Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hamstrung by a dSLR

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 1:11:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
Coolpix 7900.

Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

- Siddhartha

More about : hamstrung dslr

Anonymous
July 2, 2005 1:37:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>
> - Siddhartha
>

We're probably going to buy the smallest, thinnest DP&S with the largest LCD
(Casio F57?) to take on vacation. Lugging 20Ds, lenses, etc. around is okay
when we're shooting "art" or weddings, but just for snaps, it just doesn't
make sense! We don't need 7 or 8 mp, the sharpest of lenses or the largest
of sensors to take a pic of some cute roadside sign...
No need to "go back" to a fixed lens camera, get one to use when it's
appropriate, keep the DSLR to use when you need it.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 2:58:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>
> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>

Actually, a similar thing. So now I have a compact camera as well as
the DSLRs, so I can carry whichever one is most appropriate.

Lisa
Related resources
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:15:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Same here. I love my Digital Rebel, but hauling around a bag with it,
a zoom lens, flash and other accessories is too much of a bother much
of the time. I too picked up a Canon S500 Digital Elph with 5.0MP,
and now have it with me most of the time. It fits neatly on my belt in
its leather case, even with a spare battery. Seems to be the way to
go!

Bob Boudreau
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 4:16:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

If I need something compact, I have a little Canon S-400.
It fits in my pocket and is great to carry places I wouldn't
want to lug my DSLR.

My DSLR shots haven't declined at all. I enjoy using my
10D as much as when I got it almost 2 years ago. When
the 20D gets replaced, I'll be moving up to that.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 4:55:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>
> - Siddhartha

I switched to the 350D. It's smaller and lighter by just enough to make
carrying easier for me, especially on a bicycle. I'll pick one lens
(wide, medium, or telephoto) and figure out how to make that lens work
for me. A backpack full of lenses is restricting.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 5:24:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-6D9388.12552702072005@corp-radius.supernews.com...
>
> I switched to the 350D. It's smaller and lighter by just enough to make
> carrying easier for me, especially on a bicycle. I'll pick one lens
> (wide, medium, or telephoto) and figure out how to make that lens work
> for me. A backpack full of lenses is restricting.

Yep. For mtn bike rides I just stick my 35mm f/2 or cheap 50mm f/1.8 on my
Rebel XT.

I'm finding that the 35mm is a better focal length for rides than the 50mm
but the 50mm sure is light.

50mm f/1.8:

http://homepage.mac.com/getosx/chilao/crossing1.jpg

35mm f/2:

http://homepage.mac.com/getosx/backbone/last_obstacle1....

Greg
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:12:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi Skip!
I've just come back from Greece and Turkey and I'm sorry to differ.
To visit the Parthenon, the Meteors, the Blue Mosque or the Topkapi and have
in hand a good camera, in my view, gives souvenirs an extra glitter. Why
take snapshots when you have the opportunity to bring back realistic and
artistic scenes? Cheers,
Marcel

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fpzxe.2140$HV1.1878@fed1read07...
>
> We don't need 7 or 8 mp, the sharpest of lenses or the largest
> of sensors to take a pic of some cute roadside sign...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
>
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:12:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd still carry the "good stuff" in the car, or
whatever. But to get out of the car, get the bag out, pull the camera body
out, decide which lens to mount, shoot, decide that's the wrong lens, get
another out, mount it, shoot, dismount lens, put lens and camera back in
bag, put bag back in appropriate spot, vs. grab small camera with a lens
with lots of range, snap the one shot of the Burma Shave sign. Which would
you do? Now, if I wanted to get an image of that sign that might hang in a
gallery, then it's no question, either.
What I said, and what you said, are not mutually exclusive... ;-)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Celcius" <cosmar@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:fPCdnTtwIbNVRVvfRVn-jw@rogers.com...
> Hi Skip!
> I've just come back from Greece and Turkey and I'm sorry to differ.
> To visit the Parthenon, the Meteors, the Blue Mosque or the Topkapi and
> have
> in hand a good camera, in my view, gives souvenirs an extra glitter. Why
> take snapshots when you have the opportunity to bring back realistic and
> artistic scenes? Cheers,
> Marcel
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:fpzxe.2140$HV1.1878@fed1read07...
>>
>> We don't need 7 or 8 mp, the sharpest of lenses or the largest
>> of sensors to take a pic of some cute roadside sign...
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
>>
>
>
July 2, 2005 7:12:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Celcius wrote:

> Hi Skip!
> I've just come back from Greece and Turkey and I'm sorry to differ.
> To visit the Parthenon, the Meteors, the Blue Mosque or the Topkapi and
> have in hand a good camera, in my view, gives souvenirs an extra glitter.
> Why take snapshots when you have the opportunity to bring back realistic
> and artistic scenes?

I agree but it depends on your goal for your vacation. If the camera gets in
the way of you having a good time, then somethings wrong. I'm used to a
fairly large camera so a dSLR with one wide zoom isn't a problem for me. If
you're used to a camera you stick in your shift pocket, it might seem
different?


--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 7:12:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3io79pFmfc8tU1@individual.net...
> Celcius wrote:
>
>> Hi Skip!
>> I've just come back from Greece and Turkey and I'm sorry to differ.
>> To visit the Parthenon, the Meteors, the Blue Mosque or the Topkapi and
>> have in hand a good camera, in my view, gives souvenirs an extra glitter.
>> Why take snapshots when you have the opportunity to bring back realistic
>> and artistic scenes?
>
> I agree but it depends on your goal for your vacation. If the camera gets
> in
> the way of you having a good time, then somethings wrong. I'm used to a
> fairly large camera so a dSLR with one wide zoom isn't a problem for me.
> If
> you're used to a camera you stick in your shift pocket, it might seem
> different?
>
>
> --
>
> Stacey

Exactly. But, too, I'm used to large cameras, 1N, A2, 20D, etc, but it's
sometimes nice to just pull out our old SureShot and fire one off. A
digital version of same, even smaller, has it's place in the world.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 7:22:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> writes:
> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

Having both an A95 and 300D covers me for the times I just need some
portable snapshot ability and the times I want to get serious with
flash or sports photography.

There's a place for both in yer arsenal.

Try an A75 -- wonderful price/performance.


--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 7:29:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Siddhartha Jain <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

I resolved my "problem" by evaluating my needs before I bought
anything, and then purchasing more than one camera. Sometimes I carry a
30 lb bag of SLR's and lenses, and sometimes i carry a pocketable.
Works for me...
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 7:54:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>


When I first bought my 300D I bought what turned out to be a fairly bulky
LowePro waist belt bag that could hold all my gear. (300D w/28-135, 18-55,
70-300, battery grip, flash, etc) I very quickly found the bag way to bulky
and too heavy. The weight wasn't distributed properly and on top of that I
added a 100-400 which wouldn't fit in the bag.

In March went down to Atlanta to shoot a NASCAR event. No way I was going
to get the LowePro bag into the track along with a backpack etc. so I put
the 300D w/28-135 around my neck and but the 100-400 in it's case on my
belt. Extra batteries and CF card were in a backpack that had other race
day necessities in it as well. Worked well however this solution was still
impractical for "everyday" use.

In May I needed to go up to Philadelphia to shoot a big High school rowing
event and I wasn't going to take the LowPro bag. I looked around the house
and found and old waist pack, something like this http://tinyurl.com/7kmqy,
that I used to use for biking. It has a bottle holder with two zippered
bags on each side. It also has thin zippered pockets in the belt and a
couple of cinch straps. In one side bag I put my 18-55 wrapped in an cotton
diaper, which doubles as an excellent cleaning cloth. In the other side bag
I put my 420EX flash. I can also slide some miscellaneous items like remote
shutter release and tripod quick release plate in the bag. I side extra CF
cars into the thin belt pocket on one side and camera/flash batteries in the
side. The 100-400 case is attached using the cinch straps through the belt
loop on the case. I just carry the camera with the 28-135 attached. With
the exception of the fact that the camera isn't in a safe bag while not in
use, for example in the car while we drive to our destination, this setup as
proven to be very convenient. The thing I like about the solution is it's
compact to store and when I go out I can just throw the thing over my
shoulder and go. Then when I'm shooting I have everything I need fairly
well distributed around my waist.

The draw back is that the bag isn't made for camera equipment so it isn't
padded and it an be hard to get things in and out of the bags. Also the
belt is thin so after time it can get a bit uncomfortable. Lastly, short of
slipping my filter pack into the bottle holder, I really don't have anyplace
to keep them. Regardless, I've been using it since May and find that I have
the camera with me all the time anymore.

The next step of course is to buy something like this. www.kinesisgear.com.
This is what I'm going to do when I have the cash. The two things I like
the most about this solution is 1) I'll have a holster bag for the camera,
and 2) the modular design of all these types of belts means I can carry only
what I need for the situation. That way I can lessen the weight when I
don't need to carry the big lens or my flash, etc.

Now my wife, who shoots 35mm film, takes a more task oriented approach. She
has all her equipment in a large Tarmac shoulder bag but when she goes of to
shoot she takes only what she's going to use and puts it in the original
Canon bag that came with her Rebel 2K camera. In other words she chooses a
body and mounts her main lens then puts it in the small bag along with her
usual 75-300, she then folds her 550ex flash and slips it in the bag. Any
film, remote shutter release or extra batteries goes in the small front
pocket. Makes for a fairly inconspicuous and light weight way to carry her
stuff around.

HTH

--

Rob
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:13:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>

I kept the G5 when I bought the 350D.

If I am taking photos where it's convienient to use the DSLR then that's
what I use. On a cycle ride I take the G5.

John
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:13:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
>> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
>> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
>> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
>> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
>> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
>> Coolpix 7900.
>>
>> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

I sold all my SLR stuff just recently. Having the Panasonic FZ5 (just
12oz in weight) and Nikon 8400 I no longer have need to drag round a
sackful of expensive lenses! Of course, your needs may differ.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:23:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>
> - Siddhartha


I too moved up from Olympus 3000 to Canon 20D. I took more pix than
before. The 20D is great for portrait. It's also quick when coupling
with ultrasonic lenses. Someone in my house has a Sony V1 too, so I
don't need to plan on getting a P&S myself. It's rather slow so I rarely
have a need to use it. And putting a flash gun on top of it not only
look funny but impossible to handle. If I had to pick one small camera,
I think I'd get the Pentax OptioWP, All weather camera to compliment the
20D. If you do want a replacement P&S, then Panasonic's offering with IS
seems to be the best overall.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:27:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Siddhartha Jain <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:
>Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
>money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
>photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
>everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
>am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
>digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
>Coolpix 7900.
>
>Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

There's an easy answer to this one - try playing with large format for a
while, where if you go for the smallest, lightest equipment you can find
that still takes decent pictures, you may manage to get the weight down to
under 10 kilograms.

After you've lugged that around the deserts of the US southwest for a couple
of weeks, you will then realise that your DSLR and a walk-around lens weighs
nothing. ;-)
July 2, 2005 9:27:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:


>>
>>Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>
> There's an easy answer to this one - try playing with large format for a
> while,

Exactly, I'm used to using medium or large format so a dSLR seems like a
small camera to me..

--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:50:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <QFCxe.2240$HV1.1787@fed1read07>,
Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd still carry the "good stuff" in the car, or
>whatever. But to get out of the car, get the bag out, pull the camera body
>out, decide which lens to mount, shoot, decide that's the wrong lens, get
>another out, mount it, shoot, dismount lens, put lens and camera back in
>bag, put bag back in appropriate spot, vs. grab small camera with a lens
>with lots of range, snap the one shot of the Burma Shave sign. Which would
>you do?

Well ... your description of the operation shows a difference
between us. I would keep the camera out of the bag, with a good general
purpose lens on it. (For my D70, I would probably choose from my
current stock of glass, between the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 D zoom lens with
macro capability, or the 50mm f1.4, depending on how far I was likely to
walk, and what kind of lighting I expected. (The 50mm f1.4 is
noticeably lighter, and quite a bit faster. :-)

For a shot of the Burma Shave sign, either lens would do well,
unless the lighting was quite low, in which case I would go for the 50mm
f1.4 and just move to the right distance, or pop up the built-in flash.

For that matter, the "kit" lens (18-70mm) would do just as well,
other than in low light conditions. I just don't have one of those yet.
(I had finally decided that I needed the wide angle zoom, and the shop
was temporarily out of stock. :-)

> Now, if I wanted to get an image of that sign that might hang in a
>gallery, then it's no question, either.

Of course. And you might want a SB-800 flash so you could light
it from one side to enhance the texture of the peeling paint as part of
the image. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 10:28:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Siddhartha Jain <losttoy@gmail.com> writes
>Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
>money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
>photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
>everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
>am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
>digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
>Coolpix 7900.
>
>Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>
>- Siddhartha

I moved from film SLRs to a digital SLR and find that what I carry has
*decreased*. I was often carrying three film bodies so that I could run
slides, colour negatives and b&w negatives. Now I just carry the digital
SLR. Even the number of lenses I carry is reduced because the DSLR comes
with a zoom that covers more focal lengths than any of the zooms I
previously owned.

However, I do understand your point about lugging all that weight
around, and keep a 35mm film compact in my handbag for those occasions
when I haven't planned to lug the DSLR around but want to take a photo
anyway. One day I suppose I'll replace it with a digital compact, but I
don't use it all that often, so the costs of running film through it
aren't too high, and don't currently justify the higher purchase cost of
a digital compact.

Helen

Helen Edith Stephenson <helen at baronmoss dot demon dot co dot uk>
--
(I'm sure you can figure out what I mean!)
http://www.baronmoss.demon.co.uk
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 12:17:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I recently purchased a Panasonic FZ5 and am having more fun with it
than any camera I have owned. As a kid I saved up and purchased my
first Kodak Instamatic. I was so proud of that camera, but the cost of
film and developing kept shots to a minimum. As I grew up I purchased
nicer point and shoot cameras, and continued to enjoy capturing those
"special moments". As young adult I graduated to a 35mm SLR.
Finally... the big time! But, like the OP, I found myself leaving it
home more and more when it was inconvenient and just borrowing my
wife's little P&S 35mm. I finally sold the SLR due to lack of use and
better uses for the money tied up in it and it's collection of
accessories.

Since then my wife upgraded to a Canon A70 P&S digital. Nice enough
camera, but not very inspiring. I'd just borrow that camera if I wanted
to take some family pics. I finally got the urge to get my own rig and
started my research. First off, I think you need to be honest with
yourself about what kind of pics you take, as well as how much time,
effort, and money you are willing to budget for this hobby. I really
enjoy taking the occasional "artsy" pic when an opportunity presents
itself, but primarily I use a camera to capture moments of our lives
for future remembrance. My primary uses: Kid/family pics, at home, at
school, outings, traveling etc. I also like to take nature pics,
especially wildlife shots. With a busy family life I don't have much
time or money to take planned "photo safaris" (professional or self
guided at a local site of scenic beauty). While on a walk if a special
image presents itself, I will do my best to capture it. I do it for the
enjoyment. I don't have to sell my pics and there is nothing at
stake. Hmmm..... Which camera to meet my needs?

I selected the Panasonic FZ5 and have no regrets. It is so small and
light that it is rarely in the way. It goes with me on days that I
would never even bother taking anything bigger or heavier. The joy is
back. I am taking pictures by the hundreds. I am having a blast. The
total capability stuffed into the light, small, chassis of the FZ5 is
truly amazing. It covers virtually any need I have for a camera. I took
it on a recent Killer Whale watch cruise out of Anacortes WA. The boat
never holds still for even a moment. The image stabilization allowed me
to capture pics that would otherwise have been garbage. At a recent zoo
field trip I was taking zoom shots of the animals that the other P&S
folks could only dream about. All day long I kept hearing others say
"I wish I had more zoom". The FZ5 has become my Jack of all trades,
master of none, take almost anywhere camera. The quality and
capabilities of the high end P&S cameras have increased dramatically
just in the last year. It is no longer a requirement to own a DSLR for
quality pics.

As much as I love my FZ5, if the gods of financial fortune smile on me
I would like to buy at least 2 additional cameras. First off, I want a
highly compact camera to take when I don't want a camera with me at
all. If Panasonic ever sells the FX8 here I'm grabbing one. Tiny in
size, superb optics and image stabilization to boot. If Panasonic lets
me down I'll probably get a Canon SD400 or SD500. Next.... I would
still like a DSLR. I can't really justify the cost, and yeah it would
get left home a lot, but there are things it can do that lesser cameras
cannot. For me the DSLR market is still not close enough to mature
products to jump into. I'll probably wait a few years for a Camera
like the Canon 20D to sell for $500 and have any and all bugs worked
out of the system. I love the IS lens on the Panasonic and I also
expect the price of quality IS DSLR lenses to come down over time.

In a perfect world we would all own 3 or more cameras, to cover most of
the bases. That is still my long term plan. In the short term, the FZ5
was the easily the best companion for my needs/requirements. If I were
limited to a single camera and reasonable price was a factor there are
several of the so call ZLR (mid-size, high zoom cameras) that would
easily handle most requirements. For me it was the Panasonic FZ5.

TR
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 12:46:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>
> - Siddhartha

Easy, I decided I bought the D-SLR so I could take better photographs, it
goes everywhere I go, just work out a way to make it happen. I guess you are
just taking "snaps" so will be happy with a P&S.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 12:53:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <fPCdnTtwIbNVRVvfRVn-jw@rogers.com>, Celcius says...
> Hi Skip!
> I've just come back from Greece and Turkey and I'm sorry to differ.
> To visit the Parthenon, the Meteors, the Blue Mosque or the Topkapi and have
> in hand a good camera, in my view, gives souvenirs an extra glitter. Why
> take snapshots when you have the opportunity to bring back realistic and
> artistic scenes? Cheers,

Even compact cameras can produce good shots. Just shoot at lowest ISO in
RAW mode and use a polariser filter.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 2:08:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alfred Molon"
> > Hi Skip!
> > I've just come back from Greece and Turkey and I'm sorry to differ.
> > To visit the Parthenon, the Meteors, the Blue Mosque or the Topkapi and have
> > in hand a good camera, in my view, gives souvenirs an extra glitter. Why
> > take snapshots when you have the opportunity to bring back realistic and
> > artistic scenes? Cheers,
>
> Even compact cameras can produce good shots. Just shoot at lowest ISO in
> RAW mode and use a polariser filter.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon

Unless you are really hooked on images with narrow dof ;o)-max-
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 4:14:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3io7d7Fmfc8tU2@individual.net...
> Chris Brown wrote:

> Exactly, I'm used to using medium or large format so a dSLR seems like a
> small camera to me..

Heck... I went from a Nikon F601 to a Sony F717 (the Digital Rebel and D70
were about a year and a half away at the time, or something like that) and
the Sony still feels like a small camera compared to what I used to shoot
with. I wasn't even using anything as large as a medium format, either.
It's really all a matter of what you're used to, I guess. And I really miss
the flexibility of having a couple of lenses on hand depending on the
situation. Maybe it's time to go SLR again...
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 4:21:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Kevin McMurtrie" <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-6D9388.12552702072005@corp-radius.supernews.com...

> I switched to the 350D. It's smaller and lighter by just enough to make
> carrying easier for me, especially on a bicycle. I'll pick one lens
> (wide, medium, or telephoto) and figure out how to make that lens work
> for me. A backpack full of lenses is restricting.

Back when I had my F601, I generally kept a 35-80 on the camera, and put my
70-300 into a waist pack along with extra film and stuff. The on-camera
flash was generally good enough for my uses, so I never bothered taking my
speedlight with me anywhere. I never had enough lenses to bother with a
backpack and the two that I mentioned covered my preferred shooting range
quite nicely. I had a 24mm and a 50mm macro that I rarely used.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 4:34:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

I bought a Sony P200 to supplement the 300D. I now find I take it more
places than the Canon. It takes great pictures and is as easy to carry
as a cell phone. Its convenience is addictive.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 5:04:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:

> Even compact cameras can produce good shots. Just shoot at lowest ISO in
> RAW mode and use a polariser filter.

Likewise, my little camcorder can do fine video in certain conditions,
but mostly only under broad day light. This is the same as many P&S.
They are fine for snapshots but if need to take pictures under more
difficult situations, you can forget it. Also, it's not good for
portraits because of DoF.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 8:17:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:
: Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
: money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
: photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
: everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
: am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
: digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
: Coolpix 7900.

: Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

Not really. I have a D-SLR for the uses where that camera is practicle.
But I do have a small pocket sized P&S backup camera for use where the SLR
isn't a good idea. For example I don't carry my SLR to work with me, but
my backup camera is left right there in my pack (easier to lug around than
a briefcase). So I always have a camera, just not always my "best" camera.
Of course, when I am going out and I think there is a chance that
something may "pop up" I will bring the SLR and what accessories I may
need. Daytime at the park doesn't need my flashes. Hiking in the woods I
am not likely to carry my large tripod. If I am going to a sporting event
I will probably not carry my extreme wide angle lens. Just adjust the
"Kit" for the expected situation (with a little extra, just incase). :) 

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 9:08:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <FQGxe.16440$eM6.8086@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, l e
o says...

> > Even compact cameras can produce good shots. Just shoot at lowest ISO in
> > RAW mode and use a polariser filter.
>
> Likewise, my little camcorder can do fine video in certain conditions,
> but mostly only under broad day light. This is the same as many P&S.
> They are fine for snapshots but if need to take pictures under more
> difficult situations, you can forget it. Also, it's not good for
> portraits because of DoF.

Well, compact cameras operate nicely in low light too. They are not well
suitable for sports photography and some other specific fields, but in a
wide range of situations they produce results good enough even for
professional use.

Alex Majoli, an award winning photojournalist, only uses compact digital
cameras, because this way he can approach people in a more undetected
way and get more "natural" shots.

By the way, I'm not talking of pocketable cameras the size of a credit
card, but of "prosumer" compacts which can take filters such as the
Canon G2, Olympus 5050, Nikon 8XXX etc.

Achieving a shallow DOF is obviously an issue with a small sensor, but
on the other hand a huge DOF even when lens is wide open is an advantage
in many situations.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 9:40:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <FQGxe.16440$eM6.8086@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, l e
> o says...
>
>
>>>Even compact cameras can produce good shots. Just shoot at lowest ISO in
>>>RAW mode and use a polariser filter.
>>
>>Likewise, my little camcorder can do fine video in certain conditions,
>>but mostly only under broad day light. This is the same as many P&S.
>>They are fine for snapshots but if need to take pictures under more
>>difficult situations, you can forget it. Also, it's not good for
>>portraits because of DoF.
>
>
> Well, compact cameras operate nicely in low light too. They are not well
> suitable for sports photography and some other specific fields, but in a
> wide range of situations they produce results good enough even for
> professional use.
>
> Alex Majoli, an award winning photojournalist, only uses compact digital
> cameras, because this way he can approach people in a more undetected
> way and get more "natural" shots.
>
> By the way, I'm not talking of pocketable cameras the size of a credit
> card, but of "prosumer" compacts which can take filters such as the
> Canon G2, Olympus 5050, Nikon 8XXX etc.
>
> Achieving a shallow DOF is obviously an issue with a small sensor, but
> on the other hand a huge DOF even when lens is wide open is an advantage
> in many situations.


I never ignore the usefulness of a P&S, just as I'd carry a small DV
camcorder when traveling, rather than lugging a Sony HDR-FX1 but when I
need quality, I'd pick the right tool.

And unless you're doing spy cam, you don't need a tiny camera to get
natural pictures. From my experience, once the people seeing you with
the camera for a while, they'll simply ignore you, no matter how camera
shy that person is.

As for calling the Olympus 5050 as prosumer is a joke. The E1, perhaps.
The C series are way too slow to be used as anything but a snapshot camera.

As for DoF, you can always use a smaller aperture when needed and even
if you increase the ISO, the end result might still be better than a
P&S. There is no way to avoid the basic physical limit of the current
sensor. Bigger is better. I, too, wish there would be a camera that is
10x more sensitive. using that technology on a video camera would make
bright [very expensive] spot light unnecessary. I am waiting for that
day to happen...
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 11:17:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

Try a nice case or backpack, or whatever else which makes brining it not so
painful.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 11:25:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"DoN. Nichols" <dnichols@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:D a726r$blt$1@Fuego.d-and-d.com...
> In article <QFCxe.2240$HV1.1787@fed1read07>,
> Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd still carry the "good stuff" in the car, or
>>whatever. But to get out of the car, get the bag out, pull the camera
>>body
>>out, decide which lens to mount, shoot, decide that's the wrong lens, get
>>another out, mount it, shoot, dismount lens, put lens and camera back in
>>bag, put bag back in appropriate spot, vs. grab small camera with a lens
>>with lots of range, snap the one shot of the Burma Shave sign. Which
>>would
>>you do?
>
> Well ... your description of the operation shows a difference
> between us. I would keep the camera out of the bag, with a good general
> purpose lens on it. (For my D70, I would probably choose from my
> current stock of glass, between the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 D zoom lens with
> macro capability, or the 50mm f1.4, depending on how far I was likely to
> walk, and what kind of lighting I expected. (The 50mm f1.4 is
> noticeably lighter, and quite a bit faster. :-)
Actually, truth be told, I often put my 1N, with a 28-135 IS, on it behind
my seat, so I can grab it easily. But, sometimes, I don't...and sometimes
even that combination is just too bulky.
>
> For a shot of the Burma Shave sign, either lens would do well,
> unless the lighting was quite low, in which case I would go for the 50mm
> f1.4 and just move to the right distance, or pop up the built-in flash.
>
> For that matter, the "kit" lens (18-70mm) would do just as well,
> other than in low light conditions. I just don't have one of those yet.
> (I had finally decided that I needed the wide angle zoom, and the shop
> was temporarily out of stock. :-)
>
>> Now, if I wanted to get an image of that sign that might hang in
>> a
>>gallery, then it's no question, either.
>
> Of course. And you might want a SB-800 flash so you could light
> it from one side to enhance the texture of the peeling paint as part of
> the image. :-)

That flash may not work so well on my 1N or 20D... ;-)
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 12:29:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <%CJxe.16318$mK5.1241018@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Paul Fedorenko <pfedorenko@look.ca> wrote:
>"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3io7d7Fmfc8tU2@individual.net...
>
>> Exactly, I'm used to using medium or large format so a dSLR seems like a
>> small camera to me..
>
>Heck... I went from a Nikon F601 to a Sony F717 (the Digital Rebel and D70
>were about a year and a half away at the time, or something like that) and
>the Sony still feels like a small camera compared to what I used to shoot
>with. I wasn't even using anything as large as a medium format, either.

FWIW, my medium format camera of choice (Rolleiflex TLR) is *lighter* than
my DSLR...
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 1:12:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

As a photojournalist, I pretty much am required to carry around my
Canon20D (with battery grip and extra lenses) everywhere I go. After
awhile, you just get used to it. Find a good bag that you don't mind
throwing over your shoulder and just stick it out for a week or two.
Soon enough, it will start feeling like part of your body, and you'll
actually feel strange without it.

But, if you MUST trade it in.. :(  at least get a Canon. Don't be
foolish, man.

stacy
http://savoir.photopholio.com
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:24:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"MadHatter" <greeneggsandham00@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120402349.795295.285170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I don't know it it would meet your needs, but I've been happy with the
> Tamrac MAS modular belt.
>
> http://www.tamrac.com/welcome.htm


I looked at the MAS system and I also looked at LowePro's system and neither
had the exact assortment of cases I wanted. Another advantage to the
Kinesis system is it can accept non Kinesis bags. It's bad point is it's
more expensive.

--

Rob
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:34:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>
I found that problem too. The thought of lugging round my old Canon AE1
together with a couple of zooms (35-85 and 80-210) made me more and more
reluctant to go out and take photos. My first digital was a Sony S70
P&S. Except for irritation on the cost of Memory Sticks, it became
possible to shoot whatever and whenever I liked without the
corresponding bulk and weight. I've now 'upgraded' to a Fuji S7000 as I
bought an A3 printer, but the camera is still virtually 'pocketable' and
I will not buy a DSLR in the foreseeable future (unless I get that
once-in-a-lifetime contract to tour the world taking pictures for a
coffee table book).

Do go back to the P&S and see how satisfied you are - the whole point of
digital cameras is there is no perfect camera for every situation and I
carry a mini Fuji F440 simply because it is so small and can slip it in
my pocket when I'm off to the supermarket.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 3:43:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>
> - Siddhartha
>

Well, this was with a film camera, but the same thing should still
apply. My wife used to always carry a big camera bag with lenses for
her film SLR. She fell in love with the new Tamron 30-300 mm lens. It
wouldn't work with any of her cameras, so she bought a new Nikon N75 to
go with lens. After using it several times, she now keeps camera bag in
car, only hauls around the camera and a couple of filters she sticks in
pocket. She really likes it. Unfortunately, her old cameras were Oly
film SLRs and apparently the lens cannot be adapted to old Oly cameras-
don't know whether you could adapt the lens to the 750, but doubt it.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 4:36:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <FTKxe.2766$aY6.2763@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, l e o
says...

> As for calling the Olympus 5050 as prosumer is a joke. The E1, perhaps.
> The C series are way too slow to be used as anything but a snapshot camera.

Before affordable DSLRs were introduced cameras like the G2 and the 5050
were commonly referred to as prosumers.

> As for DoF, you can always use a smaller aperture when needed and even
> if you increase the ISO, the end result might still be better than a
> P&S.

Well no...

The Olympus 5050 has *sufficient* DOF at F1.8 (DOF improves if you stop
down the lens, but is good enough for most situations at F1.8).

The sensor of a 5050 is 1/5 of the size of a 35mm frame, and therefore
has at F1.8 the same DOF of a full-frame camera at F9 (1.8 x 5).

A Nikon D70 with its 1.5 crop factor will have the same DOF at F6 (9 /
1.5).

At F6 the exposure time will be approx. 11 times longer than at F1.8 at
a given aperture and ISO.

To shorten the exposure time by a factor 11 you'll need to go up to
approx. ISO 880 with the DSLR.

It would then be a compact camera at ISO 64 vs. a DSLR at ISO 880. The
compact camera will have less noise.

As for speed, the 5050 can write a RAW to the memory card in less than 3
seconds, faster than many DLSR...
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
July 3, 2005 6:11:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 2 Jul 2005 09:11:00 -0700, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
>money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
>photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
>everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
>am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
>digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
>Coolpix 7900.
>
>Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?

I used to carry two 35s. An F4S and an 8008s plus an assortment of
lenses. Many times I'd carry the two 35s, three or 4 lenses, filters,
a cleaning kit, change of clothes

Even for casual shooting I carry the D70 with either the kit lens, or
more preferably a Nikor 24-120. That lens makes the outfit a tad on
the heavy side, but nothing compared to the F4S even with the standard
lens.

Even for casual shooting I find the D-70 preferable, but there are
those rare times when I'd like to have a nice compact digital, but
even then I doubt it'd be a point and shoot (depending on your
definition of P&S.) I'd still want at least 5 mega pixels even though
in that type of shooting I might only have one out of a hundred where
I'd really benefit with the extra resolution. I can always downsize
or delete. I'd also want a reasonable zoom range for the built on
lens. For me that'd probably be on the order of 10:1 (give or take a
bit) Then comes the problem with the LCD. I've never found one worth
using when it comes to focusing. That would leave me pretty much at
the mercy of the camera's auto focus.

OTOH when on trips I still use the 35s. I take the D70, but if I'm
going to be away from civilization for more than a few days I'll end
up using film.

My wife has gone on biking tours in Tasmania and New Zealand (both
islands) for a number of years. For that she uses a small 35 with a
relatively short range zoom, and/or the disposable 35s.

Places like Indonesia and China can offer some real challenges.

We've found it doesn't pay to depend on the ability to recharge the
batteries on long trips. You might be able to do so every night and
then again you may run a week before you find suitable facilities.
OTOH if you stay in civilization and a hotel every night you only need
to make sure your charger will handle the available voltages.
You can get around this to some extent if the camera will take AA
batteries and even the expensive non rechargeable Lithiums can get you
through an extended period.

Another problem is for extended periods; you may not have a way to
send the digital images home, particularly if they are of any size so
you may need to have a lot of CF cards. Big ones too. Unless you have
a lot of storage and a high speed Internet connection, one gig of
traffic every two days would be a bit on the impractical side.

I can, and often do, shoot a good 500 megs to as much as 2 Gigs worth
of images over a week end. At roughly 5 megs per image as an NEF
(same image is about 35 megs as a TIF) 200 images equals one gig. (It
usually works out to about 190). That means two, one gig CF cards for
a week end. OTOH the stock battery in the D70 would be good for the
whole week end. Still, it wouldn't hurt to have either a spare
charged battery or a set of Lithiums and the holder for them which
makes for something else to lose<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


>
>- Siddhartha
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 7:39:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <FTKxe.2766$aY6.2763@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, l e o
> says...
>
>
>>As for calling the Olympus 5050 as prosumer is a joke. The E1, perhaps.
>>The C series are way too slow to be used as anything but a snapshot camera.
>
>
> Before affordable DSLRs were introduced cameras like the G2 and the 5050
> were commonly referred to as prosumers.
>
>
>>As for DoF, you can always use a smaller aperture when needed and even
>>if you increase the ISO, the end result might still be better than a
>>P&S.
>
>
> Well no...
>
> The Olympus 5050 has *sufficient* DOF at F1.8 (DOF improves if you stop
> down the lens, but is good enough for most situations at F1.8).
>
> The sensor of a 5050 is 1/5 of the size of a 35mm frame, and therefore
> has at F1.8 the same DOF of a full-frame camera at F9 (1.8 x 5).
>
> A Nikon D70 with its 1.5 crop factor will have the same DOF at F6 (9 /
> 1.5).
>
> At F6 the exposure time will be approx. 11 times longer than at F1.8 at
> a given aperture and ISO.
>
> To shorten the exposure time by a factor 11 you'll need to go up to
> approx. ISO 880 with the DSLR.
>
> It would then be a compact camera at ISO 64 vs. a DSLR at ISO 880. The
> compact camera will have less noise.
>
> As for speed, the 5050 can write a RAW to the memory card in less than 3
> seconds, faster than many DLSR...


I assume your calculation is based on ISO 100. Then you switch to ISO
64. When you take ISO 100 into consideration, the Olympus 5050 has
considerably higher noise than even the Canon G3, according to dpreview
which is over 3.5 in rgb noise and the figure for 20D is roughly about
2-3 at ISO 800. So even if your 5050 is slightly better, it's not by
much margin and the lens has variable maximum aperture anyway from 1.8
to 2.6. The generally conclusion is the 5050 has higher noise than usual
and disappointing at ISO 64.

I took some photo at a friend's graduation ceremony. I had to use
70-200/4 at ISO 3200. Perhaps you can advise me what alternative P&S I
could use. Many other people were flashing away with their P&S and even
a camera phone.

And taking 3 seconds to write a RAW file to memory is obscene. It makes
using RAW an impossible task. I would have always taken 5 shots in RAW
format in one second using 20D. Having a dSLR is not enough for fast
photo shooting though. With Canon, you need an ultrasonic lens as well
(as does Nikon's corresponding technology). I tried my friend's Pentex
*ist Ds. I love that small dSLR camera which is well built but the kit
lens is SLOW, not much better than a P&S. I hope Pentax has some fast
lenses.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 7:58:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I got a Pentax istDs.
While it doesn't fit in a pocket, it is light enough to carry around.

AE




"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>
> - Siddhartha
>
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 8:06:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <da7osn$c8f$1@wildfire.prairienet.org>,
Randy Berbaum <rberbaum@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
>Siddhartha Jain <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote:

[ ... ]

>: everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
>: am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
>: digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
>: Coolpix 7900.
>
>: Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>
>Not really. I have a D-SLR for the uses where that camera is practicle.
>But I do have a small pocket sized P&S backup camera for use where the SLR
>isn't a good idea. For example I don't carry my SLR to work with me, but
>my backup camera is left right there in my pack (easier to lug around than
>a briefcase). So I always have a camera, just not always my "best" camera.

Well ... back when I was working, it was at a place where
classified material was handled, so I could not carry *any* camera
there. Not even into the parking lot to be left in the car. But before
that job, and since retirement, I carry a camera whenever away from the
house, and have one in reach when at home. Back in the old days, it was
one or two film "Miranda F" cameras or relatives to that. After
retirement, it was part of a growing collection of Nikon F's, then a
CoolPix 950 (my first digital), a digital converted N90s (The Kodak
NC2000e/c for the AP), and at present a Nikon D70. After the NC2000e/c,
the D70 is featherweight. :-)

But -- there are some things for which I still use the CoolPix
950. In particular, for shots at awkward angles (usually to document
something which I am working on, such as the belt tension adjustment on
the underside of a 10" Logan lathe).

>Of course, when I am going out and I think there is a chance that
>something may "pop up" I will bring the SLR and what accessories I may
>need. Daytime at the park doesn't need my flashes. Hiking in the woods I
>am not likely to carry my large tripod. If I am going to a sporting event
>I will probably not carry my extreme wide angle lens. Just adjust the
>"Kit" for the expected situation (with a little extra, just incase). :) 

Agreed. Unless I have specific expectations, I am more likely
to carry just the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 D, or the 50mm f1.4 (for low light).
The 180mm f2.8 (converted to CPU) is a bit too heavy to carry along
unless I expect to need it. Sometimes, I'll have the 28-105mm on the
camera, and the 50mm f1.4 in a pocket (which caps on both ends, of
course.)

Anything else is currently going to also require a meter, or
lots of "chimping" the histogram to set the exposure, as the lenses are
purely manual -- so those get used for things which are going to require
careful setup and offer lots of options for re-shoots.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 8:15:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>
> - Siddhartha

Well, I bought a small Optio to carry around in my pocket. I do a lot of
hiking around here, and there are times when even though the Optio takes
decent photos I really wish I had my D70 with me. As a matter of fact I
plan on going back to some of the places I've been to get better shots or
use the creativity the D70 can give me. Now, I can easily get back to the
places I'm talking about. I'm not sure about going back to Europe to get
better shots because I didn't have my good camera with me. I think the
trick is to find the right case for it (a small photo backpack maybe), and
assume you won't need all your lenses with you all the time.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 8:26:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>
> - Siddhartha
>
I shoot more with my Canon digital Rebel than before. For one thing, I can
put my 300mm lens plus 2x teleconcverter on it and get the 35mm equiv. view
of 1000mm or I can go wide angle or use fast glass. The image from the DSLR
is cleaner, lacking a processed look and higher ISOs are usable.

OTOH, I do have a campact camera I carry around when the SLR and lenses are
too much. It is a basic camera with 3x zoom.
John
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 8:57:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120320659.956640.194100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Saved up money, sold my Oly C-750, bought a Canon 300D, saved more
> money, and bought some lenses. The end result is that the number of
> photographs I take has steadily declined. I find carrying the dSLR
> everywhere is impractical even without all the extra lenses. So now I
> am considering going back to a relatively light and more portable P&S
> digicam. Maybe something along the lines of a Canon A95 or Nikon
> Coolpix 7900.
>
> Has anything similar happened to you? How did you resolve it?
>
> - Siddhartha

I can recommend the Canon Powershot S70, for a compact camera, it has full
manual control options. Very well featured, and 7.1MP.

**SS**
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 1:43:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <PETxe.16692$eM6.11080@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, l e
o says...
>
> >
> > Well no...
> >
> > The Olympus 5050 has *sufficient* DOF at F1.8 (DOF improves if you stop
> > down the lens, but is good enough for most situations at F1.8).
> >
> > The sensor of a 5050 is 1/5 of the size of a 35mm frame, and therefore
> > has at F1.8 the same DOF of a full-frame camera at F9 (1.8 x 5).
> >
> > A Nikon D70 with its 1.5 crop factor will have the same DOF at F6 (9 /
> > 1.5).
> >
> > At F6 the exposure time will be approx. 11 times longer than at F1.8 at
> > a given aperture and ISO.
> >
> > To shorten the exposure time by a factor 11 you'll need to go up to
> > approx. ISO 880 with the DSLR.
> >
> > It would then be a compact camera at ISO 64 vs. a DSLR at ISO 880. The
> > compact camera will have less noise.
> >
> > As for speed, the 5050 can write a RAW to the memory card in less than 3
> > seconds, faster than many DLSR...
>
>
> I assume your calculation is based on ISO 100.

No, ISO 64.

> Then you switch to ISO
> 64. When you take ISO 100 into consideration, the Olympus 5050 has
> considerably higher noise than even the Canon G3, according to dpreview
> which is over 3.5 in rgb noise and the figure for 20D is roughly about
> 2-3 at ISO 800. So even if your 5050 is slightly better, it's not by
> much margin and the lens has variable maximum aperture anyway from 1.8
> to 2.6. The generally conclusion is the 5050 has higher noise than usual
> and disappointing at ISO 64.

Even with dpreview's test the noise of the 5050 at ISO 64 is 2.3.
Personally I measured a lower noise level (standard deviation), around
1.8 at default sharpening and 1.5 at sharpening -5 (lowest):
http://myolympus.org/5050/noisetest/

In RAW mode the noise level (standard deviation) of the 5050 drops to
1.2:
http://myolympus.org/8080/noisetest/

But let's assume the noise level of the 5050 is the one of dpreview,
i.e. 2.3.

At ISO 800 the noise level of the D70 (and 300D) is a bit over 3.0:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page14.asp

The 5050 at ISO 64 has less noise than these two DLSRs at ISO 800.

By the way, comparing the 5050 with the 20D, a camera which costs a
multiple of the 5050 doesn't make much sense.

> And taking 3 seconds to write a RAW file to memory is obscene. It makes
> using RAW an impossible task.

The D70 needs 2.6 seconds to write a RAW:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page10.asp

and the 300D is slower, needing 4.5 seconds to write a RAW. The 300D
tops out at 1.5MB/s write speed, while the 5050 reaches 3MB/s.

> I would have always taken 5 shots in RAW
> format in one second using 20D.

What you are referring to is the continous mode. Also the 5050 is
capable of taking a burst of 4 RAWs in one second.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 1:43:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <PETxe.16692$eM6.11080@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, l e
> o says...
>
>>>Well no...
>>>
>>>The Olympus 5050 has *sufficient* DOF at F1.8 (DOF improves if you stop
>>>down the lens, but is good enough for most situations at F1.8).
>>>
>>>The sensor of a 5050 is 1/5 of the size of a 35mm frame, and therefore
>>>has at F1.8 the same DOF of a full-frame camera at F9 (1.8 x 5).
>>>
>>>A Nikon D70 with its 1.5 crop factor will have the same DOF at F6 (9 /
>>>1.5).
>>>
>>>At F6 the exposure time will be approx. 11 times longer than at F1.8 at
>>>a given aperture and ISO.
>>>
>>>To shorten the exposure time by a factor 11 you'll need to go up to
>>>approx. ISO 880 with the DSLR.
>>>
>>>It would then be a compact camera at ISO 64 vs. a DSLR at ISO 880. The
>>>compact camera will have less noise.
>>>
>>>As for speed, the 5050 can write a RAW to the memory card in less than 3
>>>seconds, faster than many DLSR...
>>
>>
>>I assume your calculation is based on ISO 100.
>
>
> No, ISO 64.
>
>
>>Then you switch to ISO
>>64. When you take ISO 100 into consideration, the Olympus 5050 has
>>considerably higher noise than even the Canon G3, according to dpreview
>>which is over 3.5 in rgb noise and the figure for 20D is roughly about
>>2-3 at ISO 800. So even if your 5050 is slightly better, it's not by
>>much margin and the lens has variable maximum aperture anyway from 1.8
>>to 2.6. The generally conclusion is the 5050 has higher noise than usual
>>and disappointing at ISO 64.
>
>
> Even with dpreview's test the noise of the 5050 at ISO 64 is 2.3.
> Personally I measured a lower noise level (standard deviation), around
> 1.8 at default sharpening and 1.5 at sharpening -5 (lowest):
> http://myolympus.org/5050/noisetest/
>
> In RAW mode the noise level (standard deviation) of the 5050 drops to
> 1.2:
> http://myolympus.org/8080/noisetest/
>
> But let's assume the noise level of the 5050 is the one of dpreview,
> i.e. 2.3.
>
> At ISO 800 the noise level of the D70 (and 300D) is a bit over 3.0:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page14.asp
>
> The 5050 at ISO 64 has less noise than these two DLSRs at ISO 800.
>
> By the way, comparing the 5050 with the 20D, a camera which costs a
> multiple of the 5050 doesn't make much sense.
>
>
>>And taking 3 seconds to write a RAW file to memory is obscene. It makes
>>using RAW an impossible task.
>
>
> The D70 needs 2.6 seconds to write a RAW:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page10.asp
>
> and the 300D is slower, needing 4.5 seconds to write a RAW. The 300D
> tops out at 1.5MB/s write speed, while the 5050 reaches 3MB/s.
>
>
>>I would have always taken 5 shots in RAW
>>format in one second using 20D.
>
>
> What you are referring to is the continous mode. Also the 5050 is
> capable of taking a burst of 4 RAWs in one second.


You're right the 300D is slow, that's why I sold it. And 20D is 8Mp vs
5050's 5MP and DoF is a relative issue depending on the print size. With
20D, I can still shoot at 1fps after the buffer is full. This makes RAW
mode usable and I left it as is.

And most important, I want to be able to archive shallow DoF. It makes
the photograph more dramatic, 3 dimensional and allow the photographer
to direct viewer to attention. Pin-sharp photos are flat, lifeless. You
just pick the angle and focal length and snap and basically the camera's
default is mostly correct. There is not much leeway to play with; just
like making boring documentaries.
!