300D Rebel ... should I buy?

[bluepxl]

I have a friend willing to sell a Digital Rebel complete with lens and a 1GB memory card, including original manuals/box/etc. All for $550. Why so cheap? He knows he could make more on eBay, but he's a friend trying to help a friend out. Gotta love it :)

But anyway, before I take the plunge, I wanted to know if it was really worth it. I had looked around at sample photos online but I was not terribly impressed with the quality. A lot of photos seemed dull and the sharpness in many of them was rather lacking. Many of them screamed "digital" to me, which is not something I want. I would much prefer it look closer to film, or at least not have that overly digital look to it.

I come from a traditional film background, so while I do know that digital is still not ever going to look quite the same as film (one has to consider how many different flavors of film stocks and papers there are alone!), but I would like it to look as sharp and rich as possible, without all the digital artifacts (areas of the image that are sort of pixellated or have weird digital things going on). What should I expect with this camera?

I don't do much high action (sports, etc) at all. My primary interest is portraiture. I am hoping for skin tones that are rich, clothes and eyes and colors that are bold, and features and details that are all sharp. I want it to look like any professional film SLR camera I have used, and not have the images say "I was shot on digital." I realize I am rewording myself, and I apologize for that. I just don't want to take the plunge if I'm expecting more out of this camera than I should. Is it possible to get what I'm seeking? What is it the sample images I see about are doing? Are they just doing really bad compression?

In the end, I do realize that it's the artist and not the tool; the photographer and not the camera. But there does come a point when the artist needs a tool capable of keeping up, and there is a point when the tool just cannot do what the artist seeks.

It might be worth adding that I want to keep from having to use photoshop as little as possible. I'd much rather have something great out of the camera and work hard at getting it on the camera level than trying to make something decent become great on the computer. "You can't polish a turd" as some might say. Another reason I say this is simply because I am a firm believer in the honest rawness of photography, especially regarding portraits. I like people to see what I saw, and what the camera saw.

With all this in mind: Am I barking up the wrong tree with the DRebel?

Thanks!

[HKFEVER]

1. Price is OK. In HK we can buy at $800 for a brand new 300D kit with 1G CF.
2. That's what friends for, some time you may pay more to buy from firend. Just help out.
3. That's also what friends for, some time they sell you at lower price. because that's friend.
4. 300D is very good DSLR by itself (if no D70, 20D, 1DMKII....)
5. The level that 300D give you is depended on your photo skill.
6. Film is film, digital is digital. Film has its limitation and need a lot of fix, filter, film development skill, paper and different film to give you the needed effect... + time.
7. DSLR on the other hand, with your original skill + a little PS than you are set with all kinds effect.
8. If you are a pro, than 1DMKII or 1DsMKII may be your choose.
9. 300D with good lens + your pro skill wiil provide very good pictures.
10. Most of the time I use PS is to take out the dust, correct inperfect spot (same as the old air brush did in the film), crop picture, adjust light and printing.

[Alexia]

You can get the 300D for under $800 with a 1gb CF card in the USA as well, even less with the current rebates. $550 for a used one at this time is a great price.

Like film SLR, what comes out of digital SLR depends a lot of the quality of the lens attached to it. Digital artifacts can be eliminated by what format you save the pictures in when you take them. If you use too much compression with JPEGs, you will see those artifacts in the picture. You can also shoot in RAW which will give you exactly what the camera sees.

DPReview has a great samples gallery of the stock 18-55mm kit lens.
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=canoneos300d_samples/
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=canoneos300d_samples2/

[DocFrankenstein]

I have a friend willing to sell a Digital Rebel complete with lens and a 1GB memory card, including original manuals/box/etc. All for $550. Why so cheap? He knows he could make more on eBay, but he's a friend trying to help a friend out. Gotta love it :) Price is reasonable... and it's probably gonna be in working condition too :)

I had looked around at sample photos online but I was not terribly impressed with the quality. A lot of photos seemed dull and the sharpness in many of them was rather lacking. Many of them screamed "digital" to me, which is not something I want. I would much prefer it look closer to film, or at least not have that overly digital look to it. Dull... is just inability to manage your picture properly.
Sharpness... is the same.
How did they scream digital? Was it JPEG artifacts? They can be elliminated by shooting RAW and processing as TIFFs in the end.

Or do you want the film grain to be there? If you do, digital won't provide it for you.

I come from a traditional film background, so while I do know that digital is still not ever going to look quite the same as film (one has to consider how many different flavors of film stocks and papers there are alone!) One has to consider color management and photo shop too. Shooting that red red rose with fuji velvia is no different than shooting it with Drebel and then bumping saturation in photoshop.

It's just you do it chemically with film and digitally with rebel.

but I would like it to look as sharp and rich as possible, without all the digital artifacts (areas of the image that are sort of pixellated or have weird digital things going on). What should I expect with this camera? The camera is capable of giving it to you.

I don't do much high action (sports, etc) at all. My primary interest is portraiture. I am hoping for skin tones that are rich, clothes and eyes and colors that are bold, and features and details that are all sharp. I want it to look like any professional film SLR camera I have used, and not have the images say "I was shot on digital." I realize I am rewording myself, and I apologize for that. I just don't want to take the plunge if I'm expecting more out of this camera than I should. Is it possible to get what I'm seeking? What is it the sample images I see about are doing? Are they just doing really bad compression? How large do you want to print?
Can you post a link to the samples you were looking at? It can be just highly compressed jpegs.

It might be worth adding that I want to keep from having to use photoshop as little as possible. I'd much rather have something great out of the camera and work hard at getting it on the camera level than trying to make something decent become great on the computer. "You can't polish a turd" as some might say. Another reason I say this is simply because I am a firm believer in the honest rawness of photography, especially regarding portraits. I like people to see what I saw, and what the camera saw.

With all this in mind: Am I barking up the wrong tree with the DRebel?

Thanks! In all honesty I can assure you that you (or anybody) won't be able to polish a turd in photoshop.

However, custom white balance and calibration charts on digital makes it easier to make very accurate WYSIWYG portraits.

If you go digital, you'll have to learn photoshop to produce great work. You don't seen very keen about it though.

Cheers

[robertwgross]

If a person is coming from the P&S camera world, then the Digital Rebel is an appropriate step up. However, if a person already in the SLR world, then the Digital Rebel might not be as good of a choice as a 10D or 20D. A 10D or 20D would have room to grow in, whereas the Digital Rebel might show its restrictions quickly.

---Bob Gross---

[ron chappel]

when i was considering jumping in the deep end with digital the 300D was the one i was looking at.
I checked out online photo's from it and was not imressed at all!
Many were dull,most unsharp and alot were REALLY bad :( :(

Anyway i umm'd and ahh'd,asked lot's of questions online and searched out the best picture examples i could find.Eventually it did seem like the better pics (the ones that showed the POTENTIAL of the camera) were what i should be looking at.

I took the plunge and it soon all became clear-
The 300D gives **VERY** good quality images:D :D ....

...but you do have to work them in photoshop abit at least! Even with sharpness and contrast,etc set at the highest in-camera,there is no way i'd print anything like that!
Even web images need a quick light sharpening/contrast adjustment

I say go for it *but* realize that you will need to do a little in photoshop.I know you said you don't want to do that but the basics -sharpness/contrast - are quick and relatively easy

[bluepxl]

thanks for your help everyone.

part of why i wouldn't like to post any pictures is because a few of them are what led me to this forum. I would not like to offend anyone-- and I'm not trying to say I'm a better photographer or that the photos were terrible, they were just not up to my expectations of what things should look like.

I've seen here and there photos that seem to have a digital fuzziness. You can almost always spot a photo that was done with a digital camera. It just "screams" digital so to speak. Like said above, however, I don't expect it to look like film. I just want it to be close. It's not so much the grain (though I do like film grain sometimes) as it is the depth and richness of the colors and the sharpness of everything that I'm looking for.

Regarding Photoshop: Let me first say that I am not against using Photoshop to do basic edits. When I scan film I basically always do some brightness/contrast adjustments, play with the levels and curves, and other slight fine tuning. What I more or less meant in my anti-Photoshopping rant above was simply that I hope to not *have to* do too much Photoshop work-- I hope for good photos from the camera. Basically, what I do in Photoshop I should hope would be minimal. I just don't want to have to be at the point with my photos where I have to do airbrushing, extensive dodging/burning, etc. just to get what the camera should have gotten. Of course, airbrushing is typically a technique that doesn't achieve reality but rather to artificially produce something that which is not there. So I really don't know where I was going with that... other than the point that I just want the tool to enable me to achieve great quality photos--considering that I do my part as the photographer--instead of having OK photos that need extensive Photoshop work until they could be considered "great quality photos" (I'm talking purely technical here).

And besides, I never really like how it looks when you sharpen a photo with photoshop. You're trying to bring out details that aren't there, so it creates an evident digitized look to it.

Thanks!

[Eric DeCastro]

I didn't read through all this, but i have seen brand spanking new drebels on FM going for 500. and some loaded 10D's for 750. if you think you can get more, then do it.

good luck

[tim]

I've seen here and there photos that seem to have a digital fuzziness. You can almost always spot a photo that was done with a digital camera.

Are you looking at photos resized for the web, or originals? Also, are you looking on a monitor or at prints? I've had photos from my 300D printed at 8*10 that I can't tell from film.

[bluepxl]

Are you looking at photos resized for the web, or originals? Also, are you looking on a monitor or at prints? I've had photos from my 300D printed at 8*10 that I can't tell from film.

1) originals, often, yes
2) monitor

[PhotosGuy]

And besides, I never really like how it looks when you sharpen a photo with photoshop. You're trying to bring out details that aren't there, so it creates an evident digitized look to it. Which method of sharpening didn't you like? There are at least 26!
http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/DigitalDarkroom/PhotoshopTools/TLRSharpeningToolkit.htm
http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/DigitalDarkroom/Tutorials/PutAFineEdgeOnYourSharpeningSkills.pdf

[bluepxl]

Which method of sharpening didn't you like? There are at least 26!
http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/DigitalDarkroom/PhotoshopTools/TLRSharpeningToolkit.htm
http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/DigitalDarkroom/Tutorials/PutAFineEdgeOnYourSharpeningSkills.pdf

the only two i've ever really tried are the basic filter > sharpen, and also taking the sharpen tool and manually "painting" the sharpness where necessary.

but does it not make sense, that it's like polishing a turd? you're trying to bring out details that weren't originally captured. no?

[PhotosGuy]

Re: "but does it not make sense, that it's like polishing a turd? you're trying to bring out details that weren't originally captured. no?"

No. Contrast masks were/are used to sharpen negs in film photography for decades. Was/is that wrong, too?
Ansel Adams manipulated his negs to get the effect he wanted. Right or wrong?
How about color separations to make high quality prints?
Nothing is wrong if it gives you the results YOU want. There will always be someone to tell you that it is right or wrong. Go nuts, or forget them & listen to yourself.
It sounds as if you don't have confidence in the 300D, which I'm perfectly happy to use, & you will never like the pics that you take with it, so I recommend that you go ahead & buy a cam that you will be happy with. As a car salesman once told me, "There's an *ss for every seat", just as there is a cam that will satisfy (most) everyone. Find yours & buy it. Be happy!

[S230]

I agree with HKfever. It's different buying from a friend if needing money, but if not, it's still a good offer. It's a great starting camera and infact, I had this question several months ago. Once you have this and gotten used to it, get a 20D and keep this one as backup.

[Alexia]

I agree with HKfever. It's different buying from a friend if needing money, but if not, it's still a good offer. It's a great starting camera and infact, I had this question several months ago. Once you have this and gotten used to it, get a 20D and keep this one as backup.
I couldn't agree with that any more! Then if you take your 300D outside and drop it in the snow, it wasn't your super good camera!

[bluepxl]

hey guys-- thanks for your responses.

I'm going to get the 300D. I was just weary of seeing 95% of the stuff shot with it looking too "digital" for my tastes.

I figure i can get the 300D, do some work with it, and as I earn more money along the road, I can upgrade to a 20D. You've gotta start somewhere, right?

I just wish I could figure out why sometimes stuff even before JPG web compression tends to look fuzzy and overly compact digitalish, the richness lost. I don't know anything about this RAW vs. JPG thing you guys talk about. Does that have much to do with it? Should I shoot RAW to get what I'm looking for?

Thanks!

[S230]

I suggest taking RAW whenever possible. It isn't always necessary but depends what u plan to do with it. If u plan on enlarging, then it's important. If you take two photos (one raw and one Jpg) and enlarge it a lot, you will see "artifacts" in the jpg photo.

[bluepxl]

I know the 20D can do this, but does the 300D have the capability of saving both a JPG and RAW version of a photo taken at the same time?

[Cash--]

I would think that for the price, you really can't go wrong. Even if you don't like it later on, you can still ebay it.

I just wish I had a friend like yours (=

[Hellashot]

Yes you should buy it. The Drebel even at new prices is a huge value for what you get. Unless you want to wait 6 months and pay twice the amount IF the Drebel 2 comes out.

[Akreager]

For you I would say the minimum is a 20D with very good glass. I have a D70 with one great lens and a 1DmarkII with several pro lenses. I use the D70 (17-55F2.8DX on all the time) for any location shoot when I have to get in and out super quick AND there is ambient light of some sort that is strong enough to interfear with even good strobes (or I want to utilize the mood effect of the ambeent light). the Nikon wireless multiple i-ttl flash system can not be beat. I have 3 SB800 flahes to go with it. I use the 1DMarkII with a number of diferent fast L lenses for studio strobe and available light shots. I have never once had anyone not happy with the quality of each, but I am very picky and use great technique. If you are really a trained professional with film background the 1DMarkII is the entry level for you. Unless you are a real high end commercial pro you do not need the $8000 1Ds MarkII.

You will have to do some stuff in Photo Shop but depending on what/how you shoot and how good you are you can keep it to a minimum. It took me a good year to really get up to speed on digital vs. old school film.

One last thing - If true high Key high contrast studio work is your thing, don't throw away your film equipment just yet.