Help Me Pick a Camera

[josealford]

A few questions are in order:

What is you budget?  What is your experience level?  Do you have any 35mm SLR (Single lens reflex) or other sophisticated film photography experience in your background?  Do you understand manual control of f-Stop, shutter speed, and ISO (film speed/digital sensor sensitivity setting)?  What is the largest size of any print you'll be making of this series of prom party photographs?

Additionally:

How will the camera be most often used once this party is over?  You don't want to be stuck with a camera for which you have no real need later.

Off the top of my head, I'm already thinking you're going to need at a minimum a bridge camera with a hot shoe on which you can mount a more powerful flash than normally comes built into the camera.  As for the flash, that's also going to be a bit expensive as you'll need one that you can aim away from the subject for indirect lighting, and on top of that you'll need a diffuser (at least that's cheap) to fit over the flash to soften the light.  As for the lens in this situation, you'll want a bridge camera that's biased toward the wide angle side of the spectrum, and that has a fairly large aperture at the wide end.  A cheaper, simple point-and-shoot probably isn't going to do what you want here, but if you're budget-limited let us know so we can steer you toward something acceptable.

Beyond that, we're probably looking at a more expensive DSLR (or, at the least, one of the newer ILCs on the market) with a fast, wide-angle telephoto lens (which isn't cheap) and a rather sophisticated hot shoe-mounted flash.  But this is the costlier route and I'm not sure you want to go this way unless you're serious about photography and want to use your new camera for multiple applications beyond this one-time event.  Plus, I don't know how much time you're going to have to learn this camera and its controls to best advantage, and the learning curve is going to be steep to get the most out of it.

I can walk you through this decision and give you some likely prospects, but it's going to require a lot of back-and-forth, so you might want to just PM me.  I'm not sure everyone here wants to read through the whole discourse on how to make a decision of this magnitude.

First of all thanks for the guidance. Now talking about my experience I have used my friend's 12.3-MP DX-format CMOS (Nikon) I found it very friendly to use. I Have captured couple of pics using it and those were really good but i don't have any kind of knowledge about shutter speed or ISO. My budget is between $800-$1000 i can spend even more also if the camera would be useful to me in the future as well.

[geoffthomas]

I am looking forward to this discussion, as I had posted in the other thread.
I do have the Panasonic Lumix but have been considering the Canon Rebel for "more serious" picture taking.
Kinda in the same price range and so I am interested in the advice too.

[R. Doug]

Okay, so we've established that you're a relative but potentially enthusiastic novice who may decide to go further with photography later.  You have some DLSR experience with a friend's Nikon DX-series.  The upper limit of your budget is $1,000 (I'll disregard the lower end because we shouldn't be constrained by a lower limit if we can find something that will meet your needs below the $800 mark).  You also said that you're willing to go higher, but only if the chosen camera will be of some benefit to you after this particular assignment.  So, with all that in mind, let's get started.

First, let's review the most critical need—the prom party you'll be photographing next week.  I'm going to make some assumptions here—this is a nighttime event, probably indoors, under dim artificial lighting from multiple sources.  There will be dancing, which means potentially rapid movement, and you'll want to capture action with minimal blurring.  You'll probably be taking pictures of large groups of people in a confined space (or within flash distance), so you'll want a wide angle lens of at least 24mm if you can find it (that's measured in 35mm equivalency rather than actual focal length, so make sure you're comparing apples to apples here).  You'll also want some close-in portraits with a nicely defocused background, which means a telephoto equivalent of at least 105mm  You didn't mention the maximum size of any potential prints, so I'll assume a maximum of 8x12 inches.  That means you'll need a sensor with at least 3.8 megapixels and preferably up to around 5.8 megapixels (this gives you between 200 and 300 "pixels" per inch, which is plenty).  Of course, if you go with more megapixels (which you'll be doing anyway, as anything I suggest will have at least 10 megapixels), then you can do more aggressive cropping of the image later on a computer.

The above situation dictates the following in a camera:  A larger-size sensor for good low-light performance with minimal sensor "noise" (the digital equivalent to film "grain,"—the small, grainy botches you see in large prints of old).  You have limited experience with manual controls, so any camera will need to be program-heavy with a lot of presets for various photographic situations.  It'll also need a built-in hot-shoe for mounting an external flash to better control lighting, thus allowing you to become the master of your own photographic destiny on everything from shutter speeds to white balance (at least for closer shots of people out to about a range of thirty feet or so).  To go with that built-in hot-shoe, you'll need flash to mount onto it, so we have to include that into the price, and on the flash you'll want a diffuser Omni-Bounce makes a good, affordable one that'll only cost you around $10 or less.

So, we'll want a camera with good resolution and low noise through at least ISO 400, and preferably up to ISO 800 or even higher.  We'll want to accompany that with a telephoto lens that zooms from 24mm (ultra-wide angle) to at least 105mm (mild telephoto) with an aperture (lens width—the wider the lens, the more light it gathers) of at least f2.8, but we may have to go up to f4.0 (the larger the number, the narrower the lens) to keep within budget.  We'll want to set all this with an external flash, and preferably one on which the head swivels up (and left and right if you can afford it) so you can bounce the flash for more natural indirect lighting.  That'll run an additional $50 up to $200 for a good one.  I'd be inclined to budget in at least $150 for this, which brings our camera budget down to around $850.  So, here goes:

Compact cameras (with the added bonus of being able to shoot in Raw format):

Canon Powershot G12 (but the lens is a 28mm-140mm zoom, and may not be wide enough for your needs on this shoot; small sensor; good aperture at wide angle—f2.8-f4.5).  $380 (all prices are shop-around prices)
Nikon Coolpix 7100 (Same problem—28mm-200mm; good aperture on the wide side—f2.8-f5.6; small sensor).  $404
Olympus XZ-1 (28mm-112mm; great aperture—f1.8-f2.5; larger sensor).  $414
Panasonic LX5 (24mm-90mm, the first camera listed with enough wide angle, but limited on the telephoto; excellent aperture—f2.0-f3.3; larger sensor)  $348

Interchangeable Lens Cameras (ILCs—one step below a DSLR; these cameras will be more versatile in the future, but right now lens availability may be limited):

Olympus Pen series—$500 to $900 MSRP with kit lens (28mm-84mm f3.5-f5.6)
Panasonic Compact System Cameras—$500 to $800 MSRP with kit lens (28mm-84mm f3.5-f5.6)
Sony Alpha NEX series—$500 to $850 MSRP with kit lens (27mm-82.5mm f3.5-f5.6, but you can get a 24mm f2.8 lens with no telephoto capability); largest sensor so far—APS-C size; no hot-shoe, so no external flash capability—a deal breaker for your above application, in my view.

Digital Single Lens Reflex Cameras (DSLR)

There are a whole slew of cameras from which to pick in this field, with any lens you'll need and just about any price range you can afford.  The big three in this field are Sony, Canon, and Nikon, with some great offerings also coming from Olympus and Pentax.  I'm a Canon man from way back, but I do have to say that the current leader in innovation is Sony with their new SLT series—not really a DSLR, and not strictly an ILC, but rather something in between.  The base-model SLT-A35 with two kit lenses (27mm-82.5mm f3.5-f5.6 and 82.5mm-300mm f/4-5.6—again, I've converted all focal lengths to their 35mm equivalent for comparison) has an MSRP of $900.  But you can get comparable capabilities for a lesser price from either Canon or Nikon.  In this range of cameras, just shop for the features you want.

[R. Doug]

Forgot to add something.  Advantages and disadvantages to each camera category are as follow:

Compact cameras:

Pros:

• Very compact and easy to haul around all day with minimal effort; easy to hide away in a small bag or purse.
  

Cons:

• Smaller sensors, more prone to noise at higher ISO settings in dim light situations.

• Limited by attached lens in most cases (most are in the 4x to 5x range), although sometimes (depending on the make/model) there are add-on lenses that increase wide-angle and telephoto capability . . . but at the cost of aperture (lens speed/light gathering capability).

• Generally less sophisticated, but usually have a good, wide-ranging set of scene modes from which to select.

ILCs:

Pros:

• Larger sensors.  Indeed, the Sony NEX uses an APS-C sized sensor common to most DSLRs.

• Fairly compact and easy to carry around, especially when compared to heavier, bulkier DSLRs.

• Good range of scene modes.

Cons:

• Limited lens selection, especially on the wide-angle side.

• New technology/concept/design that still isn't a proven seller in the marketplace, although I think this segment will catch on as it has a definite niche.

• Still pricey for the capabilities you'll get.

DSLRs:

Pros:

• The most versatile of the lot.  Everything from extensive manual control to abundant preset scene modes.  But, ironically, the more professional/upscale the model, the fewer scene modes you'll get, as this segment is geared toward the truly experienced photographer who doesn't normally need all those scene modes to get the most out of the camera.

• Huge range of lenses, flashes, and other accessories not only from the primary vendor but also aftermarket manufacturers as well.

• Best ISO sensitivity by far.

• Very competitive market segment, so you get a lot of camera for the money.

• This is the type camera you purchase if you want to learn and get more involved in photography later.  Your system and capabilities can grow to suit your future needs.

Cons:

• Big, bulky, hard to lug around all day.  No way you're going to hide these babies.

• Additional lenses aren't cheap, especially if you buy really good glass (and you should always buy the best glass you can, especially as the megapixel rating goes up—the high resolution of most of these cameras will expose inferior lenses pretty quickly).  On the upside, you can get some really quality glass from third-party vendors at up to half the cost of a comparable OEM lens
  

• Once you pick a system, you're locked into it for probably life unless you win the lottery.  A lens collection for, say, a Canon makes it just far too expensive to later on switch to a Sony or Nikon system.  Choose wisely before you make the plunge.  Keep in mind the company's record for innovation, support, and other factors before you commit.
  

• You'll find yourself upgrading the camera body every few years to keep up with technology, but at least your lenses should continue to work with future upgrades for years to come.  Be prepared to purchase a new body at least every other generation.  For example, I have a Canon EOS 5D Mark I I purchased in 2006, and it'll be replaced when the Mark III comes out this spring.  That's $2,500 down the drain after less than six years of use.  But most amateurs don't have that expensive a camera body, so that's an exaggerated example.

[sebat]

My 2 cents, for what it's worth....
Personally, I wouldn't purchase anything but a Canon or a Nikon.  It doesn't matter if you decide on a "point and shoot" or a DSLR the lens quality of these two brands are by far superior and you can't go wrong with either.

• You'll find yourself upgrading the camera body every few years to keep up with technology, but at least your lenses should continue to work with future upgrades for years to come.  Be prepared to purchase a new body at least every other generation.  For example, I have a Canon EOS 5D Mark I I purchased in 2006, and it'll be replaced when the Mark III comes out this spring.  That's $2,500 down the drain after less than six years of use.  But most amateurs don't have that expensive a camera body, so that's an exaggerated example.

I'll second this...

If your going to invest in a DSLR, you need to pick a brand and stick to it.  I went with a Canon Rebel.  Started with the Rebel XTi, then T1i and just upgraded to the T3i.  I've got all my lenses but have upgraded my basic lens each time so haven't purchased the "body only" with each upgrade.  I've had a lot of luck reselling on ebay.  Each upgrade has only ended up costing my around $350 after selling off my old camera.

[R. Doug]

My 2 cents, for what it's worth....
Personally, I wouldn't purchase anything but a Canon or a Nikon.  It doesn't matter if you decide on a "point and shoot" or a DSLR the lens quality of these two brands are by far superior and you can't go wrong with either.

Well, you're going to get a lot of arguments on this one.  The Panasonic point-and-shoots, for example, use Leica-made lenses that so far not even Canon or Nikon have been able to approach in resolution and quality in that market segment.  Pentax lenses were for years considered superior to both Canon and Nikon back when those lenses were marketed under the Takumar name.  And today, third-party lens makers frequently come out with lenses that not only meet, but actually beat Canon and Nikon in independent testing on everything from resolution to barrel- and pincushion-distortion and vignetting . . . and they do that at frequently lower prices.  As for Sony, while it may appear that they're Johnny-come-lately to the camera field, you have to remember that they bought out the camera line from Minolta—one of the most respected names in the field at one time—which is why older Minolta lenses will attach to the current crop of Sony DSLR cameras.  Indeed, Nikon's sensors were up until last year all manufactured by Sony, and some of them still are.  Today, Sony is considered by many (including old Canon diehard me) to be the most innovative camera maker in the field.  Their new Alpha SLT series has no Canon or Nikon equivalent (and probably won't for a couple of years), and their NEX ILC line is the first and currently only camera to mate the APS-C DSLR sensor to a smaller, much more compact body that forsakes the flipping mirror setup of the DSLR in favor of a much lighter and less bulky electronic viewfinder system.

Indeed, if pressed, I would simply have to list Nikon a distant third behind Sony and Canon in everything from design to innovation, but that's just my opinion.

[sebat]

Well, you're going to get a lot of arguments on this one.  The Panasonic point-and-shoots, for example, use Leica-made lenses that so far not even Canon or Nikon have been able to approach in resolution and quality in that market segment.  Pentax lenses were for years considered superior to both Canon and Nikon back when those lenses were marketed under the Takumar name.  And today, third-party lens makers frequently come out with lenses that not only meet, but actually beat Canon and Nikon in independent testing on everything from resolution to barrel- and pincushion-distortion and vignetting . . . and they do that at frequently lower prices.  As for Sony, while it may appear that they're Johnny-come-lately to the camera field, you have to remember that they bought out the camera line from Minolta—one of the most respected names in the field at one time—which is why older Minolta lenses will attach to the current crop of Sony DSLR cameras.  Indeed, Nikon's sensors were up until last year all manufactured by Sony, and some of them still are.  Today, Sony is considered by many (including old Canon diehard me) to be the most innovative camera maker in the field.  Their new Alpha SLT series has no Canon or Nikon equivalent (and probably won't for a couple of years), and their NEX ILC line is the first and currently only camera to mate the APS-C DSLR sensor to a smaller, much more compact body that forsakes the flipping mirror setup of the DSLR in favor of a much lighter and less bulky electronic viewfinder system.

Indeed, if pressed, I would simply have to list Nikon a distant third behind Sony and Canon in everything from design to innovation, but that's just my opinion.

You may be the authority on cameras and with all the info you have put forth I have no desire to argue or disagree with you.  Sony, Panasonic and Pentax may be fantastic but I'll stick with my Canon.

My father a professional photographer, swears by Nikon.  My cousin another professional photographer, swears by Canon.  It continues to be a big argument in our family.   Neither will ever change the others mind. 

I had an interesting experience with an Olympus....
Around 6 years ago, I purchased a Olympus 8mp point and shoot.  I had it for 4 months.  I never printed any of the pictures I shot but the photos looked great on the computer and I was very happy with it.  That camera was stolen and I replaced it with an 8mp Canon point and shoot. When I finally decided to print some of the pictures, I did a large printing of photos from both of the cameras at the same time.  The scenic shots with both cameras were beautiful!  Faces in candids shot with the Olympus were slightly distorted where they were sharp with the Canon.  Both looked fine on the computer screen.  Whoever stole that camera did me a big favor!

[The Hooded Claw]

I'm going to try to avoid a lengthy lecture (added later--I failed!) like I'm prone to do on this subject, the following is my subjective opinion and advice.  Whichever camera you choose will be "wrong" for some situations, there is no perfect choice.

The short version is that a single lens reflex (SLR) camera will do vastly better than any "all in one" camera for the low-light situation that you describe.  If doing a good job at this event is top priority, regardless of cost or usefulness of the camera later, then that is the way to go.  And it's also a good way to go if you are confident you'll have an ongoing interest in photography that will justify the large upfront investment.  Downsides of the SLR are that they are heavy and bulky, lenses tend to be rather specialized and expensive, and they intimidate people and make them self-conscious.  When you travel with an SLR, it is bulky to carry, always present dangling around your neck on a strap, and is an attractive target for thieves.  I count myself among the photography-obsessed, and have done this for years, though I'm moving away from it in favor of a smaller camera that is less capable but vastly more convenient and attracts less attention.

In spite of the superiority of an SLR for that purpose, you may want to get a smaller all-in-one camera simply because it is so much easier to carry, less expensive (and less at risk if you drop it or if it is stolen), and less intimidating to your subjects.  Someone mentioned the Panasonic LX-5, it is a couple of years old, and I haven't used it, but it has a very strong reputation as a fine camera in its class.  I suspect you'd be happy with it.  I've recently bought a Canon S100 and love it.  When I went to Washington DC and to Miami the last couple of months, I left my big SLR kit at home and just took it, and never regretted the choice even once.  The S100 uses a new sensor and processor, and Canon claims it does better in low light than previous SLRs.  Their hype is right in a limited way, but it is still significantly inferior to even a budget SLR in low light.  In most outdoor daylight settings it will do 90 or 95% as well as an SLR.

Someone mentioned ILCs.  They are new and fashionable, but I have no experience.  My impression is that they have some of the advantages of an SLR, but are nearly as bulky to carry, so I'd rather just use my SLR kit and be done with it.  That's not based on real-world experience and may be wrong.  (added later--I've since got some experience, and yes it is wrong)  Another risk is that since they are new, if they end up not being popular, some or all manufacturers may stop supporting them.

My opinion on SLRs is that brand doesn't matter tremendously unless you want to do something specialized like high end nature photography.  I recommend sticking with Nikon or Canon, but I can't come up with a justification for the recommendation that would get broad acceptance.  From time to time, one brand will be ahead in technology for awhile, but that changes every couple of years and shouldn't be a consideration.   I am locked into Canon because I have a large kit of equipment from them, but the fact that you have a Nikon-shooting friend may be an argument for you to go with Nikon--When friends or strangers ask me for camera help, I usually do my best to help them, but I usually do a lot better for the ones shooting Canon because Canon tends to use common design features across many different models of their camera.  Your Nikon-shooting friend will be better able to help you with Nikon SLRs.  for all in one cameras, that's less important, brand doesn't seem to make things as different.

My advice would be that if you want an SLR, I'd go with a basic model of most any of the major brands.  I suspect you'd be happier in the long run getting a newer model rather than saving a few bucks on an older generation, digital cameras right now are like computers were through much of the 80s and 90s with significant improvements in each generation.  For a Canon, I'd get one of the Digital Rebel models, probably with an 18-55 IS kit lens (IS means "Image Stabilized" in the Canon universe--The Nikon equivalent is VR.  Suffice to say that you want your lenses to have this).  To get the best possible shots at the party, you'll do a lot better with an external flash that you can mount on top of the camera and use with a diffuser or possibly bounce off of a low white ceiling, but this will be disruptive to the party and make your subjects more self-conscious and prone to artificially pose.  Someone suggested you'd like to have a longer lens for portrait shots, and I agree.  But with your budget and the situation, I'd meet that need by cropping some of my shots with my shorter lens, rather than trying to carry a larger telephoto lens and switch back and forth.  If you really wanted the longer lens, the Canon 17-85 IS would be an option, but it is more expensive and in some ways not as good a lens as the 18-55 IS I mentioned.  I assume Nikon has equivalent kit available, but don't know their choices enough to mention anything specific.

If you get a smaller all in one camera, you have a LOT more choices.  Two that I'd recommend are the S100 (which I bought for myself) or the Panasonic LX-5 as mentioned.  These are not the only good choices however.  The S100 is very small compared to any of the competition with similar capabilities, I can actually fit it in my front jeans pocket without women asking if I am glad to see them.  I like being able to put it away and not be identified as a camera-carrying tourist when traveling.  The LX-5 has a better lens but is significantly larger.  A website called dpreview.com has excellent and detailed camera reviews.  Again, I recommend getting something newer rather than saving a few bucks on an older model.  One advantage of going with this over the SLR is that even if you become an avid photo hobbyist and choose to get an SLR later you will probably want a small camera like this for casual use, so this camera would still be useful.  It will always be much inferior to an SLR indoors, however.

For what it is worth, you may want to look here:

http://www.kindleboards.com/index.php/topic,89461.msg1413935.html#msg1413935

Here and on the succeeding couple of pages of the  thread, I posted some pictures of a KB meetup.  These were taken with my S100 in a poorly-lit food court without flash, and frankly the camera was at the limit of its capabilities.  Some of the shots of rapidly moving people obviously had motion blur.  I just don't like to use flash for causal shots like this, I feel it kills the mood.  These would be better if I'd edited them on a computer, but they were uploaded straight out of my camera from a hotel room!  Betsy posted one shot of me holding my S100 and you can see the small size, and see how another camera performed in the same situation.

Finally, is there any possibility your Nikon SLR shooting friend could attend this event and bring his SLR?

[The Hooded Claw]

Almost forgot, whatever you choose, get it and use it to take some practice shots in an environment similar to the party you're wanting to photograph.  Look at the photos carefully on the computer before the party and see what you learn about what you and the camera can and can't do.

[josealford]

Thanks a lot for the guidance by all of you..
I never expected such response, thanks a lot guys.. A big big appreciation to R. Doug..

Finally i purchased Sony Alpha NEX-C3 16.2MP camera.. and its awesome(until i handle it properly )
The thing that most attracted me was the image enhancing APS-C size sensor. Currently my hands are not perfect on it but will make it soon.

Waiting for your reaction whether i have selected the correct one or not

[R. Doug]

Looks as if you picked well:  DPReview of the NEX-C3

My only reservation is, will the flash be powerful enough for your upcoming prom party?

Other than that, this camera should serve you very well for almost anything else you want to do with it in the future.  In the meantime, get out the manual and practice, practice, practice.  There will be no time to experiment at that party.

[telracs]

glad everyone was able to help.

now post some pictures for us to enjoy!

[TexasGirl]

I'm going to jump in here with one small suggestion since you're shooting something that can't be redone, and on the fly.

I have been a pro photog for 13 years, and one thing I find fun for shoots like this is an Eye Fi card. I don't use it when I'm doing video, as it's too slow, or for studio or portrait work, but for stills at events, you can shoot on this card, and use wi fi to send the shots wirelessly to a computer without an expensive set up (the cards are $40-$100). So when I do on location work at parties or events, I will set up a computer with a big screen, and what I'm shooting will go to the computer as I shoot. The people at the party have a great time seeing the shots as they come, and it also is a quick check for me as the photographer to make sure things are looking good as I go. You won't notice pixelation or discoloration from using high ISOs on your LCD, nor will you notice out of focus or slightly blurred shots.

Plus it makes me think about a shot before I take it, knowing it's going to be seen. I'm more careful, and this makes post-production go faster.

I concur that a Rebel set up or other intro DSLR will serve you well for growing as a photographer. I've taught beginner classes many years, and it's wonderful to see people getting out of auto and program modes over time.

[dori chatelain]

We have a canon rebel dslr and we love it. It is actually my husbands camera but we all use it. He wants to get another one so we have 2. I have a canon powershot s3IS It is a nice camera nd takes nice pictures. I really like the slr though it has way more settings and you can change the lens. but for what the powershot is it do good pics. I like to use it more right now because the husband has all these extra stuff on his and it is way to heavy for a daily camera for me but when I want to use it for stuff my powershot doesn't do I use his.

We will never go with anything other than the canon. we have had canons for years. and I wish we would have gotten a canon camcorder instead of the sony. but after spending $899 on it we just can't go out and buy another one. so it sits there more than it is used.

[R. Doug]

Dori, might I suggest that you look into the soon to be released Canon G1X.  It has many of the capabilities of a newer DSLR, but with a fixed lens in a fairly compact body.  Don't get one yet, as they've not been independently tested and I've seen some concern about edge of image sharpness on the prototype.  But if it pans out, this looks to be a real winner—large sensor with good ISO response (larger than micro four thirds, a tad smaller than APS-C, HD movie capability, raw shooting capability, an somewhat adequate zoom range (28-112 in 35mm equivalent), and DSLR-type controls.

Here's the DPReview Hand-On Preview

[kahoolawe]

I just picked up a Nikon D3000 refurbished for $279.00 total.
I got it to travel with and use as a daily carry and to back up my D90.
I love it! I shot at 1600 ISO with it and found very little noise.

[The Hooded Claw]

Finally i purchased Sony Alpha NEX-C3 16.2MP camera.. and its awesome(until i handle it properly )
The thing that most attracted me was the image enhancing APS-C size sensor. Currently my hands are not perfect on it but will make it soon.

I had forgotten about this outcome, and it is funny...I wanted something smaller than my DSLR, but with a large sensor for low-light shooting.  I was interested in the Canon G1X mentioned by R.Doug, but after reading some comparisons, and about the size of lenses, I decided to go with the NEX system myself!  I am particularly interested in the NEX-7, and probably wouldn't have gone with NEX if it wasn't coming out (I need a viewfinder, too many situations where shooting with a big LCD on back doesn't work).  But I always want to have a second camera body for my "big trips" overseas and to remote places, so for a backup camera, and an interim measure till Sony can produce enough Nex-7s to put one in my hand, I bought....(drum roll, please)....a NEX C-3!  

I've only had it for about ten days.  I'll be getting rid of much of my Canon gear that I'd use when traveling, but keeping the big telephoto lens and my macro lenses to continue to use on my Canon DSLR.  The Sony system just doesn't have those sort of capabilities yet, and possibly never will.

I love it with the 18-200mm lens, I suspect that lens is going to stay on the camera most of the time.  I am hoping to get a NEX-7 before a trip in about two weeks, but if I don't, the C3 will have to do for this trip.

[R. Doug]

Ew.  I'm envious.  Do love the idea of the NEX series in general, and the NEX 7 in particular.  But right now I'm saving my pennies for the (rumored) upcoming release of the EOS 5D Mark III to replace my Mark 1.

[The Hooded Claw]

Ew.  I'm envious.  Do love the idea of the NEX series in general, and the NEX 7 in particular.  But right now I'm saving my pennies for the (rumored) upcoming release of the EOS 5D Mark III to replace my Mark 1.

I have a 5D Mark II, and it is gonna soldier on for awhile as my "big camera".  The Nex 7 and an 18-200mm lens equal to 27 to 300mm in 35mm terms are actually smaller than my 5D and the 24-105 lens that has been my go-to lens for general travel picture taking.  When I saw the size of the 18-200mm lens, I thought "Too bad they don't have a camera with an integrated viewfinder".  I didn't want a "bolt-on" viewfinder that I would quickly leave in a hotel room and lose.  Then I found out about the NEX 7 having a viewfinder, and it was all over.  Nex lens selection is limited and the autofocus is on the slow side, so I'm keeping my Canon macro gear and supertelephoto lens, but they won't travel unless I'm going someplace where I have a strong need for them.  I'm keeping the little S100 pocket camera for when I literally want only as much camera as I can stuff out of sight in my front jeans pocket.

But I'll envy your Mark III when you get it!