Quote:
I'm extremely interested in how well these cameras do in low light situations.

It looks like the form factor is the same as the other models in the ixus line, but if these new ones do better in low light, I might just have to get one. That's been the bane of my current ixus-line camera.

Quote:
I don't care much about grain, what I want is a camera that can take an indoor shot (standard indoor lighting, incandescent or fluorescent) without a flash... and not need a hold-your-breath-and-don't-move-the-camera exposure to do it.

I don't need to take pictures in candle light. I just want to be able to take indoor shots at office-lighting levels and not have them come out blurry because my heart was beating during the exposure.

My current camera (ixus 300) can't do that.

Quote:
I don't need to take pictures in candle light. I just want to be able to take indoor shots at office-lighting levels and not have them come out blurry because my heart was beating during the exposure.

My current camera (ixus 300) can't do that.

<DSLR snob mode>You need a DSLR</DSLR snob mode>

Quote:
I was going to get one this week, but noticed that Canon just announced the SD400, due out March 25th. Same camera, but 5 megapixels. I'm gonna wait a couple weeks and get that one. You can preorder them at Amazon and view the specs on DPReview.com.

Quote:

Quote:
I don't need to take pictures in candle light. I just want to be able to take indoor shots at office-lighting levels and not have them come out blurry because my heart was beating during the exposure.

My current camera (ixus 300) can't do that.



<DSLR snob mode>You need a DSLR</DSLR snob mode>

Quote:
<DSLR snob mode>You need a DSLR</DSLR snob mode>

Quote:
You can always get closer to your subject. You can't always get further away.

Quote:
Nope. I'm just good at selling stuff to make up for the cost of new toys. =]

Just remember that you need to keep at least one kidney

Quote:
In terms of "affordable" image stabilization, B&H wants $1150 for the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens. That's pretty painful, compared to my $250 Nikon AF 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 ED lens.

Quote:
Somebody needs to built a lens with specs comparable to Canon's IS lens for under $500. That will be a best seller!

Canon do, it just doesn't match all the specs of the Canon IS lens you were talking about (optical quality, focusing speed and size are the big differences).

For the record, I have the EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS and want the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

With the IS I manage to get fairly reliable sharp shoots with 1/350 at 300mm, with some shots at 1/250 and below being sharp as well. I've just noticed that one of my favourite shots of Eryl my wife was 1/180 at 300mm and is sharp (for the bit of the shot that is in focus):

http://www.norman.cx/photos/showphotonew.asp_Q_path_E_20030705%20Washington%202003/IMG_2900.JPG

Quote:
For the record, I have the EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS and want the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

Quote:

Quote:
For the record, I have the EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS and want the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

For the cost of the latter lens, I'd imagine you'd just want to go it a step further and get the 70-200mm f/2.8 ($1500, more or less, from both Canon and Nikon, with a similar feature set of bells and whistles) plus maybe a 1.4x teleconverter. Either lens would look quite pretty on your shelf when you leave it behind because it's too heavy to lug around.

In the UK the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM cost £849 and it weighs 720g.

The EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM and EF 1.4x II Converter combined cost £1,608 and weigh 1790g.

So the combination weighs 2.5 times the weight of the single lens and costs twice the price.

The 1.4x converter loses you one stop, which turns it into and f/4.0 lens. That would make it the same at the short end as the single lens and only one stop faster at the long end.

The deal breaker of course though is that the lens and converter are white

No doubt the 70-200 has measurably better optical quality, but I'm never likely to own one because of the size, weight, price and whiteness.

Quote:
In the UK the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM cost £849 and it weighs 720g.

The EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM and EF 1.4x II Converter combined cost £1,608 and weigh 1790g.

Quote:
Wow, that's a good deal more money than we pay in the U.S. At that point, it's cheaper for you to book a flight to New York, buy your gear (even paying sales tax), and fly back home again.

Quote:

I'm actually somewhat surprised that the DO version is heavier. I would have thought that with more expensive optics, they could get that weight down. Maybe they're putting in heavier AF motors or a more robust outer shell.

The DO version is much more solidly built than my 75-300 IS, which is almost entirely plastic. If it didn't go to 300mm, have IS and come in so "cheap" then I would never have bought it. It feels cheap and takes an age to focus (it frequently hunts through the entire range before settling). It also doesn't have full time auto focus, meaning you can't help it with its focus problems.

But it does do 300mm (480mm in 35mm terms) and I can take decent shots at 1/250, so I love it

Nearly as impressive in the "how did they do that" area, is my wife's new digicam. A 36mm-420mm stabilised lens on a camera that you can put in your pocket and weighs less than any one of my lenses...

Quote:
Thankfully Canon do an international waranty on the lenses, something that is sadly lacking on the bodies.

Quote:

If I buy an "import" lens from B&H Photo, generally that means that Nikon USA (or Canon USA, so far as I know) won't touch it. Instead, B&H offers you their own warranty for the same time period and whatnot.

I think it depends on your local Canon people honouring the warranty. My understanding is that Canon US will not honour claims on grey kit imported into the US, whereas Canon UK will honour claims in lenses bought elsewhere in the world (but not bodies).

I have never had a problem with the lenses I bought in the US (they were US stock, rather than greys) so I've never found out whether my understanding is correct or not

It is of course in B&H's benefit to sell added warranty whatever the situation is...

Quote:

Given how much cheaper it is to buy these things in the U.S., I'm surprised there isn't some sort of arbitrage going on. Is there not a U.K. version of B&H selling "import" gear for close to American prices? If they buy at wholesale (or even street) prices here and pay those duties, it looks like they still come out ahead of your street prices.

Quote:
Nearly as impressive in the "how did they do that" area, is my wife's new digicam. A 36mm-420mm stabilised lens on a camera that you can put in your pocket and weighs less than any one of my lenses...

Well, if you only need to resolve 0.3 Megapixels (640x480), you can hide a lot of lens sins.

I do love the IS on the videocameras tho. I'd never buy one without.

-Zeke

Quote:
Of course compared to my 10D the Panasonic isn't really a f/2.8 lens

Quote:
Shouldn't DOF be exactly the same for the same actual (as opposed to 'equivalent') focal length and aperture (and 'circle of confusion' used, which is somewhat arbitrary)?

Quote:
Shouldn't DOF be exactly the same for the same actual (as opposed to 'equivalent') focal length and aperture (and 'circle of confusion' used, which is somewhat arbitrary)?

Quote:
so the argument gets a bit, well, fuzzy!