Recent Comments:
The editor-in-chief giveaway: Win Ryan Block's gadgets {Engadget}
Aug 24th 2008 12:22PM I'd keep it all and find strange and unusual uses for everything. I would really like the jawbone, though.
WordPress: our iPhone app is coming soon {The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)}
Jul 21st 2008 7:50PM Am I the only one hoping for a blogger iPhone app?
Apple details what you need to bring for iPhone purchase {The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)}
Jul 17th 2008 11:53PM I am wondering about this as well...
Why would they need you to have both? A valid SSN would prove both that you are a valid American and do the credit check.. and a foreign government photo id would be enough to prove that you are indeed yourself.. such as a passport, driver's license, health card, etc...
Has anyone asked AT+T/ Apple?
Canon EOS Rebel XS lands, shoves XT aside {Engadget}
Jun 10th 2008 12:55AM ISO button on top?
Fanswag: Wii Fit and a Nyko Energy Pak {Nintendo Wii Fanboy}
Jun 4th 2008 9:13PM because I never get exercise and its a great excuse to do so.
Joyswag: PlayStation 3 (40GB) {Joystiq}
Jun 2nd 2008 10:58PM best buy
Ask Engadget: What's the best entry-level DSLR? {Engadget}
Jun 1st 2008 11:48PM It's hard to say straight up what is the best SLR for your tastes.. it really depends on your own shooting habits. Are you looking have a huge zoom range? Low light capabilities? Are you willing to buy a cornucopia of lenses or would you prefer a do-it-all?
I personally own a Canon SLR and have been relatively happy with it and the choices of lenses that go along with it. Generally, though, people recommend L Series glass, which can get exorbitantly expensive. Personally, i could recommend the XT, XTi, or XSI all as extremely good cameras. The XTi would probably be the best value in my opinion so long as Live View is not a requirement.
Generally, it seems that Canon SLRs have great ISO performance. A downside is the lack of image stabilization built into the body, which Canon (and Nikon) claim that is better implemented on a per-lens basis, driving up the cost of good lenses. As a result, Canon has no versatile "super zoom" lens (something like an 18-200 image stabilized lens), and Canon has IS versions of lenses that are quite a bit more costly than their non-IS counterparts (the 70-200mm lenses, for instance).
Personally, as lenses go, I prefer the mid-range lenses, as they perform optically "good enough" for my tastes, and don't break the bank. I often find the build quality of the low-end lenses unsuitable and not really built to last (plastic mounts, etc)... and the high end is just too expensive. Also I prefer using multiple lenses to do specific jobs rather than one lens that tries to do everything. As such, I like have a low-light zoom lens, which has a smaller range but can shoot in darker situations, a low-light prime lens (for even darker situations), a wide angle zoom, a telephoto zoom, and a super zoom (in the case where I can't bring all this gear with me and can only bring one lens). Generally if I go to shoot, however, i usually end up bringing 3 lenses (usually 3 different zooms, or the low light zoom, another zoom, and a prime)
I have gotten good results from the EF 28-135 IS USM as my super zoom. The EF 50mm 1.4 USM is my low light prime of choice- some say the 50mm is too long on an Entry level slr with a 1.6X Field of View Crop, but I prefer this to the wider angle (Non L series) primes (the 35m f/2 lens does not have a USM drive, and the 28mm F/1.8 is slower for the same price). The EF 70-300 IS USM is in my opinion the ideal telephoto zoom... many make due with the 55-250 IS, or decide to splurge on the 70-200 F/4L (the sharpest of the three)... but none have as long a focal length with IS and USM in the same lens, so that makes it the best value in my opinion. Some also like the EF-S 17-85mm IS USM for its ideal focal lengths and midrange price as a do-everything lens. I also recommend a third party mid range zoom such as the Tamron 28-75 (or 17-50), or Sigma 24-70, as a sharp, low light zoom lens that doesn't break the bank. Also, it depends if wide angle is that much of a concern to you.. I personally would rather shoot wide angle with its own dedicated lens, others feel strongly about keeping the wide angle with their zooms.. as such I personally feel that the 18-55 focal length is too short but has a nice wide angle, and I find myself using the long end more... thus, I prefer a 24/28-xxx zoom lens because of the longer zoom that they afford... (for instance, I much prefer the focal length to the 28-135 to the 17-85).. as for wide angle lenses... the EF-S 10-22 or Tokina 11-16 look like fantastic wide angle choices. Another small thing is that if you own any lenses already, you may be able to adapt these lenses to your mount of choice with third party adapters. I use some Carl Zeiss/Yashica mount lenses on my Canon SLR with very good results.
People generally say the best lenses for Canon is the 24-105 F/4 L IS USM, the EF-S 17-55 IS USM, and the 24-70 F/2.8....I have tried these and while impressive, their over $1000 price drove me away from purchasing them outright.
As for any SLR camera choice, though, heavily research the lenses before you buy the camera if you do not already have lenses of any sort. The glass ends up being way more important than the body, and the selection of glass does vary as much as the bodies do....
Nikon seems to also have an ardent following, and I personally prefer their beefier grips and the plastic screen protectors. The D40x, or D60 seem to be very good cameras. However, hearing about the lack of an autofocus drive motor limiting the amount of lenses you can buy is indeed troubling in an SLR... because of this the D80 in my opinion is the lowest cost Nikon SLR that I would contemplate getting.. anything below that would limit your lens choices (some will argue against the practicality of this but of course- this is purely my opinion). Nikon does, however, have an image stabilized super zoom (an 18-200 VR lens), which many people swear by (and Canon has nothing of the sort), and I couldn't help but notice that the 70-300 VR telephoto zoom lens is quite a bit cheaper than Canon's own 70-300 IS USM lens (~$200 difference)...both of which I personally see as being the ideal telephoto zoom in terms of price, size, and focal length...
To throw one more in the mix, Sony's SLRs have looked fairly impressive in terms of value. They have in -body image stabilization, and dust reduction built in. Their newer slrs (such as the A300 and A350) seem to have a very good Live View implementation (if that is important) and ISO 3200.. which makes them probably the most hand-holdable starting Digital Slrs available... whether or not it is recommended to shoot in ISO 3200 is questionable, but the ability to, combined with built in IS, is definitely appealing.
So if I had to sum it up, I would go for the Canon XTi, Nikon D80, or the Sony Alpha a300 as the best starter SLR bodies...and if price is no object, of course the Canon 40D, or Nikon D300 would be the best bet.
Ask Engadget: What's the best entry-level DSLR? {Engadget}
Jun 1st 2008 11:03PM @Mehul:
Canon Rebels do not have an Auto ISO setting in creative modes that changes ISO sensitivity according to current lighting setup. I however don't think this is really necessary.. if you want the camera to automatically set things for you, use the automatic setting and it will do Auto ISO on both Canons and Nikons.
As for white balance, I think he is referring to adjusting and fine-tuning white balance settings, not changing the white balance preset (fine tuning RGB values instead of changing WB presets like kelvin, flourescent, cloudy, incadescent, etc). Personally for me white balance is very easy to fix in post-processing if a white balance preset does not do the trick.
Apple seeds updated iPhone 2.0 beta, not many changes {Engadget}
Mar 30th 2008 10:02PM Yes I am aware that this is the current way it works. I'm not saying that this is true or even useful if it is, just that another site was reporting that a youtube safari plugin might be a supposed difference, and one that the original post did not outline (the title of the post, after all, suggests that there were few changes).
Apple seeds updated iPhone 2.0 beta, not many changes {Engadget}
Mar 30th 2008 8:42PM Erm not necessarily.. they could have done some H.264 code voodoo that lets the youtube video load inside safari like a quicktime video.
