S3 or original Rebel?

I mostly shoot outdoors and I am having a tough time deciding which one to get. Any thoughts?

the rebel will need more investment usually £100s, british pounds,
my s2 (which recently packed up )cost £350 plus £99 for a tele converter, the keeper rate was much higher than my rebel £500 two years past, i have since invested £1000 on a 100-400 plus this week £290 on a wide angle for my rebel,i am now looking to buy a s5/s3 as they are much lighter ,and meet my needs (hillwalking)you dont say what kind of pics you take, i have some from both cams here is a couple from the s2

Shooting what outdoors?

i have had both as well.
i think the xt just has a better feel to it.

the s3 doesen't have as much zoom as i'd ever expect it to.
for animals and things.

and of course the lighting conditions need to be perfect for any p&s camera to show what a eos can do (my opinion )

my gallery at flickr, is all from my S3IS.

www.flickr.com/photos/​dadedesigns

great camera.. but not great in low light

I mostly shoot landscapes and waterfalls, some close up stuff. I also do a lot of sunsets. I'm not concerned about weight.

Well for that stuff you don't really need the big zoom, I'd just get the Rebel and a nice wide angle/standard lens. It won't be much bigger. More potential that way.

NOsquid wrote in post #4873669
Well for that stuff you don't really need the big zoom, I'd just get the Rebel and a nice wide angle/standard lens. It won't be much bigger. More potential that way.

That's what I was thinking. I'd have more capabilities with the rebel. I could also buy a tele if needed for distance.

a couple of close ups s2

I had a Sony H5 which was the closest thing to a S3 IS. A camera like that is quite nice to use outdoors. Nice bright sharp pics will come straight out of the camera. With a DSLR, you often need to do more post processing.

I really liked my H5, but I ran into it's limitations. Low light/indoors was garbage. Anything above ISO200 looked terrable. It blows me away how much better my XTI (and Rebel would be good as well) at high ISOs like ISO800 or even ISO1600.

It really comes down to how far you want to take photography. If you get an S3 IS you will be able to take very nice (non-low light) pictures and have cheap closeup/teleconverter/​wide angle adapters. You can put filters on it. They are small and light. That's where it ends- A DSLR gives you endless possiblities. However, an S3 is definatly a great way to start if you don't have the money to spend on lenses for a Rebel. A typical zoom lens for a DSLR is about 3x zoom for a kit lens, and up to around 5-6x zoom on a bigger lens such as a 17-85mm (there are exceptions though).

Why not an XT? How much cheaper can you get a Rebel than a XT. I'd just opt for size and newer everything. Only $380 new body only and used you can get batteries, a grip, and more from here.

_aravena wrote in post #4874100
Why not an XT? How much cheaper can you get a Rebel than a XT. I'd just opt for size and newer everything. Only $380 new body only and used you can get batteries, a grip, and more from here.

Probably get a rebel with a 15-80 for 230-240.

Although I can get an xt with a 15-80 or Tamron 28-80mm for $325.

15-80? I'd opt for at least a better lens. What's your budget? Even $400 or $500, you can get the Rebel but get some glass.

eh, I meant 18-55 mm. My budget it sub $400 so about the rebel range.

well if you're interested i have the tamron 28-80 for sale for $50.
haha.

and you could find an xt for about 250.