Importance of a wide angle..
-
hey there.. just gonna get a basic camera to play around with, and came across the IXUS 850IS which seems to get great reviews.
Now this, is the only camera of its kind that offers a wide angle which is great for capturing scenic shots. The 950IS which was just released is a similar camera but with certain better functions.
I wonder if the higher pixel count (8MP vs 7.1MP on the 850) would be a good reason to give up on the wide angle lens.
I'm thinking not.
Great to see that the S5 is also just released - might be getting that one too. -
i wouldn't take the 8 vs 7.1mp as a deciding factor in my purchase at all. this is assuming that the PHYSICAL sensor size is the same, not the pixels generated.
-
If you just want a camera so that you can take a shot when you need it the canon model should more than suffice.Originally posted by pwnz0r:hey there.. just gonna get a basic camera to play around with, and came across the IXUS 850IS which seems to get great reviews.
Now this, is the only camera of its kind that offers a wide angle which is great for capturing scenic shots. The 950IS which was just released is a similar camera but with certain better functions.
I wonder if the higher pixel count (8MP vs 7.1MP on the 850) would be a good reason to give up on the wide angle lens.
I'm thinking not.
Great to see that the S5 is also just released - might be getting that one too.
But i personally do not believe that having a wide angle lens is great for capturing sceneries and landscapes. This midset is like thinking you can only consume noodles with a pair of chopsticks when using a fork and with your bare hands still work.
Anyway i will go for the S5-IS. It can let you take snap shots, and could also be a great camera for intermediate/ prosumers that comes in handy when you are serious about taking better photos.
When the time comes for you to want to progress further, you may find yourself having to spend thousands just for a good wide angle lens with your SLR. -
I think it would be wise to spend about a 6 (lens) to 4 (camera) ratio, so you can imagine how much people can pay for lenses when they buy a Mark III...
-
not really lar.. i feel it's more wise to get good lenses first, then work ur way up to a better body. first, lenses last longer, and second, bodies gets superceded faster.Originally posted by jetabt767400:I think it would be wise to spend about a 6 (lens) to 4 (camera) ratio, so you can imagine how much people can pay for lenses when they buy a Mark III...
and by "better" body it also depends on alot of thigns. a 1Ds2 is a "good body" but who wants to store 16mp raw files, and have enuff processor power to process them?
and dun tell me u buy a 1ds2 and shoot jpg....
-
Hmm, ya, I mean't that its better to spend in that ration, not really to buy that high end, anyways, common usage won't require that power...
So, if you spend 2000 dollars on the camera (with or without kit lens), its good to spend or have about 3000 dollars reserved for investment on lenses...
Not hard and fast rule though... -
eheh well of course, no rules, agree.Originally posted by jetabt767400:Hmm, ya, I mean't that its better to spend in that ration, not really to buy that high end, anyways, common usage won't require that power...
So, if you spend 2000 dollars on the camera (with or without kit lens), its good to spend or have about 3000 dollars reserved for investment on lenses...
Not hard and fast rule though...
most of us start off with a consumer digicam that costs under 2k (in today's market) of which perhaps the kit lens is worth... $150??
bad ratio that...