| Author | Message | ||
     Ingemar |
Who has this camera and wants to comment on it? I'm looking for a new camera and it has come down to either the 8800 or the Canon DR/XT. I'm leaning towards the 8800 since its price is very good, its compact and offers an 35-350 zoomlense. The Canon would require me to buy an extra lens since I want that optical zoom level. Last but not least: who has the best prices in the States? I wanna buy it when I visit your continent in august. | ||
| Blublak |
Hmmm.. That could be kind of tricky, since the price will fluctuate due to locality and some other factors. For the national chains, Circuit City, Best Buy, Crutchfield.. Those stores should be able to help out. 42nd St. Camera usually has pretty good prices in NY (however you may not be buying the US version or a "NEW" camera so keep on your toes).. Some of the mail order houses / Internet stores also have good prices, but once again, you never know what they are selling you. In this country we have certain warranty laws etc. Certain other nations have less 'stringent' rules about product liability. Also, you may get something that isn't exactly what you wanted (it's happened) .. Also, you may want to make sure you can register a US warranty from your home country. Just in case.. So.. Where do you plan on being? Anywhere near the Nations Capital?  | ||
| Ingemar |
I'll arrive in Orlando 29th july and will make my way to Georgia and NC for Braggin' at the Dragon event. Hopefully I'll be able to visit Miami and Southern Florida too. The camera will have to be bought at a "real" shop (not online) so I can bring it back during the 2 1/2 weeks stay if something happens to it. After that, I'll have to take the risk against the ~50% cheaper price I enjoy in the US. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Ingmar, I like their "VR" feature, that automatically removes some camera movement. They claim you can get up to 3 stops better, but I doubt you really get it at the bottom (where you really need it). I love my CoolPix 990, but I think you would be better off with the digital rebel, mainly due to low light capability. The DR can go to 1600 and produce decent photos, the Nikon only advertises 400 asa. I don't understand how Nikon can be this far behind on such an important aspect of camera performance. Cannon must have figured out something very special. | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
Ingemar, These two cameras are really quite different. You can find comprehensive reviews of them on Digital Photography Review. Here is the Nikon Review:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8800/ Here is the Canon:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/ Bottom Line: The Canon is a much better camera, but is it better for you? Only you can decide that. The Nikon is more of a consumer camera, for people who are not overly demanding of image quality, and are convenience orientated. I haven't used one, but I am sure you can make excellent 8x10" photos with it. The Canon has a much larger digital sensor,( 15x22mm v. 6x11mm for the Nikon), much better image quality, takes interchangeable lenses, and can produce good quality images up to 24x36' in the hands of a knowledgeable Photoshop user. It is a prosumer camera, for photography enthusiasts, often used by pro's as a back up. Personally I use a Professional Canon 1Ds Mkll, 17 megapixel camera, so I may be a bit biased in favor of Canon. They are considered to be the professional's choice at the moment, and the XT is definitely the quality leader at it's price point. As far as buying it is concerned, there are likely to be more dealers in Miami than any other place you mention, but I believe that Ritz camera, a large nationwide chain, stocks both of these cameras at most locations- you can check this oneline. Prices will not vary much from place to place, especially on the Canon, which has just come out and is extremely popular | ||
| Ingemar |
Reep, have you seen the night shots with the coolpix 8800 with noise reduction? According to the review it focusses properly too in the dark. I was impressed ... follow the link Jon posted if you haven't. Jon, I've done some more reading and compared the photos of those two reviews you posted. The dr/xt certainly is a top notch quality camera. BUT (and I'm gonna be REALLY picky) for the price of the canon kit (and price difference with the coolpix) I think: -the standard canon lense is not sufficient (18-55mm and 1:3.5 - 5.6 isn't optimal, and picture quality could be better) -chromatic aberration is quite prominent -EF lenses don't work as well as you would expect; I tested my canon EF 28-80 and Tamron EF 80-210mm lenses on a 300D and I couldn't get the tamron to autofocus properly. The pictures of both lenses were a bit pale and low on contrast which makes me believe something goes wrong with light metering as well. -white balance wasn't working properly on the 300d and according to the review that hasn't changed with the xt. -menus and buttons are cumbersome to use. I don't know how the coolpix is in that respect, I haven't held one in my hands yet. I'm not dissing the canon, don't get me wrong. It's a very good camera, these are just the cons I see after trying a friend's 300D and reading the reviews. Not meaning to sound like I've already decided, but summing it all up I don't think I want to spend 1200 bucks (or more!) on a body and a good lens. It still woudn't give me the 350mm of the coolpix. Considering it all I'm not sure all that extra money is worth it for the level of photography I do.  What I really want is a camera that can be used for point and shoot and automatically chooses the best settings *most* of the time. Good zoom level is an absolute requirement. On occasion, I want to be able to use it in a prosumer-like manner (ie, manual settings/create special effects etc). Until I looked at the coolpix, I felt that I needed 2 camera's. Unless I'm making myself believe something, the coolpix may have the right balance for me, but I guess I won't really know until I try one myself. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Ingmar... From the link, talking about low light performance:
But we want different things, you want killer telephoto, which I don't like to use. I want very wide angle, and the very best possible low light performance. Now all I need is money  | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
God, I really hate to do this:-) The camera that you REALLY need is the Samsung Pro 815! It has 8 mega pixels, 15 times zoom,( the worlds longest) and a 3.5 inch screen, (worlds' biggest) and the worlds largest capacity battery! See it here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060202samsung_pro815.asp#press The snag: it won't be shipping until August. Ain't that always the way? | ||
| Ingemar |
Dude, you let me type all that stuff and only then you come with this? No seriously, that's an awesome camera by the looks of it. I'm gonna wait for that. In august I'll be the states so who knows! Thanks a bunch Jon! | ||
| Dino |
Ingemar, sounds like you've got a pretty good handle on the situation. It may be presumptuous of me (never stopped me before) but I've got to disagree with Jon on a few points. First, both the Rebel XT and the Nikon 8800 are both prosumer units, but are different tools better qualified for different uses. Second, I strongly disagree that the XT significantly betters the 8800's image quality (IN GOOD LIGHT), much less by the degree inferred by Jon. Certainly not with the kit lens on the XT. And an upgraded lens (lenses to match the the range of the 8800) would be enough dollars to buy several 8800s. Used on stationary subjects in good light at the lowest ISO setting, I sincerely doubt that the XT would noticeably best the 8800 at any print size. However, in low light, where higher ISOs are required, there is no comparison...the XT wins hands down. However, remember that the XT will REQUIRE a higher ISO than the 8800 to achieve the same depth of focus at the same shutter/aperture combination (a function shorter actual focal length with the smaller sensor.) Still, for low noise and rapid auto-focus in low light, the XT is the way to go. If you really want the focal length range of the 8800 but don't want to spend two or three times the cost of the 8800, and don't want to carry a ton of expensive gear, the 8800 is your choice. Be prepared to suffer (by comparison) in low light situations and also in situations where you'd like to do critical manual focus - that's way easier on a DSLR. If you have to have excellent low light performance, the XT is the way to go. In that case be prepared to buy several lenses in order to equal or better the 8800s performance in good light. Also, shots must be framed thru the optical viewfinder on the XT. The LCD panel functions only on playback. On the 8800 you have a choice between the EFT viewfinder and the articulated LCD panel. Once you've gotten used to having the articulated panel, it can be real hard to do without. That said, I sure love a good optical SLR finder (once you get use to one it can be... well, you know). However, THAT said, the EFT on the 8800 is more accurate for framing than the optical on the XT. Another consideration...dust - in order to change lenses on the XT you essentially open the camera which can allow dust to enter. Unlike film, where you get a nice fresh, clean frame each shot, in digital you have but one sensor. If it gets dusty, degrading the imaging capability, it must be cleaned...apparently not a job for the ham-fisted. So, each of these cameras is a excellent tool capable of recording outstanding images. Pick the one that best suits your needs. Or, my recommendation, buy both!  In the interest of full disclosure, I don't own either. I use an Olympus C8080, a Nikon 5400 and a Panasonic FZ20. Oh, by the way, a note about the Samsung. It's a not really the world's longest. It is the world's broadest. By that I mean that, while the range of the lens is 15x, it goes farther on the wide angle side than it's nearest competitors, not on the long side. Not that that isn't a great thing as well! On the tele end it goes to about 430mm (35mm equiv) just like the Panasonic 12x cameras do. Also the LCD panel is not articulated and, while huge, is not higher definition. | ||
| Dino |
Whoops, there's an obvious brain-fart misstatement in my post above. "However, remember that the XT will REQUIRE a higher ISO than the 8800 to achieve the same depth of focus at the same shutter/aperture combination (a function shorter actual focal length with the smaller sensor.)" Should read: However, remember that the XT will REQUIRE a higher ISO than the 8800 to achieve the same depth of focus at the same shutter speed. This is due to a greater depth of focus at the same f/ number on the 8800 (a function shorter actual focal length with the smaller sensor.) That brings to mind another couple advantages of the larger sensored SLRs. The shallower depth of focus at a specific f stop allows you to blur the background to a greater degree in those instances when you want to may wish to isolate a sharply focused subject against an out of focus background. Also, should you want to take one of those artsy shots of a forest creek where the water is just a soft blur ... better bring a neutral density filter for the 8800. Since you don't have the higher f/ numbers available, you won't be able to use as slow a shutter speed unless you reduce the light with a filter. | ||
| Ingemar |
Thanks Dino. It was a nice thought to own an XT, but the more I think of it the more I realize its not a good idea. It would be too expensive getting the lenses I would like. I really hope we see reviews of the Samsung Pro815 before my holiday is over. | ||
| Dino |
The Samsung does look interesting. Personally, I'd rather they had used a smaller LCD and made it articulated. Seems they went for the DSLR look, rather than for function. There's no purpose for an articulated LCD on an SLR, as the LCD operates only in playback, but the articulated LCD is a wonderful feature on a non-slr digicam. Didn't think I would, but I use it quite a bit. Beats lying on your belly to get a shot all to hell and back. I do like the way they put focus, zoom and exposure compensation all as knurled rings on the lens barrel. I'm sure that whatever you buy, you'll have a ball with it. Happy shooting! | ||
| Dino |
Oh, and have a great holiday! | ||
| Bud |
i just bougth a old nikon D1 with a 28-80 f2.8 and a 28-200 f3,5-5,6 fits my needs and budget and a 500 foto's further, a like it a lot, bullit proof, fast, with the f2.8 lens good in low light shooting in Raw ( +/- 3 Mpic ) so hee it's not 8 milj. pic. i don't care i fits my needs very good | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
 Digital Rebel with 75-250mm lens ISO 1000 from 15' away taken past midnight at a campground with the only visible light source a coleman lantern. This particular photo is toned down to 72dpi for web use and sized for web use. If you are aware of the step change when using non-digital EF lenses then it can be easily handled. Whitebalance is adjustable, and the instructions for doing so are very straight forward and clear. With the release of the XT/350D the DR/300D has dropped alot in price and the packages available are worth looking into. I have used my 300D with the 75-250 and a multiplier for trackday photos with great success.  shot from the pitlane approximately 100yards from that corner. Do not discount the DSLR's, if you had a focusing problem with the autofocus on the Tamron lense, were you using it with the onboard flash or a TTL flash? I ask because that was the only time I had difficulty with the AF using non-canon lenses. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Dangit Pete, stop torturing me with that picture. I love low light work, that shot suggests incredible potential for the camera... | ||
| Ingemar |
Let me try and explain what happened with the Tamron. When I sound like a complete idiot just remember english is not my natural language and I'm not familiar with the terminology used with photography I tested the tamron indoor (using the built in flash) and outdoor on a bright and sunny day (no flash). When you would look through the little thingy (viewfinder?) you see some details at the bottom and in the center there's a bunch of red spots. Hold the "take-a-photo-now" button half pressed and one of these red spots light up. Almost randomly, the outer left or outer right spots would light up, but NEVER those in the center. It would always focus on something near the side of the frame but NEVER on an object in the center. So the only time it would take a properly focussed picture would be when you would stand in front of a wall at 90 degree angle, so it doesn't matter which red spot lights up. Actually I always thought the red spots were ONLY for light measurement, but it seems autofocus also uses whatever is there to focus on. I know for sure that it works fine on my Canon 1000Fn so the lense is good (although the picture quality leaves much to be desired). I realize I can manually override everything, but that's not what I wanna do with every picture I take. Out of the few dozen pictures I have taken with the 300D 3 or 4 had white balance incorrectly selected. Maybe I'm unreasonable, but I think that rate (1 out of 15-or-so) is too high. Last but not least: purple fringes were too much with both the standard 300D kit lense and my own lenses. I'm sure a pro-lense lense will solve that but just look at how much you gotta spend for one ... I would love to have a DR (or DR/XT), if only I had a couple a grand to spend. Maybe if I run into a kit with a proper lense for a really good price ... | ||
| Dino |
Ingemar - I haven't used the Canon, but I'm guessing that your problem was the camera option chosen for the auto focus. The option you describe focuses on the closest significant object to the lens...that's why the auto focus bracket is moving on you. There is probably another option that lets you manually move that focus bracket around the image; another that locks the bracket in the center of the frame and, I would guess, some sort of matrix focus that samples several areas of the frame and averages. | ||
| Ingemar |
Maybe ... I'm not sure what the problem was but it would only do that with the Tamron, not with the other lenses. Note that the red spots I'm talking about is not a lense feature but a camera's. My 1000Fn doesn't show red spots with neither lense. When I would swap lenses on the spot with the 300D it would only do it wrong with the Tamron, when I would switch lense and point in the same direction, the same object it would focus properly and light up the correct red spot. | ||
| Dino |
Hmmm, maybe a lens/body incompatibility that was causing the body to shift autofocus modes? | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
the outer left or outer right spots would light up, but NEVER those in the center. It would always focus on something near the side of the frame but NEVER on an object in the center That has to do with using a non-digital lense on a DSLR. It has to do with the CMOS sensor size and placement in relation to the focusing setup point for the lense. The smaller body of the camera when used with that lense means the focus point for the lense is past where the CMOS is actually located. Its the difference between a deep body camera and a thin body camera. The same with the purple fringe you spoke of, it again is an issue of a non-digital lense being used on a digital camera. All you want the camera for is long shots correct? If so then keep in mind, there are add-on filters that act as focusing multipliers that can take a shorter range camera and extend its focusing range. If you do all around types of shots then a DSLR is something you will want to look into, but if all you want to shoot is distance, then spending less for the 8800 might be a good plan. It all comes down to what you intend to do with the camera in the long run. I shoot too much variety to get away with a non SLR, and its going to suck waiting until I can replace my Rebel. | ||
| Bcordb3 |
Mikel, I thought you liked your Rebel? I am liking mine. Sort of wish I got new 8 meg model. | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
The Rebel is an awesome camera that has one distinct fault, it doesn't like hitting the pavement at 80mph  When you go to edit your pics, are you loosing enough image quality to "need" 8megs? I found myself having to adjust the camera down to the 4mg setting to keep from "over detailing" the pics. Picking up zit marks in someone's face just isn't needed. | ||
| Dino |
Problem: Picking up zit marks Solution: Photoshop | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
LOL | ||
| Ingemar |
It's a shame I have already dumped the test pics. I could have posted some examples. I had taken the same series of pictures with my 5 mpixel at different zoom levels, with the cannon 300d with its original (digital) EF-S lense, my canon EF (non-digi) lense and my tamron (non-digi) tele lense. They ALL showed purple fringing, including the canon (digi) EF-S lense. My 5mp camera is the worst in that. My (non-digi) EF lense did not have a problem focussing. A good zoom level (200+) is a must, but its not all I want. 35 as a start is minimum, but its got to have good macro too. The biggest problem with my 5mpixel camera is low light quality and chromatic abberation. Pictures gets noisy just below daylight, and in the shade it won't even focus properly. Looking at the 8800 samples, the lowlight quality is more than good enough for me. It hardly shows fringes too. The canon rules in the night we all know that but it would be overkill for my level of shooting piccies. | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
They ALL showed purple fringing, including the canon (digi) EF-S lense. That doesn't sound normal. I mean I am aware of the problem when using non digital lenses ment for a longer body Canon, but that just doesn't sound right at all. I wonder if the camera used had "issues" that needed to be repaired. | ||
| Ingemar |
Did I say I'm a picky bastard? I'm sorry for the confusion, when I said "ALL" I didn't mean ALL shots I took with the canon. I was referring to the same shot in the series I took with the different lenses I had at my disposal. | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
Just out of curious, were they under flourescent lights? Even streetlights? Its just after using my DR for just over a year before it got smashed, I didn't have any issues I couldn't work around with the proper setting is all. Mind you, this is coming from someone that prefers to shoot medium format, so quality and the potential to produce large prints is very much what I prefer. | ||
| Ingemar |
No, just the sun. Man I really wish I held on to those shots just a little longer. Not to prove I'm right, but I took the shots several weeks ago and I'm beginning to think I've been blowing it up in my mind ... I just reviewed most of the shots (the big, original ones) on DPreview.Com and I can't remember my shots looking that good  | ||
| Bcordb3 |
When you go to edit your pics, are you loosing enough image quality to "need" 8megs? My thinking is enlargements more than 8X10. I don't want my pictures to pixelate (if that is a word). |
