Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography

I am very new to this area of photography and so my questions may be
basic in nature. These are the questions I have:

1) This question pertains to photo quality ONLY. All the features and
what have yous are obviously going to vary camera to camera, but I'm
only concerned with the photo quality. Granted this, digital camera
technology advances quickly everyday and there are mega dollar bodies
out there. What seperates this body from any that are out there now
and to come in future granted the same glass (lens) is on each body? In
other words, is there a limitation to this camera's body that would
make someone "upgrade" now or ever?...again, these questions only
having to do with a camera's body and it's capabilities to produce a
photograph.

2) Can any non-dslr camera compete with a dslr in image quality?
Again, another image quality question since I'm only interested in the
quality of the photo.

3) I have been recently made aware that older lenses can mount on the
300D. Is it worth using an older (but good) lens Vs. the new ones made
specifically for the 300D? Take for example, something older that
Canon produced vs. one of their L series lenses. The reason I ask this
is because I wonder if the reason to get the newer lenses may have more
to do with the weight vs. the older ones or maybe also less noise,
smoother functioning, etc. Again, only interested in photo quality and
trying to figure out if the older lenses can compete with the newer
ones.

4) Lastly, is the "hack/Wasia" firmware a good "upgrade" or is this
something debatable based on personal use and preference?


Thank you for your help!!!
Mike

 

Progressiveabsolution wrote:
[]

Mike, that's another of those "how long is a piece of string?" questions.
If you have a good non-DSLR, and you use it at its minimum sensitivity
setting, sensible lens settings etc. you might be hard pressed to tell the
difference on an A4 print (for example).

You could equally contrive photographic situations which suited one camera
or the other far better, and get a different answer. At higher ISO
settings DSLRs win, but with a size, weight, bulk and cost penalty.

If quality is your prime concern, some would say to forget 35mm. Where
are /you/ going to draw the line?

David

 

The Epson RD-1, certainly, especially given that it can use rangefinder
lenses, which are often optically very good indeed.

Apart from that, probably not.

 

At the very minimum, a camera is simply a box that holds a lens in front
of a piece of film... or to modernize the definition, some other
image-recording substance. After that, the main difference from one
camera to the next essentially boils down to bells and whistles.

With digital though, you add to the mix, the quality of the
light-recording mechanism (generally CCD or CMOS sensor).

Generally, none of these items can be "upgraded", whether you're talking
film or digital. Only a very few high-end cameras will let you change
out the sensor (some will let you select between film and digital backs
on the same camera). Hardware-wise, what you buy is what you're stuck
with forever, unless you're really good with a magnifying glass and very
small tools.

Digitals do also have the advent of firmware, the semi-hardcoded
software that runs things, and that can often be upgraded to fix
problems and add/enable/change some functionality, but again, those are
typically bells and whistles, and basic functions and image quality are
still mainly limited by the design of the hardware.

Short answer then: there is and probably never will be any way to
"upgrade" any camera body to improve image quality (the exception being,
again, high-end systems with interchangeable backs). Once you have a
body, the only thing that will affect image quality will be the quality
of the glass you put in front of it. (And just to nip the inevitable
arguments in the bud, I'm not talking about things affected by camera
shake, poor focus, bad exposure, etc; I'm keeping with the OP's concern
of "best possible" quality and "all else being equal".)

The two main things that affect quality in a digital camera are the
design and construction of the lens, and the capabilities of the sensor.
It certainly is possible to build a non-dSLR (aka ZLR) digital with
equivalent optics and sensor to those in an SLR, but the ZLR would end
up being pretty much the same size, weight and cost as the SLR, without
the advantage of being able to swap out the lens, which is not a very
good selling point. ZLRs tend to use smaller sensors, which allows them
to use smaller lenses, making them lighter, more compact, and in the end
cheaper, at the expense of maximum available quality.

Whether the difference in quality is significant or noticeable to you is
entirely subjective, of course.

Any Canon EF-mount lenses (ie. those designed for EOS-series cameras,
including the L-series glass) will work on the 300D, or any other
current Canon dSLRs. Those with the old FD-mount from the Canon
manual-focus cameras won't work, but the EOS has been around for a good,
oh, 15-20 years now, and has a pretty substantial lineup on its own. If
you have some old FD lenses that you're really adamant about using,
there are adapters available that will let them work, with reduced
functionality (obviously, no AF), but I wouldn't let this particular
"limitation" be a concern.

It enables several functions that the camera has in common with the 10D,
but that are disabled in the software; again, whether this are useful to
you or not is subjective. None of them directly affect image quality.
I installed it on my 300D within a week of buying it and have seen no
ill effects, and I've not heard of anyone else having any problems with
it either. Personally, I'd recommend installing it.

 

3) I have been recently made aware that older lenses can mount on the

I know you have specifically mentioned old Canon lenses are compatible. I'd
just like to add that some aftermarket lenses are not compatible. I have a
Sigma 28 -70 lens that I used to use with my Canon 100 EOS however it just
gives ERR 99 on my new 300D. I have since spoke to Sigma and they say
certain lenses can be chipped to work with a DSLR but unfortunately not
mine.

Steven.

 

"You could equally contrive photographic situations which suited one
camera
or the other far better, and get a different answer."


Hi David. What situations would both be equal at and in what
situations would one excel over the other? I'm trying to get a clear
idea for my own personal use with photography to make the decision one
way or the other. I like taking photos of
flowers/nature/landscapes/night photography if that is possible with
P&S cameras, etc. For example, MOST of my photos with my Olympus C4000
were of the sunset. I don't do any action photography. Thanks for
your comments/help!

 

Matt Ion wrote:

Agreed, I've had the hack running for around a year without problems. If
I had to be given another 300D fresh out the box, the hack upgrade
would be one of the first things I'd do. It's quick amd easy.. say no
more

TJ

 

For example, the swivel LCD finder on many cameras allow you to place the
camera at ground level and makes flower photography much easier - you
don't need to have your eye also at ground level. DSLRs can't have such a
swivel finder (but they may offer an angle attachment for the eyepiece).
The Nikon Coolpix range have a reputation as the best non-DSLRs for macro
photography.

Action and perhaps low-light level candids might suit the DSLR.

With night photography, the higher sensitivity of the DSLR might help, but
with both cameras you can use long exposures on a tripod (and dark-frame
subtraction to remove fixed-pattern sensor noise).

DSLRs and heavier and bulkier - maybe that matters to you.

Cheers,
David

 

1) This question pertains to photo quality ONLY. [...] In

No obvious limitation according to Moore's law that states "all Si
chips will go better and better, saecula saeculorum, amen"...

A external limitation could then be that the aforementioned body could
at some moment fulfill your needs, so that you wouldn't benefit of any
more quality progress (btw, sorry for my English if that's not
grammatically correct).
For MY particular needs (I can't afford printing >A3 sorry 11x17",
neither expensive killing "L" lenses) I feel I've reached that point
with my rebel/300d.
Hard to answer for you anyway, you'd better give it a try!

Except for the (somewhat peculiar) Epson RD1, the much smaller size of
the sensor in a typical compact camera produce much more noise, and
that makes a very visible difference at high ISO settings, and a
just-a-bit-more-than-tiny one at ordinary 100ISO, (speaking of a A4
unprocessed print and according to MY taste - I really don't like
noise).
Anyway there are good noise reduction software on the market but we
might go slightly off-topic?

What's your criteria for being old?

You can use any canon EF lens on the 300d, with the 1.6x focal length
magnification (a lens with "50mm" written on it will give you the field
of view of a 80mm, but will keep the depth of field of the 50mm).
I've also heard of a few problems with 3rd-party lenses (but not many).

Speaking of the manual FD lenses, no they won't work, but I've heard of
an adaptator existing somewhere on Earth, although being cumbersome and
not really practical (???or was it a 42mm adaptor???).

Once again, hard to tell it for you if YOU need the additional
features.

The only caveats are
- a slight limitation in language choice (I've understood that if it's
not English you will miss the "mirror lock up delay" item),
- and a possible void of warranty (BUT there is at least 1 reported
case of someone sending his/her 300d to canon with the hack installed,
that has been accepted in warranty with no complaints).

Speaking of image quality, the mirror lock up can help it if you're a
resolution junkie (less shaking blur).

It's up to you!

With many apologizes for my poor english,
Nicolas

 

The newer EF-S lenses are designed for digital only. The main advantage
of these lenses is better wide-angle performance and lighter weight.

If wide-angle is not a consideration, then the older EF lenses work as
well as anything that could be designed today.

-Dave

 

+ It is more difficult to restrict depth of field with a
(smaller-sensor) non-dSLR.

 

Frank ess wrote:
[]

+ it is easier to get a large depth field with a P&S and focussing is less
critical.

A valid difference, thanks for bringing it out, but with
"flowers/nature/landscapes/night photography" as the OP's intended use,
which would you think more suitable?

Cheers,
David

 

Flowers, I can show:

Canon 20D, 24-70 2.8L
http://www.fototime.com/90EC1EE80CDD86E/orig.jpg

Nikon CP8700
http://www.fototime.com/F4DFA5B23E6689C/orig.jpg


Canon
http://www.fototime.com/2E830B28BFA91C4/orig.jpg

Nikon
http://www.fototime.com/7B74C226202557E/orig.jpg


Canon
http://www.fototime.com/1850198993562A4/orig.jpg

Nikon
http://www.fototime.com/EF54A426AA0423C/orig.jpg

Canon S500
http://www.fototime.com/C015E6D0C42E759/orig.jpg


Canon

http://www.fototime.com/3F96DA66DD4532B/orig.jpg

Nikon
http://www.fototime.com/8013402D2ED3A9A/orig.jpg


All made within five minutes or so of one another, open shade, overcast
sky. Shutter priority at ~1/125 or so and f/l at 100 or so equiv. Pays
you money and makes you choice ...


There may be nature, landscape, and night-shot comparable pairs, but I
can't think of them at the moment.