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

I am very new to this area of photography and so my questions may be
basic in nature. These are the questions I have:

1) This question pertains to photo quality ONLY. All the features and
what have yous are obviously going to vary camera to camera, but I'm
only concerned with the photo quality. Granted this, digital camera
technology advances quickly everyday and there are mega dollar bodies
out there. What seperates this body from any that are out there now
and to come in future granted the same glass (lens) is on each body? In
other words, is there a limitation to this camera's body that would
make someone "upgrade" now or ever?...again, these questions only
having to do with a camera's body and it's capabilities to produce a
photograph.

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.

3) I have been recently made aware that older lenses can mount on the
300D. Is it worth using an older (but good) lens Vs. the new ones made
specifically for the 300D? Take for example, something older that
Canon produced vs. one of their L series lenses. The reason I ask this
is because I wonder if the reason to get the newer lenses may have more
to do with the weight vs. the older ones or maybe also less noise,
smoother functioning, etc. Again, only interested in photo quality and
trying to figure out if the older lenses can compete with the newer
ones.

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


Thank you for your help!!!
Mike

3) I have been recently made aware that older lenses can mount on the
300D. Is it worth using an older (but good) lens Vs. the new ones made
specifically for the 300D? Take for example, something older that
Canon produced vs. one of their L series lenses. The reason I ask this
is because I wonder if the reason to get the newer lenses may have more
to do with the weight vs. the older ones or maybe also less noise,
smoother functioning, etc. Again, only interested in photo quality and
trying to figure out if the older lenses can compete with the newer
ones.

Any Canon EF-mount lenses (ie. those designed for EOS-series cameras,
including the L-series glass) will work on the 300D, or any other
current Canon dSLRs. Those with the old FD-mount from the Canon
manual-focus cameras won't work, but the EOS has been around for a good,
oh, 15-20 years now, and has a pretty substantial lineup on its own. If
you have some old FD lenses that you're really adamant about using,
there are adapters available that will let them work, with reduced
functionality (obviously, no AF), but I wouldn't let this particular
"limitation" be a concern.

I know you have specifically mentioned old Canon lenses are compatible. I'd
just like to add that some aftermarket lenses are not compatible. I have a
Sigma 28 -70 lens that I used to use with my Canon 100 EOS however it just
gives ERR 99 on my new 300D. I have since spoke to Sigma and they say
certain lenses can be chipped to work with a DSLR but unfortunately not
mine.

Steven.

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
3) I have been recently made aware that older lenses can mount on the
300D. Is it worth using an older (but good) lens Vs. the new ones made
specifically for the 300D? Take for example, something older that
Canon produced vs. one of their L series lenses. The reason I ask this
is because I wonder if the reason to get the newer lenses may have more
to do with the weight vs. the older ones or maybe also less noise,
smoother functioning, etc. Again, only interested in photo quality and
trying to figure out if the older lenses can compete with the newer
ones.

The newer EF-S lenses are designed for digital only. The main advantage
of these lenses is better wide-angle performance and lighter weight.

If wide-angle is not a consideration, then the older EF lenses work as
well as anything that could be designed today.

-Dave

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