Canon EOS 350D (Rebel XT) v Canon S2 IS

[Devil]

Hi !

This might sound like a silly comparison question and I know these 2 cameras are in very difference classes, but I'm trying to decide if I should invest in a digital SLR. I'm not after a specifications comparison as I know thse 2 cameras are very different and I've had a pretty thorough look at both their paper specifications.

I started with no knowledge of cameras on an Ixus (original) using auto mode and upgraded to the S1 and have now become adapted to using manual mode, taking macros, landscape, portraits (non professionaly) etc.

Due to the limitations of the 3.2 megapixel of the S1, I've been considering upgrading the S2. However, before the S2 became available, I was really considering the 300D for a while. Now that the 350D and S2 have been released, I'm trying to decide on the convenience of the S2 package over the advanced features of the DSLR.

I guess what I'm trying to decide is whether I should leave the convenience of a very fully featured compact digital and move to the DSLR. Whether I'd be able to take full advantage of such a camera (with my amateur experience) or is it just the fad of the whole DSLR experience persuading me.

Have other members struggled with this decision ? Would it be worth keeping my S1 as well as using a 350D (I was initially going to sell the S1 if I bought a DSLR).


Thanks for any advice or thoughts.

[mrcoons]

Devil, Yes, I did. I am a long time S1 user who recently converted to a DRebel 350 (XT). I still use my S1 (as I think it takes great pictures) and carry it and the XT both on some occasions. I even purchased the add on lenses for the S1 (telephoto and wide angle) but the speed (or lack there of) of the S1 made me switch to the XT.

A good portion of my photography is music related, Marching Band, band concerts, jazz concerts, etc. The slow focusing of the S1, particularly in low light, was killing me. The speed at which it takes pictures also cost me some good shots. So I started looking into an alternative, which ended up being the XT. I have not been disappointed either! Speed is the word to use to describe the XT, it has it and more.

Now I don't know what improvements were made to the S2 over the S1 but I cannot imagine that they made it any faster.

The problem with getting into SLR's is that you always find that you need another lens. I am currently shopping for a longer lens for my XT to use at Marching Band competitions (same situation I bought the add on lens for the S1 for!). Which means even more money spent!

Bottom line is that if the S1 no longer fits your needs then the S2 may not either. Look long and hard at the changes made to the S2 to see if they make sense for you. If you go the DSLR route plan ahead on your lens choices. Hope my rambling helps some.

[Andrew Pratt]

I was a long time S1 user that made the jump to the Rebel and never once regretted it. The S1 is a nice enough camera but its not without its problems and once you know what you're looking for you can spot an S1 photo pretty easily (CR is terrible on the S1) I'm sure the S2 has made significant strides in fixing many of the S1's faults but really the flexibility the Rebels give you can't be ignored. I guess it party depends on you...if you want to become a better photographer the Rebel will likely help more then hinder that goal...the S2 on the other hand might be a better choice if you just want to shoot decent photo's and tinker every now and then.

[lostdoggy]

Including what has been said before, the question you should ask yourself is will you be willing to invest more money after buying the RebelXT? DSLR is like a house. You can buy a house with all the electrical and plumbing connection, but you will still have to furnish it. How expensive the furniture you are willing to spend is dictated by how much money you are willing to relinquish and the level of comfort you are willing to live with. Buying a DSLR, especially a Canon, opens up a great deal of opportunity to install different furnishings. With a full compliment of comsumer level lenses to to high end pro level lenses. Not to mention an array of different decor addon such as grips , flashes, remotes,teleconvertors, extention tubes, wireless ETTL-II, etc. If you don't think you will need all that then a studio apartment is what you want then DSLR is not for you. Also, when buy a DSLR you are gaining a different camera, but if you buy the S2 you are replacing the S1.

[whchan]

I made the switch from a Canon point a shoot (S50) to 350XT about 3 months ago and would never look back (just based on MY Needs). I used to carry my S50 everywhere (I do need to do business travel a lot), just to shoot a pictures of places that I visit (mostly outdoor). That fitted my needs. There are actually a lot of manual controls in the S50 and that was where I learn about photography. However, I have my first little baby 8 months ago and S50 could no longer able to do what I wanted. I want to take good pictures indoor, low light condition, and be able to capture the moment from a baby who is not very cooperative in posing for me. My needs and requirments have changed.

If your needs, for the next couple of years, remain to be like me when I was using the S50 - shooting casually, main point is to take the pictures, not making a great pictures... the jpeg file probably be stored and viewed in the computers... Then stick with the point and shoot. Why spend thousands of $$ on new equipments.

If you begain to be interested in MAKING PCITURES, ready to really expend your techniques, have different needs (fast reaction time, mininal shuttle lag...etc.) definitely go with a DSLR.

[Saudidave]

Devil has raised a very valid point here. I too agonised over this issue and finally settled on an 350D, but despite being very pleased with it I still wonder!

It has so far cost me £640 for the camera and lens, £100 for a second hand Canon 75-300 USM and I'm just about to order a 28-135IS as a walkabout lens, thats another £300. A total of £1040 so far. I could get an S2 IS for £350 or a Panasonic FZ5 for £280

They both have IS at all focal lengths, so arguably with a hand held 300 mm focal length they'll be sharper.
They both have 12x zoom without changing lenses.
I haven't checked out the S2iS but the FZ5 is F3.2 @300mm so the fact I can use 1600 ISO and the FZ5 only 400 starts to look a bit of a silly argument, because my 75-300 is @ F6.3 at that reach.
OK, the 350D is faster to react generally but from what I read, shutter lag is non existent on an S2IS or an FZ5.
A 10" x 8" print from either of the 2 superzooms is going to be very, very good. Some of the stuff I did with my Olympus C765 before I traded up is outstanding.
A final point - The 350D is bigger, heavier and a damn sight less convenient - more lenses to carry etc.

Let me make it clear, I'm a photography obsessed individual and my 350 is better and more versatile than a superzoom, but to most people, including a lot of keen photographers, It's an expensive and mad example of diminishing returns.

Dave

[Tomsk]

I'm thinking the other way.
I went from film SLR to 300D, and now I have a 20D with lenses covering from 18mm to 300mm and I'm considering the S2-IS as an occasional alternative. Sometimes it's just too much lugging a DSLR, lenses etc around. I already have a Pentax (cough, spit :p ) Optio S30 which I carry nearly eevrywhere, but it's not got enough zooooom. The S2-IS would fit nicely into my kit as it takes SD and AA (like the Pentax).

[ScottE]

If your only concern is the ability to go from wide angle to telephoto shots, the S2 IS is like having a 350D with both a 17-85 IS and a 70-300 IS lens. They cover about the same range. You would also have to throw in a set of extension tubes to get the macro focusing ability.

The trouble is that if you get serious about photography, the S2 IS is a dead end. You can add wide angle and telephoto adapters, but your options are very limited. With an SLR system you have the ability to aquire lenses from super wide to super telephoto and accessory flash systems. If you want to make really big prints the 5 MP sensor becomes a factor. If you want to shoot in low light, the performance of the 350D at ISO 1600 is as good as the S2 IS at ISO 400 so you can use 4x the shutter speed if you use a wide aperture lens.

The S2 IS is a superb "do everything" travel lens if you need a compact, light system that can handle everything from wide angle to long telephoto. If you want to do more specialized photography the SLR is much more adaptable.

Scott

[Devil]

Hi !

Thanks to everyone that replied to this topic. It's really brought to light a lot of things I need to think about and consider before making my big purchase.

One point that really hits home is the fact that with an SLR, I would probably need to invest quite a bit more money on different types of lens, flashes and other gear for the camera. The advantage of a much larger selection of options is countered by the fact that I'm not sure if I can afford (or want to spend, based on my current needs/knowledge) on all this extra gear. As Saudidave says, he's spent quite a bit of money on different gear for his DSLR and points out that he could've got something (S2/FZ5) that would've had everything in a compact for what looks like 1/3 of the price. Although sacrificing quality for convenience and cost. As the 350D costs around $1600AU here with an 18-55mm lens, I don't think I could afford to spend much more in the immediate future. Although my next purchase would definitely be the 90-300mm lens (or stronger if feasible).

I actually popped into the local camera store here and had a quick look at the 350D. I don't know if it was due to the fact that I haven't used an SLR in over 10yrs (previously the Canon T50), or the fact that I've just grown accustomed to my S1, but I actually felt a little intimidated by the DSLR. Things that may have been obvious to other DSLR users such as the manual controlled zoom, the playback only LCD screen and a few other things made me really reconsider if the complexity and advanced user level of a DSLR was really for me.

I've been trying to expand my knowledge through these forums and magazines such as the UK's Digital Camera World/Digital Photography User & Digital Photography Made Easy. However, after actually picking up the DSLR, I almost feel like I was back at square 1 in my level of knowledge. Maybe it's a little more daunting until I actually play around with it and actually get a proper test of it ? This was just as big a step as when I went from my "auto everything" IXUS to an S1 with so much manual control available. I had no idea what shutter speed/aperture/AWB etc were before I learnt it all through the S1. The difference though is that the S1 auto mode is very forgiving and I spent months on that before daring to venture in to AV/M controls etc. Would the 350D give me the same chance ?

I almost feel like I'm answering my own question here but as ScottE mentions, the S2 becomes a dead end if I want to progress any further.. and I do.. bit of a dilemma !

I'll probably just have to think about it a bit longer I think and read a few more comments and things and hopefully that'll help me decide on where I want to go.

Again, thanks very much for the comments and feedback from everyone !



Cheers,
Peter.

[mrcoons]

The difference though is that the S1 auto mode is very forgiving and I spent months on that before daring to venture in to AV/M controls etc. Would the 350D give me the same chance ?


Yes, it would.

[Pelao]

I almost feel like I'm answering my own question here but as ScottE mentions, the S2 becomes a dead end if I want to progress any further.. and I do.. bit of a dilemma !

I wouldn't consider the S2 a dead end in the sense that it has many creative options for you to grow as a photographer. In addition, it is a camera that will be relevant for years - there is nothing wrong with it as a nice backup.

With it's IS and excellent video, it's a great all-round camera. Pity it doesn't shoot RAW.

[Saudidave]

Don't be intimidated!

I too thought that, but my 350D is actually easier to use than the Olympus C765 which it replaced.

However, if you can't afford a couple of lenses for an slr, then why not get the S2 IS for now? It's an all in one solution, the quality will be very good and you will have a 12x zoom range. If you go dslr with the kit lens you are very limited and will get frustrated I should think, after using your S1.

If I had to choose again, I couldn't say for sure which way I would go!

[Devil]

Everytime I think I'm closer to making a decision something comes up to change my mind.

I was steering more and more towards the S2 but after browsing through the macro area of the forum I'm starting to doubt whether the S2 can do what I really want in terms of 'life size' ie.. 1:1 size photographs (I'd really like to do a lot more with macro photography).

Saudidave: The fact that I can't afford a few other additional lens for now would probably be the main reason I swayed to the S2. Just thinking about it, I'd really want a macro lens, a zoom lens and the standard lens (18-55). That's 3 lens already on purchase.

However, the reason I don't just want to jump straight into another limited compact is due to the fact that I really would like to move on sometime in the future. My next camera purchase will tie me down for at least the next year or 2. If that's the case, I have to think long and hard if the S2 will fulfill my needs for that long period of time.

I guess I have a lot more reading and research to do.


Thanks !

[davidfig]

Devil, this is all good input. For me, I got the 350D. It is awesome. I know it cost more, but I chose the 350D with a sigma 18-125 (28-200 35mm equiv.). For me its all about the sensor. The P&S's are the size of you pinky nail and the SLR's are the size of a postage stamp. Which do you think will take better pictures. To save money, consider a Canon 10D used and a good walk about lens like the sigma I mentioned earlier.

[willg]

see if you can find a 300d....get the kit lens and a macro lens...maybe the new 60mm

[Spirit]

I was steering more and more towards the S2 but after browsing through the macro area of the forum I'm starting to doubt whether the S2 can do what I really want in terms of 'life size' ie.. 1:1 size photographs (I'd really like to do a lot more with macro photography).


Based on this, I would say the S2 is not the camera for you. The "super macro" mode gives you a 0cm focal distance, but you practically have to be touching the lens, and the image still isn't that big (you can't zoom in) unless you add a macro lens with the adapter.

This is the best I could do in low lighting, super macro mode with my S2, and no flash (the lens blocked the flash). The head of the dragonfly was maybe one inch from the lens. Any closer and the subject would have been one big shadow. I shrunk it, but did not crop. If macro is your thing (like it is mine), you'll need the adapter lens. I need a camera for hiking/backpacking so this is the perfect one for me... I just need to get that damn lens now. Anyway, here's an example. I'm sure it would take much nicer macro pics in daylight.

[mrcoons]

Devil, I just read a review of the S2 yesterday (at Imaging Resources) and while it looks like Canon has made a number of improvements over the S1 there are still several problems (that are inherent to all P&S cameras I suspect) that would have prevented me from buying it. The S2 image at anything greater than ISO 400 is very noisy and it still has focusing problems in low light. The Digic II upgrade has fixed my other main problem with the S1 which was speed but I'd still have to use an S2 to see if it gave it enough speed.

Several other posters brought up good points. 1) The S2 and the S1 shoot great video, just short ones. I use my S1 to shoot video in places where you are not allowed to take a video camera.
2) Look into getting a 300D instead of the 350D (XT). Prices are very low and the difference between the 2 cameras are not that great. It would lower your investment.

But if that big a budget just isn't going to happen for you then the S2 would certainly be a worthwhile addition. The longer zoom and the Digic II increase in speed is well worth it. If you do go this way, consider getting a slave flash unit. Using the S1 in low light proved to be impossible in my opinion without major post processing of every image. So I got a slave flash (it flashes when the camera flashes) since the S1 (nor S2) has a hotshoe for an external flash. Using one presents new challenges to overcome but at least you'll not have so many dark pictures!

[Devil]

but I chose the 350D with a sigma 18-125 (28-200 35mm equiv.).

If I had the choice, would I be better off ditching the 18-55 lens supplied with the camera and just getting the body and purchasing a lens such as your 18-125 separately. Is this lens suitable for your general everyday shots ? Such as scenery or just portraits of people/animals etc ?

see if you can find a 300d....get the kit lens and a macro lens...maybe the new 60mm

I've been following a few links of the forums and reading up on macros. On macros lens, the 60mm (100m, 180mm etc) will translate to how far I can be and still get a 1:1 (lifesize) ratio, is that right ? So if I wanted to be able to get a bit further, I would buy a larger mm. Is that correct ? If that's the case, would it be worth spending the extra $ and moving up to 100mm then ? Also, I notice some macro lens are rated at eg.. 60mm 2.4f or some at 60mm 3.5f etc.. in shooting, would that make much difference ?

Based on this, I would say the S2 is not the camera for you. The "super macro" mode gives you a 0cm focal distance, but you practically have to be touching the lens, and the image still isn't that big (you can't zoom in) unless you add a macro lens with the adapter.

This is the best I could do in low lighting, super macro mode with my S2, and no flash (the lens blocked the flash). The head of the dragonfly was maybe one inch from the lens. Any closer and the subject would have been one big shadow. I shrunk it, but did not crop. If macro is your thing (like it is mine), you'll need the adapter lens. I need a camera for hiking/backpacking so this is the perfect one for me... I just need to get that damn lens now. Anyway, here's an example. I'm sure it would take much nicer macro pics in daylight.

I know what you mean, I've been really enjoying macro shots on the S1 but in reality, I think they're really considered "close up" than macro. I've taken a few shots that are pretty nice I think but I've virtually had to crawl up right next to the bug/flower. The only way I can get anything decent is to actually be about 1cm away, which becomes a little silly if I'm trying to capture flies/bees etc. How good is the Macro lens for the S2 though ? Do you know the mm equivalent rating for it, would it be close to like the 60mm SLR macro lens or anything like that ?

Several other posters brought up good points. 1) The S2 and the S1 shoot great video, just short ones. I use my S1 to shoot video in places where you are not allowed to take a video camera.
2) Look into getting a 300D instead of the 350D (XT). Prices are very low and the difference between the 2 cameras are not that great. It would lower your investment.

Thanks for your tips Mrcoons. It's a really tough choice and I was hoping to make a decision by tomorrow actually. Some shops are having the end of financial year sales here and have reduced the price of the 350D by about $250 (with optional 18mths interest free). As much as I hate to rush into making such a large investment, the discount could be worth the impulse.

I was initally planning on selling my S1 if I got either camera but I'd actually reconsider this now that you mention the extra use for the S1 video etc (although I'd obviously sell it if I got the S2).

BTW, this might sound like a silly question, but what exactly is a USM lens. Apparently, the non-USM lens are cheaper but what's the difference ? I tried searching the forums, but the hundreds of results returned had nearly every topic mentioning USM in regards to lens so I haven't really been able to find a decent explanation for it.

Also, is it much trouble changing lens back and forth ? Another thing that keeps me interested in the S2 is the fact that if I go to a football match or something, I can take regular photos and then zoom into the action and take shots of the game. As I've never changed lens on an SLR I'm not really too sure what's involved. Is it just a twist and turn like the lens ring at the front of the S1/S2 (although in the form of a lens rather than a cap) ?

Just a last question, the package for the 350D gives me the option of getting an EF 55-200mm lens pack with it for an additional $200-250AU (approx $152-$191US) as shown in the picture (sorry if it's a bit big, I tried to make it big enough so you could see the numbers on the lens). I'm not sure if you can see from the picture, but is that extra pack worth it ? Is anyone familiar with this lens ? Am I better off just getting a better lens later on ? It's only an EF lens, is that not as good as an EF-S (the 18-55m is an EF-S from the picture).

Thanks again for all your answers and tips !



Cheers,
Peter.

[mrcoons]

USM stands for Ultrasonic Motor. It is the type of focus motor / technology that Canon uses in some of its lenses. (And in it's point an shoot cameras like the S1.)

" USM (Ultra Sonic Motor) is a Canon devised Autofocus SLR lens motor system. USM lenses are usually quicker to focus, more compact, with greater operational simplicity and virtually silent compared to their earlier 'Arc Form Drive'(AFD) cousins. USM lenses only work with the Canon 'EOS' camera system, introduced in March 1987." from : http://www.peterashbyhayter.co.uk/glossaryT-Z.html (http://www.peterashbyhayter.co.uk/glossaryT-Z.html)

I switch between my Sigma 18-125mm and Canon 75-300mm lenses all the time. It's no trouble for me I'd imagine it really depends upon where you are and how fast the action is, that determines if it's "trouble" or not. Changing the lens is just a matter of pressing the release button and turning the lens.


I don't own a 55-200mm lens so I can't say much about it. My wife has the 18-55mm kit lens she got with her 300D and I hate it. I don't know what it is in technical terms but I do not like the pictures I've taken with it. I have read lots of other comments on various boards that say the lens is ok though, so it's probably just me.

Hope this helps.

[karusel]

Since mrcoons resurrected the thread, I'd like to add a few remarks.

Owning an SLR is a pain, from a practical point of view. It doesn't make photographing or photography any easier, it's not convenient, it's not compact and most of all, it's not cheap. All that for the quality to which the compatcs on most occasions cannot match, sometimes, not even by far. All you need to think about is, how much of convenience you're willing to sacrifice for that. And also, don't even think about cheap lenses, because if you put some average consumer lens on a D-SLR, the photos are going to look worse than those shot with a comparable compact.

[ghocking]

I have just ordered an S2 to use as a carry around point and shoot. If I am going out on a photo shoot I will always take both DSLR's and the lenses I think I need, but the number of times I have just been driving around, gone on a shopping trip, or on my bike that I have missed a shot, I decided to get a point and shhot to carry in my pocket, in the car etc. I know I will not get the same quality as my L's but I will get a shot.

[Devil]

USM stands for Ultrasonic Motor. It is the type of focus motor / technology that Canon uses in some of its lenses. (And in it's point an shoot cameras like the S1.)

I switch between my Sigma 18-125mm and Canon 75-300mm lenses all the time. It's no trouble for me I'd imagine it really depends upon where you are and how fast the action is, that determines if it's "trouble" or not. Changing the lens is just a matter of pressing the release button and turning the lens.

I don't own a 55-200mm lens so I can't say much about it. My wife has the 18-55mm kit lens she got with her 300D and I hate it. I don't know what it is in technical terms but I do not like the pictures I've taken with it. I have read lots of other comments on various boards that say the lens is ok though, so it's probably just me.

Thanks for the info MrCoons. I actually came across a great site in one of the other threads the other day explaining this and a lot of other things. It was an EOS FAQ that answered a lot of questions. I'd post the link but I'm not sure where it is now.

The trouble/inconvenience I think of would be mainly due different needs at that particular moment.. eg. If I was at a football game trying to take action shots and some friends wanted me to take some shots of them, I'd have to then switch lens and then once done switch back to the telephoto lens again. However, if it's just a twist and turn I don't think it's much of a problem at all.

I was actually thinking of getting the nifty fifty and using that for portrait shots as it appears much better than the regular kit lens. However, I've been reading that the Canon 100mm macro lens is apparently a very good portrait lens as well so I'm then not sure if I still need the nifty fifty. Although I guess I don't want to be carrying the macro lens around with me everywhere for no reason.

Owning an SLR is a pain, from a practical point of view. It doesn't make photographing or photography any easier, it's not convenient, it's not compact and most of all, it's not cheap. All that for the quality to which the compatcs on most occasions cannot match, sometimes, not even by far. All you need to think about is, how much of convenience you're willing to sacrifice for that. And also, don't even think about cheap lenses, because if you put some average consumer lens on a D-SLR, the photos are going to look worse than those shot with a comparable compact.

Yeh the big change of coming from an advanced compact (S1) was one of the things that prompted me to start this thread. I'm so used to a compact camera that does everything in one hit (although at lower quality than a DSLR) and more convenient overall. The more I think about it the more I am starting to decide that the extra features and quality of pctures I'd be gaining from the DSLR makes it worth the "inconvenience" and expense. That and the fact that there is so much more room to move and so much more to learn by taking the door of the DSLR. The quality of photos produced from an average lens was also another point which made me unsure. As there'd be no way I could afford the L lens and other fancy lens that a lot of guys are using on here, it almost made me lean away from the DSLR. However, after seeing the results of photos posted here by guys using the same lens I was intending to buy (Canon 100mm 2.8 macro, nifty fifty, 75-300mm IS USM lens) it just about swayed me. As must as I've just about decided on the DSLR, I'm still keeping my options open though as it's still a pretty tough choice. Thanks for your comments Karusel !

I have just ordered an S2 to use as a carry around point and shoot. If I am going out on a photo shoot I will always take both DSLR's and the lenses I think I need, but the number of times I have just been driving around, gone on a shopping trip, or on my bike that I have missed a shot, I decided to get a point and shhot to carry in my pocket, in the car etc. I know I will not get the same quality as my L's but I will get a shot.

I was originally going to sell off my S1 if I bought the DSLR but after reading a few of the things on here I will be keeping my S1 as a P&S as well. I know what you mean about not wanting to carry everything just for a basic trip to the shops or something. There's been plenty of times where I've wished I had brought my camera along even if I had the DSLR, I doubt I'd want to bring it along as it might be a bit overkill just for a trip to the shops or something like you mention.

[Devil]

Hi !

Just wanted to let you know that I finally made my decision. I took the plunge and am now the new owner of a 350D ! I haven't had a chance to play with it yet though as I thought it might be helpful to first flick through the manual.

Thanks a lot for all your help and advice (MrCoons, Saudidave and everyone else) in leading up to this decision ! It really made the difference.

[mrcoons]

Great news, devil. I think you'll enjoy it a lot. And have lots more questions, I know I did and still do!!!:)


Post some pictures when you get some!

Mark

[Devil]

Hi Mark, I had a play with it yesterday and it's a lot different from the old Canon S1.

There's so much more to grasp with it and I haven't even touched half the settings yet ! It's hard to believe how quick the shutter is on the SLR after coming from a P&S !

I'll post up some pics soon when I take some decent ones. I'm actually now starting to shop for a couple of different lenses for it already (macro/zoom/nifty fifty) :)

[dredd1]

It is great to have a camera like the S1 for holiday snaps or as a back up but the problem with these cameras is shutter lag, start-up times and the fact that you are looking at the picture through the sensor rather than through the lense with an optical viewer. This means if you are taking sports shots when you press the button the action will have moved on. There are ways around this but once you get used to a DSLR it is quite hard to go back. You dont have to spend big money on lenses the kit lense and a 70-300 lense will get you by until you want to advance. My advice is hold onto your S1 as a casual use camera and just take the plunge and by the rebel xt dont buy the rebel its start up is too slow the number of pictures you can continously shoot is limited to 4 before it practically stops. There are a lot of features missing on the rebel like mirror lock up and 2nd curtain flash. The high ISO pictures on the XT are way better as well. Love this camera.http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

[ghocking]

I have had the S2 for a week now and bought it as in my pocket, in car, point and shoot when not wanting to carry all SLR gear but wanting to carry a camera. Gave it a good test and the results are excellent. Shutter lag, what shutter lag. Its quick and does everything striaght out of the box and the IS is unbeliveable. Ok only up to ISO 400 and have not checked noise at 400 ISO, f8 max and have seen some CA at 100%, but I never print that size. Wonderfull camera and now part of my kit not just as a carry round.

[mrcoons]

The S1 had severe shutter/focus lag in low light only. I've never had any problem with daylight usage. Hopefully Canon improved the performance in these areas for the S2.

[Devil]

This means if you are taking sports shots when you press the button the action will have moved on. There are ways around this but once you get used to a DSLR it is quite hard to go back. You dont have to spend big money on lenses the kit lense and a 70-300 lense will get you by until you want to advance. My advice is hold onto your S1 as a casual use camera and just take the plunge and by the rebel xt. Love this camera.http://photography-on-the.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

Thanks for the comments Dredd !

I haven't really had a chance to use the camera much at all as I've been away on work for a week and pretty busy :(

However, I did get a chance to take it to a football game but didn't get the results I wanted. The camera itself was amazing though, little or no shutter lag (compared to the S1) and the AF was so quick ! You're right, I can't imagine going back to a P&S now.

As I didn't really trust myself with the settings yet I opted for the sports mode option with the 75-300mm IS. It was probably due to a bit of handheld camera shake or my choice of using the sports mode but most of the pictures turned out a little soft, blurred or just out of focus. I hope to try the lens again during the day time and see how much difference it makes.

Here's some of the better pics. I think I had to apply the USM in photoshop for a bit of sharpness.

[golffoxtrot]

Hi guys -- i've been following this one with interest as I faced a similar situation too -- i'm an amateur very much like the originator of this post .. a few weeks ago I went to Germany with a group of us each with a different camera -- I had my new S2, friends had an S1, D70 and a Digital Rebel..

I also had a wide converter with me -- I can say that for the trip which involved alot of walking, the S2's feature set definitely came in handy -- the digital SLRs, while making great photos, were way harder on the backs of my friends and even with their massive lenses, they couldn't quite match the telephoto range of the S2... Also with the improvements Canon has made to the S2, it really does rival the features of the DSLRs:
- shutter lag is minimal
- low light focusing way improved (still I think some night shots will turn out less noisy etc. on the DSLRs)
- battery life is excellent (~ 4-500 shots per charge)
- more zoom (and wide angle) range with a MUCH smaller footprint.
- all this for way cheaper

of course the trade off is that in the large blowups, the quality will likely be better with the DSLRs, especially since they have more megapixels. (5 vs 6 etc..) Also, even with minimal delay on the shutter, the SLRs still "feel" a bit faster, but its waaay improved over S1. Also I wish that the S2 had a manual focusing ring -- the 4 way controller for this is just annoying.

finally, the fold-out/down screen of the S2 (combined with the zoom) allowed me to get shots that would be typically hard to get (ie over the heads over crowds ..) if you had to look thru a viewfinder. and the movie mode was great for capturing the "atmosphere" of a particular situation. one such example was when the pope was in germany recently, between the 4 of us, I got the only clean shot of the pope my basically holding the camera straight above my head -- thanks to the fold down screen, the IS, the fast burst mode and big zoom it let me get around the massive crowd that was swarming him..

I think one day i will get a DSLR, but I don't think i would ever get rid of the S2 because of the features above that DSLRs seem to lack (because of their design)...my 2 cents..

[silverxme]

I would like to share the link as below:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=174567