Digital Rebel -----> Sony 828

hey everyone,

I own a Dig. Rebel as you know, and I am thinking of switching to 828, old habbits just won't die, I just can't get used to the Rebel. So, if anyone wants to buy me a Sony 828, which is LESS expensive than the rebel, I will trade w/you. I will ship you that Rebel, which is only 2 months old, with everything it comes in.

I know that some may see it as a step back, and I may come to regret this decision, but I am really not enjoying it, and I know the sony has it's problems but if it's anything like the 717, I know I will like it more.

So, anyone wants to help me out :)
Ed

[benny]

oh..that's an interesting decision. I'm sure many would be happy to "help" you out.

On a separate note, care to share what is it about the Digital Rebel that frustrates you?

Cheers,

hey benny

There are a few things, the main being:

Sony has an aperature range from 2.0-8.0 which lets me use my current 260w lighting fixture to take very decent non-flash pics. with DR I start at 4.5 which automatically makes me either use flash or go to the 500w halogen "draco" setup which makes everything turn yellow, and I can not find a setting for WB which compensates enough for it, I know a Sony can, 'cause Mel does it on all her shots.

Initially I was also frustrated by the viewfinder thingy, but I have gotten somewhat used to it, though in a big tank, it's a problem finding the fish looking through a viewfinder. But it's not a HUGE deal.

I think that with the investment into an off-camera flash and a a wireless synch this camera is FAR superior to the Sony, the quickness and the range are amazing. I am sure 828 wont compare. I just miss my 717, it's a weird thing, so the 828 is a logical replacement. It's funny but I struggled w/the decision when I was buying the camera, not sure which to buy, and I guess, I chose the better camera, but the wrong one for me. It's weird but Sony people really cant adjust (or dont want to) to other cameras. Mel will defend her 717 against ANYTHING!!! :)

[JerseyJay]

Ed,

Are you freaken serious :shock:

Sorry for response but I have yet to hear anyone going back from DSLR to P&S camera. Not to put Canon down (I got lots of respect) but maybe its just Rebel that you don't like. I had my camera for a month and I will NEVER go back to P&S equipment.

Please rethink your decision.

I know you mentioned somewhere about not being interested in taking landscape/nature pictures. Not trying to knock you down but did you spend $1000 just to take pictures of fish ONLY ?

I will elaborate tomorrow since I just got back from fish meeting and its late.

LOL Jay, it does sound kind of ridiculous, doesn't it? I have thought about it for a long time, and maybe it IS the Canon or maybe it's something else. I do take pics of my family, kids, dog, .... I do some business pics for my mother, a real estate person, but none of those things are going to be any different with the Sony. I am NOT into nature photography, I appreciate it but have never desired to do it myself. And, yes, my main reason was to take pics of my fish. I am very serious about documenting my hobby.

It's a strange feeling, and I dont even know how serious I am about it, but if someone does want to do it, I think I would.

[DarthV]

Well get yourself a better lens than the kit lens :P I know what you mean by having a slow lens and having it being a frustrating experience. I'm loving my tamron 28-75 f/2.8 !

How many pics with the rebel would have been lost while the slower AF system or shutter lag with the sony?

My advice would be to spend the $70 on a canon 50mm f/1.8 lens and see if that makes any difference. It's not an expensive lens and can be resold at pretty much the same price as you'd pay new.

But if all you want to do with the camera is to take pics of your fish, even the 727 or 828 are probably massive overkill.

[JerseyJay]

Good point.

Why don't you go to your local photo shop and try some other lenses. Maybe its only a lens problem. I know a lot of people who complained about kit Rebel lens. On the other hand I have yet to hear anyone complaining about Nikon D70 kit lens which has AF-S. I will later post some pictures taken at the fish show.

[Nicholo]

Hey Ed -- Check out this guy over on C-F. He appears to be in the exact opposite situation as you (http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=59258&highlight=).

lol, nicholo. I may have to contact him :) if I get serious.

[benny]

lol, nicholo. I may have to contact him :) if I get serious.

Aren't you?

But give it some thought. Perhaps a simple Canon EF 50 mm F1.8 might reveal what the little fella can potentially do for you given the right accessories and lenses. Sure there's more money to be spend, but looking at the situation, you're dead serious about aquatic photography anyway.

The camera will not be obsolete if you don't join the rat race for the latest and the best. Take the Canon D60 for example, I get better pictures of fishes than folks with the Canon 10D (although I agree it's only marginally better than D60) because of the macro lens and flash while they just use a standard zoom and no flash (or on camera flash).

And should you decided to ditch the camera and upgrade (within the brand family), the lenes are all there already.

Cheers,

[Roy W.]

Slow AF, shutter lag on 828?
What?

hey Roy, I have never used an 828, but comparing to 717, the rebel is SOOOOO much faster on the shutter, and on the focus. It's ridiculous actually. You can just continuously shoot and the button just presses and does it. Nothing like the 717. I really want to test out an 828 but have not been able to, stores around here require a restocking fee to return any hardware, dont want to pay $100 just to test an 828.

Ed

[Molino]

I agree with Jay and Benny.

Go to a camera shop and try out (rent?) a high speed/high speed macro lense and I'm sure the results will be much better. In addition, I've noticed a lot of pictures taken with DSLRs at higher ISO speeds (400/800) with little or no noise so you don't necessarily need as fast a lense to get the same shutter speed that you did with the Sony.

[Roy W.]

I can promise you one thing.
I dont need ane DSLR for a long time yet!
My 828 does the job, and with some cheap exstras it works even better.
Forexample now that i got Hoya lens, its a awesome macrocamera with that thing screwed on...

8)

he, he, bought today a 1.8 50 mm canon lens. Processing pics right now, first batch, impressive :) will post later, look in the gallery.
Ed

[meriadoc]

I love my 50mm 1.8. Closely followed by my 12-24 :)

if i don't have my 50mm 1.8 on, i have the 12-24.

saving for my 70-200 2.8 L.... not getting very far though ;)

what is the difference, and what is the cost on the 12-24. I dont know much about them, so explain like you re doing it to a 5 year old :)

[Dracofish]

Sorry for response but I have yet to hear anyone going back from DSLR to P&S camera. Not to put Canon down (I got lots of respect) but maybe its just Rebel that you don't like. I had my camera for a month and I will NEVER go back to P&S equipment.

Please rethink your decision.


I hardly think the Sonys are simple "point and shoot" cameras. Some people may use the auto settings, but I know that I always use the complete manual setting and adjust for shutter speed and aperture just like everyone else. I also think that the Sonys are perfectly versatile for plenty of applications. If I can take the pictures that I take with the 707, then I know the 828 is even better. In fact, the only real difference that I saw with the 828 is the fact that it is much faster and has a significantly less delay. The 707 and 717 are practically identical cameras with minute differences, so I know the lag can be quite hindering. You lose this hinderance with the 828. When I have the extra money I'll be sure to pick it up and you can bet that I'll never buy the Canon. I think it's pretty much a given that the "Sony heads" will always argue Sony and the "Canon heads" will always argue Canon, but is one really better than the other? In fact, Shutterbug magazine put the two cameras head to head and while one came out on top in one aspect, the other came out on top in another, making them pretty much equals. I think it boils down to personal preference, just like chocolate and vanilla. Both are very different but are good in their own respect. I'll admit that both cameras have their highs and their lows, but don't put one down for being an apple when you prefer oranges. *steps off soap box*

And Ed, the halogen setup can be perfectly adjusted by using the wb settings on my camera...auto does it perfectly if you hold up a white piece of paper for the camera to adjust itself by before you start shooting your subject. I don't know how this works for the Canon, but it works fine for me and I hardly have to do anything anymore as far as color is concerned in Photoshop.

[meriadoc]

what is the difference, and what is the cost on the 12-24. I dont know much about them, so explain like you re doing it to a 5 year old :)

the difference in what? the 1.8 is a plastic fantastic so to speak. The elements are glass, but the body of the lens is plastic. Its lightweigh, ultra fast. The fastest is a 85mm 1.2L which will set ya back about a grand.

Its a great prime lens. Good for portraiture, and as I'll find out in a couple weeks, good for weddings. Sharp in all apertures, I shoot wide open (at f1.8), and have never had any problems with sharpness.

As for the 12-24 - its not ultra fast, but at that amount of wide angle, as most people that have one have said, you don't need it at 2.8. I think it would be difficult to maintain picture quality at that speed anyway.

The price difference? I paid $70 for my 50 1.8, and about $620 for my 12-24 - it retails around $670 - really no matter where you look.

My next lens will probably be either the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM ($1500), a 400mm 5.6L ($1100), or the 70-200 f2.8L IS USM (I can get that directly through canon for vendor discount - which drops it by a couple hundred dollars)

Why do I pick the canon over the sigma? I like the Image Stabilization, as I hand hold a heck of alot of my shots - even at slower shutter speeds - which, for the 12-24, at the wider end of the lens, is REALLY forgiving with hand held shots.

Clear as mud?

-- Lisa

[Stingray]

he, he, bought today a 1.8 50 mm canon lens. Processing pics right now, first batch, impressive :) will post later, look in the gallery.
Ed
Can't find the pics???
Frank ( the Netherlands)

hey frank

In the Fish gallery, there are two threads on my 110g all are done w/the new cam/lens setup and regular 4x65w compact flourescent lighting .
Ed

[Stingray]

Thanks Ed
Frank

[JerseyJay]

Sorry for response but I have yet to hear anyone going back from DSLR to P&S camera. Not to put Canon down (I got lots of respect) but maybe its just Rebel that you don't like. I had my camera for a month and I will NEVER go back to P&S equipment.

Please rethink your decision.


I hardly think the Sonys are simple "point and shoot" cameras. Some people may use the auto settings, but I know that I always use the complete manual setting and adjust for shutter speed and aperture just like everyone else. I also think that the Sonys are perfectly versatile for plenty of applications. If I can take the pictures that I take with the 707, then I know the 828 is even better. In fact, the only real difference that I saw with the 828 is the fact that it is much faster and has a significantly less delay. The 707 and 717 are practically identical cameras with minute differences, so I know the lag can be quite hindering. You lose this hinderance with the 828. When I have the extra money I'll be sure to pick it up and you can bet that I'll never buy the Canon. I think it's pretty much a given that the "Sony heads" will always argue Sony and the "Canon heads" will always argue Canon, but is one really better than the other? In fact, Shutterbug magazine put the two cameras head to head and while one came out on top in one aspect, the other came out on top in another, making them pretty much equals. I think it boils down to personal preference, just like chocolate and vanilla. Both are very different but are good in their own respect. I'll admit that both cameras have their highs and their lows, but don't put one down for being an apple when you prefer oranges. *steps off soap box*

And Ed, the halogen setup can be perfectly adjusted by using the wb settings on my camera...auto does it perfectly if you hold up a white piece of paper for the camera to adjust itself by before you start shooting your subject. I don't know how this works for the Canon, but it works fine for me and I hardly have to do anything anymore as far as color is concerned in Photoshop.

Wow :shock:

Slow your roll Missy.

#1. Please show me where in my response to Ed I mentioned specifically Sony Line ?. I said "I have yet to hear anyone going back from DSLR to P&S camera" . I didn't say anything specific about Sony - I put all P&S under the same line.

#2. Please don't compare the quality of equipment between DLRS and P&S cameras. I don't care what model of Sony you bring it to the table. I said that DSLRs are BETTER then P&S cameras (general statement). If you want to compare the most expensive P&S camera to the cheapest DSLR, then you are not doing correct analysis. Take Mark II or D2H and then report back to me.

#3. I never thought I would defend DSLR so badly until I got one myself. Please go try one and then we can have another conversation.

PS. While having Canon G2 w/ 420EX, I tried Sony F707. Didn't find anything exciting. Another good P&S camera just like Canon G line.

[meriadoc]

uh oh, p&s vs. dslr again......

jay - i'd be careful saying stuff about the d2h - do you know how many people complain about the quality of images from that thing? it loses detail in finer areas of an image - not good for wildlife or nature photographers ;)

as for the war - both have their advantages. the 24mm sensor in a digital slr over the 9mm sensor in point and shoots is a BIG factor for me. plus the ability to spend a few grand on lenses every now and then is also a good thing ;)

Heck, i know alot of pro photographers that have point and shoots also.

[Dracofish]

Sorry for response but I have yet to hear anyone going back from DSLR to P&S camera. Not to put Canon down (I got lots of respect) but maybe its just Rebel that you don't like. I had my camera for a month and I will NEVER go back to P&S equipment.

Please rethink your decision.


I hardly think the Sonys are simple "point and shoot" cameras. Some people may use the auto settings, but I know that I always use the complete manual setting and adjust for shutter speed and aperture just like everyone else. I also think that the Sonys are perfectly versatile for plenty of applications. If I can take the pictures that I take with the 707, then I know the 828 is even better. In fact, the only real difference that I saw with the 828 is the fact that it is much faster and has a significantly less delay. The 707 and 717 are practically identical cameras with minute differences, so I know the lag can be quite hindering. You lose this hinderance with the 828. When I have the extra money I'll be sure to pick it up and you can bet that I'll never buy the Canon. I think it's pretty much a given that the "Sony heads" will always argue Sony and the "Canon heads" will always argue Canon, but is one really better than the other? In fact, Shutterbug magazine put the two cameras head to head and while one came out on top in one aspect, the other came out on top in another, making them pretty much equals. I think it boils down to personal preference, just like chocolate and vanilla. Both are very different but are good in their own respect. I'll admit that both cameras have their highs and their lows, but don't put one down for being an apple when you prefer oranges. *steps off soap box*

And Ed, the halogen setup can be perfectly adjusted by using the wb settings on my camera...auto does it perfectly if you hold up a white piece of paper for the camera to adjust itself by before you start shooting your subject. I don't know how this works for the Canon, but it works fine for me and I hardly have to do anything anymore as far as color is concerned in Photoshop.

Wow :shock:

Slow your roll Missy.

#1. Please show me where in my response to Ed I mentioned specifically Sony Line ?. I said "I have yet to hear anyone going back from DSLR to P&S camera" . I didn't say anything specific about Sony - I put all P&S under the same line.

#2. Please don't compare the quality of equipment between DLRS and P&S cameras. I don't care what model of Sony you bring it to the table. I said that DSLRs are BETTER then P&S cameras (general statement). If you want to compare the most expensive P&S camera to the cheapest DSLR, then you are not doing correct analysis. Take Mark II or D2H and then report back to me.

#3. I never thought I would defend DSLR so badly until I got one myself. Please go try one and then we can have another conversation.

PS. While having Canon G2 w/ 420EX, I tried Sony F707. Didn't find anything exciting. Another good P&S camera just like Canon G line.

I actually think you are the one getting rather defensive. You're the one telling Ed to "please rethink his decision." You may not have specifically mentioned the Sony, but since this entire discussion is based on Ed's question about going from a Digital Rebel back to a Sony, it seems that you must have been if you were trying to help Ed come to a decision. Why would you be talking about something not in question? Also, if you go back and read my post I said that each camera has it's goods and bads...which can get chalked up to personal preference. Guess I might as well add that I saw plenty of professional photographers today at the Orange County Choppers appearance using both the Digital Rebel and Sony...so, like I said, each is good in their own respect. I never said that one is better than the other. In fact, I said that I've seen a number of head-to-head comparisons on the cameras. Shutterbug magazine actually said that when it boils down to it, the Digital Rebel isn't technically a DSLR because the cheapest DSLR is over $5,000, so the Digital Rebel would be considered a "DSLR," at least from their standpoint, which also puts the Sony 828 in the same ballpark because they wouldn't bother comparing a Ferrari to a Shwinn. That would make no sense. So, comparing the Sony to a real $5,000+ DSLR...obviously we know which would be better, but we're talking about two cameras within the same price bracket that have good aspects in different areas. BOTH cameras have their strongsuits. BOTH cameras are worthy of recognition. BUT, some of us prefer one over the other because we have already learned to use one instead of the other. I say that if Ed wants to go back to the Sony, then great...I don't think he needs to "rethink his decision" at all.

So, in short, let's not start a fight over which camera we think is best, because it doesn't really matter. It's all on what Ed thinks and what he is most comfortable using. I am most comfortable with my camera. You can think what you want about my photography, but I think I do pretty well with my 707...and I can't wait to see what I can do with the faster speed of the 828. You can't compare a 707 to a Digital Rebel...it just can't be done...I'll admit that simply because of the delay with the 707. BUT, the 828 has solved this problem, so the two cameras are definately in the same ballpark.

Mel and Jay, I did not want to start this. I do think that I would be happy either way.

Mel, my biggest concern (only one actually) for being frustrated w/the Canon was the lack of light, due to it's 4.5 floor for aperature w/the stock lens. I got more and more frustrated to the point that I started this thread, only to find out that if I just spend $70 I can go from 4.5 to a ludicrious 1.8 in a second.
After that happened, (tested yesterday, my pics are up in the gallery), I dont think there is a comparison anymore.

I think that there is not much difference between 717 and 828, actually the noise at higher (or any) ISOs got worse w/the 828 comparing to the earlier models, according to tests. And the shutter lag is STILL there, though smaller, but still NOT comparable to the rebel. I have tried shooting pics w/the 828 at the store, there is still lag. DR has NONE, it's hard to believe it till you try it, Jay is right about that.

While I dont think I would regret it if I ever did the trade, I am very happy that I did not. While these days I dont have the $$ to spend on the expensive and amazing lenses, the $70 is enough for the silly fish hobby of mine. ANd hte stock lens is great for taking pics of my kids. I am happy. But I know that when I am in need of something else specialized, I have the option.

YOu know you always have amazed me w/the quality you get out of your 7 series sony. I could never do that. Your stuff is impressive. but I am just learning, and I think I am better off learning w/a Canon, than the Sony, as it's closer to the old-style SLR pro film cameras in the way it works, and is more common here.

When you decide to upgrade, do yourself a favor and really compare the options at that time, and dont go blindly (I know you would never do that) into just the newest Sony at that time. There are advantages to switching, I am glad I did, though it took me a while to figure it out :)
Ed

[benny]

Shutterbug magazine actually said that when it boils down to it, the Digital Rebel isn't technically a DSLR because the cheapest DSLR is over $5,000, so the Digital Rebel would be considered a "DSLR," at least from their standpoint, which also puts the Sony 828 in the same ballpark..

Interesting point. Care to share the issue number of Shutterbug magazine. I would like to go read up more.

Never realised that the Canon Digital Rebel is not "really" a DSLR.

Cheers,

[Dracofish]

Shutterbug magazine actually said that when it boils down to it, the Digital Rebel isn't technically a DSLR because the cheapest DSLR is over $5,000, so the Digital Rebel would be considered a "DSLR," at least from their standpoint, which also puts the Sony 828 in the same ballpark..

Interesting point. Care to share the issue number of Shutterbug magazine. I would like to go read up more.

Never realised that the Canon Digital Rebel is not "really" a DSLR.

Cheers,

I'm not sure exactly what issue, but probably from three months or so ago. I don't know about the exact wording, but I do remember them saying that the cheapest DSLR at the time started at $5,000. I am completely aware of what makes a DSLR a DSLR, but they must have had a reason for saying what they said...they also must have had a reason for comparing 5 cameras of differing brands together (all within the same price range). If the cameras were vastly different, I don't think they would have done it because it would have made no sense.

[benny]

I am completely aware of what makes a DSLR a DSLR, but they must have had a reason for saying what they said...

Ok. Thanks. I'll go have a look. Can you remember what's the cover feature? Makes the search easier.

On a separate note, so what did they say about whats makes a DSLR a DSLR? Can you recall?

Thanks!

Cheers,

[Dracofish]

Mel and Jay, I did not want to start this. I do think that I would be happy either way.

Mel, my biggest concern (only one actually) for being frustrated w/the Canon was the lack of light, due to it's 4.5 floor for aperature w/the stock lens. I got more and more frustrated to the point that I started this thread, only to find out that if I just spend $70 I can go from 4.5 to a ludicrious 1.8 in a second.
After that happened, (tested yesterday, my pics are up in the gallery), I dont think there is a comparison anymore.

I think that there is not much difference between 717 and 828, actually the noise at higher (or any) ISOs got worse w/the 828 comparing to the earlier models, according to tests. And the shutter lag is STILL there, though smaller, but still NOT comparable to the rebel. I have tried shooting pics w/the 828 at the store, there is still lag. DR has NONE, it's hard to believe it till you try it, Jay is right about that.

While I dont think I would regret it if I ever did the trade, I am very happy that I did not. While these days I dont have the $$ to spend on the expensive and amazing lenses, the $70 is enough for the silly fish hobby of mine. ANd hte stock lens is great for taking pics of my kids. I am happy. But I know that when I am in need of something else specialized, I have the option.

YOu know you always have amazed me w/the quality you get out of your 7 series sony. I could never do that. Your stuff is impressive. but I am just learning, and I think I am better off learning w/a Canon, than the Sony, as it's closer to the old-style SLR pro film cameras in the way it works, and is more common here.

When you decide to upgrade, do yourself a favor and really compare the options at that time, and dont go blindly (I know you would never do that) into just the newest Sony at that time. There are advantages to switching, I am glad I did, though it took me a while to figure it out :)
Ed

I also do not want to start a fight, but I think that it's rather unfair to try to lead someone to believe that a Sony is not a worthy camera because it's not a DSLR. I've been using my 707 for about two years now and I'm still learning. Each time I go on a photo shoot outing, my technique changes a bit to compensate for what I've learned and my pictures improve. I can take a person through my "progression steps" just by showing them my pictures from a couple years ago to the ones I've taken today. I will admit that nothing is perfect and everything has pros and cons. The main cons of my camera are the delay (which does hinder from time to time, but I've learned to deal with it...enough to say that the camera should not be knocked out of the race because of it) and the fact that what actually comes out picture-wise is much darker than what appears on the LCD display. I've also learned to compensate for this. These two drawbacks, which may seem large to some, are only minor to me because I've been working around them for two years.

I also know what you're saying about not completely knocking out a camera and buying by brand. The same thing can be said for voting for a party in the presidential race and not for the actual candidate. When the time comes I will weigh all options, as I've done with the presidential race, and decide from there. As of now, however, I'm a Sony girl and that's what works for me, but sometimes I feel that people on this site give off the impression that I can't play with the "big boys" because of what I shoot with.

[Dracofish]

I am completely aware of what makes a DSLR a DSLR, but they must have had a reason for saying what they said...

Ok. Thanks. I'll go have a look. Can you remember what's the cover feature? Makes the search easier.

On a separate note, so what did they say about whats makes a DSLR a DSLR? Can you recall?

Thanks!

Cheers,

The cover picture was of the 5 cameras they were comparing all together on a sort of pyramid scene if that helps. I can't remember what other cameras were in the running, but the two main candidates were the 828 and the Digital Rebel. They gave a rundown of a few different tests (color, grain, scene accuracy, etc) and which camera came out on top and how the others rated. The Digital Rebel did well with some tests and the Sony did well on others. That's why I say that both are great cameras in their own respect.

I actually think their only reasoning for calling a Digital Rebel a "DSLR" and not a DSLR was the price tag, now that I think of it, because previously they were so expensive. Obviously if it meets the technical requirements of being a DSLR, then it must be regardless of the price.

[Dracofish]

One thing I find kinda interesting is that the Sony 707, 717, and 828 are all lumped into the "point and shoot" category rather unfairly. Point and shoots are typically completely automatic where you just point and press a button, correct? Well, I know that each of the above mentioned cameras has a complete manual setting where everything can be adjusted, just as with a DSLR. In fact, that manual setting is the only setting I use. So, how then, is my camera just a "point and shoot?" I do much more than point and press a button. I adjust for aperture, exposure, and shutter speed just like everyone else that uses a DSLR. There are also lenses that can be added to the camera, which is also not typical of a point and shoot camera. Check out these lenses that can be added onto the 828... http://raynox.co.jp/english/digital/f828/index.htm

Ed, as for the grain at higher ISO's, the grain with the 707 is also bad, but I literally almost never use an ISO higher than 100, which results in very little grain.

[benny]

sometimes I feel that people on this site give off the impression that I can't play with the "big boys" because of what I shoot with.

Don't feel that way Melissa.

APF is about aquatic photography and the occasional reptile. :)

It's the pictures and techniques that we are interested in, not the specific equipment. For serious equipment discussion, there's are plenty of other dedicated photography sites. However, it's not easy to divorce the equipment from the pictures discussion, especially when you want to replicate some techniques that you saw.

I will tell you that I can confidently take the same types of pictures on slides using my old worthless discontinued film camera. Digital is just more convenient and cheaper in terms of processing. It's worthless to own the latest and most expensive if you can't use it for nuts.

I may seem to be pro Canon is some ways, that's because I don't have the luxury of having multiple brands (which I'll gladly adopt if there is no cost consideration). The experience shared is based on the system which I have. In any case, there isn't such a thing as the best camera. Everything is good for something, but nothing is good for everything.

It does not matter whether you shot with a pistol, a sub machine gun or a cannon as long as you hit the target. Similarly, Canon, Sony, Nikon or otherwise..

Keep shooting.

Cheers,

[Dracofish]

sometimes I feel that people on this site give off the impression that I can't play with the "big boys" because of what I shoot with.

Don't feel that way Melissa.

APF is about aquatic photography and the occasional reptile. :)

It's the pictures and techniques that we are interested in, not the specific equipment. For serious equipment discussion, there's are plenty of other dedicated photography sites. However, it's not easy to divorce the equipment from the pictures discussion, especially when you want to replicate some techniques that you saw.

I will tell you that I can confidently take the same types of pictures on slides using my old worthless discontinued film camera. Digital is just more convenient and cheaper in terms of processing. It's worthless to own the latest and most expensive if you can't use it for nuts.

I may seem to be pro Canon is some ways, that's because I don't have the luxury of having multiple brands (which I'll gladly adopt if there is no cost consideration). The experience shared is based on the system which I have. In any case, there isn't such a thing as the best camera. Everything is good for something, but nothing is good for everything.

It does not matter whether you shot with a pistol, a sub machine gun or a cannon as long as you hit the target. Similarly, Canon, Sony, Nikon or otherwise..

Keep shooting.

Cheers,

Understood, and I'm sorry if I got a bit defensive, but I like my camera just as much as the next guy and I'll defend it's honor to the end! :cheesy:

[meriadoc]

*yawn*

although this is interesting, i'm finding it quite entertaining how shutterbug magazine doesn't consider the rebel a DSLR. Well, that would mean the d100, d70, 10D, 20D, rebel wouldn't be classified as a digital slr.

Uhh, it uses the same system in terms of viewing like an SLR, it has interchangeable lenses like and SLR, it also has different modes (rather than mostly automatic modes, scene modes etc), looks like an slr (although there are point and shoots that look similar but have EVFs rather than the typical viewfinder found on SLRs...

so, according to them then, the only real digital SLRs out there are ones like the 1D, 1Ds, 1DmkII, D2H, etc etc....

hmmmmm

All the reviews i saw on shutterbug though do not say anything about it not being a dslr.

but, thats all i've got to say on the matter.

and remember people. A toy camera certainly isn't a professional camera - but a heck of alot of photographers have one ;) It is all about how you can handle and how you can work the camera. I've seen a heck of alot of substandard photographs coming out of $5000 DSLRs ;)

[Dracofish]

Here's a link to an abridged version of the article:

http://www.shutterbug.com/show_reports/0604sb_themegapixel/

If I gleaned incorrectly from the one I read a few months ago, I stand corrected, but I still believe that all cameras are good in their own respect.

[meriadoc]

One thing I find kinda interesting is that the Sony 707, 717, and 828 are all lumped into the "point and shoot" category rather unfairly.

I'd call them advanced prosumer point and shoots. Not the general consumer kinda compact point and shoot. There's even a technical term - the ZLR.

I can't remember what exactly it means, but the 828 and its cousins are in that field.

[meriadoc]

oh, wait..

http://www.photoreporter.com/2004/04-19/features/zlr_vs_slr.html

[Dracofish]

Interesting article...

As of now, however, I'm a Sony girl and that's what works for me, but sometimes I feel that people on this site give off the impression that I can't play with the "big boys" because of what I shoot with.

Mel, you have proven to me and most others that you CAN play w/the big boys (whoever they are).

Re: your Sony comments, I am ok w/the LCD being too bright. That is not a big deal, and it's the same on DRebel, I have to put it on darkest to get any type of similarity. But the shutter lag on the Sony is a killer when doing aquatic, not reg. photography. The fish keep moving and it's just pure luck to get a good shot. To be honest, I have not seen much of your aquatic stuff, mostly nature and other pets, and your aquatic pics have been mostly of big fish, like rays, arowanas and that goreous Midas w/that insane head (love him), but I dont know how you would do trying to take pics of smaller faster fish, that move all the time. My big test for the new lens was this week with taking pics of my new Cinnamon Clowns, I dont think I would keep a single shot w/the old lens or w/a sony. But w/the new lens, I got these, imagine 3" fish that NEVER stop, at all EVER (more in the gallery):

male:
http://aquatic-photography.com/fish/salt/sw091801.jpg

female:
http://aquatic-photography.com/fish/salt/sw091802.jpg

[ccplim]

jay - i'd be careful saying stuff about the d2h - do you know how many people complain about the quality of images from that thing? it loses detail in finer areas of an image - not good for wildlife or nature photographers ;)

Liz, mind to redirect me to where you got this source from? I would be interested to find out more about it.

Thanks!

[JerseyJay]

"I say that if Ed wants to go back to the Sony, then great...I don't think he needs to "rethink his decision" at all."

Melissa,
I think you need to go back to beginning of this topic and rethink what you wrote. In the back of my mind I knew exactly was is driving your argument. You stated the same in later reply which made me think that I was right on the money. You felt that I was putting down SONY, having DSLR makes you a better photographer and you have to have DSLR to play with the "big-boys". Am I right ?

If someone is spending ~$1,000 on anything (car, TV, computer etc), plays with it for few weeks and later decides to go with something different just because (fish pictures - in this scenario) didn't come out well then I will as a person / friend / Mod on APF jump in and challenge your decision. If you don't like it then you do what you want but it seems like Ed needed a second opinion. See his afterwards feedback and ask him if he is glad that question was asked.

Then you go onto saying why Corporate World is calling Sony F series - a P&S camera. I didn't complained about Canon G 1/2/3/5 series being P&S camera after paying ~$700 for one of their models.

I think there is more to this than Canon vs. Ed vs. Sony. If you have some inside battles going between Big Names then please exclude me from them. As I stated in different topic " If one wants to argue about which camera is better, go to Dpreview - Nikon and Canon section. This is Aquatic Forum".
Now let's enjoy Ed's new pictures.

[DarthV]

Wonder what they were smoking to say that the 300d isn't a DSLR... cost doesn't make a camera a SLR.. a Single Lens Reflex mirror system is what makes a SLR :P And the fact that it uses a digital back doesn't make a lick of difference. Sounds like the people in the magazine suffer from sort of price elitist attitude ;) Guess they probably don't think that a film rebel is a real SLR either :P That $5000 starting point would make it so pretty much NONE of the DSLRs from canon, nikong, etc would be considered... since even the canon 1dmkII sells for under 5 grand ;)

I know the sony cameras are good cameras...but you're talking apples & oranges if you try to compare a SLR-like (sony) to a tru SLR camera. Both cameras have their merit... but there are things that the sony just cannot do... focus and shutter lag are just the 2 that stand out the most. (and yes I know, DSLRs can't do movies). Going the SLR route will cost you more in the long run... definitely don't just count the cost of the kit lens as being your only investment in glass! (if so, maybe the higher end p&s cams will suit you better).


And Ed, I'm glad the pocket rocket changed your mind about the rebel...now you just have to start doing some research about buying your 2nd...and 3rd..and 4th lenses...and fifth too :)

[Dracofish]

As of now, however, I'm a Sony girl and that's what works for me, but sometimes I feel that people on this site give off the impression that I can't play with the "big boys" because of what I shoot with.

Mel, you have proven to me and most others that you CAN play w/the big boys (whoever they are).

Re: your Sony comments, I am ok w/the LCD being too bright. That is not a big deal, and it's the same on DRebel, I have to put it on darkest to get any type of similarity. But the shutter lag on the Sony is a killer when doing aquatic, not reg. photography. The fish keep moving and it's just pure luck to get a good shot. To be honest, I have not seen much of your aquatic stuff, mostly nature and other pets, and your aquatic pics have been mostly of big fish, like rays, arowanas and that goreous Midas w/that insane head (love him), but I dont know how you would do trying to take pics of smaller faster fish, that move all the time. My big test for the new lens was this week with taking pics of my new Cinnamon Clowns, I dont think I would keep a single shot w/the old lens or w/a sony. But w/the new lens, I got these, imagine 3" fish that NEVER stop, at all EVER (more in the gallery):


Ed, I don't have many small fish to take pictures of, but here's an example:
http://www.kingsoftheaquarium.com/cichlids/balzanipair3-1.1.jpg

[Dracofish]

"I say that if Ed wants to go back to the Sony, then great...I don't think he needs to "rethink his decision" at all."

Melissa,
I think you need to go back to beginning of this topic and rethink what you wrote. In the back of my mind I knew exactly was is driving your argument. You stated the same in later reply which made me think that I was right on the money. You felt that I was putting down SONY, having DSLR makes you a better photographer and you have to have DSLR to play with the "big-boys". Am I right ?

If someone is spending ~$1,000 on anything (car, TV, computer etc), plays with it for few weeks and later decides to go with something different just because (fish pictures - in this scenario) didn't come out well then I will as a person / friend / Mod on APF jump in and challenge your decision. If you don't like it then you do what you want but it seems like Ed needed a second opinion. See his afterwards feedback and ask him if he is glad that question was asked.

Then you go onto saying why Corporate World is calling Sony F series - a P&S camera. I didn't complained about Canon G 1/2/3/5 series being P&S camera after paying ~$700 for one of their models.

I think there is more to this than Canon vs. Ed vs. Sony. If you have some inside battles going between Big Names then please exclude me from them. As I stated in different topic " If one wants to argue about which camera is better, go to Dpreview - Nikon and Canon section. This is Aquatic Forum".
Now let's enjoy Ed's new pictures.

Well, it's not like Ed bought a Sony, played with it for a month, then bought something else and was going to "flip-flop" again. I can think of plenty of occasions where I used something or was used to something and then went with something new only to dislike it to the point where I went back to what I was used to. I can even use this example to my first and second cars when I was growing up.

As far as the "corporate world" calling the Sonys point and shoots...well, I think meriodoc posted up an excellent article that I feel describes those cameras much more accurately...ZLRS...because they ARE NOT simple point and shoot cameras...but are so much more. Spend two years using one and you will agree with me.

And I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you've said, but to me you seriously were coming off as saying that Ed was foolish for even considering it because the one camera is superior over the other. And no, I don't have any "vendetta" against brands...I believe I've already explained that if you spent the time reading my entire posts. I just want people to know what kind of camera the Sony really is because I've spent plenty of time using one and know my way around it.

I think (or at least hope) we can leave it at that. :)

I appreciate everyone's help in getting me to figure out my dillema.