My honest opinion? You'll learn faster with a DSLR.
Why? Simply because you get to shoot more with a DSLR and get to see your shots immediately. And you'd know more or less how to correct any faults.
So, try try try to get a DSLR?

It's just the different names given to it in different regions.
In Japan they call it the Kiss. In North America they call it the Rebel.
In Malaysia we call it the plain 1000D

---

Added on January 30, 2009, 10:10 pmJust a little correction there, Konica Minolta didn't pioneer the DSLR, in fact Kodak did.
But KM was the first to venture into the Autofocus SLR market, which is basically what the DSLR is based on

This post has been edited by joyyy: Jan 30 2009, 10:10 PM

Wrong analogy dude. You're only buying its product, not the company.
Has anyone thought of things this way? Sony bought over KM, their technology, their staff, their buildings. Nothing has changed except for the Management.
So in essence it's still KM technology with a Sony badge.
The only thing that makes a difference is RnD, something which Canon and Nikon are very aggressive in, and that's where Sony falls behind.

That is essentially the message I've been trying to send out all this while.
Their differences are subtle at best.
Unfortunately deaf ears are all I get =(

RM2700 can get you a new 40d body. 18-55mm kit lens is only about RM15x

I saw some forumers getting it for around RM2800. That was a few weeks back ago.

DSLR prices, unlike computer component prices aren't as volatile. They're more or less stable at any given time.
So I wouldn't bet on their prices suddenly going down.

The viewfinder is a gimmick. Since the viewfinder doesnt exactly display what the lens is displaying, you'll get a parallax if you compose your shot with the viewfinder, ie. chopped off heads, unwanted things included in the shot, etc.
Analogue dials do give a 'more professional' feel to the whole camera, I wont deny that
In terms of usability, the difference between the G10 and the LX3 is subtle. Both are user friendly, both can take superb shots, so at the end of the day, you still have to decide which one you like more. Go try both cameras out, hold them, shoot with them, see which one you prefer.

The focal range stated on compact cameras is the 35mm equivalent.
The 24mm on the LX3 is what you will get if you use a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera
It's actual focal range is 5.1-12.8mm. So it's approximately a 5x crop factor.

This post has been edited by joyyy: Feb 9 2009, 03:10 PM

On the other hand, weirdly, I thought the total opposite of yours.
The logic behind that was, with compacts getting ever so popular, everyone should be taking pictures using a compact. Why bother lugging around a big-assed camera?

Obviously when buying a camera, the bigger the image sensor is, the better results it produces.
In this case, the 1/1.72 is bigger than the 1/2.33, therefore the bigger sensor is better.
Other than that, you might want to note each camera's pixel density too. That is, the total amount of pixels divided by its sensor size(area).
In this case, you're looking for one that has a lower pixel density

Do look at the Canon Powershot G10.
It's good to listen to us forumers' advise, but it's also good for you to personally try the cameras out and see which one you like more.
You know, just giving you more choices (read headache).

What about a D90 with HD video over a D80 without HD video recording capabilities?





...But I don't take videos very often anyways

This post has been edited by joyyy: Feb 11 2009, 08:49 AM

As many things as possible lol!!!!1111

This post has been edited by joyyy: Feb 11 2009, 11:30 AM

There's no denying that the 450D is a better camera than the 1000D. But only just.
And the fact that it is that little bit better than the 1000D is justified by its extra retail price.
The question boils down on whether you need those extra features or not. Take me for example, I more or less only use the center AF point, so an extra 2 AF points wont do nuts for me.
For that extra cost, the 450D has a eye proximity sensor that turns the LCD off when you bring your face close to the camera. For me, I don't need that. The default setting in the camera is to turn the LCD off when the shutter button is pressed halfway.
Quality-wise, I would say both cameras are on par with each other. Sure, the 450D might capture just that little more detail as it has 2 extra megapixels. But I doubt it's noticable unless you pixel peep and scrutinize every last inch of the picture
At the end, if you feel like going for the 450D, by all means go for it, and vice versa.

If you're looking at image quality, there's no doubt the DSLR wins hands down.
It has a bigger sensor and lower pixel density(3.8 MP/cm² vs 24 MP/cm²) to give you cleaner shots.
Sure, the LX3's image quality might be on par with the A350's image quality when the LX3's ISO settings are low, but once you start bumping up the ISO, the LX3 struggles with noise.
But there's no denying that the LX3 performs superbly and is one of the top performers in its class, the high-end compacts.

More or less the same. Could be more expensive, could be cheaper.
But don't forget, the Canon has IS and superior optical performance as compared to the Tamron.
The Tamron suffers from severe CA and PF when used wide open. And I'm not joking about this.

What I think you should do is,
Get the kit, and a flash if you want, but don't get the 50mm prime yet.
The reason is because different people have different shooting styles.
Take me for example, I feel that the 50mm f/1.8 is too long for me, so my 50mm prime isn't really utilized. I'm more of the wide-angle shooter.
So, I'd suggest playing with the kit lens first and with time you'll more or less find out what kind of shooting style is more suited for you.

This post has been edited by joyyy: Feb 16 2009, 08:14 PM

http://www.google.com

Expensive, both of them are