Canon Eos 300D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jim Townsend, Jul 8, 2004.

  1. I think that's a sound judgement. There are some great digital backs
    for medium format cameras that give astounding results, but they cost
    around $30,000. DSLRs will certainly drive digital technology into more
    hands faster.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 15, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. []
    Any citations? URLs?
    I think that only a subset of people will want more than 5 - 8MP, and what
    degree of noise is permissible is subjective in any case.

    []
    IF you can use the lens on the next geneation of cameras, and IF you don't
    want to change brand. With a point-and-shoot, you can change brands as
    often as you like with little or no cost penalty.

    ... agreed, but those benefits come at a cost which cannot be ignored.
    People will make their choice according to their own needs and resources.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 15, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Go to dpreview.com

    You'll find more vignetting and CA in the smaller cameras.
    I think most people would like clean images at ISO 400, which is a
    common sensitivity for print film. However, many digital point and
    shoots do not do a good job at ISO 400, or even 200.
    You will be able to use the current crop of Canon EF and Nikon AIS
    lenses for some time yet. Obsolescence isn't a worry with those mounts.

    I mean, if you like point and shoots, great. But they don't give the
    best image quality, they don't end up being any cheaper in the end and
    they certainly don't give you the flexibility of dSLRs.
    The cost is subjective. Unless Canon does something crazy go nuts
    technology wise, my 10D will serve me well until a full-frame dSLR is
    available for $1500. The money I have invested in lenses (about the
    cost of the body, thus far) will not be lost, they will still remain in
    my collection for use on my new dSLR. Assuming the 10D will still have
    good resale value at the time of my switch (at least $400-500), I'll
    come out about the same as if I had bought three or four $800 point and
    shoots during that time. The difference is, I'll have enjoyed the lower
    noise and better image quality of the dSLR for the entire time, and I'll
    get to keep my lenses.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 15, 2004
  4. []
    That's too great a generalisation. I was talking about the top end of the
    P&S range, and you will find good and bad examples of SLR lenses as well.
    Noise is up for people to judge for themselves, so we will just have to
    agree to differ here.
    But you are tied into one manufacturer.
    Actually, the tilt-and-swivel viewfinders (LCD or EVF), and swivel body
    designs can result in more flexibility, but in a different way from what
    you mean. OK, you can't put a mirror lens on the P&S but if you are
    taking a macro shot you may be able to view and frame at right-angles to
    the lens axis, and if that shot is a flower at ground level, that may be
    an important advantage.

    As I said before, both have their place and it is up to individual users
    to decide knowing the benefits and drawbacks of each type.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 15, 2004
  5. Jim Townsend

    Mark Weaver Guest

    I think ISO 400 performance in P&S digitals is not nearly as bad as it is
    made out to be -- particularly in comparison to ISO 400 print film (which is
    no bargain). This is especially true if you apply a bit of noise reduction
    after the fact. Here, for example, is an ISO 400 shot from outside my back
    door a minute ago which was then cleaned up with the Helicon noise filter:

    http://www.fototime.com/BFE0FC90215F941/orig.jpg (small)
    http://www.fototime.com/BFE0FC90215F941/orig.jpg (full res)

    As good as ISO 50? No, but it would be quite reasonable even for relatively
    large prints.

    Mark
     
    Mark Weaver, Jul 15, 2004
  6. I get about that noise level using ISO 800 pushed a couple of stops on
    my 10D.

    The noise reduction you're using adds quite a bit of unwanted
    artifacting - noise is a difficult beast to conquer. Best to have less
    at the beginning.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 15, 2004
  7. Jim Townsend

    Mark Weaver Guest

    Of course--but I find I really have to 'pixel-peep' at 100% magnification to
    notice in shots like that one. As it is, I'd much rather be shooting 400
    with my P&S digicam than 400 print film, so I'm not buying the idea that P&S
    digicams can't provide what people were getting with film cameras.

    As for DSLRs -- my film SLR sat on the closet shelf for 10 years while we
    used P&S compacts. It just wasn't worth the hassle to haul the whole kit.
    So, for me, it wouldn't matter if DSLRs could take clean images at IS0 8000,
    let alone 800 -- I have no intention of hauling one around again (unless, of
    course, they shrink it down to the form factor I have with my Powershot
    Pro1).

    Mark
     
    Mark Weaver, Jul 15, 2004
  8. Jim Townsend

    Alfred Molon Guest

    You don't get the same quality at ISO 800 as at ISO 50.

    See this image taken with a DSLR at ISO 800, 1/20, 2.8:
    http://www.vircen.com//pix/DSCF0021.jpg

    (The thread is here: http://tinyurl.com/6kwjj )

    Lots of noise, although the image may be usable.

    By the way, according to data published on dpreview DSLRs have at ISO
    800 the same noise level as compact cameras at ISO 200.
     
    Alfred Molon, Jul 15, 2004
  9. Jim Townsend

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Then most likely your needs differ from mine. I shoot over 99% at ISO
    64, and almost nothing at ISO 200 and 400. You might browse my galleries
    at www.molon.de to see what kind of stuff I shoot.
     
    Alfred Molon, Jul 15, 2004
  10. You'd never be able to shoot that picture at ISO 50, and that's really
    the point.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 15, 2004
  11. You do realize that the Eos 300D weighs only a few more grams with the
    kit lens than the Pro1?
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 15, 2004
  12. That's fine - for you. But don't tell everyone that they don't need
    clean images at higher ISOs and digital P&S cameras are superior to
    dSLRs. Some of us DO need to shoot at higher ISOs.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jul 15, 2004
  13. Jim Townsend

    Mark Weaver Guest

    The problem for me is more size than weight--the 300D is big (even if the
    plastic body is relatively light). And the kit lens covers only 28-84. Add
    a zoom to cover the rest of the 28-200 range and then where are you in terms
    of bulk, weight (and price)? The kit lens is also relatively slow, so you
    give up more than a stop of the speed you gain with the large sensor. But
    better lenses are a lot of $$. And changing lenses is a PITA (and you have
    to worry about dust on the sensor). I want a camera I can carry in a jacket
    pocket or a little belt pouch--and I can do that with the Pro1.

    Mark
     
    Mark Weaver, Jul 16, 2004
  14. Jim Townsend

    G.T. Guest

    I have the hack installed and it doesn't bring that many features of the
    10D to the 300D. Last I checked only 6 of the 17 custom functions work.
    But FEC is the most important of all the features the hack brings so
    I'm happy with it as it stands.

    Greg
     
    G.T., Jul 16, 2004
  15. And childishly believing that Bayers use full color sensors won't make
    your Canon 10D optically sharp.

    Your Canon 10D is uses a strictly monochrome sensor which has to
    interpolate full color from only 6M monochrome sensors.
     
    George Preddy, Jul 17, 2004
  16. Still looks better than your kiddie Sigma.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jul 17, 2004
  17. []
    losing money selling it.

    OK.
    Don't think so, I would guess 20% or less. And I would guess that the
    profit margin is quite high. All these manuafacturers are raking it in!!
    No, a larger sensor means more chance of getting defects from a given
    wafer, and therefore fewer working sensors. It's more than a square law -
    perhaps a fourth power law??

    []
    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 17, 2004
  18. Jim Townsend

    Leonard Guest

    Hm. Assuming that:

    1) The current price of the 300D (in the UK) is realistic and nobody's
    losing money selling it.
    2) 90% of the cost of the 300D is down to the sensor.
    3) Sensor cost scales linearly with area.
    4) The non-sensor parts of the 10D cost more than those of the 300D to
    the same extent that an EOS-30V costs more than an EOS-300V.

    Canon could market a 1.3x "Elan digital" for the current selling price
    of the 10D.

    (Figures: 300D 660UKP, 10D 1150 UKP, 300V 140UKP, 30V 340UKP, hypothetical
    1.3x camera 1165UKP)

    There's obviously a number of holes in these assumptions. I imagine that
    the cost of sensors vs. area is slightly worse than linear, and I've
    ignored any consideration of the relative unit sales volumes of each
    camera ("economy of scale"). Nevertheless I think a more affordable 1.3x
    camera (than the 1D2) is not a flight of fancy.

    Potential scenarios:
    a) 10D replacement will be a "feature tweak" of the current model, but
    will use the cheaper 300D sensor - allowing for better margins or a lower
    price point. The much-anticipated "EOS 3D" will appear with the 1D2
    sensor.

    b) 10D replacement will have the 1D2 sensor and move to a higher price
    point, say 1500UKP initially.

    I think either of these is possible technically, but as ever what happens
    will be down to marketing considerations. I do feel that Canon's lack
    of a serious resonse to Nikon's "DX" lenses indicates that they don't
    plan to stick with the 1.6x format.

    - Len
     
    Leonard, Jul 17, 2004
  19. Jim Townsend

    Skip M Guest

    Whadaya mean, "lack of a serious response to Nikon's 'DX' lenses?" There's
    been any response at all? Besides, of course, letting Sigma produce one?
    ;-)
    I agree, and I hope it's more than wishful thinking. Canon wouldn't want to
    develop a lens, or line of lenses, that would be unnecessary down the line
    as their sensors approach 24x36...I think (hope).
     
    Skip M, Jul 17, 2004
  20. Everyone knows that Bayer sensors do not measure 3 colours at each
    position. They work fine except in unusual cases. By the way, the word
    "optically" means nothing in the above.

    All of the SLR cameras that Canon and Nikon currently sell achieve
    higher resolution (in actual tests and in theory) than all of the SLR
    cameras with Foveon sensors.
    A "strictly monochrome" sensor would not be a Bayer sensor. The 10D
    does interpolate colour from 6M sensors equipped with RGB filters.
    Despite having only 6M sensors total, it achieves better resolution
    *and* better colour accuracy than the 10.7 million sensor Foveon
    cameras.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Jul 17, 2004
    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.