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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 07:41 AM | |
Nikon D70 dSLR or Nikon CP8800 Non dSLR (Non-CCD Cleaning!!) ?? | Digital Photography | 0 | March 3rd 05 05:48 AM | |
DSLR cameras... | Developwebsites | Digital Photography | 17 | January 21st 05 08:33 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 |