How good is the Canon 300D really?

John Doe writes:

wrote:
John Doe wrote:
Hello,

I own an Olympus C-750 and am looking for an upgrade. Let me first
list
the cribs I have about my current setup:
- Hate the EVF. Even slow moving objects are blurred in it
- Low-light and indoor shots are often blurred because of slow
shutter
speed even at full aperture
- I want A4 size prints and doubt 4MP is good enough for that
- And I need interchangeable lenses and more control over the
camera so
that I can learn to shoot better

I have a Digital Rebel and I am very happy with it.
One of my colleagues at work also has one. She's happy
with her camera too. Is the Digital Rebel the right
camera for you? That depends entirely on how you plan
to use your camera (e.g., sports, conserts, portraits, etc.).

My question isn't whether 300D is good or not but what change am I
likely to see over my current Oly C-750 or any other high-end 4MP P&S?

Enough to make you happy. I changed from a Minolta Dimage 7i to a Pentax *istD
and found an immediate and effort free jump in the quality of my photos. Part
of that was simply no longer having to use an EVF to manual focus (actually,
accurate MF is impossible with all the EVFs I've seen); a quick lens change
gets me to a 1:10 ratio without have to hit a menu that is God knows how many
items long; I can use ISO 800 and still get useful pix (1600 is iffy). I've
handled the 300D: it handles nicely, but didn't do a couple things I
wanted/needed (PC socket for flash for one), so I had to spend more money.



Charlie Self
"Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for
President. One hopes it is the same half." Gore Vidal

John Doe writes:

wrote:
John Doe wrote:
Hello,

I own an Olympus C-750 and am looking for an upgrade. Let me first
list
the cribs I have about my current setup:
- Hate the EVF. Even slow moving objects are blurred in it
- Low-light and indoor shots are often blurred because of slow
shutter
speed even at full aperture
- I want A4 size prints and doubt 4MP is good enough for that
- And I need interchangeable lenses and more control over the
camera so
that I can learn to shoot better

I have a Digital Rebel and I am very happy with it.
One of my colleagues at work also has one. She's happy
with her camera too. Is the Digital Rebel the right
camera for you? That depends entirely on how you plan
to use your camera (e.g., sports, conserts, portraits, etc.).

My question isn't whether 300D is good or not but what change am I
likely to see over my current Oly C-750 or any other high-end 4MP P&S?

Enough to make you happy. I changed from a Minolta Dimage 7i to a Pentax *istD
and found an immediate and effort free jump in the quality of my photos. Part
of that was simply no longer having to use an EVF to manual focus (actually,
accurate MF is impossible with all the EVFs I've seen); a quick lens change
gets me to a 1:10 ratio without have to hit a menu that is God knows how many
items long; I can use ISO 800 and still get useful pix (1600 is iffy). I've
handled the 300D: it handles nicely, but didn't do a couple things I
wanted/needed (PC socket for flash for one), so I had to spend more money.



Charlie Self
"Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for
President. One hopes it is the same half." Gore Vidal

On 23 Sep 2004 10:46:07 -0700, "John Doe"
wrote:

Hello,

I own an Olympus C-750 and am looking for an upgrade. Let me first list
the cribs I have about my current setup:
- Hate the EVF. Even slow moving objects are blurred in it
- Low-light and indoor shots are often blurred because of slow shutter
speed even at full aperture
- I want A4 size prints and doubt 4MP is good enough for that
- And I need interchangeable lenses and more control over the camera so
that I can learn to shoot better

The first option I considered was to buy a film SLR plus a film scanner
setup. Looked at the lenses and stuff and it all worked out to be
approx. $500 for a Maxxum 5 plus various lenses and another $260 would
get me a Minolta DualScan IV

But what I learned ever since I bought my first 2MP digicam is that
digicams encourage you to shoot to your heart's content. Within a month
of buying my first digicam I had probably shot more photos than I ever
did with my film P&S - and that basically got me interested in
photography. Then the debate over how good really are scanned images
put me off the film SLR + scanner setup.

So I scratched the bottom and mustered the courage to get a Canon 300D.
My question is how big a difference am I likely to see over my current
setup given that I would go for the kit lens (18-55mm) and probably the
55-200mm USM?

Briefly, I am likely to use the camera for all sorts of photos -
landscape, marriages, portrait, forests (hiking/forest reserves). I
will pick the best shots once in a while and print them A4 size, either
on an inkjet or a lab.

Thanks,

Siddhartha


The image quality is truly excellent from the sensor, even at ISO 800,
but it is the cheapest DSLR and is the Ford Fiesta of that group of
cameras. Body quality, though plastic surfaced, is truly strong and
rigid but the internal shutter (plastic blades) and mirror box have
plenty of reported failures at quite low usage (less than 10,000
shots) and the auto-focus system is not the same precision as the
EOS.1 range (e.g. Canon 1D MkII and Canon 1Ds) but the price is good.
You can get about 5 300D bodies for the price of one 1D MkII body.

For really in depth criticism read the 300D forum of searchable news
postings (there's almost HALF A MILLION now) at www.dpreview.com It
really will be worth your time. There are several other Forums there
for different brands/models and you can get a feel for them too.

Remember, the 300D is not the top of the tree, it's the bottom of the
DSLR tree. Be prepared to spend lots more money on Canon lenses than
you will on the camera if you get keen and you will have to deal with
dust etc. if you frequently change lenses. The kit lens is good value
but read the dpreview forum for opinions before buying additional
ones. There are some that are outstandingly reputable and/or useful
and some that are just disappointing.

Tony.

Tony wrote:
On 23 Sep 2004 10:46:07 -0700, "John Doe"
wrote:


Hello,

I own an Olympus C-750 and am looking for an upgrade. Let me first list
the cribs I have about my current setup:
- Hate the EVF. Even slow moving objects are blurred in it
- Low-light and indoor shots are often blurred because of slow shutter
speed even at full aperture
- I want A4 size prints and doubt 4MP is good enough for that
- And I need interchangeable lenses and more control over the camera so
that I can learn to shoot better

The first option I considered was to buy a film SLR plus a film scanner
setup. Looked at the lenses and stuff and it all worked out to be
approx. $500 for a Maxxum 5 plus various lenses and another $260 would
get me a Minolta DualScan IV

But what I learned ever since I bought my first 2MP digicam is that
digicams encourage you to shoot to your heart's content. Within a month
of buying my first digicam I had probably shot more photos than I ever
did with my film P&S - and that basically got me interested in
photography. Then the debate over how good really are scanned images
put me off the film SLR + scanner setup.

So I scratched the bottom and mustered the courage to get a Canon 300D.
My question is how big a difference am I likely to see over my current
setup given that I would go for the kit lens (18-55mm) and probably the
55-200mm USM?

Briefly, I am likely to use the camera for all sorts of photos -
landscape, marriages, portrait, forests (hiking/forest reserves). I
will pick the best shots once in a while and print them A4 size, either
on an inkjet or a lab.

Thanks,

Siddhartha



The image quality is truly excellent from the sensor, even at ISO 800,
but it is the cheapest DSLR and is the Ford Fiesta of that group of
cameras. Body quality, though plastic surfaced, is truly strong and
rigid but the internal shutter (plastic blades) and mirror box have
plenty of reported failures at quite low usage (less than 10,000
shots) and the auto-focus system is not the same precision as the
EOS.1 range (e.g. Canon 1D MkII and Canon 1Ds) but the price is good.
You can get about 5 300D bodies for the price of one 1D MkII body.

For really in depth criticism read the 300D forum of searchable news
postings (there's almost HALF A MILLION now) at www.dpreview.com It
really will be worth your time. There are several other Forums there
for different brands/models and you can get a feel for them too.

Remember, the 300D is not the top of the tree, it's the bottom of the
DSLR tree. Be prepared to spend lots more money on Canon lenses than
you will on the camera if you get keen and you will have to deal with
dust etc. if you frequently change lenses. The kit lens is good value
but read the dpreview forum for opinions before buying additional
ones. There are some that are outstandingly reputable and/or useful
and some that are just disappointing.

Tony.


Very good answer.
I have only one thing to add. Even though the Camera is the low end of
the DSLR range it still has a fantastic sensor (in my judgement) and the
firmware can be upgreaded for the AF modes
(http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/...el-tricks.html)
I have not regretted bying that camera.
If you want to see some example images check out my page.

Andre

--
----------------------------------
http://www.aguntherphotography.com

Tony wrote:
The image quality is truly excellent from the sensor, even at ISO
800,
but it is the cheapest DSLR and is the Ford Fiesta of that group of
cameras. Body quality, though plastic surfaced, is truly strong and
rigid but the internal shutter (plastic blades) and mirror box have
plenty of reported failures at quite low usage (less than 10,000
shots) and the auto-focus system is not the same precision as the
EOS.1 range (e.g. Canon 1D MkII and Canon 1Ds) but the price is good.
You can get about 5 300D bodies for the price of one 1D MkII body.

For really in depth criticism read the 300D forum of searchable news
postings (there's almost HALF A MILLION now) at www.dpreview.com It
really will be worth your time. There are several other Forums there
for different brands/models and you can get a feel for them too.

Remember, the 300D is not the top of the tree, it's the bottom of the
DSLR tree. Be prepared to spend lots more money on Canon lenses than
you will on the camera if you get keen and you will have to deal with
dust etc. if you frequently change lenses. The kit lens is good value
but read the dpreview forum for opinions before buying additional
ones. There are some that are outstandingly reputable and/or useful
and some that are just disappointing.

Tony.

Yep, I realise that the 300D is the cheapest and about the only dSLR I
can afford. I don't want to lug around lenses with me and would prefer
to have a single lens on my camera for starting out. Or maybe I'll
later get another lens (after I've recovered from the initial hole in
my pocket). So for starting out how is the Sigma 18-125mm f3.5-5.6? I
read several reviews of it on the dpreview forum and people seem to
have liked it for the price.

Also, how does CF compare to microdrive? I mean if I am not looking at
much high speed shooting, should it matter to me? I understand that
microdrive has moving parts so it might less resistant to shock than a
solid-state flash but apart from that any other concerns?
Thanks,

Siddhartha

Tony wrote:
The image quality is truly excellent from the sensor, even at ISO
800,
but it is the cheapest DSLR and is the Ford Fiesta of that group of
cameras. Body quality, though plastic surfaced, is truly strong and
rigid but the internal shutter (plastic blades) and mirror box have
plenty of reported failures at quite low usage (less than 10,000
shots) and the auto-focus system is not the same precision as the
EOS.1 range (e.g. Canon 1D MkII and Canon 1Ds) but the price is good.
You can get about 5 300D bodies for the price of one 1D MkII body.

For really in depth criticism read the 300D forum of searchable news
postings (there's almost HALF A MILLION now) at www.dpreview.com It
really will be worth your time. There are several other Forums there
for different brands/models and you can get a feel for them too.

Remember, the 300D is not the top of the tree, it's the bottom of the
DSLR tree. Be prepared to spend lots more money on Canon lenses than
you will on the camera if you get keen and you will have to deal with
dust etc. if you frequently change lenses. The kit lens is good value
but read the dpreview forum for opinions before buying additional
ones. There are some that are outstandingly reputable and/or useful
and some that are just disappointing.

Tony.

Yep, I realise that the 300D is the cheapest and about the only dSLR I
can afford. I don't want to lug around lenses with me and would prefer
to have a single lens on my camera for starting out. Or maybe I'll
later get another lens (after I've recovered from the initial hole in
my pocket). So for starting out how is the Sigma 18-125mm f3.5-5.6? I
read several reviews of it on the dpreview forum and people seem to
have liked it for the price.

Also, how does CF compare to microdrive? I mean if I am not looking at
much high speed shooting, should it matter to me? I understand that
microdrive has moving parts so it might less resistant to shock than a
solid-state flash but apart from that any other concerns?
Thanks,

Siddhartha

John Doe wrote:


Also, how is the D60 compared to the 300D. If I get a used D60 in good
condition, is it a better option than a new 300D? From specs, I can see
that they share the same CMOS sensor and the D60 is better built than
the 300D with more manual metering control.


The D60 does not have the same sensor, just the same size sensor. The
300D is closer to the 10D and delivers similar images.

I suspect the dpreview site has reviews (and samples) from both the D60
and the 300D which you can puruse.

I'd look at the functions missing from the 300D -- most of which relate
to selecting focus mode as a function of shooting mode -- and ask if you
need them. Many do not.

I just upgraded to a 20D (wife will use the 300D). My reasons related
to lower noise, quick response time and focus accuracy/speed more than
the functions missing from the 300D -- though I'm sure I will use the
increased 20D functionality in time.

Phil

John Doe wrote:


Also, how is the D60 compared to the 300D. If I get a used D60 in good
condition, is it a better option than a new 300D? From specs, I can see
that they share the same CMOS sensor and the D60 is better built than
the 300D with more manual metering control.


The D60 does not have the same sensor, just the same size sensor. The
300D is closer to the 10D and delivers similar images.

I suspect the dpreview site has reviews (and samples) from both the D60
and the 300D which you can puruse.

I'd look at the functions missing from the 300D -- most of which relate
to selecting focus mode as a function of shooting mode -- and ask if you
need them. Many do not.

I just upgraded to a 20D (wife will use the 300D). My reasons related
to lower noise, quick response time and focus accuracy/speed more than
the functions missing from the 300D -- though I'm sure I will use the
increased 20D functionality in time.

Phil

Phil Wheeler wrote:
The D60 does not have the same sensor, just the same size sensor.
The
300D is closer to the 10D and delivers similar images.

I suspect the dpreview site has reviews (and samples) from both the
D60
and the 300D which you can puruse.

I'd look at the functions missing from the 300D -- most of which
relate
to selecting focus mode as a function of shooting mode -- and ask if
you
need them. Many do not.

I just upgraded to a 20D (wife will use the 300D). My reasons
related
to lower noise, quick response time and focus accuracy/speed more
than
the functions missing from the 300D -- though I'm sure I will use the

increased 20D functionality in time.

Thanks Phil. I looked at the all the reviews - megapixel,
imaging-resource, dpreview, dcresource etc and concluded that the 300D
is good enough for my use even after the lack of certain controls that
the D60 has and the same reasons you noted above.

Besides, someone pointed to reported problems of shutter failures with
the used D60s.

Cheers,

Siddhartha

Phil Wheeler wrote:
The D60 does not have the same sensor, just the same size sensor.
The
300D is closer to the 10D and delivers similar images.

I suspect the dpreview site has reviews (and samples) from both the
D60
and the 300D which you can puruse.

I'd look at the functions missing from the 300D -- most of which
relate
to selecting focus mode as a function of shooting mode -- and ask if
you
need them. Many do not.

I just upgraded to a 20D (wife will use the 300D). My reasons
related
to lower noise, quick response time and focus accuracy/speed more
than
the functions missing from the 300D -- though I'm sure I will use the

increased 20D functionality in time.

Thanks Phil. I looked at the all the reviews - megapixel,
imaging-resource, dpreview, dcresource etc and concluded that the 300D
is good enough for my use even after the lack of certain controls that
the D60 has and the same reasons you noted above.

Besides, someone pointed to reported problems of shutter failures with
the used D60s.

Cheers,

Siddhartha