Reveenka: So you got a huge lens, got a tripod to support it, find the lens to be useless without the tripod (which you have had to leave at home), and bought a P&S to remedy the situation? Seems to me like your equipment isn't meeting your needs. :)

Reveenka: I have a gripped 5D MkII with a 17-40mm, a 50mm f\1.4, and an 85mm f\1.8, and I'd bring them all to every event to make sure I had all my equipment available in case I needed it. Then I became a student at a college that requires the students to shoot analog during their freshman year. I had to buy new equipment - I got a Canon F1 and a 28mm f\2, and never bothered getting more lenses because I thought I wouldn't use the F1 after my freshman year anyway.

What I realized when I started using the F1 with my one lens was how much time I had spent worrying about equipment before, and how incredibly destructive that was to my progress as a photographer. Instead of thinking "which lens should I use to best capture this situation?" I started thinking "how can I best capture this situation with the equipment I have?", and my pictures became much better.

Now, I plan on selling all my lenses and use the money I make to buy a 24mm f\1.4L II. Alternately, I'd throw out Canon altogether and go for the Leica M9 system. The size of the F1 and the M9 are about the same, and I love it and find it way better than the bulky, gripped full-frame I'm currently using. However, neither are within reach of my wallet yet, so for the time being I'll use the 5D for actual work, and my F1 for school stuff.

I have a feeling I haven't really answered your post so much as I have gone off on a rant about Canon and the hassles of too much equipment, but I hope you'll excuse me. It's 3:00am and I should sleep. :)

hedwards: OTOH, the dragon fly picture earlier in the thread isn't one that I could have taken with my big camera, I just couldn't have gotten close enough.

hedwards: But, regardless of the lens I'm using I pretty much always use some sort of support because it makes the images that much more sharp and IS doesn't solve that problem.

Reveenka: I'm sure the equipment met your needs at some point, otherwise you probably wouldn't have gotten it. Are you looking to replace it now, though? If you like macro there are some really good lenses to choose between, but you'll still need that tripod.
If not macro, then the 85mm and 135mm would be excellent replacements. If you need a higher focal length, the 200mm is also pretty darn good, and both more compact and cheaper than the 70-200.

Reveenka: I usually try to not use either (tripods because I can't run around with them - IS because it belongs to higher focal lengths) as my job requires me to be extremely flexible, and so far that has worked fine. I'm usually smack dab in the middle of whatever's going on, so if my wide-open wideangles can't do the job on their own, I have my trusty flash to help me out.

Learning how to use a flash properly is something everyone who owns one should learn. Most people use it to light up scenes that are too dark, but they're really meant to even out the lighting so you aren't stuck with really hard shadows and a contrast you can't even fix in Photoshop.
There are easy ways to remedy the "all the people in my photos look like deers in headlight"-situation. ;)


EDIT:
Also, Zeiss is fantastic, hands down. You have to not mind manual focus, but it's easy to get used to. Don't let that scare you off from Zeiss lenses.

overread: hedwards - have you considered looking at the new micro 4/3rds "hybrid" cameras? The likes of the Olympus EP series or OMD series or the Panasonic G1series give you a smaller camera, smaller sensor, but with the similar controls as a DSLR. They even include interchangable lenses and the Olympus OMD and Panasonic G1 series have viewfinders (electronic, but still viewfinder positions); whilst the EP series has a slip on attachment (you lose the hotshoe though).

overread: I've my eye on getting one for when I want a lighter, smaller and more portable camera - esp because the crop factor means that I can pack a light 70-300mm or even 70-200mm type lens and get an angle of view around double those focal lengths. Great for wildlife and similar situation grabshots which, with a DSLR simply requires my to carry way too much for a light trip or when doing things other than photography.

hedwards: I really should get an external flash.

hedwards: Plus, I don't think you even get the option of professional glass either.

overread: I've my eye on getting one for when I want a lighter, smaller and more portable camera - esp because the crop factor means that I can pack a light 70-300mm or even 70-200mm type lens and get an angle of view around double those focal lengths.

hedwards: That's why I got my new camera late last year. It's light and features a damn long lens, it's not a real 840mm lens, but if you can ignore that, you can get some tight shots.

Reveenka: Agreed. ;)
Provided you learn how to use it properly, (and I have no doubt you will,) it will serve you well and reduce the amount of times you have to lug a tripod around.

Reveenka: Actually, you do. If my memory serves me right you can get a converter for Leica lenses.

Reveenka: I don't know what you require of image quality, but anything above 200mm can be fairly unwieldy even with IS and would probably make you use a tripod anyway. I require my images to be absolutely tack sharp, otherwise they get thrown away, so lenses above 200mm would be mostly useless even if I did want to use them. (But I don't. :p)

Reveenka: I haven't checked the specs for SX40HS - is any of that 840mm digital zoom?

hedwards: 4/3 was one of those things where I'd like to know what precisely they were thinking when they came up with that monstrosity. You get all of the disadvantages of a proper dSLR with the small sensor size of a P&S camera. Plus, I don't think you even get the option of professional glass either.

I'm sure there's a market for it, but then again, those people would be happy enough with a so called ZLR or bridge camera with proper controls.

That's why I got my new camera late last year. It's light and features a damn long lens, it's not a real 840mm lens, but if you can ignore that, you can get some tight shots.

overread: Far as I know the glass for the camera itself is probably around medium to upper in quality range (with one or two cheaper options). Plus the Oly ones comes with an in-camera vibration reduction (not quite as good as in lens, but does let you use it with any lens fitted).
Plus the flange distance is really tiny - so I know a few people who are using them coupled to regular prime lenses of other brands (often small primes rather than big ones - no point downsizing and then using a massive lens).
From what I can tell they've become popular as an alternative to the point and shoot/bridge cameras which often fall short in some areas (for me one big downside is that they lack a proper manual focusing option - electronic controlled manual focusing is - not that precise in my experiences).


But it is indeed horses for courses as to what option people end up going for.

hedwards: It's the same basic market as 110 was. I know somebody who actually has a 110 SLR, which is just nuts. We'll see if it has more staying power, but I'm skeptical about it having a market as it's not going to replace proper 35mm sized lenses and is too expensive to replace the P&S. Last time I looked into it, the prices weren't really any lower than going with a full dSLR body.

Yes, the lenses are cheaper, but ultimately, most people don't buy more than a couple and pros are likely to give 4/3 a pass for something beefier.

Which is why I think it's such a strange idea. The market will speak and there probably are some people for whom it makes sense. I suppose it may make sense for people that are traveling.

Right now I should really get outside as I've been at the computer all morning.

gooberking: 4/3 cameras have been very well received and well reviewed in some circles. I'm a little lagging on all the current reviews, but some people were quite serious about the form factor last time I checked.

They do have smaller sensors than DSLRs making them less ideal for low light, but they are also several times larger than most of the point and shoot class sensors without making the camera much larger. Something that actually gives them a good leg up over anything non-pro. I think camera phones are a better comparison to 110 than 4/3.

Yick 110. That stuff was a bloody nightmare from click to print.

hedwards: Ultimately though, until I see Nikon or Canon buying into it, I'm probably going ot remain skeptical.

Reveenka: Nikon already bought into it. See for yourself.

I'll answer your other post properly tomorrow - right now I'm too tired. :)

hedwards: I forgot about that, I don't generally look to closely at Nikon stuff. But, now that you mention it, I do remember seeing ads for those some months back.

overread: Nikon have indeed bought into it, but they also used an even smaller sensor than the M4/3rds and from what I gather many are less than impressed with what Nikon is offering over the higher end Olympus or Sony offerings.

That said whilst newer ones are high in price you can probably pick up a, still very good early EP series from Oly without too much cost.

The market pricing is a bit odd on them, but I think it works for targeting the more serious amateur who wants the "SLR" experience but without all the bulk; whilst also appealing to the DSLR/SLR user who has all they need and wants a quality point and shoot that is familiar to operate compared to their DSLR.