I currently have a Canon S40 and a Canon Elan II with Canon 28-80, Tamron 28-200, and Tamron 200-400. Haven't used the film camera in 3 years. I'm thinking of getting an SD400 for everyday, knockaround, always with me, work, small & easy, and what I would call my daily driver. For my sports car ... I feel I need up to 200mm, but don't really want to deal with multiple lenses, etc, etc. I'm thinking of a Canon Powershot Pro 1. With the new firmware, I get good optics, 8MP, 200mm, and most features I need of a SLR. I've read many reviews, and with prices in the $600+ range, this seems like a good match for me. If I bought the New Rebel XT with Tamron's new 18-200 for twice the price, would it be worth it? I'm NOT a photagraphy fanatic ... but I do use Elements 3.0 at home and in the office ... a little. Thanks for your opinions.
Buy the camera that will suite your needs... currently... and anticipated. Do you feel you will want to pursue photography more in the future? Then go with the Rebel. If not, then stick with the powershot. There is nothing worst than spending more than what you need on top of the chance it is going to deture you from shooting.
I used to use an 8 mp evf and it made wonderful pictures. If you view my website you will see what it can do. It was used for about 80% of the pcitures on the site.(Sony DSC-F828) Now I am selling that camera and bought a Canon 20D. I have a feeling the Powershot will serve you well.
Wilerty: I'll bet the Rebel XT will be perfect for you. I just tested the camera and it is
A. Incredibly versatile
C. Produces gorgeous image quality.
I really do like the specs and reviews of the Rebel XT ... and it certainly is in contention. I'm aware of the noise problem with the Pro 1 and realize the G6 is probably a better camera ... but only has 4X. I really only want to have one lens for the camera and the standard lens on the Rebel doesn't give me the range I want. Tamron makes a new 18-125 and Sigma makes an 18-125 and an 18-200. The reviews I read do not like the Canon 17-85. Would these be better? I could always use the Tamron 28-200 I already own and lose wide angle. Yes I understand the 1.6 multiplier. I figure the 18-125 (35mm 28-200) would be fine for 98% of my needs. My hesitation is the Rebel is it's slightly larger and 50% heavier. The reality is ... if I perceive it as big or heavy and don't take it with me then I'm defeating the purpose of getting a higher end camera. My reading indicates dust is also an issue ... but if I leave one lens on, the SLR wouldn't be any worse. Cost is not a major issue IF I get clearly superior features and pictures. The Rebel XT and lens will probably cost twice as much as the Pro 1. However, the Rebel would be a much better investment, thinking of resale.
Thanks for your help ... I'll continue to read, ponder, and fluctuate. The decision will come when I'm sure ...
Wilerty, I recently bought two cameras for my trip to India -- a pocket digital and an SLR. I expected that the convenience of the little digital would be far more useful than the SLR, but I found out that I LOVED taking photos with the SLR and I got hooked.
While it sounds like the evf camera may be most suited to your goals, don't forget to factor in the value of framing a shot in a real SLR vs. dealing with grainy evf.