File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
What's the point of "Advanced Digital Cameras" if you can buy a Digital SLR for about the same price? plus, SLRs can be upgraded and modded to your hearts content.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:07:13 18:42:29Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1280Image Height1105
>> Anonymous
A fuckton of zoom in a body more compact than a DSLR.
>> Anonymous
plus movies, built-in IS (usually), portability and weight. Price is still a big selling point. Cheapest DSLR is the D40, which still goes for 600 retail. The most expensive superzoom is the S5IS at 500. Most are around 350, 400 bucks, which is a big price drop for the non-photographer.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>69091
... And, at least with the particular model pictured, IS and USM in the lens. To get a digital SLR with an equivalent lens would cost much, *much* more than the S5IS, if Canon were even to make such a lens.
>> Anonymous
>>69095
Why Canon? Take an Olympus E-510 and a 18-180 or 18-200 lens, and you've got your 10x+ zoom and IS. For at least twice the price of the S5IS, though.

On the other hand, non-SLR cameras need IS so badly mostly because they suck at high sensitivities...
>> Anonymous
>>69094
movies? like 30seconds of movies. wow. where's my popcorn?
>> Anonymous
>>69110
While I personally think that movie modes are worthless too, what the fuck are you talking about?
>> Anonymous
>>69110

www.youtube.com
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>69110
The S5IS will record 640x480x30fps for as long as you've got card to hold it.

And don't underestimate the advantages of having a quick easy movie mode when there's a chick taking off her clothes nearby.
>> Anonymous
>>69116
fuck i clearly bought the wrong camera then.
>> Anonymous
>>69116
just like a cellphone.
>> Anonymous
>>69119
A cellphone capable of that probably costs more than the S5 IS (or comes with some super gay service plan if you're in the US)
>> Anonymous
>>69121
but it will have games and music and internet. and you're more likely to have your cellphone than your camera most of the time.
>> Vincent
>>69133
True, But cell phones lenses blow big chunks, and their sensor sizes blow big chunks
So the low light conditions that usually accompany a chick taking of her clothes, Means that the extra sensor size means a lot less grainy shitty quality amateur porn video.

All in all the Cell phone can do it, but it will suck at doing it, the camera can do it much better.
>> Anonymous
>>69138
you're right. that clearly justifies spending $500 for a digital camera that takes low-res video. i can shoot semi-professional porn with it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>69138
>> Anonymous
Who the hell would pay full price for a brand new camera like that?

Now for $250-$300 (hell I saw it for $200 at a local shop) you can buy the Canon S3IS which is still a damn good camera.

No, the video on either camera will not match that of a camcorder, but for a digital camera it's damn good. Since this is a photography board, most could probably care less for video, but that doesn't mean it's worthless. Don't assume just because you think it's shit that other's will think that way.

The S3IS is by far and away the top-selling camera in it's class, so obviously Canon is doing something right.
>> Vincent
>>69145
If its the only reason you would buy it then you are better off getting a dedicated camcorder. Of course thats only one feature that the high up P&S's offer. So I would hope thats not the only reason why you would compare them..

We all love amateur porn, so let the people buy their digital P&S's and ignore the DSLR market. You don't have to buy one if you don't want it.
>> Anonymous
>>69094
You can get a Pentax K100D with IS (called "shake reduction") and the 18-55mm kit lens (which is actually usable!) for under $450 and then get a $50 mail-in rebate for the body, so it'd be under $400. (In other words, you, sir, are wrong.)

I'd say that the reason most people go for the "DSLR-like"/"prosumer" camera is that they're afraid to use anything other than a point-and-shoot or are used to looking at the screen instead of using a film camera.

Other than that, some people like to take video.
>> Anonymous
Why is everyone missing the main advantage? They don't have a mirror and so are much quieter. You want quiet digital shooting? Your choices are something like that, an Epson RD-1, or a Leica M8.

Plus, the top tier of them are legitmately great cameras. The biggest issue is the fixed lens; the other ones are high ISO performance and shot-to-shot speed. Otherwise, they're fine.

All types of cameras that aren't absolute pieces of shit designed for MySpace photos have a function in photography. There's advantages to these, to SLRs, and to rangefinders.