Newbie:Please advise which...really torn!!

7th October 2003

Hi guys and all experience users out there,

I am quite novice digital camera user.
Am thinking to get a new digital camera,narrowed down to 2 models on my mind after reading all reviews and comments from various photography forums like this particular one..

.
The 2 modesl that I have on mind are:

1)Nikon Coolpix 5700
2)Canon 300D Digital rebel

My current camera is a Fuji Finepix 4800 Zoom which I bought 2 years ago.
My main applications are I love to shoot MARCO shoots of fine watches and timepieces and will like to use it when I am travelling(few times a year).

As I will like to get a good camera which is able to have a so so lifespan that it will not get phrase out in near future and does well on my main usage.

As my first camera is a no-brainer point and shoot camera,I am abit concern that I might not get use or even not get what I even wanted on the EOS300D,however as the coolpix 5700 is just few hundred cheaper ,I am thinking it might be a better choice getting a 300D,I know I should not judge fully on the price to get a good camera,but I am also thinking of longer term usage and not becoming a white elephant(due to high difficulty using it).

Can any experience user which uses the 5700 and 300D share their thoughts,also I definately welcome all forumers views and giving me pointers and advises too.I greatly appreciate very much.I apologise any mistakes or wrong conception in the above written.

Thank you to anyone who input in advance.

Best regards

OzOn3 · 7th October 2003

Wha.. Hmm, basically, the two models that you just mentioned belongs to two different camps.

The 5700 is a Prosumer Digital Camera

The 300D is a Consumer dSLR.

Well, i dunno what advice to give to you, but from your interest, the 5700 might be better. Because the 5700 has a small form factor.

----My turn to say this now!!--------

Asking this kinda question in a Canon sub forum, what do you think the out come will be?
haha

SianZronG · 7th October 2003

Originally Posted by OzOn3

Wha.. Hmm, basically, the two models that you just mentioned belongs to two different camps.

The 5700 is a Prosumer Digital Camera

The 300D is a Consumer dSLR.

Well, i dunno what advice to give to you, but from your interest, the 5700 might be better. Because the 5700 has a small form factor.

----My turn to say this now!!--------

Asking this kinda question in a Canon sub forum, what do you think the out come will be?
haha

So let mi be a little extra here.... even if you wanan get a small form factor prosumer get a Minolta A1.... newer better $1650 only AS,good zoom, they seem to already fix many things from the 7hi, and seeing them having evolve from 5 to 7 to 7i to 7hi and now A1 they must have done alot and have alot of expeirnce!

And i'm saying this in a canon sub fourms.

7th October 2003

Hi guys,

Thank you for the advise...really appreciate it.
Infact form factor is not really an issue as I will tend to get a nice and good bag for the new digi cam.And if I were to end up with the EOS300D,I guess I will only use the EF-S lens that comes with the kit for the time being until I am quite familar with SLR features shooting techniques...and I usually shoot MARCO shoots at home not outdoors.Just need a general range lens for outdoor useage.
Thank you.

rgs

darkness · 7th October 2003

If I were to choose, I would get the 300D. I think any prosumer cameras that you buy would still ultimately give you similar picture effects to whatever other digital cameras you are using, assuming that all other composition skills remain the same. The DOF of most digital cameras are very similar and thus pictures coming out are similar. Go for a SLR if you want to try something different. You can also keep your present camera as a backup for macro shots. It's not very easy to shoot macro with SLRs.

MeNaCeWu · 7th October 2003

Try out a Dslr before making any decisions on buying. See which you would prefer.

Snowcrash · 7th October 2003

Originally Posted by luminor.panerai

Hi guys and all experience users out there,

The 2 modesl that I have on mind are:

1)Nikon Coolpix 5700
2)Canon 300D Digital rebel

As I will like to get a good camera which is able to have a so so lifespan that it will not get phrase out in near future and does well on my main usage.

Looking at how fast digital cameras models are coming out, I think both models will be phrase out in 'near future'.

For travel (compact size) and good marco get the oly c5050. But it will be phrase out soon by c5060 also.

See this site
on shooting macro

Good f1.8 lens for macro.

SianZronG · 7th October 2003

Originally Posted by Snowcrash

Looking at how fast digital cameras models are coming out, I think both models will be phrase out in 'near future'.

For travel (compact size) and good marco get the oly c5050. But it will be phrase out soon by c5060 also.

See this site
on shooting macro

Good f1.8 lens for macro.

5060? i dun think so... it's a different type of camera.... it's a WIDE angle camera with a not so bright lense....

ammox77 · 7th October 2003

Originally Posted by SianZronG

5060? i dun think so... it's a different type of camera.... it's a WIDE angle camera with a not so bright lense....

hehehehe

ST1100 · 7th October 2003

So far one vote for 5700, one for 300D, one for A1 and one for 5050.

i have no experience with any of the above 4 cameras, so take what i say with a pinch of salt.

i'd recommend anything but the 300D.

The reasons are:

1. You have a preference for macro (sorry, not 'marco' ) work. A digicam with LCD preview is much much easier and cheaper for macro work. It's light, easy to move back and forth, and you don't have to crane your neck and eye to squint into the small viewfinder of a 300D. To get an equivalent dSLR/SLR setup, you're looking into macro lenses, extension tubes, closeup filters, tripods, ring flashes, etc etc. Certainly not with just 300D + 18-55 + popup flash -- you'd get inferior results compared to your present setup.

2. The main advantage of an SLR system is the speed and responsiveness. i don't hear any complaints about your missing shots bcoz of slow AF, so i assume you're not into that kind of people/sports subjects. There is really no need to spend on an dSLR if you're mainly doing macro work.

3. i don't have a 300D/18-55, but i'm pretty sure a top end digicam ($1.2k to $2k range) will trash it for simple still-life macro work, for the points above, plus that fact that digicams typically have great DOF bcoz of the short focal lengths, resulting in much easier-to-handhold shutter speeds.

4. You also mention using for travelling. i believe even the bulkiest digicam is smaller, lighter and easier to handle than a 300D+lens. (With the exception of the Sony 7x7/8x8 perhaps.) That said, the 300D is the lightest and smallest dSLR to date though.

i'd only recommend getting a dSLR if you're planning to print really big, and really want to go into very serious macro work, where you need a lot of control over DOF and lighting. In which case, skip the 300D and go for the 10D or D60, bcoz the other lenses and accessories will cost a bomb anyway.

PM me if you want to try out a dSLR with a macro lens.

chriszzz · 7th October 2003

The problem with prosumers is that you usually might need to resort to close up filters, and it's quality is not always good. On the other hand, with a DSLR, you can also use macro lenses, reversed lenses, extension tubes, etc. Yes, its more complicated, but most of these will produces better results than closeup filters with little or no distortion.

Great DOF on a DSLR is achievable because the lenses have smaller apertures ( up to f22-f32 ), while a prosumer is limited to around f8. So DOF is not really an issue.

I have both a G3 and a 300D, and while the G3 is more convenient for macro due to its flip and twist LCD, it is functionally not any better than the 300D. In fact, with the 300D, I have a lot more options since I am not limited to just the built in lens.

Response of the 300d is of course much faster than most prosumers, so this might or might not be an issue ( OK, watches are not moving anywhere when you shoot them, but once you get used to the speed on a DSLR, you will be impatient with the prosumer ). If you ever need to use your DSLR to shoot people, then you'll really appreciate the speed.

Size wise, the DSLR loses. It's big, bulky, and after adding the lens, it's heavier than most prosumers. My 300D + strap + handstrap + CF + battery + 18-55 lens weights 850g. It's bulkier than prosumers, but not very heavy, but not light either.

But if you want a longer lasting digital, than the 300D is the way to go. It is 6MP, takes different lenses, and has a much larger sensor compared to a prosumer. This means that its photos are less noisy at the equivalent ISO compared to a prosumer. The 300D at ISO 400 has very low noise, while most prosumers are already noisy at ISO 200. Check the reviews at dpreview to check out the noise levels. This, IMHO, is one of the best advantages of a DSLR. Whether you need it or not is a different story. If I were you , I'll write down the advantages and disadvantages of DSLR, and decide if they are important to you. Make your decision from there.

As for the 300D vs 10D vs D60, it's a very personal choice. All 3 are very good.

OzOn3 · 7th October 2003

Whahaa.. information feed at hyper-speed!

OT: Why MACRO? Not macro? Haha

7th October 2003

Hi guys...

Really really appreciate all points and thinkers....will take note of all comments.
Infact I am abit more incline to the 300D except of the learning curve I am concern.

(Regarding MACRO,its my mistake...apologise...

)

chriszzz · 8th October 2003

Originally Posted by luminor.panerai

Hi guys...

Really really appreciate all points and thinkers....will take note of all comments.
Infact I am abit more incline to the 300D except of the learning curve I am concern.

(Regarding MACRO,its my mistake...apologise... )

There isn't any special learning curve for the 300D compared to the 5700 or 828. Prosumers are as complex ( or as simple ) as DSLR. Having the ability to swap lenses on a DSLR doesn't really add to the learning curve. What matters is the basics of exposure, composition, color balance, etc, which are identical for prosumers and DSLRs. These you will have to learn regardless of what digicam you finally go for.

ahbeng · 8th October 2003

300D and 5700 are different class of cam. Although 300d is the lowest class of dslr, its abilities are however not. 5700 on the other hand is the highest class of consumer camera loaded with feature, but its still lack of other wonderful elements found in DSLRs. In my opinion, i will only get the 5700 when size and weight (+ lenses) really matters. having said all these, you decision still depends as to how much you dedicate yourself to photography.

7th October 2003	#1
luminor.panerai Guests Posts: n/a	Newbie:Please advise which...really torn!! Hi guys and all experience users out there, I am quite novice digital camera user. Am thinking to get a new digital camera,narrowed down to 2 models on my mind after reading all reviews and comments from various photography forums like this particular one.. . The 2 modesl that I have on mind are: 1)Nikon Coolpix 5700 2)Canon 300D Digital rebel My current camera is a Fuji Finepix 4800 Zoom which I bought 2 years ago. My main applications are I love to shoot MARCO shoots of fine watches and timepieces and will like to use it when I am travelling(few times a year). As I will like to get a good camera which is able to have a so so lifespan that it will not get phrase out in near future and does well on my main usage. As my first camera is a no-brainer point and shoot camera,I am abit concern that I might not get use or even not get what I even wanted on the EOS300D,however as the coolpix 5700 is just few hundred cheaper ,I am thinking it might be a better choice getting a 300D,I know I should not judge fully on the price to get a good camera,but I am also thinking of longer term usage and not becoming a white elephant(due to high difficulty using it). Can any experience user which uses the 5700 and 300D share their thoughts,also I definately welcome all forumers views and giving me pointers and advises too.I greatly appreciate very much.I apologise any mistakes or wrong conception in the above written. Thank you to anyone who input in advance. Best regards

7th October 2003	#4
luminor.panerai Guests Posts: n/a	Thank you very much for the fast advise...Keep it coming... Hi guys, Thank you for the advise...really appreciate it. Infact form factor is not really an issue as I will tend to get a nice and good bag for the new digi cam.And if I were to end up with the EOS300D,I guess I will only use the EF-S lens that comes with the kit for the time being until I am quite familar with SLR features shooting techniques...and I usually shoot MARCO shoots at home not outdoors.Just need a general range lens for outdoor useage. Thank you. rgs

7th October 2003	#10
ST1100 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Singapore, Bedok Posts: 1,801	So far one vote for 5700, one for 300D, one for A1 and one for 5050. i have no experience with any of the above 4 cameras, so take what i say with a pinch of salt. i'd recommend anything but the 300D. The reasons are: 1. You have a preference for macro (sorry, not 'marco' ) work. A digicam with LCD preview is much much easier and cheaper for macro work. It's light, easy to move back and forth, and you don't have to crane your neck and eye to squint into the small viewfinder of a 300D. To get an equivalent dSLR/SLR setup, you're looking into macro lenses, extension tubes, closeup filters, tripods, ring flashes, etc etc. Certainly not with just 300D + 18-55 + popup flash -- you'd get inferior results compared to your present setup. 2. The main advantage of an SLR system is the speed and responsiveness. i don't hear any complaints about your missing shots bcoz of slow AF, so i assume you're not into that kind of people/sports subjects. There is really no need to spend on an dSLR if you're mainly doing macro work. 3. i don't have a 300D/18-55, but i'm pretty sure a top end digicam ($1.2k to $2k range) will trash it for simple still-life macro work, for the points above, plus that fact that digicams typically have great DOF bcoz of the short focal lengths, resulting in much easier-to-handhold shutter speeds. 4. You also mention using for travelling. i believe even the bulkiest digicam is smaller, lighter and easier to handle than a 300D+lens. (With the exception of the Sony 7x7/8x8 perhaps.) That said, the 300D is the lightest and smallest dSLR to date though. i'd only recommend getting a dSLR if you're planning to print really big, and really want to go into very serious macro work, where you need a lot of control over DOF and lighting. In which case, skip the 300D and go for the 10D or D60, bcoz the other lenses and accessories will cost a bomb anyway. PM me if you want to try out a dSLR with a macro lens. Last edited by ST1100; 7th October 2003 at 03:27 PM.

7th October 2003	#13
luminor.panerai Guests Posts: n/a	Thank you all you guys!! Hi guys... Really really appreciate all points and thinkers....will take note of all comments. Infact I am abit more incline to the 300D except of the learning curve I am concern. (Regarding MACRO,its my mistake...apologise... )

7th October 2003	#2
OzOn3 Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,103	Wha.. Hmm, basically, the two models that you just mentioned belongs to two different camps. The 5700 is a Prosumer Digital Camera The 300D is a Consumer dSLR. Well, i dunno what advice to give to you, but from your interest, the 5700 might be better. Because the 5700 has a small form factor. ----My turn to say this now!!-------- Asking this kinda question in a Canon sub forum, what do you think the out come will be? haha

7th October 2003	#5
darkness Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 757	If I were to choose, I would get the 300D. I think any prosumer cameras that you buy would still ultimately give you similar picture effects to whatever other digital cameras you are using, assuming that all other composition skills remain the same. The DOF of most digital cameras are very similar and thus pictures coming out are similar. Go for a SLR if you want to try something different. You can also keep your present camera as a backup for macro shots. It's not very easy to shoot macro with SLRs.

7th October 2003	#6
MeNaCeWu Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Clementi Posts: 361	Try out a Dslr before making any decisions on buying. See which you would prefer.

7th October 2003	#11
chriszzz Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 655	The problem with prosumers is that you usually might need to resort to close up filters, and it's quality is not always good. On the other hand, with a DSLR, you can also use macro lenses, reversed lenses, extension tubes, etc. Yes, its more complicated, but most of these will produces better results than closeup filters with little or no distortion. Great DOF on a DSLR is achievable because the lenses have smaller apertures ( up to f22-f32 ), while a prosumer is limited to around f8. So DOF is not really an issue. I have both a G3 and a 300D, and while the G3 is more convenient for macro due to its flip and twist LCD, it is functionally not any better than the 300D. In fact, with the 300D, I have a lot more options since I am not limited to just the built in lens. Response of the 300d is of course much faster than most prosumers, so this might or might not be an issue ( OK, watches are not moving anywhere when you shoot them, but once you get used to the speed on a DSLR, you will be impatient with the prosumer ). If you ever need to use your DSLR to shoot people, then you'll really appreciate the speed. Size wise, the DSLR loses. It's big, bulky, and after adding the lens, it's heavier than most prosumers. My 300D + strap + handstrap + CF + battery + 18-55 lens weights 850g. It's bulkier than prosumers, but not very heavy, but not light either. But if you want a longer lasting digital, than the 300D is the way to go. It is 6MP, takes different lenses, and has a much larger sensor compared to a prosumer. This means that its photos are less noisy at the equivalent ISO compared to a prosumer. The 300D at ISO 400 has very low noise, while most prosumers are already noisy at ISO 200. Check the reviews at dpreview to check out the noise levels. This, IMHO, is one of the best advantages of a DSLR. Whether you need it or not is a different story. If I were you , I'll write down the advantages and disadvantages of DSLR, and decide if they are important to you. Make your decision from there. As for the 300D vs 10D vs D60, it's a very personal choice. All 3 are very good.

8th October 2003	#15
ahbeng Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 426	300D and 5700 are different class of cam. Although 300d is the lowest class of dslr, its abilities are however not. 5700 on the other hand is the highest class of consumer camera loaded with feature, but its still lack of other wonderful elements found in DSLRs. In my opinion, i will only get the 5700 when size and weight (+ lenses) really matters. having said all these, you decision still depends as to how much you dedicate yourself to photography.