Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio..

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:59:49 +1300, "Terry Hollis" <nospam.TakeThisOut@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:

 >The 300d is an SLR and as such you must use a tripod in low light
 >conditions, for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.

 >The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that in low
 >light situations I can always find something to support the camera, a wall,
 >rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward position the camera may
 >be in, I can still get a good view of the view-finder.
 >
 >With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes it
 >unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.

Righto. But you don't think that the fact that the 300D has some tree
stops more of usable sensor sensitivity compensates a little for its
lack of articulated viewfinder?

Or, put another way: It has to be a good deal darker to be low light
conditions for a 300D than for the CP 5000.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio.. 

Jan Böhme wrote:
 > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:59:49 +1300, "Terry Hollis" <nospam RemoveThis @xtra.co.nz>
 > wrote:
 >
  >> The 300d is an SLR and as such you must use a tripod in low light
  >> conditions, for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.
 >
  >> The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that
  >> in low light situations I can always find something to support the
  >> camera, a wall, rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward
  >> position the camera may be in, I can still get a good view of the
  >> view-finder.
  >>
  >> With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes it
  >> unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.
 >
 > Righto. But you don't think that the fact that the 300D has some tree
 > stops more of usable sensor sensitivity compensates a little for its
 > lack of articulated viewfinder?
 >
 > Or, put another way: It has to be a good deal darker to be low light
 > conditions for a 300D than for the CP 5000.

 > Jan Böhme
 > Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
 > Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur

I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and the
CP5000 does 800 ISO. The standard lens for the Canon has an aperture of 3.5
and the CP5000 has an aperture of 2.8, maybe a 1/2 stop advantage to the
Canon with a lens that is close to usless for touring.

Add to that the wide-angle lens accessory for the Nikon being equivalent to
19mm (in 35mm terms) and the Canon at 28mm is not in the same race.

I use my 300d for sports photography and long lens stuff and for that the
Nikon is not in the race.

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio.. 

Terry Hollis wrote:
 > Jan Böhme wrote:
  >> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:59:49 +1300, "Terry Hollis"
  >> <nospam.RemoveThis@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
  >>
   >>> The 300d is an SLR and as such you must use a tripod in low light
   >>> conditions, for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.
  >>
   >>> The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that
   >>> in low light situations I can always find something to support the
   >>> camera, a wall, rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward
   >>> position the camera may be in, I can still get a good view of the
   >>> view-finder.
   >>>
   >>> With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes
   >>> it unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.
  >>
  >> Righto. But you don't think that the fact that the 300D has some tree
  >> stops more of usable sensor sensitivity compensates a little for its
  >> lack of articulated viewfinder?
  >>
  >> Or, put another way: It has to be a good deal darker to be low light
  >> conditions for a 300D than for the CP 5000.
 >
  >> Jan Böhme
  >> Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
  >> Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur
 >
 > I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and the
 > CP5000 does 800 ISO. The standard lens for the Canon has an aperture
 > of 3.5 and the CP5000 has an aperture of 2.8, maybe a 1/2 stop
 > advantage to the Canon with a lens that is close to usless for
 > touring.
 > Add to that the wide-angle lens accessory for the Nikon being
 > equivalent to 19mm (in 35mm terms) and the Canon at 28mm is not in
 > the same race.
 > I use my 300d for sports photography and long lens stuff and for that
 > the Nikon is not in the race.

CP5000 in the Petersen Auto Museum, no flash:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fototime.com/B876FF9954F4C74/orig.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.fototime.com/B876FF9954F4C74/orig.jpg</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fototime.com/EB5BE405C1A8111/orig.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.fototime.com/EB5BE405C1A8111/orig.jpg</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fototime.com/3CC13CDF1644C51/orig.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.fototime.com/3CC13CDF1644C51/orig.jpg</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fototime.com/3EAA017BB310772/orig.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.fototime.com/3EAA017BB310772/orig.jpg</a>

With hand-held Vivitar "Digital Slave" flash:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fototime.com/87EB914558721D5/orig.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.fototime.com/87EB914558721D5/orig.jpg</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fototime.com/E92E40D65091B45/orig.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.fototime.com/E92E40D65091B45/orig.jpg</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fototime.com/C606881EBCC2A20/orig.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.fototime.com/C606881EBCC2A20/orig.jpg</a>
Bondurant, Shelby, Phil Hill, Gurney, Hall:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fototime.com/5D78DA29829119C/orig.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.fototime.com/5D78DA29829119C/orig.jpg</a>

I really like the CP5000 with WA convertor. And they are practically
giving them away these days. For this kind of work the only reason to
pass them up is keep-ahead-of-the-pack, Bigger Bat stuff.


--
Frank ess<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio.. 

Terry Hollis <nospam.DeleteThis@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
 > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
  >> Terry Hollis <nospam.DeleteThis@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

   >>> I have the Nikon Coolpix 5000 and the Canon SLR 300d. For action
   >>> shots the 300d is the automatic choice but for static low light
   >>> shots, the 5000 wins hands down.

  >> That's very interesting, I would have thought it to be the other
  >> way round. What does the 5000 offer on static low light shots
  >> that the 300d does not?

 > The 300d is an SLR and as such you must use a tripod in low light
 > conditions,

I have shot my DSLR in low light without tripod and had no special
problems down to 1/30, even with tele-lenses (with IS).

 > for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.

Not being an Asian nor knowing the circumstances there, I cannot
comment on that.

 > The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that in low
 > light situations I can always find something to support the camera, a wall,
 > rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward position the camera may
 > be in, I can still get a good view of the view-finder.

 > With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes it
 > unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.

That is true enough. But I have often used my elbow on
something stabilizing larger lenses, works most of the time
for me. Your environment is obviously different.

-Wolfgang<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio.. 

Terry Hollis <nospam.TakeThisOut@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
 > Jan Böhme wrote:

  >> Righto. But you don't think that the fact that the 300D has some tree
  >> stops more of usable sensor sensitivity compensates a little for its
  >> lack of articulated viewfinder?

 > I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and the
 > CP5000 does 800 ISO.

But how noisy is the image at ISO800 with the CP5000? Is it
usable?

What ISO in the CP5000 compares with the 300d's ISO 1600?

 > The standard lens for the Canon has an aperture of 3.5
 > and the CP5000 has an aperture of 2.8, maybe a 1/2 stop advantage to the
 > Canon with a lens that is close to usless for touring.

It obviously depends a lot on the lens(es) you prefer. If you
use a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 you're in a different position to the
kit lens.

 > Add to that the wide-angle lens accessory for the Nikon being equivalent to
 > 19mm (in 35mm terms) and the Canon at 28mm is not in the same race.

No, you'd use a 10-22mm wide angle for the Canon, for 16-35mm
35mm-equivalent. Yes, it costs a lot more, and the photos
you take with the camera you did not buy (being broke is not fun)
are, ah, rare.

-Wolfgang<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio.. 

this post is not archived.
 >> Stay informed about: Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio.. 

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:28:28 +1300, "Terry Hollis" <nospam DeleteThis @xtra.co.nz>
wrote:

 >Jan Böhme wrote:
  >> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:59:49 +1300, "Terry Hollis" <nospam DeleteThis @xtra.co.nz>
  >> wrote:

   >>> The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that
   >>> in low light situations I can always find something to support the
   >>> camera, a wall, rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward
   >>> position the camera may be in, I can still get a good view of the
   >>> view-finder.
   >>>
   >>> With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes it
   >>> unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.
  >>
  >> Righto. But you don't think that the fact that the 300D has some tree
  >> stops more of usable sensor sensitivity compensates a little for its
  >> lack of articulated viewfinder?

 >I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and the
 >CP5000 does 800 ISO.

The key word in the sentence above was "usable", awkward as it was.

There are lots of pics on the net to attest that the noise level of a
300D at 1600ISO is reasonable, and that the noise level at ISO 800 is
quite good. I'm not all that familiar with the CP5000 in particular,
but a general rule for point-and-shoots seems to be that the ISO800
level is so noisy as to be entirely useless, and the ISO400 is clearly
worse than the 1600 of 300D.

I arrived at three stops by equating the noise at ISO 300D at 1600
with a point-and-shoot noise at ISO200, and the ISO800 noise of 300D
with the ISO100 noise of a standard point-and-shoot.

 >The standard lens for the Canon has an aperture of 3.5
 >and the CP5000 has an aperture of 2.8, maybe a 1/2 stop advantage to the
 >Canon with a lens that is close to usless for touring.

If you want to shoot low light w/o tripod, of course you'll want a
fast lens. There are seven Canon lenses faster than 2.0 at my online
photo dealer's. If you must have a zoom, there is a very good 16-35
zoom, (equal to 26-56 for a 35 mm camera) at f 2.8. If you want longer
focal length, then there is for example the Sigma 24-105 mm at f. 2.8
- 4.0 at a very affordable price.

However, I'd suggest that what you really want is neither the CP5000
nor a DSLR, but a modern point-and-soot with the articulated
viewfinder that you like, plus image stabilisation.

_That_ will clearly give you at least two more stops, everything else
being equal.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio.. 

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
 > Terry Hollis <nospam.TakeThisOut@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
  >> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
   >>> Terry Hollis <nospam.TakeThisOut@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
 >
   >>>> I have the Nikon Coolpix 5000 and the Canon SLR 300d. For action
   >>>> shots the 300d is the automatic choice but for static low light
   >>>> shots, the 5000 wins hands down.
 >
   >>> That's very interesting, I would have thought it to be the other
   >>> way round. What does the 5000 offer on static low light shots
   >>> that the 300d does not?
 >
  >> The 300d is an SLR and as such you must use a tripod in low light
  >> conditions,
 >
 > I have shot my DSLR in low light without tripod and had no special
 > problems down to 1/30, even with tele-lenses (with IS).

I think I see the problem here, you think 1/30 is a low speed; try 2
seconds.

  >> for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.
 >
 > Not being an Asian nor knowing the circumstances there, I cannot
 > comment on that.

Well HongKong is all buses and subways, up to four flights of stairs, it's
day after day of walking; the less you carry the more you are likely to go
looking for those good shots.

  >> The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found that
  >> in low light situations I can always find something to support the
  >> camera, a wall, rubbish bin or whatever and in spite of the awkward
  >> position the camera may be in, I can still get a good view of the
  >> view-finder.
 >
  >> With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes it
  >> unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.
 >
 > That is true enough. But I have often used my elbow on
 > something stabilizing larger lenses, works most of the time
 > for me. Your environment is obviously different.
 >
 > -Wolfgang

As I have said before, large lens are not the issue, a wide angle lens is
needed to shoot the tallest building in the world and that is in Taipai and
when you do it at night a long exposure is inevitable.

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio.. 

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
 > Terry Hollis <nospam.DeleteThis@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
  >> Jan Böhme wrote:
 >
   >>> Righto. But you don't think that the fact that the 300D has some
   >>> tree stops more of usable sensor sensitivity compensates a little
   >>> for its
   >>> lack of articulated viewfinder?
 >
  >> I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and
  >> the CP5000 does 800 ISO.
 >
 > But how noisy is the image at ISO800 with the CP5000? Is it
 > usable?
 >
 > What ISO in the CP5000 compares with the 300d's ISO 1600?

That's fair comment, I haven't needed to use 1600 ISO with the 300d but it
is certainly good at 400 ISO. The CP5000 is poor at 800 ISO so I rarely go
above 200 ISO with it, the point is, you don't have to because longer
exposures are possible.

  >> The standard lens for the Canon has an aperture of 3.5
  >> and the CP5000 has an aperture of 2.8, maybe a 1/2 stop advantage to
  >> the Canon with a lens that is close to usless for touring.
 >
 > It obviously depends a lot on the lens(es) you prefer. If you
 > use a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 you're in a different position to the
 > kit lens.

I have no use at all for a 50mm 1.4 lens when traveling, I need w/a.

  >> Add to that the wide-angle lens accessory for the Nikon being
  >> equivalent to 19mm (in 35mm terms) and the Canon at 28mm is not in
  >> the same race.
 >
 > No, you'd use a 10-22mm wide angle for the Canon, for 16-35mm
 > 35mm-equivalent. Yes, it costs a lot more, and the photos
 > you take with the camera you did not buy (being broke is not fun)
 > are, ah, rare.

???? I already have the 300d and I left it home for my trip to Asia. No one
in their right mind would buy that sort of lens for a 300d.

 > -Wolfgang

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio.. 

Terry Hollis <nospam DeleteThis @xtra.co.nz> wrote:
 > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
  >> Terry Hollis <nospam DeleteThis @xtra.co.nz> wrote:
   >>> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
   >>>> Terry Hollis <nospam DeleteThis @xtra.co.nz> wrote:

  >> I have shot my DSLR in low light without tripod and had no special
  >> problems down to 1/30, even with tele-lenses (with IS).

 > I think I see the problem here, you think 1/30 is a low speed; try 2
 > seconds.

I have hand-shot my Contax SL300RT* for 8 seconds. Fun to
do a few times but not relaxing.

   >>> for a traveller in Asia, a tripod is not an option.

  >> Not being an Asian nor knowing the circumstances there, I cannot
  >> comment on that.

 > Well HongKong is all buses and subways, up to four flights of stairs, it's
 > day after day of walking; the less you carry the more you are likely to go
 > looking for those good shots.

Ok, that's your choice and it's obviously valid. I still carry
a tripod when I'm out shooting, but that's me.

 > a wide angle lens is
 > needed to shoot the tallest building in the world and that is in Taipai and
 > when you do it at night a long exposure is inevitable.

Yes. I'd see if I could get a shift objective for that (to
avoid falling lines), too. And a tripod.

-Wolfgang<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio.. 

Terry Hollis <nospam.TakeThisOut@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
 > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
  >> Terry Hollis <nospam.TakeThisOut@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
   >>> Jan Böhme wrote:

   >>> I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and
   >>> the CP5000 does 800 ISO.

[...]
  >> What ISO in the CP5000 compares with the 300d's ISO 1600?

 > That's fair comment, I haven't needed to use 1600 ISO with the 300d but it
 > is certainly good at 400 ISO. The CP5000 is poor at 800 ISO so I rarely go
 > above 200 ISO with it, the point is, you don't have to because longer
 > exposures are possible.

So we have the 3 stops right there, and while the larger, heavier
and more expensive 300D uses higer ISO, you steady the CP5000
at ISO 200 for longer exposures. Given the circumstances (e.g.
size, weight, cost, no tripod possible) you are right that the
300D (without even more expensive IS lenses) offers nothing for
night shots.

  >> It obviously depends a lot on the lens(es) you prefer. If you
  >> use a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 you're in a different position to the
  >> kit lens.

 > I have no use at all for a 50mm 1.4 lens when traveling, I need w/a.

Each photograper is obviously different. So use the 24mm
f/1.4, the 28mm f/1.8 or the 35 f/1.4 if you need fast w/a
glass (Yes, I know, I am spending *your* money rather
freely.)

  >> No, you'd use a 10-22mm wide angle for the Canon, for 16-35mm
  >> 35mm-equivalent. Yes, it costs a lot more, and the photos
  >> you take with the camera you did not buy (being broke is not fun)
  >> are, ah, rare.

 > ????

I meant that all that glass is expensive and most people
don't have an unlimited budget. So a not-quite-as-good
solution within your budget is much better than a perfect,
but unpayable one.

 > I already have the 300d and I left it home for my trip to Asia. No one
 > in their right mind would buy that sort of lens for a 300d.

Well, the lens only fits on a 300D, the new Rebel XT and the 20D,
since it's an EF-S lens, so Canon seems to differ.

-Wolfgang<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio.. 

Jan Böhme wrote:
 > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:28:28 +1300, "Terry Hollis" <nospam.DeleteThis@xtra.co.nz>
 > wrote:
 >
  >> Jan Böhme wrote:
   >>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:59:49 +1300, "Terry Hollis"
   >>> <nospam.DeleteThis@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
 >
   >>>> The CP 5000 has a reticulating LCD view-finder and I have found
   >>>> that in low light situations I can always find something to
   >>>> support the camera, a wall, rubbish bin or whatever and in spite
   >>>> of the awkward position the camera may be in, I can still get a
   >>>> good view of the view-finder.
   >>>>
   >>>> With the SLR the need to have your eye in a particular place makes
   >>>> it unsuitable for this rough and ready type of support.
   >>>
   >>> Righto. But you don't think that the fact that the 300D has some
   >>> tree stops more of usable sensor sensitivity compensates a little
   >>> for its lack of articulated viewfinder?
 >
  >> I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and
  >> the CP5000 does 800 ISO.
 >
 > The key word in the sentence above was "usable", awkward as it was.
 >
 > There are lots of pics on the net to attest that the noise level of a
 > 300D at 1600ISO is reasonable, and that the noise level at ISO 800 is
 > quite good. I'm not all that familiar with the CP5000 in particular,
 > but a general rule for point-and-shoots seems to be that the ISO800
 > level is so noisy as to be entirely useless, and the ISO400 is clearly
 > worse than the 1600 of 300D.
 >
 > I arrived at three stops by equating the noise at ISO 300D at 1600
 > with a point-and-shoot noise at ISO200, and the ISO800 noise of 300D
 > with the ISO100 noise of a standard point-and-shoot.

Ok that rational might be fairer but I wouldn't equate the CP5000 with your
"standard point-and-shoot". The 5mP sensor in the CP5000 is the same size
as the one in the later CP8400 and may be less susceptable to noise.

  >> The standard lens for the Canon has an aperture of 3.5
  >> and the CP5000 has an aperture of 2.8, maybe a 1/2 stop advantage to
  >> the Canon with a lens that is close to usless for touring.
 >
 > If you want to shoot low light w/o tripod, of course you'll want a
 > fast lens. There are seven Canon lenses faster than 2.0 at my online
 > photo dealer's. If you must have a zoom, there is a very good 16-35
 > zoom, (equal to 26-56 for a 35 mm camera) at f 2.8. If you want longer
 > focal length, then there is for example the Sigma 24-105 mm at f. 2.8
 > - 4.0 at a very affordable price.

It's not a matter of "If you want to shoot low light w/o tripod" it's having
something available at the time and place, when a photo opportunity crops up
in a situation where you depend on your escorts to show you around and speak
the local language. If you don't know where you are going, you need
versatile equipment that will not require your escorts to wait while you are
forever setting up the shot.

 > However, I'd suggest that what you really want is neither the CP5000
 > nor a DSLR, but a modern point-and-soot with the articulated
 > viewfinder that you like, plus image stabilisation.
 >
 > _That_ will clearly give you at least two more stops, everything else
 > being equal.

When they make a better camera for the for my purposes, I will upgrade, in
the meantime the CP5000 and accessories is doing a very good job.

 > Jan Böhme
 > Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
 > Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio.. 

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
 > Terry Hollis <nospam RemoveThis @xtra.co.nz> wrote:
  >> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
   >>> Terry Hollis <nospam RemoveThis @xtra.co.nz> wrote:
   >>>> Jan Böhme wrote:
 >
   >>>> I don't know how you arrive at 3 stops, the 300d does 1600 ISO and
   >>>> the CP5000 does 800 ISO.
 >
 > [...]
   >>> What ISO in the CP5000 compares with the 300d's ISO 1600?
 >
  >> That's fair comment, I haven't needed to use 1600 ISO with the 300d
  >> but it is certainly good at 400 ISO. The CP5000 is poor at 800 ISO
  >> so I rarely go above 200 ISO with it, the point is, you don't have
  >> to because longer exposures are possible.
 >
 > So we have the 3 stops right there, and while the larger, heavier
 > and more expensive 300D uses higer ISO, you steady the CP5000
 > at ISO 200 for longer exposures. Given the circumstances (e.g.
 > size, weight, cost, no tripod possible) you are right that the
 > 300D (without even more expensive IS lenses) offers nothing for
 > night shots.
 >
   >>> It obviously depends a lot on the lens(es) you prefer. If you
   >>> use a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 you're in a different position to the
   >>> kit lens.
 >
  >> I have no use at all for a 50mm 1.4 lens when traveling, I need w/a.
 >
 > Each photograper is obviously different. So use the 24mm
 > f/1.4, the 28mm f/1.8 or the 35 f/1.4 if you need fast w/a
 > glass (Yes, I know, I am spending *your* money rather
 > freely.)

These lens do not compete with the CP5000 when fitted with the .68 W/A
accessory which gives 19mm-57mm zoom.

   >>> No, you'd use a 10-22mm wide angle for the Canon, for 16-35mm
   >>> 35mm-equivalent. Yes, it costs a lot more, and the photos
   >>> you take with the camera you did not buy (being broke is not fun)
   >>> are, ah, rare.
 >
  >> ????
 >
 > I meant that all that glass is expensive and most people
 > don't have an unlimited budget. So a not-quite-as-good
 > solution within your budget is much better than a perfect,
 > but unpayable one.
 >
  >> I already have the 300d and I left it home for my trip to Asia. No
  >> one in their right mind would buy that sort of lens for a 300d.
 >
 > Well, the lens only fits on a 300D, the new Rebel XT and the 20D,
 > since it's an EF-S lens, so Canon seems to differ.
 >
 > -Wolfgang

If you know where you are going and exactly what you will need when you get
there, you can make a case for the 300d, but when I am on tour and depend on
my excorts, the CP5000 meets my needs.

I had a situation where I went to an exhibition of jade products, perfect
for the CP5000 I thought, after I arrived I found that the indigenous people
of Taiwan were giving dance performances, I missed recording that event
because I had left my video camera behind.

--
Regards - Terry Hollis, Auckland, New Zealand

replace "nospam" with "terry.hollis" to reply<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Have Nikon 5700,looking at Nikon 8800 or competitor,opinio..