jeff_bubis

<p>I'm a huge fan of the Monostats. I have a CF model and use it far more than often than my tripod. It's lighter, easier to travel with, and as effective as a tripod in about 90% of situations that I experience. To keep weight/size down, I travel with my Monostat, a Gorillapod, and a single ball head. I can't remember the last time I took a long trip with my tripod... It was probably at least 8 years ago.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have to second the Zagg InvisiShield. It protects the top screen, too.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, CHDK is not yet available for the D10. I can't wait until it is, though.</p>

<p>http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/D10</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This is the first competition for the 17-55/2.8. No doubt it will be cheaper... The stabilization was important to me, but if it were available when I bought mine, I would definitely have considered going with the Tamron.</p>

<p>I've been trying to find an extra Canon D10 strap mount but have had no luck. Does anyone know where I might be able to get one? I am aware that it is available with the accessory kit - but that costs $100 and includes accessories I don't want or need. Thanks in advance.<br>

j</p>

<p>I agree with Rich Simmons. For what it costs, it's worth it. I like having a built-in flash available for fill-flash, but the harshness has always been the problem. The Puffer helps a lot with this. In the spectrum of photography doodads, it's one of the cheaper ones. Definitely worth the ~$20 it'll cost you to get.</p>

<p>I've got a Panasonic LX-3, which is fantastic - though the zoom isn't quite what you're wanting. For true pocket use, though, I take a Canon SD900. The latter is a true P&S, though, and provides little in the way of manual control. The Panasonic is as good as a compact gets in low light due to it's f2.0-2.8 aperture across all ranges and can do long exposures. I think it's a great compromise.</p>

<p>Go for a Monostat (http://www.monostat.us/). They're awesome. They've got this pivoting foot which I don't believe is available on others. They cost a bit more, but I love mine.</p>

<p>I've got a D10 and an SD900 with an underwater housing. The advantage to the D10 is that you'll have sound on your movies (if you shoot any). The quality of the photos on both are fantastic. I like the housing because it protects the LCD well, but it is a bit of a nuisance. If I had to buy only one camera, I'd give some serious consideration to Scott Ferris' suggestion of a G10 with a housing. In my experience, the bags just aren't worth it. If you don't purchase a camera tested rated for use underwater, I would buy a housing made specifically for your camera. Flash is potentially an issue with all of the P&S's under water, though I think the D10 is a great compromise. If this were my only camera, though, I'm not certain I would have purchased it... It's bulky and lacks a good wide angle. I also prefer shooting in RAW, which it lacks. That being said, though, it's probably the best compromise in features, as its photos are fantastic.</p>

<p>Yes. That's exactly what I do. Because of the issue you noted, though, I keep a backup of all the digital files so that if/when the capability to burn to Bluray comes to the Mac, I'll be able to go back and redo everything if I want.</p>

<p>I use a Mac and import mine to iMovie and burn through to iDVD. Works like a charm, but while it can manipulate and edit the movie as HD, it will ultimately burn it in standard def. If you have an AppleTV (or any home media server), though, it should play it in HD.</p>

<p>j</p>

<p>I tend to agree with Andrew Lynn with regard to pods and P&S's... That being said, I carry a Gorilla Pod with me wherever I take my camera bag. I got the big one so I can use it with my dSLR, as well. That thing is worth every cent as it's small, versatile, and cheap.</p>

<p>There have been many great contributions on this question. All I can say is that I had a similar conflict. The reasons to go for the 17-55 boiled down to:<br>

1) IQ<br>

2) IS<br>

3) f2.8<br>

4) the extra 15 mm</p>

<p>The only reasons I could think of to put the 17-40 on my 40D were:<br>

1) the red ring<br>

2) dust/weather proofing<br>

3) build</p>

<p>In the end, I know that a red ring isn't required to make a great photo. I have no complaints about the build of the 17-55. It's plastic, but not cheaply made. I'm not frequently using it environments where the seals are really important.<br>

I've never regretted my decision. The 17-55 is such a great lens that it, alone, justifies keeping a crop sensor camera. You can't go wrong with it.</p>

<p>I have a Panasonic LX-3 which I love - but it isn't pocketable. I also have a Canon SD900, which is <em>very</em> pocketable. I miss RAW and manual controls on the SD900 (not to mention the Leica 2.0-2.8 lens), but otherwise it's a fantastic camera and would highly recommend it.</p>

<p>On a crop body, the 17-55 is hard to beat.</p>

<p>It's the story of my life... I've been looking for the same lens. Amazon has it, but the price is up to $1000, which I would never spend on it. Went through the same thing when I went to buy my LX-3... (Still can't find the case at a reasonable price...) I'm going to hold out for now. Good luck!</p>

<p>I also use RAW exclusively... The only drawback for me is the lack of Aperture compatibility for the Panasonic RAW format... As a consequence, I use Lightroom as a workflow manager for all the files that come off the camera, and use Aperture for my DSLR files.</p>

<p>If you need it now, go for the LX-3. I have one and love it. That EP-1, though... It looks fantastic and I can't wait to get my hands on one to check it out for myself.</p>

<p>70-200 either f4 or f2.8 with IS or 100-400 IS. Both are fantastic lenses. The 70-200 is a little easier to zoom on the fly, though. I agree with Luis G and do not think a fixed focal length lens is the way to go for an air show.</p>

<p>I'm another huge fan of the 70-200mm range. I use a Canon 2.8 with IS and have used it alone and used it with extension tubes. I have a 40D, as well, and have had great success with this combo - partially due to the crop factor, and partially due to the frame rate. In my experience, a 100mm lens won't give you enough reach and a tripod is utterly useless (hence the IS). </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It does however mean that the LX3 will not fit in the pretty DLux4 case", the DLUX4 case is a holster case, while LX3 has a LTM Leica style eveready case, which, imo is more convenient.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only if you can find one, Martin. Have been wanting one for months, since I got my LX-3... I love the case, but can't find it in stock anywhere!</p>

<p>I'm using an LX-3 for this and have found that it takes fantastic RAW macro shots. Often I can get them at ISO 80. When printed, I find it hard to tell the difference between shots from the Panny and from my 40D.</p>

<p>I've had an LX-3 for about 3 months. This was my first Panasonic, and the interface and lack of a viewfinder took a bit of getting used to. I continue to be disappointed in the lack of support for the RAW files in Aperture. As I've gotten used to the camera, though, my shots have steadily improved. I am genuinely impressed by it. It is not a replacement for a DSLR, but it's a whole lot easier to carry around when I don't want or need the extra weight. For macros, in particular, it's fantastic.<br>

For samples and info, I would check here:<br>

<a href="http://www.lx3-photography.com/">http://www.lx3-photography.com/</a><br>

Given current prices, I'd go with the Leica, as the included software is better. I paid $407 for my LX-3 when I bought it on Amazon; at that price, I don't think the additional cost of the Leica is worth it. But, that's just my opinion, and take it for what you paid for it. The most frustrating issue I've had is that I have not found that any of the accessories are available at any price (from reputable resellers like B&H, Adorama, etc.), which has been frustrating as I am interested in the wide angle converter and the case. You can always find things on eBay, but you'll overpay, and I'm not sure the sellers are always providing what they say they're selling me.<br>

In short, though, I don't think there is a bad decision to be made here. Go witch whichever one feels better in your hand or that you like better.</p>

<p>Get the IS... I agree with Bob O'Sullivan. I spent the extra money and it was worth every cent. I hope to be using that lens for a long time - and the way it's built, I expect it to last. You might also want to check one of the reputable dealers (i.e. B&H, Adorama, etc.) to see if they have Canon refurbs demos. That will knock a few hundred off. I bought a refurb from Adorama; it came with everything that was in the non-refub boxes and was sealed from Canon. No problems.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Canon 17-55. It's my favorite EF-S lens, by far. I don't think there is anything else in its class. The Tamron comes close, but lacks IS - which (I think) is worth the extra money. It's not perfect (not quite L build quality, expensive, and it lacks a hood), but it comes as close as anything I've seen.<br>

With the ultra-wides, as always, there are tradeoffs amongst the options. I've been debating this very subject as this is likely be my next purchase. The Canon has the widest zoom range and (arguably) the best build quality. The sigma comes close on zoom range, but is $200 cheaper. The Tokina has the narrowest zoom range, but a fixed 2.8 aperture (and is also $100 cheaper than the Canon). I think all of them are good lenses. I happen to have a penchant fixed aperture lenses... I know few people who have tried them that don't want to stick with them exclusively, and so I am leaning towards the Tokina, but haven't made up my mind for sure yet. As always, I would go to your local shop to see if you can try it out.</p>