joel_kantrowitz

Is the image stabilization worth the extra $75? Should other P&S cameras also

be in the running here (Fuji 31J)?

I am in the market for a compact digital camera. I have looked at Canon SD600,

SD700 & SD710. They all look great. I am just concerned about red eye.

Anyone have any thoughts/recommendations about these or others. Looking for

approx 6 megapixels and to spend approx $300. I already have a Canon Elan film

camera with a number of L lenses so I am not looking for a deluxe or big

digital camera.

I need a compact & lightweight tripod for my Canon Elan 7N. My

lenses include 17-40/4L & 70-210/4L. I don't expect to use anything

much heavier. I was hoping to spend less than $200. Any

recommendations?

I am replacing my old Canon AE1 & lenses with a Canon Elan & 17-

40/4L. I will buy a telezoom soon (probably 70-200/4L, though maybe

a zoom up to 300). That brings the discussion to macros: go with the

50, 100 or the MP-E65? I don't know much about the latter lens. Is

it practical and easy to use, or do you need special lighting &

tripods to ensure clear quality pics? I'm leaning towards the

100/2.8 macro, since its faster than my zooms will be and also a

portrait length lens, albeit a little long. I'd appreciate any

feedback, particualrly about the MP-E65.

I want to buy a portrait length lens. I have considered the canon

85mm/1.8 and the 100mm/2.8 macro. Is the 100mmm kinda long for

portraits? How far away do you have to stand from a subject to get a

5'6" person totally in the picture?

Thanks to everyone's input, I've decided on an Elan 7N, 17-40/4L & 70-

200/4L. Options to support low light and/or macro include 50/1.8,

50/2.5 macro, 85/1.8 & 100/2.8 macro. Any thoughts are these lens or

other approaches?

I plan on buying an Elan 7N. I take pics hiking and some family

pics. I was thinking of getting the 17-40/4L, plus a prime lens for

low light (50 or 85), plus the 70-200/4L. Is that a good strategy?

I've heard some say that the 17-40 is too wide. The other option is

to get the 24-70/2.8L plus the 70-200/4L, but I am concerned about

the weight of the 24-70. Any comments?

Thanks for all the responses. I am still leaning towards an Elan over the EOS3 and will put the extra $400 I save towards better lenses. A few more questions. What is the difference between Elan 7, 7E, 7N and 7 NE?

Back to the lense question: Most of my pics will be on vacation or hiking or family type shots. The way I see my options are as follows: spring for the 24-70/2.8L (approx $1075; 960g weight) or go with 17-40/4L ($600, weight 500g) plus 85/1.8 (not an L lense; $300, 425 g weight). The second option would be a little cheaper and the lense weight on my camera would be less, though the total weight of the 2 lenses would be the same as buying the 24-70. How do all these lenses compare? What do you all think?

I have had an old AE1 for 25 yrs and am looking to buy a new Canon

SLR. I have been evaluating the Elan 7EN and the EOS 3 cameras & the

24-85/3.5-4.5 & 24-70/2.8L lenses. I'm leaning towards the cheaper

body (Elan) and more expensive lens (2.8L). I know I know, its

heavy! Any other thought about this strategy? I assume I will be

using this lens 90% of the time. Is it too heavy for the Elan body?