Rebel 300D v. ProShot

I am an amateur photographer (film) looking at getting into digital and maybe picking it up as a hobby. I want to learn photography via trial and error and digital is the way to go. I am stuck between the Rebel 300D and the ProShot 8MP. I already have a lens from my film Rebel, so I can just buy the 300D body and memory or I can go with the all-in-one ProShot.

I want to be able to use the features of the camera or turn it to full manual to tinker around with.

Any suggestions?

Thanks

Hi,

If you want to see how you like digital work, my suggestion would be to go with the 300D - I believe that the 300D is either on a par with, or cheaper then the ProShot - that way you can compare like with like.

The ProShot hasn't really set the 'prosumer' compact market on fire either. Several reviews score it relatively low - especially compared with the 300D - on performance particularly.

You will be accustomed to the handling of the 300D via the Rebel, the only major difference is the multiplication factor re the focal length of your lens(es) when used on the 300D.

Cheers,
Barry

So, the lens from my film Rebel will do okay on the 300D?

Thanks,
Ken

After going to a Digital SLR from a point and shoot camera (Digital Rebel from the G3) I couldnt imagine going back to a point and shoot like the Pro1.
Get the Rebel, absolutely.

Reasons:
-MUCH faster (no shutter lag like P&S cameras)
-MUCH less noise (ISO1600 is about like ISO100 on the G3. The Pro1, like the other 8mp P&S digicams is even NOISIER!)
-Lenses, lenses lenses!
-People in the Canon EOS forum are much nicer than in the G forum

Yes, it will do fine on the 300D. What lens is it? Depending on which lens it is, you may want to go ahead and get the kit lens with the 300D anyway. It only adds $100 to the price, and for that type of money, it is a very good buy...especially for the wide angle stuff. It doesn't have much zoom, but it goes to 18mm which makes it pretty good for wide angle shots. Just something to think about.

Buy the 300D and do not look back. You will be much happier with the DSLR. I have the G3 and 10D. After shooting with the 10D I could not imagine having to put up with the G3's sloooow focus, shutter lag and noise at high ISO's. Don’t get me wrong the G3 and probably the Pro 1 are great cameras for what they are. The 300D will just be much more responsive and expandable.

I just read a review of the ProShot and a comparison of it to other cameras in it's class. The big advantage of the 300D is that the noise level is so much less than the ProShot. Obviously there are so many other advantages but the PS had problems with noise over ISO 200, not so with the 300D...Dean

If you are comfortable and used to the film Rebel, go for the 300D/Digital Rebel. Pro1 shutter lag and AF aren't in the same league, and EVFs are nowhere near a true SLR optical viewfinder. Also DSLRs big sensors render less noisy and more film-like images. In fact the Digital Rebel is slightly better than its film counterpart in build quality.
Regarding the lens, I think the DRebel kit (body + 18-55 lens) is a good idea. Your lens (a 28-90 or 35-70 probanly) will loose all the wideangle coverage because the 1.6x crop factor. The 18-55 will work as a 28-90 lens in your film rebel, and you can use your lens as a normal to tele zoom.

I had the chance to look at the Pro1. It is a very nice camera. I wouldn't write it off, but I will say that if I was going to go that route, I would take a good long look at the Minolta Dimage A2. Both these camera's are approx $100.00 more than the rebel.
What I would suggest is see if you can purchase your camera at a place that has a return policy. Try it for a couple days.

Also, I forgot to mention one of my FAV things about a dslr over a point and shoot.... shallow depth of field for creative control/isolation of subjects.

With P&S cameras like the G3 and Pro1, it's VERY hard if not impossible to blur backgrounds at any focal length or aperture because of the small sensor.

If you're an amateur wanting to learn more about
photography thru trial and error, then a DSLR such
as the 300D can't be beat.

The Pro1 is a great camera (I've owned one, and
was particularly impressed with its ability of its
lens to capture beautiful shadow detail) but it is a
camera that will serve better the advanced
photographer who understands its llimitations (and
can work within them) (else use it as a back up or
alternate camera) rather than amateurs trying to
use it as a learning tool. Otherwise, it is too much
camera for those who only need to take snapshots.

But it is very hard to learn about DOF and several
critical concepts (such as bokeh) using the Pro1 or
any other camera with a compact lens system.

Cadenza,

I don't say that your posting sounds like complete bull* to me

... but why would an advanced photographer (as opposed to an amateur) ever choose the Pro1 over a DSLR???

The only reason that comes to my mind would be ...
... he already has a DSLR and also needs a compact walk-around-cam.

Best regards,
Andy

Andythaler wrote:
Cadenza,

I don't say that your posting sounds like complete bull* to me

... but why would an advanced photographer (as opposed to an amateur) ever choose the Pro1 over a DSLR???

Best regards,
Andy

Hello, Andy.


Not all pro photography takes place at the extremes
of camera equipment performance, you know. I can
think of a number of reasons why a pro would want
a Pro1:

* Perhaps because you can't carry expensve bricks
with you every where you go?

* Perhaps because you'd like to be more discreet
and blend in in the field?

* Perhaps sometimes making a big production
number out of every shot is rather exhausting?

* Perhaps the shooting conditions where you'll be
won't be so extreme and you can get away with it?

* Perhaps you want to take pictures "for fun" sometimes?

* Perhaps you miss using the swivel screen for
shooting overhead/below waist?

And what's a pro camera anyhow? I love SLRs but I'm
not a pro, even though I've done a handful of paid jobs.
Don't mean to shock you, but once I've even done a
decent paying job with my humble G3. I am currently
preparing a topical local exhibit from shots taken mostly
with my Pro1 (which I sold recently to buy a DSLR).

There, more of my bs for you!

Cheers, cadenza

Cadenza wrote:

Andythaler wrote:
Cadenza,

I don't say that your posting sounds like complete bull* to me

... but why would an advanced photographer (as opposed to an amateur) ever choose the Pro1 over a DSLR???

Best regards,
Andy

Hello, Andy.


Not all pro photography takes place at the extremes
of camera equipment performance, you know. I can
think of a number of reasons why a pro would want
a Pro1:

* Perhaps because you can't carry expensve bricks
with you every where you go?

I'm not sure that "brick" is a good description of a camera or lens, other than the 1950's Argus that actually did look like a brick. But I take it that your point is that the Pro1 is lighter and easier to handle. I agree.

I can think of a few very small digitals that will be much smaller and more discreet than the Pro1 and still provide good quality images. The S-400 is nearly invisible if blending in is important.

I'm not sure I get what you mean here. I often pick up my 10D and just shoot off a shot. It is as flexible as any mid-range SLR, and yet much faster to operate than any P&S that I've ever handled. There is virtually no shutter lag.

One won't need the flexibility or features of a DSLR all the time, but when you do need that capability, you need it. And again, considering that the DSLR does P&S better than any P&S makes it a worthwhile addition.

I take pictures for fun all the time with my 10D.

Well, the Pro-1 scores a point there, I guess.

And what's a pro camera anyhow? I love SLRs but I'm
not a pro, even though I've done a handful of paid jobs.
Don't mean to shock you, but once I've even done a
decent paying job with my humble G3. I am currently
preparing a topical local exhibit from shots taken mostly
with my Pro1 (which I sold recently to buy a DSLR).

There, more of my bs for you!

Cheers, cadenza

Don't get me wrong - the Pro1 is a good camera. It does what it does quite well. But its relatively compact size and "all-in-one" portability do not, to me, add enough value to make it worth more than the Digital Rebel's flexibility, low-noise capability, fast autofocus, and overall image quality. YMMV, of course.

I was at a pre-olympic diving meet a couple weeks ago with my Rebel.
Even with TV lighting, it was still relatively dark.
But, I was able to shoot at ISO1600, and fill my 512mb CF card with some nice, almost noise free, properly exposed images (less noise than my old G3 at ISO200).

Un-Altered,100% Crop, ISO1600

The lady next to me had an A80, a very capable P&S camera. She walked out with maybe 1 half decent shot, however at ISO400, it was very dark, noisy, and not tight on the subject (that was impossible because of the incredible shutter lag, plus the lack of zoom (I was using my 70-200F4L)).
I suspect the Pro1 would have been just as useless at such an event.

Then when the event was over, her niece (one of the divers) came up to the seats for a visit. They took a shot with the built in flash, and the image looked bad, as most flash pics do.
So, I offered to take a picture for them (to email later). I switched my lens to the 50mm F1.8, snapped off a picture with no flash, got a nice background blur, and they were very impressed.

Now, not all situations require an SLR, but boy the flexibility sure is nice to have!