Buying a Canon EOS 300D Digital camera

Brian wrote:

I am thinking of buying the Canon EOS 300D digital camera. I own the
35mm version of this camera.
I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
wide angle photos.

The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed per
photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and the
cost.
There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
more for the updated camera?
As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
advantage to me?

I have a Sony video camera that takes good photos of 1360 x 1020 using
1.3 Megapixels so I'm wondering if it's worth buying another digital
camera.

Hoping for a reply

Regards Brian

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:24:52 +1200, Brian wrote:

Brian wrote:

I am thinking of buying the Canon EOS 300D digital camera. I own the
35mm version of this camera.
I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
wide angle photos.

The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed per
photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and the
cost.
There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
more for the updated camera?
As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
advantage to me?

I have a Sony video camera that takes good photos of 1360 x 1020 using
1.3 Megapixels so I'm wondering if it's worth buying another digital
camera.

Hoping for a reply

Regards Brian
\

I like mine.

Not much of a reply, I guess. Not at all sorry that I bought it.

I've used Vivitar and Pentax 35mm stuff, Bronica 6X6, Nagaoka 4X5
Nikon 900, 950, 990.

None professionally, just for fun.




--
Charles

Does not play well with others.

Brian wrote:
Brian wrote:

I am thinking of buying the Canon EOS 300D digital camera. I own the
35mm version of this camera.
I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
wide angle photos.

The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed per
photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and the
cost.
There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
more for the updated camera?
As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
advantage to me?

I have a Sony video camera that takes good photos of 1360 x 1020 using
1.3 Megapixels so I'm wondering if it's worth buying another digital
camera.

Hoping for a reply

Regards Brian


By today's standard of dSLR, 300D is slow that might affect your chance
of getting the shots but it produces great pictures. It's still way
ahead of your film based SLR and many digital P&S.

Nowadays, high capacility CF is VERY cheap. And of course, more MP is
better. If you have a Costco nearby, you can print 8x12, 12x16 for $2
and $3, respectively.

if you're getting one of the 3x0D series, get the kit.

Brian wrote:
Brian wrote:

I am thinking of buying the Canon EOS 300D digital camera. I own the
35mm version of this camera.
I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
wide angle photos.

The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed per
photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and the
cost.
There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
more for the updated camera?
As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
advantage to me?

I have a Sony video camera that takes good photos of 1360 x 1020 using
1.3 Megapixels so I'm wondering if it's worth buying another digital
camera.

Hoping for a reply

Regards Brian


Nevermind, I just realize you're in New Zealand but many of the comments
still apply. You'd want to print more large sizes photo if you know a
cheap photo printing shops or print your own on inkjets.

Brian wrote:

I am thinking of buying the Canon EOS 300D digital camera. I own the
35mm version of this camera.
I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
wide angle photos.

HEADS UP! Just in case you are not aware of this: the 300D and 350D have
sensors that are much smaller than the 35mm film frame, so your wide angle
lenses get a lot less wide.

So to do wide angle work with the 300D (or 350D), you'll need something like
the (expensive) Canon 10-22mm lens, or one of the still nowhere near cheap
third party superwide zooms that start at 10, 11, or 12mm.

The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed per
photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and the
cost.

Big CF cards are getting cheaper.

There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
more for the updated camera?

Yes. The 300D is a lovely 6MP camera, but the 350D has much faster startup
and CF card write times, so will be nicer to use. The 350D also has better
control over AF mode, metering mode, and flash exposure. IMHO, it is very
much worth the extra money.

Note, however, that:
If you have really small hands, you may not like the 300D.
If you have really large hands, you may not like the 350D.
They are physically very difference cameras.

As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
advantage to me?

Well, not really, actually. The 300D/350D come into their own when you make
8x10" or larger prints.

But if you buy the (expensive) 10-22mm zoom lens, you'll be able to do
amazing wide angle work that you really can't with any of the P&S cameras.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
wide angle photos.

Talking about controls, these cameras are quite close to the "chemical"
Rebel, and you will be operative quite fast.

But as said, the choices in true wide-angles are not really cheap : the
cheapest should be the tokina12-24, gives you the same field of view on
a 3x0d as a 19-38 on your Rebel, around 400-500$. Canon 10-22 (eq.
16-35) is around 800$.
With the 18-55 kit lens, you have the equivalent of a 28-90. If it's
enough of a wide angle for you, just go for it.


The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed
per
photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and
the
cost.

Simply think of the cost of film!
You pay around 75US$ or EUR for a standard 1GB card (no need of a quick
one for the 300d, but it would be much more useful to spend money on it
for the 350d). I feel it's quite enough in size (about 150 RAW frames,
or 350 jpegs, ie 4 or 10 rolls of film).
For these 75 bucks, you can't buy and process ten rolls of slides (at
least here in Europe)!

Talking about storage, you will burn CDs or DVDs : not really expensive
as well.


There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
more for the updated camera?

In US and Europe, the difference between a new 300d and a new 350d is
much smaller (100-150US$). That makes sense to buy the 350d, I'd think
(but I already own a 300d).


As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
advantage to me?

For THAT particular size 1500*1000 is OK. But you can't really go
farther.
3000*2000 is OK for 8.5*11" and still very good for 11*17".


I have a Sony video camera that takes good photos of 1360 x 1020
using
1.3 Megapixels so I'm wondering if it's worth buying another digital
camera.

Not very easy to tell it for you...
But with a 3x0d you will feel a true camera with a true viewfinder and
full control, not a camcorder or another silly computerized toy taking
pictures in your place ;o).
That said, camcorders like yours CAN take good photographs.

Greetings from France!
Nicolas

wrote:

the "chemical" Rebel


LOL, I've never heard it put that way, chemical/digital.

: - )

Brian wrote:
Brian wrote:

I am thinking of buying the Canon EOS 300D digital camera. I own the
35mm version of this camera.
I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
wide angle photos.

The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed
per
photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and
the
cost.
There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
more for the updated camera?
As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
advantage to me?


I have the 300D. After that, seen Nikon come out with the D70 and Canon
come out with the 20D and the 350D. All three have much faster
electronics than the 300D but what I gather from the reviews and
postings, the D70 and 300D are neck to neck in image quality and the
20D/350D are marginally better because of more megapixels. I have never
found the 300D to be too slow for my needs nor have I ever missed a
shot so I don't really miss having its faster siblings. And with the
wasia hack, I got some nice features like mirror lockup and extra ISO
(there are more but I use these two often). At $700 with the kit lens,
I think its still the cheapest dSLR and hell of a lot value for money.

If you are into shooting action or sports then you should definitely
consider the Nikon D70 or the Canon 20D/350D. If not, I would urge you
to spend more time selecting and spending on the lenses and not worry
too much about the body.

- Siddhartha

"Siddhartha Jain" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
Brian wrote:

I have the 300D. After that, seen Nikon come out with the D70 and Canon
come out with the 20D and the 350D. All three have much faster
electronics than the 300D but what I gather from the reviews and
postings, the D70 and 300D are neck to neck in image quality and the
20D/350D are marginally better because of more megapixels. I have never
found the 300D to be too slow for my needs nor have I ever missed a
shot so I don't really miss having its faster siblings. And with the
wasia hack, I got some nice features like mirror lockup and extra ISO
(there are more but I use these two often). At $700 with the kit lens,
I think its still the cheapest dSLR and hell of a lot value for money.

If you are into shooting action or sports then you should definitely
consider the Nikon D70 or the Canon 20D/350D. If not, I would urge you
to spend more time selecting and spending on the lenses and not worry
too much about the body.

- Siddhartha



I support fully this detailed opinion, beginning to end.
I am a happy 300D/D Rebel user.

One more goodie: all 300D lemons (if any?) are a thing of the past.
The black bodies are, as far as I understood, the latest releases...

Buying brand new incarnation models takes some more faith.

--
Mike

"Siddhartha Jain" wrote in message
oups.com...
Brian wrote:

If you are into shooting action or sports then you should definitely
consider the Nikon D70 or the Canon 20D/350D. If not, I would urge you
to spend more time selecting and spending on the lenses and not worry
too much about the body.

- Siddhartha

Could you elaborate on how this difference is in action photography? I
just purchased a used 300D and will use it mostly for sports photography. I
had in mind that it's my first SLR of any type, and intend to learn how to
use the 300D well, and then upgrade to a better camera in a year or two.
But it will help greatly to know what I am (not) missing out on.

Dave