The time has come to upgrade from my trusty 4+ year old Sony DSC-S70 3.3 megapixel camera and I'm seriously considering an SLR - not because I really know anyting about cameras and will use it, but because they look awesome and get great reviews and are actually cheaper than what I paid for my S70 when I bought it.

Does anyone have any experience with them? I'm particularly looking at the Canon D350 (digital rebel XL, the successor to the hugely popular D300), which got a great review on The Best Website in the World, www.dpreview.com (even if you're not interested in digital cameras but have a passing interest in websites, you should check that site out - its so well designed that it makes me weep with joy every time I use it. Its one of the few international sites that always has really fast page loads... but I digress).

I'm basically trying to decide if its worth spending the extra money on an SLR - will I get significantly better photos than say with the new Sony W7 (which is basically the evolved model of what I already have, but much smaller, 7 megapixels, etc, etc). The W7 looks like all I need, its a much better size (I'm going travelling soon and really an SLR looks like so much more pain to deal with from a size basis alone), but I'm really keen to get the best quality photos possible.

Thx for any feedback?

cerb uses this phat digital slr for all his shots, they make pretty much any photo you take look awesome. (so long as you know how to use it)

It's a bit of trade off - you will get better photos from an SLR but as you said, they are bulky and hardly a good travelling companion - not to mention they cost alot more.

If you're only likely to 'point and shoot' a good compact should do the trick.

As they say 'A photo is only as good as its photographer', or some crap like that.

And, yes, that dpreview is a great site. I scoured that before I bought a Canon A520 which I have been very happy with (and only $290 :))

I've got one, it's pimp

Do it

I've used a 300D and 20D but not a 350D as of yet. Both are great so I'd hope the 350D would be just as good. Very bulky but the pictures are awesome. Even a noob can take good pics heh

I have a 300D, and was rather pissed when I heard just a few months after getting it that the 350 was out. However I've also heard that the 350 has some problems the 300 didn't have (don't ask me what - you'd have to research that yourself to confirm) so I wasn't AS disappointed.

Nice little camera though, but I prefer to also have something small and compact as a little happysnap device, as the 300 is just too sizable to carry around many places.

thing with SLR's is you can also put other lenses on them, wide angle, telephoto, all kinds of nifty filters etc. My compact digicam (powershot a75) apparently has some attachment you can get to put a wide angle/telephoto lense on it but not near as many choices as you'd get with an SLR. I'm speaking from 35mm experience here though, but I'd say digital SLR's would have interchangable lenses too.

I have a 300D plus a few accessories.

You really cannot go past the quality of photos that SLRs produce. Even tho mine is the former entry-level dSLR, it still means any shmuck like myself can turn out some pro looking photos.

It's not all camera tho - there's still a huge learning curve in order to take real pro photos, and I'm still far from it. A good photographer will still be able to take awesome photos on a point-n-shoot camera, but there's only really so far you can go with it.

SLRs definitely have their draw backs. The obvious one is price. The other is convenience. You can't really take an SLR everywhere without having a bag to carry it in. You can't just dump it in your pocket, so you're either getting it in and out of the bag every time you want to take a shot, or you put up with carrying it everywhere. I just got back from the V8 Supercar launch at South Bank and my wrist is a bit sore from carrying the camera the whole time. At things like that it's ok tho because everyone is carrying cameras around, but when I was in NY, Vegas, etc last year, I didn't want to go flashing around a big camera too much cos it feels like wearing a sign saying "Please mug me".

The 350D's are that bit smaller than my 300D (and they have a few better features - I'm sure dpreview.com will fill you in sufficiently on those), but they're still going to get awkward to lug around when you start to get a few accessories, which you invariably will.

This is what my setup consists of right now: (it grows about once a month :/)

- 300D
- Battery Grip (allows for a second battery, plus extra controls for shooting in portrait mode)
- 430EX speedlite
- 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, the standard lens
- 50mm f/1.8, cheap lens with large aperture for arty shots like this. This will likely be the first lens you'll buy, considering it's only $150-170
- 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, probably the best bang-for-buck lens under $1k, good quality, decent zoom range, fast focus with full time manual, and the image stabilisation can be handy.
- 70-200mm f/4 L USM, picked this up second hand off a workmate. Professional lens (hence the "L") that produces fantastic photos.
- Manfrotto 728b digi tripod
- 1GB & 512MB CF cards
- various UV and polarising filters
- Lowepro 3AW bag as well as a Crumpler "Formal Lounge" camera + laptop backpack. Depends where I'm going as to which bag I use.

Even though I've bought all this I still class it as a hobby atm, not even at "amateur photographer" stage yet.

Buying an SLR is like a virus that will slowly consume you. If you're ok with this (like I am) then definitely go the 350D - it will open your eyes to a whole new world where there's no limit to what you can do. Except shoot videos :/

If you just want some above average photos, then most of the higher-end point-and-shoots will suit your needs - some of them can produce great quality pics.

Thanks cerb, excellent info.

I'm torn now, the convenience of a small camera like the Sony W7 or the Canon S80 would be great, and their photos are really good quality anyway. Yaaarrgh!

Are you a point and shoot person or will you take advantage of the slr features?

If you just point and shoot, don't spend money on slr.

350d is still best around for it's price range.

German what kinda settings did you use for that WJB shot ? Tripod I assume ?

At the moment point and shoot, definitely. If I had an SLR I'd definitely take the time to learn how to use it "properly" (ie, enough so that I was getting good pictures wihtout becoming an expert), but I don't know if I'll have time to do it before this trip.

trog, check out Steve's Reviews Its a bloody good site and the Canon you have listed is in the 'best of' guide area. The guy does and excellent job assessing and reviewing cameras. I can't stress enough the need to read all that he writes as they are very in formative.

I just bought a Sony H1 (below) 3 weeks ago. 5.1MP and 12X optical zoom and super easy to use in both auto and manual mode. I wanted a decent digital camera without buying something like an F828 or an R1 which are an extra 1000 on top of what I paid. I'm pretty happy, just waiting for my mem stick, just in time for the motor show. My sister bought a nice Canon SLR a year ago and now really wants a 350D. I like photography but I don't think I'd ever bother getting a digital SLR due to the price, even thought they're a lot less than they used to be. I only really want one for MotoGP, motor shows and going overseas.

http://images.ausimages.com/upload/2006-03-04/TN_allroundview_00.jpg

last edited by JohnnyD at 18:16:59 04/Mar/06

Jmr

The william jolly bridge shot was taken with my old fuji s7000.

Shutter speed: 2seconds
F stop:2.8
Iso: 200

I'm going to head out again with my new 350 and do shot again, want to get sharper image and stronger colour.


If you are going to learn how to use the camera at a later stage then get slr. Start off with auto functions and just swap modes around when you got spare time to test the settings so you know what works and what doesn't.

Goto teds camera house, they are doing specials with 350d.

http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproductcategory/1005803__1001240__.html

trog if you are looking for a 'compact' camera, you can't go past a Canon IXUS 750 (7mp) http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd550/

I spent a fair bit of time in my recent trip to NZ talking/looking at camera's with a mate who bought one over there. Canon are awesome cameras

I too am going travelling later this year and provided nothing new comes out, I'll be getting an IXUS 750 - mainly due to the compact factor, I want to be able to throw it in my pocket and take it anywhere and whip it out and take snaps. I currently have a Konica Minolta Dimage Z1 10x optical zoom and 3mp, but its big and chunky - takes good pics, I wouldn't call it a digital slr but more a semi-slr or whatever is inbetween... it has lots of modes and stuff I don't use - I am a point and click photographer :p

edit - staticice ftw - http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=ixus%20750&start=21&links=20

can be had for $575, rrp is $699

last edited by HeardY at 00:03:19 05/Mar/06

trog, what do u want it for? you can take great pics on a compact. if youve got an intrest like sports ect, then yeah go for an slr.

if your going to just use it for party / pub shots, then carring around the slr can be a problem. ive found i take less pics with the slr than a compact.

but when I was in NY, Vegas, etc last year, I didn't want to go flashing around a big camera too much cos it feels like wearing a sign saying "Please mug me

amen. i just got insurance and stopped worring tho..

last edited by mooby at 02:26:15 05/Mar/06

cause cerb posted his equip :P

canon 20d
17-85mm is usm
75-300mm is usm
canon speedlight 430ex
remote controller TC80N3
manfrotto carbon fibre tripod with rc141 head

mooby what compact do you use?

Trog, no matter how good the compact camera you go for is, it will never be ANYTHING like an SLR unless it has an SLR sized sensor.

The difference in dynamic range is worth it alone... Like mooby said, if you want just a point and shoot camera, go for a compact... If you want to really take nice photos... go for an slr.

Here is a comparison.

350d
s80

I guess as far as point and shoots go, the S80 would be up with the best of them, but its pretty clear which one takes the best photos.

heh, I hadn't even read/thought about the s80

The IXUS 750 is smaller, so for me that = winner (I think) the s80 looks impressive though and has a larger optical zoom as well as 8mp hmmm

the s80 is the prosumer range in canon, as close to an slr as you can get without getting an slr. Slightly better image quality at the expense of bulkiness... I personally have an ixus 40, and would have suggested an ixus 750 or even the new ixus 800 thats coming out, but I noticed trog had already mentioned the s80.

mongie, I'll check out those other suggestions as well, ta - if there isn't a massive difference in quality I'd certainly prefer the smaller size.

trog, what do u want it for? you can take great pics on a compact. if youve got an intrest like sports ect, then yeah go for an slr.

Yeh mostly scenic shots of places. Going to europe/us this year and want to just do the general tourist thing.

I have been _really_ happy with the photos on my Sony D70. Its only 3.3 megapixels but when I get photos printed they look fine.

One thing I'd be interested to know - have you guys with high megapixel cams gotten any photos blown up to larger than the "regular" photo size? I've had one blown up - not sure of what dimensions, maybe about 35cm lengthwise - and it looks pretty good. When you're close you can see that it isn't really sharp but at distance it looks great. I assume higher megapixels means bigger photos show their resolution much better when they're printed in bigger sizes?

Groydis and I are saving for a Canon 350D. Brilliant, brilliant camera.

The Nikon D70 has the shutter speed / aperature controls both on the grip, rather than on a menu which I *Think* I remember the Drebel having. I guess it's just a little more convienient.

On the 300D most common adjustments (shutter, aperture, exposure, and more) can be made without changing how I hold the camera. With the battery grip I can even do it comfortably while holding the camera sideways, which really is more handy than you'd think.

imo, unless you are planning on buying a variety of lenses and doing some full on fiddling, they are completely useless.

get a 7times optical 5mega pixel pocket camera ... something like a Ricoh R3

bought the canon eos 350d rebel xt about two months ago at harvey norman got a good deal.
great camera easy to use. got the twin lens kit includes a 18-55 lens and a 75-300 zoom lens also got a carry case 1 gig memory card ( can take up to 283 high quality photos about 3 meg per photo) get yourself some filters uv and polarizing. total cost $1750. the canon software is easy to use uploading photos to the pc was easy auto detects camera and you can choose to download all photos at once or just individual shots. Did the euro trip back in 93 glad i went to the trouble of taking my old pentax super A. still have the old lenses if anyone is interested koboron 28 mm macro and a tokina sz-x 210 70-210 zoom lens . free of charge to good home.

Hey Brown will those lense fit a Pentax MZ-50?

I know sfa all about lenses etc. If they do I'll take them off your hands :)

Cant say I know for sure either.I would assume their compatible .Check it out and get back to me . If they fit your welcome to them (sitting in cupboard collecting dust)

the canon software is easy to use uploading photos to the pc was easy auto detects camera and you can choose to download all photos at once or just individual shots.

Do you have to use the canon sofgtware to get the photos off? That would annoy me - I like being able to plug it in and have it accessible as a USB drive.

no, you don't.

Maybe consider something along the lines of an S2 IS/S3 IS, or maybe even one of the Panasonic ones... theres an 8MP camera they make thats built like an SLR. They're more like $600-900

Mongies right, you even already have the drivers on your system, uses the same ones as a usb stick or drive etc.
and again, good choice Mongie, those cameras are the goods.

be sure to test your camera in a darker area, bright and shiney shops arnt a great testbed, you'll be taking a great deal of photos in places in lower light areas, alot of impressive sounding cameras will disapoint.

remember MP's arnt quality anymore, they are the size you can print at or how much u can crop and blow up an image.
lens's are in my mind the main concern, its all in the photos though so if you get a good enough photo you got a good enough lens.

If you consider a Canon S2 IS then buy mine.

I bought a 350d with the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses, already have a 50mm f1.8, 25-85 f3.5, macro-widener & looking to buy a 70-100 f4L very soon also. SLR is def the way to go for awesome photos.

Fact is, there are only three things that matter when it comes to image quality.

1) Quality of the lens.
With Point-N-Shoot, you get the lens you get, it might be good, but the chances are that it will range from poor (on a cheap compact) to reasonable on a pro-sumer type like the s80.

With dSLR, you have the option of buying without a lens or with one or two lenses thrown in. The included lenses are, in truth, really only somewhere between reasonable and good, but all canon EOS dSLR are fully compatible with the entire canon range of lenses right up to the seriously expensive, super high quality ones. Quality of a lens is really about optical quality (how well it is ground) and speed of the lens. Basically, you can use the lens to regulate the amt of light reaching the shutter. This way you can use a convinient shutter speed (like 1/125 sec) in both low and bright light. The speed of the lens is given as its lowest f-stop (like f1.8, f2.4) etc, where a lower number means a higher maximum amount of light let in, and therefore a faster min exposure time in any given conditions.

2) Quality of the CCD
Most pns have a smallish image sensor (maybe 1cm diagonally). The reason for this is that zoom is (dist lens to CCD)/(diag size of CCD), so for a standard (ie not tele, not WA) shot you only need 1cm between CCD and lens if the CCD is a 1cm CCD. This makes cameras thinner. Also, if you want to offer 10x zoom, you only need to extend the lens to 10cm away from the CCD. This leads to more zoom for less bulk. The disadvantage of a small CCD is that, if the lens is not the best, the CCD will emphasize this. Think of it this way. A poor quality lens might slightly difuse a line that should be razor sharp. If the image sensor is small, the individual pixels are also small, so the difused line will spread over more of these smaller pixels that it would if the CCD was larger and the pixels were larger.

On the other hand, virtually all dSLR are designed on the same format as the 35mm film SLR whose accesories they are designed to be compatible with. This means that the CCD has a vertical dimension a touch under 35mm (the 35mm refers to the width of the film including the sprocket holes), and a diagonal measurement of 50mm. The advantage of this is that any aberations in the already higher quality lens is less obvious on a larger CCD. The disadvantage is that for 1x zoom, the lens has to be mounted 5cm in front of the CCD. This means a bulky camera. There is no way around this. Also, if you want to zoom in on something, say 10x, you (in therory need a lens about 50cm long! Fortunately, by using more advances optics, you can achieve zooms of 6x (300mm) in a lens between 10 and 20 cm long (depending on how much you are prepared to pay. Shorter zoom lens uses more complicated optics and so costs more).

Completely aside from all these issues is CCD resolution, which for the 350D is not that spectacular but as you go up the range you start getting to 13+ Megapixel.

The other issue is how the CCD reproduces colours. Cause this will also have a big effect. I don't really know too much about this, but presumably a dSLR or a top shelf pns will do a better job with colour than a cheap compact.

3) Quality of the compression codec
Again, I have really not much to offer here, except to say that there is little point having a top notch lens and a top notch CCD if the image is massacred by a low quality codec. I would imagine that a manaufacturer would use the same codec in all their camera, whether pns or dSLR, so the moral of the story is, find a manufacturer who has a reputation for great codecs. (Remember that canon ad with the rodeo clown, which was advertising that the codec in their digital cameras was better?)

All that said, if you buy a dSLR, I would seriously consider getting two lenses to start with, a 28-80 zoom, and a 70-300 zoom tele, this will give you about 0.6x to 6x zoom which will come in very handy, particularly if you want to shoot scenery. Always go with the fastest lenses you can afford. The specs will usually look something like

f1.8 55mm [lens class] [manufacturers feature codes]

where
f1.8 is the fastest f stop (the slowest will usually be f16 or higher)
55mm is the effective distance from the lens to the CCD (remember divide by 50mm to get the magnification. 55mm is about 1x)
lens class is fisheye, super wide angle, wide angle, standard, tele, super tele, macro, shift etc. No class means standard
feature codes. Different for each manufacturer, find out what they mean. Canon ones include USM, DO and L

f2.4-4 28-80mm zoom [lens class] [manufacturers feature codes]

This means it ranges (zooms) from an f2.4 28mm [lens class] lens to an f4 80mm [lens class] lens

hUON you forgot the whole image stabilisation thing. That can have a pretty big effect at 6 and above times optical zoon. Tripod, or some smarts ... both work. Higher ISOs would also help but for whatever reason with digital cameras as you increase ISO you seem to add noise.

The included lenses are, in truth, really only somewhere between reasonable and good

This definitely seemed to be what many of the serious reviews said - that the default lenses really aren't that great. dpreview had a suggestion - but its suggested lens is like another thousand dollars!

If I was getting into it more seriously I'd probably go for it, but at the moment I think I'm leaning towards the W7 (or some other solution).

Thanks to all those with SLR experience (more than I expected!) who replied with such great info. Photography sure will be more fun when they've got the technology to make all the technical details redundant :)

while thats true Trog they're better than most of the lenses in your price range..
serious reviewers tend to compare them to serious hardware

the default lenses will still take much better photos than a P&S camera, keep in mind that most reviews on SLR gear are written with the Pro/High end consumer market in mind.

Oh yeh, I'm sure the default lenses would suit my needs perfectly. But I think I'm leaning towards the smaller ones from an ease-of-carrying point of view.

i agree with SquarkyD

forum weirdness, said you posted my post :S good now so i deleted to risk looking silly.

mooby what compact do you use?

panasonic fx7

a few other things not mentioned here is

1. lag. trog, if your doing any kind of sports photography then slr owns. manual shutter means theres no lag like every compact or "slr style" digi cams.

2. instant on can be very handy too!

Going to europe/us this year and want to just do the general tourist thing.

3. battery life on an slr owns. can be a pain if your tripping around europe and dont have time / the oppertunity to charge your compact.

last edited by mooby at 20:54:18 06/Mar/06

On the other hand, virtually all dSLR are designed on the same format as the 35mm film SLR whose accesories they are designed to be compatible with. This means that the CCD has a vertical dimension a touch under 35mm (the 35mm refers to the width of the film including the sprocket holes), and a diagonal measurement of 50mm.

Not true. At least as far as Canon goes (I'm not too familiar with other brands)

Most Canon dSLR's have a smaller sensor. I'm not 100% sure on the exact dimensions, but I know it gives an effective crop of 1.6x. (so I guess it's around 30mm diagonally)

So using the 18-55mm lens that comes standard on the 350d is actually equivalent to a 28-80mm lens in true 35mm terms.

This can be quite handy because a) you get more zoom multiplier without bigger physical size, and b) lower-quality lenses don't tend to suffer quite so much in loss of quality around the corners of the image, because the sensor is only capturing the center of the image.

While referring to the lenses by their 35mm equivalents sounds like it would cause unnecessary confusion, Canon do it because they still fit the 35mm film cameras, as well as the digitals with full-sized sensors. (Well, for the most part - the EF-S lenses don't because they're designed to project a smaller image for the smaller sensor, because they can be more compact this way) Plus the physical focal length is still actually 18-55mm.

This definitely seemed to be what many of the serious reviews said - that the default lenses really aren't that great. dpreview had a suggestion - but its suggested lens is like another thousand dollars!

Out of curiousity, what lens did they suggest?

3. battery life on an slr owns. can be a pain if your tripping around europe and dont have time / the oppertunity to charge your compact.

Wait till you've got a battery grip with 2 batteries in it - at one point I used my camera every day for a week before I had to recharge it :D

last edited by cerb at 21:51:01 06/Mar/06

can you get battery grips for the 350d? oo i'll have to look at one of those.

hey cerb any chance i could have a look at your 70-200 F4L sometime? i'm very keen to see how it goes in low light before i buy one, hopefully wont have to go the extra distance to a 2.8 (or go the sigma 2.8).

I'm keen for a 350d too... grip wise

FEAR THE BIG LINKS
Firstly opteka http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000EDB1II/sr=8-1/qid=1141394308/ref=sr_1_1/104-2261900-4168703?%5Fencoding=UTF8

or Proper canon version

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007WK8LC/ref=pd_sbs_p_1/104-2261900-4168703?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=502394

BG-E3 is what you're after for the 350d.

Hmm... haven't tried the 70-200 in low light yet. The darkest I've used it in so far is an overcast day. (ISO 100, through a polarising filter).

try take a photo of something indoors with low light for me sometime :) basically i need to know if it'll cut it at gigs.

gigs? going from experience with other lenses i'd say probably not. f/4 on even a short lens is pushing it with indoor lighting, and it will only be worsened @ 200mm. A tripod will do away with any camera shake, but it still might not be fast enough to capture the subjects.

A friend of mine was trying to talk me out of getting the 70-200mm f/4 because it's not fast enough for real serious work. I got it because it's fast enough for me for now, and I couldn't say no given the price I paid for it.

I'll give it a try some time tho to see how it goes. What sort of ambient light are we talking? Equivalent to a room with a single light bulb in it, or even darker than that?

I just bought a Sony T9 for $650. Size of a credit card, 6MP, point and shoot. Once I master taking photos maybe I'll look at a SLR. For now, auto-image stabilization is my friend

room with single light but fast shutter (have a look at say 1/25 ISO400, 1/100 if its achievable)

SquarkyD, get an IS lens if u cant use a tripod.

http://www.lucascullen.com/display.asp?type=lr&f=387&longestedge=450

http://www.lucascullen.com/display.asp?type=lr&f=388&longestedge=450

^^a few hand held shots with my 75-300mm IS lens.

yeah i'll be using a 2.8 IS USM if i can afford it, $1600 cheapest i've seen one tho :(

thats pretty good for a 2.8. lenses here are a joke. its litteraly worth flying to new york and buying them.

cerb, you are, of course right. Caught me talking out my arse. What I should have said was, virtually all dSLR cameras have a larger image sensor than most pns cameras. This was all that I could say with confidence. I was making a leap of logic to presume that because dSLR are based on the old 35mm film format that the larger CCD would be of roughly the same size. On closer inspection of the canon website, they do mention this. My bad I suppose. So I stand humbly corrected.


(man that sounds gay)

at least you can admit being wrong, most forum trolls wouldn't have verified the response and instead argued futiliy for hours - so props

sif admit that you're wrong, sif cerb knows anything about anything

In case anyone is interested, the CCD sizes for canon digitals is

PnS

7.7mm
Powershot A410
Powershot A430

10mm
All other PnS

14mm
IXUS 750
Powershot A620
Powershot S80
Powershot G6

17mm
Powershot Pro1

dSLR

27mm
EOS 350D
EOS 30D

45mm
EOS 5D
EOS 1D

let us know what you get trog. also, if your comming to europe, do a stop over in hong kong and get your self some cheap lenses

room with single light but fast shutter (have a look at say 1/25 ISO400, 1/100 if its achievable)

Not the greatest test, but it will give you an idea. My lounge room actually has two lights with one bulb each.

These were all taken at f/4.

Test A:
http://photos.aaron-77.com/70_200_test/_t_/a_iso_400_1_4.jpg
ISO 400, 1/4
http://photos.aaron-77.com/70_200_test/_t_/a_iso_800_1_8.jpg
ISO 800, 1/8
http://photos.aaron-77.com/70_200_test/_t_/a_iso_1600_1_13.jpg
ISO 1600, 1/13

Test B:
http://photos.aaron-77.com/70_200_test/_t_/b_iso_400_1_3.jpg
ISO 400, 1/3
http://photos.aaron-77.com/70_200_test/_t_/b_iso_800_1_8.jpg
ISO 800, 1/8
http://photos.aaron-77.com/70_200_test/_t_/b_iso_1600_1_25.jpg
ISO 1600, 1/25

So even 1/25 is a stretch on indoor lighting.

Edit: wtf? why was my camera on "small" image quality? those are the full-sized versions :/

last edited by cerb at 21:16:29 08/Mar/06

interesting, cheers for that. Looks like it might come close but the 2.8 would be optimal, guess i'll have to rent one for a gig so i can be satisfied.

also before you go out and buy anything trog take a look at the Leica/Panasonic camera's they have some pretty good sensors and lenses and found them better than canon compacts (i cant remember which model i had, i think it was this one but the panasonic rebadge)

hmm this loox cool, widescreen lens

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/

I have decided to not get a Sony, after finding out that all my memory sticks from my previous camera won't work in the new one. I just found this out, in retrospect it probably should have been obvious because Sony are jerks. I'd have to buy a whole new memory stick for it and I cbf buying Yet Another Sony-specific memory format that is going to be useless in a couple years.

Trying to decide now between the Ixus 60, 65 (which is brand new and looks good, but no optical viewfinder, boo) and the 750. I'm leaning towards the 60 because its a little cheaper and looks pretty solid and will do what I want.

i just got this last week, supposedly the smallest widescreen compact, its smaller than my 60gb photo ipod but a tad thicker



and this is the shop i got it from, really cheap

last edited by Captain America at 19:38:56 09/Apr/06

I'm chasing a Ricoh Caplio R4... 7 times optical zoom and a bunch of nice looking features

^^ I was using a Sony camera the other day that's about 1cm thick if that, 5mp and big LCD. I want one for portability, I'll find out the model.

boxhead there you go

here

well damn thats a nice camera boxhead :( and i just bought mine last week

Go the 750

750's have a bigger sensor than all the other ixus range, and most of the other compacts on the market.

if what existence says is true.. i'd just buy a phone like his
apparently the camera is bulls***