DSLR recommendations?

I will not get into an argument with you b/c that is not what this board is all about. If you want that, go to DPReview. We may debate on this board, but we are never short and sarcastically rude. I will point out why I feel you are acting this way. If I say that they could add IS to the lens in the future, then that is so obviously hypothetical, that I feel that you are just trying to pick a fight and I will refrain from responding to you on this. BTW, information coming from a company selling something can never be considered non-biased. None of the regulars I know on this board quotes company websites. I offered personal experience, but that was obviously not good enough for you. I will try to remember not to reply to your messages in the future. :)

I apologize. It was not my intention to be rude. I think that perhaps you were reading into it.

I just don't see how what Pentax *could* do is an argument (friendly debate point?) in favor of the product. You say Pentax could add VR lenses if they want to improve their VR or just have it in both places. There's no reason to believe that they will. Furthermore, Groucho says that Canon and Nikon will eventually put VR in all of their bodies too. That's complete speculation. There's absolutely nothing coming from either company that would lead you to believe that.

Am I to be dismissed because I linked to a Nikon web site? Just because it's on Nikon's site doesn't mean it isn't true. In fact, I'd say it's little more reliable than the forecasting that's being offered here.
 
None of the regulars I know on this board quotes company websites. I offered personal experience, but that was obviously not good enough for you. I will try to remember not to reply to your messages in the future. :)

Kevin

Not meaning to pick a fight either, but I do have to respond to this. Groucho did have several Pentax quotes in the Pentax vs. Nikon thread. And as far as I'm concerned, that was fine. Pete's link to Nikon was fine too. This board is to share info. We link to many things. But just because it is not in support of your preferred brand please don't criticize. No one criticized Groucho for his quotes (not just links) and no one should have. Please extend the same courtesies to others. We all chose our respective brands based on our situations. Some are quite passionate about their brands and that's fine. Let's just allow everyone to express that passion not just those that happen to have a particular brand.
 
I apologize. It was not my intention to be rude. I think that perhaps you were reading into it.

I just don't see how what Pentax *could* do is an argument (friendly debate point?) in favor of the product. You say Pentax could add VR lenses if they want to improve their VR or just have it in both places. There's no reason to believe that they will. Furthermore, Groucho says that Canon and Nikon will eventually put VR in all of their bodies too. That's complete speculation. There's absolutely nothing coming from either company that would lead you to believe that.

Am I to be dismissed because I linked to a Nikon web site? Just because it's on Nikon's site doesn't mean it isn't true. In fact, I'd say it's little more reliable than the forecasting that's being offered here.


Thank you for the clarification. To me it read like you were try to start a fight and you were not.

Much of what has been said is just speculation, but if C&N end up putting IS in body and finding a way to make the two systems work together, you will likely see Pentax, Sony, and Olympus start offering IS lenses that work together with the in body IS. Someone on a different site explained how, while it would be very complicated and expensive at first, you can get the two systems to work together for even greater results. It would not be as far as doubling the number of stops you can get currently, but say an extra 1.5-2 stops. Until C&N start offering something like that, the smaller companies will not offer IS lenses, b/c they do not need to yet. Competition drives advances in technology.

As far as I know, P,S,&O do not have ads out there saying that their in body IS is superior, but C&N do b/c they are tying to protect their highly profitable IS lenses. The only things I have really seen from the in body guys are about explaining how their system works, not hyping it. The only exception I can think of is Pentax stating that camera roll blur is corrected on their system and not on any current in lens IS systems. I am sure they could do it in lens, but do not yet. (FYI for anyone wondering, that is blur introduced from the pressing of the shutter too hard causing the camera to roll on the front to back axis.)

As far as linking to the company ad, we are going to have to agree to disagree. Possibly I am too sceptical, but I do not trust anything put out by a company. I only trust independent research. This goes for Pentax as well. I think they say that their IS is good for 3-4 stops, but in my results, it seems more like 2-3 stops. I did scan over their site while making my decision, but that did not sell me. It was the good reviews the K100D got and the camera's feel that sold me. I am not meaning to pick on Microsoft too much, but they are a great example of this over hype that companies do. If you just read their ads, website, and so on, you would think Windows is the most robust operating ever created. In reality, it is simply not the case. I use Windows exclusively right now, but at least I know what I got myself into.

Kevin
 
I have old Minolta stuff laying around, (Maxxum 9000 or something like that) that I found after my husband died. Lenses and an old (SLR I'm thinking) 35mm camera and flash and whatever other stuff it has lol...(I'm not good at this photography stuff yet, still learning).....does Minolta make a DSLR? I don't think they ever made that leap....did they? If they did....at least I'd already have the lenses. Looks like ebay here we come.

as has been stated previously, MInolta was bought by Sony, they aquired the MInolta technology, the factory, and the brains that designed minolta cameras.....

contrary to a prior post Minolta/Sony does indeed have a following, the Sony alpha 100 was the camera of the year in 2006, although they were late in entering the field, all of the reviews I read in photo magazines, pretty much agreed, that Sony had pushed the envelope and would be pushing the other manufacturers to step up their game.... any minolta auto focus lenses you have, will work with the sony, I have the Minolta 7D, which is an awesome camera, and am anxiously awaiting the release of a Sony Pro level DSLR,
 

as has been stated previously, MInolta was bought by Sony, they aquired the MInolta technology, the factory, and the brains that designed minolta cameras.....

contrary to a prior post Minolta/Sony does indeed have a following, the Sony alpha 100 was the camera of the year in 2006, although they were late in entering the field, all of the reviews I read in photo magazines, pretty much agreed, that Sony had pushed the envelope and would be pushing the other manufacturers to step up their game.... any minolta auto focus lenses you have, will work with the sony, I have the Minolta 7D, which is an awesome camera, and am anxiously awaiting the release of a Sony Pro level DSLR,

I just wish they had an entry level model b/c I would have considered it. I do not know about the prices right now, but the A100 was way over my budget when I bought.

Kevin
 
as has been stated previously, MInolta was bought by Sony, they aquired the MInolta technology, the factory, and the brains that designed minolta cameras.....

contrary to a prior post Minolta/Sony does indeed have a following, the Sony alpha 100 was the camera of the year in 2006, although they were late in entering the field, all of the reviews I read in photo magazines, pretty much agreed, that Sony had pushed the envelope and would be pushing the other manufacturers to step up their game.... any minolta auto focus lenses you have, will work with the sony, I have the Minolta 7D, which is an awesome camera, and am anxiously awaiting the release of a Sony Pro level DSLR,

Mickey88: I tried to PM you, but your in box is full.

~YEKCIM
 
Holy crow i thought we were done with this:rotfl2: although i can't seem to escape it since even in the real world a friend i hadn't seen for yrs and who is a photographer( Nikon) told me the only thing he doesn't like about me it that i have a Canon( he was kidding..obviously since what 's not to like about me;):);))and then admitted all the photographers he knows use canon... but just thought after these few threads it was funny he mentioned this age old debate within the first 3 mins of a conversation!:)
back to the subject
i have a rebel xt ...

that is pretty soundly trounced in lots of threads here cause it's got a:scared1: :scared1: :scared1: plastic body ( organ chord sound plays loudly in background) ( course lots of the lens i have heard about are plastic but guess some don't care about what they plan to use forever vs what they probably will upgrade...and of course which are they are more likely to drop...the thing they are changing or the camera body strapped on to their body? just had to throw that little dig in:rotfl: )...

but i bought it cause a) my hands fit it b) i had some equipment from my canon film slr and the set up is pretty much the same as my old slr c) i liked it and was thrilled it had a rebate when i bought it so was by far the least expensive option for a nice quality camera so if fit my limited budget d) wanted something that didn't weight 6 tons before i put a lens and flash on it

since then i have remembered how much i actually enjoy photography( now that i have gotten at least some of the "digital from film" user headaches behind me) and so am really glad i bought it...and i love the new lens i bought ($540, 70-200 f4L) so right now i am a happy camper...can't say i love canon customer service but having never dealt with any of the others and imo customer service across the board is pretty much nonexistent now, that is my only fault with canon

all have good and bad points, look at them all, handle them and see which you like best and ignore everyone on here, except this last sentence of course:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
Holy crow i thought we were done with this:rotfl2:
i have a rebel xt that is pretty soundly trounced in lots of threads here cause it's got a:scared1: :scared1: :scared1: plastic body ( organ chord sound plays loudly in background) ( course lots of the lens i have heard about are plastic but guess some don't care about what they plan to use forever vs what they probably will upgrade...just had to throw that little dig in:rotfl: ) but i bought it cause a) my hands fit it b) i had some equipment from my canon film slr c) i liked it and was trilled it had a rebate when i bought it so was by far the least expensive option for a nice quality camera so if fit my limited budget d) wanted something that didn't weight 6 tons before i put a lens and flash on it
since then i have remembered how much i actually enjoy photography( now that i have gotten at least some of the "digital from film" user headaches behind me) and so am really glad i bought it...and i love the new lens i bought ($540, 70-200 f4L) so right now i am a happy camper...can't say i love canon customer service but having never dealt with any of the others and imo customer service across the board is pretty much nonexistent now, that is my only fault with canon
all have good and bad points, look at them all and see which you like best and ignore everyone on here, except this last sentence of course:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Jann,

You make an excellent point that I think bears repeating here, namely that you purchased a Canon dslr because it fit *your* needs, and you are happy with the purchase. I bought a Nikon because it fit *my* needs, which are different from yours. Others have bought Pentax because a Pentax fit their needs. Is one single camera or even one camera manufacturer the right choice for every one of us? NO! We all have different needs, and different budgets, and different expectations, and we should all be glad that there are different manufacturers competing for our camera dollars. The results are better cameras from each of them, and lower prices for all of us. To each his own; research what is available, based on your needs and budget, then make an informed decision, based on YOUR criteria, not based on my choice of Nikon, or someone else's choice of Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sony, Hasselblad, or whatever.

~YEKCIM
 
Best piece of advise I can give is to find a model from each of the camera companies that is in your price range. Then go to a store (local camera shop, Ritz, Wolf, Best Buy, Curcuit City, etc...) and find those models. Pick them up, hold them in your hand, take some sample pictures, switch a lens or 2. Make some notes, then go home and do a bit more research to narrow it down, then go back to a few stores and try out those models again. Try out the features that appeal to you.

IMO, buying a dSLR is not the same as buying a $150-200 PnS digital camera. With a dSLR your going to take photography a little more seriously and over time with buying more lenses and flashes and other accessories, you'll be spending thousands of dollars.

In the end get the one that feels best in your hands and meets your needs and gives you a bit of room to grow (which all of them will, at least lens wise, which is the most important).
 
What do y'all use and why?

I picked Canon, a 30D. I picked this brand because of there lenses. They have cream colored lenses, although the camera bodies are black. I was hoping (and still am) that someday Canon would start making the cream colored bodies, also. Then, it would be alot like an Apple computer, different from all the competition. It would match my iMac and my iPod. After all, it already has the little spinning wheel on the back, just like the iPod. Then they could partner with Apple and rename the line to iCan, to have it fit the image. I would be looking good walking down the street, snapping iImages, listening to iTunes and toting my iMac to the iStarbucks to get my iLatte.

iLife would be good.

(BTW: Yes, I have a Canon, which I love. No, I don't have the other stuff. Canon has been my family's choice for years. So, it's loyalty to a great product.)
 
I picked Canon, a 30D. I picked this brand because of there lenses. They have cream colored lenses, although the camera bodies are black. I was hoping (and still am) that someday Canon would start making the cream colored bodies, also. Then, it would be alot like an Apple computer, different from all the competition. It would match my iMac and my iPod. After all, it already has the little spinning wheel on the back, just like the iPod. Then they could partner with Apple and rename the line to iCan, to have it fit the image. I would be looking good walking down the street, snapping iImages, listening to iTunes and toting my iMac to the iStarbucks to get my iLatte.

iLife would be good.

(BTW: Yes, I have a Canon, which I love. No, I don't have the other stuff. Canon has been my family's choice for years. So, it's loyalty to a great product.)

:smooth: :smooth: :smooth:
 
If you were shooting with a Minolta camera, be aware that they are gone. Sony purchased their assets and has released a Minolta compatible camera.

I upgraded to the world of digital last month and bought the new Sony A100 and I love it. I already have a Minolta, which I am really happy with, and the design of the Sony is almost identical to my Minolta. It was also nice that I didn't have to purchase any new lenses. I think a couple of other people have already given infomation as to why the Minolta lense works with the Sony A100.

It's really your preference of what feels right for you. I had walked into the store expecting to buy a Nikon as everyone on here loves them. I looked at a couple and I hated them. It felt all wrong in my hands. Since I'm happy with my Minolta and the Sony is similar, it felt right to go with that. I used the Sony to shoot my step-brother's wedding and the camera worked out wonderful in such horrid shooting conditions (no exterior lighting, ect...)

My suggestion is to look at several and pick what you feel most comfortable with. In my opinion there are several good cameras out there and not the same camera will be right for everyone.
 
I just don't see how what Pentax *could* do is an argument (friendly debate point?) in favor of the product. You say Pentax could add VR lenses if they want to improve their VR or just have it in both places. There's no reason to believe that they will. Furthermore, Groucho says that Canon and Nikon will eventually put VR in all of their bodies too. That's complete speculation. There's absolutely nothing coming from either company that would lead you to believe that.
I don't quite follow your first sentence. "don't see how what"?

Pentax could add IS to their lenses but it would be a silly move, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that no one would buy them because Pentax owners are very happy with the IS in-body, why pay a premium for lenses that have IS in them as well, weigh more, cost more, and will be less reliable than a regular lens? Any improvement over in-body IS is likely going to be very slight, if it exists at all. This, I feel, is why Pentax and Sony (and I expect Olympus won't when their IS-in-the-body DSLR is released) doesn't bother comparing in-body to in-lens. The benefits are self-evident, the primary one being: "IS with every lens." What's not to love? :goodvibes (Unfortunately, I bought my DSLR before the K100D came along so I don't have IS...)

The problem is that it's virtually impossible to do true testing of IS effectiveness. It's not like a focus test or a still life test, or vignetting, or barrel distortion, etc. You'd need some rig that would consistently and repeatedly exactly mimic a human's wobbly hands. Furthermore, some systems may work better with a slight wobble, some may work better with a lot, and they'll all theoretically vary depending on the focal length.

My feeling is that what we've seen is primarily the C/N marketing machines hyping in-lens IS's alleged superiority and that claim has been clung on to by the faithful, when it is not necessarily so cut-and-dried. Maybe we need the Mythbusters to take this on?

As for C/N putting IS in their bodies, yes, it's 100% speculation on my part and I've tried to always make sure that's understood. I think it's inevitable. The fact that they're putting together web pages comparing the two is evidence alone that they realize that consumers are attracted to in-body IS. C'mon, C/N shooters - wouldn't you love to have IS in your camera body? Even if you stand by the claim that in-lens is superior, you're still gaining a lot of functionality. What possible downside is there?

Plus, they need to come up with some new features. The D40 was kind of a step backwards from the D50, and the D40x is pretty much just a D40 with a 10mp sensor. The XTi is pretty much an XT with a bigger LCD and more mp. (OK, a few other small features, but nothing really significant.) I would also expect that as soon as one adds it, the other will quickly follow suit. The "average consumer" who doesn't know that any DSLR exists other than the "big two" will certainly be swayed if only one has IS in the body.

At this point, the only reason for C/N NOT to do it is because they're making a lot of money on IS lenses, and they've marketed them as being superior.

(FWIW, I see no issue with anyone linking to a site, including the manufacturer's - I think we should all be smart enough to realize that those sites in particular might be just a little biased. ;) )
 
I picked Canon, a 30D. I picked this brand because of there lenses. They have cream colored lenses, although the camera bodies are black. I was hoping (and still am) that someday Canon would start making the cream colored bodies, also. Then, it would be alot like an Apple computer, different from all the competition. It would match my iMac and my iPod. After all, it already has the little spinning wheel on the back, just like the iPod. Then they could partner with Apple and rename the line to iCan, to have it fit the image. I would be looking good walking down the street, snapping iImages, listening to iTunes and toting my iMac to the iStarbucks to get my iLatte.

iLife would be good.

(BTW: Yes, I have a Canon, which I love. No, I don't have the other stuff. Canon has been my family's choice for years. So, it's loyalty to a great product.)

Yes, but if they made the iCan they would have to add all sorts of "other" functions like the ability to hold ten bazillion songs and dial ten people simultaneosly. You would pay 15% more than for similar products by other manufacturers. Then once you have had your iCan for a few years you will have to buy and expensive OS upgrade just to be able to use the newest offerings in lenses! And if you wanted to switch from using your iCan with you iMac to using it with you PC you would have to download new firmware. But hey, it would all match! :lmao:

I have 3 Canon cameras in the house and 2 Canon Camcorders so I too love their products. I also have an iMac that is now my music server (the white does match my kitchen appliances) 4 outdated macs sitting in my closet and 2 iPods.
 
I picked Canon, a 30D. I picked this brand because of there lenses. They have cream colored lenses, although the camera bodies are black. I was hoping (and still am) that someday Canon would start making the cream colored bodies, also.
iLife would be good.

.)

neat idea,,,

Minolta tried that with the 8000i , they had a matching flash, great setup for wedding photographers...

they didn't sell very well, I thought it was a good idea, would absorb less heat when out in the sun..

I'm guessing people were afraaid they would show dirt, and attract camera thieves more readilly

if you want to see pics, do a search for white minolta on ebay, there are currently 2 listed
 
What do y'all use and why?

I'll just set aside the brand discussion stuff and go into the specifics of why I picked the camera I have now.

I use a Canon 1D Mark II. My prior camera (and still used as a second body) is a Canon 10D.

Here are the main reasons that I upgraded from the 10D to the 1Dm2.

1) Better sensor. The 1DM2 sensor had the second best image quality (behind the 1DsM2) of any mainstream digital camera at the time I bought it. The top of the line Nikons were comparable, but they were Nikons (::joking shudder of mock revulsion::).

2) Shot buffer size. My 10D has a 9 shot buffer. There is nothing more frustrating that having your subject in the middle of a great action sequence and your shutter goes dead because the camera's buffer is full. Invariably, this happens at the times when you want to take the most shots (otherwise you wouldn't have filled the buffer in the first place). With the 1D, I moved up to a 20 shot RAW buffer and write speeds so fast that I've never hit the buffer limit. Even with the buffer full, I still get a shot every half second.

3) RGB Histogram. Once I learned how to properly use a histogram for metering, I was infuriated to learn that mine was only an average luminance histogram. At that time, only high end cameras came with an RGB histogram, so moving to a 1 series Canon was the only way I was going to solve that problem. Now I think you can get an RGB histogram even on base model DSLRs.

4) AF speed. The 10D was competent with auto-focus, but shooting kids is extremely demanding. The 1D has a very sensitive (works at f8) and fast autofocusing system. Only the Nikon D2Hs is in the same league for AF speed and tracking ability.

The body AF speed also works nicely with Canon's USM lens motors to make for the fastest possible AF system. Years ago, Canon switched from having the focus motor in the body to putting it in the lens. That adds a bit of cost to each lens, but it brings several advantages. The motor can be customized for the needs of each lens. It can also be quieter and faster. The AF system speed advantage is probably the single biggest reason that Canon dominates the sports shooter world.

5) AF Sensors. In addition to being much faster, I went from 7 AF points to 45. With only 7, I was often compromising on composition in favor of focus accuracy. Now I can pin down an exact spot in the frame as my focus point.

6) While not critical, I like having a high shooting speed. My 10D could do 3 frames per second while the 1DM2 can do just over 8. I've used that several times to ensure that I get exactly the shot I want (bat hitting the ball, explosion coming out of the canon, diver just entering the water). I've also used it for a few action sequences. It's a mode that is best to use outdoors, though, because it is just scary sounding.

7) Startup time. My 10D took more than 2 seconds to start up. The 1DM2 starts in less than a second. When I was just walking around and something photo-worthy suddenly appears, that 2.5 seconds seemed like an eternity. Again, I don't think any modern cameras have this problem.

8) Ruggedness. I'm not a gentle or careful person and I spend a lot of time in difficult (for cameras) environments. The Canon 1 series bodies are very durable and well sealed. Even thought it had a magnesium alloy body, my 10D would probably be dead by now if it had gone through the abuse that my 1D has taken.

9) Dual card capability. This actually didn't influence my decision at the time, but I've since grown to love it. After knowing people that have lost photos from card corruption, I now shoot in dual mode when I'm shooting anything important. In this mode, it writes the images simultaneously to two different memory cards. It's also nice to be able to use either CF or SD cards.

10) Portrait grip. This is actually a mixed bag. I almost never shot without a portrait grip on my D60 and 10D. Having it built into the camera made for a more solid feeling shooting platform. I have to admit, however, that it was sometimes nice to "go small" and take the grip off. It's not that I mind the weight so much; it's just that a 1D draws more attention that I sometimes want. If you walk around with a full sized DSLR, a relatively large lens, and a lens hood, you can almost guarantee that people will pick you out of the crowd as the person to take a picture of them with their little P&S.

I moved from a Canon D60 to a 10D when my D60 was stolen. The improvements that I recall going from a D60 to a 10D were:

1) Better AF system. While the 10D AF was still very limited compared to the 1 series, it was still a significant step up from the D60.

2) Rotation sensor. Back in "the old days", you had to manually rotate shots taken with the camera in a verticle position. If you mix modes like I do, it was a nuisance to have to select all the flipped shots and rotate them. I think every modern camera does this automatically now, but it was a nice feature back then.


At the time I made the purchase, Canon had not started offering "digital" lenses, so the larger sensor also made wider shots possible. The whole sensor size debate is incredibly complicated with lots of pluses and minuses on all sides. I suspect that in the future I'll be shooting with a "full frame" camera and I'll use whatever "crop factor" I want. However, it looks like the mainstream marketplace is moving to 1.5x-1.6x sensor equipment, so the full frame route will be noticeably more expensive. I suspect it will be something like the old divide between 35mm and medium format shooting only this time I'll find my self on the other side of the divide.

If I were starting from scratch today, I'd still probably drool and swoon over the 1DsM2 but would end up with a 1DM3 because too much of what I shoot requires speed more than it does the extra IQ of the 1Ds. If my subjects didn't scurry around so much, I'd also be tempted to get the Canon 5D. I think it's one of the best values in photography today. I'm tempted to get one as a second body, but I want to wait to see what the 1DsM3 looks like.
 
The Sony Alpha was on my short list when I was researching cameras back in November. I went to Best Buy to try out the IS. I took a few pictures fully zoomed in with the IS on and off. Then I looked at the images at full magnification on the LCD. In my opinion, the IS in the camera is a sales feature not a significant benefit. I admit, this is just my opinion from a very limited in-store test. The reviews I’ve read are more favorable of the feature but nowhere have I found a credible reviewer who says that in-body IS is as good as IS in the lens.

I bought my first 35mm SLR because I wanted to take better pictures. Part of taking better pictures is seeing what the camera sees when you look through the view finder. With an SLR you look through the same glass that will expose the sensor. If IS is on the sensor then it is behind the mirror. I don’t get the benefit of a stabilized image when I look through the viewfinder. I can’t use the IS to aid my focus and exposure settings. IS comes in handy in low-light because of the slower shutter speeds. That’s where I need to be more precise with my exposure settings. For IS to come into play at the instant of the exposure is too late.

Another major benefit of an SLR is the interchangeable lens. You pull out certain lenses for certain situations. You probably would not want to limit yourself to a single one-size-fits-all lens. With the IS in the lens it can be optimized to the particular design of the lens. Also, when the IS is on the sensor it has to move more at the longer focal lengths and becomes less effective. As has already been admitted in this thread, in-body IS is better at a closer range. This is exactly the opposite of what you need. Camera shake is more of a problem at greater focal lengths.

If Sony cuts into Canon and Nikon’s consumer camera market share significantly then the big two may be forced to put out a consumer level SLR with IS on the sensor. Not because it is better but to suit a budget-conscious entry level market segment. I seriously doubt it will ever make it into their pro-lines. That’s purely speculation on my part. ;)
 
The Sony Alpha was on my short list when I was researching cameras back in November. I went to Best Buy to try out the IS. I took a few pictures fully zoomed in with the IS on and off. Then I looked at the images at full magnification on the LCD. In my opinion, the IS in the camera is a sales feature not a significant benefit. I admit, this is just my opinion from a very limited in-store test. The reviews I’ve read are more favorable of the feature but nowhere have I found a credible reviewer who says that in-body IS is as good as IS in the lens.

I bought my first 35mm SLR because I wanted to take better pictures. Part of taking better pictures is seeing what the camera sees when you look through the view finder. With an SLR you look through the same glass that will expose the sensor. If IS is on the sensor then it is behind the mirror. I don’t get the benefit of a stabilized image when I look through the viewfinder. I can’t use the IS to aid my focus and exposure settings. IS comes in handy in low-light because of the slower shutter speeds. That’s where I need to be more precise with my exposure settings. For IS to come into play at the instant of the exposure is too late.

Another major benefit of an SLR is the interchangeable lens. You pull out certain lenses for certain situations. You probably would not want to limit yourself to a single one-size-fits-all lens. With the IS in the lens it can be optimized to the particular design of the lens. Also, when the IS is on the sensor it has to move more at the longer focal lengths and becomes less effective. As has already been admitted in this thread, in-body IS is better at a closer range. This is exactly the opposite of what you need. Camera shake is more of a problem at greater focal lengths.

If Sony cuts into Canon and Nikon’s consumer camera market share significantly then the big two may be forced to put out a consumer level SLR with IS on the sensor. Not because it is better but to suit a budget-conscious entry level market segment. I seriously doubt it will ever make it into their pro-lines. That’s purely speculation on my part. ;)

I do not have experience on the Sony, but I get around 2-2.5 stops from my K100D IS. Everybody's mileage will vary. I am not bragging, but I actually have pretty steady hands, so maybe I can get more out of it than other people. Possibly I could get 4+ stops out of a lens based system, but I get about the same 2-2.5 stops out of my S2 IS lens based system. True it is a p&s, but still is a comparison in systems. I also question needing much more than what I am getting now. Keep in mind that I do not see the need for more than 300mm for my needs, but I have not once wished I had more IS power and missed a shot due to it. I can really see the need for better IS at longer focal lengths, but then you are getting in to weight issues with the lens where you would use a tripod anyway, so no IS would even be used.

As has already been admitted in this thread, in-body IS is better at a closer range. This is exactly the opposite of what you need. Camera shake is more of a problem at greater focal lengths.

Based on my shooting style of more wide to normal focal lengths, I completely disagree with your statement. It all depends on your style. You are a tele man, where I am not. It has been suggested by a couple of reviewers that the in body system is actually better at wide angle, but as it has been stated, how in the world are you going to test this without some really expensive testing equipment.

I admit that it is cool to look through a stabilized lens and see what the results will be before the shot, but many experts and manufacturers I have seen say that both IS systems are more effective if used in the shot only mode and not for previewing. I am no expert, but I have seen this stated many times, so you saying, "For IS to come into play at the instant of the exposure is too late." could be an incorrect statement when talking exposure. I can see your argument when talking about composition though. I keep it constantly on with my S2 IS for that reason knowing I am giving up a little on the effectiveness.

To me the bottom line should be to go actually handle both systems when the cost is not an issue and pick the cheapest one that fits your needs. For you, it is lens based. For me it is sensor based. It has to be a personal decision based on what you want and how it works out for you. For me it is also a financial move. I cannot justify spending that much money on camera gear when I have other hobbies that burn $$$ and three DDs that go though it like water. Think of future college, cars, weddings, etc. :scared1: and I just can't reasonably spend that much right now. I am sure that there are others in the same boat as me.

Kevin
 
What do y'all use and why?
I've been a Nikoner almost exclusively over the years. For a DSLR I wanted one I could use my Nikon glass on. After much research of all the Nikon models I chose the Nikon D200:) I'm very happy with my choice.
It's a personal decision similar to your purchasing a new car. Go to the store and give them a test drive. Handle them, shoot in the store with them. I did and found some models too light or uncomfortable in my hand. Check out all the bells and whistles and do your research on owner opinions. Nikonians for Nikon. I'm sure Canon and Pentax have one too. Whatever your decision best of luck :thumbsup2
 














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE







New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top