Advice/Questions on buying Cameras & Accessories. **Please read OP first**

CabanSail

toreadorx2001 wrote: »

hope some may be able to help me, i am looking for a battery for a Olympus Quick Flash AFL camera battery cr-2/3A 3 volt

Those are Photo Lithium batteries and fairly widely available. They are not cheap but last a long time and have long shelf lives.

JayEnnis

Does anyone know where I can buy alien bee ab800's in Ireland? I'd also like a vagabond battery pack to power them as well on location.

SetOverSet

opinion guy wrote: »

So I'm heading off tomorrow.
Thinking of getting a new camera. I have a Panasonic Lumix TZ3 for last few year, which to be honest, I've never been happy with. It takes great landscape photos in good light, but is terrible indoors and in poor light (to be honest this does not match reviews of this model so I suspect I got a dud).

Anyhow thinking to upgrade and wondering if anyone has any tips on which models to look are good deals in the airport.

I suppose I'm looking for something with similar functionality to the TZ3 wide angle lens, x10 zoom. But I would like something that gives a bit more control over camera settings (thou I'm not prepared to jump to DSLR).
Importantly I want something thats takes good indoor and low light shots.

Any suggestions ?

For a low light compact you won't beat the Olympus XZ-1; f/1.8 @ 28mm to f/2.5 @ 112mm. Its 1/3 stop faster than the S95 at the wide end and over four stops faster than the S95 at the tele end; also shoots RAW so with care, you'll get decent images at reasonably high ISOs. Not cheap though...

opinion guy

Thanks guys.
I think I'll hold off for now and do my homework properly.

woody_2000

SetOverSet wrote: »

For a low light compact you won't beat the Olympus XZ-1; f/1.8 @ 28mm to f/2.5 @ 112mm. Its 1/3 stop faster than the S95 at the wide end and over four stops faster than the S95 at the tele end; also shoots RAW so with care, you'll get decent images at reasonably high ISOs. Not cheap though...

The difference would be about 1/3 stop at max. aperture (f/1.8 v f/2.0), which is fairly negligible - but the difference is two stops at max. zoom (f/4.9 v f/2.5). Two stops, of course, means a difference of four times in light sensitivity. This is the big/main advantage of the Olympus XZ-1 in relation to competing compacts, IMO...

Compared to the S95, however, the Olympus is bigger, heavier and more expensive... It also has a less convenient removable lens cap...

RAW, of course, is one of the main features of both cameras... Which gives you more flexibility - i.e. if post processing your images... RAW images are also more flexible when recovering detail from underexposed images, so you could possibly deliberately underexpose (e.g. to maintain a higher shutter speed at a lower ISO), and then pull back the exposure in post processing... You also have more control over high ISO noise in post processing...

If shooting JPEGS with the Canon S95 - you can underexpose by, say, 1 stop and use the "iContrast" function/feature to pull back the underexposed detail (rather than jumping up the ISO scale faster) - which is handy for lower light situations... I'm not sure if the Olympus has something similar...

The Olympus appears to produce sharper but noisier (higher ISO) RAW images compared to the Canon... The difference appears to be less so with JPEGS... The Canon RAW images are softer, but the detail appears to be there - so they respond well to moderate sharpening, possibly making the sharpness difference a practical non-issue... The noise situation is a bit different... I can't help feeling there might be a bit more going on than just the comparable sharpness of the lenses, and maybe how the RAW images are filtered from the sensor might be a factor - i.e. maybe Canon opting for softer but less noisy images, as opposed to sharper but noisier images from the Olympus - I don't know...

Maybe just something to consider, and look into, when comparing these two cameras...

EDIT: These cameras have larger than usual imaging sensors, for compact cameras, along with faster lenses, for better light sensitivity - and higher ISO performance is also better... Images are ok up to about ISO 800, with ISO 1600 being usable - and ISO 3200 isn't bad for more extreme situations...

finisklin

Hi everyone,

I am in the market for a new compact camera and the Canon S90 seems to be highly recommended. I note that this was recommended on the forum last May or so and wondering if it has been surpassed by a different brand. I checked out the dpreview buying guide and amazon but am still none the wiser! I am a novice when it comes to digital camera's so any help is appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

woody_2000

finisklin wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I am in the market for a new compact camera and the Canon S90 seems to be highly recommended. I note that this was recommended on the forum last May or so and wondering if it has been surpassed by a different brand. I checked out the dpreview buying guide and amazon but am still none the wiser! I am a novice when it comes to digital camera's so any help is appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

The Canon PowerShot S95 is the latest model...

finisklin

One small thing on the Canon S90 or S95 is the pop up flash. Would be interested to hear people' experience of this and any other recommendations on compact camera's.......

woody_2000

finisklin wrote: »

One small thing on the Canon S90 or S95 is the pop up flash. Would be interested to hear people' experience of this and any other recommendations on compact camera's.......

I just keep the flash disabled by default (S90), and then enable it when I need it... I think it's something that needs to be done because the way the flash comes up automatically is a bit unnerving... Forming the habit of using it that way works well for me... The flash is needed less than a regular compact anyway because of the improved performance offered by the CCD and lens... Using the flash, for me, is more part of a conscious decision making process - enabling it when I need it - rather than a purely automatic function. HTH.

funkey_monkey

Hi,

I've got myself a Panasonic FX35 compact camera. For what it is and for my skill level it is quite a good camera. However, things like the zoom etc let it down for me.

I'm thinking of upgrading to something a little more racy - but still within the bounds of a compact camera - I don't want the hassle of carrying around a cumbersome DSLR.

So I've been looking at a Panasonic GF2. It's quite expensive and so I was wondering if any of the posters on here have any working knowledge of them or their suitability for me as a high spec compact camera?


Many thanks

Damokc

Just saw a comment left by somebody saying they (to paraphrase) "might even get a Nikon over a Canon" is there some sort of bias towards one over the other by "pro" photographers or what is the deal with that statement? Am I missing something?

cnocbui

finisklin wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I am in the market for a new compact camera and the Canon S90 seems to be highly recommended. I note that this was recommended on the forum last May or so and wondering if it has been surpassed by a different brand. I checked out the dpreview buying guide and amazon but am still none the wiser! I am a novice when it comes to digital camera's so any help is appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

It has been surpassed by the Olympus XZ-1, which is currently the leading advanced compact.

woody_2000

finisklin wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I am in the market for a new compact camera and the Canon S90 seems to be highly recommended. I note that this was recommended on the forum last May or so and wondering if it has been surpassed by a different brand. I checked out the dpreview buying guide and amazon but am still none the wiser! I am a novice when it comes to digital camera's so any help is appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Sorry, I just noticed that I didn't read your last post properly. I had just caught your post and thought you meant had the S90 itself been surpassed by a different/newer model - hence my reply... Your post also switched to this thread when I made my last reply...

All I can say is maybe compare the Olympus XZ-1 (the latest competing compact in this class) to the Canon S95, Panasonic Lumix LX 5, et al... The f/1.8-f/2.5 4x zoom lens is the big news with the Olympus XZ-1. If you need the ultimate in low light performance in a compact, then the Olympus is a clear consideration... However it is bigger, heavier and more expensive than the Canon S95, for example... The Olympus also appears to produce very sharp RAW images, but also appears to be comparatively noisy at higher ISO settings...

Them's the latest options in the advanced compact category at the mo. - so the decision is yours to make... Best of luck!

EDIT: If you're into using shallower depth of field, then the f/2.5 aperture combined with the max. zoom might also allow for better control of depth of field in certain situations with the Olympus.

Telchak

I have a 350D I've been using for a little over four years, and should hopefully be upgrading to a 60D in a couple of weeks.

Now, I've been looking at getting getting two lenses with the 60D (for around a grand on ebay), and was wondering should I get a new 18-55mm lens? Will the one off the 350D have the same quality as the newer one that comes with the 60D, or is the 350D one "cheap glass"? Does the image stabilisation feature on the newer one make a huge difference? xD

I ask, cause I would be able to get a 50mm and a 55-250mm one with the new purchase if I used my old 18-55mm (:

docdolittle

Hey guys, I was asked this but haven't a clue about cameras, I was just wondering if one of you would know:

What 'L' lenses are compatible with the Canon 7d?

Edit: also would you know the cheapest place to get one(Lenses that is)?


Thanks

5uspect

Telchak wrote: »

I have a 350D I've been using for a little over four years, and should hopefully be upgrading to a 60D in a couple of weeks.

Now, I've been looking at getting getting two lenses with the 60D (for around a grand on ebay), and was wondering should I get a new 18-55mm lens? Will the one off the 350D have the same quality as the newer one that comes with the 60D, or is the 350D one "cheap glass"? Does the image stabilisation feature on the newer one make a huge difference? xD

I ask, cause I would be able to get a 50mm and a 55-250mm one with the new purchase if I used my old 18-55mm (:

Definitely don't replace one crappy 18-55 with another.
The new 18-55 is apparently better but not by much. Also you don't really need IS at those focal lengths. Give Ian (Kerso) Kerr a shout about the 60D you might get a good price outside ebay.

If I were you I would ditch the 18-55 completely, it's a waste on a 60D. At least get a 50mm f/1.8. The 55-250 is good, for the price. Consider something like the 17-55 f/2.8 down the road.

5uspect

docdolittle wrote: »

Hey guys, I was asked this but haven't a clue about cameras, I was just wondering if one of you would know:

What 'L' lenses are compatible with the Canon 7d?

Edit: also would you know the cheapest place to get one(Lenses that is)?


Thanks

All of them.

Canon have EF and EF-S lenses. EF-S lenses can only be used on cropped bodies like the xxxD xxD, 7D etc. EF lenes can be used on all digital EOS bodies such as the full frame 5D.

All L series lenses are EF.

The reason is that the rear element of EF-S lenses sit deeper into the body and if you put an EF-S lens on a 5D the mirror will hit the rear element.

As I said above Ian is the man to talk to for buying online. I bought both my 24-70L and 70-200L form him (outside ebay) and I can't recommend him enough.

5uspect

Damokc wrote: »

Just saw a comment left by somebody saying they (to paraphrase) "might even get a Nikon over a Canon" is there some sort of bias towards one over the other by "pro" photographers or what is the deal with that statement? Am I missing something?

There isn't a huge difference, in fact it's really down to personal preference for the ergonomics of either system. Nikon bodies tend to have more buttons which old pros tend to like. They've caught up to Canon in recent years in the sensor department but I would say that Canon have the edge.

Canon are certainly more popular in general but that's meaningless. They're simply a bigger company who, as it is often pointed out, make photocopiers.
Nikon just make cameras.

Telchak

5uspect wrote: »

Definitely don't replace one crappy 18-55 with another.
The new 18-55 is apparently better but not by much. Also you don't really need IS at those focal lengths. Give Ian (Kerso) Kerr a shout about the 60D you might get a good price outside ebay.

If I were you I would ditch the 18-55 completely, it's a waste on a 60D. At least get a 50mm f/1.8. The 55-250 is good, for the price. Consider something like the 17-55 f/2.8 down the road.

Thanks, I kinda figured as much but just wasn't sure how much had changed in four years Definitely will be considering more expensive lenses in the future, but for now, I just want some cheap and cheerful ways of exploring the different kinds :L FOur years, and I still haven't gotten around to it :P

pobble

Hi all

I am looking for advice on buying a camera. I would like a canon or nikon.
I am a beginner but i do want something that i can change the lense on.

Dont want to spend to much to start...
anyone got any tips on models or what i should be asking when buying

thanks folks

cnocbui

5uspect wrote: »

Canon are certainly more popular in general but that's meaningless. They're simply a bigger company who, as it is often pointed out, make photocopiers.
Nikon just make cameras.

Translation: I use Nikon and think you should too. I can't think of anything I could say to criticise Canon directly, because that would be out-right lying and others would call me on it publicly and I might end up being humiliated, so I will insert a piece of truthful information and phrase it in such a way so as to put deceptive and misleading spin on things and try and hopefully imply something negative about Canon, in the hope the OP joins me on the good ship Nikon.

5uspect

cnocbui wrote: »

Translation: I use Nikon and think you should too. I can't think of anything I could say to criticise Canon directly, because that would be out-right lying and others would call me on it publicly and I might end up being humiliated, so I will insert a piece of truthful information and phrase it in such a way so as to put deceptive and misleading spin on things and try and hopefully imply something negative about Canon, in the hope the OP joins me on the good ship Nikon.

Erm, wut? I'm a very happy Canon user. I simply wanted to point out the meaninglessness in the Canon/Nikon debate.

I remember when the photocopier thing was a running joke around here...

5uspect

pobble wrote: »

Hi all

I am looking for advice on buying a camera. I would like a canon or nikon.
I am a beginner but i do want something that i can change the lense on.

Dont want to spend to much to start...
anyone got any tips on models or what i should be asking when buying

thanks folks

What about Olympus/Pentax/Sony? Is there a reason to ignore them?
If you want an interchangeable lens system you can go with a SLR like the new Canon 1100D (or get the outgoing 1000D on the cheap somewhere).
The kit lens isn't great but it's a start.

There are also a range of what are known as EVIL cameras.

opinion guy

opinion guy wrote: »

So I'm heading off tomorrow.
Thinking of getting a new camera. I have a Panasonic Lumix TZ3 for last few year, which to be honest, I've never been happy with. It takes great landscape photos in good light, but is terrible indoors and in poor light (to be honest this does not match reviews of this model so I suspect I got a dud).

Anyhow thinking to upgrade and wondering if anyone has any tips on which models to look are good deals in the airport.

I suppose I'm looking for something with similar functionality to the TZ3 wide angle lens, x10 zoom. But I would like something that gives a bit more control over camera settings (thou I'm not prepared to jump to DSLR).
Importantly I want something thats takes good indoor and low light shots.

Any suggestions ?

OK so I've changed my thoughts.
Now I plan to hold on to the TZ3 as an outdoor camera - it is actually pretty good at panoramas and the zoom is great. I'm going to try to get a compact for the indoor stuff. So anyone recommend me an inexpensive compact camera which will take have decent photos/video in low light/indoor/nightclub type environments. Hd video would be good actually.

One possiblity I'm considering is to upgrade my phone. Would an iphone4 or a HTC Desire HD be good in these conditions ?

dnme

Dearly beloved,

It's time to upgrade my old Canon Powershot S2IS. I have tried out a DSLR and a coulple of Lenses about a year ago and TBH I prefer a bridge camera. I just like the thoughts of having a mid range all in one solution at a reasonable cost for now.

Here's my dilemma......
I recently purchased a really decent Ansmann battery charger and 8 high capacity Ansmann AA's for my Powershot S2. But now it's time to upgrade and I notice the new SX30IS has a new proprietary rechargeable battery where as the older SX20IS has AA's.

There is very little between the cameras. Both use Digic4, same aperature (to zoom limit). The SX30 just zooms to a rediculous 35x I think. Also the SX30 does 14.n megapixel which I do not want nor need, In fact I see it as a disadvantage in image quality. (ccd has to cope with too much)

So am I being stupid to choose an older model simply because it allows me to use my battery charger and my rechargeable AA's?

5uspect

Compacts are, by design, rubbish in low light. Their sensors are just too small to gather enough light.

opinion guy

5uspect wrote: »

Compacts are, by design, rubbish in low light. Their sensors are just too small to gather enough light.

Yeah but like I said before my Panasonic TZ3 is a dud -seriously I had a SonyEriccson k800i phone that took better picture in low light, rest its soul, so I'm thinking a modern compact woudl probably be miles better than what I'm used to

Edit:
I've read up on Canon S95 and Olympus XZ-1 which both sound good but are too expensive. What about a Cannon Ixus 130 - anyone have experience of camera ? Whats it like indoors ?

aaf

I have a Canon 400D. It came with the default 18-55 lens. I also bought a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II with it. And I have a camera bag. I would like to purchase a tripod, flash and maybe a cheap lens or two to expand on the range I already have. I've been doing a beginners photography course over the last few weeks and I really want to get all the basic equipment so I can continue to learn and take better shots. Suggestions please. I've been looking at tripods for the last hour. Manfrotto and Benro seem to be two good entry tripods. With regards flashes and lenses, I haven't a clue. Not looking to break the bank and may purchase as budget allows over the coming months. Any advice would be great.

5uspect

aaf wrote: »

I have a Canon 400D. It came with the default 18-55 lens. I also bought a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II with it. And I have a camera bag. I would like to purchase a tripod, flash and maybe a cheap lens or two to expand on the range I already have. I've been doing a beginners photography course over the last few weeks and I really want to get all the basic equipment so I can continue to learn and take better shots. Suggestions please. I've been looking at tripods for the last hour. Manfrotto and Benro seem to be two good entry tripods. With regards flashes and lenses, I haven't a clue. Not looking to break the bank and may purchase as budget allows over the coming months. Any advice would be great.

Manfrotto tripods are more than entry tripods; they're professional tripods.
Although they do a range of lightweight consumer ones too.
Buying a lot of gear isn't going to make you take better shots. You should tailor your purchases to your style of photography.

So what kind of photos do you take? Do you need a tripod, or would a monopod be less cumbersome? Do you need an external flash? How do you find the flash on the 400D lacking? Do you want to get into strobism?

Generally a tripod is a good idea but you might not use it much if you're more into walkabout photography or photography in areas where a tripod isn't allowed or is too busy. So maybe it's not a bad idea to cheap out a bit on your first tripod, or get a Gorillapod maybe.

If I were you I would try to replace the 18-55 lens with a better (not cheap) lens before I go buying all kinds of different stuff at once. The 18-55 is a slow lens. It doesn't perform well in low light, i.e. Ireland, and isn't very sharp. The two of these together often mean a lot of blurry images from hand shake and poor optics. There are a load of other lenses such as the 17-55 f/2.8 which cost a lot but are excellent alternatives.

The 400D is a very capable camera and can take great photographs. Getting loads of gear won't help unless you know how to use the camera first.

opinion guy

I had a play with a Canon IXUS 220Hs in a shop today.

It's only out a week but seems to meet my needs - probably will buy this afternoon.

Here's the specs: http://www.canon.ie/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/IXUS/IXUS_220_HS/