Weeelll, the 350D sure has created a buzz all over the place!
...But I'm hoping for a lot of things before I plunk down my money! First and foremost, picture quality. Next, build quality and reliability (none of those error 99's, please!). Third, ease of use (as in a nice bright viewfinder, easy to use controls, etc). Fourth, battery life (will the new, smaller battery have enough lasting power?). Hopefully, the extra battery grip is not going to be a "must have" if you want to shoot for very long, but I've always kept an extra battery on hand anyhow, so it would be no biggie to buy an extra one for this cam, too.
So as far as it goes, all the features seem quite appealing (I'm ok with only 3fps...I don't really shoot sports or fast action stuff anyhow). I'm also ok with a top ISO of 1600. At ISO 3200 the 20D pics aren't really that much to write home about and my 828 only goes to ISO 800, so I doubt I'll miss having it.
The low price is very nice...but actually, that's my biggest worry! You usually get what you pay for, so is this new cam a real winner...or just an expensive piece of cheap plastic junk? I'm staying hopeful...the digicam price wars seem to be working to our benefit, and Canon is the leader in that regard so far!
I just hate having to wait another month to see how this one stacks up to the competition...this waiting game is keeping my nails short and my nerves on end!
:hang :uhoh
Sheesh! I'm ready to finally get something I can put my hands on! :eat
At ISO 3200 the 20D pics aren't really that much to write home about and my 828 only goes to ISO 800, so I doubt I'll miss having it.
The low price is very nice...but actually, that's my biggest worry! You usually get what you pay for, so is this new cam a real winner...or just an expensive piece of cheap plastic junk? I'm staying hopeful...the digicam price wars seem to be working to our benefit, and Canon is the leader in that regard so far!
Some comments on the above statements.. Something you'll have to keep in mind is the more shallow DOF at a given aperture of a DSLR vs an F-series camera.. F/8 on the Sony ain't no F/8 on the XT/20D So you might want more DOF in a given situation... No tripod and still in need of high shutter speed?? Then you WILL need to push the ISO... Depending on the lighting available it might even get to ISO 1600, but that's no biggie, ISO 1600 is very usable on the 20D, I'm crossing my fingers for you that the XT will be comparable! If you get the chance to play with good high ISO performance.. we-ellll it's an addiction (at least it was to me)
The low price.. that will be my second point to explain. For Canon there are 2 sources to create chunks of money:
1. the Lenses
2. the cameras
The first one and most important are lenses!! If you buy 1 camera body and you like the lens setup (if you're smart you'll base your choice on lens setup) of the manufacturer than the manufacturer can be almost sure of a lot of extra investment on your part Ask all the DSLR owners here about the phenomenon Lens-lust Plus they know that they make good gear (and that includes EVERY manufacturer, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax...) and you are likely to upgrade the camera body in a couple of years. So they can make money twice/thrice/multiple times during your photography career/hobby! So a cheap DSLR to have people 'get into the system' will have to be really good to bind the customer to the manufacturer..
WOW, I'll now stop my ramble
I hate to break it to you, but tinnier. It has a .8x magnification instead of the 300D's .88x.
Richard
It's still got more mag than the Nikon D70 (0.75x ), which has been on my list of potential buys...and may still be on my list depending on how the 350D pans out.
(snip) Some comments on the above statements.. The low price.. So a cheap DSLR to have people 'get into the system' will have to be really good to bind the customer to the manufacturer..
WOW, I'll now stop my ramble (snip)
Mais...Je ne sais quoi (pardon my poor high school French from 30+ years ago, !). I'm actually looking at the fact that this camera would get me "into the system" at a fairly cheap price to begin with (taking Lens Lust into consideration, !). I've yet to hear the pros and cons of the Canon vs. Nikon lens and accessory systems. Would love to find out what others have to say in that regard!
It seems that Canon has more lenses, but are they better lenses or are they equal to or of less quality than Nikon's? The fact that Canon keeps pumping out new mass produced cameras and gear is actually a bit worrisome. You know what they say about slow and steady winning the race. It may be that Nikon is taking a quality over quantity approach. Or maybe they've just given up the race? Hard to say which...but perhaps time will tell. ~Nee
Mais...Je ne sais quoi (pardon my poor high school French from 30+ years ago, !). I'm actually looking at the fact that this camera would get me "into the system" at a fairly cheap price to begin with (taking Lens Lust into consideration, !). I've yet to hear the pros and cons of the Canon vs. Nikon lens and accessory systems. Would love to find out what others have to say in that regard!
It seems that Canon has more lenses, but are they better lenses or are they equal to or of less quality than Nikon's? The fact that Canon keeps pumping out new mass produced cameras and gear is actually a bit worrisome. You know what they say about slow and steady winning the race. It may be that Nikon is taking a quality over quantity approach. Or maybe they've just given up the race? Hard to say which...but perhaps time will tell. ~Nee
Ah oui, mais une forum est pour l'education des participants, alors, my highschool french is but 7 years away My reason for getting into Canon was both the lens setup (tilt and shift lenses, L lenses) and cameras (full frame cameras, droolllll)
Both Nikon and Canon have excellent lenses, for me the choice was also influenced by the fact that I could get a very good deal on a used D30! You can't miss with either system, I think that someone starting off in the DSLR world can nicely benefit from the cheap body Canon offers. On the other hand, you already seem very enthusiastic and interested, so the investment in the body will not hang upon a a couple of 100 $$
Hope I've added to the confusion :lol
(snip) My reason for getting into Canon was both the lens setup (tilt and shift lenses, L lenses) and cameras (full frame cameras, droolllll) Hope I've added to the confusion :lol (snip)
Oui, je suis tres... er...uh...confused, ! (hey, 30+ years is a long time!) Can you explain what you mean by "full frame cameras, droollllll" ?!? Sounds like something I should really want, if I knew what the difference was, ! Are some cameras only using part of their sensors to record with and not the "full frame"? Yikes...I thought I was finally getting somewhere in understanding all the terminology...
Ah mademoiselle, laissez moi explicer Full frame
Okay, what kind of sensors do manufacturers offer in comparison to 35 mm (from this moment referred to as: Full Frame (FF) )?
The line I know most about is the Canon line:
1. 300D/350D/D30/D60/10D/20D: those sensors are 1.6 times smaller than the standard 35mm format
2. 1D/1D Mark II: those sensors are 1.3 times smaller than the standard 35mm format
3. 1Ds/1Ds Mark II: we call these sensors full frame because they cover the same size as a 35mm frame
Nikon has a 1.5 so-called crop and if I'm correct they also have a camera where you can 'change' that factor by using less of the sensor, and thus becoming faster (more sports oriented)
So, why is FF (full frame) interesting? Well, here's the deal, if the sensor is smaller than 35mm format (like the 1.6x crop, also called APS-C size) then the Field of View (FoV) becomes smaller. Suppose you would use a 100mm lens on a 350D then you'd get the FoV of a 160mm lens on a FF camera. There's a lot of discussion on this on forums, but the fact remains, that if you have a 100mm lens, 2 cameras, one full-frame 4 megapixels and one APS-C 4 megapixels, then the APS-C will show a part of the photo on FF, but as large as the FF-photo itself (that is: at the same resolution as the full frame photo is) This can also start a discussion on lenses being outresolved by sensors, but that's something different, don't let it get into your mind
The bottom line: if you like to do tele-work, then the APS-C sensor really has benefits if you want more wide... you'll want as large sensor as you can get (but you'll pay loads for it, like $8000 for a 1Ds Mark II).
Shove that aside for a nice 17-40 F/4 L from Canon, one of the cheapest L-lenses available. It has a wide angle of around 28mm equivalent, and that suffices for a lot of people.
So, big sensor, nice wide, smaller sensor, nice tele. Canon offers more growth towards wide, but at bottom level is more restrained for wide angle.
Making sense??
Veuillez vous beurrer chien comme je veux conduire sa voiture à la plage.
Right.... :lol
So, ehm, you wanna say you'll take a dog to the beach by car any time???
[edit]
okay, here's from babelfish:
Please butter dog as I want to drive his car to the beach
:lol
[/edit]
Right.... :lol
So, ehm, you wanna say you'll take a dog to the beach by car any time???
[edit]
okay, here's from babelfish:
Please butter dog as I want to drive his car to the beach
:lol
[/edit]
Hmmm...I sort of get it...I think...well, maybe ~
So...Michiel, does that mean that what you see in the viewfinder is more than what you'll actually get on the sensor? Is that what Phil Askey means by the percentage of view you see him mention (ie. 95%)? If that's the case, it's a little scary to think that you lose 5% of the image you see in the viewfinder when it translates to what the sensor picks up. I tend to compose pretty tightly in the camera, so if I'm understanding the concept here (which is a BIG if, !), that means I'll have to learn to shoot a looser comp than what I'm used to...
OK, if that's NOT the idea, then I guess I'm still lost in the woods here. I knew about the multiplication tables (1.5x, 1.6x) and that it meant more zoom and less wide angle than the given numbers on the lenses, but I wasn't sure what it meant other than that.
Sigh...I need to reread your post again. Still lost in the woods I think, and I don't have a big chien to keep me company, only quelque chats
Merci ~Nee
ps. I'm more *into* zoom than wide angle, so I'm ok with the numbers game
So...Michiel, does that mean that what you see in the viewfinder is more than what you'll actually get on the sensor? Is that what Phil Askey means by the percentage of view you see him mention (ie. 95%)? If that's the case, it's a little scary to think that you lose 5% of the image you see in the viewfinder when it translates to what the sensor picks up. I tend to compose pretty tightly in the camera, so if I'm understanding the concept here (which is a BIG if, !), that means I'll have to learn to shoot a looser comp than what I'm used to...
OK, if that's NOT the idea, then I guess I'm still lost in the woods here. I knew about the multiplication tables (1.5x, 1.6x) and that it meant more zoom and less wide angle than the given numbers on the lenses, but I wasn't sure what it meant other than that.
Sigh...I need to reread your post again. Still lost in the woods I think, and I don't have a big chien to keep me company, only quelque chats
Merci ~Nee
ps. I'm more *into* zoom than wide angle, so I'm ok with the numbers game
I think what you see in the view finder is what you get in the image, plus you get 5 or 10% extra that the viewfinder doesnt see unless you spend $8000 for the Canon 1Ds Mark II. They could make it 100% for the cheaper cameras but they want you to spend more money so its a markting ploy.
Im pretty sure the mirror is smaller so you dont see the same area as the 35mm slr's, but the area that the ccd see's.
I could be wrong on this stuff.
Also the 1.6 crop factor isnt really a magnification. You get the same perspective but its just cropped in the center, so you get the illusion of a magnification. Which really sucks for wide angle lenses. If you hack the camera and put a p&s ccd in the camera, think of the telephoto illusion youd get. Wouldnt it be like 2 or 3x's?
Imagine not taking a photo through the LCD viewfinder
Hey now 'Gus, yer pullin' our leg right?? Just to be sure mate: you can't compose a shot by means of the LCD, only the OVF..... The LCD offers a review of a shot, never a preview
I'm pretty sure he's pullin' our leg...Otherwise, I would be very worried...
The more I look at the camera, the more I get used to it. I wouldn't buy it as a main camera, but I would buy it if I wanted to get a second dslr camera as a backup, or one that wouldn't be as hard to lug arround.
Hey now 'Gus, yer pullin' our leg right?? Just to be sure mate: you can't compose a shot by means of the LCD, only the OVF..... The LCD offers a review of a shot, never a preview
There is only one dSLR that lets you compose with the LCD: the Fuji S3, and even then you can't take a picture in that mode, it's black and white only, and you only get 30 seconds. I think you'll find that once you start using the viewfinder you like it immensley more anyways.
Richard
Funny you should mention it...
I saw in a recent forum post (actually, one of the camera owner write-ups) on dpreview that someone actually returned their brand new dslr because the LCD "wasn't working properly", ! They said their previous (non-dslr) camera let them see a live image on the LCD, but the new camera didn't, no matter what setting they tried. They actually sent it in for repair (!) first and of course it was sent back saying there was no problem, but when the owner tried it again, the "same problem occurred"! So the person said they would never buy that brand again and returned the camera to the store for a refund...
I saw in a recent forum post (actually, one of the camera owner write-ups) on dpreview that someone actually returned their brand new dslr because the LCD "wasn't working properly", ! They said their previous (non-dslr) camera let them see a live image on the LCD, but the new camera didn't, no matter what setting they tried. They actually sent it in for repair (!) first and of course it was sent back saying there was no problem, but when the owner tried it again, the "same problem occurred"! So the person said they would never buy that brand again and returned the camera to the store for a refund...
Guys i have a friend of a friend of a friend that wanted to know....
This battery pack that fits under the new XT.
I read ..sorry i mean.. 'THEY' read somewhere that it holds 6 AA batts....that sound about right ?
***stop press***
Everyone stop looking.....it takes the BG-E3 battery grip (optional extra) & that holds 6xAA's.
As an added bonus, the DIGIC II chip is so efficient, it actually reduces the EOS Digital Rebel XT camera’s power consumption (and extends battery life) by approximately 35%.
As an added bonus, the DIGIC II chip is so efficient, it actually reduces the EOS Digital Rebel XT camera’s power consumption (and extends battery life) by approximately 35%.
No, not banding. I saw that on the 1D, but not on the mkII. I just mean plain old noise. If I dare to play with the Exposure slider on a high ISO RAW pic, I can't go very far before ugly noise intrudes. I also notice that there's even less latitude with Contrast in a high ISO shot - they blow-out far more readily.
All of which I take to mean that if you use high ISO, the exposure has to be spot-on in the camera, as you can't do much fixing in post. Which is a bummer, since I am technically weak at making perfect exposures. It's one of the many things that I admire about Andy's work - he understands how to get it right in the camera. :bluduh
You're right in all your observations, but you can get most of your manipulation lattitude back if you use a decent noise elimination package before you start playing with exposure and whatnot. I use the excellent Neat Image, which is well worth the $50ish they charge for it. It's like magic.
As an added bonus, the DIGIC II chip is so efficient, it actually reduces the EOS Digital Rebel XT camera’s power consumption (and extends battery life) by approximately 35%.
[/font][/i]
How does a married man convince his wife to let him buy a camera
Here is what I did:
1. Calculate the price of what you want.
2. Double it.
3. Save up that much.
4. Do something SHE wants with 1/2. Pay bills, get a new dishwasher, fly her mother in.
5. Now spend the other half on yourself.
Here is what I did:
1. Calculate the price of what you want.
2. Double it.
3. Save up that much.
4. Do something SHE wants with 1/2. Pay bills, get a new dishwasher, fly her mother in.
5. Now spend the other half on yourself.
clapclapclap
OR another way to get your wife to let you buy a camera...get her interested in photography and buy her a camera too! I guarantee you I would choose a camera over a dishwasher any day. BUTsince I have a 20D, I would take another lens.
Comments
...But I'm hoping for a lot of things before I plunk down my money! First and foremost, picture quality. Next, build quality and reliability (none of those error 99's, please!). Third, ease of use (as in a nice bright viewfinder, easy to use controls, etc). Fourth, battery life (will the new, smaller battery have enough lasting power?). Hopefully, the extra battery grip is not going to be a "must have" if you want to shoot for very long, but I've always kept an extra battery on hand anyhow, so it would be no biggie to buy an extra one for this cam, too.
So as far as it goes, all the features seem quite appealing (I'm ok with only 3fps...I don't really shoot sports or fast action stuff anyhow). I'm also ok with a top ISO of 1600. At ISO 3200 the 20D pics aren't really that much to write home about and my 828 only goes to ISO 800, so I doubt I'll miss having it.
The low price is very nice...but actually, that's my biggest worry! You usually get what you pay for, so is this new cam a real winner...or just an expensive piece of cheap plastic junk? I'm staying hopeful...the digicam price wars seem to be working to our benefit, and Canon is the leader in that regard so far!
I just hate having to wait another month to see how this one stacks up to the competition...this waiting game is keeping my nails short and my nerves on end!
Cheers!
~Nee :smooch
http://www.pbase.com/rdavis
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all the evidence that you tried~
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eosdigital2/
.
Richard
Some comments on the above statements.. Something you'll have to keep in mind is the more shallow DOF at a given aperture of a DSLR vs an F-series camera.. F/8 on the Sony ain't no F/8 on the XT/20D
The low price.. that will be my second point to explain. For Canon there are 2 sources to create chunks of money:
1. the Lenses
2. the cameras
The first one and most important are lenses!! If you buy 1 camera body and you like the lens setup (if you're smart you'll base your choice on lens setup) of the manufacturer than the manufacturer can be almost sure of a lot of extra investment on your part
WOW, I'll now stop my ramble
Michiel de Brieder
http://www.digital-eye.nl
It's still got more mag than the Nikon D70 (0.75x ), which has been on my list of potential buys...and may still be on my list depending on how the 350D pans out.
We'll see...
~Nee
http://www.pbase.com/rdavis
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all the evidence that you tried~
Mais...Je ne sais quoi (pardon my poor high school French from 30+ years ago,
It seems that Canon has more lenses, but are they better lenses or are they equal to or of less quality than Nikon's? The fact that Canon keeps pumping out new mass produced cameras and gear is actually a bit worrisome. You know what they say about slow and steady winning the race. It may be that Nikon is taking a quality over quantity approach. Or maybe they've just given up the race? Hard to say which...but perhaps time will tell. ~Nee
http://www.pbase.com/rdavis
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all the evidence that you tried~
Both Nikon and Canon have excellent lenses, for me the choice was also influenced by the fact that I could get a very good deal on a used D30! You can't miss with either system, I think that someone starting off in the DSLR world can nicely benefit from the cheap body Canon offers. On the other hand, you already seem very enthusiastic and interested, so the investment in the body will not hang upon a a couple of 100 $$
Hope I've added to the confusion :lol
Michiel de Brieder
http://www.digital-eye.nl
Oui, je suis tres... er...uh...confused,
~Nee
http://www.pbase.com/rdavis
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all the evidence that you tried~
Veuillez vous beurrer chien comme je veux conduire sa voiture à la plage.
Okay, what kind of sensors do manufacturers offer in comparison to 35 mm (from this moment referred to as: Full Frame (FF)
The line I know most about is the Canon line:
1. 300D/350D/D30/D60/10D/20D: those sensors are 1.6 times smaller than the standard 35mm format
2. 1D/1D Mark II: those sensors are 1.3 times smaller than the standard 35mm format
3. 1Ds/1Ds Mark II: we call these sensors full frame because they cover the same size as a 35mm frame
Nikon has a 1.5 so-called crop and if I'm correct they also have a camera where you can 'change' that factor by using less of the sensor, and thus becoming faster (more sports oriented)
So, why is FF (full frame) interesting? Well, here's the deal, if the sensor is smaller than 35mm format (like the 1.6x crop, also called APS-C size) then the Field of View (FoV) becomes smaller. Suppose you would use a 100mm lens on a 350D then you'd get the FoV of a 160mm lens on a FF camera. There's a lot of discussion on this on forums, but the fact remains, that if you have a 100mm lens, 2 cameras, one full-frame 4 megapixels and one APS-C 4 megapixels, then the APS-C will show a part of the photo on FF, but as large as the FF-photo itself (that is: at the same resolution as the full frame photo is) This can also start a discussion on lenses being outresolved by sensors, but that's something different, don't let it get into your mind
The bottom line: if you like to do tele-work, then the APS-C sensor really has benefits
Shove that aside for a nice 17-40 F/4 L from Canon, one of the cheapest L-lenses available. It has a wide angle of around 28mm equivalent, and that suffices for a lot of people.
So, big sensor, nice wide, smaller sensor, nice tele. Canon offers more growth towards wide, but at bottom level is more restrained for wide angle.
Making sense??
Michiel de Brieder
http://www.digital-eye.nl
So, ehm, you wanna say you'll take a dog to the beach by car any time???
[edit]
okay, here's from babelfish:
Please butter dog as I want to drive his car to the beach
:lol
[/edit]
Michiel de Brieder
http://www.digital-eye.nl
French is not so easy, eh?
(Michiel, my reply to your longer post is coming up!) ~Nee
http://www.pbase.com/rdavis
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all the evidence that you tried~
So...Michiel, does that mean that what you see in the viewfinder is more than what you'll actually get on the sensor? Is that what Phil Askey means by the percentage of view you see him mention (ie. 95%)? If that's the case, it's a little scary to think that you lose 5% of the image you see in the viewfinder when it translates to what the sensor picks up. I tend to compose pretty tightly in the camera, so if I'm understanding the concept here (which is a BIG if,
OK, if that's NOT the idea, then I guess I'm still lost in the woods here. I knew about the multiplication tables (1.5x, 1.6x) and that it meant more zoom and less wide angle than the given numbers on the lenses, but I wasn't sure what it meant other than that.
Sigh...I need to reread your post again. Still lost in the woods I think, and I don't have a big chien to keep me company, only quelque chats
Merci ~Nee
ps. I'm more *into* zoom than wide angle, so I'm ok with the numbers game
http://www.pbase.com/rdavis
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all the evidence that you tried~
The conversion factor is the ratio of the difference between the two.
Since the sensor's smaller, it effectively adds to the focal length of the lens, making for a stronger zoom.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Im pretty sure the mirror is smaller so you dont see the same area as the 35mm slr's, but the area that the ccd see's.
I could be wrong on this stuff.
Also the 1.6 crop factor isnt really a magnification. You get the same perspective but its just cropped in the center, so you get the illusion of a magnification. Which really sucks for wide angle lenses. If you hack the camera and put a p&s ccd in the camera, think of the telephoto illusion youd get. Wouldnt it be like 2 or 3x's?
Imagine not taking a photo through the LCD viewfinder :lol4 :lol4 :lol4
Michiel de Brieder
http://www.digital-eye.nl
The more I look at the camera, the more I get used to it. I wouldn't buy it as a main camera, but I would buy it if I wanted to get a second dslr camera as a backup, or one that wouldn't be as hard to lug arround.
http://redbull.smugmug.com
"Money can't buy happiness...But it can buy expensive posessions that make other people envious, and that feels just as good.":D
Canon 20D, Canon 50 1.8 II, Canon 70-200 f/4L, Canon 17-40 f/4 L, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Canon 430ex.
Richard
I saw in a recent forum post (actually, one of the camera owner write-ups) on dpreview that someone actually returned their brand new dslr because the LCD "wasn't working properly",
http://www.pbase.com/rdavis
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all the evidence that you tried~
~Nee
http://www.pbase.com/rdavis
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all the evidence that you tried~
This battery pack that fits under the new XT.
I read ..sorry i mean.. 'THEY' read somewhere that it holds 6 AA batts....that sound about right ?
***stop press***
Everyone stop looking.....it takes the BG-E3 battery grip (optional extra) & that holds 6xAA's.
As an added bonus, the DIGIC II chip is so efficient, it actually reduces the EOS Digital Rebel XT camera’s power consumption (and extends battery life) by approximately 35%.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Unless you set it on Vibrate mode.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
You're right in all your observations, but you can get most of your manipulation lattitude back if you use a decent noise elimination package before you start playing with exposure and whatnot. I use the excellent Neat Image, which is well worth the $50ish they charge for it. It's like magic.
jim
jimf@frostbytes.com
How does a married man convince his wife to let him buy a camera
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
1. Calculate the price of what you want.
2. Double it.
3. Save up that much.
4. Do something SHE wants with 1/2. Pay bills, get a new dishwasher, fly her mother in.
5. Now spend the other half on yourself.