EOS 450D or E-520?

[egnaro]

to TS,

Not sure abt 450D, But I must say live view and in body IS in E520 definitely come in useful in lot of your shooting.

like what cater mention, fine tune on 7x and 10x before shooting which is very very useful for telephoto shot and macro... with tis feature, more crisp sharp picture can be produce.

in body IS definitely save u some money in your future investment unless money no problem.

 

[An drew]

I disagree. Canon does not ignore on the 2 series body. The L lens is also targeted toward the APS-C size.

And if you reckon that the technologies and lens is more on FF, then why does the EOS 1D comes with a 1.3x APS-H sensor?

I agree with you.

 

[mactigasuku]

well, i'll be using it for landscape, event and travel photography. and yeah i'll end up buying some more equipment later on.

i agree that the canon system has an extensive lens range, but it costs a lot. and i think purchasing another lens (most probably a prime lens) will be enough for my needs. as for the external flash, i don't really know how to select one that is suitable for my needs.

How can one prime, +/- one or two kit lens be really adequate for

1. landscape - ? wide.

2. event - fast zoom

3. travel - wide range, compact zoom.

All camera bodies drop in price but the glass keeps their value better.

 

[mactigasuku]

I disagree. Canon does not ignore on the 2 series body. The L lens is also targeted toward the APS-C size.

And if you reckon that the technologies and lens is more on FF, then why does the EOS 1D comes with a 1.3x APS-H sensor?

I agree with you.

I disagree.

 

[ridehomewithme]

i'm intending to add on a prime to the kit lenses first as a starter's kit. lenses i'll have to learn more and sharpen my skills before buying more to add to the system.

are there any reliable models of flashes? cus i really dont understand the readings on the models.

 

[Revad3]

I am a canon user, but have tried olympus and still in awe of their grip, colouration and sharpness of their picture quality. If as you said, you are looking for a camera that can do more things in terms of budget as you may lose interest.

then

I did say you get the olympus? why?

Olympus e-510/e-520 is really great and not to mention their well rounded kit lens is also great while the 450d kit lens is seriously not that good. Unless u buy a 450d and spend more to get some other lenses then consider that.

 

[saggice]

I used a olympus camera before but not DSLR, only once and i never use it again.
Vote for Canon 450D in this case.

Canon/ Nikon are the market dominators, u ll nv go wrong.

 

[Rashkae]

Canon/ Nikon are the market dominators, u ll nv go wrong.

That's not true. That's "brand name mentality" right there. Many of the C and N DSLRs lately are a big disappointment to me, mainly because it seems they're using their popularity to manufacture and sell really cheap-quality, low-feature cameras because people with their "C and N all the way!" mentality will still buy it, no matter how bad it is! And people still try to find excuses for making the poor decisions of these 2 makers still sound good!

Seriously, look beyond the 2 camps. Especially in the budget to entry-level DSLR range, there are many many better choices.

 

[egnaro]

I used a olympus camera before but not DSLR, only once and i never use it again.
Vote for Canon 450D in this case.

Canon/ Nikon are the market dominators, u ll nv go wrong.

seriously I am wondering why C & N maker doesnt have IS body like olympus, Sony, Pentax? becuz they worried about their IS lens?

(seriously I don't know why, maybe I didnt read much on these 2 brand)

 

[An drew]

I disagree.

i agree that you are right to disagree.

 

[An drew]

That's not true. That's "brand name mentality" right there. Many of the C and N DSLRs lately are a big disappointment to me, mainly because it seems they're using their popularity to manufacture and sell really cheap-quality, low-feature cameras because people with their "C and N all the way!" mentality will still buy it, no matter how bad it is! And people still try to find excuses for making the poor decisions of these 2 makers still sound good!

Seriously, look beyond the 2 camps. Especially in the budget to entry-level DSLR range, there are many many better choices.

I can't agree more fully. Sorry I am just an agreeable person.

 

[ditikolon]

I've never liked shooting with an IS body (I've been reviewing the Sony Alpha 200). Unlike in-lens IS, the viewfinder shake from hand-holding is still there.

The effect of IS can immediately be seen in the viewfinder for lens-type IS... so composing your photo isn't a nightmare unlike in sensor-shift systems. This is because the IS components in the lens are already compensating for handshake before it reaches your viewfinder. It's almost like using a monopod.
Composition is easy because you don't have to deal with a shaky viewfinder image caused by your handshake, for the abovementioned reasons.

It also gives you a sense of security that everybody from newbies to professionals will appreciate, because you can see the IS system actively working, as opposed to sensor-shift where you can only see whether you have a keeper or not after you capture the image. You just have to "trust" the IS to work, and "trust" that you framed correctly with the shaky viewfinder. Here's the bottom line: sensor-shift is less forgiving, especially with the framing aspect.

And I definitely get more stops of light shooting with telephoto lenses >150mm with lens-type IS as opposed to sensor shift IS.

Let's be pragmatic here, shall we? If you want to know why Nikon and Canon insist on going with lens-type IS, I suggest that you pick up an EF-S 55-250 IS (about $360) coupled with any Canon DSLR that can accept EF-S (DX) lenses. Go on, try it out at your favorite friendly camera shop... you won't have to spend a cent to answer your nagging questions.

Like the Japanese say, different strokes for different folks. Sensor-shift IS is invariably cheaper across the board, as manufacturers don't have to install IS systems on all their lenses. One would usually have more lenses than bodies anyway, so it's definitely a more cost-efficient method... especially since sensor-shift works very well on lenses with short focal length. It makes economic sense.

But of course, rule of thumb is... things that make economic sense usually have a trade-off or two somewhere.

 

[eosdigital]

I disagree.

I disagree that you disagree

 

[An drew]

Sensor-shift IS is invariably cheaper across the board, as manufacturers don't have to install IS systems on all their lenses. One would usually have more lenses than bodies anyway, so it's definitely a more cost-efficient method... especially since sensor-shift works very well on lenses with short focal length. It makes economic sense.

But of course, rule of thumb is... things that makes economic sense usually have a trade-off or two somewhere.

Agree, it is cheaper and more cost efficient to have in-body stabilization and if you dun want to spend too much, there better value other than Canon and Nikon. There are pros and cons to in-lens and in-body IS and this has already been discussed to death in forums. With Nikon and Canon you can have a top of the line FF body and and top of the line 24-70 f2.8 and yet can still have shaky shots at 70mm due to the lack of IS or VR. While Pentax, Oly have already solved this problem with in-body IS that works at a fraction of the price with sharp optics.

 

[dorts]

I've never liked shooting with an IS body (I've been reviewing the Sony Alpha 200). Unlike in-lens IS, the viewfinder shake from hand-holding is still there.

The effect of IS can immediately be seen in the viewfinder for lens-type IS... so composing your photo isn't a nightmare unlike in sensor-shift systems. This is because the IS components in the lens are already compensating for handshake before it reaches your viewfinder. It's almost like using a monopod.
Composition is easy because you don't have to deal with a shaky viewfinder image caused by your handshake, for the abovementioned reasons.

It also gives you a sense of security that everybody from newbies to professionals will appreciate, because you can see the IS system actively working, as opposed to sensor-shift where you can only see whether you have a keeper or not after you capture the image. You just have to "trust" the IS to work, and "trust" that you framed correctly with the shaky viewfinder. Here's the bottom line: sensor-shift is less forgiving, especially with the framing aspect.

And I definitely get more stops of light shooting with telephoto lenses >150mm with lens-type IS as opposed to sensor shift IS.

Let's be pragmatic here, shall we? If you want to know why Nikon and Canon insist on going with lens-type IS, I suggest that you pick up an EF-S 55-250 IS (about $360) coupled with any Canon DSLR that can accept EF-S (DX) lenses. Go on, try it out at your favorite friendly camera shop... you won't have to spend a cent to answer your nagging questions.

Like the Japanese say, different strokes for different folks. Sensor-shift IS is invariably cheaper across the board, as manufacturers don't have to install IS systems on all their lenses. One would usually have more lenses than bodies anyway, so it's definitely a more cost-efficient method... especially since sensor-shift works very well on lenses with short focal length. It makes economic sense.

But of course, rule of thumb is... things that makes economic sense usually have a trade-off or two somewhere.

I've tried a 400D mounted with a IS lens, and I find it strange to have IS compensating while you are framing. It just my opinion.

Another of my opinion. IS on the lens will probably result in a heavy lens and who knows when the IS will refuse to work? :dunno: I rather replace the body rather than lens, since lenses usually costs much more. And also, you pay more just to get IS for a particular lens I believe.

And who says in-body IS doesn't work well for longer focal lengths? I think they both work equally well.

 

[mactigasuku]

I agree with you.

I disagree.

i agree that you are right to disagree.

I disagree that you disagree

I agree :think:

 

[mactigasuku]

I used a olympus camera before but not DSLR, only once and i never use it again.
Vote for Canon 450D in this case.

Canon/ Nikon are the market dominators, u ll nv go wrong.

I rode a Mercedes van before but not the car, only once and i never use it again.
Vote for Toyota Corolla in this case.

Toyota/Honda are the market dominators, u ll nv go wrong.

 

[blackdrakes]

I rode a Mercedes van before but not the car, only once and i never use it again.
Vote for Toyota Corolla in this case.

Toyota/Honda are the market dominators, u ll nv go wrong.

Wa, but you're comparing toyota car to merc van leh.
It's not apple to apple anymore.
I vote for Merc SLR.

 

[grantyale]

Good thing about Olympus:
value for money when you have little
something different from most, sorta "I know who I am, what I need" etc.

Good thing about Canon:
value for money when you have plenty
you don't have to explain everytime some noob asks why you didn't get a Canon

 

[cater]

I've never liked shooting with an IS body (I've been reviewing the Sony Alpha 200). Unlike in-lens IS, the viewfinder shake from hand-holding is still there.

The effect of IS can immediately be seen in the viewfinder for lens-type IS... so composing your photo isn't a nightmare unlike in sensor-shift systems. This is because the IS components in the lens are already compensating for handshake before it reaches your viewfinder. It's almost like using a monopod.
Composition is easy because you don't have to deal with a shaky viewfinder image caused by your handshake, for the abovementioned reasons.

It also gives you a sense of security that everybody from newbies to professionals will appreciate, because you can see the IS system actively working, as opposed to sensor-shift where you can only see whether you have a keeper or not after you capture the image. You just have to "trust" the IS to work, and "trust" that you framed correctly with the shaky viewfinder. Here's the bottom line: sensor-shift is less forgiving, especially with the framing aspect.

Even Professional gives allowances on framing. I think you are more professional than those real professional

And I definitely get more stops of light shooting with telephoto lenses >150mm with lens-type IS as opposed to sensor shift IS.

The question is how much more if u talk abt definitely more

Let's be pragmatic here, shall we? If you want to know why Nikon and Canon insist on going with lens-type IS, I suggest that you pick up an EF-S 55-250 IS (about $360) coupled with any Canon DSLR that can accept EF-S (DX) lenses. Go on, try it out at your favorite friendly camera shop... you won't have to spend a cent to answer your nagging questions.

I have to agree with you that we shall be more pragmatic here. 1st of all, is this your own personal view or you represent both leading brands on decision on why they insist IS on lens??? 2nd I cannot comment about your experience on Sony as im totally hands off with it. Have you tried Pentax or Olympus? If not I suggest you to try it out at your friendly favourite shop and you really wont have to spend a cent to answer your nagging question by then

Like the Japanese say, different strokes for different folks. Sensor-shift IS is invariably cheaper across the board, as manufacturers don't have to install IS systems on all their lenses. One would usually have more lenses than bodies anyway, so it's definitely a more cost-efficient method... especially since sensor-shift works very well on lenses with short focal length. It makes economic sense.

Again go to your friendly favourite store, ask them to fix a 50-200mm SWD on E3. Zoom in 200mm which will be equivalent 400mm(35mm format). Turn on the live view, press and hold the IS button than you come back and tell me if they are effective in long range. This will again leads you to a FOC answer of knowing whether you have a keeper or not on your above early mentioned question.U dont need to capture to know.

But of course, rule of thumb is... things that make economic sense usually have a trade-off or two somewhere.

Well if it is and is as effective and comparable + producing better colors with tack sharp lens, tell me y not? Isnt this what everyone is asking about at all times ?

A very last words to you. Be humble. Your last sentence really stinks.

Cheers Folks