Professional Web Applications Themes

Article in SMH - Photography

Has anyone read this ? http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/05/1067989606255.html Its quite true somehow, as my own uncle whom note "never have any interest in photography except to photo his taxis that got hit" is preparing to spend $2k soon for a EOS 300D kit. arghh .. when is Nikon releasing their D70 :( =bob=...

  1. #1

    Default Article in SMH

    Has anyone read this ?
    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/05/1067989606255.html

    Its quite true somehow, as my own uncle whom note "never have any interest
    in photography except to photo his taxis that got hit"
    is preparing to spend $2k soon for a EOS 300D kit.

    arghh .. when is Nikon releasing their D70 :(

    =bob=


    [BnH] Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Article in SMH


    "[BnH]" <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> wrote in message
    news:3faa3ca4$0$1745$iinet.net.au...
     

    I just bought another D100 the other week. It was $2750 + you get a $200
    cash back from nikon at the moment, so it's not a huge amount more than the
    300D goes for at the moment.




    Gavin Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Article in SMH


    [BnH] <b18ATiinetDOTnetDOTaus> wrote in message
    news:3faa3ca4$0$1745$iinet.net.au...
     

    Another article by somebody who has no idea what they are reviewing!

    Those three cameras are hardly a good choice to review against each other.

    The E1 is a pro camera (some will argue, but that's what its designed for).
    The 10D is semi pro camera.
    The 300D is entry level DSLR.

    The guy carries on a bout the 300D not being solid! Geeze, solid pro
    cameras with dust sealing are not going to be below $2000, your paying for
    teh electronics, the extar for 10D is for the quality of the construction..
    He also bags the 18-55mm lenses included with the 300D without making a
    mention that its terrific value to be included and has probably not even
    given it a chance because all other reviews are saying that its actually
    quite good optically, if not constructed too well.

    The article tends to assume that we are going to see a dust sealed pro grade
    DSLR with massive mega-pixel count in a couple of years for bugger all. A
    pro grade camera is never going to be cheap because most people have no need
    for one.

    I don't think the E1 is going to fail because it doesn't take OM lenses
    either, pretty much irrelevant for E1 buyers, if it fails, it will be for
    other reasons.

    Danny.


    Danny Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Article in SMH


    "Danny Rohr" <com> wrote in message
    news:boeoga$1d3ibo$news.uni-berlin.de... 
    for). 
    construction.. 
    grade 
    need 


    Which article were you reading? None of that is in the one linked in the
    original post as far as i can see, it's just a general comment on the state
    of the industry.


    Adam F



    Adam Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Article in SMH

    ah you're talking about this article:

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/05/1067989604702.html


    adam f


    Adam Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Article in SMH



    Danny Rohr wrote: 
    >
    >
    > Another article by somebody who has no idea what they are reviewing!
    >
    > Those three cameras are hardly a good choice to review against each other.
    >
    > The E1 is a pro camera (some will argue, but that's what its designed for).
    > The 10D is semi pro camera.
    > The 300D is entry level DSLR.
    >
    > The guy carries on a bout the 300D not being solid! Geeze, solid pro
    > cameras with dust sealing are not going to be below $2000, your paying for
    > teh electronics, the extar for 10D is for the quality of the construction..
    > He also bags the 18-55mm lenses included with the 300D without making a
    > mention that its terrific value to be included and has probably not even
    > given it a chance because all other reviews are saying that its actually
    > quite good optically, if not constructed too well.
    >
    > The article tends to assume that we are going to see a dust sealed pro grade
    > DSLR with massive mega-pixel count in a couple of years for bugger all. A
    > pro grade camera is never going to be cheap because most people have no need
    > for one.
    >
    > I don't think the E1 is going to fail because it doesn't take OM lenses
    > either, pretty much irrelevant for E1 buyers, if it fails, it will be for
    > other reasons.
    >
    > Danny.
    >[/ref]

    I didnt really take the comments that way at all. If you're not a
    professional and you want a digital SLR, all of those cameras are in the
    running (along with several others). So I think it's fair to compare
    them if you're thinking of it from a customers perspective - there's
    probably plenty of people out there thinking "OK, I'm going to buy a
    DSLR. The N, 1D, 1Ds and 14n are out of my range, what else is there?"
    Those three will come to mind, and customers will compare them to decide
    which one they want. I dont really know why they chose those three in
    particular though. When it comes down to it, it doesnt matter what
    they're 'intended' market is.

    Scott.

    Scott Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Article in SMH


    Adam F <edu.au> wrote in message
    news:3faae9da$0$1739$iinet.net.au...
     

    Yeah, sorry, I thought that was the quoted article without even reading it!
    I read the above oen in the green guide last night.

    Danny.



    Danny Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Article in SMH


    Scott Coutts <monash.edu.au> wrote in message
    news:KDCqb.81$bigpond.net.au...
     

    What about this section:

    "But indestructibility and top quality come at a price. The body of the E1,
    without a lens, costs $3499. The 14-54 zoom (28-108 film equivalent) lens
    costs $999 - $500 more than for a similarly specified Canon 10D."

    The wording isn't that brilliant, but that sounds like the Zukio zoom lense
    is somehow $500 over priced compared to a $499ish EF standard zoom? The
    Zukio 14-54 lense actually appears to be sensational value, its a "almost L"
    quality zoom with a perfect focal range for $1000!

    "The 300D is not simply a dumbed-down version of the 10D because Canon has
    not saved money by seriously skimping on controls that, after all, are
    software and firmware-managed. There is not a lot to be saved there."

    But Canon has skimped on so called free software features like selectable
    metering and manual "focus mode" controls.

    "....measured against slightly older technology - the Canon EOS 10D."

    There is technology in the 300D that is newer than the 10D? Perhaps he
    shoudl have said an ealier Canon model that is by no means to be replaced by
    the 300D.

    "Also, not all lenses are created equal, and the lens supplied with the 300D
    is not of the same quality as the lens you would be likely to buy for a
    10D."

    Perhaps not in mechanical construction, but the lense supplied with the 300D
    is atleast as good optically, as any other non-L Canon standard zoom. I
    don't thnk every 10D buy uses a 24-70L.

    I just think the whole things was skimmed over without much thought by
    someone who doesn't mess with SLR cameras all that much.

    Danny.


    Danny Guest

Similar Threads

  1. fui: swf <-> gis article
    By qwert in forum Macromedia Flash
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 30th, 07:12 AM
  2. Article on <img> tag?
    By jelampitt in forum Macromedia Flash Actionscript
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 2nd, 01:14 AM
  3. [PHP] Article: PHP vs ASP
    By Jay Blanchard in forum PHP Development
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 31st, 02:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139