[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The thing you have to realize about people is this: If they are looking to upgrade something and get something better, and then they say "I do not plan to upgrade from the kit lens anytime soon"...... Well that's simply a contradiction. Of course they are going to upgrade from the kit lens within a short period of time! Resistance is futile. Knowing this about people, I made my recommendation to get a DSLR. I think it's a safe assumption, don't you?

Some folks choose their equipment to suit their needs, not to satisfy their obsessive compulsive shopping habits. I put together a good audio rig... and I stopped and started listening to music. Now I've put together a good camera rig and I plan to shoot pictures with it. I'm not going to run out and waste my time and money on incremental upgrades. I'm going to use my equipment for the purpose I bought it.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You buy a P&S if you want to 'capture the moment', or don't use the camera enough to justify the upgrade. The difference between a hobbyist and an enthusiast.

The difference between duffer and serious hobbyist has nothing to do with equipment. It has to do with the quality of the thinking going into each shot.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by erikzen /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have not used the P&S you suggested but I have had a few, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, and none of them have the control over aperture and shutter speed that my DSLR gives me. I was never able to get a thin depth of field that can be so dramatic. Perhaps some of the newest ones give you the same kind of control.

That's an optical effect related to the relationship of focal length to sensor size. The settings of the camera don't control that. A smaller sensor uses a shorter focal length which has a wider depth of field. If you want a narrower sliver of focus, stand further back and use a longer focal length wide open. You'll get the same effect as standing closer with a shorter focal length on a DX or FF camera.

See ya
Steve

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_baseball_08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, you've made it very obvious that you're a Olympus fanboy and I can't listen to any sort of fanboy be it Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Kodak, whatever.

I also mentioned pentax. and pany.

do I have to make an exhaustive list?

I own many brands. including some stray N and C gear. an minolta (KM) and fuji and oly and that's just bodies..

what I reacted to was 'buy N or C' when that's just so, well, pedestrian.

there, I said it.

their entry level stuff is that. boring and average or below. sorry if that offends *you* but its generally held by all but N and C boys. to really go N or C you should go mid-level or better.

its not really bashing the brand to say that their real value point is mid and higher.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif what I meant was that the kit lenses from N and C are a bit underwhelming.

That depends on your definition of underwhelming.

The $120 18-55 VR is as sharp and has as good contrast at f8 as any lens Nikon makes. The only difference between it and the Nikon pro glass is the build quality and the speed. Several of the kit lenses are perfectly suited for shooting in daylight under normal conditions. If you need a fast f stop with sharpness wide open, you have to pay for it. But that is function, not image quality.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The Nikon and Canon DSLR's are fantastic cameras. For anyone to say that they suck blows my mind, simply put. Why would you say that?

Now you know how we feel when you comment on high end P&S cameras!

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Braver /img/forum/go_quote.gif Get a D40, it will make you very happy

I'm sure he would be if he had half again as much money as his budget to spend. He said his budget was sub-$400. You can't get a D40 with just an 18-55 for that price.

Panasonic FZ18 $350
D40 with 18-55 and 55-200 $650

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif that's a fine pic. a bit harsher on the NR than I'd want. was that jpg source or from raw? I'm betting its jpg but I could be wrong.

I don't see any problems with noise or noise reduction. That was shot in daylight. Odds are it was under ISO 200. Why would the camera be applying NR in that kind of light. There's no jpeg artifacting there either.

Regardless, neither noise reduction or jpeg artifacting have anything at all to do with the quality of the lens, which was the point he was making. That shot was taken with a $120 Nikon kit lens- the kind of lenses you just described as being of "inferior quality". It's a great photograph-sharp, good color and contrast, nice bokeh. What more could you ask for?

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_baseball_08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The proof is in the pudding and if Olympus is amazing as you say they are, they should already have a larger market share than they do. I suppose you'll probably just blame that on marketing campaigns and consume ignorance, but I digress.

Olympus makes some excellent P&S cameras. So does Canon and Panasonic, and yes, even Casio. Those are the brands who have impressed me. I admit I'm not all that fond of the Nikon P&S cameras. They're OK, but better alternatives can be found for the price.

See ya
Steve

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Some folks choose their equipment to suit their needs, not to satisfy their obsessive compulsive shopping habits. I put together a good audio rig... and I stopped and started listening to music. Now I've put together a good camera rig and I plan to shoot pictures with it. I'm not going to run out and waste my time and money on incremental upgrades. I'm going to use my equipment for the purpose I bought it. See ya Steve

Me too.
I guess I should have said they will probably upgrade to a certain point until they are happy. My comment should have meant that they will be happy once they get a lens with more reach. (more or less)

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif that's a fine pic. a bit harsher on the NR than I'd want. was that jpg source or from raw? I'm betting its jpg but I could be wrong.

That was shot at ISO 200 1/500sec, with no NR applied either in camera or out of the camera. I have no idea what NR you are seeing..............


Quote:

(warranty, user-hate when its greymarket (hello nikon!) nikon is not a friendly company. they are hostile to their customers. they push this 'no grey market' stuff on you (long rant I'd rather not get into)

From your post I'm getting a lot of information as to why you don't like Nikon. Sounds like you purchased grey market nikon equipment for a cheaper price and thought you were going to get the same warranty as the usa/canada version. You get what you pay for, and that little bit of cheapness got you burnt (or so it seems). Well either way, I bet you leaned a good lesson from it. You get what you pay for.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Now you know how we feel when you comment on high end P&S cameras! See ya Steve

:shudder:
Ugh, you said that word again.......... P&S
:shudder:

I could never go back to a contrast based AF system ('live view'). That's the big reason why I don't like P&S's.
I would much rather have a budget DSLR with a kit lens then ANY P&S with that type of AF. They are so SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWW.

 

[Towert7]

Dima, do keep us posted as to what you decide. I'm very interested to see what you end up with.
^_^

 

[mr_baseball_08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif their entry level stuff is that. boring and average or below. sorry if that offends *you* but its generally held by all but N and C boys. to really go N or C you should go mid-level or better.

Well there this little thing called the law of diminishing returns. It pops up everywhere. Few here will argue that Sennheiser HD280's sound better than Sennheiser HD650's. That doesn't mean the HD280's aren't decent cans in their own regard.

I had a Rebel XT for a year and half before I stepped up to a 30D and I feel like I had lots of good shots with my "inferior" equipment. I'll be the first to admit that there's a difference between a Canon 28-105 f3.5 and a Canon 24-105 f4L but to say the 28-105 is crap just because it only costs $175 is pretty foolish, IMO.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess I should have said they will probably upgrade to a certain point until they are happy. My comment should have meant that they will be happy once they get a lens with more reach. (more or less)

If they can get all that reach in one lens built into the camera body, they don't need to upgrade at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif They are so SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWW.

Really, you don't know what you're talking about. The difference in timing of on and off and focus and recovery between shots between the D40 and FZ18 is very small. It measures in the fractions of seconds. A zoom on the FZ18 from all the way from 24mm to 500mm is 2.4 seconds (on the D40 that would take three lens changes!), and most auto focusing is accomplished in about a half second.

The Panasonic has 11 focus points. The Nikon has three. The Panasonic is 8 MP. The Nikon is 6. The lens on the Panasonic is f2.8-4.2. The Nikon kit lens is f3.5-5.6. The sensor on both cameras is the same size. ISO on the Panasonic tops out around 400 before noise starts creeping in. On the Nikon, it can go to around 800. Continuous shooting speed is about the same between the two cameras. There isn't a great deal of difference between these cameras. (except in the focal length of the lens on the Panasonic, which blows the Nikon away.)

But the D40 with two kit lenses would cost *half again as much* as the original poster's budget. I know it's not your money. Go ahead and tell him to spend more than he wants to. But the advice that he'll find most useful is from folks who take his needs into consideration. If $400 is what he has to spend, he can't do much better than the Panasonic. If he's got $600, the D40 with two kit lenses might be better. (Although, I'd consider the FZ50 at $500 if it was me.) But neither of these choices is a poor ones. They're both great cameras, and neither the Panasonic nor the Nikon is a toy.

See ya
Steve