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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Stepping Up to DSLR - Canon 350D
"ian" wrote in message k... "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" wrote in message ... : great. Now all i have to do is find one of such devices in my country : (slovenia). I have some links, though, so i hope it won't be a problem. : Thanks Many companies on the net do international shipping. The £ is quite strong. It might be worth buying from america or the EU. hm...yep, i guess that's one of options if local dealers will prove to be too expensive... |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Stepping Up to DSLR - Canon 350D
Jessops here I come ( with my Amazon Price Printouts of course ) John Watch them carefully, robbing bar steward I think. When I bought my 30D (online) I got a CF card for 90UKP, they were a bit cheaper elsewhere, Jessops wanted over 200!!!! |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Stepping Up to DSLR - Canon 350D
"Ken Lucke" wrote in message ... In article , Pete D wrote: wrote in message oups.com... ian wrote: snippage All in all, I think the small $100-$120 difference between 350d and 400d is easily worth all these things. I wouldn't necessarily upgrade from 350d to 400d. However, if I didn't already have a Digital Rebel, buying a brand new 350D at this point just to save about $100 would seem fairly shortsighted. The handling of the 400D is far superior to the 350D as well. Excuse me? The camera's in the same body as the 350D, with the exception of a differernt back piece to accomodate the larger display. Weight is within grams of each other, nothing has changed, battery grip (BG-3) from the 350D fits perfectly on it... So how can you say that "The handling of the 400D is far superior to the 350D"? Pick them both up and then come back and tell me they are the same! |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Stepping Up to DSLR - Canon 350D
"Ken Lucke" wrote in message ... In article .com, JPH wrote: Why is this the case? Because no matter how good the sensor (or film) is, it only records that which reaches it through the lens. is the differnece in quality really apparant when you compare photos taken with cheaper lenses and more expensive lenses? Yes. Yes yes yes. Yes yes yes yes & yes. Not just yes, but HELL YES!!! Get the point? :^) One thing I have gleaned from you all in this group is that the lenses are just as, if not more important than the body. Bingo. My work here is done :^) Not quite. Finally quality needed still depends on what media you use, if you are printing to 6x4 you may well not see any improvement by spending big on lenses, if you are printing 12x18 then it may well be that spending more is a good idea. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Stepping Up to DSLR - Canon 350D
JPH wrote:
Bill wrote: More than likely you'll want a 70-200 or 70-300 lense for more reach to get you closer to the action. How much money am i looking to spend for this kind of lens? Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS $500 Canon 70-200/2.8 IS $1600 Canon 200/2.8 $600 Canon 135/2 $800 Canon 300/2.8 IS $3700 http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Stepping Up to DSLR - Canon 350D
JPH wrote:
Paul J Gans wrote: Newcomers should think hard about all this and then ask questions, many questions. Don't take any single answer as gospel until you learn which folks have needs like yours and decent experience to go with it. Be prepared for many questions Paul Fine with me. But if you post them here you will get many answers. My rules: Lenses are more important than bodies for most beginners *unless* you have special needs. And one does not have to buy the best lenses in the world right off (though that would be nice.) You can get decent results from lenses one grade down (or even two). Read reviews and look at sample pix on the web. I am starting to appreciate how subjective photography is just by reading these posts and that there isn't a one-size fits all solution. Looks like I'm at the start of a lifelong journey. A fun journey. As long as what you produce makes *you* happy, you are in good shape. Don't take pictures to satisfy someone else, take them to satisfy you. One of the neat things about digital is that pictures basically cost nothing. Pick a subject and take a zillion pictures of it from different angles, distances, and so on. Then decide what worked, remember that, and get rid of the others. But the most important rule is: enjoy yourself! ---- Paul J. Gans Can't be fairer than that Paul Thank you. It's the truth. ---- Paul J. Gans |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Stepping Up to DSLR - Canon 350D
Just a quick thanks to everyone for all your help. I'll come back and let you all know what I end up getting Cheers John |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Stepping Up to DSLR - Canon 350D
"Ken Lucke" wrote in message ... In article . com, JPH wrote: Thanks again Ken What kind of things will I be able to shoot on the 18-55mm that comes with the Canon? I really haven't got a clue about lenses. Is it a zoom of sorts? Anytime you see a lens with a focal length listed in the format xx-yy you know it is a zoom lens, because it is giving you the low-high focal lengths that the lens is capable of achieving. So, in this case, it's a zoom from 18mm to 55mm, which is not a bad range for a lot of the subject matter that you said that you were interested in. The 18mm (in reality, a 28.8 due to the 1.6 lens adjustment factor for the APS-C sized sensor in the camera) gives you a fairly decent wide angle for landscapes, and the 55mm end (in reality an 88 due to the same reason) give you good frame coverage for smaller objects at a few feet away (as in portraits, closeups, and such). In-between, you've got the same range as the venerable 50mm prime lens that many old-time pros swore by (and some even refused to teach students anything else until they had mastered that single lens). I mean, is it a more powerful zoom than my compact and will Very probably more powerful than the zoom in your P&S, but without knowing what it's got, I don't know. Definitely better than any "digital zoom" that a lot of P&S's seem so bent on deceiving the public about - "digital zoom" is nothing more than cropping and enlarging within the camera, so you've got the original resolution, now blown up in size, which loses you lots. The OP said that he had a Sony DSC-P100. That has a 35mm equivalent zoom range of 38-110mm, so it will go longer than the 18-55 but not as wide. it be better for macro stuff than the compacts built in macro mode? DEFINITELY better than the P&S's macro mode. That's strongly worded when you don't know what he has. The 18-55 kit lens most emphatically does _not_ have superior macro performance to, say, a Canon S2 or a Panasonic FZ-30 or the old Nikon Coolpix 9xx series. One can make pedantic assertions about whether what they offer is "true macro" but the bottom line is that they'll fill a frame with an object far smaller than the 18-55 can manage without extension tubes. I don't know for sure what the DSC-P100 can do--with a 110mm 35mm eqivalent and a 10 cm closest focus it should be able to fill the frame with an object that is approximately 35mm wide--at 1:1 the 18-55 should be able to do better than that. Also, will I have to buy some serious storage? I have around 750MB of storage with my Sony DSC 100 and this is usually more than enough on an average day out etc. Do I have to up the anti with a DSLR. How long is a piece of string? g Remember, if you are shooting RAW (and you will be shortly once you start even in the very basic of the non-automatic modes) your files will be approzimately 7.5-7.5 megabytes in size (Canon specs claim 9.8mb, but I find my average is less than that, as stated). (the Program mode ("P" on the dial) is great for new users, because it's still all figured out by the camera, but you can override it when you want), but it will still shoot in RAW mode (or RAW+Jpeg, or even just JPEG if you want it to. I see no reason to wast my time with JPEGs when I know I want every bit of information I can get, just in case). I shoot most things with a 6gb microdrive, because I'm not normally shooting rapid-fire, so the slower card is fine. When I need a little more speed, I move to a set of 1gb CF cards (I have several of various speeds). The 6gb microdrive was about $140, and stores about 500 RAW shots. I also carry [in the truck] a 20gb portable drive system that automatically dumps the card contents to it so I can start fresh if needed. I've only needed it once so far, buy it's nice to know it's there if I encounter a photogenic Bigfoot somewhere in among my other shooting. =:^) On another note, I have read that you cannot use the digital view to compose images with a DSLR. Only on the new Olympus, but you can bet other manufacturers will follow the lead if it turns out to be viable. There IS no "digital view" on the rest of DSLRs. You only get the picture to review after the fact. But then, you get the picture, a histogram (to help you read whether or not you've exposed the picture right... right there and then, not back at the computer), and other helpful data. ALL you have IS the viewfinder. Believe me, it's better. Remember all the hoo-ha some of us made about a tripod? That's another reason (besides a steadier shot) for it - you can take the time to compose your picture properly, play with exposure settings and apertures, zoom in or out to compose or frame things better, see the things that you might want (or more iomportanly, not want) in the picture - like that power line, the piece of garbage in the foreground, or the contrail of the overhead jets - that you might not have noticed if you were to busy trying to handhold and/or compose with the display screen. You can also take series of shots with exactly the same composition, either over a period of time (for a "time lapse" type animation) or with different exposures and apertures, and compare them side by side, or use the High Dynamic Range function in Photoshop CS2 to pull details out of seemingly nothing (requires 2 or more shots with differing dynamic ranges to function, so it's best to have them identical in all other respects). All of this is true if you are shooting still-lifes. It's not relevant if you are shooting automobile races or airshows or wars. Does this make it harder to take snaps? Do you have to be steadier? No - your pictures will acutally be MUCH better. How many times have you composed your shot, pressed the shutter, then accidentally moved (or the subject moved) in the horrendously long time between when you pressed the shutter and the picture was actually taken? [that happens because the image sensor has to shut down, its internal buffers flushed back to zero, and then it has to be renergized again to take the shot]. The 400D has a shutter lag time of only about 100 miliseconds [Canon's specs, I've never bothered to doubt nor test them]. If one is shooting still-lifes then shutter lag is irrelevant. Regardless of the camera the photographer is usually the limiting factor. A million dollar camera can't fix poor lighting or composition or choice of subject. On the other hand a good photographer can work around the limitations of a low-performance camera. Are there any books that you would recommend to get me up to speed? Any good photography book will have the basic techniques you need to start with - digital or film, the techniques are the same, only the method of taking them will have changed. Play with your camera every single waking moment that you can for the first few days [weeks], using every conceivable feature and function (even if you don't think that you will ever need them - trust me, the time you need it in a hurry and the way to use it comes back to you in the field will pay it off in the long run) so you kow how to use them. THEN start worrying about the other stuff. When you are relaxed with your equipment, you can concentrate on the other essentials. If you are still fighting your equipment, no amount of knowing photography essentials will help you to get the shot right. Many Thanks John |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Stepping Up to DSLR - Canon 350D
In article
, Pete D wrote: "Ken Lucke" wrote in message ... In article , Pete D wrote: wrote in message oups.com... ian wrote: snippage All in all, I think the small $100-$120 difference between 350d and 400d is easily worth all these things. I wouldn't necessarily upgrade from 350d to 400d. However, if I didn't already have a Digital Rebel, buying a brand new 350D at this point just to save about $100 would seem fairly shortsighted. The handling of the 400D is far superior to the 350D as well. Excuse me? The camera's in the same body as the 350D, with the exception of a differernt back piece to accomodate the larger display. Weight is within grams of each other, nothing has changed, battery grip (BG-3) from the 350D fits perfectly on it... So how can you say that "The handling of the 400D is far superior to the 350D"? Pick them both up and then come back and tell me they are the same! Uhm, I have. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Stepping Up to DSLR - Canon 350D
"Ken Lucke" wrote in message ... The handling of the 400D is far superior to the 350D as well. Excuse me? The camera's in the same body as the 350D, with the exception of a differernt back piece to accomodate the larger display. Pick them both up and then come back and tell me they are the same! Uhm, I have. I have to agree...the 400 is basically the same as the 350. The difference is less slippage due to the rubber thumb-pad on the back, but for holding the camera the grip is still too thin and small. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D50 or Canon 350D??? | jazu | Digital Photography | 19 | June 15th 06 12:48 PM |
Newbie help: Canon EOS 350D vs. Nikon D70s | R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah | Digital Photography | 15 | April 21st 06 08:23 AM |
More about cleaning sensors and Canon Canada (long) | Celcius | Digital Photography | 16 | December 2nd 05 03:48 PM |
Using Canon 70-200L F2.8 with X2 Converter | Bill Hilton | Digital Photography | 7 | October 24th 05 11:27 PM |
Interesting... | Rox-off | Digital SLR Cameras | 35 | August 29th 05 04:58 AM |