Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
[]
2) Can any non-dslr camera compete with a dslr in image quality?
Again, another image quality question since I'm only interested in the
quality of the photo.

Mike, that's another of those "how long is a piece of string?" questions.
If you have a good non-DSLR, and you use it at its minimum sensitivity
setting, sensible lens settings etc. you might be hard pressed to tell the
difference on an A4 print (for example).

You could equally contrive photographic situations which suited one camera
or the other far better, and get a different answer. At higher ISO
settings DSLRs win, but with a size, weight, bulk and cost penalty.

If quality is your prime concern, some would say to forget 35mm. Where
are /you/ going to draw the line?

David

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
[]
2) Can any non-dslr camera compete with a dslr in image quality?
Again, another image quality question since I'm only interested in the
quality of the photo.

Mike, that's another of those "how long is a piece of string?" questions.
If you have a good non-DSLR, and you use it at its minimum sensitivity
setting, sensible lens settings etc. you might be hard pressed to tell the
difference on an A4 print (for example).

You could equally contrive photographic situations which suited one camera
or the other far better, and get a different answer. At higher ISO
settings DSLRs win, but with a size, weight, bulk and cost penalty.

If quality is your prime concern, some would say to forget 35mm. Where
are /you/ going to draw the line?

David

In article .com,
Progressiveabsolution wrote:

2) Can any non-dslr camera compete with a dslr in image quality?
Again, another image quality question since I'm only interested in the
quality of the photo.

The Epson RD-1, certainly, especially given that it can use rangefinder
lenses, which are often optically very good indeed.

Apart from that, probably not.

In article .com,
Progressiveabsolution wrote:

2) Can any non-dslr camera compete with a dslr in image quality?
Again, another image quality question since I'm only interested in the
quality of the photo.

The Epson RD-1, certainly, especially given that it can use rangefinder
lenses, which are often optically very good indeed.

Apart from that, probably not.

"You could equally contrive photographic situations which suited one
camera
or the other far better, and get a different answer."


Hi David. What situations would both be equal at and in what
situations would one excel over the other? I'm trying to get a clear
idea for my own personal use with photography to make the decision one
way or the other. I like taking photos of
flowers/nature/landscapes/night photography if that is possible with
P&S cameras, etc. For example, MOST of my photos with my Olympus C4000
were of the sunset. I don't do any action photography. Thanks for
your comments/help!

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
"You could equally contrive photographic situations which suited one
camera
or the other far better, and get a different answer."


Hi David. What situations would both be equal at and in what
situations would one excel over the other? I'm trying to get a clear
idea for my own personal use with photography to make the decision one
way or the other. I like taking photos of
flowers/nature/landscapes/night photography if that is possible with
P&S cameras, etc. For example, MOST of my photos with my Olympus
C4000 were of the sunset. I don't do any action photography. Thanks
for your comments/help!

For example, the swivel LCD finder on many cameras allow you to place the
camera at ground level and makes flower photography much easier - you
don't need to have your eye also at ground level. DSLRs can't have such a
swivel finder (but they may offer an angle attachment for the eyepiece).
The Nikon Coolpix range have a reputation as the best non-DSLRs for macro
photography.

Action and perhaps low-light level candids might suit the DSLR.

With night photography, the higher sensitivity of the DSLR might help, but
with both cameras you can use long exposures on a tripod (and dark-frame
subtraction to remove fixed-pattern sensor noise).

DSLRs and heavier and bulkier - maybe that matters to you.

Cheers,
David

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
"You could equally contrive photographic situations which suited one
camera
or the other far better, and get a different answer."


Hi David. What situations would both be equal at and in what
situations would one excel over the other? I'm trying to get a clear
idea for my own personal use with photography to make the decision one
way or the other. I like taking photos of
flowers/nature/landscapes/night photography if that is possible with
P&S cameras, etc. For example, MOST of my photos with my Olympus
C4000 were of the sunset. I don't do any action photography. Thanks
for your comments/help!

For example, the swivel LCD finder on many cameras allow you to place the
camera at ground level and makes flower photography much easier - you
don't need to have your eye also at ground level. DSLRs can't have such a
swivel finder (but they may offer an angle attachment for the eyepiece).
The Nikon Coolpix range have a reputation as the best non-DSLRs for macro
photography.

Action and perhaps low-light level candids might suit the DSLR.

With night photography, the higher sensitivity of the DSLR might help, but
with both cameras you can use long exposures on a tripod (and dark-frame
subtraction to remove fixed-pattern sensor noise).

DSLRs and heavier and bulkier - maybe that matters to you.

Cheers,
David

1) This question pertains to photo quality ONLY. [...] In
other words, is there a limitation to this camera's body that would
make someone "upgrade" now or ever?

No obvious limitation according to Moore's law that states "all Si
chips will go better and better, saecula saeculorum, amen"...

A external limitation could then be that the aforementioned body could
at some moment fulfill your needs, so that you wouldn't benefit of any
more quality progress (btw, sorry for my English if that's not
grammatically correct).
For MY particular needs (I can't afford printing A3 sorry 11x17",
neither expensive killing "L" lenses) I feel I've reached that point
with my rebel/300d.
Hard to answer for you anyway, you'd better give it a try!


2) Can any non-dslr camera compete with a dslr in image quality?
Again, another image quality question since I'm only interested in
the
quality of the photo.

Except for the (somewhat peculiar) Epson RD1, the much smaller size of
the sensor in a typical compact camera produce much more noise, and
that makes a very visible difference at high ISO settings, and a
just-a-bit-more-than-tiny one at ordinary 100ISO, (speaking of a A4
unprocessed print and according to MY taste - I really don't like
noise).
Anyway there are good noise reduction software on the market but we
might go slightly off-topic?


3) I have been recently made aware that older lenses can mount on the
300D.

What's your criteria for being old?

You can use any canon EF lens on the 300d, with the 1.6x focal length
magnification (a lens with "50mm" written on it will give you the field
of view of a 80mm, but will keep the depth of field of the 50mm).
I've also heard of a few problems with 3rd-party lenses (but not many).

Speaking of the manual FD lenses, no they won't work, but I've heard of
an adaptator existing somewhere on Earth, although being cumbersome and
not really practical (???or was it a 42mm adaptor???).


4) Lastly, is the "hack/Wasia" firmware a good "upgrade" or is this
something debatable based on personal use and preference?

Once again, hard to tell it for you if YOU need the additional
features.

The only caveats are
- a slight limitation in language choice (I've understood that if it's
not English you will miss the "mirror lock up delay" item),
- and a possible void of warranty (BUT there is at least 1 reported
case of someone sending his/her 300d to canon with the hack installed,
that has been accepted in warranty with no complaints).

Speaking of image quality, the mirror lock up can help it if you're a
resolution junkie (less shaking blur).

It's up to you!

With many apologizes for my poor english,
Nicolas

David J Taylor wrote:
Progressiveabsolution wrote:
"You could equally contrive photographic situations which suited one
camera
or the other far better, and get a different answer."


Hi David. What situations would both be equal at and in what
situations would one excel over the other? I'm trying to get a clear
idea for my own personal use with photography to make the decision
one way or the other. I like taking photos of
flowers/nature/landscapes/night photography if that is possible with
P&S cameras, etc. For example, MOST of my photos with my Olympus
C4000 were of the sunset. I don't do any action photography. Thanks
for your comments/help!

For example, the swivel LCD finder on many cameras allow you to place
the camera at ground level and makes flower photography much easier -
you don't need to have your eye also at ground level. DSLRs can't
have such a swivel finder (but they may offer an angle attachment for
the eyepiece). The Nikon Coolpix range have a reputation as the best
non-DSLRs for macro photography.

Action and perhaps low-light level candids might suit the DSLR.

With night photography, the higher sensitivity of the DSLR might
help, but with both cameras you can use long exposures on a tripod
(and dark-frame subtraction to remove fixed-pattern sensor noise).

DSLRs and heavier and bulkier - maybe that matters to you.


+ It is more difficult to restrict depth of field with a
(smaller-sensor) non-dSLR.


--
Frank ess

Frank ess wrote:
[]
+ It is more difficult to restrict depth of field with a
(smaller-sensor) non-dSLR.

+ it is easier to get a large depth field with a P&S and focussing is less
critical.

A valid difference, thanks for bringing it out, but with
"flowers/nature/landscapes/night photography" as the OP's intended use,
which would you think more suitable?

Cheers,
David