Buyer's Guide (turns into magnus' obsession with photography running commentary)

since I've commandeered this thread for my personal purchase anyway -
I'm just not sure about the 4/3rds system anymore. I finally found a store that carried one, and I just didn't like it as much. Of course, the floor model was beat to hell, but I didn't get a great feel for the E520 and while everything was smaller, it felt too small. I had problems with the lens where the Canon and Nikon I dialed in quickly (granted the lens on the E520 was 14-42 - which is small)
The 3/2 systems - the Nikons and Canons - they weren't too small by any means. They aren't heavy or bulky. They're more expensive, though. And the live.com deal died, for now. So instead of possibly buying a 3-lens E-510 kit I was looking at (14-42, 40-150, and wide-angle), I'm left re-defining what I want and how much I'm going to need to spend. The end result is I want a long lens and I probably can't afford it. That, or I need to change my tack toward Nikon, which generally gives a longer kit lens. The Canon kits that come with two lenses don't give IS on the bigger lens, which is disappointing. My sister has had a Nikon D40 for over a year, so I have a feeling I should do better than that for my money, but that's where I can get the right 2-lens kit for my money. I won't, because it's a 6mp, and I at least know better than that.

 

went to a reputable camera store instead of a bigbox and came away with some new perspective. Still shying away from the Olympus, I think it's nice but not really what I'm after. looked over the nikon d80 and enjoyed it thoroughly, and they had a D3 out so I looked at that - fell in love with its 9 frames/second, tell you that much. That was awesome. And totally unnecessary for anything I'd need.

Was ready to walk away ready to start researching the d60 and d80, when something clicked he said about live view and the Sony. Never really looked at the sony brand, was informed their Minolta roots. Liked the feel, liked the tilt AView, which is a little gadgety but enjoyable, liked the more accurate live view feel, and liked that the a350 I was holding is a 14Mp for the essential cost of the 10 and 12 mp units. I'm not enthralled with megapixels, but it's nice to see some added value. A higher megapixel count

it also has the in-body IS, which I like, because I keep seeing these decent-priced kits for Canon XS/XSi and liking the price, then seeing the lens (or if two, only one) isn't IS. I don't want to be a gearwhore, I want to buy one thing, have my two lenses, and hopefully not look at gear again for a while. Anyway, guy offered me the two lenses and camera I wanted for 7, and was willing to pricematch v/s local retail. Probably still buy online but good experience.

 

I really don't want to comment on the other brands since I really am ignorant when it comes to them, but do have a comment on the Canon if you're still looking that way. The standard "kit" lens for the Rebel series (18-55mm IS) has a bad reputation, but in reality isn't that bad of a lens. It's remarkably better than it's predecessor (that really wasn't that great). However, the other lens that you're probably seeing in that combo is the 75-300, and I can honestly say, that IS a piece of garbage. I bought that lens from Best Buy a couple weeks after buying my camera and took it to a Panthers game. Even with my rookie eye, I could tell it was a junk lens and returned it immediately.

Let me throw another idea out there (not to put a monkey wrench in this entire operation. All the major guys (and even some third party cats like Sigma) are now making a 18-200mm lens. If I were starting all over again, I'd give one of those some serious consideration. They're surprisingly good quality and really are a one lens fits all (well most) solution.

 

yeah, the general 2nd lens is a 75-300 III lens or for $10 cheaper, a Tamron. The end result is I'd rather have IS on the big lens and while I want a big lens, and want it now, I don't want crap just to have crap. But my guess is that the extra will cost me a good bit more than I want to spend, too.

I do like that a lot of Nikon kits come with an 18-105 VR lens.

My only real concern with the Sony is that while the live view is fantastic and useful, and better than all competitors, they're getting knocked on a lot of reviews for the tunnel-like viewfinder and its .75 shot size. On the upside, comared to putting money into an Olympus or other third brand, I look at Sony's recent venture into the market on the Minolta brand, them putting out a bunch of new models, and the fact they've put out some of the higher end entry-SLR stuff, and it makes me think they're here to stay, this system will be supported.

 

yeah - regardless of what it is, if Sony puts it out, it'll be supported.





except for that damned mini-disc crap that they conned me into. I've still got a deck and a minidisc walkman gathering dust somewhere.

 

for the record, i don't think in-lens image stabilization is worth paying for. it's different on the smaller point-and-shoots or lighter gear. just my opinion.

 

yeah, I've tended toward body stabilization. Which unfortunately the big two don't care about. And sure, I want some noob help there. I'll take that the $600 setup I'm saving for will do some work for me, even though I'm really looking to do the focus work and settings myself.

I'm trying to decide, at this point, whether to spend a little more and get the 14.2Mp sensor. 10 is really enough, and brings the buying power toward the extra lens, though.

 

how long a lens would I need to get good shots from upperdeck at BOA Stadium? I might be going next week and it may expedite this process.

 

you don't need the extra pixels -- that's really just marketing. for the vast majority of your final usage of the image, your eye can't tell the difference between a 10mp shot and a 14mp shot (or, for that matter, a 5mp shot).

 

I've got a 300mm lens and I've never really been happy with my results from the upper deck. I've stopped trying, honestly.