Some of you may already know this but I just found it last night. Canon is releasing a new digital SLR. The Canon Rebel 300D should begin shipping in a couple of weeks. This is a 6.1 MP camera using the same sensor as the Canon EOS D10. It is built on the Rebel EOS frame, a plastic body camera, and will sell for 899.00 for the body, 999 for the body and a 17-55 lense.

This is going to really shake up the digital world. They surprised everyone including some of their competition. This camera will use any of the EF lenses and also accept a new EF-S lense which takes advantage of the short distance between the sensor and the end of the lens. Phil has a full review at www.dpreview.com .

This is so going to really take the market by storm! I can't believe that they brought this to market without a single competitor chalenge. I bet Nikon is scrambling to see what they can cut off of the D100 so that they can get in this market.

I am rethinking my plans to go with the D100. But I guess I will wait to see how this plays out.

Kevin,

It is already shipping. I know some folks that have one and have seen some images. http://www.innographx.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=726


Check this site for availability.

http://ww2.onecall.com/PID_20967.htm

And here is a review. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/

Catia

Thanks Catia, I haven't seen that vendor before. I'll have to check them out. I guess I've been living under a rock to miss that camera release. I just don't have enough time to get to all the forums every night.

Each to his own Don. I certainly would prefer the SLR. Especially when a "live preview" is all you can get. I get tired of having to put up with the LCD monitor in bright sunlight. That is a real big problem with the prosumer digitals with no through the lens look to go by. They do have their advantages some times but give me a good ttl viewfinder anyday over the monitor. It's also almost impossible to do real live action shots.

With the SLR you don't have to post specs on zoom or F stop ratings because you can make it whatever you want just by changing the lens.

I'm tired of limitations with the standard digital cameras. I want the flexability of the SLR.

Wow, think of all the money the Pros could save by not buying those high priced SLRs. Maybe you should run out there and tell them before anymore of them waste their money. I know I'm impressed.

Cameras are simply tools, but good tools can make a pro's job easier. Photography has many different types of subject matter, and the tools of the trade can vary from subject to subject.

Wildlife photography, journalistic photography and fashion photography make more use of speed than does portrait photography or commercial photography. The speed (frames per second) of non-digital pro-level SLRs such as the Nikon F5 (8 fps) still outpaces the fps of the digital SLR (4.5 or so) or digital non-SLRs. For most photographers, that difference is unimportant. For the pros who make their living by catching the nuances of an elk's gaze or strut -- it is vitally important. Some wildlife photographers also routinely use very large lenses -- 600mm or 800mm.

We decide what type of photography we are going to shoot, what our budget will bear, and buy the equipment that fits our own particular needs... or, more likely, the equipment that just makes our mouths water when we see it and that we can make up a good story for why we need it. ;)

I already own Nikon glass, and have been waiting for a reasonably priced, high-quality digital body to attach to it. Thought it might be the D100, but the Canon EOS 300D "delivers sharper images with more visible detail... with virtually no noise visible" in DPreview's comparison with the D100. The Sony 828 looks delicious with excellent glass (within its limits of 28-200). My biggest lens is a 400mm, and the digital 200 is somewhat less than my 400. What I usually shoot now, however, is my Oly 2100 with a 10x zoom -- it's limited in shutter speed, frame rate, and resolution, but it gives me the benefits of digital (seeing the results immediately and being able to retake some shots).

Don't know what I'll end up with, but it's sure fun seeing all the new stuff coming down the road! :)

I also am very interested in the new Sony - and am considering it well above the new Canon (for my needs).

The biggest advantage in my mind to the Canon is the quality of the sensor - and the apparent lack of perceptable noise even at high ISO. This is a significant feature - and really intrigues me.

To put it in perspective, however, I am NOT a Pro, and my requirements are hugely different from a Pro's. My primary digicam is a Canon S40 - and while this is a great compact camera. it would not be considered a Pro camera by anyone.

I am going for a much more simplistic approach - make sure that your camera is with you and not in the closet at home - get the images where and when they occur - even if they have a significantly lower base quality. That's why the Lord gave us PhotoShop.

However, I do get the hankering from time to time for a really good camera. My simplistic approach won't let me go back to the bad old days (my opinion) of carrying a bag filled with lenses and other doodads - because I am not a Pro - I don't want that anymore.

For me - the Sony F828 looks like the perfect combination of size, great capabiities, and a lens that will meet 98% of my photo requirements.

But that's not knocking the Canon - the right tool for the right person I say.

Just my 1 cent.

Toad

Kevin,

I've looked closely at the specs and reviews for both the Canon 300D and the Sony 828. With the features I'm used to on my Sony 717, I feel like I'd be taking a step backwards in terms of flexibility of parameter choices if I went with the 300D. So, if I can get my mom to buy out my half of the 717 (we bought it together and aren't doing a very good job of "sharing" :tongue: ), I'm most likely going to get the 828.

As far as I can tell, the major plusses (in my mind) of the 300D are the larger range of apertures (good for portraits), the faster focusing (good for sports) and the larger sensor (less noise at the faster ISOs). However, inability to select a metering mode in the "Creative" exposure modes is a major minus for me, as is the lack of a histogram! Wow, in my mind that is a major feature to leave out! I was in a Photoshop class with a bunch of portrait photographers last year and the instructor spent half the morning on the camera histograms and helping the photographers to set the correct exposure on their cameras using the histogram and a gray card. I rely on my Sony histogram all of the time b/c it tells me the "real" story of my exposure - not the LCD (or viewfinder). Also, the lack of flash compensation is another feature I would really miss. And from the pictures I've seen, the new RGB+E sensor that Sony has put in the 828 makes a huge difference - esp. in picking up details in red tones. (This is a problem I've had with the 717 which I solve by purposefully underexposing. I don't know how the Canon sensor handles reds, so I can't comment on how the RGB+E sensor compares to the Canon. All I know is that photos from the RGB+E looks 10x better than the 717 and I've heard from friends with other prosumer cameras that they have the same problem with vibrant reds blowing out.)

Anyway, for my style of shooting, it's looking like I'll be much happier with the Sony. That's not to say that Canon hasn't significantly raised the bar for DSLRs! They certainly have!! But, if I had to choose today, I'd choose the Sony 828 over the Canon 300D. (Or wait for the next generation of "less expensive" DSLRs to be announced.)

My $.02.

Jeanie

The fact that a DSLR of this caliber and price was on the market was my only point. This is bound to start a real shift in the market and make fairly good DSLRs available for those not willing to spend 2000.00 for a DSLR lens and flash. My original wish list had the Nikon D100 at the top.

Everyone has their own budget and style of shooting. I shoot fairly well with my digital, but I know it's weaknesses and have a work-around on most of them. For my money I will naturally want to get the most bang for the buck with the emphasis on high quality pictures, which ever one that leads me to.

I have started shooting film again also and I don't like all the post processing that goes with it. Even now with a good film scanner I am talking about at least an hour to convert to digital. That is not acceptable for my style and time schedule.

I didn't make any bad comments about any specific digital camera. I know that their are a bunch of good ones out there now. We've come along way in the past three years. But take it from me, when they said that digital wasn't as good as film they must have been taking about large format film. I am going to get back out of film very soon.

Kevin,

You are not the only one that thinks this camera will change the DSLR market. For example Phil Askey had this to say.

"This camera is probably the most fundamentally important step for digital SLR's since the introduction of the Nikon D1. It will place digital SLR's into the hands of consumers (with a moderate budget) and will probably also have a very strong negative effect on the $1,000 prosumer digital camera market."

He goes on to say, "The EOS 300D is a formidable camera, not from a feature set point of view. Not from a body finish point of view (which is actually better than I'm sure you're thinking). Not from how its feature set compares to other digital SLR's (although it can certainly hold its own), but rather for what it offers, for its value for money. And for what this camera could mean for the future of digital SLR's and the entire prosumer digital camera market. There's no doubt that there is an important place for cameras such as Sony's DSC-F828 and Minolta's DiMAGE A1, but you would have to be wearing blinkers not to realize that anyone considering spending over $1000 on an all-in-one camera such as that will now put the EOS 300D Kit high on their list."

As several folks have noted, to each their own. I have nothing against one camera or the other. I do believe the DSLR has its place and I for one enjoy mine.

My respectful comments and I am not bashing anyone or anything.

Catia

Catia, I definitely believe that DSLR's have their place and if I had the funds for the 10D I'd probably be getting one! (I can only drool over the 1Ds. :( ) But given what I've read about the 300D, it's not the DSLR for me. (You didn't say which camera you had, but whatever it is I'm glad you're happy with it! :D )

Kevin, I don't think anyone is arguing against the fact that the 300D will (has?) changed the DSLR market. I think that's a given! I can't wait to see what other manufacturers do to stay competitive.

Even now with a good film scanner I am talking about at least an hour to convert to digital. That is not acceptable for my style and time schedule.
Yup! That is definitely the biggest drawback for me too! If I want to share my pictures, I have to scan them to put them on the web. It's a major hassle to share my slides with friends and family living around the world. :(

Jeanie

Hey Catia. My partner at work is ordering a 300D tomorrow. So I will get to see one in action soon.

This milestone event will greatly benefit all photographers, especially those who are planning to make the move to digital. We all will benefit from the effects as well. I think the pricing structure will shift downward for the existing cameras and the newer DSLRs will have to take notice. I think that this is a win win situation for the consumers. Well, probably not for the guys that just bought new cameras.

My N80 may show up one ebay soon, you never know.

When the Sony 828 was announced, I was quite impressed with the technical specifications, but wouldn't want to use it as my only camera. It might make a great back-up for when I don't want to carry the larger stuff, but it's missing one little thing that I rely heavily on. Or rather, it has too much of it.

Depth of field.

If you're not familiar with the term, you probably won't see any benefit from a larger camera, and saving money and weight makes the smaller sensor-sized cameras a great deal. Even if you are familiar with it, you may still prefer the 828--there are many fields in which the main problem is getting enough depth of field rather than being able to reduce it.

But not everyone will.

I shoot a lot of candids, in busy locations with very cluttered surroundings. If the background is sharp (as, for example, the recently posted example of the riderless horse, with the fence and fields and clutter behind it being sharp), it reduces the effectiveness of the shot--the subject lacks separation. Sure, everything is sharp--but because of the way human perception works, when everything is sharp, nothing really stands out as BEING sharp.

Yes, it could be post-processed, but I don't want to HAVE to do that for every single image.

See how even the leaf is "soft" (http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030824_184504largeweb.jpg)? Or in this one (http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030914_124346r1.jpg), where even her left eye (camera right) isn't as crisp as the right one, and the background is all soft. Or the trees behind this girl (http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030824_161151r1.jpg) . I didn't blur the background in postproduction on any of these shots--that's how they came out of the camera. And the 300D will permit that; the 828 will not.

If I shot macros, I'd be using a 707/717/828 or similar, but I don't, and that one limitation is very important to many photographers. They will be better served by the larger, heavier, bulkier, and, in some ways, less technologically advanced Digital Rebel than they would be by the 828, even though the 828 is smaller, less expensive, and has a larger pixel count.

It's a tool.

Jeanie, I thought I was going to get a shot at a 1Ds this week. On ebay there was an item for a Canon 1Ds with 2 stabalized zoom lenses, a 24-70 and a 70-200. The price was so low, $1000.00 that I thought something was fishy so I sent the seller an e-mail asking about the camera. He sent back a reply that he had sold the one I was looking at but that he had another on just like it for $2000.00. The seller was in Germany. He started telling me how I would need to send him the funds by Western Union in a different name. and that when I received the camera I would be able to change the send to name to his name and only then would he receive the money.

I almost called the FBI to see how we could get this guy. I still may, but I doubt there is a lot they can do just because we think that this is a scam.

The bad thing is that this guy had a feedback rating of 145. I wonder if there is a way to forge that?

Getting enough Depth of Field is rarely an issue for 35mm or MF cameras. Getting a shallow enough one is.

Perhaps I'm overstating the criticality of the issue; I know a lot of people who have no use for that control. But I cannot operate effectively without it, just as they don't need it. (And I don't even own any particularly large aperture lenses--the fastest I've got is f/2.8--a far cry in DoF terms from my older film gear, where f/2.0 was the norm, and f/1.8 or f/1.4 were preferred, AND where I didn't have the small-sensor "crop factor" to deal with.)

If you can save money and get good results, go for it. I was responding to your very heavy handed insistance that the Sony was the end-all, be-all for everyone, as I DID read all the messages before responding.

That it's a better choice for you, I cannot argue; you've made that point clear. That it's NOT the best choice for everyone is the point I'm trying to convey.

I rarely shot landscapes; I even less frequently shoot macros, flowers, or fish, or ducks, geese, swans, squirrels, or any other small wildlife. I do occasionally shoot sports and very frequently shoot portraits. Any photographer with a comparable set of goals is going to have a similar reaction to the 828-it's not functional as their main camera. The Rebel might also not qualify, but it's a much better candidate for those tasks. (Fortunately, neither is being targetted as being a 'photographers camera', merely good general-use cameras, at which they both excel, at least on paper.)

A typical day of my shooting can be seen at http://www.keradwc.com/20030719_lyondemere/ -- if you can get a comparably shallow DoF with a smaller camera, PLEASE let me know. I don't particularly enjoy carrying around the larger box and lens, but since it's the only way I know to consistently achieve these (barely acceptable) results, I'm going to stick with it until I find a better approach.

I know many portrait photographers that get blurred backgrounds with small sensors. You just have to know what you are doing.

You're right. I spent way too much money on the wrong equipment. Please forgive me. I'll rush out and sell my worthless gear and buy The One True Camera right away.

Maybe I can get enough for it that I can sign up for a photography 101 class, so I can understand how to make The One True Camera give me results like the ones you posted, and how they're at all comparable to the subjects I shoot, and the results I need.

This is on-topic but also off-topic.

I have read a lot about shallow DOF and small sensors in this thread.

I (and probably lots of others) don't quite understand why you cannot get shallow DOF from a small sensor - perhaps this is intuitive to the Pros, but not to me.

Can someone explain why this is so. I definately miss shallow DOF on my current pocket picnic portable - and don't want to make the wrong choice through misinformation on my next camera.

Toad,

Check this out http://www.outsight.com/hyperfocal.html#digital

Catia

Thank you for the information - that helps clarify this issue for me nicely.

So - in conclusion...is the reason that people expect more blur/better DOF from the Canon only based on the fact that you can optionally change up to longer lenses?

I see.

I still think the F828 may be appropriate for my needs. We'll see when the actual reviews start to come out and what is available then.

Hmmm. Just when I was getting clear on this, I reread the links that PM posted. In one of them, Bob Atkins makes a counter-argument...

(quote)

Off the top of my head, if you use a 50/1.8 on a 10D and an 80/1.8 on a 1Ds you get the same field of view and the same speed lens. The physical aperture on the 50/1.8 is 27.78mm, on the 80/1.8 it's 44.44mm, so the 80/1.8 will give more 1.6x more background blur. However to get to the same print size the 10D image has to be enlarged 1.6x more, so the two effects cancel and you get exactly the same amount of distant background blur in the print in each case.

(endquote)


Comments?

Toad,

What is "better" DOF depends on what you are doing with your camera. Depth of Field is just that, the distance over which the photo will "appear" in focus. If you want to be focused primarily on the subject and everything else blurred (like a portrait for example), you want a narrow, short, or small DOF. If you are shooting a landscape, you may want most everything to "appear" in focus. Therefore, you would like a wide, long, or large DOF.

DOF is a function of several factors, one of which can be related to the sensor format. The ratio of one dimension of a 35mm film frame to the corresponding sensor dimension can be used to adjust the DOF calculation for non 35mm format sensors. For the Canon 1D, 10D series of cameras, this factor is ~1.6. For the Sony ~ 3.6. What this means is for a given set of shooting parameters ( distance to subject, fstop, etc.), the Sony will require a focal length of ~ 2.3 that of the Canon to get the same DOF.

Looking at the result a different way. If I have a 100mm lens on both cameras, I will need to be 2.3 times as far from the subject with my Sony to get a DOF comparable to the Canon.

Please note, I am not saying that is bad or good. It is just the physics of the situation.

For me, a more important issue is quality of the lens (in terms of MTF and chromatic aberations) and focus accuracy (both auto and manual).

Double please note, I am not saying Canon is beter than Sony or vise-versa. I am saying there is more to the story than DOF. :)

Catia

I apparently confused the issue with my reference to 35mm. Let me try again ( I promise, this is my last post on this subject :) ).

DOF (Depth of Field): The area in front of and behind a focused subject in which the photographed image appears sharp. In other words, the depth of sharpness to the front of sharpness to the front and rear of the subject where image blur in the film plane falls within the limits of the permissible circle of confusion.

Mathematically,

DOF = rear focus distance - front focus distance

Front focus distance = d • F • a2 / (f2 + d • F • a)
Rear focus distance = d • F • a2 / (f2 – d • F • a)

f: focal length
F: F number
d: circle of confusion diameter
a: subject distance (distance from 1st principal point to subject)

Now the d for a 10D is .019 and for a Sony F828 it is .008 found here (http://dfleming.ameranet.com/digital_coc.html). That gives a ratio of 2.3. So the disscussion in my previous post on required focal length for a desired DOF still applies.

Like I said, its the physics (or if you prefer, the math). :)

Catia

Toad and Catia, On the dpreview site the 300D users have their own forum. There are 65 pages of posts from acutal 300D users. You might hop over there and ask these guys what they think. I found the posts to be very informative. There are several posts specifically from ex EVF owners converting to SLR direct view finders and their observations. I can't believe that Phil has already given these guys their own forum. There must be a bunch of them out there already.

The forums are filled with almost 100 percent brand biased info.

True. Often misinformed as well, and that's not just brand-specific. Sadly, the most vocal tend to be the ones least worth listening to.

Toad, the "focal length multiplier" effect isn't linear in terms of DoF--that is, depth of field does not change at the same rate that the angle of view changes, and that's even more pronounced in terms of how quickly things go beyond 'not sharp'. If it did, there'd be far less visual differences between medium format cameras ("normal" lenses at 80mm to 127mm), 35mm, or larger format cameras than there actually is.

It also applies to digital cameras as well, but that's often heavily masked by the marketing-speak: the so-called 28-200 lens on the Sony 828 is actually 7.1-55mm. They avoid the appearance of a multiplier by only lying about the "focal length".

One real-world example

At my typical candid shooting distance (8'), angle-of-view (200mm "equivalent"), and aperture (f/2.8) for photographing candids, the depth of field* is

828: 3.5 inches
D60: 1.5 inches
35mm film: .9 inches

Doesn't seem like much difference, does it? Unfortunately, it doesn't show the substantial differences in how blurred the not-sharp stuff gets, and how quickly it gets acceptably sort.

As has been noted here, even a very short focal length lens CAN give a good out of focus, but the conditions in which that's practical are much more limited--will something a foot behind the subject be 'soft enough' to not be distracting? 5 feet? 10 feet? Or do you want everything in the scene sharp? Different tools for different uses.

* That'll give the same framing with the two cameras. The 828 would be at f/2.8 at 55mm; the D60 (or Rebel or 10D) would be at f/2.8 at 125mm. With my 35mm camera, it was f/2.8 at 200mm. I prefer being further than 8' away, but that's a distance I often have to use.

Exposure
Explain to me how you are going to get the exposure correct as often witout the live histogram
Um, the same way photographers have been doing it for over 150 years? The same way 35mm photographers have been getting correct exposures for over 60 years?

Sure, the histogram is a great tool--I use it all the time, whether shooting standalone or tethered to a computer. (Heck, Imacon's Ixpress digital back doesn't even have a preview on the back; it just has a histogram display.) That doesn't mean it's not possible or practical to get good exposures without it. For the conditions the vast majority of people will be shooting in, the histogram is not a critical need. (That same vast majority of people don't want selective focus, either--they usually want everything sharp. But you can't exclude them from one argument and use them to prove a different one.)

Believe me I used to make 200 posts a week in the DPR forums as the guru, minoltaman, parker north, and don northup, and the idiot.
I believe you.

OK - I think that I see the relationship beween sensor size and DOF now.

Probably either camera (and dozens of others) will offer acceptable results for my needs - as I said earlier I tend to err on the side of being minimalist equipment-wise, and focus on capturing the base image and on post processing.

My gut feeling is that the swiss army knife like - all-in-1 approach of the Sony F828 will fit my philosophy better than a true DSLR will, but I will wait until the production model reviews / user feedback comes in before leaping to any final conclusions.

This has been a very informative discussion for me. Thnaks to all.

This is very misleading and only applies to dof at best.

No. "Focal length" has a definition. Advertising the camera as having a 28-200mm lens is lying when the focal length is something completely different. The lens has a focal length of 7.1 to 55mm. That's the reality.

The manufacturers or advertising agencies might have the best interests of their customers in mind, but it's still a falsehood, a misstatement of fact: a lie.

Photographers have been dealing with this for decades: the Hasselblad 80mm lens is labeled 80mm because that's its focal length. It's not labeled 50mm because it has an angle of view similar to the 'normal' lens on a 35mm camera. Mamiya's 127mm is labeled 127mm because that's its focal length; it's not labeled 50mm either, even though it'll give a similar angle of view on their RB/RZ.

Whether you need 1mm, 10mm, 100mm, or 1000mm depends on a lot of other stuff, but the lens has a focal length, and calling it a duck doesn't make it one.


"Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride it; malice may distort it; but there it is."
-- Winston Churchill

You are quite right Kevin.

However, when I was first getting into digital, I was very grateful for the 35mm equivalents that the manufacturers posted because I at least had a concept of what 50mm, 28mm, and 135mm meant.

So even if it is misleading, I am still happy that they call it out that way. My own experience is that most of them say the "actual" focal length and then put the 35mm equiv in brackets or something.

You are right that it isn't the same thing though. Length is a measurement - not a concept.

I am not a pro by any means === It is not the image -- it is the EYE behind the lens that captures the shot.
I have seen images taken with throw away camera's & instamtics that are better then pro's and some of us here !!!!

So that said and done --- I think the original post to this thread --- though lost in contreversy ---- has merrit. I am an AVID sony owner and user with over 10.000 images in six years of Sony digital images under my belt. My sister has done a lot of research on the Canon (with over 4 years of digital under her belt) on this camera and is looking forward to this purchase. So even if we are twins with different photo needs, I know I look forward to this purchase and the opportunity to use the new camera!

Always choose what is BEST FOR YOU !!!!!!!!

No matter HOW many pictures you take or how popular YOUR site is ;)
It will always be the eye NOT the camera !! :)

Originally posted by photomauler
Almost lal of his remarks to follow were incorrect propaganda. Did you read some of the preposterous stuff he posted?

propaganda is in the eye of the beholder ---as is the eye of the lens ;)


sissy is smart and knows her photo needs.

Still can't wait to take this baby for a test ride!!!!!!!


Thanks for your reply PM --- always glad to hear YOUR opinion --- one sony guy to the next ;) --- now don't let this out OK !!!!!!

FROM: Fishboy,Don, Photomauler ... who ever.....
Most people do not have the capacity to figure out what is best fior them. In other words they are to stubborn, too stupid, too naive, or just to biased or rapped up in their own egotistical bulljargon, etc, etc, etc...



soooo I guess Jean would fall into one of the above ???????


Well I guess that explains the lack of posts ------- LOL

That saves ME a phone call !!!! ;)

Originally posted by photomauler
Here are two pieces of proganda to be more specific. Actually they are falsehoods to be more accurate. Extracted from early posts in this thread.

From KevenBE and KevinC

Especially when a "live preview" is all you can get.

And the 300D will permit that; the 828 will not.

Sont this I say. i actually hate Sony and own ZERO pieces of Sony gear. My house is filled with gear. I have my baseboards around all walld lined with at least 6 different cables. I do tvo, staellite, bose surround sound, burglar alarms, wireless headphones and on and on and on. I am the MINOLTAMAN lol. I own no canon either. I would not miind tryin one of there latest printers though, Very fast compared to the Epsons.


I ams sure siisy will be happy. I know you will be having some fun. I would kick the camera out of my closet if one found it's way in. I just would not spend MY money on it. Rock on superT.

Yup that tells me all ---- "Sont this I say" LOL

Have another cocktail ---- LOL

Originally posted by TwinbNJ
QUOTE: " but it is on itg's way now. I can't find another one like it for anywhere near the original privce I paid for this one."


OK take the food budget and get that keyboard -- lol ---need I quote more? :)


Now back to the subject at hand -----
When Jean (silly or not) buys this puppy and I get to take it on the 10,000,000 image test dirve I'll let you all know what I think ----yup that will change the industry! LOL

I am not a canon fan but will trust my twins research and judgement for what will work for her :)

Funny you should bring up that wonderful shot --- it was with her Kodak or my sony - we went back and forth. --- LOL

Now back to Canon she is still researching (YES RESEARCHING) what will best suit her needs...... My husband Bob has len's that will work with this camera --- NICE --- so we can play before we buy.


Sooooo

I guess the comment stays the same - Kevin thank you for the update and info..... RESEARCH and pick what YOU feel is BEST for YOU --- ;)

The picture STARTS with YOU -- the eye behind the lens !!!!
The camera is only YOUR TOOL !!!

Originally posted by photomauler
You know as well as I that all of these cameras can do a very good job. You will be having fun with whatever she chooses..

Now that was said well --- but I think we all knew that in the first place ---- huh ?


Good luck to all of you -- I know this puppy will take GREAT shots --- but then again I know who is behind the lens ;)

I agree there are other deceptive practices, whether it's calling software "turbo" (hot air, anyone?), or 1000 being equated to 1024 and so on, the fact of the matter is that 55 isn't 200.

I have never heard anyone ever complain of this labeling system before. Plus they all state that it is an equivelant. Not the actual focal length.Many of the photographers I've worked with have complained about it. And the boxes, brochures, and other collateral for the cameras often does NOT list the focal length, and the word "equivalent" is becoming more and more scarce.

Call it 'wide', 'medium', and 'long' if you want to simplify things, or list the angle of view if you want to be useful. Calling a duck a rose doesn't make it a rose, any more than saying a 55mm lens is a 200 mm lens. (FWIW, I've used cameras for which 200mm lens was a wide angle lens, not a telephoto or supertelephoto lens. The lens was labeled 8 inches, which is rounding, but is at least close to the actual focal length [and useful when I used that same lens on a smaller camera, where it was a "normal" lens.])

Since prosumers do not have this flm problem. I will bow out of this part of the discussion unless I see something that seems pretty radical.Demonstrated to be untrue. (See earlier in the thread, or even your own responses.)

You've not yet shown that the examples I posted can be created with the cameras you're touting. "Or in this one (http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030914_124346r1.jpg), where even her left eye (camera right) isn't as crisp as the right one, and the background is all soft.)" To get a comparable result to that example (f/2.8, around 4 feet, 165mm) from the Sony 828, you'd need the lens to be faster than f/1.0 (roughly f/0.5 according to the numbers), and that's not happening in this world today.

If you want to rebut any of my facts ("claims" if you prefer), you're more than welcome to try. But try apples to apples, not ducks to roses.

I'll cheerfully concede price, weight, convenience, general sharpness, dust, "what the eye behind the camera had seen", tilt up viewfinders, onscreen histograms, burglar alarms, infrared capabilities, or changing the baby's diapers if it'll help keep the focus on depth of field.

And I'll just as cheerfully concede that most people don't care about this. I do, and many of my colleagues do. That we're in the minority doesn't make it any less real an issue to us.

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
--Aldous Huxley

I've always been a fan of ad hominem attacks; they're so very ... persuasive.

Why don't you stop talking about dof and start talking about some of the other characteristics/nuances of photography. Because, excluding that issue, for my purposes, almost any current digital camera with a halfway decent response time is sufficient. That's why I conceded all those points ahead of time, and why I brought that ONE issue up in the first place.

have been touring your galleries some more and a lot of stuff seems flat and colourless. What camera and lenses are you using? For the ones you listed, either Canon's F1, using a mix of 28mm, 85mm, or 80-200mm lenses. Shot on Portra (film!), and scanned to floppies--the examples you listed are from 1998/1999 and are clearly identified as such on their pages. There's some truly horrible ones from 1978/79 you seem to have overlooked; they're completely without color, and have contrast problems to boot. (Amazingly enough, that 1972-era camera didn't have a "histogram readout, live preview, good compensation circuits, ", etc. No digital capabilities whatsoever, in fact. So the quality of the image was dependent on a $3.99/roll scanning job--each roll fit on one floppy. Not surprisingly, the scans sucked, but for snapshots--which is all those galleries are--it was fine.)

Alas, I have no shots of squirrels or cats, fireworks or fish, so you will have to be content taking more potshots at my candids of people shot at high noon, or the handful of photographs at

http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030824_161151r1.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030824_184504largeweb.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030824_170142.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030914_124346r1.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030805_160600r1.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030824_strip.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030518_200154c2r3bw.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030518_162722c1r1.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030527_162040c1r1.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030518_200746c2r4bw.jpg
http://www.keradwc.com/outgoing_images/20030518_155448c1r1.jpg

Since I wasn't discussing the quality of my images, though, merely calling attention to ONE aspect of photography that seemed to be getting dismissed, it really doesn't matter if all my photos suck horribly; the facts remain, utterly unswayed by either my beliefs or yours.

I've made my points as best I could, and, as you do not seem interested in responding to them, or even reading what I wrote (rather than what you appear to have wanted me to have written), I will bother you no longer.

"Little people with little minds and little imagination jog through life in little ruts, smugly resisting all changes which would jar their little worlds."
-- Marie Fraser

A friend of mine at work just purchased the Canon 300D. He will be bringing it in to show me on Monday - so I may be able to post a more informed opinion at that point - maybe even get a chance to shoot a few photos.

The photos are what this is about isn't it? This discussion of the relative merits of a couple of new cameras seems to have degenerated quite a bit from where I am sitting.

Can't we all just get along? (misquoted from Rodney King I think)

Nice photos Kevin. I really like the second one. I like the composition, color, and focus. My focus was drawn to her eyes immediately and it was hard not to gaze into them. Nice work. :)

Catia

Yes - I have no doubt that a top of the line prosumer camera will be adequate for my needs - as it is most people are surprised that I use the picnic portable that I do for my shots. Having said that, I also have been told that my current camera is limiting my abilities - whatever.

I know it is a cliche - but it is the photographer and not the camera. I think it is about personal style. I have a drawer full of 35mm cameras with several interchangeable lenses - and I even have an old 4x5 in there somewhere. That is not where I am at personally - I am about simplicity and portability - but I TOTALLY support the idea that photographers should choose the equipment that they feel that they need and does the job for them.

Does the 300D lack critical features for a dedicated DSLR user? Maybe - maybe not. Is the F828 too limited for you? Maybe - maybe not. Will either camera or any other camera make you a better photographer? Absolutely not. It might help you get that shot that you coul dnot before - but the shot still occurs first in the eye and brain. If it ain't there - the camera won't help.

For some work - I think about Sports photography as an example - you clearly need the equipment that will deliver the shot best. For the average garden variety user - a consumer grade portable is probably sufficient. Has been for me so far.

So what's the point of this rambling? No point. Pick what camera you like - it's your money.

Followup:

My friend showed me his Canon 300D today. It was very impressive. The shots we took even at ISO 800 were virtually noise free, and the autofocus was almost instantaneous (the best feature in my opinion).

The "plastic" body that people have been complaining about felt solid and well made.

I still am not sure that this is the type of camera that I am interested in, but I was favorably impressed by the quality of the 300D at this price. Hopefully this will leave to deep price discounting in the DSLR market as a whole.

Toad

Toad -- thanks for the info. How was the shutter lag -- was it more like a film camera, or slower?

It was similar to a film camera. In my opinion, the speed that this thing allows you to shoot at is it's best "feature" (although the low noise sensor is also very sweet).

Kind of reminds me of the old days when I had an Olympus OM-1 body and a F1.4 50mm standard lens. No auto focus. You could shoot as fast as you could compose the shot. You could make mistakes in focus, but you never missed the shot because of lag.

I was seriously thinking of either getting a camera without autofocus or at least one where you can turn autofocus off because I am so tried of the lag. This encourages me to think that it doesn't have to be that way.

Still waiting to see the Sony F828 (and anything else that puts in an appearance in the meantime).

That's good news Toad. I've been hoping my partner would go ahead and buy the 300D so I could take a look at it. I'm still undecided yet as to what I will do. We all may get lucky and the competition may lower the pricing of their prosumer cameras.

Another good camera besides the Sony is the Minolta Dimage A1. What I like about is the image stabalization feature. If there is one problem I have with any camera is holding it still. The image stabalized lens for DSLR's cost about 1600.00 and up.

It's going to be a very interesting Christmas season this year. We might get lucky and they all get into a price war.

Toad, I understand your frustration with autofocus, but with my aging vision, I'll stick with AF -- my eyes focus slower than most any of the AF cameras. ;)

Imaging-resource.com had test times for shutter lag. My current Oly 2100 tested (manual focus, NOT auto focus and no pre-focus) at .40 seconds. Canon EOS 300D tested at .248, while its big brother Canon EOS-10D tested at .146. The Minolta Dimage 7Hi tested at .184. The Sony 717 tested at .136. Since the reviewer only had a prototype model Sony 828 to test, he postponed shutter lag testing until he has a true production model, but he stated that the pre-production model tested "faster than any other "prosumer" level digicam I've tested to date!".

EDIT - Oct. 4, 2003 -- I believe that the testing time for AUTO focus shutter lag is probably a better determinant to show the difference in these cameras since the autofocus speed is very important to shot making. --

Canon 10D -- .146

Canon 300D -- .25 (depends on lens)

Sony 717 -- .63

Minolta 7Hi -- .64

my current Oly 2100 -- .90

Imaging-resource reviews and tests (http://www.imaging-resource.com/MFR1.HTM)

It's going to be a very interesting Christmas season this year. We might get lucky and they all get into a price war. -- Kevin

That's what the New York Institute of Photography is telling us will happen -- They've announced -- "Don’t buy a digital camera before Thanksgiving if you can wait! "

Kevin,

IS lenses can be had at much lower prices. For example, the Canon EF28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS USM is $400 and the Canon EF75-300mm 4.0-5.6 IS USM is $415.

Catia

Thanks Catia, I wasn't aware that the USM indicates image stabalized lens. I guess I need to follow Canon more closely. All the Canons I have owned have been the older manual focus cameras. Guess that 300D is looking better all the time.

CJ, I don't know if I can wait until Thanksgiving to get a new camera. But I know there will be some major pricing changes. It's too late for any of the competition to introduce a new camera. They will have to respond by lowering their prices.

Kevin,

IS is the Image Stabilization designator. :-) USM is Ultrasonic Motor for the autofocus.

Although these two lenes are not L lenses, they produce some very good results given the proper lighting and exposure. Here is one of my favorites taken by Danny Barton with the 28-135 on a 10D http://www.pbase.com/image/20556864 .

Catia

That's a great shot Catia. I'm glad to get the lens designation right finally. I didn't know those lenses were that reasonable. You know that with the 300D ability to shoot at 800 with no noise kind of negates the need for the fast lens. That is a very attractive feature for me. Now when I shoot action shots I either pay for it in noise with the digital or grain with film. To eliminate that element altogether would be nice.

Kevin,

Here is another interesting DSLR photo.

http://www.pbase.com/image/21190102

Catia

Yea, that one's very interesting. The D60 is still a great camera. Goes to show that the number of pixels doesn't tell the whole story about a camera. The D60s are still bring over 1000.00 on ebay.

Kevin,

Some folks don't even need color. :)
http://www.pbase.com/image/20582262
http://www.pbase.com/image/21654948

Catia

Yea Catia. That's one thing I haven't done with the N80 is to shoot B&W. That's another thing about film that I don't like is the selection of local Labs is slim to none in my area. There is one, a Phototek, but they are very proud of their work.

I can always scan the slide or negative and convert it to B&W in Photoshop, but it wont have the dynamic range that B&W film can produce. I need to do more B&W work, my Epson 2200 really shines in monochrome printing.

Kevin,

Lately, I have been using the DigiDaanB&W Photoshop action. It can be found here

http://www.digidaan.nl/indexframedigidaan.html?channelmixer/index.html

Catia

Thanks, I'll try that tonight. Looks like his approach is very well explained. This might my answer to the dull B&W.

Just thougth I'd let you guys know, I ordered the 300D on Saturday. I was able to use one last week and think that for my needs this camera will fit the bill just fine. Anyone who is looking at the Sony 828 or the Minolta Dimage A1 I think you will be able to get these cameras at a lower price than the manufacture originally intended.

Those of us who wanted a DSLR prosumer camera this is a great choice. Those of you who wanted one of the fixed lens prosumer cameras I think you will benefit from this cameras introduction as well. I think it is a win-win situation for all of us..

Kevin,

Here is a link to a 300D review by Michael Reichmann at Luminous Landscape http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-rebel.shtml . He went on to answer the question "Should you Buy A Rebel?"

His response was:

"The answer very much depends on your photographic needs and experience. Here's what I would suggest...

> if you are new to photography, have a restricted budget, and this is your first serious camera... go for it. Get the Rebel kit with lens. It's likely the best camera investment that a beginner can make today, and you'll probably become a better photographer with it than you might with a comparably priced digicam.

> if you are a somewhat experienced film-based photographer on a tight budget, and now's the time for you to move up to digital, the Rebel is a great choice. Just save your pennies and buy a more capable lens at the same time. You'll quickly outgrow the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, and worse yet, when you decide to upgrade to another camera down the road this "S" series lens likely won't fit it.

> if you already own a Canon digital camera and need a second or backup body, or one for light-weight hiking or vacation use, this is the ticket. Just skip the kit and avoid the lens.

> If money isn't that tight and you're looking for a quality 6MP DSLR, then I'd suggest instead the Canon 10D if your looking within the Canon line. This gives you a more robust body, additional important features like mirror lock-up and metering mode selection among other improvements.

But, whether you buy a Canon Rebel 300D or not, it's worth knowing that we have just witnessed a price / performance breakthrough in the digital camera wars, and the ultimate winners are us."

Catia

Mauler forgot a few lines from the above review (found here --
PhilMug.org (http://www.philmug.org/forums/viewthread.php?tid=2601) )

"These are only minor flaws in what is otherwise an excellent camera, ... For photographer newbies on a budget, advanced amateurs looking for a good deal for the money, or seasoned pros looking for a near-disposable backup camera to augment their high end gear, the 300D is almost a no-brainer. I can recommend this camera without reservation to any of the above, and at this historical, practically sub-$1000 price point, I'm almost sure that ten years from now we will look back at the month of August 2003 as the point in history when the consumer 35mm film SLR finally started its last descent into extinction. "

C.J.,

Thanks for the clarification. It is difficult to make a rational judgement from points taken out of context. I read the entire review and found it to be informative and interesting.

Catia

I just hate it when people won't accept the downside of a product.

Agreed. It's almost as frustrating as when people won't accept the upside of a product.

Anyone who buys a $1000 camera and doesn't check the reviews from multiple users, keeping in mind the biases for each reviewer, is doing themselves a disservice. EVERYONE has biases, no matter how often or how loudly they claim they're always fair and balanced, and it's important to recognize that different reviewers have different goals or expectations from the same products, even if they're completely impartial in terms of direct functionality.

Photoshop frequently gets blasted for not being easy to use; is that a sufficient reason to not use it? It would be if you're only using it on rare occasions for simple tasks; it's not if you need the capabilities. If you followed just one reviewer, or only read reviews from casual users, you'd get a very different impression of the product than if you listened to a wider range of users, especially those whose use is similar to yours.

Hi Catia, CJ, & Kevin. My decission has been made. I'll have the camera in hand tomorrow. I read all the reviews and still made my decission after actually using one for a couple of days. Even if I only keep it for a while I don't believe that I would have problems selling it on ebay. I am buying quality glass that I will be able to use even if I upgrage to a better body later. Right now I can't afford the 1Ds but it will come eventually. Right now I am having to envest in other equipment to get the business up and running.

I do still remember how nice and pleasent things used to be here. I hope they will be again soon.

Congratulations Kevin - I am sure you will be very happy with it.

I have opinions on a couple of the review points made earlier.

The autofocus red dot is just fine - I can't understand the quibble about it. It is clear to use, and the ghosting, if any, was unobtrusive (to me anyway) - so is a non issue in my mind.

I am surprised that the 300D only supports USB 1.1. I recently uupgraded my PC to USB 2.0 to support my Epson 3200 scanner, and the speed increase is dramatic.

I look forward to seeing some posted pictures from your new acquisition.

Toad

Hey Toad, Yea I can't wait to start shooting. The red dot in the focusing screen is a little different to me because I am used to the Nikon focus screen. I shot some frames in the full auto mode and noticed that it only flashed for a brief moment but that doesn't bother me because I wont be using the full auto mode very much. I know the differencies between the 300D and the pro models and am very happy to put up with the missing features. I can't afford the $8,000.00 1Ds body right now. This is so much more than my current cameras. I'm running away from film as fast as I can. It's just too much trouble.

The USB speed is not an issue with me. I have a good card reader already and prefer that to downloading directly from the camera anyway. That is just another thing they cut in order to make the camera more affordable. Besides using the camera to transfer the images will just further drain the battery.

I am surprised that the 300D only supports USB 1.1.

Toad, the Canon 10D also only supports USB 1.1 (according to DPreview's specs).

I don't know what most shooters do, but I started using a card reader soon after I bought my first digital camera, and there are card readers with USB 2.0 connectivity that read a wide variety of different cards, so the camera specs don't really determine speed of image download as far as I can see. You can pop a card in the reader and download while popping another card in the camera so that you can be ready to shoot.

EDIT: Due to deleted posts this may not follow the thread --- sorry!

It seems a prevous member posted the below quote how everyone should respond --- and well I responded to that....

Originally posted by photomauler

1) We agree with you always.

3) We kiss your booty when posting.


Hmmmmmm - :eek:

I think that says it all --- how true, sad but how true -- good point (YOU/YOUR ) Don.

Kevin - wish you the best of luck with your new "toy" and am hoping Jean (sissy) will make the same purchase so I can play!!!!

Look forward to your images!!!!!





To each his own said the woman as she kissed the cow!!! (my mom always said that one!)

Love ya mom!

EDIT: this was posted to a response from Photomauler---- who has requested his posts be removed......... how sad :bawling:

Now go kiss a cow and call it a night! Ha Ha Ha

LOL -- Jill ! Ha Ha Ha

Yes - I use a card reader too for my downloads - so maybe USB 2.0 not such an issue.

Jill - forget the cows - kiss a Toad (again).

:D

:blush: Oh! so sorry my dear sweat toad!

:kisses: :kisses: :kisses: :kisses:


Will send ya the "real" kiss as soon as sissy gets that camera!!! LOL






Uh! - BOB just ignore this post!!!!!!!!! ;)

Thought I would post one sample shot I took today. This has some post processing. I will post some more when I get time to shoot at a good time of day. The lighting on this shot wasn't perfect but I believe it turned out ok. I waited for this bird to come down to the feeder. When she didn't, I went hunting for her and found her just sitting up there watching me. So I shot her handheld with the zoom all the way out, 480mm.