Looking to buy a 300D for first camera

[tempest]

Hello all,

The EOS 300D + Lens Kit - it will be my first digital camera, I've never done any serious photography and the reason why I'm thinking about the Rebel is because of the reviews I've read - I still am not totally sure whether I'd be just as happy with a cheaper consumer camera - but it's hard to say whether reviews are biased toward more professional photography.

For example, the SLR advantage about the viewfinder showing the true image - I thought consumer digitals can do that too on the LCD. Anyway there's some things I haven't been able to find out yet.

What is the Rebel's A/D converter size? 12-bit, 14-bit?

Some day I might want to photograph the night sky, so would need very long (let's say 1 hour for sake of argument) exposures. Is there a time limit on the bulb shutter mode and also is there any battery drain in keeping the shutter held open?

I'd be grateful if anyone can help me with these, thanks.

[timmyquest]

I thought consumer digitals can do that too on the LCD

No, thats what makes it an SLR..

howstuffworks.com

;-)

[David Wild]

I thought consumer digitals can do that too on the LCD

No, thats what makes it an SLR..

howstuffworks.com

;-)

While what Tim says is true, you **can** use the LCD on many of the others (some of them don't have a viewfinder) but it is much less convenient than the SLR viewfinder, and can be almost unusable in bright light.

[Scottes]

An LCD showing 250,000 pixels can NOT show the "true image" which is 5,000,000 pixels. It will give you an idea, but will not show the most important 20% of the details.

The Drebel will handle Bulb exposures of an hour.

I believe the Drebel is 12-bit.


I wanted a good digital camera for a couple years. I researched, many times, many good ($500-700) digitals. Below are some thoughtscomparing a DRebel against those cameras. Higher priced non-SLR digitals (dImage for one) may not hold true for my statements - but a dImage is $1500 - for this price I'd go SLR in a heartbeat.

A DRebel will also autofocus much faster than just about any other non-SLR digital. Well, others in it's price range will probably autofocus at about the same speed.

I found manual focus on other digitals to be a joke. That is, they seemed to use the LCD screen to determine focus, and one had to push little buttons on the back of the camera to adjust the focus. I couldn't see that being very accurate.

The big, huge, humungous deal for me was interchangable lenses. Want a wide? A Tele? A macro? Just change the lens. (This could be a downside - a 7x zoom like dImage's does just about everything and is obviously cheaper and simpler.)

Image quality is a big deal for some. A prime 200mm lens is going to beat dImage/etc at 200mm zoomed. Again though, this means more money.


When all was said and done, I bit the bullet and bought a 10D. I've since spent far too much money on this! Watch it! :)

[tempest]

I read there are ways of combating the problems in bright light. Perhaps the top-end consumer cameras have a viewfinder with the LCD image there too - maybe hooding the LCD with your hand or positioning yourself between the sun and LCD even helps :).

I'd have thought that since the LCD shows what's coming through the CCD it's more true to the final image? - which is what I was getting at. Anyway this is only me logically thinking about it from what information I've gathered, I don't have any experience here!

Personally I just don't see that aspect of SLR such a big advantage (over the LCD - sure it's better than over a seperate viewfinder path), to me things like image quality are more important - and that's really what turned me to the 300D over something like the Sony F828 or Coolpix.

[tempest]

Thank you, Scottes, for the answers to my specific questions.

Sure, I understand it won't have the same resolution, but I'd say the "framing" is more important? The Rebel viewfinder apparently doesn't even show the fullframe.

Yeah, the autofocus and response between pressing button and picture being taken (I suppose the two are connected) was something that impressed me too.

Now the lens changing is fairly important, only because I might want to attach the body only to a telescope to shoot at prime focus. I'm not sure yet what a difference various lenses make to everyday photography because as you mention non-SLRs can zoom enough for that.

Ouch, 10D, I could not justify affording that despite the extras it has :)

[robertwgross]

I'd have thought that since the LCD shows what's coming through the CCD it's more true to the final image? - which is what I was getting at.

However, on these Canon cameras, there is no CCD image sensor.

---Bob Gross---

[Jim Larson]

While what Tim says is true, you **can** use the LCD on many of the others (some of them don't have a viewfinder) but it is much less convenient than the SLR viewfinder, and can be almost unusable in bright light.

Ummm, let's get a grip here people.

The advantage of a dRebel are the following:

1) Lenses: TOP NOTCH OPTICS. Although the 18-55 kit lens is less than stellar and I never recommend it, the kit lens is *far better* than anything you see on a point and shoot. The reason that you don't see a 10x zoom lens for dSLR's is because they are too hard to make. Easier to have two lenses. Most digicams are 3x zooms (like the 18-55). With a dSLR, you can also get a 70-200 or a 100-400! 400 not long enough? Slap on a 1.4x teleconverter. DEPTH OF FIELD: Most digicams have small sensors and tiny lenses. No matter how good those lenses are, the depth of field wide open is just WIDE. You will NOT be able to blur out the background for a portrait like you do with a SLR lens, even the kit lens. Want a serious portrait? Try the $70 50/1.8! Hubba Hubba!

2) Electronics: I have two digicams. You miss too many shots because of SHUTTER LAG. The dSLR's shoot FAST. I never notice shutter lag on my DSLR. Also, you can shoot off multiple frames quickly. Even the low end dRebel will blow the doors off 95% of the digicams in this regard. Also in the electrics department: The sensor! Contrary to popular belief, MP count is secondary to pixel quality. The 4mp 1d is superior to the 6mp 10D because the pixels are larger and have better sensitivity. The pixels on a 10D/dRebel in turn are enormous compared to what is provided in most digicams. (Number of mega pixels only help resolution. Do not help noise and quality)

3) Flash system. Although no-one seems to be able to use E-TTL flash, an externally mounted flash unit is an awesome thing on these cameras. At New Year's, I pulled out my S40 to take a few quick flash pictures. Gads! What horrible shots! After 6 frames, I pulled out the big gun with a 550EX flash on top. NIGHT and DAY! Bounce flash with E-TTL metering is the bee's knees!

Disadvantages:
1) Lack of LCD preview. SURE optical viewfinders are good. And they allow manual focusing. Compared to film P&S cameras, dSLR viewfinders are breathtaking. BUT frankly the LCD previews of digicams allow you to hold the camera over your head and take shots. Can't do that with a dSLR. Don't get me wrong, I like looking through a real viewfinder, but LCD preview is a powerful tool and enhances your creative abilities.

2) Size and Cost. My S40 fits in my pocket. My 10D kit fits (barely) into a sizable photo-backpack. My telephoto lens cost more than my S40. My top end flash unit cost as much (almost) as my S40. Yesh! Brave is the man who pulls out $2500 worth of camera and lens in a crowd!

3) Work process: Ya know: I spend significant time editing dSLR images, and hardly any on my digicam. Why is that? I think the bottom line is that the SLR images have more too them, and can be improved yet further in the software. My digicam images are "so-so" to start with, without much room for big improvement. As a result, I spend alot of time tweaking dSLR images to look their best.

4) SLR's are thinking people's cameras. A P&S has a very narrow range of capabilities. A dSLR has a wide range of capabilities. (this is good, but bad because..) You can easily take a number of shots that are just not right => you need to be constantly aware of how the camera is set.

BUT I RAMBLE.

Back to the original post:

The dRebel sensor produces 12 bit images. But photoshop uses either 8bit or 16 bit mode (go figure).

The dRebel and 10D are ill-suited to long exposure times. Long exposures tend to drive the pixels a bit batty, and you end up with "hot pixels". Short shots of dark landscapes, or 10 second exposures of the moon are fine, however.

[tempest]

Yes, the 300D uses CMOS, however I was not referring to the 300D. It was in reference to modern prosumer cameras which, from what I've seen, use CCD in general.

EDIT:
Whoops, that wasn't in reply to you, Jim, but the previous post.

Nice set of pros and cons, and pretty much the sort of confirmation I'd want to make paying out more money easier to justify.

However, you say that DSLRs require more thought and work. I'm not sure whether you mean SLRs in general or the Rebel too, but I have read that the 300D can be used as a point and shoot camera quite easily. Since I've no real photo experience this would be comforting to have, with the added benefit of flexibility brought about by the manual/priority modes (and additionally whatever else the SLR nature gives e.g. changeable lenses) when it's necessary. So basically what I mean... in the 300D's fully automatic mode, even without "thinking" you could pull off much nicer pictures than with a prosumer camera?

[Tom W]

Yes, the 300D uses CMOS, however I was not referring to the 300D. It was in reference to modern prosumer cameras which, from what I've seen, use CCD in general.

EDIT:
Whoops, that wasn't in reply to you, Jim, but the previous post.

Nice set of pros and cons, and pretty much the sort of confirmation I'd want to make paying out more money easier to justify.

However, you say that DSLRs require more thought and work. I'm not sure whether you mean SLRs in general or the Rebel too, but I have read that the 300D can be used as a point and shoot camera quite easily. Since I've no real photo experience this would be comforting to have, with the added benefit of flexibility brought about by the manual/priority modes (and additionally whatever else the SLR nature gives e.g. changeable lenses) when it's necessary. So basically what I mean... in the 300D's fully automatic mode, even without "thinking" you could pull off much nicer pictures than with a prosumer camera?

Tempest, the DigiReb can be used in full auto mode, without much thought needed if you so desire, as can the film-based Rebels. But it also has the flexibility as Jim and others have pointed out. Its easy enough to use as-is, but flexible enough to use it as you grow (or don't) into more complex photography.

I agree with most of Jim's pros and cons, though I believe that the issue surrounding the use of the LCD vs. the SLR's viewfinder is one where there could be disagreement. Personally, though I occasionally use the LCD for framing on my S-400, I prefer a good through-the-lens viewfinder as on the DigiReb. Its considerably more useful out in the sun where its very difficult to see the LCD (and holding one hand to block the sun works, but it doesn't do much to steady the camera when you're shooting). Plus, with the camera right against your face, you can keep your elbows in tight against your body and use your head to steady the camera when you shoot at relatively low shutter speeds. Camera shake, especially with longer lenses, has ruined plenty of pictures.

[Jim Larson]

Frankly, I consider dSLR's and digicams different beasts. When I am playing tourist for a day, I bring both. 8) When I concentrate, I bring out the dSLR. When I am in a hurry (or a bar), out pops the digicam.

Can you use a dSLR as a point and shoot? I am not sure I can answer. I have a *CANON* S40 point and shoot. The S40 has controls very similar to the dRebel (and my 10D). Therefore, I have a tendency to use my S40 like my SLR :)

Can you use a dSLR as a point and shoot? That's a good question. I think the answer is yes. :lol:

When I use my dSLR, I tend to set up the camera then take a series of shots => conditions in a single room tend not to change fast. Once I set the camera, I point and shoot. In the beginning, I generally set up the flash (if needed) and ISO based upon light. From there, I generally only vary aperture from shot to shot depending upon desired depth of field. I only tweak things if exposures don't seem to be coming in spot on.

Yeah, dSLR's have lots of options. But many are simple. For most applications, I find "one shot" focus, linked to the center focus point is fine. The auto focus point select, umm, sucks, so I don't use it.

ISO is generally set only once per session (I default to 100, but frequently go to 400 when shooting indoors). I ignore the "basic modes" (too confusing), and generally shoot in Av mode (or "M" if the flash is being used).

I always shoot RAW, so I don't even think about saturation, contrast, and white balance while shooting. (In raw mode, these settings are *fully* adjustable in post processing => which is why I spend so much time post processing.)

The most complicated part about dSLR's is the whole flash thing. Putting light in the *best* place with a tilt-swivel flash is hard. BUT, frankly, digicam flashes are HORRIBLE. Can't bear to use a digicam flash anymore (too weak, too much red-eye, light too harsh).

I would expect the dRebel onboard flash is decent for a start. My 10D onboard flash is similar, and it works just fine when I use it. I prefer the offboard flash because of the extra power and tilt/swivel abilities.

Toughest part about dSLR's? Scraping up the cash for the body and lenses. I like lenses! Been collecting primes lately. . . .24, 35, 50, 300 soon. . .

[Tom W]

Yes, they are different beasts. I could never substitute my S-400 for even my old FT - its a different machine made for a different purpose. I've had the advantage (or maybe disadvantage) of shooting with SLR's for quite a while, but I've also used Point-and-shoot cameras for quite a while. Two different animals, but both very nice to have. There's overlap, of course, but I can't put the Elan (or the 10D when it gets here) in my pocket, and I don't expect the range and flexibility from the S-400.

I'm not likely to part with my S-400 any time soon. Nor will I stop shooting with SLR's.