[rjstyles69]

Ajo pick up the Vivitar 3600 or if you have the money a Velbon Sherpa 750R.

I would look for something with a quick release too.

[guyonblackybx]

Will a tripod of this size be able to hold a DSLR properly?

Here is my tripod that i use with my 400D

[tsk1979]

Navin, if you want to have 24mm true, then the 16-35L lens is a no brainer. Its an amazing lens,
E-3 route will cost you as much as full frame since the lenses are 1200$+

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Navin, if you want to have 24mm true, then the 16-35L lens is a no brainer. Its an amazing lens,
E-3 route will cost you as much as full frame since the lenses are 1200$+

I agree, I too was very surprised at the cost of 12-60mm, quite disappointed actually. Since I have the excellent 14-54mm, it gives me very little reason to go for 12-60mm. I am not planning to buy any SWD lens until they come down at least 25-30% in price.

Navin, since you planning to buy a whole system in one shot, consider your options very carefully. I believe in 4/3 system, the sensor is good enough for me. But you are yet to be convinced about that considering you are still dreaming about FF. Don't buy into 4/3 system and then start wondering about sensor size, Olympus will never go FF in the traditional sense. The 4/3 world, we are already FF, not tied to the legacy film format. Considering I could blow 4/3 raw files into 6ftx4ft prints for my office walls, I don't need anything beyond that. Rudra has processed raw files from my lowly E-500, talk to him. After that if you think you will eventually need FF, then don't even consider E3. Olympus can cater to high-end pro requirements, but it is not cheap at that spectrum. And you can never think of traditional FF once you are in 4/3.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by satish_appasani

Link to the dealer site is Shetala Cameras

This is a ridiculous website, I know they are the authorised dealers for Olympus, but their website has not been updated since 2005. The only Olympus dSLR they claim to have is E-300.

[Torqy]

Originally Posted by satish_appasani

I am confused here. Last month i was at the Olympus authorized dealer in Hyderabad (Shetala) The price of 510 with double kit lens with bill and international warranty is around 41000 and that sounded very close to US price too. I remember the dealer saying the mrp on the box is 50K+. Link to the dealer site is Shetala Cameras

I bought my E-500 twin lens kit from Bangalore for 49K in 2006.


-- Torqy

[dadu]

Just for the photography enthusiasts, snapfish is giving 20 free 4x6 prints on registration.

[navin]

Originally Posted by oldmobile

You may want to consider a Canon 10-22 USM f3.5-4.5 AFS lens.

I had (still have) a EOS ELAN film camera with 28-105 mm USM lens.

Regarding IS in body vs lens, there is some info at The Online Photographer: More on In-Camera vs. In-Lens Image Stabilization

I want a single f/2.8 IS lens that can go from 24-70mm (FF equivalent). On the Canon APS-C sensor that means 15-45mm. the 17-55 is just a bit too tall.

IS will allow me to hand hold at 1/16 and hence work in resonably low light.

The APS-C sensor should mean that using 77mm glass Canon should be able to produce a 15-60/2.8 4x zoom lens (IS or no IS). Olympus did.

Now that Canon have the 17-55 they are not going to kill it, so I dont see Canon producing a 24-70/2.8 IS lens for the APS-C format namely a 15-45/2.8 IS. I do see Canon adding IS to their 24-70/2.8 that is my attraction for FF.

The way I see it, any of the formats APS-C, 4:3, etc.. would give me enough resolution. I have to consider the lenses I need first. Then choose the best VFM format that has the lenses (range, speed and IQ) I need.
Digital Cameras Side-by-Side, 4 cameras: Digital Photography Review

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Navin, if you want to have 24mm true, then the 16-35L lens is a no brainer. Its an amazing lens..E-3 route will cost you as much as full frame since the lenses are 1200$+

actually I considered getting the 10-22/3.5-4.5. 24-105/4 and 70-300/4-5.6 combo but (a) that was too expensive and (b) too slow. I needed a f/2.8 and faster lens. So I figured if I get a f/2.8 IS lens the IS it is like having a f/1.8 lens without IS.

Originally Posted by Samurai

I believe in 4/3 system, the sensor is good enough for me. But you are yet to be convinced about that considering you are still dreaming about FF. ..Rudra has processed raw files from my lowly E-500, talk to him. After that if you think you will eventually need FF...

I believe the APS-C sensor or even 4/3 sensor will give me all the resolution I need. I just want lenses that will allow me to go from 24-70mm (FF equivalent) on them.

I find the 12-60 (5x) resonably priced (compared to Nikon's and Canon's 17-55 3x) and the 50-200 (4x) also not too expensive (compared to Canon/Nikon 70-200/4 IS 3x). The Oly system could compete with the Nikon D300, 17-55/2.8, 70-200/2.8 + 1.4TC system only that the Nikon system would have a constant apeture (till a FF equivalent of 300mm) while the Oly system would loose about a stop. What I would have hoped for was for Oly to discount it's system by 20% to get a toe hold into the Canon/Nikon SLR duopoly. Maybe prices for the Oly system (E3+12-60 and 50-200 SWD lenses) will fall in a few months time.

As it stands for anyone willing to sacrifice the 24-28mm range the Canon 40D, 17-55/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS combo is slightly cheaper than Oly and you get constant f/2.8 apeture (albeit only 1/2-1 stop difference to Oly) from a FF equivalent of 28mm-300mm! If you want 400mm add a 1.4x TC.

Unfortunately I need the 24-28mm difference. It was one reason I exchanged my Nikon 28-105/3.5-4.5 lens in favour for their 24-85/2.8-4 lens when I used film.

[navin]

Originally Posted by mail4ajo

Navin, What was the best quote you had for the 70-300/4-5.6 IS USM?

29,000 for the 70-300. the 40D for 47K, the 17-55 for 46K and the BG E2N for 8K but a I expect a to bargain a bit when I show money.

[navin]

Originally Posted by mail4ajo

That would be a dream system. The E3 is $1700, the 12-60mm is $1000 and 50-200mm (available in Jan08) is $1200..

BTW there is a $100 mail in rebate for the 12-60. given that the 50-200 SWD will be ount only in Jan/Feb 08 maybe I need to wait. Not again!

[tsk1979]

IF you are okay with the 2700$ total cost then oly is a no brainer.
For your use, it makes more sense than the Canon.
you are talking about wide angle, and even die hard lens IS fanboys admit that at wide angles in camera IS is as good as in lens IS.
While you are at it, check out the Pentax K10D also. The downside is that you need to shoot in RAW always, since the in camera jpeg angle likes to produce more than acceptable artifacts in some cases.

[navin]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

IF you are okay with the 2700$ total cost then oly is a no brainer..

no way I am shootig in RAW unless I need 8x10 or larger. I need to shoot fast and RAW takes forver to store/write.

you mean E3 costing $1700, the 12-60 about $800 (after rebate) and the 70-300 ($400)?

so
a) canon does not have a 24-70/2.8 IS lens and FF SLRs are still pricey nor will they ever kill their 17-55/2.8 and make a 15-45/2.8. not soon anyway. so canon does not really offer me 24mm/2.8 IS yet.

b) Oly does not have the 50-200 SWD lens out yet but they have announced it but the system is kinda pricey (total system would exceed $3500) for a company that is not "NikCan"

c) the Nikon D200 mated to the 17-55 = 25mm at f/2.8, very close to my 24mm goal. besides nikon has a reputed 70-300 VR lens as well, but the D200 ($1500) is yesterday's news :-( compared to the E3 and 40D. What about the D80? At $800 mated to $1800 worth (total $2600) in lenses it fits!

I'm going mad!

Nikon D80 with their 17-55 and 70-300 ($800 body mated to $1800 of lenses) or Oly E3 with their 12-60 and 70-300 ($1700 body mated to $1200 of lenses)!

[Rudra Sen]

Originally Posted by navin

I'm going mad!

After a point in time (read age) too much thinking doesn't really help.
With your choice of 24-105/4 and 100-400/4.5-5.6 thinking is over.
You'll get to know about damage before 4pm today.

[tsk1979]

RAW takes forever? I think most cams can do 3-5fps in raw, atleast for short intervals. Canon performance is not bad. Out of box jpeg in canon is good too.
The 16-35F2.8L costs 640$ and is really and amazing lens. What it lacks is IS.

40D + 16-35 F2.8L is a great lens for you. Push the ISO to 800 and you can manage without IS.
The 40D will touch ISO 1600 and yet give you large prints.

that said the Pentax K10D + the 16-45mm lens will cost you around 1150$.

But right now both pentax and Oly have limited lens space in the digital space.
I suggest you first find out what shutter speeds you will be doing at ISO 800.
what do you want to shoot? Is it a studio. Can you use a tripod?

[navin]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

The 16-35F2.8L costs 640$ and is really and amazing lens. What it lacks is IS.
40D + 16-35 F2.8L is a great lens for you. Push the ISO to 800 and you can manage without IS.
I suggest you first find out what shutter speeds you will be doing at ISO 800.
what do you want to shoot? Is it a studio. Can you use a tripod?

I will use an SLR for the following applications:

1. birthday parties, family birthdays/anniversaries, etc where lighting can be varied (from candle light like when a cake is being blown out) but lighting is never as good as the outdoors. hence the need for a FF equivalent of 24-70/2.8 IS. Ths IS so I can use wider apatures and slower shutter speeds and still hand hold. Photos will be at night, indoors and subject might be moving.

2. school sports and plays (theater). school sports will be daylight and out doors most of the time, plays are indoors but alteast the subject is resonably well lit. I need a light telephoto zoom from my past experience 300mm is not tall enough but the 70-300/4-5.6 IS on a 1.5/1.6 crop should do it. I mgiht be able to use a tripod as well (it depends).

for most other purposes (travel) I would prefer a mini digicam like the canon 860 IXUS (28mm, IS and under 200gms) or a video cam.

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

After a point in time (read age) too much thinking doesn't really help.
With your choice of 24-105/4 and 100-400/4.5-5.6 thinking is over.
You'll get to know about damage before 4pm today.

On a 40D 24mm is about 38mm on a FF. I was playing around with the Nikon D80 and Canon 20D and found that with kids I was shooting a lot of stuff at 28-35mm and i would have gone wider but the lenses I had did not let me.

Kids at a birthday party dont sit still (actually I should say Kids dont sit still). Indoors in small apartments 38mm does not give me enough room to catch 3-4 of them in action and one does not have time to change lenses. If I put a 16-35/2.8 on the camera I will be covering 26-55mm it could work indoors (I would have to crop some photos) but it'd be tough and I'd still get a 3 lens (16-35, 24-70 and 70-300) solution which pushes the budget ($1300 for the body, lens for $640, $1060 and $530 respectively).

So far the long end does not seem to be the problem, the wide-normal fast telephoto is the issue.

option 1. wait for Canon FF bodies to drop in price (y which time canon would have an IS version of the 24-70/2.8 lens)
option 2. get a system that allows me the full frame equivalent of 24mm (12mm on the Olympus's 4:3, 15mm on Canon's 1.6 crop, 16mm on Nikon's 1.5 crop).

Any solution from Canon's stable? Below are the lenses I have investigated without luck.
Canon Europe - Image Stabilization Lenses