charger.
I owned the Canon Powershot G4 before it broke (R.I.P.) and I have to tell you the PowerShot Gx series are some of the best cameras for their price range Canon makes! Remember the G4 is a 4mp camera :)
They take absolutely amazing photos and have enough features to make it feel like a semi-pro camera before diving right into SLR.
Sorry for the tad bit big images...
http://users.tmok.com/~firebane/trip/Image_101.jpg
http://users.tmok.com/~firebane/trip/Image_131.jpg
i've got oneQuote:
Originally Posted by Ashraful
awesome awesome camera :up:
Alright, S5 is out. So it's between the G9 and the Fujifilm Finepix S9100. Thanks for all the help so far guys!
i've gone through the headache of research you are doing now
and after looking at 100s of cameras i norrowed it down to a few including that Fuji one
but i think size, features and just awesome awesome reviews about Canon won me over
i am very impressed and happy with the decision
i'm no pro as you can see from some of my shots LOL but some of these shots i take do turn out bloody nice i tell ya
macro is excellent on the camera and there are some nifty manual controls which used to be a bit of a put off but now i can't see myself usin simpler cameras
one thing that did sort of worry be was 6xoptical zoom but i tell ya what >> i was shocked to see how food the 24x zoom was turning out with extra digital zoom (i used to frown upon it too lol)
how serious are you about this..............?
maybe look at something more advanced with pro lens if so
I'd like to keep it under $500, $450 if possible. I think I'll go with the G9, as I've been reading some reviews and it does sound really nice.
Theres only two brands of cameras I'd even think about buying.
Nikon and Canon.
Comes down to which feels best and give you what you want.
What are you opinions on the G9 vs. the EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT)? Is it better than an entry level DSLR? Is it worth getting the DSLR over the G9?
Nikon make great cameras
i didn't consider them seriously because of the size requirements....i didn't want to have a bulky camera as i would be lazy and not take it with me much
Sorry, the EOS 350D is a Canon. I have a look at some Nikon's a well.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
yeah i know i was generally talking about brands
hey listen if you want some proper advice on photography you should jump to Overclockers Australia and visit the photography section
those guys are REALLY good and lots and lots of helpful pros there dude
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/forumdisplay.php?f=48
thanks, I'll check OC Australia out.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Well, you can't view the forums if you are not a member, and apparently they don't like my email address.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
The real difference is going to be weight (G9 is going to be a lighter package and like many things you don't realize the weight advantage till you've carried one around all day) and focus speed (350 is going to lock on focus faster, especially on moving targets).
Now mind you, if you take the speed of the 350, lenses get expensive and you have to be at least semi serious about your photos for it to make sense. A decent zoom lens is going to run you 300-500 on top of the camera. Good lenses get a lot more expensive than that. And every 2 years or so, there is a fairly better camera out that may have you wanting it, over your old one.
I have a 40D myself and had the 350 before that. Yet for snap around shots in the house, we keep a small Canon digital around, so I know personally, that it's handy to have the small camera.
If you don't take photos all the time of moving topics (i.e. kids sports) then I'd go for the G9. You save money (which then buys you the NEXT camera in a few years) and you gain portability and great pics without going overboard. I think, on a guess, that by simply asking the question, you are probably going to find the G9 a nice camera to use, to get familiar with the things you use and don't use and if "someday" you want to move up, then you can. My bet is that you'll happily use that until there is a G10 or G11 and you'd be happier upgrading every couple of years rather than investing in much heavier DSLR equipment that won't give you a ton of things you actually use.
So I'd say G9, but hopefully I've given you enough to think about in this that you can override that vote if you feel somehow there are things you prefer in the 350.
One thing I forgot to mention is that I am going to be taking action shots quite frequently. A good friend of mine mountain bikes, and I am going to be taking pictures of him (for sponsors and whatnot). I am fairly serious about photography, and I wouldn't mind taking the time to learn how to use a DSLR to it's full potential.
From what I understand, the body of the camera (for DSLR's) is not nearly as important as the lens. So you will be keeping the lens for longer and investing more in them. Correct?
True. But a lens hobby will make your pc extreme hobby look cheap by comparison...
DSL is VERY easy to learn if you want to learn. when I got my D40x I was taking good shots within a day or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
As you mentioned, if you are doing action shots, the only thing that can keep up is an SLR.
The body does not have such a dramatic effect on the image quality so long as you know how to use the specific camera, BUT some SLR's are hard to use and are uncomfortable, whereas others simply become an extension of your hand.
As you can imagine the glass is what will cost you the big bucks. The flip side is that any lens you get for a Nikon SLR will be forward compatible with all of their new bodies for quite some time to come. A testament to this is that nearly ever lens (baring a few special lenses) Nikon has ever made in the past 50 years is compatible with their current bodies to some extent. The other manufactures are not so kind though. I believe it was in the late 80's or early 90's that Canon changed body styles and made everyone buy new glass. I doubt they will do that again for a great while, but its something to consider. I am not sure about Sony or Pentax.
How about the Nikon D40 vs. the Canon EOS 350D?
That is a hard one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
Personally I would choose the D40 because I cant stand the feel of the 350D in my hand. But that is entirely subjective.
As far as other options go..
Autofocus - 350 D wins with 7 point vs D40 3 point.
LCD - Nikon wins with 2.5inch vs Canon 1.8 inch (a biggy for me)
FPS - Canon wins with 1.8 vs Nikon 1.5
Resolution - Canon wins with 8mp vs Nikons 6mp
Storage Format - CF with Canon and SD with Nikon. Personally I love CF so that is a boon for the Canon in my book (laments over his D40x only having SD)
Metering - supposedly the Nikon has better meetering.
Those are the only spec differences I can see. As to image quality read HERE to see comparison shots. Feel of the camera. You need to go to a store. Good ole Target' has both of them on display. Just dont bother asking the people who work there anything about them.
sheesh.. I was typing you impatient wench!
Go to a local store and pick up both of them. That is what really matters feature wise they are close to one another. I use the 400d (XTi) and love it a lot, but I am thinking about a D80 because I have access to a few thousand dollars worth of glass for free, through family. But I can't say enough about my Cannon, love it to death. And the thinking that it is too big to carry around is joke. If you enjoy photography you don't mind the camera.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
Bottom line:
Go to the store see which one feels better. :up:
lol. Ya, you can get the D40 for SUPER cheap. Its not big on the megapixel department, but if you are only posting online or only up to 8x10 prints you are good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
As you may be able to tell Ken LOVES his D40. He never misses an opportunity to tell the community how much he loves it.
G9 in action 2nite
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/6386/img2443cd7.jpg
:D
Dinos, what the HELL is that?!
Also, the one thing that worries me about the D40 is that it only takes Nikon's AF-S lens, not some of the older ones. It that something I should worry about?
It depends. If you want to purchase older used lenses, then yes this is an issue. If you plan to only be purchasing new lenses, then no it is not an issue as Nikon will not be releasing any non AF-s lenses other than highly specialized and expensive models like the plane shift lense they just released.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
The only real lenses I would want to purchase that are not AFS are the 50mm F1.4 (for crazy low light) and possibly the 80-200 F2.8. But other than that there is not much reason to purchase these old lenses. That said, if you happen to have a source for old glass for cheap (that is in good condition) it would behove you to step up to a camer like the D80 because spending a bit more on a body that can use non AF-s glass would be well worth it in that case.
spider in laundry :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
Alright, thanks for all the help so far guys. One more thing: I don't really understand the lens "ratings". Take a 18-135mm lens, what does the "18" mean, and what does the "135" mean? How would you go about choosing the correct lens for the job?
Focal range. That is in mm. The larger the number the more "zoom" reach you have.
A small number is better for landscapes as you are more "zoomed out".
Thank you. What would be the best for macro's?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
there are special macro lenses. they are quite expensive though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate P.
Generally a good macro length is 60 and 105MM (no zoom). The main difference between a macro and non macro lens is that the macro lens focuses very close whereas most lenses that are in the 100mm range dont focus closer than a few feet.
For instance, here is one of Nikons Macro lenses. A nice 105mm F2.8 VR (vibration reduction) model. http://www.adorama.com/NK10528AFVRU.html . It is priced at a hefty 760 dollars. SAMPLE PHOTO HERE
Due to the cost of these lenses, you see some of our forum members uses their kit lenses turned around to get macro shots. This is OK, but its a pain in the ass because the lenses are not sealed from dust and you can very easily damage them. Furthermore, your results wont be very good due to the incredibly low depth of field (amount of picture in focus, from front to back). BUT it does work if you really want it to.
That said, with a lense like the 70-300 VR that I am going to get, which has a minimum focus distance of 4.5 feet, you can kinda do macro by zoom all the way out to 300mm from 4.5 feet away from an object and it will be quite large.
See here for a macro shot with the 70-300 VR LINKAGE
You generally you want the widest aperture? And the lower the number the wider, correct (F/1.4 is wider than F/5.6)?
Lower number, faster light travel through the lens. Lower is always better ;)
It's basically like opening your eyes wider.
There are a few issues a large aperature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
1. Most lenses are a bit softer when wide open (lowest F number)
2. Possible vinneting in the cornerd when wide open (depens on lens and camera being used)
3. less depth of field (sometimes an issue and sometimes you want more)
4. lack of low depth of field with some lenses (primarly F2 and below) will sometimes cause focusing errors where the camera will either not be able to focus or will focus at the wrong point. This is generally a problem with cheaper lenses like Sigmas, but some of Nikon and Canons high end telphotos (70-200 F2.8) have known to been off a little on the focus.
Other than that, its generally better to have a wider aperature.
G9
you cant be wrong
wtf is with all the thread necromongering !?