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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Almost decided on Canon 350D
Ok,
to update anyone who may be at all interested. I think I will go with the Canon despite my past loyalty to Minolta. I'm afraid the issues with Sony just make me feel uneasy and I don't want to start a new digital system in a make that may have a slightly uncertain future. The Canon 350D also seems to pip both the Minolta 5d and Nikon to the post in all magazine reviews (except this months what camera which puts the Canon third). I've never considered a Nikon and know nothing about them and that is probably why I'm reluctant to consider. After weighing up the pros and cons I can only see a few things I'm worried about with the Canon 350D. i) That I am paying more then the Minolta purely for the name ii) That I am losing out on the anti shake feature (but saying that, I've never had it before, what I don't have I won't miss!) iii) That the colour I have seen in examples of the Canon seem a little dark (but saying that the reviews don't mention this) Anyway, I'll try all three (Canon, Minolta, Nikon) at the shop and then finally decide. Thanks for the help. Any other comments appreciated Chris |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Almost decided on Canon 350D
"Chris Long" wrote in message ... Ok, to update anyone who may be at all interested. I think I will go with the Canon despite my past loyalty to Minolta. I'm afraid the issues with Sony just make me feel uneasy and I don't want to start a new digital system in a make that may have a slightly uncertain future. The Canon 350D also seems to pip both the Minolta 5d and Nikon to the post in all magazine reviews (except this months what camera which puts the Canon third). I've never considered a Nikon and know nothing about them and that is probably why I'm reluctant to consider. After weighing up the pros and cons I can only see a few things I'm worried about with the Canon 350D. i) That I am paying more then the Minolta purely for the name ii) That I am losing out on the anti shake feature (but saying that, I've never had it before, what I don't have I won't miss!) iii) That the colour I have seen in examples of the Canon seem a little dark (but saying that the reviews don't mention this) ii Anti shake feature? Canon have image stabilization in some of their lenses (at a cost!) iii Never noticed the colour being dark in any of my 350D shots. Some don't like the smallness of the 350D, personally I think it is great. Wasn't keen on it the first time I saw it / handled it but after a couple of hours, I really appreciated the compactness of it. Much more manageable in my opinion than walking about with something twice as big and twice as heavy. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Almost decided on Canon 350D
"Chris Long" wrote in message ... Ok, to update anyone who may be at all interested. I think I will go with the Canon despite my past loyalty to Minolta. I'm afraid the issues with Sony just make me feel uneasy and I don't want to start a new digital system in a make that may have a slightly uncertain future. The Canon 350D also seems to pip both the Minolta 5d and Nikon to the post in all magazine reviews (except this months what camera which puts the Canon third). I've never considered a Nikon and know nothing about them and that is probably why I'm reluctant to consider. After weighing up the pros and cons I can only see a few things I'm worried about with the Canon 350D. i) That I am paying more then the Minolta purely for the name ii) That I am losing out on the anti shake feature (but saying that, I've never had it before, what I don't have I won't miss!) iii) That the colour I have seen in examples of the Canon seem a little dark (but saying that the reviews don't mention this) Anyway, I'll try all three (Canon, Minolta, Nikon) at the shop and then finally decide. Thanks for the help. Any other comments appreciated With Canon you are buying into their EOS system or lenses and more, which is pretty darn good, IMO, and not going away any time soon. Can you say the same for Minolta?. I have heard good things about Minolta lenses, too, but no experience. The color can be anything you want: if you shoot raw, you can create custom profile |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Almost decided on Canon 350D
i) That I am paying more then the Minolta purely for the name With Canon if you pay more for the name, you probably pay less for the volume. (Canon sells more camera's than Minolta). But then if you buy a Minolta, you do not pay for their profit margins. (Their profit margins are negative). So I do not think paying for the name is a real argument. ii) That I am losing out on the anti shake feature (but saying that, I've never had it before, what I don't have I won't miss!) Yes you loose on the anti shake feature, which is sometimes nice to have. But then again do not overrate the anti shake feature, using a tripod or stabilising yourself does help. And the anti shake feature does not protect against object movement. (sports etc.). (There are lenses which do the stabilising for you, but they are probably outside your budget so that is no alternative). So the anti shake feature is an argument for Minolta, you have to weight the value of that argument for yourself. ben |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Almost decided on Canon 350D
"Steven Campbell" wrote in message ... "Chris Long" wrote in message ... Ok, to update anyone who may be at all interested. I think I will go with the Canon despite my past loyalty to Minolta. I'm afraid the issues with Sony just make me feel uneasy and I don't want to start a new digital system in a make that may have a slightly uncertain future. The Canon 350D also seems to pip both the Minolta 5d and Nikon to the post in all magazine reviews (except this months what camera which puts the Canon third). I've never considered a Nikon and know nothing about them and that is probably why I'm reluctant to consider. After weighing up the pros and cons I can only see a few things I'm worried about with the Canon 350D. i) That I am paying more then the Minolta purely for the name ii) That I am losing out on the anti shake feature (but saying that, I've never had it before, what I don't have I won't miss!) iii) That the colour I have seen in examples of the Canon seem a little dark (but saying that the reviews don't mention this) ii Anti shake feature? Canon have image stabilization in some of their lenses (at a cost!) iii Never noticed the colour being dark in any of my 350D shots. Some don't like the smallness of the 350D, personally I think it is great. Wasn't keen on it the first time I saw it / handled it but after a couple of hours, I really appreciated the compactness of it. Much more manageable in my opinion than walking about with something twice as big and twice as heavy. I've had my 350d for 6 months now - very please. Goes to ISO100 where the D50 doesn't. Get decent lenses for it and it will reward you. Recently got the 50mm f/1.8 on top of the kit lense. You dont need anything like anti-vibration shake for this one as its so fast - excellent for portrait, mid range pictures as 1.6 crop gives you about 82mm. I also rushed and bought the 70-300mm which is only good in bright light or on a tripod for crisp results. If I could go back I'd save up and buy the equivalent IS or something with less zoom and wider aperture. Size is great and features excellent for beginner/semi-pro, not far short of the D70 IMHO. Alex |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Almost decided on Canon 350D
After weighing up the pros and cons I can only see a few things I'm worried about with the Canon 350D. i) That I am paying more then the Minolta purely for the name ii) That I am losing out on the anti shake feature (but saying that, I've never had it before, what I don't have I won't miss!) iii) That the colour I have seen in examples of the Canon seem a little dark (but saying that the reviews don't mention this) I have a 350D - it's excellent. The prices have come down and I see you can get a body only for not much more then £500. In 2 or 3 years that will have halved - but you need to be taking pictures now. So go out and buy one. Colour? Not an issue, there are plenty of ways to adjust colour to suit your taste. 8 M pixel is plenty, I can print up to A3+ with good results and A3 with excellent results. One day I shall probably get a 12 M pixel to get a FFS - but that day is some way off. Spend as much as you can on lenses. The kit lens is o.k., in fact it's excellent value for money; but saving up for L lenses will make the most use of such an excellent DSLR. The cheaper ones are the 17 - 40mm F4 and the 70 - 200 f4. They will cost about £800 between them - but you will be taking pictures with them for years to come. Do a lot of research before spending money on cheaper lenses. John |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Almost decided on Canon 350D
Chris Long wrote:
Ok, to update anyone who may be at all interested. I think I will go with the Canon despite my past loyalty to Minolta. I'm afraid the issues with Sony just make me feel uneasy and I don't want to start a new digital system in a make that may have a slightly uncertain future. The Canon 350D also seems to pip both the Minolta 5d and Nikon to the post in all magazine reviews (except this months what camera which puts the Canon third). I've never considered a Nikon and know nothing about them and that is probably why I'm reluctant to consider. After weighing up the pros and cons I can only see a few things I'm worried about with the Canon 350D. i) That I am paying more then the Minolta purely for the name If I should be more often disappointed by "Then" for 'Than" than "Than" for "Then", then "Then" For "Than" might be more common Than "Than" for "Then" ii) That I am losing out on the anti shake feature (but saying that, I've never had it before, what I don't have I won't miss!) I don't htink that's true; however, it is available at a cost in convenience and price, in the Canon line. iii) That the colour I have seen in examples of the Canon seem a little dark (but saying that the reviews don't mention this) "A little dark" is a little easy to deal with. Anyway, I'll try all three (Canon, Minolta, Nikon) at the shop and then finally decide. Since you seem quite deliberate, and not preoccupied with the shots you are missing while doing your choice-thing, consider adding a little time to the recipe, saving a few hundred more dollars, and going for the 20D (or equivalent). The advantages are real, lasting, and poignant. I refer particularly to the difference in controls between the 350D and the 20D: the latter makes every use much easier and quicker; it gets out of your way, while the 350D presents a few obstacles. I have one of each. Of course if I were going into it for the first time, I'd look really hard at the Nikon 70Ds. Nice machine, excellent lenses available, displayed results are uniformly fine to excellent. Thanks for the help. Any other comments appreciated You did say _any_ comments... -- Frank ess |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Almost decided on Canon 350D
Since you seem quite deliberate, and not preoccupied with the shots you are missing while doing your choice-thing, consider adding a little time to the recipe, saving a few hundred more dollars, and going for the 20D (or equivalent). The advantages are real, lasting, and poignant. I refer particularly to the difference in controls between the 350D and the 20D: the latter makes every use much easier and quicker; it gets out of your way, while the 350D presents a few obstacles. I have one of each. The 20D has great speed, ergonomics, and flexibility. It is a bigger/heavier camera, though. Which I prefer for serious work! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Almost decided on Canon 350D
At £250 more than the 350D, the Canon 20D is out of my price range. My aim
it to build up my lens system and get my use out of the 350D and then in 3-4 year go for a higher spec body. Looked at the Nikon. Just can't warm to it at the moment. Thanks for the help. Chris "Frank ess" wrote in message news Chris Long wrote: Ok, to update anyone who may be at all interested. I think I will go with the Canon despite my past loyalty to Minolta. I'm afraid the issues with Sony just make me feel uneasy and I don't want to start a new digital system in a make that may have a slightly uncertain future. The Canon 350D also seems to pip both the Minolta 5d and Nikon to the post in all magazine reviews (except this months what camera which puts the Canon third). I've never considered a Nikon and know nothing about them and that is probably why I'm reluctant to consider. After weighing up the pros and cons I can only see a few things I'm worried about with the Canon 350D. i) That I am paying more then the Minolta purely for the name If I should be more often disappointed by "Then" for 'Than" than "Than" for "Then", then "Then" For "Than" might be more common Than "Than" for "Then" ii) That I am losing out on the anti shake feature (but saying that, I've never had it before, what I don't have I won't miss!) I don't htink that's true; however, it is available at a cost in convenience and price, in the Canon line. iii) That the colour I have seen in examples of the Canon seem a little dark (but saying that the reviews don't mention this) "A little dark" is a little easy to deal with. Anyway, I'll try all three (Canon, Minolta, Nikon) at the shop and then finally decide. Since you seem quite deliberate, and not preoccupied with the shots you are missing while doing your choice-thing, consider adding a little time to the recipe, saving a few hundred more dollars, and going for the 20D (or equivalent). The advantages are real, lasting, and poignant. I refer particularly to the difference in controls between the 350D and the 20D: the latter makes every use much easier and quicker; it gets out of your way, while the 350D presents a few obstacles. I have one of each. Of course if I were going into it for the first time, I'd look really hard at the Nikon 70Ds. Nice machine, excellent lenses available, displayed results are uniformly fine to excellent. Thanks for the help. Any other comments appreciated You did say _any_ comments... -- Frank ess |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Almost decided on Canon 350D
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 14:39:37 -0800, Frank essayed:
i) That I am paying more then the Minolta purely for the name If I should be more often disappointed by "Then" for 'Than" than "Than" for "Then", then "Then" For "Than" might be more common Than "Than" for "Then" I hop Chris thenks you for thet. Too bad many spell checkers don't catch more of them then mistakes than you do but at least they labor without complaint, even if they miss many things that the old Grammatik might have caught. And then, and then . . . (said in a manner reminiscent of the Coasters) . . . ii) That I am losing out on the anti shake feature (but saying that, I've never had it before, what I don't have I won't miss!) I don't htink that's true; however That one a spell checker would have caught, methinks. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Speaking of Lenses for Canon Digital 350D | Eugene Wendland | Digital SLR Cameras | 8 | December 22nd 05 06:19 AM |
More about cleaning sensors and Canon Canada (long) | Celcius | Digital Photography | 16 | December 2nd 05 02:48 PM |
Canon 10D v Canon 350D | News-West.Usenet.com | Digital Photography | 16 | November 17th 05 08:10 PM |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | Digital Photography | 104 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 92 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |