G5 to 300d - is it worth it?

[Miss Mandie]

I am happy with my G5 which i got for xmas, but have been told to move up to the Canon 300d model as i will be able to do alot more with it.

Is there a big difference? Is it worth it?

[Warman]

I would say it depends.
My main reason to move up to 300d would be the digital noise issue which is practicly inexistent in the SLR. The interchangeable lens is also a good reason to move up.
My main reason not to move up is definently the swivel LCD screen which i must say has done wonders for me. If it wasnt for it i would have had to lie flat on the street many a time.

[John_T]

Well Mandie, don't think you will be able to do much "more" with it, but you will be able to get lower noise images at higher ISO values, of an argueably better quality, out of a 300D than a G5. In this sense you will be able to shoot better in less than ideal light conditions. AF is faster among other things, but there are some limitations too that matter more to some people than to others.

The 300D, however, is a bigger camera and will put you on the threshold of getting into lens systems where you can really spend a lot of money. :lol:

Better you qualify what the 'more' is that you are looking for. More money for certain.

[gcogger]

I've made a similar move (G3 to 300D). I think the images from the 300D are much nicer - they seem both more natural and more detailed.
I terms of how the camera is to use, the 300D is _much_ more responsive with focussing that works quickly and well (unlike the G3 IMHO). You have many more options for lenses, and the battery lasts longer (though it was pretty good on the G3 already). Of course, the images have much lower noise and you can blur the background more easily due to the reduced depth of field. If you shoot in RAW, the 300D allows you to review the images properly by zooming in (e.g. to check focus), whereas this is of no use on the G3.
On the downside, the camera is in a whole different league when it comes to size and weight. The reduced depth of field is a disadvantage for many landscape shots. In some ways you can actually do _less_ with the 300D as you have no control over focus and metering modes. For me, the lack of metering control is the camera's biggest problem. You also cannot compose using the LCD, although that doesn't bother me at all.
All in all, I think the 300D is a much better camera and nicer to use, but the G3 still has many advantages.

[sdommin]

I am happy with my G5...

After writing that, why do you want a different camera? Just because someone told you to get one?

Those are the questions you need to ask yourself!

[Ballen Photo]

I am happy with my G5 which i got for xmas, but have been told to move up to the Canon 300d model as i will be able to do alot more with it.

Is there a big difference? Is it worth it?

They both serve different purposes. I find myself shooting the G-5 as much as I do my 10D. Whenever I just want to keep it simple, I'll grab the G-5. To me, the big advantage the DSLR has is the wide range of lenses available for the EOS system, and I like that I can shoot prime lenses with it.
Why dont you keep the G-5 AND get the 300D? Besides, You'll need the G-5 to shoot pictures of your new 300D, and vica versa. :shock: :D :shock:
.........Bruce

[dfrost]

DSLR's have many advantages, but their most significant disadvantage, for me, is size. And that aspect gets much worse when you add multiple lenses, flash, etc. I've had four different (film) SLR's and every one of them ended up sitting at home while I carried something small and convenient.

I'd never carry a DSLR as often as I do my G3, which is almost always with me.

The best camera is the one you have when the subject shows up.

[kreego]

The best camera is the one you have when the subject shows up.

Amen to that!! All of my stuff fits into a small satchel thats always near the door, in case I have to go out.

I'd say if you have to sell your work, and/or make huge prints, then you need the 300D. If you've got to shoot things that move quickly (animals, small children, hyper parents, etc.) you'll do much better with the 300D.

Otherwise, I'd stick with the G5 and use it to its full ability, and live with its limitations.

K

[polloloco81]

I own only a G5 right now, but my friend owns a Canon 10D (which is similar to the Rebel) and he lets me borrow it, so I was able to mess around with the camera extensively. Personally, I fell in love with the dSLR. As with other forum members already posted, the dSLR is much much more responsive when you take pictures, which is perfect if you do action photography. The photos are pretty much noise-less when taken at 400 ISO or less, and you get a much better control over desired depth of field.

I'm in the same situation as you are right now, and that is I am seriously pondering of getting a 300D, but the only thing that is keeping me back is my budget. I will have to sell me G5 to be able to afford the 300D, but I really want to keep it because the G5 is an amazing 'compact' camera suitable for travel and leisure photography. So given the comparisons, you have to ask yourself what would you prefer depending on how serious you are about photography.

I am a graphic design student, so photography is a big part of what I do, and I am pretty happy with my G5 right now, but I know more photographic possibilities will open for me with the Rebel. And to answer the main question of the post: In my humble opinion, I think it is totally worth it to upgrade from G5 to Rebel if you are able to afford it.

P.S.
And I agree that size is the biggest disadvantage of a dSLR, but personally, I believe that it's negligable compared to its many other advantages.

[Miss Mandie]

Thanks to all who answered my questions.

I think the main advantage for me to move up to the 300d is the lens factor, but like others, i really dont want to let go of my G5. So, thanks to your advice i am going to keep the G5 and save up for a DSLR at a later date.

[cadmium]

That's what I would do as well.

I've been considering buying a new digital camera (I bought the G5 almost a year ago). The reasons why I did not switch to the 300D are that there is a small difference in number of pixels, that it offers to few adjustable settings if you compare it to an film SLR and that it feels a bit like a toy -- plastic body :-( -- compared to my EOS.

I'd rather go for a 8 million pixels camera (since they are becoming the standard now). Five or six million pixels does not make such a difference if you want to print poster-size pictures (50x75cm). I saw prints from both the G5 and the 300D and I must say that the difference is not so important (unless you put your nose on the picture, but at poster size, the grain is also to be seen with a film SLR).

At the moment, I can't find an affordable 8 million pixels DSLR camera. Of course, the Pro 1 looks nice... but it's not a SLR. The EOS-1D Mark II looks nice too (!) but that's a different price range (and I keep finding it bulky)... So I'm waiting for the next Canon DSLR!

[cadmium]

Actually, I'm also waiting for a full-frame sensor...

[Andy_T]

That's what I would do as well.

I'd rather go for a 8 million pixels camera (since they are becoming the standard now). Five or six million pixels does not make such a difference if you want to print poster-size pictures (50x75cm). I saw prints from both the G5 and the 300D and I must say that the difference is not so important (unless you put your nose on the picture, but at poster size, the grain is also to be seen with a film SLR).

Don't overestimate the megapixel count.

I'd take a (used) Canon D30 with its 3 Megapixels with a decent lens (e.g. 17-40/4L, 50/1.4 or 70-200/4L) any day over the more expensive 8 MP digicams.

Most likely, I'll try to get a used 1D (4MP) early next year in addition to my G2 ... depending on how the 10D MKII works out (most likely due in October).

Best regards,
Andy

[Bruno1520]

Mandie Ive just got the 300D and the 70-200f/4L lens last Tuesday and Im keeping my G3 but sold the 1.75 tele-converter. I think the pros and cons have all been said beter than I could have put them but I must say Im really impressed with the ability of the 300D to capture fast moving things like grandkids and the like. I even got a shot (not a very good one) of a bird flying today lol.

http://www.pbase.com/image/29464224.jpg

[cadmium]

Don't overestimate the megapixel count.

Well, of course not just the megapixel count is important. The size of the pixels as well, the technology used (color interpolation or not), and also the quality of the lenses in the case of DSLR (just to name a few).

About "pure" megapixel count, I found an article about image quality two days ago (Pro 1 vs. 1D Mark II):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/8mp-alternatives.shtml

However, this article says nothing about features, settings, add-ons, lenses and so on. Still interesting to read IMHO.

[Andy_T]

Cadmium,

you don't have to compare the Pro1 to the 1DII.

Granted, the 1DII is an incredible camera, but if you compare it to the DRebel or 10D, you will have a similar result (although those have less pixels).

IMHO, the DRebel with the Tamron 28-70/2.8 XR DI would be a great alternative (being a real DSLR with all the flexibility and a great standard lens) at about US$ 1,400.

Best regards,
Andy