On Monday 02 June 2003 14:56, Caveman wrote: > From my strictly personal pov, it looks to me to be a better > proposition than a DSLR. > And it's interesting to note who are the contenders in the digicam race: > Canon and Sony.
A better proposition for what use? I was just at a 12 hour race on Saturday (more to follow) and, because I was crewing for a team I didn't bring my film SLRs (LX and MX). Instead I took a few grab-shots with the Optio 330. Panning to catch moving cars on a track with a digicam is a hit and miss proposition. While i am happy with the results I got, with an SLR with negligable lag time (film or digital) I would have had fewer misses and more hits. Also, the manual focus on the Optio is a joke and the lag time is so high that I'd never be able to trap-shoot cars in a head on shot. The other reasons (for me) that a digicam is not a better proposition than a DSLR is lens selection and FPS. I shoot mostly normal to long telephoto, and while some digicams have long reach, they are simply not long enough for me. Being able to shoot at least 2 FPS for several seconds is also important to me. I know the Optio 330 has nothing on the G5 in terms of features and I agree that the G5 and G3 look like awesome cameras. I've seen samples from a G2 where the photographer reveresed a 55/1.8 SMC Takumar for some great macro shots (better than anything I've done on film). But I don't think I'd give up an interchangeable-lens DSLR for a digicam. I love my Optio for a film P&S replacement however. It all boils down to what works for you is best for you in a given situation. Christian
