This guy compares the S3 to an SLR 5D

[BowerR64]

Jeesh, $400. vs. $5000. :eek:

http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/s3_vs_5d

[truflip]

so... youre point? :confused:

[Wesan]

I think one point of the comparison is, that in order to get the similar tele and macro capabilities on the 5D, as you have on the S3, you need to pay around 1,800 dollars just for lenses. And then, you still don't have the wide angle part of the S3 covered.

The 5D alone is around 3,200 dollars. To get a 5D and the similar tele and macro capabilities on it, as on the S3, you have to pay around 5,000 dollars. Plus the cost of a wide angle (zoom) lens to cover the 36-100 mm range of the S3.

On the S3, you get it all for less than 1/10 of the price.

Even if the 5D has better image quality and is better than the S3 in other ways, I think we S3-owners can feel pretty happy with our camera's zoom and macro capabilities considering what we paid for it. :cool:

I think that's one point of the comparison. :D

Another point is, that we get all that in a much smaller and lighter package too. :)

Hehehe...I've said it before, and I say it again - S3-guys (and girls) are pretty smart! ;)

[truflip]

agreed =) S3 is a very good camera.. now if we can only get more DOF out of it.. lol

[BowerR64]

Well first he needs 2 lenses to get the same focal distances as the S3 and i didnt see that much better quality did you? it was better but not $4000. better.

I did like how the 5D shot threw the trees looked, it almost looked 3D like the branches closer to the camera were popping out of my monitor.

[AaronBBrown]

An interesting comparison, but good luck taking a picture at f/16 or f/1.8 with an S3/S2. :)

If you compare the areas where the S2/3 is strongest (good light, fairly narrow DOF, mid-range zoom, small dynamic range), at those small sizes, or probably even at reasonable sized prints, you won't see much difference. It is when you need more flexibility that a DSLR becomes more useful...which is why I am saving up for one. :)

[BowerR64]

Whats crazy is the size of that lens that matches the 400mm focal of the S3. I bet that lens weights like 10 pounds. :eek:

[AaronBBrown]

Whats crazy is the size of that lens that matches the 400mm focal of the S3. I bet that lens weights like 10 pounds. :eek:

3 lbs :)

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-100-400mm-f4-5-5-6L-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00007GQLS/sr=8-1/qid=1165288481/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6235927-1511130?ie=UTF8&s=electronics

[FLiPMaRC]

He's comparing apples and oranges. :rolleyes:

I think he was really bored and probably doesn't understand what the real advantage of the 5D is.

1) you can actually use a wide angle lens as a wide angle lens.
2) the camera has a 12Mp sensor.
3) no matter what you do, you're ALWAYS better off with a bigger sensor. imagine printing a photo out on your printer on an 4x5" sheet of paper and then again on a sheet the size of a stamp. the colors run together, image quality sucks. the same thing happens on an image sensor only to a lesser degree. That's why I'll still put my 6MP rebel up against any 8MP point and shoot when it comes to image quality when you start blowing up the photos past 8x10.
4) the 5D also has a ton of other little features the S3 doesn't but those are just things you'd expect on a pro SLR camera and should be pretty obvious.

How about something even more absurd? Canon A530 vs 5D.

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm

[BowerR64]

I have an A540

[FLiPMaRC]

The S3 at only ISO 400

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonS3IS/Samples/crops/Canon_S3_ISO400-crops.jpg

and the Rebel at 1600!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD80/Samples/Compared/Studio/HigherISO/400d-iso1600.jpg



They also don't mention blowing the images up to poster size. All they do is try to say how a $3500 camera and $1400 lens isn't any good for a "normal" person. Well, duh! :rolleyes:

[GaryS]

You can do the same kind of comparison for anything...

Ferrari F1 vs Mustang. Both get you to work in exactly the same time. Therefor e the conclusion is the Ferrari is a waste of money. But put them on a racetrack, and I think we know the answer will change.

Take those same two cameras to a wedding reception, and then compare the images....

[Forced Perfect]

Jeesh, $400. vs. $5000. :eek:

http://www.pbase.com/jackcnd/s3_vs_5d

For his next comparison he'll be telling us why a disposable film camera is better than an iPod.

[Wesan]

Yeah...maybe you actually CAN'T compare an S3 with a 5D. Or can you? That depends on how you compare them and what is important to you to compare.

If what is important to you, is the zoom range and on which one the zoom range is simplest to use, I would say the S3 beats the 5D. Because the S3 has 12x zoom, from 36 to 432 mm, in ONE single lens. To get the same zoom range on the 5D, you need to buy two or three lenses. And then, you need to switch between them, to cover the range.

Then, there's the macro feature. The lens on the S3 can take macro shots also, but you need to buy yet another lens for the 5D for macro shots.

On the S3, you get all this in ONE lens and for a much cheaper price. So, if we only compare these things, and on this level, the S3 beats the 5D.

But, if you, for example, also compare the image quality between the S3 and the 5D, and also the image quality you can get from expensive lenses you can buy for the 5D, then the 5D gives the S3 a good beating, of course.

And there are many other things that are much better on the 5D than on the S3, too.

But if you compare the cameras in an appropriate way on a level where they both can meet, and only the things that are important to you on that level (and are aware also of the differences between them otherwise), then I think you CAN compare an S3 with a 5D.

I hope you all understand what I'm trying to say here. :) I think I'm saying probably about the same thing as dustyporch said, but in more and other words... :D