Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Digital 35mm SLRs?

Cliff posted about 11 years ago | from the please-your-inner-shutterbug dept.

Graphics 386

pipingguy asks: "Canon has released the first(?) 'low-priced' digital 35mm SLR with interchangeable lenses with the Digital Rebel. I've owned a few digital and non-digital cameras over the years (and am by no means a photography expert), and most annoying was the lack of manual zoom and focus, not to mention the barely-noticeable millisecond delay between button click and shutter closure. Can any owners of this and other digitals provide some opinions on how this new model compares to the more expensive digital 35mm's and typical $300 SLRs? Is it time to buy?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

hefff peeee (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306017)

looks to me like i just walked on in here and claimed FP... how FUCKING great is that? ;)

Good deal! (4, Informative)

njord (548740) | about 11 years ago | (#7306020)

This camera looks like a good deal - it's just the Canon D10 with a plastic body and some firmware downgrades. Suppose it's possible to hack the firmware back up to the D10? Also, first post!

Re:Good deal! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306180)

I got the camera. I say: Hold it! I love it, it is a great camera but.... as you know digital CCDs are more sensitive to light, so this is the great advantage with digital cameras; sturdy pictures when it is quite unfavorable light conditions. The optics coming with Canon is F 3.5 and up. Faster optics is 1500 dollars. Compare to ordinary digital camera (DSC v1, G2, G3, G5 and so on) and this is slow. Of course the sensor kicks ass!. Wait until the Sony DSC 828 arrives. That is my gut feeling.


Re:Good deal! (5, Informative)

Glytch (4881) | about 11 years ago | (#7306251)

Canon's digital SLRs don't use CCDs, they use CMOS.

And for the submitter of the article: the decision to get a digital SLR or not is a question of money, and of willingness to be an early adopter. I recommend (as someone who sells the damn things) to get a basic film SLR like the Rebel 2000 or Ti, both of which just had a price drop, and wait a year before upgrading the body to a digital SLR. Canon's keeping the same lens mount and flash hotshoe, so any extras bought between now and then will work just fine with a future Canon DSLR body.

Nikon is good, but they have no true DSLRs anywhere near the price range of the Digital Rebel. The closest they have is the Coolpix 5700. It's a good camera, certainly, but it's not an SLR. It's an all-in-one-system.

Digital 35 mm? (2, Informative)

marmol (219016) | about 11 years ago | (#7306024)

I guess it means a digital camera that has the same size and uses the same lenses as the Rebel line of cameras?

Nikon has one of those, D100 which uses the whole line fo AF lenses, it's kind of expensive though!

Re:Digital 35 mm? (2, Informative)

jimbolaya (526861) | about 11 years ago | (#7306063)

Both the film and digital Rebel lines use standard Canon EF lenses. The Digital Rebel (aka 300D) also uses EF-S lenses, which are lenses designed for the smaller (relative to a full 35mm frame) CMOS sensor.

Just as the D100 uses any Nikon AF lens, the Canon digital SLRs (1D, 1Ds, 10D, 300D, D30, D60) will use any Canon EF lens.

Re:Digital 35 mm? (3, Informative)

dbirchall (191839) | about 11 years ago | (#7306158)

Yeah, that's a pretty odd term. "Digital SLR" is better, since the sensor usually does not measure 35mm. The exceptions to that are Canon's 11-megapixel EOS-1Ds which costs about $8,000, and Kodak's 14-megapixel model which costs about $5,000 (but had a lot of problems and delays and generally gets worse reviews than the Canon).

first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306026)

woo first

Not even close (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306079)

You fucking FAIL IT you cum-slathered bangbus whore! Die writhing as you tongue-push Goatse shit through your gap teeth you fucking backwoods ball-sucking pile of hawg shit!!

Link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306028)

Any sort of news on this? I'm too lazy to search on my own...

Re:Link? (0, Redundant)

Elequin (137149) | about 11 years ago | (#7306296)

Try this [] .

Digital Photogs (4, Interesting)

Davak (526912) | about 11 years ago | (#7306035)

My uncle was a die hard film person... but always enjoyed playing with digital... just never in his studio.

However, in the last 12 months he has converted his entire studio over to digital. His work still looks great... even blown out huge.

Anybody other pro/semi-pros out there made the switch?

Does everybody agree that digital is as good as film now?


Re:Digital Photogs (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306101)

no. no other pro/semi-pros have made the switch.
no. everybody does not agree that digital is as good as film now.

are you a troll?

unf unf.

Re:Digital Photogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306125)

Honestly now. The above questions are more interesting than the current question.

How many people on slashdot are going to know more about this camera than these excellent links/reviews that have already been posted?

However, I am sure many slashers have or are considering changing from film to digital--especially now that cameras like this are below sub-$1k range.

Re:Digital Photogs (2, Interesting)

Not The Real Me (538784) | about 11 years ago | (#7306143)

I shoot digital.

I have never seen digital photo quality that can match the color or vibrance of Kodachrome. For those truly special photos, Kodachrome 25 or 64 will always be #1.

Digital can replace ISO 100/200/400 color print (negative) film. However, I do not see digital replacing slower speed slide film (i.e. Kodachrome) or some of the slow speed B & W films, since those types of film give a certain recognizable quality that no Photoshop master could ever duplicate.

Re:Digital Photogs (1)

hpa (7948) | about 11 years ago | (#7306178)

Digital can replace ISO 100/200/400 color print (negative) film. However, I do not see digital replacing slower speed slide film (i.e. Kodachrome) or some of the slow speed B & W films, since those types of film give a certain recognizable quality that no Photoshop master could ever duplicate.

Not too long ago it was that digital would never replace film, period. It's just a matter of time before there are digital sensors of that quality. Really.

Re:Digital Photogs (1)

mlyle (148697) | about 11 years ago | (#7306268)

Maybe, maybe not. It's not so much that it's impossible to make a sensor with these characteristics-- it's that they're niche markets-- and it would take a lot of NRE to build a product which replicates their performance, for relatively few who would adopt the technology. With film, the NRE is done, and it can be offered at a low pricepoint profitably for those markets-- it's expensive to switch an image sensor in a digital camera compared to popping in a new roll of film.

And as to software replicating the effects-- I doubt it. Once you've thrown the information away it's pretty back for software to get it back.

Re:Digital Photogs (1)

L0C0loco (320848) | about 11 years ago | (#7306189)

While certainly true, Kodak is dropping film and going to all digital (that is if the shareholders let them). Not sure this is a wise move at this point, but it is certainly inevitable.

Re:Digital Photogs (1)

SmoothOperator (300942) | about 11 years ago | (#7306270)

I agree. Even Ilford's Delta 400 is better than digital. In addition, there is something cool about making your own prints... No high quality printer compares to what you can do in the darkroom.

Re:Digital Photogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306241)

No troll here.

I know several professional photograhers who are all digital now. Check here for one Artography []

Most news photographers I see nowadays are using digital because they can send their photos around the world seconds after they take them.

Re:Digital Photogs (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306162)

Pro photo covers a lot of fields, each with very different versions of deadlines and acceptable final work.

In some cases digital is exponentially better - paparazzi work comes to mind, so does newspaper sports photography (think about fields where lots of photos are taken with quick turnaround needed - a sports photographer shooting the night game has maybe 1/2 hour after the game to develop 20+ rolls of film and pick the right 2-3 shots, digital helps a lot there).

In other cases digital, even the highend, $12000+ digital backs for hassie's and large formats, doesn't yet match the quality of 120 or 8x10 film. (while your eye might not see the difference, someone who is experienced will)

Also, digital usually doesn't handle the extremes too well - a 30 minute digital exposure on digital cameras doesn't compare to a 30 minute film exposure. Last i checked the latitude of film was still much better than digital too (the range from white to black that the camera can capture).

To say digital is really really good these days would be accurate, and i'm actually waiting for my digital rebel to arrive (it was exactly what i was waiting for, price/performance wise). But there are things digital still can't do, and places where film is still cheaper (a decent 4x5 and film for it is purchasable by me, but a digital back for that camera means i don't eat for a decade).

Re:Digital Photogs (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306266)

In terms of image quality, it's on a par with 35mm. You can argue about lines per mm resolution, Moire effects, and digital artifacts if you like. But the resolution of the high-end digital cameras now is good enough that they need truly high-quality optics, just as lenses limit performance of film cameras.

Medium format film still has an image quality advantage, but the cost is high (however, the price of high end digital = entry level Ha$$elblad). Wal Mart doesn't sell or process 120 size film, you have to go the pro shops. Nothing matches the quality of high end large format film cameras, but that's beyond the means and needs of mere mortals.

Longevity of the image is another matter. You can still print negatives shot a lifetime ago; all they need is careful storage. Digital media has limited storage life, and a shorter hardware obsolesence cycle. Eight inch floppies, anybody? They were in widesprerad use 25 years ago, but now the hardware to read them is a collector's item (or hazardous technological waste, take your pick). So please copy the good shots to silver halide technology, so your grandkids will be able to see them!

Digital Photography Review (5, Informative)

jimbolaya (526861) | about 11 years ago | (#7306036)

An excellent site for information and reviews is [] . You'll find reviews of the Digital Rebel and comparisons to it's "older brother," the 10D. You'll also find reviews of other DSLR and point-and-shoot SLRs. Definitely worth a look.

P.S. I own the predecessor to the 10D, the D60, and it is an excellent camera. I highly recommend a DSLR, but be prepared...photograph is an expensive hobby!

Re:Digital Photography Review (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306048)

Re:Digital Photography Review (2, Funny)

dubiousmike (558126) | about 11 years ago | (#7306076)

"photograph is an expensive hobby!"

So expensive, one can't afford the y

Re:Digital Photography Review (1)

Davak (526912) | about 11 years ago | (#7306107)

Steve's Digicams [] always has great reviews.

Re:Digital Photography Review (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about 11 years ago | (#7306135)

Thats the nice thing about digital. If you can get a digital camera that behaves just like a film SLR, you can shoot hundreds of photos for no cost, other than your inital hardware and electricity, etc. to run the computer.

Tricky thing is getting a decent digital at a sensible price relative to a $200 investment at a pawn shop and tons of black and white processing.

Re:Digital Photography Review (4, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | about 11 years ago | (#7306146)

be prepared...photograph is an expensive hobby!

Well, that's the ultimate question the poster is asking, isn't it?

Historically, traditional photography has been a "rich kid's pastime," too. Just ask anybody who goes to art school for illustration what they think of the photo majors.

The question is whether we've got to the point where, in terms of TCO, you will come up even whether you use a traditional camera or a digital one.

Sure, digital cameras are expensive. But they have advantages:

  • No film costs. Sure, you might have to buy CompactFlash, but those are completely re-usable.
  • No darkroom costs
  • Making hard copies of digital photographs can be expensive, but if you don't actually need hard copies (say, you're shooting for print publication), then you've got no costs there, either
  • Digital cameras are more versatile than traditional cameras. You don't need to change film to change light or speed settings, for instance. This might mean you really only need one camera, while a serious traditional photographer might feel the need to buy and keep several
Bear in mind that I'm not much of a photographer at all, so I'm sort of pulling this list out of my ass. But I've been wondering, lately, whether a nice camera like a digital SLR might allow me to take better pictures, which might in turn inspire me to take more pictures. I really don't think I want to fool around with all the darkrooms, developing, etc... I'm much more comfortable with Photoshop. So digital is definitely the way to go, for me.

But is an expensive digital camera really worth it yet?

Re:Digital Photography Review (5, Insightful)

rgmoore (133276) | about 11 years ago | (#7306183)

But I've been wondering, lately, whether a nice camera like a digital SLR might allow me to take better pictures, which might in turn inspire me to take more pictures.

The thing that really makes you want to take more pictures is not so much the quality as the cost of seeing the results. With a film camera, I was always worried about the cost of film and developing, and that made me think before taking a picture. The result was that I never brought my camera with me to take casual photos, and when I did bring it I hardly took any pictures anyway. With a digital it's really easy to take tons of pictures because I know that processing them is as easy (and cheap) as downloading them to my computer. That means that my thought process has moved from "should I take this picture" to "why shouldn't I take this picture". The result is that I take a lot more pictures, and some of them actually turn out well.

Re:Digital Photography Review (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306222)

Same thing here, I've taken more pictures in the last 2 months since I got my Fuji 3800 than I have in the past 2 or 3 years with my AE-1.

On the note of the usefulness and acceptability of digital cameras. Other than the cheaper consumer ones, the place it's really making inroads is in the Photo Journalist's kit. What other camera can you take the picture, preview it and send it to your newspaper or magazine all in a few minutes. Film is pretty much dead in photo journalism.

It's about time (1)

Bud Higgins (599268) | about 11 years ago | (#7306039)

It is good to see that useful digital cameras are coming down to a price point that everyone can afford.

Link frugalness... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306041)

Could do with a few more links in there guys!

here's one []

Re:Link frugalness... (1)

Davak (526912) | about 11 years ago | (#7306074)

Here's the offical specs on the camera. []

Approx. 6.5 megapixels


Digital... phbbth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306042)

It's hard to beat the good old Pentax K-1000. I like my digital Canon, but the Pentax just takes beautiful pictures.

Makes perfect sense to ask slashdot... (5, Informative)

h4x0r-3l337 (219532) | about 11 years ago | (#7306046)

... instead of the people who would really know [] .

Re:Makes perfect sense to ask slashdot... (0, Troll)

leerpm (570963) | about 11 years ago | (#7306185)

.. Yeesh, next thing you know we are going to have an Ask Slashdot on Relationship Advice.

Why can't you read a camera review site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306049)

What's wrong with a site like for this kind of information? This camera has been out for quite a while already and all of the normal digital camera review sites have done their reviews by now. DPReview even has a forum dedicated to the camera!

Couldn't a google search have found an answer to this without having to 'Ask Slashdot?'

Re:Why can't you read a camera review site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306220)

He was just showing respect for the gang at /. that's all. He trusts your opinions and you talk to him like that.


the digital rebel? (1)

baxterux (575852) | about 11 years ago | (#7306061)

is this what we are talking about? i have used the d1, it des produce great images and the shutter speed is amazing but as with older slrs, its terribly heavy!

Too General a question (2, Insightful)

gambit3 (463693) | about 11 years ago | (#7306065)

I'll answer it the same way that I answer two common questions:

1. What car should I buy?

2. What computer should I get?

My answers:

1. What are you going to use it for?

2. How much are you planning to spend?

Without knowing the answers to those two questions, then the original poster's question can't be correctly answered. If you're looking for professional, poster-sized prints, then your answer is going to be different than if you're just looking for something to take snapshots during vacations. Ditto if you have a large budget/if you're a broke college student.

Answer those two questions first, and you'll get a more accurate reply.

Re:Too General a question (1)

Androgyne001 (718937) | about 11 years ago | (#7306156)

Well, being an aspiring pro-photog, I am a broke college student looking for professional, poster sized prints. Uh-oh.

Re:Too General a question (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306200)

2. How much are you planning to spend?

That's a bad salesman's copout response. I know it's a commonly taught technique, but not from a "what's best for the consumer" point of view. The question is asked from a "let's keep this simple" point of view. If you want to close a sale in one session, then yes, you really need to keep the options to a minimum, and asking the customer to narrow the options down themself by asking them that question is a good idea. But we're talking about cameras here, and high-end cameras at that. Yes, even measly $1k cameras are higher-end than most consumers would ever consider purchasing. So these are enthusiasts.

So back to your question... The appropriate response to your question, from an enthusiast, is "Tell me how much I need to spend to get the gear that will give me various features and benefits." I may have a $1k figure in my head, but as soon as you tell me that $1.5k will buy me something that also mows the lawn and gives me massages, then I very well might up my "planning to spend" figure. No, you may not close the sale this session, since I might have to go think about it now. Or ask my wife. Or whatever. But you're my friend if you point out what various amounts of money will get me, rather than assuming that -I- know how much money I need to spend to get an exciting/inspiring piece of gear. This perspective only applies to enthusiast gear, of course, but in my opinion, high-end digital cameras are exactly that kind of creative/luxurious gear.

Here's some links. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306069)

Seeing as the poster appears to not understand that this here Interweb can have links, here are a few that I found [] in about 30 seconds:

Manufacturer's site [] .
Review on [] .

The second link kind of answers the question, proving - yet again - that asking Google before asking on Slashdot tends to be productive and smell less of a product placement.

Why D10? (1)

twoslice (457793) | about 11 years ago | (#7306075)

sounds too much like the X10 [] camera and reminds one of those horid pop-ups?

It's 10D... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306167)

bit lysdexic, are we?

manual controls (1)

h4x0r-3l337 (219532) | about 11 years ago | (#7306077)

... most annoying was the lack of manual zoom and focus

All modern digital cameras have manual zoom and focus, you just need to press buttons instead of turning a ring on the lens barrel in most cases. Several digital cameras even have a mechanism whereby you control zoom by turning a ring on the lens barrel.

To start... (1)

Codeak (586463) | about 11 years ago | (#7306078)

Low cost is a relitive term. The Canon Rebel 300d is really the first sub $1k digital SLR. Canon previously has an older model, the 10D which retails around $1500 and was/is considered the real first low cost digital SLR. Regardless, digital cameras have come a long way in recent years with Canon, Fuji, Nikon and Sigma all releasing good solid performers. You still get what you pay for with regards to speed and quality, with top of the line versions like the Canon 1DS running in the $8k range. But for those people interested in dSLRs at a reasonable entry cost the time is ripe. One item to keep in mind is that the frame is cheap.... it's the lenses that'll bankrupt you.

One final thought... dSLRs are not for everyone, prosumer cameras like the Sony 717, Canon G5, Nikon 5400 etc... will meet most peoples needs quite nicely and at a fraction of the cost. As always consider your true needs before buying anything.

No, do not buy now (1)

supraxnet (567080) | about 11 years ago | (#7306089)

I dont see the point in spending less money when the camera sucks. Buy a Canon 10D or a Nikon D100 (the D200 will be out soon). If your really into it, get a Nikon D2H or the 11 megapixle Canon 1Ds.

When a camera hinders your productivity, its a POS. I would relate the 300D to a Canon Reble X or some such low priced SLR that allows you to do.... nothing.

Re:No, do not buy now (1)

miratrix (601203) | about 11 years ago | (#7306127)

Well, for some people, price difference between a camera that costs $999 (With a starter lens) and a camera that costs $1500 with just the body is big enough to go for the cheaper one. What can you get with 10D, D100, or even more expensive siblings?

Since Digital Rebel has same sensor as Canon 10D, and since they can both use same line lenses, buying 10D just because it's more "professional" - essentially more buttons - is just plain stupid. At the end, the only thing that matters in photo quality technically (ie, non photographer related) is just the lens and the film. Well, Digital Rebel has same lens, and essentially the same film as the higher priced sibling.

I've seen some wonderful pictures come out of lowly Rebels and (gasp) cheap point and shoot cameras. Saying cheap cameras are POS means you're just a snob.

Good and bad news (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306090)

The good news is, it compares very well with a $300 35mm SLR.

The bad news is, it compares well with a $300 35mm SLR.

There are things to be alert to, most notably that the sensor frame is not the same size as a 35mm frame - it's more like APS-sized - so lenses have a 'focal length multiplier' - that is, the same lens is more 'telephoto' on the EOS 300D.

Otherwise it looks like what it is - a cheapish film SLR with expensive digital gubbins (it's the EOS 300V, but digital).

I'm not sure it's the first really cheap 35mm-compatible SLR - the Sigma SD9 has that honour in the UK at least, and is a very well specified camera with the interesting foveon chip.

Major that would bug me: lack of a true spot-metering mode. And a few other minor bits and pieces. It's certainly cheaper than what's gone before from Canon, however, and it looks nice enough.

Me, I started photography seriously with digital cameras (including the sensibly-designed fuji 6900), but I 'progressed' to old fashioned film cameras and scanning of prints/negs/transparencies. It seems to me to be like the linux approach - I can afford a lot of effective and varied film kit (including medium format for quality), I'm learning more, the knowledge is less proprietory, and with the right approaches, film quality still edges digital in things like shadow detail (and in the case of scans of medium format transparencies, outright quality and resolution).

Real slashdot anonymous cowards use film.

Re:Good and bad news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306269)

yeah, whatever... and I'm sure you'll be happy to keep on pedalling you stone wheeled car. Hell, if it works, why try to improve on it, right?

Nothing wrong with retro, but it's certainly not the future.

So it's really a 10D then? (1)

endquotedotcom (557632) | about 11 years ago | (#7306095)

From a review [] :

"What's the EOS 300D's weakness? Feature set. Canon are caught in a dilemma, they had to have a camera with a reduced feature set otherwise nobody would consider the EOS 10D (or any camera which replaces it). Almost laughably the majority of the EOS 300D's limitations are 'programmed in', that is they are simply software features which have been disabled."

If that's the case, call me when it's been hacked to enable everything.

Some of the lower ones have everything too (1)

questamor (653018) | about 11 years ago | (#7306096)

Many of the consumer cameras are coming along with manual everything now. I've just bought a Canon A70 (an A80 is out now too) which, while just a consumer cam, has manual exposure, ISO emulation, Aperture, 3x optical zoom, 2048x1536 pix (3.2mp), and a bunch of other manual settings. Slowly, as with everything, the pro type features are coming down into the consumer lines. an SLR still has its advantages, but it's certainly worth looking at some of the cameras that are out today at 1/3rd their price.

Re:Some of the lower ones have everything too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306112)

Canon are SHIT you'll never take a good photo with one. I recommend Minolta or Olympus and especially not an A70

Re:Some of the lower ones have everything too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306239)

If you have an A70 with manual exposure and aperture you surely have a different A70 than I do. Care to enlighten me?

Re:Some of the lower ones have everything too (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306261)

The big advantage of a digital SLR over a point-and-shoot like the A70 is in the chip. A 10D at ISO 800 looks about as clean as my S40 at ASA 100.

This is a HUGE difference - every photographer (including the type who buy 35mm disposables) will see this difference, while hardly anyone will see a difference between 3 megapixels and 6 megapixels.

switch (0)

Nihynjahs (680486) | about 11 years ago | (#7306099)

yeah, you should switch. in the long run, your gonna save money. plus anyone who reads slashdot has some CF cards around dont they? if your not a professional i would reccomend something with fewer MP. with a 6.3mp i think you can get up to 4.3 mg files in raw format, which is kinda ridiculous. i use a D30 and i just love it. but whatever you do make sure to get something where lenses are many and cheap. because they will be the best way to lose money

Re:switch (0)

Nihynjahs (680486) | about 11 years ago | (#7306106)

the rebel may be cheaper but not everything you buy used is someone else's problems.

Re:switch (1)

PHoliday (149543) | about 11 years ago | (#7306275)

I've been keeping my eye on this camera too and the thing I've noticed about the digital camera SLR market is that the used cameras don't come down much in price over time (compared to digital point-and-shoot or film SLRs).

In other words, you're going to have a hard time getting a used D30/D60/D10 for much cheaper than you can get a new Digital Rebel. If someone can prove me wrong, I'd love to see it -- it'll save me some money.

(Aside: The problem with buying used is not that EVERYTHING has problems but that you don't know what problems you're getting. )

35mm (1)

manon (112081) | about 11 years ago | (#7306105)

I'm the owner of a Nikon N80 35mm film camera. I have tried several digitals, but I bought this film camera instead. All my films are developed on CD. I must say the results are good: an example [] . All the black&whites are shot with 35mm film. The nice thing is, when i'm in the dark room, I can mess around with stuff you don't find in the Gimp nor in Photoshop. I'm a techie... but when it comes to pictures... 35mm film rules if you ask me. The best digital camera is one with exchangable lenzes, but when i comes to photography, i prefer film.

Re:35mm (0)

Nihynjahs (680486) | about 11 years ago | (#7306116)

nice picture

Re:35mm (1)

CatPieMan (460995) | about 11 years ago | (#7306173)

One of the reasons your Nikon takes such a good picture is that the N80 is MUCH better than the Rebel series. As a user of a Rebel and an Owner of a N80, the difference is night and day. The Nikon glass is so much better than the cannon 'consumer' slr. I have a Nikon D-series lense (28-105MM 3.5-4.5 F) which takes such a fantastic picture.

However, each section of that was more than a Rebel with a lense (about $500).

I too prefer film for most things (but, I have never really used a 'professional' digital camera). However, the 10D really blew my mind away. I know a professional photographer who uses it almost exclusivly (he also has a 15 Megapixel Nikon, I think -- but this is really new). The 10D, combined with a top of the line ($6000-$10,000) Epson ink jet printer was just as good or better than a photograph done with chemicals to the same size. I saw a full poster (3'x5') picture produced in this fashion. I could not tell it was done on a computer until I was less than an inch away.

Digital is getting really good. But, film and chemicals are still the king.

But, you are correct, a camera with interchangable lenses is going to give you the most options. I too am a total techie, but, I like to scan my images to see if I can improve them. Sometimes I can, other times I can't.

To see more of my photography (some digital, some film; some color, some black and white), see my web page [] .


Re:35mm (0)

grolschie (610666) | about 11 years ago | (#7306228)

Really nice pic dude. I am wanting to buy my first SLR 35mm film camera. I see a heap of Canon EOS's on eBay/TradeMe. Any tips on what model to get for a newbie? I like b&w photos and out-of-focus shots.

for REAL high quality photos.... (1)

skizrule (701743) | about 11 years ago | (#7306121)

just use a Large Format Camera [] ( you know, the kind you see in old movies with the photographer under a big cloth. the film typically is 4x5 or 8x10 INCHES, easily trumping anything you can get from a digital slr.

How much for negs? (1)

Slashamatic (553801) | about 11 years ago | (#7306203)

A rule of photography is to shoot as many as possible. One shot may be useful. With 10x8, this is the reverse direction from digital, being about the most expensive negatives around. Sure you can photo-edit these by hand but would you want to?

Re:for REAL high quality photos.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306233)

You get better by shooting -A LOT- of film. Ask any amateur or pro that has earnestly tackled the learning curve. So recommending a large format camera is really only suitable advice for someone who is already VERY proficient in composition, metering, lighting, and just plain seeing, etc.

My advice: Get good with a digital. Learn with the highest-quality digital you can afford, with many manual settings. (Thus the importance of DSLRs.) Once you -think- you're getting good, sure, move into large format. You'll be humbled. And it's gonna cost you a bundle. And you won't be able to take many good photos. (Though when you get a -good- one on large format, it's an event you'll remember for decades!) Anyways, I'll bet you keep refining your skills with the DSLR. (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | about 11 years ago | (#7306124) has very good reviews. Lots of in-depth information, and glossaries to explain the terminologies for newbies who want to learn photogeekery.

Digital Rebel...delibratly cheaped out (4, Informative)

stripes (3681) | about 11 years ago | (#7306128)

The image quality of prety much all the digital SLRs is very nice. Including the Digital Rebel. The focus time and shutter lag compaired ot the non SLR digitals is also very good (I have the now very old Canon D30, and while it has more shutter lag then the current digital SLRs it is low enough to get pictures of flying birds, or jumping dogs which I found really hard to do with compact digital cameras).

The digital rebel however suffers from being inteonally cheapened. It still takes great pictures, but if you had intended to use the camera in "manual mode" where you control both the shutter time and the apeature you'll find Canon decided to only put one dial on the camera. You have to switch between the two controls with a small button (there is also no way to assign auto focus to a button other then the shutter button). That's a royal pain if you ever get to a situation where you are smarter then the camera's light meter (and you'll run into them, digital cameras have less exposure latatude then print film, think of them more like slide film).

It also has cuppled the exposure mode and auto focus mode with the shooting mode. They took about 4 things that their other cameras let you set independantly and merged them into one thing and gave you maybe 12 choices, so a bunch of the combinations are not possiable.

Basically if your film SLR is a rebel you won't feel constrained by the digital rebal. If your film camera is an Elan you will be frustrated. If your digital camera is the point and click kind, then you will either be delighted or confused. Or both.

P.S. remember the camera is only the start of the spending :-) Lenses are very important. In fact the Digital Rebel's imager is better then most lenses. If you buy the DR and slap a $400 75-300mm USM-IS f/5.6 lens on it you won't get pictures nearly as sharp as the 300L f/4 lens...unfortuantly that lens costs quite a bit more then the camera. I strongly recomend at least one fast fixed focal length lens, the 50mm f/1.8 is in expsnave (under $100 used I think). It will show you how sharp your pictures can be, and more importantly it will let you get some natrual light shots where most zooms can't.

Re:Digital Rebel...delibratly cheaped out (1)

NetJunkie (56134) | about 11 years ago | (#7306271)

They had to cheapen it. It's not a pro camera. Who would buy the D10 if the D300 had all of the D10 features for $400 less?

I love our D300. We're not a pro but want a good SLR and this does the job.

why SLR (1) (562495) | about 11 years ago | (#7306133)

My first question is: why do you need a SLR camera? If you are just looking for a digital camera, that can do good macro shots, take a look at Sony's Cyber Shot DSC-F717 . The macro shots with this camera are very good. However I personally think the camera is little flaky (could be just me). I also have a Canon PowerShot S50. It is a very good all purpose digital camra. Here are shots from a Canon S50 Panoramic [] and regular []

bottom line: dont buy a digital SLR, unless you really need a SLR.

Re:why SLR (4, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | about 11 years ago | (#7306249)

bottom line: dont buy a digital SLR, unless you really need a SLR.

I think in part you're right.

You need an SLR camera if you want to:

1) Shoot in dimly lit conditions (i.e. f/1.2 ISO 1600) without a flash and use the results for anything serious.

2) Be able to get a nice, shallow depth of field (i.e. blurred background) with good bokeh (pleasing "blur") for portraits or graphic shots.

3) Shoot wildlife or other "field" shots involving long telephotos or extreme lighting or weather conditions with any kind of sincerity or usability.

4) Shoot action of any kind that might need the likes of continuous tracking focus, zero shutter lag, and the ability to fire off shots in sequence just as fast as you can hit the shutter.

You do not need an SLR camera to:

5) Shoot the kids' birthday parties.

6) Take pictures of your pets.

7) Take vacation snapshots.

BUT... with that said... If you know how to properly use an SLR camera, know something about photography, and you have quality lenses, your results in the case of #5, #6 or #7 will be much better with an SLR than with a point-and-shoot.

Do be aware of the quality lenses caveat, however. Far too many amateur SLR users, film and digital, see the camera body as the "real" investment. They drop $1000 on a camera body and then go to their local camera store and buy a plastic 24-300mm zoom for $80.00 and wonder why the pictures look like they were taken through a dirty window in a rainstorm.

So I suppose corollary to your "don't buy an SLR unless you need one" post is "and don't buy an SLR unless you can afford lenses that will do it justice because a camera body can only capture what the lens shows it."

If you can't afford to spend significantly more on your lenses than you did on your SLR body (whether film or digital), you will definitely get better photos with a Sony digicam.

Two words (1)

MQBS (264470) | about 11 years ago | (#7306283)

Focus ring. Not all digital SLRs have them, but no digital consumers have them. It's one of the great features missing in my opinion.

I love DSLR (1, Redundant)

StewedSquirrel (574170) | about 11 years ago | (#7306136)

As the proud owner of a Fuji S2-Pro [] , I can say I love the DSLR concept. When I got my first SLR almost 10 years ago, I lamented the lack of a digital SLR and since then had been searching around for a good D-SLR. Last year, they finally came within reach, but I had to save up for awhile to be able to afford the $2000+ pricetag. I can honestly say that i went from taking 60 photos per month with my old 35mm SLR to taking 100+ per week, all without any processing costs. The most important things to consider are: 1) battery life - Your photo shooting is usually limited by the battery life of your camera unless you shoot in super-high resolution or RAW modes. 2) memory size - Buy as big a memory card as youcan afford. Size does matter. I LOVE to take advantage of the RAW shooting modes, but the photos are dozens of MB each. 3) memory speed - when shooting bigger files, you will notice the speed of your writable media. You can fill up the buffer of modern DSLR cameras fairly quickly in rapid-shoot mode (unless you have a Nikon D2 with the 40-shot buffer). But overall, I prefer Nikon lenses (Nikkor is really nice), but Cannon is quite nice too. And for the price you can't beat this new DSLR. Stewey

Jumping out of film (5, Interesting)

java-pundit (718935) | about 11 years ago | (#7306140)

I was a die-hard film photographer, with the full suite of Nikon stuff and B&W darkroom. Until last summer. I swapped it all for a Canon 10D and have no regrets. I can print tack-sharp 11x14 prints that bowl people over, and I find I take a lot more photos then I ever did with film due to the convenience. Being able to put almost 400 jpeg images on a 1GB CF card really change your habits for travel photography. 6 Megapixels seems to be the sweet spot for ditching film

The advantage to one of the digital SLRs versus pro-sumer models is no shutter lag. My 10D is very quiet and takes the picture when I press the button, not several ms later like my Olympus 3040 used to do.

I have Fuji S2-Pro - DSLR is great (3, Interesting)

StewedSquirrel (574170) | about 11 years ago | (#7306145)

As the proud owner of a Fuji S2-Pro [] , I can say I love the DSLR concept. When I got my first SLR almost 10 years ago, I lamented the lack of a digital SLR and since then had been searching around for a good D-SLR. Last year, they finally came within reach, but I had to save up for awhile to be able to afford the $2000+ pricetag.

I can honestly say that i went from taking 60 photos per month with my old 35mm SLR to taking 100+ per week, all without any processing costs.

The most important things to consider are:
1) battery life - Your photo shooting is usually limited by the battery life of your camera unless you shoot in super-high resolution or RAW modes.
2) memory size - Buy as big a memory card as youcan afford. Size does matter. I LOVE to take advantage of the RAW shooting modes, but the photos are dozens of MB each.
3) memory speed - when shooting bigger files, you will notice the speed of your writable media. You can fill up the buffer of modern DSLR cameras fairly quickly in rapid-shoot mode (unless you have a Nikon D2 with the 40-shot buffer).

But overall, I prefer Nikon lenses (Nikkor is really nice), but Cannon is quite nice too. And for the price you can't beat this new DSLR.


Digital Rebel vs 10D (5, Informative)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 11 years ago | (#7306147)

First, I'll preface by saying I'm a professional photographer. My wife and I shoot weddings & portraits, and a magazine photo here or there. We use the Canon 10D, which goes for $1500. It's got a 6.3 megapixel sensor, and we have no problem blowing up a large-fine JPEG image to 20x30 or even higher.

The digital rebel has the same sensor as the 10D, and the same digic processor, and you can find them for $800 or so. A LOT of the features are the same. The white balance settings, the shutter speed options, flash compatibility, metering modes, 7 AF points, etc. The main differences are in the buffer, and the construction. The rebel can only do about 2.5fps and a maximum burst of 4 shots, instead of the 3fps for 9 shots the 10d can manage. Having handled the rebel at the local camera store recently, I can also testify that the body does not feel NEARLY as durable as the 10D. The 10D has a magnesium alloy body that feels solid, and seems like it could take some punishment. I think the rebel was more plasticy. Eh.

Still, if you're an amateur photographer who wants an SLR I have to say the rebel is the way to go. It's got almost all the features of the 10D, but for a lot less money. Digital will completely change the way you shoot, too...I never ever ever want to go back to film.

Oh, and some other companies have cheap SLRs out there...Fuji has a cheap DSLR, and I think Olympus or Sigma or somebody does, too, but I've never been impressed with any of their products, or their lenses (Sigma lenses are horribly soft) and I only shoot Canon, so I can't really comment on those.

Re:Digital Rebel vs 10D for Astrophotography (2, Interesting)

L0C0loco (320848) | about 11 years ago | (#7306226)

I was seriously considering the 10D for astrophotography in part because of the ability to have the mirror lock up 2 second prior to exposure when using the timer. So I wonder whether that feature is one of the things that the dumbed down 300D/digital rebel has lost? (1)

loomis (141922) | about 11 years ago | (#7306157) []

This is a great camera website. Click on the name of an SLR camera in the list to get a review, specs, sample images, etc... This website also has other reviews of other types of X megapixel digicams as well.


Digital Rebel is not 35 mm SLR (5, Informative)

mcicel (465762) | about 11 years ago | (#7306164)

Digital Rebel is 22.7 mm SLR. Canon 1Ds is 35 mm SLR. But 1Ds is not 'low-priced'. It costs $7,999.

Bought one a week ago (5, Insightful)

Kraegar (565221) | about 11 years ago | (#7306166)

I just bought a Digital Rebel a week ago. Got it as a birthday gift for my wife, who's a semi-pro photographer (In her own mind, anyway).

Her sister owns a Canon Rebel 35mm camera, and my wife has been a die-hard film person. In the last week, she hasn't touched our 35mm camera.

The digital rebel can use all the lenses, filters, tripod, flash, etc from her 35mm, takes amazing pictures, and is SLR. (she wouldn't touch a non-slr camera)

The auto-focus is great, the shutter speed is better then any other digital camera we've played with (and very adjustable). Manual focusing gives her all the control she'd normally have.

It snaps shots a little slow, about 4 in the first two seconds, then one a second after that, but for a digital at 6.3mp that's not too shabby.

In my opinion, this is *THE* digital camera to buy right now... and at the rate I'm going at, I'll need to buy a second one since my wife won't let me have time with ours.

You can find a decent review of it here. []

Re:Bought one a week ago (1)

Kraegar (565221) | about 11 years ago | (#7306224)

Oh, couple things I shoulda mentioned... the lens that comes with it is decent, but you will probably quickly want at least one more if you're much of a photographer at all.

Buy a big compact flash card. 256mb or 512mb (I got the 512). It sucks to run out of space mid-shoot.

We also picked up an HP photo printer that accepts CF, can print the pictures directly after reviewing them on an LCD screen. Makes it all very convenient, and I don't have to worry about drivers, etc for the printer.

We have a 10D... (1)

adrew (468320) | about 11 years ago | (#7306168) work and it's just amazing. As others have said, the new digital Rebel has pretty much the same guts.

The 10D (and Rebel) are both ~6 megapixel cameras. While this doesn't sound much better than other run-of-the-mill prosumer digicams like, say, a Canon Powershot S50, the actual image quality is much better.

I'm not familiar with the real nitty-gritty technical details, but the 10D's sensor is a LOT bigger than the little sensors in other point-and-shoot cameras, which means that there's a lot less noise. The 10D also has a different type of sensor (CMOS) than most other digicams, which use CCD.

But, yeah, I wholeheartedly recommend the 10D or Rebel. My 3-year-old 3-megapixel Toshiba feels like a piece of crap in comparison.

300D aka rebel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7306171)

I bought a 300D the other day and I absolutely love it, just waiting for pay to clear to buy a bigger zoom lens :)

examples of photos I've taken with it...

800x600's []

Following are full 6.3MP images (3072 x 2048 pixels)
here [] here [] and here []

Check out (2, Informative)

neutrino (11215) | about 11 years ago | (#7306177)

For all the information you could ever want to know about how the new 300D/Digital Rebel compares to the other DSLRs that are out there just go check out [] . There is a full review [] of the body, plus lots of discussion [] about it in the forums.

Your second question, about whether or not to switch to digital, is not a question that we can answer for you, especially with the amount of information that you gave us. Both film and digital have their respective advantages. Both will continue to exist for quite some time. For a well thought out examination of film and digital photography, see Ken Rockwell's article [] on the subject.

What most people don't realize is that digital and film have been working together quite well for some time now and that the digital revolution has already made a huge impact in the printing phase. Lightjet [] and Chromira [] machines enable the highest quality prints and Fuji Frontier [] machines create good quality prints quickly. The quality of these prints is not just the resolution, but the color reproduction and tonality as well.

What it all comes down to, though, is not the equipment. You have to be in the right place when the light happens. Mastering light is far more important than having a certain kind of camera.


As a learning tool... (4, Insightful)

nick_davison (217681) | about 11 years ago | (#7306184)

Digital cameras are still relatively expensive, compared to their film counterparts:
Basic compact ~ $300 vs. $50
Basic SLR ~ $1000 vs. $300

What you gain though, especially once you leave the basic end of the market alone, is a fast, self-guided education in photography.

I bought the Sony DSC-V1 (a $600 higer-end compact). By that point, you're getting in to a camera which can just point and shoot but also lets you manually adjust apperature and shutter settings, add on flash units, etc. And the thing is, if you have any kind of an interest in photography, you will start playing with those settings.

I'd borrowed a film SLR from relatives in the past. I blew through about a dozen rolls of film and had next to no idea what I ended up with.

With digital, I blow through about fifty shots in a half an hour, reviewing each one as I go and, with the LCD review screen, learning a little bit more about how to improve the next shot. Then I end up ditching the thirty or so that didn't work and repeating. By the end of a session, I know I've got shots which really captured the depth of field I was after, that framed the subject well, that had the balance of light across the scene that I wanted, and so on. I've also probably stumbled on a couple of shots I didn't even expect.

Most importantly though, I've learned to take risks that I would never have done with film. While my wife drove tonight, I was shooting the sunset almost as fast as I could get shots off. I would never have even tried it with film - what kind of idiot would use an unstabilised setup in a moving vehicle on San Diego's bumpy freeways? With digital, it didn't matter. Worst case, I wasted a bit of time, blanked the memory stick and recharged the battery. As it happened, I got the most incredible sunset image I've taken yet.

You can get the same education with film, from an instructor. No doubt an instructor can teach you many things you'd never have learned by yourself. But a simple question for the slashdot readership: Who taught you the software you use professionally? I'm guessing the typical slashdot-type much prefers tinkering with things and finding out for themselves and that's where digital offers itself much more freely than film.

It's more expensive to start. Once you start adding camera accessories and good photoprinters, it gets expensive fast and it works out about the same to print (save you only print the perfect shots, you can review on the computer or LCD). What it does though is give you much more freedom to explore with faster feedback. To me, that's been worth every penny and it's worth the several thousand I'm budgeting for in several months time as the freedom and education of cheaper digital has convinced me I want to try more and more still.

Stupid patents I bet. (1)

j_dot_bomb (560211) | about 11 years ago | (#7306194)

Why cant they make a digital SLR for $300 like they can for film SLR ? (standard changable lenses is the goal in my book) My bet is patents on stupid things. There are real inovations in digital cameras, but I have a good one (Cannon A40 2MP) for $300. Why cant they just do the same in the SLR form. Has to be stupid patents.

Re:Stupid patents I bet. (1)

thogard (43403) | about 11 years ago | (#7306284)

Up to about a year ago most of the mid range digital cameras had the same lenses as the low end 35mm ones. If they can sell 35mm camera for $100 with a decent lense, they should be able to put that same lense on a digital camera for less than $100 more than the junky lense they did pick.

Never buy a digial camera that doesn't have a way to protect the lense. Filters are cheap insurance because most scratched lenses are not repairable.

It's the best camera I've ever owned. (1)

Digiteyesed (718938) | about 11 years ago | (#7306201)

If you can afford the Canon 10D and you're a serious amateur photographer, you should consider buying one. If your heart aches for the 10D but you can't afford it (like me), the Digital Rebel (300D) is a perfectly acceptable compromise.

I've had mine for nearly two months now and I'm completely infatuated with it. It's a very sturdy camera and the quality of the images is just unbelievable. I've had some very sharp looking 18x24 inch posters made from pictures taken with my 300D and they are comparable in quality to posters I've had made from drum scanned 35mm slides.

If you want to see some sample images, please feel free to look at the recent additions [] area of my site [] . All of the images except two (Govt. House) were taken with the 300D.

My contact info is on my site. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any specific questions about the camera.

Modding a non-SLR to an SLR (2, Interesting)

mtippett (110279) | about 11 years ago | (#7306205)

Something that I have done with webcams on a couple of occasions is modifying them to support telephoto SLR lenses, which then allows it to be screwed into the mount on a telescope for webcam astronomy.

Basically you replace the film plane for the lens with the CCD sensor.

The same applies for a normal non SLR camera. You have to *sacrifice* the digital lens and either get a mount from an old manual body, or get a sacrifice the manual body.

I haven't done it, but with 3-4 Megapixel cameras the norm, it should be cheap enough to have a good attempt at hacking it.

how much is cheap? (1)

DanThe1Man (46872) | about 11 years ago | (#7306214)

In case anyone was wondering how cheap is cheap, this site [] lists it at $899. Thats still to expensive for me.

Re:how much is cheap? (1)

NetJunkie (56134) | about 11 years ago | (#7306286)

But very cheap for a great 6.3MP Digital SLR.

Yes, it's on slashdot! (5, Interesting)

Androgyne001 (718937) | about 11 years ago | (#7306216)

Now that the Digital Rebel is on slashdot, surely firmware hacks are on their way. Heck, it's only a matter of time before someone is running a linux server on it. But seriously...something that has not been mentioned is the included lens. The digital rebel comes with a specially designed 18-55mm zoom lens. The kit with this lens is $999. DSLR 101: in most digital slrs, the image sensor is a little smaller than a 35mm negative. So when you use a lens built for a 35mm camera, the focal length is effectively multiplied by 1.6, as the edges of the frame fall outside of the sensor and get cropped. So the included 18-55mm lens is equivalent to your typical 28-90mm zoom lens that comes with film rebels. It is also specially designed for the rebel and won't work on the 10D. A lot of people may point out that the 10D is better and only few hundred dollars more, but people should remember that the cheapest canon lens that is equivalent to the 18-55 is the $799. So Digital rebel kit = $999, 10D "kit" = approx. $2299. That's not a small price gap. Of course, if you never shoot wide angle, it doesn't effect you.

Re:Yes, it's on slashdot! (1)

Androgyne001 (718937) | about 11 years ago | (#7306232)

Do I have to add html line breaks to get spaces between my paragraphs?

testing...I guess I do.

It's a half-frame. Focal length issues. (5, Informative)

dpbsmith (263124) | about 11 years ago | (#7306218)

Surely the image array isn't 24x36mm?
Click, click... no, it's 22.7x15 mm. Roughly comparable a half-frame 35 mm camera.

That means that no lens is going to have the same coverage on this camera as it does on a 35 mm camera.

Canon says "Focal length conversion factor: Equivalent to approx. 1.6x indicated focal length compared to 35mm format." Your 50 mm. lens will act like an 80 mm; your 35 mm like a 56... and if you like to use a 28 mm on your film camera, you'll have to shell out for an 18mm to use on this one.

It works in your favor for telephoto lenses, though.

It also means that for the equivalent angle of coverage, this camera will have a greater depth of field. Nice for some things. Not so nice for others, e.g. portraits.

Not much to say -- (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | about 11 years ago | (#7306293)

-- 'cept thanks. I would've never thought to think about that.

3 Days with a 300D (Digital Rebel) (1)

Resaurtus (639635) | about 11 years ago | (#7306234)

I got one 3 days ago in the 18-55mm Zoom kit. So far I've take around 50 photos using both the 18-55 and a 50/1.4. My film back is an EOS 3 and I have time in with several different Nikon CoolPix. So if you're looking for apples to apples fair comparisons you need to look elsewhere.

The 300D is my first exeriance with any of the Rebel line, and I have to say that the missing features annoy me. I want another command dial, custom functions, a better viewfinder, and better autofocus. Indeed, every time I use it I compare it unfavorably to the EOS 3. Then I dump the CF to hard drive and am happy as a pig in shit. I'm going to save the cost of the camera in development alone within a year. I could have afforded a 10D ($500 more w/no lens) however, the 10D doesn't do the EF-S lens and I really wanted this lens. It's performance is okay but the 18mm end makes wide angle shots possible with a DSLR. I can't afford wide enough glass to use a 10D, so features or not, this lens addresses a major issue for me. The Depth of Field preview is nearly useless to me, I just look at it in the LCD to see if it matches my intentions. On the plus side, being able to change the effective ISO rating on demand is awesome.

Compared to the CoolPix (older versions), I love the 300D. The coolpix feels like a toy and it's hard to use it while quickly adjusting Apeture/Exposure, and of course, no manual focus at all. These things may not matter to most. (and I imagine they don't.) I've been told most SLR owners have the lens that came in the kit and nothing else, kind of a waste if you don't want the interchangable lens.

I expect the 1.6 focal length multiplier is going to be great for wildlife photos and other long work. I'm *really* enjoying the camera.

-- Res

Most digital slrs... (1)

kleine18 (675867) | about 11 years ago | (#7306235)

Most digital SLR's have a focal length/angle of view conversion factor of approximately 1.6X compared to full-frame 35mm film format. The Canon EOS 300D SLR is no exception to this. As far as i know, Canons only full frame digital is the 1Ds.

Film is film (1)

BanjoBob (686644) | about 11 years ago | (#7306245)

I use both a digital (Olympus C3030 Zoom) and a film SLR (Cannon A1). These are both nice cameras however, the digital is really a "snap shot" camera while the A1 is of pro quality. Both have their unique positive attributes and both have their own inherent limitations.

If I'm after a specific photographic shot of something I'm going to blow up to 11 x 14 or bigger, I'll definitely shoot it on film. I may very well use the digital to help determine exposure, aperature and such. The digital gives instant feedback for getting that perfect photo.

I have a ton of Canon C-Mount lenses from 28mm to 1000mm as well as filters and such. The problem is that none of these Canon lenses will work with the newer Canon cameras. Thus, I continue to use the A1 body.

I've also used the A1 for many years and **KNOW** the camera. I know exactly what it will do and won't do. I'm still learning on the digital camera.

The bottom line is that I'll continue to use both film and digital cameras for a while. The resolution and features on the best digitals still don't compare to the capabilities of film.

Canon 10D, skip the D60... (2, Informative)

patniemeyer (444913) | about 11 years ago | (#7306255)

I have owned the Canon D30, D60, and now own the 10D. These are all great cameras and make it possible to do things that you would never be able to do with a traditional 35mm... such as routinely taking 300 photos and saving the best 10. No matter what anyone says, the best way to improve your photography is to take more pictures.

I would recommend skipping the D60 if possible, it was kind of a premature upgrade after the D30. The 10D is the true successor to the D30. My wishlist at this point is the same for all digital cameras: better low light performance and dynamic range - this is the last place that film has digital beat, more pixels of course, and a faster performing camera... they are a bit slow in reviewing big photos.

I highly recommend the D60 and it goes well with the Epson 2200 photo printer... You won't believe it the first time you do a 13x19 print at home and it looks like a professional print.

- Pat

Possibly consider one of the 'pro-sumers' instead (2, Informative)

PhracturedBlue (224393) | about 11 years ago | (#7306257)

I'm also in the market for a good digital camera. I've owned a canon S100 since it was first released, and it is a really great little camera.

I was nearly ready to buy the Canon 300D, but I don't have any Canon lenses (what lenses I do have are for an Olympus OM-2). After talking to friends, I decided that for what I need, a 'pro-sumer' would probably be a better fit. The Minolta A1 is probably the best availiable at the moment, but I plan to hold out and see how the Panasonic FZ-10 turns out (released in Japan today, US mid November). It'll be a 35-420mm 35mm equivalent, with a F2.8 Leica lens all the way through the range. Also has image stabilization, which should allow shooting at maximum zoom without a tripod. It is only a 4MP camera, but with a MSRP of $599, it is very tmepting.

With the 300D, I'd need to carry 2-3 lenses (need a range of 18mm-300mm for the Canon to get the equivalent range), and to get them at F2.8 with image-stabilization, that's easily $2k in lenses (and probably quite a bit more). For the money, the 300D is probably the best DSLR on the market, but the question is whether it is what you want.

I'll wait till the reviews come out for the FZ10 before I decide, but for the price, this is probably a better camera for me.

Info on the FZ10 (what is availiable so far at least) can be found here []

There's not one camera for everyone, but you should think about what you need it for, decide what you are willing to spend, and decide how much paraphanelia you are willing to lug around before choosing to part with your $$$ (It probably helps if you have a load of Canon lenses already though).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?