Canon raises the bar!

[KevinBE]

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.

[catia]

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

[KevinBE]

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.

[KevinBE]

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.

[KevinBE]

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.

[CJ Swartz]

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!

[Toad]

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

[jeaniesa]

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" ), 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 PS 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

[KevinBE]

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.

[catia]

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

[jeaniesa]

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! )

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

[KevinBE]

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.

[Kevin Connery]

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"? Or in this one, 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 . 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.

[KevinBE]

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?

[Kevin Connery]

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.