Canon 10D vs 300D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by leo, Jan 8, 2004.

  1. leo

    leo Guest

    I don't have much photography experience but do want to get away from point
    and shoot level. I am now using Olympus C3000Z that I cherish. I can capture
    nice interior architectural pictures using manual control (adjusting shutter
    speed and aperture). I am about to give it away so I am shopping for a new
    one. I think an SLR which allow me to use a very long zoom lens might
    eventually come into good advantage. I have a small Canon ELF camera so
    portability is not too much an issue. I read a photo gears review site that
    the Canon Rebel has limited manual control and of course that the metal case
    in the 10D is much more durable and attractive. This makes the 10D a
    desirable one to get. Now, the question is whether the $500 price difference
    is worthy for my need as a newbie. Also, would the S type lens used in the
    300D be dominating in the future digital cameras?
     
    leo, Jan 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. leo

    Ken Alverson Guest

    While the 10D's metal case is probably won't crack if you drop it, a hit hard
    enough to crack the DRebel's plastic case is probably hard enough to damage
    something more important than the case inside the 10D. I have trouble
    believing the DRebel won't be durable enough. Attractiveness is, of course, a
    personal opinion.

    As to the limited control, the DRebel does have most of the control available
    on the 10D, though with one less control knob, so it's slightly less
    convenient if you're used to the dual control knobs. You do lose flash
    exposure compensation and the ability to select Single Shot Focus or
    Continuous Focus in the creative zone (my camera is in AI Focus 99% of the
    time, anyway). You said yourself you're a newbie, I doubt you'll miss those
    features, or by the time you do, you'll be lusting after the 11D or the DRebel
    II or whatever comes out in the meantime.

    For what it's worth, I have the 10D, and I love it, but I had outgrown my
    Rebel film camera after several years. If the DRebel had been available when
    I got the 10D, though, the $500 price difference would have been very
    tempting.

    Ken
     
    Ken Alverson, Jan 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. leo

    Jan Wagner Guest

    You could also look at a used/refurbished Fuji FinePix S1 Pro or Canon
    D60 - "semipro" dSLRs that offer way more control than the 300D and have
    a rugged encasing (well the lens is going to break first anyway...), yet
    now at about the same price. The telephoto comes extra, of course.
    There's also Sigmas SD9 that could do if you make only house interior
    pics, less for holiday pics.

    - jw
     
    Jan Wagner, Jan 8, 2004
    #3
  4. It sounds like 300D will meet your needs, but Canon may introduce a new DSLR
    between the 300D and 10D at DIMA/PMA shows in mid-February. IF this occurs, the
    price on the 300D may drop. There's always a new digicam on the horizon. Canon
    itself has said it will introduce 20 digicam models in 2004.
     
    John P. McCormack, Jan 8, 2004
    #4
  5. leo

    leo Guest

    I have learned quite a bit after reading the sphoto site. The entry level
    digital SLRs only equip with sub-35mm sensors. This makes spending a lot
    more for the 10D an unwise decision. I should wait for D1 equivalent becomes
    affordable before sinking in more dough. I am leaning toward to Canon dRebel
    kit but I would like to know the advantage of dRebel over high end P&S.
     
    leo, Jan 9, 2004
    #5
  6. leo

    Mark M Guest

    Advantages over higher end P & S?
    Here are some biggies:

    -Available lenses...(extreme flexibility, from wide to super-telephoto)
    -Flash units rather than pop-gun built-ins...
    -Total control of camera function (or course!--it's a true SLR)...
    -Less noise...(larger pixels)...
    -Smoothest images out there (CMOS and processor factors)...
    -Shutter lag is zero (not really, but compared with P&S--practically)...
    -Lens, flash, etc. accessories you invest in now will be transfered to
    future Canon DSLR.
    -Image Stabilization lenses from Canon (worth every penny if you can afford
    them--and you likely can...they start at less than $400)...
     
    Mark M, Jan 9, 2004
    #6
  7. leo

    Dave Oddie Guest

    I would take issue with these two points. You get more total control with a
    Minolta A1 than you do with a 300d and even the 10D is less flexible when in
    Adobe RGB colour space than the A1.

    I would not say you get "exteme" flexibilty as regards lenses with these dSLR
    cameras. You do with their film equivalents that are full frame but the
    multiplier factor of the sensor seriously limits lens flexibility with thse two
    dSLR's as regards lenses.

    There is just nothing available for a 10D that gives you a standard zoom of
    24-85mm or 28-105mm or a 28-200mm "travel" type lens. They just don't exist
    because if they did they would have to be 15mm-53mm, 17mm-65mm and 17mm-125mm.

    The 300D can use the 18-55mm EF-S lens which is 29mm-88mm but that lens only
    fits the 300D.

    For wide angle you are limited to the Sigam 12-24mm (which gives you
    19mm-40mm), the Sigma 15mm-30mm (24mm-48mm) or various lenses such as 14mm
    primes.

    Basicallyyou have to use lenses 17mm or less in focal length to get wide angle
    (17mm is roughly the same as 28mm) so the choice is restricted to very few
    lenses many of which are physically huge (Sigma 15-30) or just downright
    expensive (Canon 14mm) - much more than what you would pay for a lens to give
    you the same coverage on 35mm.

    So I would say there is some flexibility there - if you are prepared to pay for
    it and to carry huge lenses like the Sigma around.

    You can of course compromise and go for someting like the 17-40 Canon but that
    is what is it - a compromise compared to having the choice of standard zooms
    mentioned above.

    Dave
     
    Dave Oddie, Jan 9, 2004
    #7
  8. leo

    Chris Brown Guest

    Colourspace settings, along with sharpness, contrast, etc. are just window
    dressing features which only only affect JPEGs anyway. The features that
    actually control the image you get, aperture, shutter speed, flash/ambient
    balance, which curtain the flash syncs to, etc. can be controled to a much
    greater extent with a 10D than pretty much any zoom compact, AIUI.
    Not terribly interested in zooms myself. Personally, I find the lack of any
    f/1.x lenses on zoom compacts, along with the lack of any useful DoF control
    to be a far more serious factor in "limiting lens flexibility". YMMV.
    The Canon 15mm EF fisheye is neither huge nor expensive. It's also pretty
    good optically, and gives a "defished" field of view equivalent to a 19mm
    lens on a 35mm camera.

    Sigma do an 8mm fisheye lens in an EOS mount, giving you a 180 degree field
    of view, if you really want the ultimate in wide-angle.
     
    Chris Brown, Jan 9, 2004
    #8
  9. Color space is a big difference if you want accurate color. Also the A1 uses
    14 bit color depth compared 12 on the Canon's and Nikon's result in 4 times
    the color range in a larger color space. sRGB is an old standard from
    Microsoft with a much smaller smaller space gamut than that of even low cost
    inkjet printers.

    Sheldon Strauss
     
    Sheldon Strauss, Jan 9, 2004
    #9
  10. 4 times or 4 * 4 * 4 times?

    14-bits rather than 12-bits is only of use if the imformation off the CCD
    can be read that accurately....

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 9, 2004
    #10
  11. leo

    Chris Brown Guest

    [post reformatted to make sense]

    Let's try again:

    The colourspace setting on the 10D only has an effect on JPEGs. Shoot RAW
    and it, along with the settings for sharpness, contrast and saturation, have
    no effect on the image data recorded. When you convert from the RAW to a
    working format, you can chose whichever colourspace you prefer.

    If you are shooting raw, the colourspace setting is irrelevant and can be
    ignored. If you are shooting JPEGs, then getting worked up about the
    differences between sRGB and AdobeRGB when you're throwing away large
    amounts of the captured information anyway seems a little peverse.
     
    Chris Brown, Jan 9, 2004
    #11
  12. leo

    SD Guest

    Search this group for this same discussion done many times over esp. the
    war between Minolta A1 and D Rebel and decide for yourself..
     
    SD, Jan 9, 2004
    #12
  13. in binary the two extra bits = 4 i.e 16384 vs 4096 (2^14 vs 2^12)

    Sheldon
     
    Sheldon Strauss, Jan 9, 2004
    #13
  14. leo

    Mark M Guest

    That's irrelevant, since he's deciding between the Canon DSLR and a high end
    point-and-shoot.
    What's this about Minolta??
    Again...we're comparing with point and shoots.
    The difference in flexibility is most certain an extreme difference.
    And what is available for the point-and-shoot??
    (which--again--was his query)
     
    Mark M, Jan 10, 2004
    #14
  15. leo

    Mark M Guest

    Do you not understand that this ONLY relates to the shooter if they ignore
    RAW mode?
    RAW files are completely unaffected by what color space the camera is
    capable of, because there IS no color space assigned at all until the RAW
    file is converted in Photoshop (or whatever conversion program is
    used)...which is where color space is determined as the original space.
     
    Mark M, Jan 10, 2004
    #15
  16. in binary the two extra bits = 4 i.e 16384 vs 4096 (2^14 vs 2^12)
    Yes, but there are two extra bits for each of R, G and B, therefore the
    colour space is expanded by 4 * 4 * 4 times.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 10, 2004
    #16
  17. The 5050 is an f/1.8 zoom. I'd take it over a 300D/10D/D60 on general image
    quality, and by a large margin on build quality over a 300D. The
    6MP-interpolated Canon's are just too blurry.
    No need, the Sigma 15-30EX is truly superb non-fish lens.
    Why not pick a Canon 8mm lens?
     
    George Preddy, Jan 10, 2004
    #17
  18. leo

    JPS Guest

    In message <3vRLb.11567$E%>,
    A small sensor is not likely to be able to supply anything that would be
    of advantage. Noise is probably present in at least the 4 least
    significant bits, anyway, if not more.

    And, perhaps there is no real amplification for higher ISOs, and they
    just shift the results for scaling purposes.
    --
     
    JPS, Jan 10, 2004
    #18
  19. leo

    JPS Guest

    In message <btorud$94t$>,
    You are an idiot. The 5050 has an Anti-aliasing filter too, I'm sure.
    If the pics are sharper "out of the camera", then that is because they
    have been sharpened by firmware. You can sharpen Canon DSLR images,
    too.
    --
     
    JPS, Jan 10, 2004
    #19
  20. A small sensor is not likely to be able to supply anything that would be
    ... oh yes, I made that point before. But the orginal adderation that two
    mode bits in each of R G & B only gives 4 times the potential colour space
    was waht I was correcting.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 10, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.