Canon S5

[Pugrpooh]

Worth it? Yes. For me. I wanted to learn once and for all how to use an SLR. I've put a ton of effort into it for a very long time and I'm finally beginning to see some progress, though I still have a long way to go.

Pea-n-Me -- Your answer gives me pause. I'm not sure I'm ready to put a ton of effort for a long time before I see better pictures. I don't usually shoot in full auto mode, but I also don't shoot in full manual either. I've read posts form people who have DSLR's who shoot mostly in auto or with scene modes. If I would do that, would my pictures be better? I'd like to think so if I'm spending that much money on a camera and lenses.

Zackiedawg -- I like the description of the a300 and a350 but the highest ISO setting for best quality pics that I've seen in reviews is 400 and that's not better than the H5. Do you find that you get better pics at higher ISO settings than your H5? Also, is it much heavier? I was looking at the 18-250 lens thinking I could keep that on for the most part. I was quizzing someone I know with a Nikon D50 and he has a similar lens and he says he doesn't change lenses much.

I took a lot of pics in Shakertown last weekend, particularly night shots with different settings. Some look good on the LCD but the proof will be when I download them onto the computer and see what they look like. I'm going to try and do that tonight and see if I'm happy with them.

DH is leaving for Japan on Sunday and he's always telling me how they have more advanced electronics there than here. Maybe I'll have him check out the camera stores while he's there and see what's new.

Do prices tend to fall after Christmas?

Thanks for all your responses!

Lynn

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Your answer gives me pause. I'm not sure I'm ready to put a ton of effort for a long time before I see better pictures. I don't usually shoot in full auto mode, but I also don't shoot in full manual either. I've read posts form people who have DSLR's who shoot mostly in auto or with scene modes. If I would do that, would my pictures be better? I'd like to think so if I'm spending that much money on a camera and lenses.

I don't mean to be discouraging, just sharing my own experience. Yours might be very different. I think I probably approached it differently than many people do. I felt like I needed to understand principles of photography, and SLR photography in particular, before I really felt comfortable using my camera. Sure, I got some ok shots. But I wanted to get good shots most of the time and that wasn't always the case. I had no SLR experience whatsoever so it's taken me a while. I mainly use the semi-auto modes, haven't even ventured into manual yet.

I think what you've got to keep in mind is that photography isn't so much about what camera you have as it is about the photographer. I don't believe there's a magic bullet that makes you take beautiful pictures when you get a new camera. It seems to me there's a learning curve for most people (at least from what many here have shared with me.) There have been many threads here over the years where people post their first shots with their new DSLR and they're beautiful. There have been others where people post their first shots and they're problematic. I think with a nice balance of some study and lots of practice, you should be able to get decent shots fairly quickly, and you'll only improve with time.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Bob, I loved my S3 and still carry it with me in my purse. We have an S2 also. For me, learning to use an SLR was just something I always wanted to do. When I made the switch, I'd actually gotten to a very good place with the S3, so it was a little hard to go back to being a newbie again. Cost was a concern for me also (who isn't it for?) and I had a few other concerns about making the move, but with the system I bought, when all is said and done -camera, 3 lenses, and all other supplies - I'm into it for somewhere around $1200 - not too bad. (There is one other zoom lens I'd like to get but that will probably be it.)

 

[KarenAylwood]

I can share my own experience...

Two years ago I got the Sony H5 for my birthday (as I called it, my "big camera"). I LOVED it. It was amazing. I spent days walking around taking pictures of just about anything. Did I know how to use it in anything more than auto? No. Did it give me beautiful pictures? Yes.

That said... about a month ago, I went out and bought the Canon XSi (with kit lens). I now have a new "big camera" and a new love . I have never regretted the money it cost me and it was an investment. I now know how to shoot in full manual mode and I just can't get enough of this camera. It's absolutely better in quality, and even without the super zoom I took it over my H5 when I went to Disney a few weeks ago (only two weeks after buying it!).

I'm sure I'll end up buying a telephoto lens sometime soon, but for now I'm having fun playing with it. I absolutely don't regret the decision, only I am not that tempted to ever use my H5 again

The only thing that I DO want to mention is that I'm in a photography class. Do I think that has made me learn a lot more? YES. Do I think it's absolutely necessary to do if you buy a dSLR? No. But I do admit I had been waiting to take the dSLR jump until I had the opportunity to really learn it. I now think I could have done it on my own, but hindsight is always 20/20 now isn't it?

I really think you can learn it on your own if you are excited enough about it. Even shooting in auto it takes gorgeous pictures. I've just gotten addicted to manual mode

 

[zackiedawg]

Zackiedawg -- I like the description of the a300 and a350 but the highest ISO setting for best quality pics that I've seen in reviews is 400 and that's not better than the H5. Do you find that you get better pics at higher ISO settings than your H5?

I love my H5 - a great camera and I really grew with it, including selling my first photos with it and publishing my first photos with it...so I've got no complaints. However, at higher ISO, the A300 is in a 100% different league - as is any DSLR. Don't read too much into technical reviews that judge the high ISO performance of DSLRs against a benchmark DSLR, viewed at 100% viewable and looking for the differences. I've seen and heard the same lines, that ISO400 was the reasonable limit, and 800 was pushing it, with the Alphas. If you compare with mid-market or semi-pro DSLRs...it won't look as good; compare to base DSLRs, it's about the same; compared to any P&S camera at all - and it's orders-of-magnitude better.

I also routinely shoot ISO800 & 1600, and push to ISO3200 if needed, without fear. With my H5, I'd push to 800 in emergencies, but the results were poor and needed lots of work. I've got lots of examples in my galleries at high ISO...but here's a few ideas:

ISO1600:

And not always with a low light lens...here's ISO800 at full zoom (250mm) on the 18-250 lens, handheld indoors:

And here's ISO 1600 with the 18-250:

Again with the 18-250 lens...this was at ISO3200, which is the maximum ISO for the A300. I still consider this plenty usable, and far far better than I could get at ISO1000 from the H5:

Low light is where all DSLRs have a supreme advantage...even moreso when paired with a proper low light lens. Can other DSLRs do better? Absolutely. But all of them will do better than P&S cams...no contest. It just depends on how important that kind of photography is to you. I didn't really feel any limitations with my H5 for at least 2 years - as I learned more and more how to control the camera and tailor the shots the way I liked. Only then did I find myself pushing up to ISO800 or 1000, and wishing I could get clean results without all the detail loss...or thinking about taking candids or portraits handheld at night or indoors, which required faster shutter speeds in low light - high ISO being the only solution. I also found myself getting deeper into bird and wildlife photography, and needing more burst speed, focus speed, and tracking focus.

Also, is it much heavier? I was looking at the 18-250 lens thinking I could keep that on for the most part. I was quizzing someone I know with a Nikon D50 and he has a similar lens and he says he doesn't change lenses much.

It's definitely heavier. Even the smallest of DSLRs will be significantly heavier than the H5...even without a lens. Once you attach a decent versatile lens like the 18-250, the weight will be 4-5x what you have with the H5. And the size is nearly double - several inches larger in every dimension. And noisier - remember that DSLRs have a fairly noticable mirror-slap noise when snapping a shot, compared to the small electronic shutter noise of the H5, which can even be turned off for full silent mode.

With a versatile lens like the 18-250, you can if you choose make it a 1-lens option...pretty much keeping it on the camera all the time. There are those who would argue that it defeats the purpose of a DSLR by not taking advantage of the interchangeable lenses...but the same argument could be made for those who use their DSLRs in auto mode. It's personal choice. However, even if you think you're going to pick a lens and stick with it, the lens lust bug usually bites, and you find yourself wanting more lenses that can do special things. I knew I had to have more than 1 lens - I purchased my A300 along with 2 other lenses right off the bat - the 18-250 and the 200-500. I also knew I'd want to pick up a F1.4-1.7 low light lens at some point, which I did about a month later. I do keep the 18-250 on the camera most of the time though...the F1.7 goes on when I am planning on shooting low light or night ahead of time, and the 200-500 goes on when I am specifically out on a wildlife shoot. The 18-250 is my compact and convenient travel lens, all-purpose lens, spontaneous lens, and any other time lens.

Sorry for the long answer and samples - feel free to take a look in my galleries - you'll notice one gallery called "introducing the Sony DSLR-A300", which has hundreds of photos in it - but there are some labeled specifically within the gallery as high ISO samples and tests. I don't consider the Alpha the best DSLR at low light, but it does quite well and meets my needs, and offers some other nice advantages that sold me on it over other brands (namely in-body stabilization, easy live view option, flip-out LCD, great battery life, and fairly cheap and abundant backlog of Minolta lenses that are compatible with it).

 

[Pugrpooh]

Zackiedawg, don't apologize for the long post! That's the kind of information I'm looking for. Your pics are impressive. Especially the full zoom of the graduation. Much better than what I got at DD's graduation last year. My oldest DD will graduate from college in May, so now you've given me another reason why I need to upgrade.

I also saw your recent pics from WDW you posted over on cruisecritic. They're very good also. Did you use your zoom lens on the wildlife? We're doing a cruise and landtour of Alaska next summer which is what got me thinking of upgrading. We're also going back to WDW for free dining in Nov. and I'd really like some good shots of the Christmas decorations and lights.

Did you look at the a350 also? Do you think the image stabilization in the body makes it superior to the Canon xsi? I like that one too, but of course I haven't handled either one yet.

KarenAylwood -- Did you also look at the Sony a300/350? If you did, what was it that made you choose the Canon?

Thanks for all your help!

Lynn

 

[zackiedawg]

I also saw your recent pics from WDW you posted over on cruisecritic. They're very good also. Did you use your zoom lens on the wildlife?

The animal shots I took at Disney with the A300 were all using the 18-250. Though I typically use my Tamron 200-500 for wildlife shooting at home, it's too big and heavy to haul to Disney World so I stick with the 18-250 which gives me enough range for Animal Kingdom's environments.

Did you look at the a350 also? Do you think the image stabilization in the body makes it superior to the Canon xsi? I like that one too, but of course I haven't handled either one yet.

I did look at the A350. Personally, I don't think there's any significant differences between them...each has a minor advantage over the other (A350 has higher MP, which might provide a slight advantage for minute detail in cropping, but also can result in a bit more noise in high ISO...A300 has a faster burst mode of 3fps). For me, it mostly came down to price - the A300 was $100+ cheaper and I liked the faster burst mode, so it was an easy decision.

As for the IS in-body - it doesn't make it superior to the Canon or Nikon systems...it just provides an alternative. Canon's in-lens stabilization is probably a bit better than the Sony, Pentax, and Olympus in-body systems (they're all pretty effective overall though)...but what I like about the in-body stabilization is that I can buy cheaper lenses down the road and still have them all stabilized. The stabilized lenses are more expensive even used. Plus, some lenses that aren't available with stabilization for Canon and Nikon (such as wides, or low light primes) will still get the benefits of stabilization with the Sony body. That's why it works well for me. I picked up a 50mm F1.7 lens for $60, and it's stabilized. I can grab any number of used Minolta lenses from macros to big zooms and still get stabilization for cheap...and the older Minolta glass is very good.

You can't go wrong - I'd recommend handling all the DSLR bodies, and playing with the controls. See which system feels best in your hands, and which controls fall most naturally to hand. Don't worry too much about Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax etc being better - they're all fine systems. Let price, availability of lenses you will want, ergonomics and layout, and features be the most important deciding factors.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Canon's in-lens stabilization is probably a bit better than the Sony, Pentax, and Olympus in-body systems

This is the subject of much debate on photography forums, pugrpooh - FYI. For a more in-depth look at it, you can read here: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/image_stabilization_body_lens.html Bottom line is it's personal preference - you roll with it whatever system you buy.

Don't worry too much about Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax etc being better - they're all fine systems. Let price, availability of lenses you will want, ergonomics and layout, and features be the most important deciding factors.

I agree. I think it's important to take the time to learn about all of them and hold them in your hands before you make your final choice.

Good luck!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I found this when I was looking for something else. Thought you might find it helpful:

What Makes A Great Photographer Great?

 

[KarenAylwood]

Zackiedawg, don't apologize for the long post! That's the kind of information I'm looking for. Your pics are impressive. Especially the full zoom of the graduation. Much better than what I got at DD's graduation last year. My oldest DD will graduate from college in May, so now you've given me another reason why I need to upgrade.

I also saw your recent pics from WDW you posted over on cruisecritic. They're very good also. Did you use your zoom lens on the wildlife? We're doing a cruise and landtour of Alaska next summer which is what got me thinking of upgrading. We're also going back to WDW for free dining in Nov. and I'd really like some good shots of the Christmas decorations and lights.

Did you look at the a350 also? Do you think the image stabilization in the body makes it superior to the Canon xsi? I like that one too, but of course I haven't handled either one yet.

KarenAylwood -- Did you also look at the Sony a300/350? If you did, what was it that made you choose the Canon?

Thanks for all your help!

Lynn

Well I was looking for a "basic" dSLR, and honestly only considered Canon and Nikon. Those are the two "big ones" in the dSLR world, and seemed like they had the highest number of lenses. I looked at the Nikon D40 (bottom of the line basic dSLR, ~$500 w/ kit lens) and the fact that it had autofocus in the lens and not the body deterred me. I wanted to be able to buy lenses that I could use on a future advanced dSLR. Since I wanted the basic dSLR, the Canon XSi was pretty much the top of the line between Nikon and Canon in the basics. It was relatively new and the lenses I buy with it I can use on future Canons.

Also, I went on Consumer Reports and it got one of the best ratings among the basics. I had decided it would be Canon vs Nikon before even looking at dSLRs. YMMV and I'm sure there are some that LOVE their Sony dSLR.

Oh and I loved the way the XSi felt in my hand. It just really fit me, so I went with it.

 

[Pugrpooh]

Thanks everyone!

There's a lot to read and think about. I'm hoping this afternoon I will actually be able to get out and handle a couple of DSLR's to get a better idea of placement of controls, features, weight, etc. Maybe after that I'll have a better idea of what I want.

Lynn

 

[PhotobearSam]

All taken on a day trip to Northern New Brunswick Canada with my Canon S5 IS.

 

[edolyne]

All of the pictures are very nice, especially the composition of them.

 

[PhotobearSam]

Thanks...I can't wait till I get a DSLR so I can try to get even better shots.

 

[mmkk]

Okay, I just ordered my Canon S5-I've been wanting one and reading up on it with the thread here as well as other reviews elsewhere (I'm just bummed I missed the great Target Clearance on them! )

I know I need to get an extra (or two) SD card and DH has read up that I will probably want an SDHC card-does this sound logical and would an 8GB be a good size to get?


Thanks for all the helpful reviews from here and all your input! I can't wait to get my hands on my new camera!

 

[Tuffcookie]

I don't know if an 8 GB SD card will work. I didn't even know they made them! I guess I haven't had the need for a memory card lately. I know for movies the max you can use in the S5 is 4 GB.

Movies may be recorded until the memory card is full (up to 4GB) or for a period of 1 hour.

The most I have is a 4 GB. And I have a ton of 2 GB's.

TC

 

[mmkk]

Very good to know! I have found some good deals on 4 GB recently online so I will probably go with those. Thank you for the input!

 

[LurkandLearn]

Actually, this is a very personal choice! For instance:

1) I prefer to have several 1 gig and 2 gig cards rather than one giant one simply because of the "risk factor". I once had a card malfunction after a vacation and ALL my photos were on that one card! (I did manage to retrieve them with a recovery software package but you can never count on that.) Changing cards regularly reduces the chance of lost pictures.

2) I'm also pretty good at getting the pics off the card shortly after I return to my computer so my card is cleared and ready for the next session. I have a friend who is scared to do this because she thinks she's shortening the life of her card. <shrug> I'm not sure how much "life" she's actually saving but for me, it's worth it.

 

[waytoomanywebkinz]

Hi -
I have the Canon S5 - I really love it - but I am itching to buy a dslr. I am looking at the Canon Rebels- but with all the numbering and stuff - I'm not really sure what I'm getting into!

I think that I want an XSI - but when it comes to lenses - that's what I don't understand. Can someone tell me what I might want to be looking for? I think it comes with a kit lens - 18-55 mm- and I've seen a package where it also comes with either a 55-250 or 75-300 mm lens - and I don't really know which one to pick - or really - what the difference is.

What should I be looking for in a dslr and lenses? I know that I don't have an exorbitant amount of money to spend at first anyway - would it be better to get the basic camera and kit lens and get the 50 mm lens that everyone talks about?

This is very confusing - I've tried to google and read up on it - but I come away more confused. I need a basic take on it all.

And this may be may be my dumbest question yet - will I be able to see a difference between my photos from my S5 and photos from a dslr with a kit lens? I'm just wondering if I will be disappointed? I don't take half-bad photos - although I'm not completely wonderful either. Others seem to like my photos...

Thanks in advance!

Carol

 

[ukcatfan]

Before you decide, make sure you go out and actually handle it. I thought I wanted a Rebel until I held it. If you use the zoom on your S5 much, you are going to want to get a telephoto zoom like the ones you mentioned. If you find yourself needing better performance in low light, then consider the 50mm. As for telling the difference, in good light and auto settings, you will probably not notice much difference. It is when you get creative with aperture settings to control DOF and low light shooting for example when a DSLR really shows its strengths.