Telephoto Question

[Mav]

The Panasonic you're talking about is $300 and you claim that you have to spend "seven" times as much to get the equivalent setup in a DSLR. That's $2100 (US) and is complete nonsense. A D40 with the 18-55 lens and a 70-300VR can be had for $862 from Adorama which is about one-third as much as you claim. Or skip the 70-300mm zoom and get a 300mm f/4 prime for about the same price which will offer superior quality at 300mm vs the zoom. Once again, there will be no comparison in terms of quality vs the P&S and at nowhere even remotely approaching the price you're claiming.

None of this gear is all that heavy. Just get a half decent bag. And yes, you will need to crank up the ISO when the light fades because the last time I checked animals don't tend to hold perfectly still. They tend to move around, and if there's even the slightest breeze which has foliage moving you'll need to freeze that too. There's no guarantee that VR or even a tripod will help you. Lenses stay current for decades, people are swapping out their gear all the time, and so there's really no reason to not buy used stuff. Plenty of DSLRs newbs do just that. Again, buying new is merely a luxury. And my point on nobody really using 500mm equivalent zooms applied more to wildlife shooters specifically, which is what the OP was specifically asking about.

 

[Socrates]

If you read carefully, Soc, you will see that it has.

And with a lot cheaper solution than 'your' VR lenses: superzoom all-in-one cameras with anti-shake.

Obviously I didn't see it.

Yes, you are proposing a "cheaper" solution. While you're at it, why not include the issues related to the dinky sensor size in the "superzoom all-in-one cameras?" There is, of course, a major difference between "cheaper" and "less expensive."

 

[Socrates]

And yes, you will need to crank up the ISO when the light fades because the last time I checked animals don't tend to hold perfectly still.

Unless you want to take pictures of dead animals!

 

[Socrates]

If "nobody with SLRs really uses [...] lenses in the 500mm equivalent range", then why do Nikon and Canon offer these?

What are the sales figures for those lenses. Are the figures sufficiently significant as to affect Mav's statement?

 

[Mav]

Unless you want to take pictures of dead animals!

 

[Alfred D.]

What are the sales figures for those lenses. Are the figures sufficiently significant as to affect Mav's statement?

'Significant' is a value judgement. What is 'significant'? Total revenue worldwide? Number of units shipped? Contribution to net profit? Etc., etc.
Nikon and Canon consider them 'significant' enough to put them in the formal line ups of their lenses. Thereby suggesting you can have them more or less 'off the shelf', or at least within a few weeks.
And isn't 'significant' in the end what only actual and wannabe users can really rate?
I am neither, BTW.

 

[Socrates]

'Significant' is a value judgement. What is 'significant'? Total revenue worldwide? Number of units shipped? Contribution to net profit? Etc., etc.
Nikon and Canon consider them 'significant' enough to put them in the formal line ups of their lenses. Thereby suggesting you can have them more or less 'off the shelf', or at least within a few weeks.
And isn't 'significant' in the end what only actual and wannabe users can really rate?
I am neither, BTW.

What are the sales figures and what is your value judgment?

 

[Alfred D.]

Originally Posted by Alfred D.
'Significant' is a value judgement. What is 'significant'? Total revenue worldwide? Number of units shipped? Contribution to net profit? Etc., etc.
Nikon and Canon consider them 'significant' enough to put them in the formal line ups of their lenses. Thereby suggesting you can have them more or less 'off the shelf', or at least within a few weeks.
And isn't 'significant' in the end what only actual and wannabe users can really rate?
I am neither, BTW.

What are the sales figures

Go ask Nikon and Canon...

and what is your value judgment?

Apparently you missed yet another bit, Soc: "isn't 'significant' in the end what only actual and wannabe users can really rate? I am neither, BTW." So I have no value judgement.
And if I had, it would be subjective. Like yours.

 

[manaheim]

...with automatic crappiness reduction and an anti-ugly filter...

Oh my god that is SO going in my sig. :lmao:

 

[KD5NRH]

Wannabe noob dSLR owners want new gear. Not second hand stuff.

Uhm, excuse me, but as a "wannabe noob dSLR owner," I'd rather have used gear and spend the savings on more of it; if I can spend, say, $300 on the body and random lens - plus whatever else the previous owner has that won't fit his new camera and throws in the box free, that leaves me a lot more for lenses, lights, tripod, etc. than if I spent $1,300 on the latest body, when the $300 camera was getting rave reviews and posting excellent photos on these same boards just a few years ago.

Out of the six cameras I have right now, only three were bought new, and two of those were $1 cheapies for pinhole conversions. The other new one (Samsung S730) was bought on clearance at about 40% off, and the three used (Minolta Maxxum 8000i, Canon S2 IS, and Ansco ShurShot Jr.) were purchased at significantly less than their new price (adjusted for inflation in the case of the ShurShot) and still take at the same quality they impressed users with when they were new.

I figure that I'll be too good for these cameras (and the used dSLR I'm looking for) about the time that enough people throw money at me that I'll break even on something fancy and new. Maybe that'll be never, but at least I won't have a pile of excessively devalued (by becoming "not new" just after I paid big money for it to be new) equipment laying around not making money.