Here we go boys...

Perhaps this warrants it's own topic, not just something to be lost in the offtopic noise...

E

I just recently purchased a Canon SD400 to replace my dear departed Pentax Optio S. I just got it and haven't "field tested" it yet. I chose the SD400 over the SD500 because it is physically smaller and 5 Megapixles is plenty. 7 Megapixles wasn't worth the slightly larger size to me. Price wasn't an object. Observations so far compared to my old Pentax Optio S........

The Cannon is very intuitive and easy to operate. This is important as I am often drunk and mentally impaired when in the field. Picture quality is very good. Video is very good but two problems. In best quality video mode there is not great compression and it burns up a 1G SD card very quickly. I think some other higher end cameras do MPEG4(?) and achieve similar quality with much better use of memory. A bigger issue is the sound quality in video mode. It is terrible. The Pentax had poorer video but the sound was good. It's awful on the Canon. I almost think I may have got a bad one or something because it is so bad. Does anyone else have this camera and can you comment on the sound quality in video mode? Other minor complaints..... The Pentax had a tiny remote control which was useful for those action shots. No such option on the Cannon, just a timer. Also the Pentax had a "world time zone" feature which was convenient when flying around the planet. No big deal but apparently you have to reset the clock manually on the Cannon.

In all I like the SD400 allot and think it is a great camera but I am very disappointed with the sound quality in video mode.

Also, have you guys checked out "MiniSD" memory. WAY COOL!!! Works in any regular SD device with an adaptor and they are VERY TINY little chips. Very convenient due to the small size. And, for the Canon I found extra batteries on EBay at 2X$8 so I am set for spare batteries for the immediate future. (another complaint about the Canon.... The Pentax had a battery life gauge on the screen so you know where you stand. the Canon has no indication of battery life, it simply goes dead on you when the battery is used up)

ias, i have a canon sd300, and i have all the same complaints, biggest ones being the short video time and no battery indicator.

However, overall, I'm happy with my purchase, but if i could have another go around, i may choose the sony as the compression is better making for more video time...although you have to compromise lens/photo quality, and go with a less than ideal flash media...pro stick duo i believe.

I have had sony's and now the SD400 (new purchase also sancho).

The benefit of the sd500 is slightly better battery life and better photo quality (its not a matters of 5 vs 7mp, but optics).

I'll be testing out the SD400 this week as time allows and report back.

Soc-- Sony's have great optics for point and clickers.






(Message edited by donmarco on May 22, 2005)

I have a Cannon IXUS 500, which also suffers from lack of battery indicator, but is a great compact performer to carry around when mongering at night and/or drunk. All the shots I've shown on here were taken with it.

However, I recently felt the need to upgrade to a Nikon 70D, which I adore. It is intuitive, has lots of standard settings but also full manual and comes with a terrific 30-70 lens as standard.

I was so impressed I had to go out and get a 70-300 zoom, a Sigma 50mm macro (gynealogical shots hehe), a Manfrotto tripod and the SB800 speedlight to match.

All I need now is insurance.

I agree with Epi - this topic needs better exposure.

Interesting, got my hands on a SD200 and snapped off several similar photos on it and the SD400 this afternoon. Here's the comparision....


SD200 first...



SD400


SD200-2


SD400-2


SD200-3


SD400-3


SD200-4


SD400-4



I've always like nature pics and lines...

SD200_5

Now, granted nothing all that interesting picture wise, but I chose the subjects for a reason...

pics -1 and -2

I'm sending my bike seats out for custom work and I want to do a before/after, but black synth material in natural light at angles posing some difficult metering material-- specially with a faily light background. It's hard to see with the pics shrunk, but the SD200 pics were much cleaner.

nod goes to SD200 pic 1 and 2


Pic 3--
Color and sharpness perfect on the SD200, SD400 not all that sharp and colors a bit washed out.

nod to SD200


Pic 4

I aimed down the petal, with the objective of seeing where the cam was able to focus and also check out color rendition of greens in natural light.

The SD200 again provided a much sharper image and broader range. I'm wondering if my hand shaked every shot I took with the SD400 or if the pics are really that much softer than the SD200 when side by side...

Pic 5, playing around with the SD200 and it started to rain....

So far, I'm damn impressed with the SD200 and may opt for that one even though it is only 140 bucks less.

rak,

If you want a brand new nikkor D 60mm micro--it's leaps and bound better than the sigma... lemme know.

I also have a new nikkor 28-105 lense, which is an excellent peice of glass as well.

DM... I'm all spent out on cameras just now, but thanks... I'm very impressed with the Sigma tho!

Next think I will buy is a very wide angle (but cheap) lens though.. I may have to do something with a converter to keep the price down.



(Message edited by rakitt on May 22, 2005)

I'm going to need a new camera soon, and I'm not yet willing to lug around large bodies and lenses--in fact, I want something I can slip in my pocket (or terma robe) and carry around comfortably and unobtrusively. Something small, but competent. It should have an optical viewfinder, since I take some pics in darkened rooms where the LCD shows nothing.

Any suggestions from the experts?

You guys know about dpreview.com, right? They are to digital cameras what Club Hombre is to the Brazilian pay-for-play scene.

hm--

canon is the leader of the pack-- any one in the sd series will please u.

Rak-

Nikkor has a couple good ones for reasonable cash.

I'm not sure how "wide" you mean by very, but the following is critical in choosing DSLR lenses-

DSLRs have a sensor only 67% as big as film, so any lens gives a smaller field of view similar to a lens of 1.5 times the focal length. Take the focal length you use on your film camera and divide by 1.5 to get the focal length you need on a digital camera for the same effect. For instance, a 28 - 105mm (my primary lense) lens is about perfect on a film camera, which means for a digital camera you want an 18 - 70 mm lens. A 24 - 85mm film lens is now in essense a 37 -122mm lens on digital.

FYI: 18-70 nikkor-- you can get this bundled with d70 btw-- much more useful than the one u picked.

If your looking at the equip as a long term investment consider moving away from generics. Although sigma make a few good lenses, their durability and build quality is always suspect (hense the name-- SIGnificant MAlfunction). For more practical reasons, Nikkor lenses hold their value and the demand is high vs generics losing nearly all their value on the used market.

I made an error DM, I have the 18-70 and got it bundled. I paid $500 for the Sigma, which whilst it doesn't feel as nice as the Nikkor, will have to do. For the D70, I'm now looking for a way to get a much wider angle option (about 10mm). I saw one possibility for about $50 on the used market which involved using a converter and then an old Nikkor lens. For occasional use, it seemed fine and I'm sorry I passed at the time, having seen the cost of new kit of this type.

HM.. all mine shown on this site were taken with a CanonSD500. Pocket sized, 5 million pixels. Metal case. Nice job.

Thanks, I'll check out Canons on dpreview.com--and in Fry's.

Rakitt--was that photo above taken with the Canon SD500?

Rakitt

SD500 is a 7mp camera, yes?

E

Epi-- yes.

I have a 7.2 mp Sony Cybershot. I also picked up a 1 GB chip. I can fit 120 or so pics even at 7 MP, or a compination of pics and MPEG movies. MPEG alone, I get around 45 min. at 7 MP. It is a great camera and only ran about $375. The 1GB chip was another $150. Great for the Termas as is is very small. It downloads easily. The picture quality is quite high and I have been quite pleased with the overall quality.

The only problems I have had, and at times they are big problems, are that the auto focus does not always lock onto what I am trying to shoot. It also struggles to focus correctly in dimmer light. This seems to be a fairly common problem. The only other problem is that it is really slow. I must have an object that is sitting still. It is not very good for moving objects.

Bahtman had an amazing set-up, but I just could not carry that around with me.

This is a happy compromise for me.

Guys, I think Canon brands things differently to suit different markets. Mine is actually a CanonIXUSDigital500, which the site quoted earlier in this thread told me was the same as an SD500. All my girl pix were taken on that and it is a a 5Mp camera, not that anyone could tell the difference on internet resolution anyway - I reduce original file sizes by a factor of 25 to post on here at <100k. Original files are 2.5Mb.

The spider is taken with a NikonD70 with a Sigma 50mm macro lens. The little bugger was scarcely 1/3 of an inch long. You can't get magnification and detail like that with a fixed lens camera. But who cares (unless yer into gynae shots)

IXUS500 = S500 5.0 megapixles
IXUS50 = SD400 5.0 megapixles
IXUS700 = SD500 7.1 megapixles

Val: Recheck the megapixels you are getting with MPEGs. There is no way your camera is capturing 7 megapixels on video.

Rak-- as sancho posted u got a s500, SD500 is a totally new beast.

Laguy: Maybe not. It just says Mpeg movies. It also says it is a 7.2 m.p. camera, so I made an assumption. Any idea what m.p. this camera would be shooting Mpegs at?

according to a salesman at sammy's camera, mpegs will be about the same quality. He also said the sd 500 is great but not much of an upgrade from my sd300, a 4.0 mp camera. I think it has something to do with lens size and compression being similar. He did say the picture will of course be bigger and MILDLY more detailed.

Val--

640*480 if your nice-- check your manual.

Soc--

for movies yes they are all the same. For pics, that statement would be true of the SD400 as it shares the same optics, however it is false with the sd500. Now if you think it's worth upgrading for cleaner high res pics (i.e. are you printing over 8*10s?), better optics, and a LITTLE better battery-- that's your call...

I would prob stick with the SD300 and save my coin for other toys...

I had a long flight home tonight (1.5 hours on the runway), so i read the SD200/400 manuals cover to cover. Good stuff.

I'm leaning towards keeping the SD200 as I think it DOES a perfect job at filling the role of a snapshot camera , so why spend more? I see little to no improvement in photo quality with the SD400. I'll sink the coin I save into a DSLR (still undecided). I was set on the D70s over the 20d for reasons stated prior, but that new rebel xt really looks sweet and matches up extremely well vs the D70 in all areas except feel and build. Not sure I want to dump all my Nikon gear tho and start afresh...

DM... I can confirm that the D70 is sweet as a nut and you won't be disappointed. I also have an Ixus500 as a pocket camera and am delighted with it too.

The 18-70mm lens that comes with the D70 is immense and enough for most mongers' needs.

In case your mind is not yet made up, I did read a few comparisons of the D70 versus the 20D... the user reviews at the end are particlarly interesting.
http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD70versusRebelXT.shtml

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000377035349/

http://www.phototakers.com/forum/ftopic20532.html

http://www.digitalcamera-hq.com/canon-rebel-350d-reviews.html#user_reviews

http://www.digitalcamera-hq.com/nikon-d70-reviews.html

Rak-- thanks for the links. FORGET the Rebel XT--I stopped by the shop and held one today-- NOPE not for me! The "feel" of a camera body is especially important, and the feel of the XT was, well, very much to my disliking. I'm back in the Nikon camp.

DSLR update--

I sold off all my Nikon lenses-- JUST so I don't approach the situation with biases... plus I got a decent price ( BIG + for Nikon!).

I'm still leaning toward the d70, but still undecided. In the meantime, the SD200 is providing me with plenty of kicks.

Drumroll please....

It all came down to glass for me.

Body wise they both felt GREAT. I give a slight nod to the 20d for a little better feel, little better viewfinder, and having a lower ISO than the D70 (jury's still out on this one). However, we're talking damn good vs damn damn good-- nearly a toss up. BUT with the nikon body available for nearly $600 less than the canon right now, it's an easy choice. Either body is capable of superior results-- imho, money is better spent on glass and improving one's skill.

Glass wise, the lense included with the canon kit is a toss away lense-- harldy worth matching it with such a quality body. Meanwhile, Nikon's kit lense is actually pretty nice. As a die hard nikon SLR'er over the years, it was a hard decision primarly cuz money was not an issue. In the end tho, dollar for dollar, it was a foregone conclusion-- Nikon.

If anyone is thinking of either, just remember this; a camera body while you may think is expensive, is the least of expenses over time and one could argue is the least important. A decent lense or two and you've already surpassed the price of a body. A body will depreciate rapidly as technology and new models come out every year or two.. Lenses and flashes meanwhile represent a long term investment... You can't go wrong with either so look, touch, click away, and ask to your heart's content when looking...

Product reviews only get you soo far...


My birthday presents to myself this year will be:

http://www.adorama.com/NK1224AFSU.html

http://www.adorama.com/NK80400AFVRU.html

http://www.adorama.com/NKSB800AFU.html

I suggest you to buy a frikkin' tripod before you waste any more money. Dude, that photo of your equipment is rank! Please tell me it's a scan from a disposable film camera!

I'm giving up photography and going back to painting cave walls ... more archival you know.

Wow - that 512mb card will sure come in handy when shooting images in .RAW format!! I think Wombat hit this one on the head - don't take a picture of your expensive, new camera with your 2mp P&S...

How much did you pay (if I may ask...?)

E

wombat-- thanks for the concern...

epi-- the 512 was a freebie they tossed in- $950 for the kit. 20d kit was 1400 I believe (body + 18-55).

btw ep-- it wasn't a 2MP P&S, it was my sole survivor 1MP from '98 (Epson PhotoPC). My sony P8 died a horrible death and I returned the SD200 as it turned out to have an issue locking up and not starting.

I think the ole epson did a swell job considering all the nasty backlight and I was too lazy to move...

DM

I was just certain you took that pic with your spiffy Nokia handphone...

E

damn-- I forgot all bout that one-- 640*480, but it DOES have FM reception!

Dude - FM ROCKS!!

E

Hey Rakit,

We have the same taste in photography. I have the D70 as well as the SD500. Both amazing cameras for what they do. I also have the kit lens that I use with the D70, but I just ordered the 35mm F2. I think I'll get cleaner shots with it in the hotel rooms.

I'm trying to dust off some of these threads...

Got the Nikon 18-200VR lense during christmas in bkk and just sold it for 75 bucks more than I paid (backordered in the states). I'll pick another up in two weeks w/ USA warranty at my local dealer.

Curious what lense do you DSLR users use most often out of your assortment?





(Message edited by donmarco on February 08, 2006)

My primary is the Canon 24-70L 2.8. Love that lense. My next purchase is going to have the image stabilization technology though.

My fav carry around lens is the Canon 28-135 // 3.5-5.6 lens --with image stabilization that Epi first introduced me to.

Great all around lens !

I am a huge fan of VR/IS now... Well worth the extra $$$.

While is china the sun NEVER came out and I was constantly hand holding 1/30th- 1/60 @ 150mm-200MM and was getting great shots.

Image Stabilization makes a huge difference. Just got home yesterday from BKK and starting to look through the pics.
I shot this about 15 days ago with the new canon 24 - 105 with IS and handheld.

Photo: BKK Bed Warmer

Glorious ASS B-Man! Nice shot!

Bahtman: Great shot! The 24 to 105 is an L lens? Any leads on deals on the thing?

It's a hot new item and quality glass- deals are getting your hands on one at around retail-- 1200-1300.