Digital Slr Cameras

Im sure you'd be aware of alot of the things i'll bring up in this post, theres a few tech terms here, but if you understand enough bout wanting freedom with alot of manual settings you should get the gist of it all (or just ask ) Also alot of the things i'll relate are about the 20D, but the 350D is so similar in terms of picture quality theres really negligible difference.

--
All depends on how much money your looking at spending. IE lenses = $$$$$$$

And where and what your going to shoot. (but that again reflects on what lenses you buy)

The 350D is the model in between the 300d and the 20d, Although the 20d is about $1000 dearer, the quality of the construction (metal alloy body rather than plastic) is among the main differences, also a larger and brighter viewfinder on the 20D. These features come into play at night time as well as in crowded busy places.

SLR type cameras with a mirror system cannot display what your taking a photo of through the LCD screen (or take videos etc) (some people hate this )

Optical zoom will be defined by what lens you put on it, it comes standard with a 18mm-55mm but considering the CMOS sensor has a view crop of 1.6x it actually woprks out to be a
28-88mm lens, a standard camera shoots @ 35mm, the kit lens also has aperatures of 3.5/5.6, which means it doesnt perform too well at night. (although i generally shoot with that lens when at clubs, but compared to my 50mm lens, i need to have the shutter open for about 3x the length of time, creating more blur etc, but my 50mm 1.8 lens turns into a 80mm lens on my 20D making it a tad too much zoom for alot of shots in clubs)

A big zoom lens will cost you at least 1/2 of what you pay for the camera, and ones with faster apertures, ie 2.8 or something are worth more than the 350D (anyone want to buy me a 70-200mm 2.8 ) and for the sharpest pcictures you wouldnt want a zoom lens, but a prime (only 1 focal range on the lens, 50mm or 90mm or something) but these are usually faster.

A good place to start when looking at what depth your looking at for lenses is
http://www.usa.canon.com/html/eflenses/len...ngth/index.html Remember to x everything by 1.6 though.

In my manual for the 20D which is very very similar in sensor specs, the highest picture format rates the print size to A3 or larger.

Since the CMOS sensor found in the 350D has a very low amount of noise, much less than the 8mp Olympus and the Nikon D70, you shouldnt have too many problems pushing the size of the image bigger, im currently fixing up a few images to be printed out at about A2.

If you really want A1 prints, your looking in the wrong price field, go check out the 1D or something similar, but the price range starts at about $9000 without lens. Or go for a 22mp Mamiya (i dont even want to know what the price tag on that would be though)

--
In short, the 350D is probably the best bang for buck camera in the Canon Prosumer range, the CMOS sensor is way more advanced to the nikon sensor (D70) in terms of noise (pictures from the D70 at iso 800 and higher look shocking, where as from my 20D they are still pretty usable even at 1600, 3200 needs cleaning up though)

Lenses is where you'll really have to make your hard decisions, which comes down to what your shooting. And how much money your willing to part with.

So bearing in mind the only real info you've given to help pick out a camera is you want A1 prints, theres not a great deal of real advice i can give without sounding like a dodgy canon dealership in regards to the 350d

If you want a play around with my 20D sometime at the next anthems meet your wlecome to.


Other links
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...s/xt-350d.shtml
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/rebelxt.html

what a great post, thanks for your detailed response. you obviously have a fair bit of knowledge about the canons.

after looking at a variety of cameras i came to the conclusion the canon is the best one.... do you agree? then to look at the models the 20d just seemed to be much the same as the 350d just newer model. not enough extra features that make me want to spend an extra $800 on.

is there any great differences u think that should convince me otherwise?

i am looking to spend $1,500 on the basic camera and around $500 - $700 on a lens. with the lens i want it to take great night shots (like inside clubs hehehe) and have a solid zoom range.

Yeah I love my canons, after going through kodak and sony for point n shoot, then having solid tests on the nikon and canon DSLR's ive moved to canon

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_po...os300d&show=all

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page23.asp
350d compared to the 20d

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page21.asp
Comparison chart for similar priced SLRS of other companies.

And finally the end review of the dpreview review
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page28.asp

Theres really no difference that will be too apparent in a dark smoky environment like a club, apart from a smaller viewfinder.

Lenses, now this is where there'll just as big a debate as with camera bodies/makes.

Just incase you dont get the gist of some terms.

##mm = Focal length = How much you can see at any given time, ie high the number, the more its zoomed in. zoom lenses have a range of focal lengths ie ##-##mm (etc 28-90mm)
Aperature = the number following the lens focal length, the high the number the slower it is, this tells you how much light the lens lets in, lower number = more light = quicker to expose the shot. The lower the number though has a smaller focus range, ie at 1.8 focused on a person 5 meters away, might make a person 2 meters behind look too blurry to recognize.

Some Canon Technology explanations.
USM = UtraSonic Motor, faster autofocusing.
IS = Image Stabilzed, can get away with slower aperatures.
L = L Series lenses are the high level lenses that canon put out, doubtfully in your price range, but the build quality is superb, and so is the glass elements, the cheap kit lenses tend to get dirt and hair in the very easily and once its in its in there permanently unless you get it professionally cleaned, which is kind of silly on a cheap lens. Also the cheaper the lens, the more chance the body is made of plastic and not metal.

With Canon cameras at least there is a massive range of lenses, some smaller companies like olympus have crippled there cameras because of the lack of 3rd party lenses.

The kit lens that comes with the 350D, will serve at night time like i use mine, if you can deal with having to use a flash and can deal with some motion blur.

I'll just go through some canon lenses, but the other makers of lenses should have similar lenses and usually a bit cheaper, but usually sacrifce some quality etc as well. Read around is always the best bet.

The Zoom way (good for keeping costs down, and great for changing conditions, ie taking a lighting shot, then straight to a person shot)
EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM RRP $699.00 Which should cover everything from a normal 35mm type camera through to a few levels of zoom. its not the fastest but is the best multipurpose lens in that price range.

I know one of the melb or sydney itm photogs uses EF 17-40mm f/4L USM RRP $1,599.00
That will give a bit of wide angle with a tad of zoom too.

In a club i doubt you would need anything bigger than 90mm

Im currently saving for EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM RRP $2,699.00
Which will cover everything inside the club, and pretty fast, maybe not quite enough wide angle, but its a good comprise over $1000 or more for anything wider.


The Prime way (Fixed Focal Length) (Zoom lenses tend to be less sharp than primes and slower and have more distortion/abberation/moire etc, but for the average user, its costly and tedious to switch out lenses, just depends on how serious you'll end up taking it, a DSLR purely for nightclub photography is kind of overkill, since you can get high end point n shoot cameras that have most manual settings and are cheaper, but if you plan on doing alot more with your camera, primes are always an option)

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM RRP $749.00
EF 50mm f/1.8 II RRP $179.00

The extra speed you'll have will enable you to shot alot of natural looking lighting shots at clubs etc, an excellent portrait lens, I have the 1.8 and it rarely comes off my camera when im not in a club.

Most people have the 1.8 (or the 1.4 version if they have the money) no matter what type of photography. The 1.4 is faster focusing than the 1.8.

EF 28mm f/1.8 USM RRP $999.00
EF 24mm f/2.8 RRP $769.00
EF 35mm f/2 RRP $579.00
EF 28mm f/2.8 RRP $449.00

For your more natural field of view type lenses.



Also alot of events dont like photogs with DSLR type cameras, but thats mainly the bigger events, ie two tribes and the big day out. Always ask with the promotor before any event.

Apologies for the very disjointed response, but sorta wrote it in sections.

Added costs will be

Compact Flash card, you'll need at least 512mb and you'll want the ultraII or UltraII sandisk's or equivalent if you plan on using the drive mode of the camera (multiple shots one after another) , the cheap sandisks are cheap and slow.

I regulary take about 600-800mb of photos when im out. and thats not in RAW :/

Lens filter for any lens you get (Probably a cheap UV Filter) mainly for protection of your lens, much cheaper to replace the filter than send your lens away toget the front elemt replaced.

Thats an awesome description work Eph...welld one

I want a digital SLR but first need spare $$$

another great post!!!!

so are you saying this lens - EF 50mm f/1.8 II RRP $179.00 - has no zoom but is great coz of the fast shutter speed? so you would go with that.

and then this one - EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM RRP $699.00 - for zooms?

also do you recomend buying the body with a lens, then going and buying another lens as well? as the one that comes with the camera is handy to use in certian circumstances??

or just buy the body... then use extra cash to buy a decent all round lens. that you can use for everything?

The kit lens, while being cheap, is a good lens to really learn your camera with, and if it gets bumped knocked, your not going to care quite as much as breaking a decent lens. (until i get my next lens, the kit one will probably be my main club lens still)

That 50mm lens is good for everyday use, probably wont find much use inside a club, even though its very fast, the focal range espescially when timesed by 1.6 becomes a bit big.

Id buy the body with the EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM RRP $699.00, this lens is a perfect multipurpose lens with a good balance of cost and quality.

The kit lens will let you get some shots a tad wider, which is good for crowd shots, or cramped areas, but id doubt your really notice 6mm difference in focal length, and you would rarely use much above 40mm in a club id think, i rarely push my kit lens to 50 or 55mm, but for everyday use in normal light conditions you'll see the 24-85mm shine.

Id have a look through Sigma and Tamron though, both companies make some decent lenses which are a bit cheaper than canons (canon lenses have hand made glass elements compared to machined)

wow, i feel like ive just completed a wea course on didital camera's. Well done.

Heh, the info is all there, just a little disjointed.

Hmm, interesting thread has just popped up on Deviant art.

http://forum.deviantart.com/galleries/photography/462943/

nice link

This just in on RA

http://www.raveadelaide.net/forums/index.p...wtopic=6724&hl=

yeah i saw that, only if i had $600

If my 20D was paid off id snap it up as a spare, since im not liking the whole switching out lenses in a dark smoky environment thing.

Is that a great deal?

What is the retails??

CANON EOS 300D BLK DIGITAL SLR + EF-S 18-55mm LENS NEW on email by $755 closing in 3 hours...

nice , far out some of those posts up there took me hours to read

u mean u read this post. ...... and understood it???????

i started and realise i couldnt speak jibberish
so i gave up

i didn't say anything about understanding it!!

**Several posts moderated**
Stay on topic!!

As for the 300D not too sure on what they go for now that the 350D has come out (was the model to replace it, its better in all ways apart from the viewfinder size i think)

The 350D retails at about $1600

So id take a guess and say that $700 is a very good price for the 300D new.

I think he took it off the market today :/

spewin!! that would've been a sick deal!!

Just came across a thread @ deviant art which i thought would be good to slot in here.

--

It's lengthy, but mostly filled with pictures. To summarize:

Compacts cameras: good for those who want to take quick pictures and get sharp, saturated pictures right off the camera. The camera does a lot of processing of its images and the pretty pictures you see are results of that. The downside is that you cannot do major editing of your own with image editing programs without introducing more noise or without losing details in the images. You also don't have the versatility or as much creative control. In tricky photography situations (low-light, fast action photography, night time, etc), compacts cannot even compared to SLRs because of their inherent limitations.. But compacts are easy to use, cheap, and yield good results immediately, but will cost you in giving you little leeway in controlling your images during composition and in post processing (ie in image editing programs).

DSLRs: Gives you lots of control, but has steep learning curves and will often require you to do some post processing of your images on your computer to get the best results. The pictures off the camera will often not look as good, but the potential is there; you will have to learn how to hold the camera properly (sounds silly, but is a big deal), learn the ins and outs of photography and of your camera (will get into this later), learn to edit RAW images to attain good pictures. This means you'll have to invest A LOT of time, and money. DSLRs are very expensive compared to other compacts (lowest will run $600+, most likely $900+ for the body alone, a collection of lens may cost significantly more if you become serious).

The versatility and creative control is amazing. But that comes at a price. I mentioned above you need to learn the ins and outs of both photography and your camera. This will include knowing how to get the right exposures, setting the correct aperture to get the depth of field you want, or setting the right shutter speed to stop action in terms of knowing photography. But you also know how DSLRs work. For example, autofocus on DSLRs need contrast to work right. That means you'll need to aim your focus point at edges, lines, or borders. New DSLR users who moved from compacts may not know this and complain about their camera not focusing correctly or fast enough. Another example is with consumer lens, the best sharpness comes at around 2 stops below the maximum aperture. You need to be willing to learn quirks like this, and otherwise invest a lot of time into practicing with your camera, reading forums, discussing with other photographers, etc.
--

http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publis...ticle_738.shtml

a forum that I just joined, run by an Aussie too

http://www.digital-photo-forum.com

i'm looking to get a compact for travel snaps.. any suggestions?

image quality is most important to me..

the guys i work with have a nikon d70 and the kodak DSLR, so i don't need a pro camera for work, just something nice and small that takes quality pics..

Not too sure on the P&S type cameras out anymore (havent looked back since getting my slr) but most of the prosumer P&S Cameras are pretty decent, there the ones that look like mini SLR's but the lens is fixed etc.

Some of the good ones have exposure modes like Av Tv M etc just like an SLR too.

I wanna buy a digital camera for rave events, coz i hate lugging around the huge piece of junk i got at the moment, and i noticed that you can get camera's these days for $200 with 4mega pixel.

is this any good?

optical zoom is a more important factor. Also try to get something thats good in low light conditions (hard to find out with out trying though)

I think you'll find better results if your willing to spend at least $500, cheaper made cameras tend to be very poor in low light.

thank.. i'll look into it a bit harder then