300D vs 350D - Image Quality??

[EOSAddict]

I read a review on Steves-digicams website ( here http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/rebelxt.html) which included some direct comparison shots between a 300D and a 350D. Worryingly, as someone seriously contemplating the upgrade, the 300D shots looked sharper, more 'real'. Anyone else think the same or are these shots atypical of the 350? Anyone who has already upgraded any thoughts?

[kram]

I see very few instances of a Drebel to an XT upgrade. Most seem to be going the 20D way. Something to consider.

Also, not sure if the XT has all the features that the hack enables for the Drebel. If you use some of them and they're not available on the XT (I know ISO 3200 is not), 20D may be the only way to go

[EOSAddict]

Kram,

Thanks. I do use some of the WASIA hacks but am seriously tempted by the improvements in startup and write times the 350D offers - something that is beginning to frustrate me with the 300. Clearly a 20D would be great - finances permitting!!!!

By the way is your Kingston card a 'Pro' model? I have seen 2GB ones here for not much more than 1GB Ultra IIs and was considering...

[kram]

To be honest, I have not even opened the Kingston card!! Its my backup - the Ultra II works very well and I'll probably need the Kingston when I go on my vacation. Will let you know the Kingston details by pm tomm.

I decided the sink the XT vs Drebel cost into lenses (and actually much much more). I guess that's where my needs are right now. My previous camera took 6 seconds to get ready :D . To me, the Drebel looks good right now at 3.5!!

[condyk]

I don't believe the 350 offers that much over a hacked 300D which is why I went for the 300D and spent more on lenses. If you have the grip and two batteries then you can have the camera stay on for an extended period and so start up not that much of an issue. When does anyone REALLY need the extra few seconds start up?

I think personally the 20D is the only logical upgrade price/performance wise (leaving aside the big hitter models!) within the Canon brand. I'll get one in 6-8 months (see what else appears meantime!)

Write times the only issue i would like to improve but I wonder is it worth it for that bit extra? For me not. Depends what and how you shoot. The Kingston Pro are good cards. I have a 1GB one.

[tim]

I upgraded from the 300D to the 20D for more control over the image, not for added quality. The image quality's pretty similar between the two, but different metering modes, the back dial, more buttons for easier control, and WAY faster operation are what made the upgrade for me. Of those the XT has only 1/4 advantages, which probably wouldn't be worth it for me.

[schmoelzel]

Well, I went the other route. I too wanted more control over how I took the image and decided that a used 1D was the way to go........larger sensor gives me the image quality that I am more than satisfied with and the resolving power of this 4MP cam is better than my old DRebel. Not to say that the DRebel is not a good camera.......it is a great camera and I have no doubt that the XT version is also very good! But for me, nothing compares to a 1 series camera and once you use one you realize why they are held in such high regard. The huge bright viewfinder alone makes a big difference when you compose your image. You feel that you are actually inside the picture.......sorry to go off-topic here!! From what I have read about the XT, I would invest in glass rather than camera.

[EOSAddict]

When does anyone REALLY need the extra few seconds start up?

Well, having been used to an EOS 100 for 10 years and counting the number of pics of my daughter I have missed waiting for the 300D to warm up, yes I probably do need the extra seconds!

I am also a fan of the size of the 350 and do not actually want to 'go large' to a 20D. Besides, financially that is a step to far at the moment!

[bauerman]

I would say that picture quality would be one of the LAST reasons to "upgrade" to an XT from a 300D. If you wanted the speed enhancements - thats one things - or maybe the ability to choose metering mode - thats another - but picture quality...........thats a wash.

[nitsch]

I don't find the start up time an issue on my 300D, you know there is a 3 second delay so work around it. Leave the camera switched on and it will go into 'sleep' mode, then say you are walking along with the camera around your neck and you see a good shot, hit the shutter button - this will wake it up. If you can stop, lift the camera to your eye, balance your body, get the camera firmly gripped in your hands and compose a shot in less than 3 seconds then you are a better man than me.

I wouldn't consider upgrading to from 300D to 350XT, it just doesn't offer enough to warrant doing it. 20D would be cool, but I'm going to hold out for the successor to the 20D and if it gets good ratings I will go for that.

[EOSAddict]

Nitsch - Guess we will agree to disagree!

Bauerman - I agree!! The purpose of my original posts was concern from seeing the side-by side shots (see link in original post) that the 350 quality was lower than 300!

[nitsch]

Nitsch - Guess we will agree to disagree!

Cool no worries!:) Everyone has their own different ways of shooting. I was just pointing out how I use it and (so far) the delay has not been an issue for me.

I do however agree with your earlier comment about the write times. When you shoot off a few RAWS in quick succession the poor thing does struggle a bit! :D

[Titus213]

Hmmm, I never thought the start-up time was a problem with my 300D. Something to be planned for that's for sure. What I would like in the 350D is the DigicII processor to move the images faster. But quality isn't an issue either. My upgrade, when it comes, will have to be the 20D or higher.

[Jackal]

I've used both the 300D and 350D and of course I liked the 350D more. My friend (The owner of the 300D) used my camera and then really wanted to upgrade to it from his 300D. But then he got a full time job and is now going for the 20D. 350D is faster than the 300D in everything it does, has lower noise at higher ISO's, 8mp so you can crop things out better witout losing the image quality, INSTANT boot up times and waking up times, E-TTLII(dunno if the 300D has this), more focusing modes, shoot infinite jpegs at 3 shots a second without filling buffer (need a good CF card), and other things that I can't think of right now because I'm too excited about my Tamron that should be arriving soon today.

If you already have a 300D then just save up a little more for that 20D. Stay with the 300D until you have the cash for the 20D :)

But...

About that review...

It might have been the lense or something? I don't think the 300D is better than the 350D image wise. It's either the same or worse.

[mrcoons]

My wife has a 300D and I have the 350D. She went with the 300D because the price was lower and it was very similar to the Canon 35mm she uses. On the other hand I wanted a smaller and faster camera so I went with the XT.

Difference in image quality is negligble. Since my photos are 'larger' due to the larger sensor I have a little more flexibity than she does on cropping or enlarging but it's not anything to switch for.

But the 350D is faster starting up, taking pictures and especially in downloading them. The latter item is the big seller for me. Speed and Size were what matter most to me and I'd say were worth the extra money, for me anyway.

[Volatile]

for me it's like switching from dial-up to cable. there's no way to go back once you get used to the speed.

[schmoelzel]

Hmmm, I never thought the start-up time was a problem with my 300D. Something to be planned for that's for sure. What I would like in the 350D is the DigicII processor to move the images faster. But quality isn't an issue either. My upgrade, when it comes, will have to be the 20D or higher.

I never thought about it either while I had my DRebel......but then my daughter Julia began crawling, walking, running, and suddenly I lost some nice moments waiting for the camera to 'wake-up' or focus etc. Now that I have my 1D, it starts quicker and focuses (accurately) way faster. Also, the 8FPS is nice when you have a running child!! I agree with you though, I don't think quality is an issue when it comes to the output of either the Drebel or the newer version.

[nitsch]

350D is faster than the 300D in everything it does, has lower noise at higher ISO's

Agree about the speed but are you sure about the noise? ;)

The 20D has lower noise at higher ISO's than the 300D so a lot of people assume the 350D shares this characteristic. It doesn't. It is in fact noisier at all ISO's.

I am of course being slightly pedantic here, you are unlikely to see much difference in the real world. But it is interesting nevertheless.

From Dpreview - top graph is luminance, bottom is RGB:

http://www.nitsch.co.uk/photos/lumi-graph.gif

http://www.nitsch.co.uk/photos/rgb-graph.gif

[drisley]

Wow, that is interesting.
I always figured the 350D was supposed to be a definate improvement when it came to ISO compared to the 300D.

[nitsch]

Wow, that is interesting.
I always figured the 350D was supposed to be a definate improvement when it came to ISO compared to the 300D.

I've noticed that assumption a lot. I figure it comes from the fact that a lot of people think the 350D shares the same sensor as the 20D when they are actually different.

Whilst I would like the extra megapixels when it comes to cropping I really hate noise so Mr 300D still earns his keep! :)

[tengr_68]

It really depends on where you get your info. Everybody seems to have a little bit different take on the testing. One things for sure. You're not going to notice to much real world difference. I own a 350 XT and my friend owns a 300D. I would save for the 20D if I were going to upgrade from the 300D.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EXT/EXTPICS.HTM

[drisley]

Ahah! Good point.
THe funny thing is in this test the D70 does quite well.
But for people I've known who have used the D70, and then a Canon DSLR, they are always much more impressed by the low noise of the Canon cameras.
I guess it's not just the amount of noise, but the type of noise, that will make it more pleasing to the eye.

[EOSAddict]

Seems I sparked quite a debate! Well if there is anyone out there wanting to swap a 350 for a 300 ...... no? :)

[mrcoons]

The information about the noise is interesting. But experience shows me that at the higher ISO settings the 300 is considerably noiser than the 350. The wife and I will shoot the same image using the same settings and the 350 image is always the winner. The 300 image is bad, it just has more noise in it but not as much as the point and shoot camera we were using.