Canon Powershot S3 IS

[Sarien]

Not at all, I just want it to do the job. I want my camera's to take pictures, my ipods to play music and my computers to run Football Manager

Those were the days when men were men, and women were also men. Dogs laid down with Cats, Children were some small species of goat I believe. Doesn't matter, all that matters is that things were simple, sturdy, and witches were burned on sight.

[eehh]

$220 is a big difference if you consider that digital SLR camera is nearly 40% more expensive than the one he got. You have to consider if it's worth spending that extra cash. You also have to consider what winipcfg intends to use the camera for, not to mention his level of comfort with advanced photography.

i did just say that, didnt i? price and use.
but when you buy a camera that looks like a slr, is as big as a slr, and have nearly the same price. ok, for most people $220 is may be a lot of money, but when you first use close to 600 on a camera, 200 more is not that much..

To get the same versitility out of an SLR camera as the Powershot S80, you would need to buy some pretty fuckin' expensive lenses, and not to mention that SLRs are fucking chunky as hell. As opposed to the S80, which I can slip into my pocket, the Rebel SLR is easiest used when HUNG AROUND YOUR NECK. Tell me a person besides a professional photographer that wants to carry that burden and you can talk all you want. But I guaruntee you that most people would rather have a nice point and click with great abilities than an SLR.

you cant compare a s80 with a s3. s80, as you say, is a pocketcamera. s3 is nearly sized s a slr. so either winipcfg is a a professional photographer, or normal people also carry big cameras. (dont you have japanese tourists in your country?)
the lens doesnt have to be that fucking expencive. the canon 18-55mm (i think), that normaly comes with the canon slr, is more than good enough for a normal person. but yes, you may buy eg a sigma lens to more than $600.. i did that, and its amazing, but you dont need it. the differense between those are not that big. you may buy a fucking expencive zoom lens also. eg a 70-300mm, again from sigma. my experience is that i use the 18-50mm 95% of the time. you really dont need the zoom..

[Troll King]

i did just say that, didnt i? price and use.
but when you buy a camera that looks like a slr, is as big as a slr, and have nearly the same price. ok, for most people $220 is may be a lot of money, but when you first use close to 600 on a camera, 200 more is not that much..

And I just said that's still a 40% price increase. If it were a car and you're already spending about $15000, then yes, $200 isn't that much more, but take that same $15,000 and add 40%, you're now spending $21,000. You can't just look at the dollar difference, you have to also look at it relatively; 40% is too big enough of an increase that you can't say they're "nearly the same price".

[eehh]

And I just said that's still a 40% price increase. If it were a car and you're already spending about $15000, then yes, $200 isn't that much more, but take that same $15,000 and add 40%, you're now spending $21,000. You can't just look at the dollar difference, you have to also look at it relatively; 40% is too big enough of an increase that you can't say they're "nearly the same price".

but now we are talking about $200, and cameras, not cars.
i understand you point about the 40%, but its not the same when you compare % and $500 <=> $15000. (as $200 is not the same when you compare cameras and cars)

[Scurvy]

i dont understand why anybody, save somebody looking to enter a photograhy career, needs a top of the line camera. all you need is something that can capture a decent image, and then you can do whatever you want with it anyways in any basic image editing program. i have a fully manual 35mm canon from like 1975 and it works tremendously. i also have a $100 point and shoot thats like 3 years old that works fine, and using iPhoto or photoshop, i can create professional grade images. So i dont understand why amature photograhers need 15 megapixel camera's. you rich bastards....i'm majoring in photograhy and all i have is this shit camera from 1975.....

[Troll King]

but now we are talking about $200, and cameras, not cars.
i understand you point about the 40%, but its not the same when you compare % and $500 <=> $15000. (as $200 is not the same when you compare cameras and cars)

That's my point. When you're looking at cameras, a $200 difference IS a big deal. You said that $200 isn't that much of a difference, but in this case it was. I used the example of a car to show when $200 is just a drop in the ocean, but when you're talking camera equipment you have to really be able to justify spending that much more.