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 » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stepping Up to DSLR - Canon 350D



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old October 6th 06, 04:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Protoncek \(ex.SleeperMan\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 198
Default 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  
Old October 6th 06, 05:23 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Geoff Ellis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default 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  
Old October 6th 06, 08:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Pete D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,613
Default 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  
Old October 6th 06, 08:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Pete D
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,613
Default 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  
Old October 7th 06, 03:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
AaronW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 166
Default 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  
Old October 7th 06, 04:29 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Paul J Gans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default 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  
Old October 9th 06, 08:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
JPH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default 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  
Old October 12th 06, 02:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
J. Clarke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,690
Default 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  
Old October 13th 06, 03:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Ken Lucke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 845
Default 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  
Old October 13th 06, 05:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 435
Default 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

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 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:03 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.