Professional Web Applications Themes

Body colours of Canon 350D - Photography

I've noticed that the "painted silver" colour on plastic-bodied cameras tends to wear out, leaving whatever is under it to show through. Does anyone know if the black colour you can choose is solid black plastic, or some kind of paint covering?...

  1. #1

    Default Body colours of Canon 350D

    I've noticed that the "painted silver" colour
    on plastic-bodied cameras tends to wear out,
    leaving whatever is under it to show through.
    Does anyone know if the black colour you can
    choose is solid black plastic, or some kind
    of paint covering?
    RichA Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Body colours of Canon 350D


    "RichA" <com> wrote in message
    news:com... 

    Forgive a wry smile!
    Back in the days when I earned a living with my cameras the "standard"
    finish on bodies was a matt chrome plate.
    It was durable, but too visible.
    So "Pro" cameras started to appear in satin black enamel.
    These were less visible, but prone to scratching and wear.
    I used to wear my battered bodies with pride, the brass showing through on
    the strap eyelets, the prism edges and baseplate being proof that my cameras
    earned their keep!
    Only rookies had shiny pristine bodies. (Both camera body and their own!)


    Tumbleweed Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Body colours of Canon 350D

    > I've noticed that the "painted silver" colour 

    It's solid, just like the black 300D was.

    (My 350D is sitting right next to me....)

    steve


    Steve Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Body colours of Canon 350D

    Hey, since you seem to have both cameras. Do you think it is worth $999 to
    get the 350D vs the 300D (about $650 in some places)? are there any
    compelling reason to go for the latest other than the extra 2MP and new
    firmware for a guy who had only owned a Powershot G1 and thinking of moving
    into DSLR?

    Thanks
    CJ
    Steve Wolfe wrote:
     
    >
    > It's solid, just like the black 300D was.
    >
    > (My 350D is sitting right next to me....)
    >
    > steve[/ref]

    Chin Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Body colours of Canon 350D

    In article <d0vbn4$c0f$svr.pol.co.uk>, Tumbleweed
    <paces> wrote:
     

    That's right. I remember some of my news buddies that had Nikon Fs with
    that huge old prism who were proud to have the brass showing through.
    Randall Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Body colours of Canon 350D

    In article <E6HYd.27492$nyc.rr.com>,
    Chin Jin Phua <rr.com> wrote:
     

    Yes. Absolutely.

    It's a computer, my friend. Yeah, it takes pictures, but that's just a side
    effect. <grin>

    Just like with a computer purchase, to ensure the greatest longevity of your
    purchase, you should buy as [latest, greatest, fastest, largest whatever] that
    you can possibly afford.

    Nevermind the extra 2MP. The new DigiReb has Canon's new image processor and
    USB 2.0 output. These two features alone make the new camera worth selecting
    over its predecessor.

    Consider that, during the life of your camera body, you will appreciate
    company support (firmware updates, etc) and spending a LOT of time downloading
    images from the camera. (Yeah, yeah, get a card reader...)

    If nothing else, with the new DigIc II image processor, I'm sure the new
    camera is noticeably FASTER in actual use than the old model.

    Good luck!
    :)
    JR
    Jim Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Body colours of Canon 350D


    "Randall Ainsworth" <techline.com> wrote in message
    news:120320051112388699%techline.com... 
    >
    > That's right. I remember some of my news buddies that had Nikon Fs with
    > that huge old prism who were proud to have the brass showing through.[/ref]

    I still have two old F's (silver) and wished I had black ones just so they
    would "wear in." Kinda like an old guitar that's been around. Just adds
    character. When I was a working pro nobody ever thought to use a
    "nEverready" case, and we wore two and three cameras around our neck banging
    the heck out of each other. Never had a failure, and they still work
    perfectly today.


    Sheldon Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Body colours of Canon 350D

    On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:17:06 -0000, "Tumbleweed" <paces>
    wrote:
     
    >
    >Forgive a wry smile!
    >Back in the days when I earned a living with my cameras the "standard"
    >finish on bodies was a matt chrome plate.
    >It was durable, but too visible.
    >So "Pro" cameras started to appear in satin black enamel.
    >These were less visible, but prone to scratching and wear.
    >I used to wear my battered bodies with pride, the brass showing through on
    >the strap eyelets, the prism edges and baseplate being proof that my cameras
    >earned their keep!
    >Only rookies had shiny pristine bodies. (Both camera body and their own!)
    >[/ref]

    Honestly, brass showing through on worn eyelets or edges is a badge
    of honour. Yellow plastic showing through silver paint just means
    you took the plastic camera out of it's case a few times!

    RichA Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Body colours of Canon 350D

    On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:18:35 -0700, "Steve Wolfe" <com>
    wrote:
     
    >
    > It's solid, just like the black 300D was.
    >
    > (My 350D is sitting right next to me....)
    >
    >steve
    >[/ref]

    Good! I was hoping that was the case.
    Thanks!
    -Rich
    RichA Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Body colours of Canon 350D

    > Hey, since you seem to have both cameras. Do you think it is worth $999 to 
    moving 

    I actually *had* the 300D - for a little under two weeks, and I had
    borrowed one for a while before that. I found out the 350D was coming, and
    returned the 300D for refund (BOY, was I glad I kept all the little baggies
    and papers!), and waited until the 350D came out. I was climbing out of my
    skin for three months. = )

    I am soooo glad that I did. The extra 2 mp are just a bonus, the REAL
    pleasures (at least for me) are:

    1. MUCH faster startup time.
    2. MUCH faster burst shooting.
    3. AI-focus & AI-servo focus modes.
    4. Faster card-writing rate.

    In fact, this morning I went out back and got some fairly good action
    shots of one of my dogs with little effort because of 2 & 3. I just put it
    in "sports" mode, set the ISO to 100 (lots of good morning sunlight!), stuck
    my 28-105 f/2.8 lens on it, and as soon as she'd get going, I'd do the
    12-shot burst. (see note 1.) They came out pretty good for a rank amateur
    like myself.

    So... as to your question of which you should buy: Only you can decide.
    = ) The extra money for the 350D was worth it to me because the lack of
    features 1, 2, and 3 was my biggest let-down with the Rebel. If those
    features are important to you, then the 350D is really where you want to be.
    If those features really aren't that important to you - and money is tight -
    then the 300D would be much more attractive.

    My opinion of the 350D is that it is a force to be reckoned with. Sure,
    it's not a 1Ds Mk II - but for the price, it is a *lot* of camera. While
    I'm not an industry expert, I really believe that not only will other
    companies have to really re-work their product offerings and pricing because
    of the 350D, I really think that Canon might have to rework its own
    offerings/pricing one (or maybe two) levels up from the 350D.

    Incidentally, one of the largest reasons I decided to go with a dSLR in
    the first place was the fact that digital noise is so annoying to me that
    it's near physical pain for me to look at. I shot some pics at ISO 1600
    last night, and while you can see noise in the pics if you look for it, it's
    much lower than I had expected. In fact, it's pretty darn good.

    (Note 1) I think that the buffer actually holds 8 or 9 shots - but because
    the camera starts writing to the card as soon as you start taking pictures,
    by the time you've taken 8 or 9, a few have already been written to the
    card, giving you a few more shots until the buffer runs out. Because of
    that, the speed of your card affects the number of burst shots. My card
    isn't one of the 40x or 80x speed demons, someone with one of those might
    get 14 or 15 shots in the burst. A large card is a big bonus if you're
    going to use the burst mode! While the dogs were wrestling, I blew through
    150 shots before I even realized it. That was when I realized that getting
    a 2-gig card was an even better move than I had originally thought. = ) (at
    the price I got the card for, there was no way that I'd have passed it up,
    even for a faster model.)

    As a final note, get the kit lens with it. It may not be the greatest
    lens in the world, but it is cheap, and getting any other lens that goes
    that wide will be pretty expensive. With the 1.6 crop factor, you need a
    significantly wider lens for indoor shots. The 28mm minimum focal length on
    my zoom lens doesn't work well indoors except for pretty large rooms, I find
    myself grabbing the kit lens every time, and using my external flash to
    light things up.

    steve


    Steve Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Body colours of Canon 350D

    Jim Redelfs wrote:

     

    I can see a new image processor but I could care less what the interface
    between the camera and the computer is. Don't most people use card readers?

    --

    Stacey, who bought a firewire card reader a long time ago..
    Stacey Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Body colours of Canon 350D

    Thanks for the reply and info. I had a look at the 350D at B&H today. The
    kit lens looks kinda cheap and from the limited time I had with it, seems
    pretty limited in terms of range. I am thinking of going with the 17-85 IS
    USM for another $400, is the money worth it? Or will I regret later?


    Steve Wolfe wrote:
     
    > moving 
    >
    > I actually *had* the 300D - for a little under two weeks, and I had
    > borrowed one for a while before that. I found out the 350D was coming,
    > and returned the 300D for refund (BOY, was I glad I kept all the little
    > baggies
    > and papers!), and waited until the 350D came out. I was climbing out of
    > my skin for three months. = )
    >
    > I am soooo glad that I did. The extra 2 mp are just a bonus, the REAL
    > pleasures (at least for me) are:
    >
    > 1. MUCH faster startup time.
    > 2. MUCH faster burst shooting.
    > 3. AI-focus & AI-servo focus modes.
    > 4. Faster card-writing rate.
    >
    > In fact, this morning I went out back and got some fairly good action
    > shots of one of my dogs with little effort because of 2 & 3. I just put
    > it in "sports" mode, set the ISO to 100 (lots of good morning sunlight!),
    > stuck my 28-105 f/2.8 lens on it, and as soon as she'd get going, I'd do
    > the
    > 12-shot burst. (see note 1.) They came out pretty good for a rank
    > amateur like myself.
    >
    > So... as to your question of which you should buy: Only you can decide.
    > = ) The extra money for the 350D was worth it to me because the lack of
    > features 1, 2, and 3 was my biggest let-down with the Rebel. If those
    > features are important to you, then the 350D is really where you want to
    > be. If those features really aren't that important to you - and money is
    > tight - then the 300D would be much more attractive.
    >
    > My opinion of the 350D is that it is a force to be reckoned with. Sure,
    > it's not a 1Ds Mk II - but for the price, it is a *lot* of camera. While
    > I'm not an industry expert, I really believe that not only will other
    > companies have to really re-work their product offerings and pricing
    > because of the 350D, I really think that Canon might have to rework its
    > own offerings/pricing one (or maybe two) levels up from the 350D.
    >
    > Incidentally, one of the largest reasons I decided to go with a dSLR in
    > the first place was the fact that digital noise is so annoying to me that
    > it's near physical pain for me to look at. I shot some pics at ISO 1600
    > last night, and while you can see noise in the pics if you look for it,
    > it's
    > much lower than I had expected. In fact, it's pretty darn good.
    >
    > (Note 1) I think that the buffer actually holds 8 or 9 shots - but
    > because the camera starts writing to the card as soon as you start taking
    > pictures, by the time you've taken 8 or 9, a few have already been written
    > to the
    > card, giving you a few more shots until the buffer runs out. Because of
    > that, the speed of your card affects the number of burst shots. My card
    > isn't one of the 40x or 80x speed demons, someone with one of those might
    > get 14 or 15 shots in the burst. A large card is a big bonus if you're
    > going to use the burst mode! While the dogs were wrestling, I blew
    > through
    > 150 shots before I even realized it. That was when I realized that
    > getting
    > a 2-gig card was an even better move than I had originally thought. = )
    > (at the price I got the card for, there was no way that I'd have passed it
    > up, even for a faster model.)
    >
    > As a final note, get the kit lens with it. It may not be the greatest
    > lens in the world, but it is cheap, and getting any other lens that goes
    > that wide will be pretty expensive. With the 1.6 crop factor, you need a
    > significantly wider lens for indoor shots. The 28mm minimum focal length
    > on my zoom lens doesn't work well indoors except for pretty large rooms, I
    > find myself grabbing the kit lens every time, and using my external flash
    > to light things up.
    >
    > steve[/ref]

    Chin Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Body colours of Canon 350D

    > Thanks for the reply and info. I had a look at the 350D at B&H today. The 

    The kit lens *is* a cheap lens, there's no doubt about it, and the 17-85
    IS USM will most certainly give you not only a higher-quality lens, but IS
    to boot. Here's a review:

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-location.shtml

    Whether the benefits are worth the extra price is up to you. If you do
    decide that you're going to buy this lens, then there's absolutely no reason
    to buy the kit lens, though. = ) The only advantage of the kit lens is
    that it is a very inexpensive way to get a lens sufficiently wide to use
    indoors with the 1.6 crop-factor.

    steve


    Steve Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Canon Rebel 350D/Rebel XT vs Nikon D70
    By Siddhartha in forum Photography
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: March 4th, 12:30 AM
  2. FS (Melb): Canon EOS10 Body (only)
    By Steve Baldwin in forum Photography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 13th, 07:01 AM

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