File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hi /p/

What do you think of the Canon Powershot S5IS ?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 20DCamera SoftwareCapture NX 1.1.0 MPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:07:18 11:42:58Exposure Time1 secF-Numberf/16.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/16.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width450Image Height412RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
It's an okay camera for what it is. However:
1. It's not that much cheaper or smaller than a full-on SLR, which will give you vastly better quality and versatility, especially if you want to do anything approaching low-light shooting
2. Its image quality, and for the most part controls, are no better than smaller point & shoot camera in Canon's PowerShot A-series. And a smaller camera would be a lot more useful if you decide to go ahead and get a digital SLR in the future, since it can be your pocketable go-anywhere camera whereas the S5IS isn't much more portable than a Digital Rebel.

The only real advantage the S5IS has is absurd zoom range, but if you're serious about photography, you'll find that absurd zoom range isn't nearly as useful a feature as the small size or image quality you give up by getting this instead of (respectively) a small P&S or an SLR.
>> Canon !2okH7k70zo
>>1523411. It's not that much cheaper or smaller than a full-on SLR, which will give you vastly better quality and versatility, especially if you want to do anything approaching low-light shooting

I disagree. For $300, it's _much_ more versatile out of the box than any DSLR for that price. Specially since it will be coupled with a kit or cheap lens. Please note I said versatile. Image quality will suck unless you have the best conditions.

My thoughts are: compact, DSLR or die. I do not think bridge cameras are justified. With that said, there's nothing inherently wrong with the PowerShot S5 IS.

If you are still convinced into getting a bridge camera, the Panasonic equilvanet should be better than the S5 IS. But you wiil lose the superior video features, hot shoe and flip out LCD. The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 is better on all points than the S5 IS.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152346
>For $300, it's _much_ more versatile out of the box than any DSLR for that price
You could get a used Digital Rebel for that price. With kit lens, yeah, but the versatility I meant was that you could then pick up something like the 50/1.8 and any of the other lenses out there in the future.
>> Canon !2okH7k70zo
The thing with /p/ is everyone assumes the worst.

Yeah, it's not great that we get the random, which camera can I buy for $200? But we shouldn't be elitist faggots and just shrug them off like that. Trolls aside, that is.

What if the guy doesn't want to ever buy a DSLR and invest thousands in lenses?

We've warned him about the good and bad, and that should be enough. Instead of trying to convince everyone to get a DSLR.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152358
Hm. I suppose this is a valid criticism of what I actually said, but it wasn't a valid criticism of what I was *trying* to say. :)

But yeah, if you have no intention of ever getting an SLR and you really want the zoom range, this camera's a good camera to get--just don't make the mistake of thinking that it'll give you better image quality than something that fits in your pocket.

But if you're really getting into photography, you're going to want to move up to an SLR eventually (or a Leica M8 if you're an absurdlyrichfag. Something with a large sensor and interchangeable lenses) at which point a superzoom is something of a liability.

(Disclaimer: My girlfriend owns, and is very happy with, an S5IS because she has no intention of getting into photography as such, she just likes taking snapshots and likes being able to take snapshots of things far, far away. And I used to own a superzoom and sold it at a loss of like $200 when I got my SLR)
>> Canon !2okH7k70zo
Asking about anything non DSLR or film in /p/ is like making a Mac thread in /g/.

Except it's not as bad beause we're a small board.

In any case, the FZ-18 will have better image quality if that's what you're going for.

And this is coming from me. You have to make a goddamn decent product for me to say something like that.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152390
>Asking about anything non DSLR or film in /p/ is like making a Mac thread in /g/.
Obviously you need to lurk a bit more. There are exactly as many trolls who come here and scoff at film users for living in the past as there are who come here and scoff at digital users for having shitty quality that needs to be photoshopped to look decent.

If anything, people who get good shots with P&S cameras and post 'em here get extra praise since they did it with more limited equipment.
>> Anonymous
I disagree on the whole "bridge cameras are fail" thing. They're noisy in low light, because of their small sensors and slow lenses compared to a DSLR with and f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens mounted, but they're useful for situations when an SLR would be too loud. And yes, compacts have the same quiet leaf shutters, but they handle like ass, by and large, and unless the compact in question has a swivel screen, you have to hold it out in front of your face, negating all the stealth.
>> Canon !2okH7k70zo
>>152403

Just because I decided to use this tripcode for today doesn't mean it's my first day. Give me a fucking break and stop acting so pretentious.

There has been a grand total of 3 instances where a point-and-shoot user actually wowed more than one person.

The Flickr guy 2 weeks ago. The guy doing light painting in caves. The guy doing urban exploration in Japan.

>>152403There are exactly as many trolls who come here and scoff at film users for living in the past as there are who come here and scoff at digital users for having shitty quality that needs to be photoshopped to look decent.

>>152358But we shouldn't be elitist faggots and just shrug them off like that. Trolls aside, that is.

I'm sorry, it's just a fact. You only get feedback, note I didn't say good, when you post images from a DSLR or film.

Anything else automatically brings trolling.
>> Canon !2okH7k70zo
>>152410They're noisy in low light, because of their small sensors and slow lenses compared to a DSLR with and f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens mounted

See:

>>152346Please note I said versatile. Image quality will suck unless you have the best conditions.

And I don't think anyone can call something like a S5 stealthy or discreet.

I'm not reading ac's posts again just to make sure but I sure as hell didn't say bridge are automatic fail. They just cost more than an average point-and-shoot without a huge improvement in image quality.
>> Anonymous
>>152415
>There has been a grand total of 3 instances where a point-and-shoot user actually wowed more than one person.

Not true. Lurk moar. There is a higher bar set, but it's not like you're making it out to be. Mediocre "nice pictures" don't get it, whereas they do sometimes with higher-end equipment, but genuinely good shots taken with low-end gear do get commented on and praised.
>> Anonymous
>>152417
They'll do perfectly fine up to ISO 200, and are still good at 400. You don't need midday sun.

And yeah, they are discreet, if you use them right. They're smaller than a Leica M.

I wasn't responding to any post in particular, just offering an alternate viewpoint to the negative one that usually gets stated about bridge cameras.
>> Canon !2okH7k70zo
>>152418

I only count when there's more than, you know, one shot that is good.

The random guy who posts one amazing shot from a point-and-shoot doesn't really count.

Do you really remember any that left a mark that wasn't a one off? I named the ones I remember. And I have a photographic memory. No pun intended.
>> Anonymous
>>152423
>The random guy who posts one amazing shot from a point-and-shoot doesn't really count.

Yes, it does.

And what do you mean by "really left a mark?"
>> Canon !2okH7k70zo
>>152421

If anything, I was defending bridge cameras. No one bashed them except ac suggesting a DSLR.

I'm not going to argue about using a bridge indoors at ISO 400 while hiding it under your coat. Because it _will_ turn into a bridge bashing thread.
>> Canon !2okH7k70zo
>>152424

Something you clearly remember.

Those one offs usually go from, hey guys look at this shot I made! Which sometimes turn out good, there are 4-5 comments, and then it dies because the OP doesn't have anything else. Or he ruins it by posting other shots.

That's not what I call someone who is good.
>> Anonymous
>>152425
>I'm not going to argue about using a bridge indoors at ISO 400 while hiding it under your coat. Because it _will_ turn into a bridge bashing thread.

No, not hiding it under your coat. Using it like a rangefinder is traditionally used discreetly: having it in your hand, presetting everything, visualizing the shot in advance, lifting it to your eye, fine-tuning the composition, pressing the shutter, bringing it back down. One fluid motion. Easy with practice.

They're not great at ISO 400, but they're perfectly usable. Nowhere near as clean as a DSLR, but not an impediment to the image if one gets the exposure right.
>> Canon !2okH7k70zo
Wow.

All I will say is I hope you do well in all your future endeavors.

Canon thanks you for your purchase and if you are not using a Canon camera, you're just doing it wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>152430
Why wow? And I don't own a Canon.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152415
I think we've gotten off on the wrong foot here. If you'll look at our first two posts, you'll see that we pretty much have the same opinion re: superzooms. My only nitpick was that I think a $300 used DSLR has more versatility than an S5IS--part of which being because I'm counting the possibility of future system expansion into the versatility equation, whereas you were just thinking in terms of out-of-the-box, day 1 shooting ability. Both of which are valid ways to look at it, just different.

I wasn't even really trying to convince him to buy a DSLR. My intention was to point him downwards into the P&S category, since one of those would still be useful if he *did* want to eventually get a DSLR and offer the same quality as a superzoom for cheaper if he didn't.

>There has been a grand total of 3 instances where a point-and-shoot user actually wowed more than one person.
Now seriously, which do you think is the most likely of the two possibilities here:
1. /p/ as a whole always checks the EXIF on a shot before looking at the picture, and decide based on that whether they should like a picture or not before even opening it.
2. Good photographers tend to eventually upgrade to SLRs for the better control, wider creative options allowed by interchangeable lenses, better high-ISO noise characteristics, etc, which means that the P&S cameras are generally being wielded by people who aren't that good.

Also, either your photographic memory has a stuck shutter or you're not reading all of the threads because:>>151340
Thread full of images Heavyweather took with his Ricoh, and at least two people praised 'em (me and sv).

If you go through and actually look at all of the posts on the last 10 pages, you'll find that the /p/ you've got in your head really just doesn't match the /p/ that's really there.
>> Canon !2okH7k70zo
The S5 argument is done and closed. There's nothing more to say.

Anything you need to add is just so you can have the last word and that's pointless.

On to the next point.

Please remember _you_ are the one who brought up the whole thing about people posting pictures from point-and-shooots.

>> If anything, people who get good shots with P&S cameras and post 'em here get extra praise since they did it with more limited equipment.

I've merely said asking about compact cameras on /p/ was ridiculed.

>> Asking about anything non DSLR or film in /p/ is like making a Mac thread in /g/.

But I replied to your post anyway:

>>152415You only get feedback, note I didn't say good, when you post images from a DSLR or film.

Threads with point-and-shoot photos immediately get pruned unless they are amazingly good. Or they turn into a clusterfuck of people Photoshopping the picture to make it "better". There is little to no constructive comments in those threads.

So yes, people do look at EXIF. This is why we have the, needs more DOF, lol ISO 800, lol D40 posts. This is how /p/ is.

Now, about heavyweather. Please, give me a break here. The Ricoh isn't like any other point-and-shoot. Give the guy a PowerShot A5 from 1998 and he'll probably take the same pictures. It'll just take him longer. Please do not put the things he does in the same category as random point-and-shoots.

I'm not going to humor you into looking through all the 10 pages and quoting people but you'll find no fault in the way I describe /p/.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>152473
Okay, you're clearly just trolling me here.