A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Marketplace » Digital Photo Equipment For Sale
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Upgrading to a DSLR question.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 21st 05, 04:03 PM
Frank ess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Justin Thyme wrote:
"Robert" wrote in message
...
I am upgrading from an Oly C4040. and I am trying to decide between
the Evolt, EOS 300D, EOS 350D, and the EOS 20D. Mainly between the
Evolt and the
EOS 350D. I know the Oly has the CCD and the Canon has the CMOS.
Back When I
bought the C4040 I read that the CCD was the way to go. I am not
sure now. Any advice and comments between the EOS 350D and the
Evolt
would be greatly
appreciated.

The 20D is not in the same category as the 300D or 350D or the
E-300.
Obviously comparing just these models the 20D is the much better
camera. But it is also more expensive, and if that is an issue then
the equation becomes a little blurred. The standard Canon kit lenses
are truly awful,


Hyperbole alert: the 18-55 is not that bad.
http://www.fototime.com/inv/191CD1A6774DAD3

so for the same money as a 20D with it's

http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/

kit lens,
you could get a 300D or 350D with a half decent lens (From what I've
seen, even the much maligned sigma lenses perform better than
Canon's
cheap lenses). Using a 20D (or even the 300 or 350) with the kit
lens is like using standard petrol and tyres with a Ferrari.
I find the E-300 a bit of a quandary - it's


_ibid._

kit lens is many orders of
magnitude better than Canon kit lenses, it's


_ditto_
(it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it)

build quality leaves the
similar priced Canon's feeling like bits of plastic junk, but it is
let down by a very noisy sensor and I found some of it's


....

functions
such as "hold the button down" exposure lock, and the lack of mirror
lock up to be quite annoying. If you mainly shoot in daylight, and
want to use it as an advanced P&S it is


missed your chance!

a great little camera - if
you want to use it in low light situations or in tricky shooting
situations it is a bit limited. The sensor cleaning function is
fantastic however, and could tip the scales well away from any other
models in this league. Why limit yourself to the models you listed?
If you like the Olympus
cameras and are looking at something in the same league as the 20D,
the E-1 ships with an extremely good kit lens, and picture quality
and camera features are miles ahead of the E-300 (despite the lower
number of pixels). I'd prefer 5 million excellent pixels over 8
million average pixels any day. The E1's build quality is 2nd to
none, it is very rugged, can handle a bit of rain or snow, and won't
need to be sent for sensor cleaning every couple of months. If you
are looking at something in a similar price range to the
E300/300D/350D, I think it's hard to go past the Pentax *istDS.
Build
quality and feel is miles ahead of the Canons - again makes the
Canons feel like plastic pieces of junk.


If you used scientific language in place of tabloid language, I
believe you would be more credible.

Pentax lenses are excellent,
or alternatively (here in Australia at least)


Now I get it - you're just oriented upside-down, universally speaking.

it is often bundled
with Sigma lenses which are not great but significantly better than
the cheap Canon offerings. The camera is compatible with the
zillions
of K-mount lenses around, plus you can use the old screw-mount
lenses
with adapters. This gives you access to a huge variety of lenses,
new
& used, at all price/quality levels including some of the finest
lenses that have ever been made. Another alternative is the highly
rated Nikon D70 - it is an excellent
camera, and the 18-70 DX lens is excellent. It is a bit higher
priced
than the E300/300D/350D/istDS, but quite a bit lower than the 20D.
Personally I think they are a little on the large and heavy side,
but
they do feel solid.


Relax. You have good knowledge and valuable opinions. Let them sell
themselves. Histrionics are Preddy territory.

Yes it's.


Resp'y,

--
Frank ess

  #22  
Old May 21st 05, 04:35 PM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." wrote in message
...
"Aza" wrote in message
...

"Justin Thyme" wrote in message
...

"Robert" wrote in message


The standard Canon kit lenses are truly awful,


They look and feel awful, admittedly, but the image quality of the
18-55mm is surprisingly good.


I keep reading this and I keep trying the 18-55 that came with my 300D and
I keep putting it back in my bag swearing that I'll never use it again.
It just plain sucks!!!! It's either out of focus or very soft. With
that said I understand that there are two(?) versions of this lens so I
may just have the cheaper crappy version, but I rarely use the lens and
I'll be buy a good wide angle as soon as budget allows.

--

Rob

As with many of Canon's consumer level lenses, there seems to be a wide
variation in samples. This was taken with the 18-55 that was bundled with
my wife's 20D:
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-b...ces&picture=26
Sharp, good color, not much more that you can ask for in a lens that runs
about $100.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


  #23  
Old May 21st 05, 04:44 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skip M wrote:

As with many of Canon's consumer level lenses, there seems to be a wide
variation in samples. This was taken with the 18-55 that was bundled with
my wife's 20D:
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-b...ces&picture=26
Sharp, good color, not much more that you can ask for in a lens that runs
about $100.


I'm guessing the shot was made at f/8 to f/11 ... almost any lens will
do well in bright light and those aperture settings.

The real test is wide open...

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  #24  
Old May 21st 05, 04:58 PM
Frank ess
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote:
Skip M wrote:

As with many of Canon's consumer level lenses, there seems to be a
wide variation in samples. This was taken with the 18-55 that was
bundled with my wife's 20D:
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-b...ces&picture=26
Sharp, good color, not much more that you can ask for in a lens
that
runs about $100.


I'm guessing the shot was made at f/8 to f/11 ... almost any lens
will
do well in bright light and those aperture settings.

The real test is wide open...


The real test is: Did it make an attractive image for viewing in these
circumstances, and it did. A "truly awful" lens would not have been
able to dpo that.

  #25  
Old May 21st 05, 05:25 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Frank ess wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

Skip M wrote:

As with many of Canon's consumer level lenses, there seems to be a
wide variation in samples. This was taken with the 18-55 that was
bundled with my wife's 20D:
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-b...ces&picture=26

Sharp, good color, not much more that you can ask for in a lens that
runs about $100.



I'm guessing the shot was made at f/8 to f/11 ... almost any lens will
do well in bright light and those aperture settings.

The real test is wide open...


The real test is: Did it make an attractive image for viewing in these
circumstances, and it did. A "truly awful" lens would not have been able
to dpo that.


See above. Even awful lenses do well in high contrast light and a few
stops down. I used to have the Minolta 28-80xi lens, which was mediocre
to good at best. Yet, in bright conditions stopped down, I mades some
wonderful images with it.

As to the person who made the "truly awful" statement about Canon kit
lenses, he is wrong in many instances. The more recent 28-80's were not
only good, they were very good for their price. Better than Nikon and
Minolta in that 'class' and price range.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  #26  
Old May 21st 05, 08:08 PM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Skip M wrote:

As with many of Canon's consumer level lenses, there seems to be a wide
variation in samples. This was taken with the 18-55 that was bundled
with my wife's 20D:
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-b...ces&picture=26
Sharp, good color, not much more that you can ask for in a lens that runs
about $100.


I'm guessing the shot was made at f/8 to f/11 ... almost any lens will do
well in bright light and those aperture settings.

The real test is wide open...

Cheers,
Alan.


You're right, f8 at 1/200. But I feel that the lens is in no way as
scabrous as many portray it. Stopped down, or no, there are lenses that
won't perform as well, the Vivitar 17-35 AF lens springs to mind. And it
costs more than the Canon.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


  #27  
Old May 21st 05, 10:26 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Skip M wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Skip M wrote:


As with many of Canon's consumer level lenses, there seems to be a wide
variation in samples. This was taken with the 18-55 that was bundled
with my wife's 20D:
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-b...ces&picture=26
Sharp, good color, not much more that you can ask for in a lens that runs
about $100.


I'm guessing the shot was made at f/8 to f/11 ... almost any lens will do
well in bright light and those aperture settings.

The real test is wide open...

Cheers,
Alan.



You're right, f8 at 1/200. But I feel that the lens is in no way as
scabrous as many portray it. Stopped down, or no, there are lenses that
won't perform as well, the Vivitar 17-35 AF lens springs to mind. And it
costs more than the Canon.


I've yet to hear (or maybe remember) anything good about any Vivitar lens.

As I said in another post, some Canon kit lenses are better than their
competitor company counterparts. I'd have little trouble believing the
18-55 is decent too. Having said that, it just occured to me to go to a
source:

.... page 159 of the March 2004 (No. 261) issue of Chasseur D'Images
reports on the Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6:

scores after measurement as being:

Distortion: 4/5
Vignetting: 3/5
Ctr sharp: 3/5
Edge sharp: 3/5
Overal sco 3/5

Comments:

wide angle /wide open vignetting: poor
f/5.6: good (they say "honorable results"
which from the French also describes whores who overcharged Nazi
officers while giving them syphillis... interpret appropriately)

Chromatic abberations: short FL, noticeable, overall not too bad for an
'economical' lens.

Distortion: bad pincushion from 18 to 28mm, though not "catastrophically
so" for a zoom. From 28 up, negligible.

Optical qualities: "Forget wide open!" If used from f/5.6 to f/16 then
the center sharpness is darned satisying for a lens of this price. On
the edges, 'drags' a bit. [They use the word "fichtrement" ...
'darned', and "traine" .. 'drags' some things just don't translate well]

Best used f/8 to f/11 is their conclusion ... and I swear I didn't look
up the report for my prev. reply!

The accompanying graphs do show the best sagital/tangential performance
at 55mm, f/11 - f/16; and very good at 25mm from f/5.6 to f/16.

If you like, I'll scan the report summary (4" x 8" roughly) and e-mail
it to you... your High School French (or Spanish) should suffice.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
  #28  
Old May 21st 05, 11:17 PM
Robert Barr
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


They look and feel awful, admittedly, but the image quality of the 18-55mm
is surprisingly good.



I keep reading this and I keep trying the 18-55 that came with my 300D and I
keep putting it back in my bag swearing that I'll never use it again. It
just plain sucks!!!! It's either out of focus or very soft.


http://www.cycleorings.com/kid.jpg

Yep. It really sucks.
  #29  
Old May 21st 05, 11:56 PM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Justin Thyme wrote:


I found some of it's functions such as
"hold the button down" exposure lock,


That is annoying.

and the lack of mirror lock up


It's been included in the latest firmware.


--

Stacey
  #30  
Old May 23rd 05, 06:59 AM
Skip M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Skip M wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Skip M wrote:


As with many of Canon's consumer level lenses, there seems to be a wide
variation in samples. This was taken with the 18-55 that was bundled
with my wife's 20D:
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-b...ces&picture=26
Sharp, good color, not much more that you can ask for in a lens that
runs about $100.

I'm guessing the shot was made at f/8 to f/11 ... almost any lens will do
well in bright light and those aperture settings.

The real test is wide open...

Cheers,
Alan.



You're right, f8 at 1/200. But I feel that the lens is in no way as
scabrous as many portray it. Stopped down, or no, there are lenses that
won't perform as well, the Vivitar 17-35 AF lens springs to mind. And it
costs more than the Canon.


I've yet to hear (or maybe remember) anything good about any Vivitar lens.

As I said in another post, some Canon kit lenses are better than their
competitor company counterparts. I'd have little trouble believing the
18-55 is decent too. Having said that, it just occured to me to go to a
source:

... page 159 of the March 2004 (No. 261) issue of Chasseur D'Images
reports on the Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6:

scores after measurement as being:

Distortion: 4/5
Vignetting: 3/5
Ctr sharp: 3/5
Edge sharp: 3/5
Overal sco 3/5

Comments:

wide angle /wide open vignetting: poor
f/5.6: good (they say "honorable results" which
from the French also describes whores who overcharged Nazi officers while
giving them syphillis... interpret appropriately)

Chromatic abberations: short FL, noticeable, overall not too bad for an
'economical' lens.

Distortion: bad pincushion from 18 to 28mm, though not "catastrophically
so" for a zoom. From 28 up, negligible.

Optical qualities: "Forget wide open!" If used from f/5.6 to f/16 then
the center sharpness is darned satisying for a lens of this price. On the
edges, 'drags' a bit. [They use the word "fichtrement" ... 'darned', and
"traine" .. 'drags' some things just don't translate well]

Best used f/8 to f/11 is their conclusion ... and I swear I didn't look up
the report for my prev. reply!

The accompanying graphs do show the best sagital/tangential performance at
55mm, f/11 - f/16; and very good at 25mm from f/5.6 to f/16.

If you like, I'll scan the report summary (4" x 8" roughly) and e-mail it
to you... your High School French (or Spanish) should suffice.

Cheers,
Alan.


Nah, that's ok, it's pretty similar to my own experience, it's just that the
lens gets excoriated beyond what's justified. For the price, it's not bad,
that's all.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon D70 dSLR or Nikon CP8800 Non dSLR (Non-CCD Cleaning!!) ?? Digital Photography 62 March 18th 05 08:41 AM
Nikon D70 dSLR or Nikon CP8800 Non dSLR (Non-CCD Cleaning!!) ?? Digital Photography 0 March 3rd 05 06:48 AM
DSLR cameras... Developwebsites Digital Photography 17 January 21st 05 09:33 PM
Question regarding DSLR & CF when traveling. Orion Digital Photography 6 October 1st 04 04:08 PM
Low end dSLR vs fim SLR John Doe 35mm Photo Equipment 79 September 15th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.