I want the best of both worlds. I do a website for a local HS for all of their sports teams. I am the team physician. I don't want to carry two cameras on the sidelines. Also, it is much easier to upload videos from one of the MPG cameras than it is to convert the camcorder to the same format by hooking the camera up to my computer and editing with software for this.

Also, the mpegs seem to be a bit smaller files (I don't use the best quality) and therefore don't use up all of my alloted space on the web site.

 

Im not familiar with all the 8mp cameras, but I do know the sony 8mp blows.

the photos were out and out aweful. noise all over from the pixels interfereing with each other on the chip being so close.

I dont know if all the 8mp cameras suffer the same fate, but I think they all use the same sized CCD chip so its quite possible.

 

Well 8 megapixels is nice to have...but don't you think that is a bit of an overkill? I mean...when are you ever going to need more than 5 megapixels? Plus, one 8-megapixel picture takes 23mb of space to save. Thats only 11 pictures to one 256mb card!

My solution....the Sony DSC-T1 I bought this camera about a month ago and its awesome.

-5 megapixel
-2.5" LCD
-FAST shutter speed with minimum delay between shots
-MPEG movie mode
-Rechargable battery
-Car Ziess Lense
-Perfect size...fits in jacket or pant pocket
-Absolute best choice on market



Check out the size on this thing...it's amazing.

 

It's not just the 8 MP which I agree is probably overkill. I really like the 7X OPTICAL zoom. The one that I had was only 3 optical and 2 digital. I like the other features on it as well.

 

your logic sounds exactly like my fathers.

the 7x zoom basicly matches or destroys any SLR lens under 500$. so he didnt see the need for SLR.

I cant find the site that had the comparison photos anymore though.

Go up to wolf and check em all out. when your looking at 900-1000$ cameras, Im sure theyll help you. they showed us all sorts of photos they took with each camera; even put down the sony(this was odd cause the sony was in stock) saying it couldnt handle backlight, images had noise, and other things I dont remember.

but perhaps theyve corrected it in the past few months.

 

Bonz, you're right in wanting a lot of optical zoom. The thing that people don't think about is the available aperture size for whatever level of zoom. A good SLR lens, wuch as the Canon 70-200 2.8L has a fixed aperature of 2.8 throughout it's zoom range. That means you have a pretty good amount of light coming through the lens, even while at 200mm, so you can typically run a faster shutter speed. I would think that the aperture at max zoom on a typical digi cam is somewhere closer to 5.6, maybe even higher. So, although you have a good long zoom, you suffer from a small aperture, meaning that you're shooting at slower speeds (given the same lighting) and that you're going to be more likely to get blurry pics secondary to camera shake.


8MP is overkill. Many won't agree, but anything more than 3 is really overkill for the average photographer. The question you have to ask yourself is, "How often will I print enlargements?" A 3 MP camera will print a 8x10 shot pretty well, anything larger and you start to lose quality. A 8MP camera will obviously allow much larger enlargements, say poster sized, but there really aren't that many people who actually do that. For the average 4x6 print that most of us make to give to friends, 3 MP is definitely sufficient. Having said all that, I own a 6MP camera and wouldn't trade it for the world, even though the largest enlargement I've made is only 8x10.

Bonz, another thing to think about is memory. An 8MP camera set on superfine with minimal compression will probably produce a file that's some 3-4 MB. Obviously, you'll burn through a 128 MB card very quickly. So, your choices are to either get a larger card, or to lower the resolution and increase the compression, essentially making your camera function at the level of a 3-6 MP one. Memory cards are cheap, and you never know when you're going to want to have maximum quality, so I buy more cards. I would suggest you get something in the 512 to 1 GB range, all getting more and more affordable every day.

 

Look at the Nikon Coolpix 5700 5.25 mp. Nice camera at a very good price. Under $500.00

 

Thanks again guys. I am still looking for some better prices. I have a $100 gift certificate for amazon.com and may get it there since it'll be the best deal with the certificate.

Can anyone tell me if ANY CF memory card brand will work with this camera (Canon Powershot Pro 1)? I was thinking of either the 512MB or even the 1GB card to go with the 64MB that comes with the camera.

Also, do I really NEED a card reader? You can just hook the camera up to the PC via USB and download yor pics. I know they are cheap, just wanted to know if they are necessary. Any good brands of these I should consider?

Thanks again. I am a real newb with all of this and I really appreciate everyone's help.

 

no you dont need one. if you get one, just look in the sunday fliers, compusa and the like are always giving them away for free after rebates.

rouxeny, your right, no one prints photos larger than 4x6 99% of the time. but though Im not sure what resolution a 4x6 is, 3mp looks like dog doodoo at wallpaper size on the PC, or even a 800x600 attachment. I view digital photos on the PC a majority of the time(personally, Ive never printed a photo, though my parents have)

 

>> Also, do I really NEED a card reader? You can just hook the camera up to the PC via USB and download yor pics. I know they are cheap, just wanted to know if they are necessary. Any good brands of these I should consider?

No you don't, but it's well worth the $10 or $20. The brand doesn't matter, but I think USB 2.0 is better.

 

I assume because it is a faster download? Does it make that much of a difference? When I DLed my pics from my mini discs, I could do the whole disc in probably less than a minute. (200MB)

 

hah I donno, my card reader takes like 5minutes or more to link a full 256 card.

Ive never tried seeing the the camera uploads faster. and I dont know if the reader is usb 2.0. but it takes a while for me...

 

It's probably faster with USB 2.0. It should be!

But the main reasons I like the cards is that I don't have to plug in the camera, worry about batteries, or mess with wires.

 

Good point.

 

I wanted to correct an earlier post that might have been misleading. The Digital Rebel will take small video clips (just like my A80 I imagine). The Digital Rebel with a really nice stabilized zoom lens will only run you slightly more than what you were thinking about above and is significantly better. I highly recommend it.

I bought one for my Dad with the stabilized zoom lens for his 70th B-day and recently had a chance to use it. Unless you are looking for a camera you can tuck into a pocket to take with you I would go with the Digital Rebel.
Again if you want something you can tuck in a pocket I'd go with one of the higher end Canons.

Also, I found that it helps to have smaller CF cards (256 - 512 are plenty big) rather than very large ones (1gb). A 256 or 512 card still holds an awful lot of shots. In most cases you will end up downloading them long before youfill the card. At least thats my experience.

 

My friend have

Canon EOS 300D Digital Rebel

and I have a chance to use it a lot at last party. Very good built camera, convinient and have fast reaction time, so you take a picture of what you want, not what happens two seconds after that

Pictures are great too, and never blurred. It's not pocket camera of course, it's quite big and it costed around $1000, but price is lower now, I guess. I'd buy it if I were shopping.

 

Just to clarify again, the digital rebel does NOT take video. Currently, there is not one single SLR camera that does video, secondary to the inherent mechanism of a SLR camera. Keep in mind that the shutter (and mirror) have to both move in order for the CCD to see light. In order for such a camera to get video, the shutter would have to open and close with each frame, which currently can't happen.


The best reason to get a card reader is as nbdy said, you don't have to lug your camera around and potentially waste it's batteries downloading stuff.

Any brand of CF card will work. Oh, don't get fooled by the "ultra" or "high speed" cards. They get advertised that they'll record pics faster. Tests have shown that that's true, but only to such a small degree that the only people likely to benefit from them are professional sports photographers who frequently shoot in bursts. For the rest of us, the standard specs are fine.

The cheapest IS lens is the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS. It costs about $400.

 

The stabilized lens I bought was $500 (I forget the specs now but I belive it was perhaps 75-300mm zoom ??). A decent lens.

I became a real believer when we went to take some pictures at an Audobon sanctuary where the zoom lens and shutter speed are necessary. The camera/lens combo really excelled. I would imagine sports applications would be similar. But I am not a professional photographer by any means.

As far as the video capability goes, my dad who now has the camera says it does although he has not used it. While he is an avid digital photographer, he is also OLD! So you may be right.

I still say, GREAT CAMERA.

When will SEARCH work again ?????????????????????

 

I am 100% positive that it does not have video capability.

Check out the reivew from photo.net

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon...0d_review.html

The 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens from Canon is $415 from B&H Photo Video. It's a good lens. Keep in mind that with the 1.6x multiplier inherent to that camera, you're actually getting something closer to a 100-450mm lens. That's good and fine if you like zoom lenses, but it stinks if you want something wide angle.

 

Yeah, I read the reviews as well, and the Rebel can't do the videos.