A2 vs A200 vs 5D vs 7D

[marsha7]

While I am not a pro, it seems every camera is missing "something" that is often in another model, EXCEPT DSLRs...they do seem to offer almost everything, with FEWER compromises...

This may sound amateurish, but one thing that concerns me is weight and length of camera plus lens...the good part about the prosumer cameras (A2, A200) is that the lens is part of the package, included in the gross weight, and all review sites measure the depth from the front of the lens to the rear of the camera...

While the A2 is impressive (neocamera.com summarizes all the reviewers, and gives it a rating of Excellent, Unanimously), especially its viewfinder, it weighs more than the A200 ( which has some parts improved over the A2...how do I decide between an A2 or A200?)...

I am leading up to this...what will the complete weight and depth (length) of a 5D or a 7D camera with the 28-200 lens everyone refers to...the 5D seems to be a great DSLR for an amateur like me, and I could probably NEVER outgrow it, and the coverage of a 28-200 lens would be all I could ever need...

But with an A200 at 21 oz, and an A2 at 24 oz, what is the weight of 5D and 7D with this magic 28-200 lens, and how deep do they measure...who wants a camera 12 inches long

Thanks. :

[Alice Morrison]

Marsha,

7D is almost 2 lbs. by itself:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search

You're right to be worried about carrying lots of heavy gear. Personally, I feel that anything over 1 lb puts a camera into serious amateur or professional realm. I know: I have cameras that weight 2 and 3 lbs, and for daytrips, I turn to the compacts.

[Keith C]

Originally Posted by Pavel

"who wants a camera 12 inches long"
- guys of course

Size can be a problem but at some stage in your development as a photographer you will have to compromise on such issues. The size of a digital DSLR is needed to give versatility & quality. At present they are largely based on traditional film cameras & the ability to use existing 35 mm lenses dictates to a large extent weight & size.

The attempt by Olympus to introduce a new system which in theory should allow smaller bodies & lenses has still not really taken off & it means ditching existing 35mm equipment which naturally many are reluctant to do. Next year it may become more of an open system which allows the interchangeability of lenses from more manufacturers but those already committed to an existing system will tend to stay loyal & also save money by not having to re-equip.

Existing Minolta users can use their lenses & even newcomers ,t present,can take advantage of relatively inexpensive secondhand lenses. These lenses will become more difficult to find - so strike while the opportunity still exists. The main area of deficit lies in wide angle lenses & the new 11-18 mm Tamron based APS-C sensor compatible will be bought in large numbers. However those intending to get a FF model when it arrives should think twice about this lens & perhaps the Sigma 12-24 mm might be a better long-term purchase.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Originally Posted by marsha7

While I am not a pro, it seems every camera is missing "something" that is often in another model, EXCEPT DSLRs...they do seem to offer almost everything, with FEWER compromises...

This may sound amateurish, but one thing that concerns me is weight and length of camera plus lens...the good part about the prosumer cameras (A2, A200) is that the lens is part of the package, included in the gross weight, and all review sites measure the depth from the front of the lens to the rear of the camera...

While the A2 is impressive (neocamera.com summarizes all the reviewers, and gives it a rating of Excellent, Unanimously), especially its viewfinder, it weighs more than the A200 ( which has some parts improved over the A2...how do I decide between an A2 or A200?)...

I am leading up to this...what will the complete weight and depth (length) of a 5D or a 7D camera with the 28-200 lens everyone refers to...the 5D seems to be a great DSLR for an amateur like me, and I could probably NEVER outgrow it, and the coverage of a 28-200 lens would be all I could ever need...

But with an A200 at 21 oz, and an A2 at 24 oz, what is the weight of 5D and 7D with this magic 28-200 lens, and how deep do they measure...who wants a camera 12 inches long

Thanks. :

In the last 25 years, I've always had fully specced SLR's – 1 Canon and 4 Minolta's, consecutively, with big flashguns, 3/4 lenses, motordrives, filtersystems, the works!
I also had a back problem! No, seriously!
After an Oly 4040Z as a test, to cut my teeth on digital photography, I finally got a KonicaMinolta A2. Terrific cam! 28-400mm equivalent (8mp's make digital zoom very useful!) in a manageable 'package'. And I haven't had a back problem since!
So, unless you have a mule following you around everywhere, I would stay away from (d)SLR's!

After all: what good is a fantastically specced camera that sits at home in a dark cupboard because it really is a pain to schlepp around?

Have fun & good luck,
RS

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=11/32708123884.jpg&s=x12

[RJonsson]

Hey Marsha,

I would go with the A2 unless you are committed to Dslr's. There is no question that the image quality is better with DSLR, but the A2 is a great compact, full-feature camera yielding great results. Here is a curious article, it compares the A2 to a DSLR, which speaks volumns of the A2's abilities.http://www.neocamera.com/feature_dslr.html

As far as 5D vs. 7D, I think I would wait til the next generation 7D upgrade. If you must decide today, the 5D is a great value and the lenses would work with the eventual upgrade to 7D or whatever comes along.

Good fortune
RJ

[SGreen]

I've had my A2 for 1 & 1/2 yrs or so and I am more impressed the longer I use it. I was a little worried about investing too much in accessories and then having to move to Canon or Nikon if I became more serious, but the light went on recently. The advice is to carry a backup body and inexpensive backup lenses. Why bother when the A2 would make a great backup system, especially if KM updates the 7D as RJonsson says (it is getting behind). Get the A2 and enjoy it, and if you want to move on it will certainly have a second life.

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Rokcet Scientist

So, unless you have a mule following you around everywhere, I would stay away from (d)SLR's!

After all: what good is a fantastically specced camera that sits at home in a dark cupboard because it really is a pain to schlepp around?

Rokcet has hit on some of the downsides of having a dSLR system - they're big, they're heavy, they're expensive, and they're more complicated than your typical consumer digicam, including the likes of the A2 and A200. I don't know how many people who would have been better served by something smaller, lighter, and less expensive have been talked into buying big dSLR systems that get left in the closet.

This is one reason why I myself am only now considering a dSLR system. It is with reluctance that I give up the portability of something smaller and lighter, but I really do need the low light capability that a proper dSLR system would give me. (Notice that I didn't say "dSLR camera"; the lenses you choose are as important as the body in the system's performance.)

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by Keith C

The attempt by Olympus to introduce a new system which in theory should allow smaller bodies & lenses has still not really taken off & it means ditching existing 35mm equipment which naturally many are reluctant to do. Next year it may become more of an open system which allows the interchangeability of lenses from more manufacturers but those already committed to an existing system will tend to stay loyal & also save money by not having to re-equip.

Although you can use existing 35 mm lenses on dSLR cameras, typically their role will be different: because of the 1.5-1.6x crop factors for most dSLRs (including the 5D and 7D) when compared to a "full-frame" 24 x 36 mm imaging area, the role of these lenses will be shifted toward the telephoto end. You would use a 50 mm lens on a dSLR much as you would use an 80 mm portrait lens on a full-frame camera and so on. The upside is that the system becomes smaller and lighter, especially if you use a lot of telephoto stuff in your shooting. Your 12-inch-long camera would thus become perhaps 8 inches long instead. The smaller format also has some advantages for macros and extreme close-ups. The downside is that a true wideangle is hard to come by.

[edawn]

Hi marsha7,

May I ask, are you considering the purchase of your first digital camera? It sounds like you're debating whether or not your entry into the digital world should be with a more compact camera or with a move straight to a DSLR. Forgive me if I misunderstood, but I had the same debate with myself a few months ago. I ended up getting a compact (Canon Powershot S2 IS) last June, since I already had a film SLR. Once I got the digital, though, I admit the film camera has been sitting in the closet! I went through over 6,000 shots in about 3 months, took a couple classes on-line, learned a TON, and mostly learned that I was being hindered from continuing to learn by not having a DSLR.

I have the 5D, and it's definitely larger and heavier than carrying around the little Canon Powershot. I have a relatively small backpack camera bag that I use, so it's not difficult to transport my equipment. However, I haven't tried walking around the zoo, for example, with the 5D around my neck. I can forsee that being somewhat uncomfortable, but for me, the trade-off is having equipment that exceeds my current photographic abilities. I wanted something that I could grow into. When I get frustrated, it's usually because I need to learn something, not necessarily because my equipment is preventing me from going any farther. The flexibility of a DSLR cannot be beat, IMO. However, your decision really does depend on how often you'll be carrying your camera with you, in what circumstances, and what types of photos you hope to produce.

I currently have the KM 28-75 f/2.8 on my 5D (my chosen walkabout lens), and when fully extended, the camera and lens is 8 1/4" long. (Not extended the duo is 7" long.) The camera body is about 5" wide. This combo weighs nearly 2 pounds 15 ounces (so almost 3 pounds). The lens itself weighs nearly 21 oz. I think the 28-200 you spoke of weighs around 17 oz (?) and measures just over 3" long (?), so this would be a more compact combo.

The advice given you about buying the A2 and then keeping it as a compact back-up camera if you should decide to get a DSLR later is good advice. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much budget factors into this, but if you end up like me, then spending a few hundred dollars now on a compact and then wishing you had a DSLR in a few months could get expensive! How far do you want to go with your photography? If you think the 5D would be all you'd ever need, then why not just go for it? I know...the weight and size issue. (By the way, the 7D is definitely larger than the 5D, so that is one reason I didn't consider it. The 5D fits very nicely into my hand, isn't too light to feel flimsy, and has nice ergonomics with the placement of the buttons and dials, at least for me it does!)

I think it comes down to what you're willing to compromise on - carrying around a larger and heavier system for increased flexibility and quality (these factors also depend on what lenses you choose), OR carrying around a more compact camera (which you might carry more often because of the size) but perhaps miss out on some of the flexibility (low light shooting, different lenses for different situations, etc...) and quality (less noise, sharper optics, etc...).

Good luck in your decision! Whichever camera you choose, just enjoy it, use it a lot, and share some pics!

Elaine