What do you think of this digital camera?

Question

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16830120043
looking for high end models...

is it worth the money to step up from "SLR-like" to full SLR?

Answer 1

The S3 is highly recommended for the price. Here's the conclusions from an in-depth review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/page14.asp
I used to use a mega-zoom Nikon model but I became very frustrated with its limitations. I was pretty demanding though - my previous experience was with a film SLR. Reading the specs, the S3 would be no different. Here's what you’re missing...
* The electronic viewfinder is too small to see details - it's only useful for determining the general composition.
* An electronic viewfinder also means you're constantly too late to press the shutter button. The camera takes 1/10th second to transmit the image to the viewfinder (vs. instantaneous with a dSLR). This is particularly frustrating with action shots.
* The wide end of the zoom wasn't wide enough for me. With landscapes, street photography and indoor stuff I was constantly trying to back up.
* The high ISO image quality was very poor. On paper the S3 goes up to ISO 800, but anything over ISO 400 is not recommended. With a dSLR you get clean images at ISO 800 and above. This enables indoor and night time photography without flash or tripod. (Image stabilization only mitigates camera shake, it's worthless for freezing the action.)
* The tiny sensor deprives you of creative control - no matter what aperture you select, you'll get massive depth of field. With a dSLR you can easily blow the foreground/ background out of focus to isolate your subject.
* The convenience of a mega-zoom lens comes at the expense of light sensitivity and image quality.
In all, I was thrilled to upgrade to a dSLR.

Answer 2

I would say this is a very nice high-end P&S, but I don't think it goes anywhere close to a real SLR. The fundamental difference between a P&S and an SLR is what you see in the view finder. Once you develop any interest into photography, you will need things like depth-of-field preview, finer increments in aperture and exposure time (for example--when using shutter priority, with a P&S--you get coarse adjustments like 1/8s, 1/4s, 1/2s; while an SLR, which is more photography oriented, will offer 1/8s, 1/7s, 1/6s, 1/5s, 1/4s... which frequently makes the difference between a "common" vs a "great" photo). Also in the view finder you see through the real optics and will clearly see what in focus, rather than counting on a bracket and an indicator. The list can go on and on...

Basically I think this is a good camera. If you don't have extensive photo experience and are not ready to invest the big money, it's worth to buy. But if you've been photoing for a while and have been thinking about an SLR, I'd at least check out some real SLRs before making a decision.

Answer 3

I personally prefer SLR cameras, the Canon Digital Rebel XT is a nice one. Canon did come out with the new model XTi but I did not see too many new features to justify the higher price.

Answer 4

Yes yes and yes! It is absolutely worth the money. I bought two advanced "SLR like" cameras before my first Nikon SLR. I only use the Nikon now.

Better quality, real viewfinder, better for low light, interchangeable lenses, faster operation, better auto focus, etc etc etc.

Just get one, you won't regret it.

Answer 5

If you're looking for a medium sized superzoom, it's one of the best. But-it has some stiff competition in the Sony H2/H6 and the Panasonics Fz50, FZ7.

I don't think I'd call this a 'high end' model. In order to get all that zoom (432mm of it, effective) you do sacrifice image quality by virtue of the very tiny ccd. But if you want 432mm- it's a great choice.