Sony 828 will sell well VS 300D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Hugo Drax, Sep 6, 2003.

  1. Hugo Drax

    Hugo Drax Guest

    People will see 8mp and 6.3mp and will assume 8mp is better than the larger
    6.3mp sensor

    --
    my pictures
    www.pbase.com/hugodrax
     
    Hugo Drax, Sep 6, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hugo Drax

    JK Guest

    It would be interesting if a price war erupted between these two models.
    To make the comparison more reasonable though, one would have to
    calculate the cost for the 300D with an f2.8 zoom lens. I am very
    disappointed that Canon is bundling the 300D with a slow zoom lens.
    Of course the 300D does give you the opportunity to change lenses,
    although many lenses for it are quite expensive. I don't like the fact
    that Canon is bundling it with that slow zoom, as many dealers might
    not want to sell the camera without that zoom?

    Hugo Drax wrote:

    > People will see 8mp and 6.3mp and will assume 8mp is better than the larger
    > 6.3mp sensor
    >
    > --
    > my pictures
    > www.pbase.com/hugodrax
     
    JK, Sep 6, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Hugo Drax

    Ken Burns Guest

    The 300D is also available without the lens, IOW body only.

    KB



    "JK" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > It would be interesting if a price war erupted between these two models.
    > To make the comparison more reasonable though, one would have to
    > calculate the cost for the 300D with an f2.8 zoom lens. I am very
    > disappointed that Canon is bundling the 300D with a slow zoom lens.
    > Of course the 300D does give you the opportunity to change lenses,
    > although many lenses for it are quite expensive. I don't like the fact
    > that Canon is bundling it with that slow zoom, as many dealers might
    > not want to sell the camera without that zoom?
    >
    > Hugo Drax wrote:
    >
    > > People will see 8mp and 6.3mp and will assume 8mp is better than the

    larger
    > > 6.3mp sensor
    > >
    > > --
    > > my pictures
    > > www.pbase.com/hugodrax

    >
     
    Ken Burns, Sep 6, 2003
    #3
  4. Hugo Drax

    gilbert Guest

    For the folks in this group at least, it's apples and oranges, IMHO. Two
    different beasts, really appealing to different factions. Sure, the bottom
    line is your photo, but I believe that for most in this group, half the fun
    (an underestimate???) is getting to that point. If photo quality is roughly
    comparible, then it's going to be the "bells & whistles" of the Sony vs. the
    interchangable lenses of the Canon. For less educated consumers, it's going
    to be the sales pitch at either Circuit City or BH Photo. The easy out for
    the Circuit City crowd will be the Sony-- the BH crowd will likely push the
    Canon because of the chance of selling different lenses down the line.


    "Hugo Drax" <> wrote in message
    news:bjcjv6$hlsrs$-berlin.de...
    > People will see 8mp and 6.3mp and will assume 8mp is better than the

    larger
    > 6.3mp sensor
    >
    > --
    > my pictures
    > www.pbase.com/hugodrax
    >
    >
     
    gilbert, Sep 6, 2003
    #4
  5. Hugo Drax

    JIM Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:bjd15l$ppu$...
    > Sure, the 17-40/4.0 is a lot better, but it's only 1 stop faster at the

    long
    > end, and quite a bit shorter (55 is a good portrait lens length, but 40
    > isn't). And the 17-40 costs as much as the 300D.
    >
    > The 16-35/2.8 is only a tad heavier than the 17-40, but it costs twice

    what
    > the 300D does.
    >
    > I'd guess that even someone who owns one or both of the above lenses would
    > want the freebie 18-55 zoom, since it's much lighter and covers a lot of
    > what most people need most of the time.


    Not sure there is a tolerable difference in the two; i.e., the 55x1.6=86
    while the 40x1.6=64. Also depends on the type of portrait you are referring
    to - many think a (35mm equiv.) 50mm lens is better for full length port.
    v/s the 80mm; therefore, the 64mm(35mm equiv.) 40 on the 300 would fit
    fairly nicely between the two;) If doing strictly head and head/shoulder
    shots, then something closer to the 100mm (35mm equiv.) mark would be
    better?

    Shoot'em up, don't forget to multiply, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the rest
    will love you for it!!

    Jim
     
    JIM, Sep 6, 2003
    #5
  6. "Hugo Drax" <> writes:

    > People will see 8mp and 6.3mp and will assume 8mp is better than the larger
    > 6.3mp sensor


    It can be useful to separate people who think cameras can be reduced to 2
    numbers (number of megapixels and amount of zoom) from those who care about
    noise :) It has been amusing watching people go for the 5 megapixel cameras
    because 5 megapixels is obviously better than 4 or 3, and then seeing the
    complaints about noise in all of them.

    That being said, there are pluses and minuses to both the 828 (all in one
    package, fast lens, lighter weight) and the 300D (less noise, possibility of
    expanding the camera later via new lenses). I do suspect that the 828 is going
    to be noiser at high ISO levels than the 717 was.

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
     
    Michael Meissner, Sep 6, 2003
    #6
  7. JK <> wrote in news::

    > It would be interesting if a price war erupted between these two
    > models. To make the comparison more reasonable though, one would have
    > to calculate the cost for the 300D with an f2.8 zoom lens. I am very
    > disappointed that Canon is bundling the 300D with a slow zoom lens.
    > Of course the 300D does give you the opportunity to change lenses,
    > although many lenses for it are quite expensive. I don't like the fact
    > that Canon is bundling it with that slow zoom, as many dealers might
    > not want to sell the camera without that zoom?


    It's a tough decision for us. Here are the issues I'm considering:

    Pro 828:
    Back-panel LCD for framing/focusing
    MPEG Movie modes
    NightFraming (and Nightshot)
    Great built-in lens
    8 megapixels

    Pro 300D:
    Bigger sensor
    Interchangable lenses

    To be honest, I'd been considering a 10D vs 828 comparison; I wish the
    new EF-S 18-55 would fit the 10D.

    --
    Albert Nurick www.TheDeliciousLife.com
    A guide to the good life
    www.nurick.com in Houston, Texas
     
    Albert Nurick, Sep 6, 2003
    #7
  8. Hugo Drax

    Godfrey Guest

    > To be honest, I'd been considering a 10D vs 828 comparison; I wish the
    > new EF-S 18-55 would fit the 10D.


    I'm getting so sick of hearing about the 300D and the 300D vs F828 debate
    that I think I'm just going to buy both an F828 and a 10D. Both present me
    with capability that is not available in the F717 and 300D, I want both.

    Lessee, I'll also need the 17-40/4L or 16-35/2.8L too... by the time my bank
    account recovers from buying the lens and 10D kit, the F828 will be
    available.

    Yeah, it's a lot of money and probably a stupid solution, but that way I'll
    just ignore all these threads. ;-)

    Godfrey
     
    Godfrey, Sep 7, 2003
    #8
  9. Hugo Drax

    Godfrey Guest

    On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 18:44:55 -0700, Michael Meissner wrote
    (in message <-meissners.org>):

    > Umm, are you sure you don't want the 12 pound, 18 inch "Telephoto EF 600mm
    > f/4.0L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens" ($7,200)? Or maybe the 12
    > pound, 14 inch "Telephoto EF 400mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus
    > Lens" ($6,500)?
    >


    They are good lenses but I can rent them when I need to.

    > By that time you will probably convince yourself that you really need a 1Ds
    > for all of those extra pixels and no crop factor :)


    Not at all. I've used the 1Ds and prefer the 10D.. My lens kit is ready for
    an APS sized format, not a 35mm format.

    Godfrey
     
    Godfrey, Sep 8, 2003
    #9
  10. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message news:<bjd15l$ppu$>...

    > But the lens is practically free (cheaper than any usefull CF card), and it
    > appears to be amazingly good, perhaps the best cheap zoom ever made.


    Okay, as I read it the whole point about the EF-S mount is to reduce
    the distance to sensor which allows for cheaper wide angle lenses.

    Therefore I'd say, the 100 USD 18-55 lens is not to be compared to
    other regular EF lenses at or around 100 USD. Instead, the 18-55
    should probably of the quality of a lower end consumer lens at 200 USD
    because it is cheaper to make the 18-55.

    Anyway. There is no doubt the 17-40 is a much better lens, but the
    18-55 is lightweight, cheap and tempting to just leave on your camera
    instead of a body cap. Makes allright pictures, especially if you
    print them 4*5.
     
    Bernhard Mayer, Sep 8, 2003
    #10
  11. "Bernhard Mayer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message

    news:<bjd15l$ppu$>...
    >
    > > But the lens is practically free (cheaper than any usefull CF card), and

    it
    > > appears to be amazingly good, perhaps the best cheap zoom ever made.

    >
    > Okay, as I read it the whole point about the EF-S mount is to reduce
    > the distance to sensor which allows for cheaper wide angle lenses.
    >
    > Therefore I'd say, the 100 USD 18-55 lens is not to be compared to
    > other regular EF lenses at or around 100 USD.


    It shouldn't be compared to anything. You should look at it for what it is:
    a lens that will provide very good images from f/8 to f/16 anywhere in it's
    zoom range. (And maybe at f/5.6 at the wide end.) Look at the test chart
    images at:

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page16.asp

    It's a disaster wide open, but then so is just about every lens that's ever
    been made.

    Most of the shots in the dpreview 300D gallery were taken with this lens,
    and it performed very well.

    > Anyway. There is no doubt the 17-40 is a much better lens,


    The 17-40 is also a much more expensive lens, a much heavier lens, and a
    lens that doesn't quite reach to the short portrait length; there's a big
    difference between 65 and 85mm.

    Even worse, if you're fussy about sharpness, I'd guess the 17-40 only gives
    you one f stop over the 18-55, i.e. I'd expect it to be a tad soft wide open
    and noticeably better at f/5.6. If you need speed for indoor shots, the
    Stigma 24/1.8 would be a better purchase.

    > but the
    > 18-55 is lightweight, cheap and tempting to just leave on your camera
    > instead of a body cap. Makes allright pictures, especially if you
    > print them 4*5.


    Again, the dpreview gallery shots with the lens are fine and would look
    great at A4.

    One should never kick a gift horse in the mouth, and a nearly free 18-55mm
    zoom that provides reasonable sharpness when stopped looks like a gift horse
    to me.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 8, 2003
    #11
  12. Hugo Drax

    Guest

    In message <-meissners.org>,
    Michael Meissner <> wrote:

    >By that time you will probably convince yourself that you really need a 1Ds for
    >all of those extra pixels and no crop factor :)


    Maybe, but if you're after a subject smaller than the angle of view in a
    300/10D with a given lens, they will resolve the subject slightly better
    than a 1Ds.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Sep 10, 2003
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lars L. Christensen

    G.SHDSL 828-to-828

    Lars L. Christensen, Dec 16, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,339
    Igor MamuziƦ
    Dec 17, 2004
  2. joe.harman

    Sony 828 and Sony Flash 32X?...

    joe.harman, Jan 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    394
    Seymore
    Jan 4, 2004
  3. Hugo Drax

    828 is a Soccer Mom Camera(tm), It will Sell out.

    Hugo Drax, Jan 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    464
    David J Taylor
    Jan 11, 2004
  4. Hmmmmmmm
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    713
    Vincent Formosa
    Sep 28, 2004
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    Achiever 828 flash for 300D - No good

    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    3,020
    Siddhartha Jain
    Nov 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page