«

Philip wrote:

> I am looking for a new high end digital camera. I was looking at the Sony
> F828 but someone told me to pay that little bit extra & go for the Eos300D
> SLR. Is there a big difference between these apart from one being SLR &
> which would i really be better off buying as i can't help feeling that i
> will end up getting the wrong one so all posotive advice would be welcome
> please.

In a nutshell.. The main benefits of the 300D are:

Faster focus (less shutter lag)

FAR less noise at high ISO settings ISO 800 on the 300D will
yeild a cleaner picture than ISO 200 on the F828

The ability to change lenses allowing you to choose wider
angles or longer focal lengths than the F828.


The F828 has some advantages:

The F828 is an 8 Megapixel camera rather than 6. It also has a
4:3 aspect rather than the 3:2 of the D-Rebelratio. Because of
this, the F828 will give you a *lot* more DPI when printing
on 10 X 8 paper.

Cost... Buying lenses isn't cheap... A versatile set of
quality lenses can easily cost a few thousand dollars.. More
than the camera itself.

I am looking for a new high end digital camera. I was looking at the Sony
F828 but someone told me to pay that little bit extra & go for the Eos300D
SLR. Is there a big difference between these apart from one being SLR &
which would i really be better off buying as i can't help feeling that i
will end up getting the wrong one so all posotive advice would be welcome
please.

Thanks

Phil.

"Philip" <> wrote in message
news:7%gHc.465$...
> I am looking for a new high end digital camera. I was looking at the Sony
> F828 but someone told me to pay that little bit extra & go for the Eos300D
> SLR. Is there a big difference between these apart from one being SLR &
> which would i really be better off buying as i can't help feeling that i
> will end up getting the wrong one so all posotive advice would be welcome
> please.

Go to a camera store and handle both of them. The feel is very important as
is the user interface. Many stores will let you take shots inside. You can
download the 300D user's manual from Canon's site and the same could be so
for Sony.

A SLR is more camera and might be in excess of what you need or want. The
big SLR advantage is flexibility with lenses and other accessories. But,
you could wind up spending more than you counted on as SLRs tempt owners to
buy additional lenses and other accessories. Response time and lower noise
are also notable factors.

I have a 300D and would recommend that you also look at the D70 if you
decide on the SLR path. I like my 300D very much, by the way.

"Philip" <> wrote in message
news:7%gHc.465$...
> I am looking for a new high end digital camera. I was looking at the Sony
> F828 but someone told me to pay that little bit extra & go for the Eos300D
> SLR. Is there a big difference between these apart from one being SLR &
> which would i really be better off buying as i can't help feeling that i
> will end up getting the wrong one so all posotive advice would be welcome
> please.


Actually, the price of the two is right about the same, so you wouldn't be
paying extra. It depends on what you're looking for from the camera. The
Canon is more of a CAMERA camera, that just happens to be digital. The Sony
is a digital machine from the word go. It has all the bells and whistles
associated with digicams, including the ability to record digital movies
with sound, and an infrared filter to make recordings and pictures at night.
It also has a great lens.
What the Canon has is versatility and a much better sensor. Though the Sony
has 8MP that is squeezed onto a smaller chip, which can create problems with
purple fringing and digital noise. The Canon's sensor will give you MUCH
less digital noise, clearer pictures in general and better colors. It also
has the ability to accept a wide variety of lenses, from wide angle fish
eyes to 500mm telephotos. Now, you will pay extra for these lenses, but you
don't have to buy them all at once.
The DRebel is more for a photography hobbyist, while the Sony is a high end
consumer camera when all is said and done. If you are "into" photography,
get the Canon. If you just want to take some cool pictures on your
vacation, get the Sony.

"Rick" <> wrote in message
news:gRiHc.21105$ m...
[]
> The DRebel is more for a photography hobbyist, while the Sony is a high
end
> consumer camera when all is said and done. If you are "into"
photography,
> get the Canon. If you just want to take some cool pictures on your
> vacation, get the Sony.

I don't see it quite like that. I bought Nikon Coolpix (first a 900, then
990 and now a 5700) because I am serious about photography and want full
manual control, but I no longer wish to cart round a heavy bagful of
lenses, flashguns etc. The much lower cost comes as a welcome bonus. I
have been delighted with the 5700 (having come from a film SLR with
interchangeable lens background).

Unless low-noise at high ISO is essential, or extreme lenses are required,
I see the DSLR more as a way that manufacturers can get someone just
starting into buying their lenses, i.e. tying you into a brand. It's an
expensive route.

A good point-and-shoot is just as suitable for the "photographic
hobbyist", IMHO, providing it does not get in the way of picture making.
It's the photographer who makes the picture, not the camera!

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" <david->
wrote:
> "Rick" <> wrote in message

> > The DRebel is more for a photography hobbyist, while the Sony is a high
> end
> > consumer camera when all is said and done. If you are "into"
> photography,
> > get the Canon. If you just want to take some cool pictures on your
> > vacation, get the Sony.
>
> I don't see it quite like that. I bought Nikon Coolpix (first a 900, then
> 990 and now a 5700) because I am serious about photography and want full
> manual control, but I no longer wish to cart round a heavy bagful of
> lenses, flashguns etc. The much lower cost comes as a welcome bonus. I
> have been delighted with the 5700 (having come from a film SLR with
> interchangeable lens background).
>
> Unless low-noise at high ISO is essential, or extreme lenses are required,
> I see the DSLR more as a way that manufacturers can get someone just
> starting into buying their lenses, i.e. tying you into a brand. It's an
> expensive route.

You've got it ass backwards: the consumer cameras are sleazy tricks the mfrs
are putting over on us to force us to buy a new expensive complex zoom lens
every time they update the sensor.

With the dSLRs, about the time you've worn out the shutter and need a new
body anyway, they'll have a new sensor out.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
news:cclilv$u0h$...
[]
> You've got it ass backwards: the consumer cameras are sleazy tricks the
mfrs
> are putting over on us to force us to buy a new expensive complex zoom
lens
> every time they update the sensor.
>
> With the dSLRs, about the time you've worn out the shutter and need a
new
> body anyway, they'll have a new sensor out.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

I *think* I detect humour there?

The last time I updated my camera was effectively for a new lens - 35 -
280mm to replace 38 - 114mm, it was chance that a 5MP sensor came with it
instead of my existing 3.3MP one! For my purposes now, the 5MP sensor may
well be enough, although if one came out in a significantly larger format,
but keeping the camera size and weight the same I might be tempted.

Actually, right now we are looking for a stabilised telephoto P&S - which
will be say 420mm f/4.5 or 350mm f/2.8 (top of the head specs). Cost -
about $500. What would be the cost of the equivalent DSLR IS lens?

Cheers,
David

Get the 300D, The image quality with the Sony is woeful... If someone gave
me a Sony 828 I would give it back.


"Philip" <> wrote in message
news:7%gHc.465$...
> I am looking for a new high end digital camera. I was looking at the Sony
> F828 but someone told me to pay that little bit extra & go for the Eos300D
> SLR. Is there a big difference between these apart from one being SLR &
> which would i really be better off buying as i can't help feeling that i
> will end up getting the wrong one so all posotive advice would be welcome
> please.
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil.
>
>

"David J Taylor" <david->
wrote in message news:npsHc.1781$...
> "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
> news:cclilv$u0h$...
> []
> > You've got it ass backwards: the consumer cameras are sleazy tricks the
> mfrs
> > are putting over on us to force us to buy a new expensive complex zoom
> lens
> > every time they update the sensor.
> >
> > With the dSLRs, about the time you've worn out the shutter and need a
> new
> > body anyway, they'll have a new sensor out.
> >
> > David J. Littleboy
> > Tokyo, Japan
>
> I *think* I detect humour there?
>
> The last time I updated my camera was effectively for a new lens - 35 -
> 280mm to replace 38 - 114mm, it was chance that a 5MP sensor came with it
> instead of my existing 3.3MP one! For my purposes now, the 5MP sensor may
> well be enough, although if one came out in a significantly larger format,
> but keeping the camera size and weight the same I might be tempted.
>
> Actually, right now we are looking for a stabilised telephoto P&S - which
> will be say 420mm f/4.5 or 350mm f/2.8 (top of the head specs). Cost -
> about $500. What would be the cost of the equivalent DSLR IS lens?
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
Ahem, about $2500... (Canon 28-300 f3.5-5.6L IS) And it's probably slower
than the p&s, too...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"David J Taylor" <david->
wrote in message news:TLrHc.1766$...
> "Rick" <> wrote in message
> news:gRiHc.21105$ m...
> []
> > The DRebel is more for a photography hobbyist, while the Sony is a high
> end
> > consumer camera when all is said and done. If you are "into"
> photography,
> > get the Canon. If you just want to take some cool pictures on your
> > vacation, get the Sony.
>
> I don't see it quite like that.

See it however you want, I don't care. Give your own opinion and don't
worry about mine.