Professional Web Applications Themes

Canon 300D ? - Photography

<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/> As an alternative to the 10D, is it any good? Alot cheaper is why i might consider buying one....

  1. #1

    Default Canon 300D ?

    <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/>
    As an alternative to the 10D, is it any good? Alot cheaper is why i
    might consider buying one.

    Carsten Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?


    "Carsten Bauer" <net.au> wrote in message
    news:com... 

    If you can hardly afford the 10D then buy it ....... but then comes the cost
    of lenses. What about waiting for the Sony 828 .... it will be cheaper and
    higher spec.


    Miro Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?


    " Miro" <com> wrote in message
    news:3f5ab409$0$15130$optusnet.com.au... 
    >
    > If you can hardly afford the 10D then buy it ....... but then comes the[/ref]
    cost 

    Higher specced in some areas, lower specced in others. I suspect the main
    difference will be depth of field and familiarity with the style of camera
    (ie viewfinder or LCD monitor preview).. The sony camera will have much
    wider depth of field and therefore have more of a 'point and shoot' feel to
    the photos. The 300D gives more of a 'silky' feel to the photos, better
    noise control at high ISOs, etc.

    So while both will most likely be great cameras, they're aimed at different
    markets.


    Ubiquitous Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?


    "Ubiquitous" <net.au> wrote in message
    news:3f5abd71$0$23611$iinet.net.au... 
    > >
    > > If you can hardly afford the 10D then buy it ....... but then comes the[/ref]
    > cost [/ref]
    and 
    >
    > Higher specced in some areas, lower specced in others. I suspect the main
    > difference will be depth of field and familiarity with the style of camera
    > (ie viewfinder or LCD monitor preview).. The sony camera will have much
    > wider depth of field and therefore have more of a 'point and shoot' feel[/ref]
    to 
    different 

    Whatever that stuff is - you shouldnt smoke so much of it.


    Miro Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?


    " Miro" <com> wrote in message
    news:3f5ad30f$0$15136$optusnet.com.au... [/ref][/ref]
    the [/ref]
    > and 
    > >
    > > Higher specced in some areas, lower specced in others. I suspect the[/ref][/ref]
    main [/ref]
    camera 
    > to 
    > different 
    >
    > Whatever that stuff is - you shouldnt smoke so much of it.
    >
    >[/ref]

    Why do you have to be so insulting all the time? I'm sure you have a point
    somewhere...most likely that they are both aimed at the same markets...

    Anyway don't wait, because you will wait forever. Get a camera, take photos,
    keep away from dpreview or any camera news/review site and you will be
    happy.

    ~Seb


    Seb Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?

    " Miro" <com> wrote in message
    news:3f5ad30f$0$15136$optusnet.com.au...
     [/ref]
    main [/ref]
    camera 
    > to 
    > different 
    >
    > Whatever that stuff is - you shouldnt smoke so much of it.[/ref]

    I don't think I've ever made a point that you've actually been able to
    refute without resorting to name calling to avoid the subject.

    I hope you're not so rude and blunt in real life for the sake of the people
    around you, or you'd cop a few painful responses eventually. But the best
    bit is, you'd complete deserve it.


    Ubiquitous Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?

     
    photos, 

    Stop talking goop.... the comment was innane and entirely off-beat to the
    extent that it made no sense.


    Miro Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?


    "Ubiquitous" <net.au> wrote in message
    news:3f5ae51d$0$23601$iinet.net.au... [/ref]
    > main [/ref]
    > camera [/ref][/ref]
    much [/ref][/ref]
    feel [/ref][/ref]
    better 
    > > different 
    > >
    > > Whatever that stuff is - you shouldnt smoke so much of it.[/ref]
    >
    > I don't think I've ever made a point that you've actually been able to
    > refute without resorting to name calling to avoid the subject.[/ref]

    Maybe I should have just stated plainly that what you wrote is utter crap.


    Miro Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?


    Carsten Bauer wrote in message
    <com>... 

    No good for you. Don't even think about buying one.



    2176 Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?

    " Miro" <com> wrote in message
    news:3f5af069$0$15133$optusnet.com.au... 
     
    > >
    > > I don't think I've ever made a point that you've actually been able to
    > > refute without resorting to name calling to avoid the subject.[/ref]
    >
    > Maybe I should have just stated plainly that what you wrote is utter crap.[/ref]

    So I might learn from my mistakes oh glorious Miro, please explain to me
    specifically what was utter crap, and please explain why in detail.


    Ubiquitous Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?

     

    With regards to the Sony828, Ubiquitous said ...........................

    =============================================

    Higher specced in some areas, lower specced in others.

    **** Do tell - if you say ISO then you are mistaken.

    I suspect the main
    difference will be depth of field

    **** What ?

    and familiarity with the style of camera
    (ie viewfinder or LCD monitor preview).. The sony camera will have much
    wider depth of field

    **** What ?

    and therefore have more of a 'point and shoot' feel to
    the photos. The 300D gives more of a 'silky' feel to the photos,

    **** What ?

    better
    noise control at high ISOs, etc.

    **** Do tell !

    So while both will most likely be great cameras, they're aimed at different
    markets.

    *** Do tell !
    ================================================== ==

    Now read what you wrote and tell me where it touches reality.


    Miro Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?

    You obviously have no respect for your girlfriend. Good Luck to you also.

    "Dunco" <optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:optusnet.com.au...
    You two are really in love...I can see it :)

    Well, this is how I fight with my girlfriend :)

    Good luck the pair of you, I know you are more intelligent than this


    Miro Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?

    You two are really in love...I can see it :)

    Well, this is how I fight with my girlfriend :)

    Good luck the pair of you, I know you are more intelligent than this



    Miro wrote:
     
    >photos,
    >

    >
    >Stop talking goop.... the comment was innane and entirely off-beat to the
    >extent that it made no sense.
    >
    >
    >
    >[/ref]


    Dunco Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?


    " Miro" <com> wrote in message
    news:3f5af069$0$15133$optusnet.com.au...
     

    So do you believe that the Sony will have just as good high ISO performance
    as the 300D, i.e. specifically ISO400 to ISO1600.




    Gavin Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?


    "Gavin Cato" <woofg.com> wrote in message
    news:3f5b0805$syd.ip.net.au... [/ref]
    crap. 
    performance 

    Compared to film it is more than adequate but then the Sony does go over
    2000 ISO in nightshot mode.

    Performance in my books is = "getting the shot" and high performance is =
    "this gear helps me to get the shot" ...... for some reason the nerds now
    tell me that performance is proportional to interpolated artefacts.

    Seeing as I do not have a 828 I can't conclude on the noise figure. We all
    know that Canon does a lot of internal demisting ...... which in my books is
    not how the camera saw it.


    Miro Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?

     [/ref]
    > crap. 
    > performance 
    >
    > Compared to film it is more than adequate but then the Sony does go over
    > 2000 ISO in nightshot mode.[/ref]

    Comparing to film grain as if it is the reasonable limit that anyone should
    ever want in photography is a bit backward and silly, as is quoting the ISO
    rating in NIGHTSHOT mode. That is such a specific feature that is irrelevant
    to 99% of photography.

    Settling for a old benchmark for performance is settling for mediocrisy -
    when the 10D/300D sensor has VASTLY superior ISO performance, are you
    prepared to say 'yeah, but who cares, I'll just blur a few shots because I
    couldn't get a fast enough shutter speed'. when you could raise the ISO in a
    superior camera and take a quality photo? As you say, performance is
    'getting the shot', and if you can't get the shot because its either too
    blurry or too noisy and there is a camera out there that could have got the
    shot, then your camera isn't performing.
     

    I have no idea who has mentioned performance being proportional to
    interpolated artifacts, and I don't know what the hell you actually mean in
    the context of anything we're discussing here.
     
    is 

    Well most would argue that by virtue of the Canon sensor being MUCH bigger
    than the typical 2/3" CCD sensor, the sensor itself has larger photosensors
    and less variance in sensitivity (hence less noise). The Canon may have
    internal 'demisting' as you put it, but so does every other camera. And most
    of those cameras have rather extreme sharpening, also an external method of
    achieving crispness in a photo (at the expense of natural, normal looking
    contrast).


    Ubiquitous Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?

    As usual you didn't explain anything, you just raised more vague questions.

    " Miro" <com> wrote in message
    news:3f5b05b6$0$15130$optusnet.com.au... 
    >
    > With regards to the Sony828, Ubiquitous said ...........................
    >
    > =============================================
    >
    > Higher specced in some areas, lower specced in others.
    >
    > **** Do tell - if you say ISO then you are mistaken.[/ref]

    I think you are the one that is mistaken. Unless Sony has made a
    breakthrough in noise reduction, I think we will find that comparative
    photos at the same ISO will show that the Canon 300D is lightyears ahead in
    noise reduction.
     

    What I was saying was that the main difference between a camera such as the
    Canon 300D and the Sony F828 will be the depth of field, that is, the
    distance that is in focus for a specific aperture at a specific equivalent
    focal length. Ie, the 300D will have a much shallower depth of field at
    f/2.8 as opposed to the Sony F828 at f/2.8.
     

    You're making me do all the work here, have a think Miro. I'm saying that
    the other main difference between the two cameras is the method of using the
    camera that you are most familiar with. Those that are familiar with looking
    through the optical TTL viewfinder will be more at home with the Canon 300D
    whereas the ones that were more used to using the live preview LCD screen
    would be more at home with the Sony F828.
     

    A combination of the lower noise and less artificial sharpening applied to
    the photos out of the Canon 300D camera with the default settings applied,
    compared to the Sony F828 which, as do most non DSLR cameras, would probably
    have heavy (and some say excessive) sharpening applied to photos to give
    perceived crispness. 

    I already have.
     
    different 

    It is related to what I mentioned previously - people who are more used to
    SLR cameras will be looking at the Digital SLR market with the 300D at the
    affordable end of that market. People who like the vast depth of field that
    cameras with small sensors such as the F828 will be attracted to the Sony.
    Also, those that would be more inclined to buy a camera that has a built in
    lens with a fairly impressive focal length range would go for the Sony over
    the Canon simply because they don't like the idea of having to buy extra
    lenses to get the range they're after.

    Was it really that hard to read into what I wote? Please don't tell me you
    still don't understand.


    Ubiquitous Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?


    "Ubiquitous" <net.au> wrote in message
    news:3f5b0f76$0$23592$iinet.net.au... 
    > > crap. 
    > > performance 
    > >
    > > Compared to film it is more than adequate but then the Sony does go over
    > > 2000 ISO in nightshot mode.[/ref]
    >
    > Comparing to film grain as if it is the reasonable limit that anyone[/ref]
    should 
    ISO 
    irrelevant 

    the [/ref]
    = [/ref]
    now 
    >
    > I have no idea who has mentioned performance being proportional to
    > interpolated artifacts, and I don't know what the hell you actually mean[/ref]
    in [/ref]
    all [/ref]
    books 
    >
    > Well most would argue that by virtue of the Canon sensor being MUCH bigger
    > than the typical 2/3" CCD sensor, the sensor itself has larger[/ref]
    photosensors 
    most 
    of 
    Don't argue with him, arguing with him is like arguing with...a dog? No,
    wait, I'd say it's more like arguing with a donkey. I'd imagine they would
    just honk at you annoyingly...and not shut up until you ignore them.

    ~Seb


    Seb Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?


    "Seb" <net.au> wrote in message
    news:3f5b135e$0$23597$iinet.net.au... 

    You have a point.. I just have this idea - I can't shake it - that I might
    actually be able to get through to someone and help them understand... but I
    guess it has be tried and failed many times by others.


    Ubiquitous Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Canon 300D ?


    "Ubiquitous" <net.au> wrote in message
    news:3f5b150a$0$23604$iinet.net.au... [/ref]
    would 
    >
    > You have a point.. I just have this idea - I can't shake it - that I might
    > actually be able to get through to someone and help them understand... but[/ref]


    He knows your point, I know our point, everyone knows your point...he is
    just an internet phenomenon known as a "troll". Basically people like him
    are created when they spend too much time online, lose touch with reality,
    and end up tending to not apply the etiquette they use in regular social
    situations to their conversations online. In short, in his mind it doesn't
    register that the person he is chatting to online is in fact a person and
    not a computer. It may literally, but not sub-conciously. He loses the
    empathy he would have in a regular situation. These type of people are
    usually prone to some sort of ual dysfunction spreading from their
    original infatuation with the internet, and their lost grasp of reality.

    As explained by my sister's boyfriend the psych major :D He's a funny
    guy...he also explained to me the motives of "crackers" or mailicious
    hackers.

    ~Seb


    Seb Guest

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. FS Canon EOS 300D
    By Alex Busby in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 4th, 07:19 PM
  2. Flash units for canon 300d
    By Hank in forum Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: November 25th, 01:11 PM
  3. >>> Canon EOS-300D announced <<<
    By Warren in forum Photography
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: August 21st, 09:20 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