Canon Digital Rebel XT
-
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/[^] I know nothing of digital photography. I just started reading DPReview today to try to get some idea of what's going on. Anyway, I'm tired of the quality of photos produced by my point-and-clickshoot Elph. The 350D (aka Digital Rebel XT) looks like a decent, reasonably priced entry into the world of Digital SLR. Any opinion on this camera, or recommendations for other cameras that I should be looking at? Thanks! :) Jon Sagara When I grow up, I'm changing my name to Joe Kickass! My Site | My Blog | My Articles
Hi Jon, The 350D looks like an awesome camera! The only gripe I would have with it is that shooting in full manual mode takes a split second longer as you have to share one control for aperture/shutter. Possibly not a worry for you? I think that although from a resale point of view DSLR's are obsolete in 2 years, for photography they aren't really. If you're happy with the prints and enlargements you can make with it now, you probably will be in 2 years time as well. My D70 still makes just as beautiful A3 prints now as it did 2 years ago :). My only gripe with DSLR's is that you can't choose your body and "digital film" seperately. I love what Canon are doing with their high end sensors, but would really struggle to enjoy using their bodies after the (IMO) wonderfully intuitive Nikon body design. It would probably be a good idea to go to a store and handle the 350D & the Nikon D70s & D50 and see which you find more comfortable before making a final decision. Good luck with your purchase, the fun starts here!
A mum and loving it!
-
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/[^] I know nothing of digital photography. I just started reading DPReview today to try to get some idea of what's going on. Anyway, I'm tired of the quality of photos produced by my point-and-clickshoot Elph. The 350D (aka Digital Rebel XT) looks like a decent, reasonably priced entry into the world of Digital SLR. Any opinion on this camera, or recommendations for other cameras that I should be looking at? Thanks! :) Jon Sagara When I grow up, I'm changing my name to Joe Kickass! My Site | My Blog | My Articles
I bought Chris' 300D when he upgraded to a 10D. (I seem to buy a lot of Chris' hand-me-downs...) I love the camera. A friend has a D70S and we swap back and forth all the time. There's a silky feeling to the Nikons that the Canon's don't seem to have, but I still prefer my Canon. Others here are far better at comparing the two technically. As Megan said, although technically they become obsolete, there hasn't been a 'killer' feature to get me to move up yet. The Canon 5D's full frame sensor and 12.8 Megapixels is on my radar, but not until the prices come down to earth. My vote: Go for the 350D :D D David
-
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/[^] I know nothing of digital photography. I just started reading DPReview today to try to get some idea of what's going on. Anyway, I'm tired of the quality of photos produced by my point-and-clickshoot Elph. The 350D (aka Digital Rebel XT) looks like a decent, reasonably priced entry into the world of Digital SLR. Any opinion on this camera, or recommendations for other cameras that I should be looking at? Thanks! :) Jon Sagara When I grow up, I'm changing my name to Joe Kickass! My Site | My Blog | My Articles
The 350d will be a great entry. I've owned several Canon film SLRs over the years, as well as a Minolta, and they all gave way to the convenience of digital. However, no digital camera ever gave me the same feedback as an SLR, which is infinitley superior to any point-and-shoot (regardless of image stabilization/toaster/trouser-press gadgets they may cram inside). As others have said, you may also consider the Nikon D50/D70s. I'm considering the 350d myself. I went on holiday to Thailand recently and was hoping to have one by then, but there was no time, and I ended up taking a tiny Casio EXILIM. I still got some pretty nice photos, but it was frustrating trying to take something memorable through what feels like a plastic cup. Olympus do another range of SLR cameras, but I'd stick with either Nikon or Canon. I'd be wary of putting too much weight into what dpreview (and photo.net and the other forums) say. You can spend an age going round in circles as people argue over technical points ("less noise!", "better body!", "not suitable for the blind!"), and this gets even worse when you start looking at lenses. At the end of the day it's meant to be fun, and whatever you choose will be a big improvement over your current camera - if the 350 can get you a shot that your Elph couldn't then it's a done deal. I also wouldn't worry too much about the lens either. You'll do fine with the kit lens, and there are excellent (and cheap) lenses you can buy afterwards if you want to experiment and take it further (consider the 50mm, for example, one of the sharpest and smallest lenses you can buy, and only $70).
-
The 350d will be a great entry. I've owned several Canon film SLRs over the years, as well as a Minolta, and they all gave way to the convenience of digital. However, no digital camera ever gave me the same feedback as an SLR, which is infinitley superior to any point-and-shoot (regardless of image stabilization/toaster/trouser-press gadgets they may cram inside). As others have said, you may also consider the Nikon D50/D70s. I'm considering the 350d myself. I went on holiday to Thailand recently and was hoping to have one by then, but there was no time, and I ended up taking a tiny Casio EXILIM. I still got some pretty nice photos, but it was frustrating trying to take something memorable through what feels like a plastic cup. Olympus do another range of SLR cameras, but I'd stick with either Nikon or Canon. I'd be wary of putting too much weight into what dpreview (and photo.net and the other forums) say. You can spend an age going round in circles as people argue over technical points ("less noise!", "better body!", "not suitable for the blind!"), and this gets even worse when you start looking at lenses. At the end of the day it's meant to be fun, and whatever you choose will be a big improvement over your current camera - if the 350 can get you a shot that your Elph couldn't then it's a done deal. I also wouldn't worry too much about the lens either. You'll do fine with the kit lens, and there are excellent (and cheap) lenses you can buy afterwards if you want to experiment and take it further (consider the 50mm, for example, one of the sharpest and smallest lenses you can buy, and only $70).
Johnny ² wrote:
"not suitable for the blind!"
:-D
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
-
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/[^] I know nothing of digital photography. I just started reading DPReview today to try to get some idea of what's going on. Anyway, I'm tired of the quality of photos produced by my point-and-clickshoot Elph. The 350D (aka Digital Rebel XT) looks like a decent, reasonably priced entry into the world of Digital SLR. Any opinion on this camera, or recommendations for other cameras that I should be looking at? Thanks! :) Jon Sagara When I grow up, I'm changing my name to Joe Kickass! My Site | My Blog | My Articles
i've never owned a Canon. but i've had nothing but good things from my 3 Nikons (N60, N80, D100). so i can recommend Nikon without hesitation. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/[^] I know nothing of digital photography. I just started reading DPReview today to try to get some idea of what's going on. Anyway, I'm tired of the quality of photos produced by my point-and-clickshoot Elph. The 350D (aka Digital Rebel XT) looks like a decent, reasonably priced entry into the world of Digital SLR. Any opinion on this camera, or recommendations for other cameras that I should be looking at? Thanks! :) Jon Sagara When I grow up, I'm changing my name to Joe Kickass! My Site | My Blog | My Articles
I have this Canon Digital Rebel XT with it's kit lens, and I have to say it's a pretty good camera and fits my need. I also considered Nikon D60 at the time but for some technical features(which I can't remember at the moment) decided that Rebel XT is the superior camera. The only gripe that I have, is the included kit lens. It's OK for normal photography but for ultra-sharp pictures you gotta get a better lens. Or better yet, you could get the Rebel XT camera with a better lens :)
-
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/[^] I know nothing of digital photography. I just started reading DPReview today to try to get some idea of what's going on. Anyway, I'm tired of the quality of photos produced by my point-and-clickshoot Elph. The 350D (aka Digital Rebel XT) looks like a decent, reasonably priced entry into the world of Digital SLR. Any opinion on this camera, or recommendations for other cameras that I should be looking at? Thanks! :) Jon Sagara When I grow up, I'm changing my name to Joe Kickass! My Site | My Blog | My Articles
The 350D is one I've had my eyes on for a while. Although a lot of the shots I take are spontaneous (I keep an A520 in my handbag for those!) the scenary around here is breathtaking and a compact really can't do it justice! The 350D seems to offer what I'm looking for in a digital SLR (despite the non-full frame sensor and some compromises in the controls). I've lost count of the number of reviews I've read over the last year! Go for it, but as others have said you may also want to check out the Nikons. Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
I have this Canon Digital Rebel XT with it's kit lens, and I have to say it's a pretty good camera and fits my need. I also considered Nikon D60 at the time but for some technical features(which I can't remember at the moment) decided that Rebel XT is the superior camera. The only gripe that I have, is the included kit lens. It's OK for normal photography but for ultra-sharp pictures you gotta get a better lens. Or better yet, you could get the Rebel XT camera with a better lens :)
agreed, kit-lenses are not worth bothering with - if you want results which will really do your camera justice. In my opinion the lens should come first, then the body. To the O.P: The whole idea about SLRs is the quality, right? You'll rarely get that 'wow' factor with a kit lense - they are not only compromised in terms of sharpness, but generally suffer from contrast issues and abberations resulting from the cheap glass. You should seriously consider either the canon 16-40L series, or the 24-105L. Both are reasonably expensive but are so much better than a kit lense and you'll enjoy your photographs so much more..
http://www.catch22.net -
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/[^] I know nothing of digital photography. I just started reading DPReview today to try to get some idea of what's going on. Anyway, I'm tired of the quality of photos produced by my point-and-clickshoot Elph. The 350D (aka Digital Rebel XT) looks like a decent, reasonably priced entry into the world of Digital SLR. Any opinion on this camera, or recommendations for other cameras that I should be looking at? Thanks! :) Jon Sagara When I grow up, I'm changing my name to Joe Kickass! My Site | My Blog | My Articles
It's a great camera. Simple as that. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
It's a great camera. Simple as that. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I agree, I've had the camera for about a year now and I'm very pleased with it. Signature under construction.
-
agreed, kit-lenses are not worth bothering with - if you want results which will really do your camera justice. In my opinion the lens should come first, then the body. To the O.P: The whole idea about SLRs is the quality, right? You'll rarely get that 'wow' factor with a kit lense - they are not only compromised in terms of sharpness, but generally suffer from contrast issues and abberations resulting from the cheap glass. You should seriously consider either the canon 16-40L series, or the 24-105L. Both are reasonably expensive but are so much better than a kit lense and you'll enjoy your photographs so much more..
http://www.catch22.netJames Brown wrote:
You should seriously consider either the canon 16-40L series, or the 24-105L
First of all: the 16-40L is a non-existant lens ;) It's either a 16-35 f2.8 or a 17-40 f4.0 Second: Easy now, you sound like the maniacs over at dpreview, I have seen LOTS of great photos shot with non-L lenses. Sorry, I see what you mean, but personally I don't think L-lenses are the way to go when you get your first DSLR. L-lenses are professional and expensive lenses, and there are plenty of cheaper lenses which are pretty good! Who am I to say that? Well, I work professionally with photography, having a couple of 1DMkII's and a bunch of L-lenses (and two non-L's) ;) - Anders My new photo website[^]
-
Hi Jon, The 350D looks like an awesome camera! The only gripe I would have with it is that shooting in full manual mode takes a split second longer as you have to share one control for aperture/shutter. Possibly not a worry for you? I think that although from a resale point of view DSLR's are obsolete in 2 years, for photography they aren't really. If you're happy with the prints and enlargements you can make with it now, you probably will be in 2 years time as well. My D70 still makes just as beautiful A3 prints now as it did 2 years ago :). My only gripe with DSLR's is that you can't choose your body and "digital film" seperately. I love what Canon are doing with their high end sensors, but would really struggle to enjoy using their bodies after the (IMO) wonderfully intuitive Nikon body design. It would probably be a good idea to go to a store and handle the 350D & the Nikon D70s & D50 and see which you find more comfortable before making a final decision. Good luck with your purchase, the fun starts here!
A mum and loving it!
Megan Forbes wrote:
I think that although from a resale point of view DSLR's are obsolete in 2 years, for photography they aren't really.
I totally agree. The fact that a new model is released don't make the old model bad... The photos are still the same. :)
Megan Forbes wrote:
I love what Canon are doing with their high end sensors, but would really struggle to enjoy using their bodies after the (IMO) wonderfully intuitive Nikon body design.
I think it's what you are used to... I have a friend who use Nikon D2H and D2X. I use Canon 1DMkII myself. I honestly think the ergonomics of his camera sucks, and he thinks the same of mine. I think both are great if you are used to it ;) - Anders My new photo website[^]
-
One thing to bear in mind about digital SLRs: most of them are not 'full-frame' (the 350D included). This means that the traditional SLR lenses that you put on them will have a different effective focal-length. So a 50mm lense would act like a 70mm for example. To get a wide-angle lense for a digital-SLR you need a _really_ wide-angle lense, and there aren't that many to choose from (at least from canon). The good thing about them though, is that if you are into telephoto lenses, all your lenses will appear 'longer'. In essence the design of digital SLRs are restricted somewhat because of the necessity to be backward compatible with the older 35mm lenses. Unless that is, you go for a full-frame digital SLR such as the EOS 5D. Very expensive but the canon lenses act just the same as if you were using them on a 'traditional' 35mm film-based SLR. This is the major influencing factor for me (I want my existing lenses to be 'just the same' and is why I will be going down the route of the 5D....but it may not matter to you, it is just something to bear in mind. You also might want to consider other options such as the Olympus digital SLRs, for which the lenses have been designed specifially for digital photography. Bear in mind that with digital, whatever you buy will be obsolete in a year/two years. But the 350D is certainly a great camera for the moment. james
http://www.catch22.netCanon has actually made some EF-S lenses which are both wide and pretty good. The crop-factor is not as bad as you make it IMHO, it's "different", not "bad". For me, the worst about the crop-factor is that it's harder to get shallow DOF, and that the photosensors are smaller which teoretically makes more high-ISO noice, but the DOF problem is the only "real" problem ;) I can give the technically explenation if someone want it, but just not now, I just got home from photographing STCC (Swedish Touring Car Championship) in sweden, and have only slept 9 hours since friday, so I'm kinda tired and need some sleep ;) - Anders My new photo website[^]
-
James Brown wrote:
You should seriously consider either the canon 16-40L series, or the 24-105L
First of all: the 16-40L is a non-existant lens ;) It's either a 16-35 f2.8 or a 17-40 f4.0 Second: Easy now, you sound like the maniacs over at dpreview, I have seen LOTS of great photos shot with non-L lenses. Sorry, I see what you mean, but personally I don't think L-lenses are the way to go when you get your first DSLR. L-lenses are professional and expensive lenses, and there are plenty of cheaper lenses which are pretty good! Who am I to say that? Well, I work professionally with photography, having a couple of 1DMkII's and a bunch of L-lenses (and two non-L's) ;) - Anders My new photo website[^]
doh! I meant the 17-40 f4.0. what can I say, I was tired and couldn't type straight :) I certainly agree with what you say - L series lenses are way overpriced for people's first steps into photography and there are lots of good 'consumer' lenses which are damned good compared to lenses of 20 years ago.. However my first experience with a canon SLR was with a consumer lense (an EOS 300 and the 28-105 which was actually a 'mid range' lense). I was expecting to shoot super-sharp, contrasty pictures with that setup but I did not. The pictures were good, but not terrific. I'd bought an SLR because I wanted great pictures - I was genuinely disappointed after spending all that money. I replaced the 28-105 with a second-hand 28-70L f2.8 and WOW - that is what photography is all about, in my humble opinion of course :laugh: bet those 'non-Ls' aren't zooms though ;) cheers, James
http://www.catch22.net -
Canon has actually made some EF-S lenses which are both wide and pretty good. The crop-factor is not as bad as you make it IMHO, it's "different", not "bad". For me, the worst about the crop-factor is that it's harder to get shallow DOF, and that the photosensors are smaller which teoretically makes more high-ISO noice, but the DOF problem is the only "real" problem ;) I can give the technically explenation if someone want it, but just not now, I just got home from photographing STCC (Swedish Touring Car Championship) in sweden, and have only slept 9 hours since friday, so I'm kinda tired and need some sleep ;) - Anders My new photo website[^]
Admittedly I have not had much experience with digital SLRs as of yet - I think I'm scared of the change in focal length more than anything, just because I'm so used to 35mm setups. There was a review of the 350D in Amature Photographer (UK) just recently which they were raving about, looks like a fine camera by all accounts..
http://www.catch22.net -
doh! I meant the 17-40 f4.0. what can I say, I was tired and couldn't type straight :) I certainly agree with what you say - L series lenses are way overpriced for people's first steps into photography and there are lots of good 'consumer' lenses which are damned good compared to lenses of 20 years ago.. However my first experience with a canon SLR was with a consumer lense (an EOS 300 and the 28-105 which was actually a 'mid range' lense). I was expecting to shoot super-sharp, contrasty pictures with that setup but I did not. The pictures were good, but not terrific. I'd bought an SLR because I wanted great pictures - I was genuinely disappointed after spending all that money. I replaced the 28-105 with a second-hand 28-70L f2.8 and WOW - that is what photography is all about, in my humble opinion of course :laugh: bet those 'non-Ls' aren't zooms though ;) cheers, James
http://www.catch22.netJames Brown wrote:
with a second-hand 28-70L f2.8 and WOW
Yeah. With my first DSLR I bought the 24-70mm L and I have been ruined since. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/[^] I know nothing of digital photography. I just started reading DPReview today to try to get some idea of what's going on. Anyway, I'm tired of the quality of photos produced by my point-and-clickshoot Elph. The 350D (aka Digital Rebel XT) looks like a decent, reasonably priced entry into the world of Digital SLR. Any opinion on this camera, or recommendations for other cameras that I should be looking at? Thanks! :) Jon Sagara When I grow up, I'm changing my name to Joe Kickass! My Site | My Blog | My Articles
What Chris said. You won't go wrong buying it. (I have a 20D but that is because I need help with my addiction.) regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry!
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.