best digital for $500

[brutus]

The title says it all, what are your opinions?

[BISHAMON]

HP Photosmart 945 with Adaptive Lighting Technology, 5.3 MP,8 X optical and 7X Digital Zoom
Harold

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

I got my Minolta D image Z1 for less ($325), and im way happy.
10x optical + 4x digital zoom 3.2 MPXL
really simple to use, and can go completely manual operation if you wish to control shutter, f stop etc
takes great pics too:D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/crotalusadamanteus/Aurora21.jpg

Rick

[Greg West]

Nikon 5400 is in that price range now with the rebate I have heard. I would say it is the best for macro shots in my opinion.

Greg

[Kyle Barker]

i bought my 5400 for 500 can plus tax. they are now discontinued so they are selling out....i ofund them hard to find.

the thing i dont liek about them is their battery. bloudy expensive things (70 for nikon, 50 for other brand), and they dont really last too much longer than my previous hp which was 4 AA. so if long trips or outdoorsy things are the use, i would buy a spare.

dunno about the new hp cameras....but their waranties (extended warranties) are complete crap. they screwed me so i dotn buy their stuff anymore (after buying a cam coimputer/monitor, 2 printers and a scanner :rolleyes: ). but i hold grudges.

teh other one i was looking at was teh cannon a95. apperently the eralier models ccd wore out pretty quick, dunno if that was adressed. that was one of the things that helped me make my decision.

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

The Z1 mentioned above has a pretty good digital macro built in, does split frame, and multi shot, night time, and movie.
It works with sd card, and 4AA
Only downfall ive experienced is the batteries go quick when using camera seriously (continuously)

[Raindog]

I think I've done this before but the Panasonic DMC-FZ20 seems to be the best buy in a P/S that I have seen in quite some time, particularly if you are concerned with zoom. Here's a link...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

Originally posted by Raindog
I think I've done this before but the Panasonic DMC-FZ20 seems to be the best buy in a P/S that I have seen in quite some time, particularly if you are concerned with zoom. Here's a link...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/
pretty nice cam, how long the battery last?
Rick
Sorry, and how much for spare batts?

[Raindog]

To tell you the truth, I'm not really sure C. A friend at work has this camera and swears by it but I haven't heard any reports of the battery life.

[emkovar]

I really like my Canon PowerShot S400. You can get the newer model the SD 300, which is pretty much the same camera
I took the pic below with the S400.

http://www.ssnakess.com/photopost/data/500/4011copy133_3388-med.jpg

[Big Mike]

IMO, the best digital camera for the money is the Canon Digital Rebel (or Nikon D70). Sure it's twice your budget, but it is 10 times better than anything you will get for $500.

[Raindog]

While I would agree that a DSLR such as the D70 and 300D are capable of far superior images, the base prices of each are for body only. Lenses are expensive, here's what I have spent so far...

D70 body and 18-70mm kit lens - New- $1300.00
Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro - Used- $375.00
Sigma 100-300mm F4 - Used- $700.00

I'm still in need of a good wide angle lens and will most likely order it next month so we might as well add that one also...

Nikkor 12-24mm - New- $1200.00

Obviously the casual shooter would be far better off spending under $500 on one of the many great options available in P/S.

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

kinda agree with raindog if your not pro, or extremely into photography.
heres me & my girl, and my cam mentioned above. the cam did everything. as you can see, i was sorta tied up. hehe
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/crotalusadamanteus/MeAurora.jpg
Glad me ugly mug didnt break it hehe:D
Rick

[Big Mike]

Originally posted by Raindog
While I would agree that a DSLR such as the D70 and 300D are capable of far superior images, the base prices of each are for body only. Lenses are expensive, here's what I have spent so far...

D70 body and 18-70mm kit lens - New- $1300.00
Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro - Used- $375.00
Sigma 100-300mm F4 - Used- $700.00

I'm still in need of a good wide angle lens and will most likely order it next month so we might as well add that one also...

Nikkor 12-24mm - New- $1200.00

Obviously the casual shooter would be far better off spending under $500 on one of the many great options available in P/S.

I see your point...but you appear to be much more than a casual shooter. I believe a 300D can be had for $1000 US including the 18-55 EFS lens. That will be enough focal range for most casual shooters. If they would have been happy with a p&s digi-cam...they won't need to purchase additional lenses...but at least they will have that option. Also, lenses are much more of an investment than the camera...good glass will always be good glass...and digi-cams become obsolete way too fast for my liking.

I will concede that for 'most' people's needs...a digital point & shoot is all they would need. I just like to offer the advice that they can get a much, much better camera for only twice the price.

This is taken from another forum I visit...
What are the disadvantages of a Digi-cam vs. a DSLR?

1) Most compact (or prosumer) digital cameras display high noise in images at ISO 200-400 and above, rendering the higher ISO's unusable and effectively crippling a third parameter of exposure.
2) Much better shallow depth of field.
3) Faster response times, faster start up times, faster shot-to-shot times. Far less shutter lag, much faster autofocus times and improved AF in low light. Don't kid yourself about improved shutter lag times...they're still pretty darned slow, especially if capturing action is one of your desires.
4) Interchangeable lenses. Good glass is good glass, whether you're shooting digital or not. In contrast to a compact digicam, a lens I buy for a DSLR should still be valuable 2, 3, 5, or 10 years down the line.
5) Much better quality sensors. I can produce a high quality 20 x 30 enlargement under ideal conditions from a 6MP DSLR. You would be fortunate to produce a good 10 x 15 enlargement from a 6MP compact digital camera. Sure, you might rarely consider an enlargement this size, but what if...


What are the advantages of these (compacts) versus the DSLRs?

1) They're easier to carry around.

[Ron]

I agree with Big Mike, if you can afford it go with a DSLR. I recently purchased a Canon 20D for my girlfriend and it is amazing how much better it is in auto mode than any point and shoot I have tried.

I am actually think about getting a 1Ds Mark II; I know it's definitely way too much camera for me but it may last me my life time. Will I ever need the 16.7 MP, probably not but I really like the full size sensor. Well it's that or buy a couple "L" lenses. I think it's time I took some photography courses....lol.

[Spirit]

Originally posted by C.ADAMANTEUS
heres me & my girl, and my cam mentioned above. the cam did everything. as you can see, i was sorta tied up. hehe


What a fantastic picture!!!

Edited to answer the question. lol! Excluding all "high end cameras", Canons are my first choice for price and quality (and features), Nikons are my first choice for quality.

They both use incredible lenses so the color quality is always really vibrant. Canons offer more features for a bit less than the Nikons, but the Nikons will give you a bit more of a "professional" camera (if you will).

I own a Canon A70, and people tell me all the time I should submit some of my pics in photo contests.

It really depends if you want a point and click (no manual settings) or something more complicated. In my opinion, Canon gives you the best of both worlds. VERY easy for point and click, but also gives you full manual control, should you ever want it. And all for a great price. :)

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

Originally posted by Spirit
What a fantastic picture!!!
Thanks for the praise, but its, OK. I get some really good ones sometimes. Still learning the new cam though. its alot better than me right now.:D

[Spirit]

It's actually the "disorganised" part of it that I like. It's a complete mess. The snake isn't sitting still, you're not posing, you took it in a mirror for crying out loud but the composition (not to forget the clarity) is damn near perfect (aside from the dust particles)... it's just a great pic all over.

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

Thanks Spirit. I'll be cleaning the toothbrush splatters as soon as this is over. I didn't even see them till you mention'd it:o
just a slob sometimes:D
Rick

[Spirit]

Is that what that is? I thought it was just dust particles in the air... LMAO

(we'll pretend it is) ;)

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

Yeah Im glad it focused on the right subject :D
but its gone now. haha
Rick

[Diverdude1234]

I got a cannon D Rebel for $900 with a 18-55mm lense kit and I feel that is is the best camera I have ever shot with, it has plenty of options like the amout of mp u want each pic to use (quality) and it has a burst shot mode wich allows to to take 3-5 shots in about 2-4 sec so that you can always get your pic. Other advantages are the fully auto mode, the semi- auto, or fully auto. Its battery lasts about 1000 shots without the flash, and about 300 shots with full flash and 30s preview. It is the best bang for your buck.
With a tri-pod and the timer you can get some good pics with u and your snake too.

[Slannesh]

I'll have to agree with the Pro Digital Rebel people... A good friend of mine has one and he does some REALLY nice stuff with it. He's a big fan of taking pics of the Aurora borealis and has produced some just great pics. I think a good DSLR is a must for anyone getting even semi seriously into photography... I wish I had one that's for sure :) But for now i'm happy with my little Fuji :)

[Big Mike]

If anyone is interested...Canon just announced a replacement for the Digital Rebel...the Digital Rebel XT. It looks like it will have the same initial price of the original D Rebel...(which should soon be discounted to clear stock.

http://www.pma-show.com/review/canon/001_EOS_digital_rebel_xt.html

[pablo111]

Best Cameras are Fuji, for image quality, Minolta follows.

For ease of use, Sony.

For "all around", Cannon, though cannon colors seem pretty "artificial" to most people.

For "value" and "apparent" quality, Kodak. Kodak cameras take pictures that look good- until you look at the original subject and realize a lot of the colors are improvised on the CCD

MY pcworld says olympus is good too. i read it on the toilet- it must be true.

[Slannesh]

Oi.... Big Mike... THAT I did not need to know.

*whimpers* Any idea when that stock clearing discount should start? I gotta start saving my sheckels.

[Big Mike]

That's a good question...I don't even know if those discounts will make their way up to Canada or not. Best bet would be to ask around at McBain Camera. I have a buddy who works there but I haven't talked to him in a while.

I'm still holding out for a Canon 20D but that new rebel is sure making it hard to justify the extra $600.

[Big Mike]

opps...double post

[TopShelfExotics]

Sony DSC F707

You can probably find on on ebay in great condition at a fairly good price. Has to be the best camera I have ever used, and trust me, we've owned MANY.

http://topshelfexotic.com/photos/a2.JPG

http://topshelfexotic.com/photos/26.jpg

http://topshelfexotic.com/photos/9.JPG

[Spirit]

It's a GREAT camera hands down, but again you're looking at close to $1000 (for an older camera) and only a 2x or 3x (can't remember) optical zoom. Not to mention it's not a "put it in your pocket and go" camera at all. It's kind of bulky, in fact.

If you can find one at a good price though, even though I'm anti-sony, that's a nice camera indeed.

[TopShelfExotics]

Actually it's 5x optical zoom with 2x Precision Digital Zoom :D

[Spirit]

Oh... am I thinking of a different camera?

*goes to check the model you mentioned*

[TopShelfExotics]

perhaps the 505? (cant remember)

[Spirit]

I think I was thinking of the 505 which is a... 2mp? At any rate, its' a good camera! Again though, the camera is only as good as the cameraman.

Not to push Canon (because a camera is only good for what you want to use it for), I posted a link to a canon photography forum in another thread here, If you go to the galleries, compare the pics taken with my camera (A70, worth approx $200 now), the G5's ($4-500), to the ones taken with EOS ($1500+), you'll see what I mean. If you know how to use your camrea, you can take beautiful pics with a fairly innexpensive one.

[TopShelfExotics]

Best part about it, those photos were taken with the automatic setting. No tinkering at all...

(I usually dont have the patience to tinker.... And the guys here taking photos for customers have no clue how to work the camera anyways. They point, shoot, and email. )

[Spirit]

I rarely take mine off automatic, but I love that I have full manual control, should I ever want it.

[TopShelfExotics]

Yeah its a good feature, wish I had more time and patience to play with it lol

[Spirit]

But that's just one other thing I love about my camera. Aside from the fact that it's an excellent point and shoot camera, the price is right, and it comes with complete manual control (which is rare for cheaper priced cameras). I don't NEED to spend an extra $1000 to take good pictures.

If you're interested, you can check out some of my pics HERE (http://photobucket.com/albums/v409/Spiriit/). They were ALL taken with my A70. None of them have been tweaked in photoshop.

[TopShelfExotics]

Nice. I don't know what it is, but the detail in the photos the 707 takes is just breathtaking. I certainly don't plan on using another digital until this either craps out or becomes EXTREMELEY obsolete, which I dont see happening in the near future :D

http://topshelfexotic.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/DSC05705.JPG

http://topshelfexotic.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/nosybeblue_male_2.JPG

http://topshelfexotic.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/ambliobe_male_2.JPG

http://topshelfexotic.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/backbloodbabym.JPG

http://topshelfexotic.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/2.JPG

[Double J]

Nikon Coolpix 4100... there is no comparison

[Spirit]

Although I don't see anything spectacular in picture quality, the sony mentioned above IS DEFINITELY a nice camera, and it does have some features mine doesn't have... but for point and click, Canon is my camera of choice. And although it might not have certain features like burst mode, it can take pics VERY close to quality in the higher end cameras and costs me a fraction of the price. FOR ME, that's worth it.

What morph is that third picture (I'm still fairly new to boids)? Holy lord, that pattern is PRETTY.

Edited to add: Nikon Coolpix is an AMAZING camera. Nikon (any of them) would be my first choice for digital, but I chose Canon because of it's price (and excellent lenses).

[Raindog]

Originally posted by Spirit
the camera is only as good as the cameraman.


Truer words were never spoken.

[mathaldo]

Love my Nikon Coolpix 3700.

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

Originally posted by Raindog
Truer words were never spoken. .

When dealing with a fully MANUAL camera, then truer words were never spoken. But todays technology in Dig cams of all kinds, cheap, or high dollar takes all the real "need to know" like all the old stuff, and alot less practice is needed to get reasonably good.
Rick

[Spirit]

Originally posted by C.ADAMANTEUS
When dealing with a fully MANUAL camera, then truer words were never spoken.

That's not true at all. It takes a certain talent to be able to take a good picture, even with full automatic. For example, my roommate has a very basic 4mp digital camera. It has 3 modes. Automatic, macro, and landscape. That's it. No optical zoom even... nothing.

I can take gorgeous pics with it... bright color, good composition, nice and sharp... HIM on the other hand, takes HORRIBLE pics. They're ALWAYS blurry, the colors always appear washed out, and his eye for composition is just atrocious.

That's the cameraman. The camera takes excellent pictures. HE, does not.

[Raindog]

I like your third shot TSE.
Humor me on this one...
Put that cham on a perch, set your 707 on A (aperture priority) and select around f4 from the menu. I think ISO is automatic on that model but if you can find a way to change it make sure it is at the lowest number possible. Use the flash but wrap a thin tissue around it to soften the light. Manual focus on the bugger's eye and take the shot.

[Spirit]

OH YES!! Do that. :)

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

Spirit,
Perhaps I should elaborate a little.
Yes, the cameraman needs to know things like, hold still, dont get too close, which mode for which purpose, etc. Simple stuff.
What I was referring too was the need to know all the trial and error stuff of learning (the stuff that cost hundreds in film development till you get it right.) like aperature settings, film speeds, shutter speeds, and where to set them for all the various types of shooting,
Now adays, you push a button, and you get the mode, the cam sets the F stop, shutter speed etc.
I guess I should have said "Todays cams are much easier to learn."
At least for me. I have wasted (deleted) a lot less pics since going digital. They are nicer, clearer, sharper, and I dont feel like im doing anything to make this happen, except not getting too close unless in macro mode, and holding still.
Rick

[TopShelfExotics]

I'll fiddle with it when I go back in on monday. The ISO setting can be selected as well, starting at 100 on up.

[Double J]

Originally posted by Kyle Barker
i bought my 5400 for 500 can plus tax. they are now discontinued so they are selling out....i ofund them hard to find.

the thing i dont liek about them is their battery. bloudy expensive things (70 for nikon, 50 for other brand), and they dont really last too much longer than my previous hp which was 4 AA. so if long trips or outdoorsy things are the use, i would buy a spare.


My Nikon Coolpix 4100 actually is powered by *TWO* AA batteries. The camera had two rechargable Lithioum ion batteries included as well as a charger. Duracell and Energizer AA batteries work reasonably well.... but the rechargables that were included have an incredibly long life.

[Spirit]

Originally posted by C.ADAMANTEUS
I guess I should have said "Todays cams are much easier to learn."

35mm don't work the same way as digital though (if that's what you mean). I MUCH prefer 35mm for photography (and I think any avid hobbyist would agree with me on that), but the cost of film, developing, time... ugh, it's all just too much. I used to have my own dark room (which I MISS something awful), but it just got too expensive and time consuming (not that I'm complaining on the time thing). It's just SO much easier to point, click, view, and delete.

And the reason I went with a cheaper camera is because I know from experience that you DO NOT NEED an expensive camera to be able to take good pictures. All you need to know, is your camera.

I've been into photography since I was a toddler so I know how to use a camera, and it STILL took me about 2 months and 2000 pictures of "experimenting" before I was comfortable using the manual setting on my digital.

I do miss not being able to use telephoto lenses, but I don't miss that suitase of a thing I used to lug around, that's for sure. Now I have a teleconverter on my camera (sooo not the same though) and am playing with the idea of buying a scope. FOR ME, that's all I need, and I'm not willing to spend the extra money on a fancy camera. Maybe someday I will, not no day soon.

It really comes down to personal preference. One camera might be a "better camera", but if all you're doing is "point and shoot", you REALLY don't need to spend all that extra money.

[Raindog]

Originally posted by Spirit
I don't miss that suitase of a thing I used to lug around, that's for sure.

Ha!
I know what you mean. I spend this afternoon at Sarasota Jungle Gardens carrying a backpack full of gear, a 300mm zoom strapped around my waist and a monopod. My intent was to find out once and for all whether the zoom was sharp enough to keep, if not I was going to buy a 300mm prime.
I ran it through a number of different focal lengths and lighting situations, I was rather pleased with the results. It's not as sharp as my shorter primes but given the circumstances I feel it performed well.
Here are a couple of shots, these are straight out of the camera besides cropping and resizing...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/raindog314159/Temp/_DSC0068.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/raindog314159/Temp/_DSC0002.jpg

[Raindog]

Here's a shot from my 90mm prime for comparison...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/raindog314159/_DSC0093.jpg

[Kyle Barker]

wow nice stuff raindog! seems liek a fairly big difference. too much $ for me though :D

double j, the 5400 couldnt fit AA in there. unless they were in some king of case of somthing, but i dont think that would be good for the cam... they give you a charger and 1 battery with this model....new batteries are $$, but covered under warranty.

[ATBlover]

looks the same to me..lol just a closer shot...ahah nice pics tho..Connor

[Spirit]

Originally posted by Raindog
Ha!
I know what you mean. I spend this afternoon at Sarasota Jungle Gardens carrying a backpack full of gear

*JEALOUS!* I spent mine at a bird sanctuary, and it's borderline raining out. LOL!

Holy beautiful pics, btw. That parrot is stunning! Esp the detail on the eye. Nicely done, Sir raindog, sir!

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

Raindog, looks like all the money you spent on equipment has paid off.
Really like the clarity and depth of the 90mm prime over the 300mm zoom.
But ALL nice no doubt.
Rick

[Spirit]

I agree, but you have to admit, that unless you're sending these photos off to National Geographic, that first pic is pretty damn nice. Hell, I don't care what camera you used, all 3 are stunning.

[C.ADAMANTEUS]

Oh Yeah, ALL nice indeed. Just such a difference in the two lenses, its amazing.
National geographic, Theres a thought for you Raindog. LOL
Rick

[Raindog]

Ha!
Thanks folks.
Rick, you are absolutely correct. The 90mm trumped all of my 100-300mm shots, and I have been thinking about that quite a bit after seeing the results. I'll most likely purchase a Nikkor 300mm prime tonight, at least that way I can measure the two side by side.
At 100mm to around 220mm the Sigma is golden but it gets a bit soft at 300mm. Hopefully the Nikkor will perform as well as everyone says and I can use it to fill that niche.
Hmm, just what I need... another huge lens to carry around.

[Spirit]

Originally posted by Raindog

Hmm, just what I need... another huge lens to carry around.

LMAO! Ain't that the truth. :p

[Double J]

Originally posted by Kyle Barker
wow nice stuff raindog! seems liek a fairly big difference. too much $ for me though :D

double j, the 5400 couldnt fit AA in there. unless they were in some king of case of somthing, but i dont think that would be good for the cam... they give you a charger and 1 battery with this model....new batteries are $$, but covered under warranty.

I couldn't imagine having to deal with battery packs. The AA's in my coolpix 4100 have made life incredibly easy, especially when I was trekking the jungles of Peru with no electricity for days on end. Those energizers saved my life :)

[Steeve B]

I took several 100s shots with my 20D 17-85mm, one word AMASING
I also played a little with both D70 and digi rebel, they are excellent cameras, I prefer the Nikon because its simply a superiorly built camera, smaller and faster with a nice shutter clunk! In fact I prefer it even over my 20D. but hers what’s funny, my wife has a G6 and I fund myself using it more often then my 20D, therefore I obtained a PS as a back up! After some research I took home an FZ20, man this camera is everything a digi should be! No exaggeration I haven’t use my 20D ever sins, the FZ20 has an exceptional image stabilizer that allows the full use of its mega zoom 36-432mm without a tripod. The photos are very sharp and colors need no photo shop. Battery life is comparable to any DSLR. The photo quality between my FZ20 and 20D is indiscernible up to 8 by 10 and only slightly noticeable 13 by 19in enlargements. Simply said you’d need to invest $3000+ to compete with the FZ20 zoom capabilities, you’d then have to carry lots of equipment and weight, the FZ20 is easy to carry and you don’t even need a tripod.
Its most impressive quality is a LEICA 1:2.8/6-72 lens, just try to find such a lens for any DSLR and you’d need to rub a bank.
If only id new about this camera id have not obtained the 20D, not before canon makes a full size censer.
Rgds

[Kyle Barker]

you lucky bums! if you guys want to get rid of your old "junk" ill gladly give you my adress :D

steeve, got any pics comparing the 2? guess its hard to do with the internet and size restrictions and all that jazz.

[Ron]

Originally posted by Steeve B

If only id new about this camera id have not obtained the 20D, not before canon makes a full size censer.
Rgds

Canon does make a full size sensor; the 1Ds Mark II.

I also currently have a Canon EOS 20D and a Panasonic as a back up but it is only the FZ10. I think the Canon is superior in picture quality and definitely far superior in camera operation. I mainly use my 20D in auto mode and it snaps awesome pics compared to FZ10. I've tried the FZ10 in auto and there is a lot to be desired. Unless Panasonic made significant changes from the FZ10 to the FZ20 (other than the mega pixels) I can't see where you're coming from especially if you're talking about operation of the camera. I find my FZ10 frustratingly slow; speed is very important to me and my GF since she photographs dogs and I always like to take bursts of pics.

I'm not trying to say you're absolutely wrong but I love my 20D so much I can't see how you can even compare it to the FZ20.

[Steeve B]

Agreed speed and operations is no match, but the price, ease of use, zoom capabilities and stabilizer, all in a compact and light package, makes for one desirable camera.
Photo quality is good enough for me, I am planning a field trip to PNG and will not take my canon because its to hefty with the tripod and extra lens for long jungle hikes, add to this the total value, you need insurance for this kind of equipment on such a trip. I opted to take on this trip my FZ20 and as back up FZ3 with a few 1g sd cards and batteries, a simple DC cord I can hook to regular AAA batteries in case of emergency, that’s it.

The photos from both FZ,s are better then any PS cameras iv seen, both FZ,s have the same 2.8 lens and 12x zoom with stabilizer, as was stated in this thread 3mp or 5mp can do an excellent job, perhaps what’s really important for me is the possibility to photograph animals from a distance, how many shots iv missed because the subject took off before I got my gear ready. I think these cameras will allow me to capture more events because they are easy to carry and operate.

For an amateur photographer these are excellent, handy and easy to use, a DSLR is a serious piece of equipment that needs more investment and care from its owner.

Photo taken with FZ20

http://www.ssnakess.com/photopost/data/500/959fz20_025-med.jpg
Canon EOS 20D


http://www.ssnakess.com/photopost/data/500/95920D_male_doreanus-med.JPG



Taken with A70 3.2mp funny I got 4 photos published in a German book with this camera.

http://www.ssnakess.com/photopost/data/500/9592531060-lg-med.jpg

[Spirit]

Originally posted by Steeve B

Taken with A70 3.2mp funny I got 4 photos published in a German book with this camera.

Funny? Maybe, but I also own the A70 and am (was) also a member of some local photography clubs, and it never fails to amuse me when I get to answer the question "Which camera do you use".

I can't do with my A70 what I can do with a 20D, but for a simple point and click camera, what more do I need? :) I mean aside from the $1500 price difference... LOL But if you're going to spend that kind of money, do it right and get the EOS-1Ds (Mark II, for one). :D

[joey]

Originally posted by TopShelfExotics
Sony DSC F707

You can probably find on on ebay in great condition at a fairly good price. Has to be the best camera I have ever used, and trust me, we've owned MANY.

PG[/img]

I've been looking into this camera---is it still up to date? I love the shots you posted---the clarity is phenominal!

[tonyj]

I have been looking at the Canon EOS 20D recently, and am very impressed with that camera for a number of reasons. I am leaning towards a metal bodied DSLR and that camera is one that I have had a chance to handle and 'play with' and I must say I like it very much.

I am however, being 'told' that Canon may be upgrading that particular model within the next month or so, since the 20D came out 'way back'(!!) in the summer of 2004. Does anyone know if there is a new model planned to replace the 20D? Will the new model (30D?) be in the same price bracket? Any rumours out there? What do we know about it?

As I say I really like the camera but am reluctant to spend significant dollars on a camera that may be 'updated' before I remove it from the box.

I have also been reading reviews on the recently announced 10.2 MP Nikon D200 which is another camera that may interest me.

In any event I am planning on waiting until early in the New Year before I buy, so any thoughts or ideas will be welcomed.

[Raindog]

Consider this, the D200 will meter with all of those wonderful AI and AI-S lenses that Nikon has a history for. One of my most valued lenses is a 400mm f3.5. I paid $1300 for mine in mint condition, it's closest AF relative in either camp retails for around $7500.

The D200 is a body that no amature will ever need to upgrade if the prelims are true. Then again, the 20d, d70, d50, 300d, 350d would also be just fine for most any amature.

[tonyj]

Raindog, thank you for the excellent points you have made.

I think that the D200 will have more 'flexibility' than the D20 in the years ahead, especially when it comes to 'flipping' lenses. Many 'older' lenses can be used by the Nikon, with certain provisos, unlike the 20D which seems to have some limitations from what I am led to believe. I understand that the 20D lenses cannot be used on all current Canon digital cameras as they are dedicated to only that model and in addition not too many other lenses will 'work' on the 20D.

However,as the D200 is not yet on the shelves and cannnot be handled at this time, I will have to reserve my judgement.

I suppose by the time the camera is generally available and all back orders have been filled, perhaps in two months or so, the price will have softened a little, and of course by then the new Canon '30D' may be here. Right now, based on the available information, I am leaning towards the Nikon D200, as much as I love the feel of the Canon 20D.

Unless the rumoured new Canon 'stomps' all over the Nikon - which it could - I think the D200 will be my camera of choice, helped by the fact that I already own some older Nikon equipment, including lenses, that perhaps I can use on a D200 from time to time.

Hopefully by February or March of 2006 (I have to wait until then), I will have taken the plunge regardless, but until then, I must admit I'm enjoying the research.

Thanks again for the very helpful reply.

If anyone else has any experiences, comments or ideas out there, I look forward to hearing from you, - about the cameras I mean!