 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 200630D Vs Rebel XT help newbie!!
Hi folks, I am currently using a Elan 7 film camera. I am thinking of switching to Digital camera. I am debating between a 30D and Rebel XT. I understand they are different animal. From my little research as far as i can decipher the differences is as follows: 1. Spot metering 2. 5fps vs 3fps. Nothing else pounces on me. I like spot metering. But this feature alone is not worth $600 odd difference. Please let me know why you would choose/chose one over the other? thanks. > Hi folks, > I am currently using a Elan 7 film camera. I am thinking of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > alone is not worth $600 odd difference. Please let me know why you > would choose/chose one over the other? thanks. It's a bit like the difference between a Skoda and a Mercedes Benz - both have 4 wheels, 4 doors, and an engine - but they're different animals. 30D is a LOT more rugged - bigger screen - better controls. Different as chalk and cheese. For what it's worth, I initially bought a Rebel XT but within 2 months I sold it (at a loss) to buy a 20D (the fore-runner of the 30D). I'd say if you have the $$$ then go for the 30D without hesitation - the difference in shutter life alone will save you more than the $600. The 30D body is bigger than the Rebel. For me, I can grip the 30D much better. The 5fps does come in handy shooting sports, animals on the move, etc. The spot metering is nice. I would put the 30D (and 20D) as the serous amateur photographer's step towards the pro series DSLR camera. As you know the prices of the Canon 5D, 1D Mark II n, and 1Ds Mark II start to double and triple respectively, as well as the bells and whistles on each. I think you'll be pleased with the Canon 30D or a 20D. The prices are slowly falling on the 20D. Just not the lenses :( > Hi folks, > I am currently using a Elan 7 film camera. I am thinking of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > alone is not worth $600 odd difference. Please let me know why you > would choose/chose one over the other? thanks. I have a Digital Rebel XT and I am very happy with it. I lets me take pretty good pictures. I have a 35-70 and a 70-300 zoom lense. I can hand hold the 70-300 in the 300mm position and take good pictures. (Equal to 450mm in a 35mm SLR.) However the 30D is more camera in several areas. The 30D will take more pictures (2 or 3 times as many) in a burst than the Digital Rebel XT. The 30D gets over twice the number of shots per battery charge. The frame on the 30D is metal rather than plastic. Think of the Digital Rebel XT as Canon's entry level DSLR and the 30D as a high level amatur camera. One of the pro level DSLR would set you back at least $2000 for the body. Hope the quick reply helps. William > The frame on the 30D is metal rather than plastic. Can someone clarify this? My understanding is that both have a metal chassis with polycarbonate housings. >> The frame on the 30D is metal rather than plastic. > > Can someone clarify this? My understanding is that both have a metal > chassis > with polycarbonate housings. The inner structural frame is metal for both. The outside housing (the "skin"), however, is magnesium for the 30D, and plastic for the RebXT. steve > >> The frame on the 30D is metal rather than plastic. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The inner structural frame is metal for both. The outside housing (the > "skin"), however, is magnesium for the 30D, and plastic for the RebXT. I'm still confused ... I thought the 30D was the same as the 20D in this respect - I have a 20D, and the outer bits of the case (eg bits you hold on to) are definately not metal. javamaan@gmail.com wrote in news:1149043627.008716.190220 @g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > Hi folks, > I am currently using a Elan 7 film camera. I am thinking of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > alone is not worth $600 odd difference. Please let me know why you > would choose/chose one over the other? thanks. D30 has a fast autofocus and 9 vs 7 focus points. But it's 300 gram havyer... and larger.... not handy if it has to fit in a bag with a nice lens(17-55 2.8 or 24-105) > Hi folks, > I am currently using a Elan 7 film camera. I am thinking of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > alone is not worth $600 odd difference. Please let me know why you > would choose/chose one over the other? thanks. You should definitely go to photo stores and handle both cameras. The 350XT (Rebel) is fairly small. A lot of people complain about that. I have relatively small hands and I'm very happy with the feel of the 350. Also I shoot while driving (don't try this at home) and I spend a lot of time holding up the camera with one hand. For me, the lighter weight makes a big difference. So you have to try it yourself ... it's a very individual thing. >Hi folks, > I am currently using a Elan 7 film camera. I am thinking of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >alone is not worth $600 odd difference. Please let me know why you >would choose/chose one over the other? thanks. The Rebel XT is a fine first digital SLR and there is absolutely no reason for a newbie to spend an extra $600 on the 30D. There might be a case for buying one of the last 20D bodies that are available at heavily discounted prices, but the Rebel XT will probably offer all you need and more. However, I would strongly advise you to spend some or all of the $600 difference on a good lens for the Rebel XT. The 18-55mm kit lens is a very poor performer. Optically, it is so bad that you would probably wonder why on earth you had traded up to a DSLR. >>Hi folks, >> I am currently using a Elan 7 film camera. I am thinking of >>switching to Digital camera. I am debating between a 30D and Rebel XT. > The Rebel XT is a fine first digital SLR and there is absolutely no > reason for a newbie to spend an extra $600 on the 30D. There might be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > very poor performer. Optically, it is so bad that you would probably > wonder why on earth you had traded up to a DSLR. He already must have EOS EF mount lenses as he has an Elan 7 now. These will continue to work on the XT so there is probably no need to buy any lenses. However the 18-55 adds not more than $100 to the kit and is very small and light and probably better than anything else you can put on for $100. Have you actually tried the 18-55? It may feel very cheap but optically is not that bad. Compare the reviews for the 17-85 and the 18-55 at photozone and it would appear that the 17-85 which costs about 8 times as much is worse: more vignetting, smaller aperture at most focal lengths, more distortion, more chromatic aberrations and also is larger and heavier. The 18-55 also focusses much closer than most of the more expensive lenses and therefore allows more magnification also. It does not perform as well as a macro lens but you can get a decent picture in a pinch. It also works quite well reversed. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1855_3556/index.htm http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm With the 18-55, CA's are small and easy to correct, the bit of barrel distortion at the wide end is also not hard to fix in the few cases where you can see it. Flare is a problem if you use a filter, but you can always remove the filter when it is an issue or use a lens hood. Light fall-off in the corners is almost never noticible, but is easy to fix as well. And as for sharpness, maybe I just have a lucky copy where the tolerances fell in optimal ways, but mine is sharp enough for most purposes. If I realy blow up the pictures, then I can see that my 28-135 IS and my EF-S 10-22mm produce better pictures, but certainly for 4x6" prints it is very hard to tell the difference. Those lenses are much more expensive and much larger and heavier too. Do you always carry around your best glass or sometimes do you want a camera that is smaller, lighter, and not quite so valuable, or appearing so valuable depending on who is watching you? A 50mm f1.8 fits this usage as well, but isn't as versatile as 18-55 in most cases. I think for $100, the 18-55 is worth adding to the kit even if he already has a bunch of good glass. >He already must have EOS EF mount lenses as he has an Elan 7 now. These >will continue to work on the XT so there is probably no need to buy any >lenses. However the 18-55 adds not more than $100 to the kit and is very >small and light and probably better than anything else you can put on for >$100. It is worse than almost any lens you can buy for $10 on eBay. Yes, it really is *that bad*. >Have you actually tried the 18-55? It may feel very cheap but optically is >not that bad. I have tried and tested five samples of this lens. The tests included bench testing (4 samples) and shooting real images (all 5). There was only one conclusion that could be drawn: the lens is junk. $100 is a lot to pay for junk. >>He already must have EOS EF mount lenses as he has an Elan 7 now. These >>will continue to work on the XT so there is probably no need to buy any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It is worse than almost any lens you can buy for $10 on eBay. Yes, it > really is *that bad*. You of course have test figures to support this contention. But then, any lens you get for 10 bucks off ebay is probably a prime, not a zoom, so for certain definitions of "better" one would expect it to be. >>Have you actually tried the 18-55? It may feel very cheap but optically >>is not that bad. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > $100 is a lot to pay for junk. I'm starting to see a pattern here. Anything that isn't quite as good as something else seems in your book to be "junk".  Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >I'm starting to see a pattern here. Anything that isn't quite as good as >something else seems in your book to be "junk". If you knew anything about photography you would understand. However, you don't, so you don't. Life's just so tough, isn't it? > >I'm starting to see a pattern here. Anything that isn't quite as good as > >something else seems in your book to be "junk". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Life's just so tough, isn't it? Gee I seem to be able to get nice sharp images using the 18-55 kit lens, just what is your problem with it? Scott > > >I'm starting to see a pattern here. Anything that isn't quite as good as > > >something else seems in your book to be "junk". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Gee I seem to be able to get nice sharp images using the 18-55 kit > lens, just what is your problem with it? I'm with Tony on this one - I've owned 2 of the kit lenses - and the only sharp images I've ever got were when I kicked the kit lens into orbit and strapped on a 24 - 70 2.8L. Never looked back. > I'm with Tony on this one - I've owned 2 of the kit lenses - and the only > sharp images I've ever got were when I kicked the kit lens into orbit and > strapped on a 24 - 70 2.8L. It is worth noting that lens cost about as much as a 20D body. Having said that it is still posible to get a very sharp image with the kit lens with just a bit of effert, this is one of my photos using it. http://www.sewcon.com/temp/kit_lens_test.jpg To my way of thinking if I can get a good sharp image using a lens it is not worthless. Scott >> I'm with Tony on this one - I've owned 2 of the kit lenses - and the only >> sharp images I've ever got were when I kicked the kit lens into orbit and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Scott I think they are confusing operator error with lens quality... > > > > I'm with Tony on this one - I've owned 2 of the kit lenses - and the only [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > To my way of thinking if I can get a good sharp image using a lens it > is not worthless. Sorry Scott, but that image isn't anywhere close to what I would call sharp - as soon as I opened it in photoshop and zoomed in a little, all detail in the greenery is just a blurred mess - having said that, a lot of it may have been due to the horrid jpeg ghosting. > > > > > > I'm with Tony on this one - I've owned 2 of the kit lenses - and the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > detail in the greenery is just a blurred mess - having said that, a lot of > it may have been due to the horrid jpeg ghosting. Take your sharpest image and scale it to the same size and compare the two. Scott > > > > > > > > I'm with Tony on this one - I've owned 2 of the kit lenses - and the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Take your sharpest image and scale it to the same size and compare the > two. Could do, but I don't really see the point. If the object is to compare sharpness then it's kind of a meaningless comparison to post in a format as crappy as jpeg. Also, the pixel count of 5669 x 3780 of your image suggests to me that it was shot on something > 20MP, not our lowly 350D/20D (approx 3504 x 2336) (unless you've resampled the image in which case it introduces yet another variable). And if we compare, on equal footing, a kit lens with the 24-70 F2.8L USM then I know which lens is going to win, and it won't even be close. But if you want to compare *.tif shots on an 8MP camera, bring it on :) > > > > > > > > > > I'm with Tony on this one - I've owned 2 of the kit lenses - and the [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > But if you want to compare *.tif shots on an 8MP camera, bring it on :) But that was shot on an 8 MP camera, a 350D. Scott >But that was shot on an 8 MP camera, a 350D. > >Scott Scott: As the EXIF data is missing, I assume that this image was produced from the raw file, probably using ACR. The poster who questioned the size of the image doesn't seem to be very familiar with the use of raw files, depite his bad mouthing of jpgs. One wonders why these critics of the kit lens are reluctant to pose images... The fact remains that at moderate apetures, the kit lens is capable of making fine images on today's 8MP DSLRs. John > The poster who questioned the > size of the image doesn't seem to be very familiar with the use of raw > files The poster who questioned the size (ie me) is very familiar with the use of RAW files thank you very much - I use them exclusively. And in all the time I've been using them never once have I seen a camera with native max pixels 3504 x 2336 produce a file that's 5669 x 3780 without resampling (albeit within ACR or PS). > depite his bad mouthing of jpgs. We were discussing image sharpness - Scott posted an image which he felt was a good example of a sharp image taken by a kit lens - have you had a look at that image? in detail? If you have then you will notice almost total loss of detail, and moderate ghosting that's typically produced when one tries to reduce a large (ie 5669 x 3780 pixel) image with the JPG "quality control" set something less than optimum. In short, when an image has been processed and presented in this manner it's going to go a lot further towards proving my point that it is anyone elses. > One wonders why these critics > of the kit lens are reluctant to pose images... I'm not reluctant - I did however explain in my last post why it was a waste of time. I mean "get real" - an NZD $2500 lens is always going to kick the arse of a NZD $150 lens - you don't need my posted examples to prove it when they're already up on respectable sites eg ... http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/18-55.html It seems to me like your simply trying to obfuscate the issue by trying to tie me up with little diversions of " ... doesn't seem to be very familiar with the use of raw files" and "depite his bad mouthing of jpgs". At the end of the day, if you're happy with the results you get popping off jpegs on entry-level cameras with kit lenses then good for you, but please don't insult my intelligence by trying to have me believe that there's any more comparison between a kit lens and a quality lens than there is between a Lada and a Rolls Royce. I've owned both, and I can assure you that you don't need a PHD in optical engineering to tell the difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm with Tony on this one - I've owned 2 of the kit lenses - and the [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > But that was shot on an 8 MP camera, a 350D. The 350D produces images that are a maximum of 3456 x 2304 pixels. Your image is 5669 x 3780 pixels - suggesting to me that you've "doctored" it. >" > >The 350D produces images that are a maximum of 3456 x 2304 pixels. Your >image is 5669 x 3780 pixels - suggesting to me that you've "doctored" it. Never shot raw files, eh? > >" > > > >The 350D produces images that are a maximum of 3456 x 2304 pixels. Your > >image is 5669 x 3780 pixels - suggesting to me that you've "doctored" it. > > > Never shot raw files, eh? I NEVER shoot anything BUT RAW files. As per my other post, perhaps you'd be so good as to explain to me how a RAW file magically turns a 3456 x 2304 image into a 5669 x 3780 image without upsampling? (and losing quality in the process). > > >" > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > image into a 5669 x 3780 image without upsampling? (and losing quality in > the process). Well yes the shot was done in raw but that really does not matter all that much in this case, however a tiff of this photo is rather large as you might imagine and so not practical for uploading. The jpep image should have been far more enough to show the detail of the image, but here is a much lower compressed version of the image. http://www.sewcon.com/temp/kit_lens_test_lc.jpg It is about 14 MB so not too bad for loading. It was saved at level 12 so there would be no visible difference between it and a tiff. But just to be complete here is a tiff of a crop from the image. http://www.sewcon.com/temp/crop.tif Now everything I have said is true, this photograph was shot with a 350D using the kit lens, so it is possible to get a very sharp image using the kit lens. What I find interesting is that faced with a image that has an extreme amount of detail you still attack it simply because you know the image was taken with the kit lens. Whereas it is true that there are other lenses that are sharper then the kit lens it is not nearly as bad as some people would make it out to be. Stopped down it is not all that bad and using it with either the 20D or XT gives me far sharper images then I could get from my Sony F828, also a 8MP camera. In the end how sharp of an image you get does not have all that much to do with the camera or lens but rather on technique. Scott shot was done in raw but that really does not matter all >that much in this case, however a tiff of this photo is rather large as >you might imagine and so not practical for uploading. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Scott Scott, Apparently the ability to produce fine photographic prints is not at issue here, but rather the ability to observe fine detail zoomed in on a monitor at the equivalent prubt size of 4 feet by 6 feet or larger observed from 12 inches. One might as well rename this thread "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Unfortunately, any inexperienced readers looking for advice might well come to the conclusion that unless they spend 1,000 euros on a lens, they'll just get crappy 4x6s and would be better off with a p&s. John > Apparently the ability to produce fine photographic prints is not at > issue here, but rather the ability to observe fine detail zoomed in on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > come to the conclusion that unless they spend 1,000 euros on a lens, > they'll just get crappy 4x6s and would be better off with a p&s. Why do you feel so compelled to keep trying to throw me off the scent by constantly shifting the target? Every time I go to great lengths to blow your crap out of the water you ignore that issue and then go create another one. Let's go back and look at some of your little diversionary wisdoms ... First Serve: THE maximum size shot from a Rebel XT is 3456 x 2304. I pointed out in response to Scott W (and I quote) >The 350D produces images that are a maximum of 3456 x 2304 pixels. Your image is 5669 x 3780 pixels - suggesting to me that you've "doctored" it. YOUR response was (and again I quote) "Never shot raw files, eh?" (implying that anyone who does shoot RAW files knows that it's a normal thing for the pixel count to increase by a factor of 3 to 4?) Then Scott W confesses (and again I quote) "What I did not say right up front is that the image is stitched out of a number of photos". Fifteen love to me on that one. (and by the way, you never did explain why that happens - gee, I wonder why?). Second Serve: I went on to say ... (and again I'm quoting) "detail in the greenery is just a blurred mess - having said that, a lot of it may have been due to the horrid jpeg ghosting" Your ever so insiteful reply was (and yes, this is a quote) "The poster who questioned the size of the image doesn't seem to be very familiar with the use of raw files, depite his bad mouthing of jpgs." Then a bit later on a psudo admission from Scott W that it wasn't 'jpeged' at close to the maximum quality setting (here comes the quoted evidence) "The jpep image should have been far more enough to show the detail of the image, but here is a much lower compressed version of the image." (emphasis on MUCH lower). Thirty love to me (and you still haven't pointed out why my knowledge of RAW files is so obviously deficient). Third Serve: Ignoring the fact that you're down thirty love in the final set (and already being 2 sets down) you try to change the rules ... (don't worry, all quoted) "Apparently the ability to produce fine photographic prints is not at issue here, but rather the ability to observe fine detail zoomed in on a monitor at the equivalent prubt size of 4 feet by 6 feet or larger observed from 12 inches". The issue here is the comparitive sharpness of the Canon EF-S Kit lens -v- other more expensive lens. In every objective evaluation or comparison I've ever seen, not one of them is done by printing out a small print or by looking at an entire photo on a screen. Nearly each and every one is done by comparing 100% crops - which is what I did, and the posted image failed miserably. So nice try at changing the rules, but it's Forty love to me. Forth Serve: Reading some of your other handy work I see you proclaim to be an ex professional photographer with an additional 25 years in the computer field. You express the desire (again, quoted) "I hope the OP (javamaan) will successfully wind his way through the thicket of (mis)information", and yet you're the ex-professional photographer with 25 years experiance in the computer world that prefers the 350D over the 20D because you can't even find the metering and ISO buttons on the top of the camera (thinking that they're menu items) (here comes the quote) "I also preferred the quick access buttons for ISO & metering on the 350D. The same items on the 20D were menu picks." I'm sure you're about to tell me that I've obviously never used a 20D - but last time I looked the two buttons you're looking for are on top of the camera, first and second from the right. Why do I get the feeling Mr. Ex professional photographer with 25 years experiance in computers including (one last quote) "imaging, perception, and differntial equations" that had this been a discussion on alt.nasa, all of a sudden you'd have been one of the original 7 astronauts? Game set and match to me - I'm off to hit the showers. Reply as you feel compelled, but I won't be reading it: you're now in my kill file, and this thread is marked for deletion. Have fun taking your snaps with your kit lens. >Game set and match to me - I'm off to hit the showers. > >Reply as you feel compelled, but I won't be reading it: you're now in my >kill file, and this thread is marked for deletion. Thank God. > Game set and match to me - I'm off to hit the showers. > > Reply as you feel compelled, but I won't be reading it: you're now in my > kill file, and this thread is marked for deletion. > > Have fun taking your snaps with your kit lens. lol - that's the most severe but-wipping i've seen in a while and the phoney still doesn't have the balls to admit his fuckups >> Game set and match to me - I'm off to hit the showers. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >lol - that's the most severe but-wipping i've seen in a while and the phoney >still doesn't have the balls to admit his fuckups One should never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the oig enjoys it. John > Well yes the shot was done in raw but that really does not matter all > that much in this case, however a tiff of this photo is rather large as [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > In the end how sharp of an image you get does not have all that much to > do with the camera or lens but rather on technique. I will concede that's pretty sharp. I pulled a (D200 in-camera jpeg) which I though was sharp at 1/125 sec f/8 from my 45mm/2.8 'prime' to compare and it doesn't look as sharp, it shouldn't be a hand shake issue at that speed but maybe. Maybe the distance and haze too. Maybe just my overall image had a lot of detail but a tripod would have helped. Here's our two shots together (in non-lossy .png): http://www.edgehill.net/temp/crops.png -I even sharpened a tad more & curves for contrast <g> And my original 4MB jpg right out of the camera (sorry no raw for this one): <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/view/ 2006-04-29-liberty-hill/original> (that's copyright Paul Furman 2006, not for folks to sell or distribute without paying me, not allowed to rename file or even print for personal use without my name on it) : - ) Here's another shot with the 70-200/2.8 VR on the D70 which I know is sharp because I had it printed at 24x36 (although that's excessive for 6MP): <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/framing/full-crop&PG=1 &PIC=2> Here's that same one upsampled with an edge detection program to 300dpi at 24x36: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/framing/enlargement&PG =1&PIC=1> Are you sure you didn't do some fractal upsampling edge detection on yours Scott? Why is it larger than native pixels? I don't claim to be a sharpness technique master at all... maybe I should get a decent tripod & play with mirror lockup. Comments welcome. > > Well yes the shot was done in raw but that really does not matter all > > that much in this case, however a tiff of this photo is rather large as [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > I don't claim to be a sharpness technique master at all... maybe I > should get a decent tripod & play with mirror lockup. Comments welcome. Well it is all a matter of just how you take the photo. All that I said was true, the photo was taken with a Canon XT using the kit lens. The point here is that I can get a very sharp image with the kit lens, What I did not say right up front is that the image is stitched out of a number of photos, this gives it much more resolution then normal. But even with that there are some people who "know" the kit lens is crap and even when presented with a sharp image will not be able to see it, if they know it is from the kit lens. Scott >> > The jpep image should have been far more enough to show the detail of >> > the image, but here is a much lower compressed version of the image. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Well it is all a matter of just how you take the photo. All that I >said was true, the photo was taken with a Canon XT using the kit lens. No you deliberately misled us with disinformation. >The point here is that I can get a very sharp image with the kit lens, No, the point is you're using multiple images at higher relative resolution to REPRESENT an actual image from the camera. Otherwise known as a lie. >What I did not say right up front is that the image is stitched out of >a number of photos, this gives it much more resolution then normal. Exactly...more resolution than the lense is capable, is a lie. >But even with that there are some people who "know" the kit lens is >crap and even when presented with a sharp image will not be able to see >it, if they know it is from the kit lens. I have the 18-55 that came with my Rebel XT...it's not that sharp, and your altered "photo" of an actual photo is not truly representative of how the lense performs. We're trying to help the OP make a buying decision, and your doctored photos are not representing the true optical quality of the lense through normal means. If you want to help, how about you take the same perspective and FOV image again in a true, undoctored 3456 x 2304 photo and post it so the OP can compare? > >> > The jpep image should have been far more enough to show the detail of > >> > the image, but here is a much lower compressed version of the image. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > image again in a true, undoctored 3456 x 2304 photo and post it so the > OP can compare? Yup, here it is along with what my old Sony could do and the raw files for both. http://www.sewcon.com/temp/20D_with_kit_vs_F828/ The kit lens really is not nearly as bad as what some people would make it out to be. Of course these same people when shown a very high resolution photo claimed that it was not sharp, so I don't expect them to like these images either. Scott Scott >> I have the 18-55 that came with my Rebel XT...it's not that sharp, and >> your altered "photo" of an actual photo is not truly representative of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >for both. >http://www.sewcon.com/temp/20D_with_kit_vs_F828/ No... I asked for the same perspective and FOV image as the altered image you posted earlier. You pointed me to a different image, perhaps one of the images used to compose the fake. But even so, I was able to adjust size and FOV to get similar vantage points. Once that was done...I could compare side by side and see the dramatic differences your two samples show. Clearly the doctored photo was used to mislead the users of this group and the OP into thinking the lense is much better than claimed. That's just wrong... >The kit lens really is not nearly as bad as what some people would make >it out to be. >Of course these same people when shown a very high resolution photo >claimed that it >was not sharp, so I don't expect them to like these images either. Well if you could have provided a real image instead of trying to obfuscate the truth, you might have received better reactions. There's little sense in whining about our opinions and reactions after trying to pull a stunt like that... > >> I have the 18-55 that came with my Rebel XT...it's not that sharp, and > >> your altered "photo" of an actual photo is not truly representative of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > posted earlier. You pointed me to a different image, perhaps one of the > images used to compose the fake. What I pointed to was an image I took about a year and a half ago to get the kit lens againt a 50mm 1.8 prime and againt the F828. I do believe it shows about what you can get from the kit lens. Right now it is cloudy and so a reshoot would look pretty bad in this light. The photos I took for the stitched image where taken at a pretty high f/number to get a good DOF and so are fairly soft just from that. Here is one that has close to the same FOV, this is at 18mm on the lens and so is as wide as it gets on the kit lens http://www.sewcon.com/temp/20D_with_kit_vs_F828/IMG_0950_kit_at_18mm.jpg I have also loaded the raw file to that image. http://www.sewcon.com/temp/20D_with_kit_vs_F828/IMG_0950.CR2 Scott >No, the point is you're using multiple images at higher relative >resolution to REPRESENT an actual image from the camera. A valid point. >Otherwise known as a lie. He never said the image unaltered. A lie by omission, maybe. >Exactly...more resolution than the lense is capable, is a lie. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >image again in a true, undoctored 3456 x 2304 photo and post it so the >OP can compare? Also valid. However, I think his original intent was to goad the naysayers into calling the image "crap". They fell for it, and did, which doesn't help their credibility any. IMO, proving the lack of objectivity of those who state that the kit lens is incapable of taking decent 4x6 lenses helps the OP far more than claiming one needs a 1000 euro lens to make decent pictures at all as other did. After all, the OP is a self proclaimed newbie (which we all were at some point). I'll offer to email the OP some original files from the kit lens if he wishes. That way, he can judge for himself. John PS. You know, it's nice to see some people still discoursing in a civil manner on this forum. >PS. You know, it's nice to see some people still discoursing in a >civil manner on this forum. Did you just call me civil?? Them's fightin' words! :-) > I will concede that's pretty sharp. I pulled a (D200 in-camera jpeg) > which I though was sharp at 1/125 sec f/8 from my 45mm/2.8 'prime' to > compare and it doesn't look as sharp, it shouldn't be a hand shake issue > at that speed but maybe. Maybe the distance and haze too. Maybe just my > overall image had a lot of detail but a tripod would have helped. BTW to be totally fair in comparing the images we really need to upscale your to match the size of mine. This is what I get when I do that http://www.sewcon.com/temp/compare.jpg BTW I took this one a couple of weeks ago http://www.sewcon.com/temp/pan1%2005-14-06.jpg this is way compressed and need a bit of work but it gives a slightly different view of SF http://www.sewcon.com/temp/pan1%2005-14-06.jpg Scott > > I will concede that's pretty sharp. I pulled a (D200 in-camera jpeg) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This is what I get when I do that > http://www.sewcon.com/temp/compare.jpg Hmm, something else is going on here. RAW doesn't make that much difference, I have tested that. I'm pretty sure yours is reduced if it's stitched. It's possible to get considerably more detail into pixels by downsizing & removing the effect of the bayer pattern & anti-aliasing filter. I just tried another at 1/250 sec f/8 with mirror lockup with a heavy weight on the windowsill and compared the other hillside shot & none of them are significantly different. > > > I will concede that's pretty sharp. I pulled a (D200 in-camera jpeg) > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > heavy weight on the windowsill and compared the other hillside shot & > none of them are significantly different. Yup, mine in reduced, the orginal image was something like 36 mp. You can find streight photos using the kit lens here along with the F828. The kit lens blows away the F828. http://www.sewcon.com/temp/20D_with_kit_vs_F828 I have put up both the raw and jpeg files. The Kit lens might not be perfect but it is no where near worthless, as some have called it. Scott > Yup, mine in reduced, the orginal image was something like 36 mp. Jesus man. What was the point of all that? > The Kit lens might not be perfect but it is no where near worthless, as > some have called it. I never said it was worthless, it's probably worth about $100. I wanted to see what the actual difference was. I know I can tell the difference between my fairly cheap 28-200 & 45mm fixed length lenses. > > Yup, mine in reduced, the orginal image was something like 36 mp. > > Jesus man. What was the point of all that? Well two points, the first was that there are some people who believe so much that the kit lens is crap that not matter how good a photo from it might look they will still call it crap. The start of all of these was a number of people saying that under no circumstances it the kit lens worth the small amount you have to pay for it. That it is so bad that you would not be happy with any photo from it. For me I get two things from the kit lens, using one shot photos that are sharp enough to make great looking 8 x 12 print, used with stitching images that can easily have 40MP of sharp pixels. The other point is that any number of people using L lenses really don't understand what it takes to get a very sharp image, the lens can only take you so far and then soon the camera becomes the limit. I would bet that the kit lens on a 8 MP camera can produce, with one shot, a sharper image then an L lens on a 6MP camera, say the 20D vs 10D. In the end you have to ask the question, do you want sharp images or do you want a white lens on your camera that people will notice? This is not to say that L lenses are not without value or that they have no uses, but just because someone is not using them does not mean that they are not getting sharp photos. That some people believe that you can only get a good image with a L lens does show how effective Canon's marketing is. Scott > Now everything I have said is true, this photograph was shot with a > 350D using the kit lens, so it is possible to get a very sharp image > using the kit lens. I disagree. > What I find interesting is that faced with a image that has an extreme > amount of detail you still attack it simply because you know the image > was taken with the kit lens. This is simply hogwash. Have you actually looked at the original JPG you posted? I'm sorry, but when doing an inspection at 100% (as we do when evaluating sharpness) what I'm seeing is a blurry mess with ghosting from the jpeg compression everywhere. Despite your dishonest attempt to fool us with what was efectively a 22mp composite I still feel that the end result, as posted, for the reasons given, went a lot further towards proving my point than it did yours. > Whereas it is true that there are other lenses that are sharper then > the kit lens Understatement of the year. Put more accurately "There are few (if any lenses) for the Rebel XT that are WORSE than the kit lens)" That's it buddy - the kit lens is the bottom of the barrel. > it is not nearly as bad as some people would make it out > to be. Stopped down it is not all that bad and using it with either > the 20D or XT gives me far sharper images then I could get from my Sony > F828, also a 8MP camera. It's a lens with a lot of limitations. Everybody knows that you'll get better results from a good lens on a not-so-good camera than you will on a not-so-good lens on a good camera. It's a bit like buying a new Ferrari and then fitting it with wheels from a 1964 Morris Minor - my position is "it's the wrong tool for the job - dragging the performance of the Ferrari down to the point where it's cut off at the knees". The typical response is "but it's fine for all that I want it to do - which is to drive down to the corner dairy", but to that I answer "nobody in their right mind buys a Ferrari just to go down to the corner dairy". If all you want are mediocre shots to print 6 x 4 then go buy a P & S - if you're going to buy something like the Rebel XT (which is basically a very capable camera) why the hell would you want to "cut it off at the knees" by fitting a crap lens to it? In my opinion it IS as bad a some people make out - your mileage may vary - but I've had 2 of them on 2 different cameras and I can't recall ANY photos that I've taken with them that I wanted to keep. I missed lots of opportunities for good shots because of it - and I've even wasted many hours returning to locations trying to retake the shot because I thought it was me that f.cked it up. So is it the lens, or is it me? In the end I splashed out a few grand on a couple of L series and INSTANTLY I'm getting acceptable results. Others have shared my experiance - go figure! >I NEVER shoot anything BUT RAW files. As per my other post, perhaps you'd be >so good as to explain to me how a RAW file magically turns a 3456 x 2304 >image into a 5669 x 3780 image without upsampling? (and losing quality in >the process). Just where did you get the misconception that interpolation destroys data? John > >I NEVER shoot anything BUT RAW files. As per my other post, perhaps you'd be > >so good as to explain to me how a RAW file magically turns a 3456 x 2304 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > John It doesn't destroy data - it attempts to create new data based on what it "thinks" is there. It's useful in preventing (or rather offsetting) (what would be a further) deterioration of the image when printing / displaying an image (ie if you upsample a 75ppi image to 240 for printing, the 240 ppi one won't look great, but it won't be as bad as it would have been had it have been printed at 75dpi). It's not useful in discussions of comparitive sharpness of lenses (unless we're talking teleconverters). Additionally, upsampling a RAW file at the conversion sage doesn't give any measurable advantages over doing it later on in PS - it's downside is that it slows things down because all subsequent processing is then done on a file that's 2 to 4 times the size of what it would be. But hey, what would I know - I only do digital processing & high-end printing for a living - you obviously know a lot more about these things than me (and everyone else too aparantly). Au revoir >>" >> >>The 350D produces images that are a maximum of 3456 x 2304 pixels. Your >>image is 5669 x 3780 pixels - suggesting to me that you've "doctored" it. >> > Never shot raw files, eh? looks to me like you're a typical "pro film shooter whos switched to digital and thinks that they understand it just because they understood film" any idiot knows that if you want to bring out the best in an image you don't lower the quality by up-sampling it and then lower it even more by trying to get it back to a reasonable size by turning it into a low quality jpg and squashing the sh.t out of it pretty much explains why the kit lens example looks so crappy at anything over screen resolution. i've got a point and shoot that can take sharper shots than that >>>" >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >looks to me like you're a typical "pro film shooter whos switched to digital >and thinks that they understand it just because they understood film" No, I'm just a typical ex-pro photographer with an engineering background who spent the next 25 years in the computer field, and understands imaging, perception, and differntial equations. Way back when, before the advent of the personal computer, techno-geeks were called equipment freaks, and had the same attitude - "one can't take PHOTOGRAPHS with anything but but the finest equpment and only an idiot would bother trying". Cartier-Bresson, Adams, Capa, and more than a few others would have differed... >any idiot knows that if you want to bring out the best in an image you don't >lower the quality by up-sampling it and then lower it even more by trying to >get it back to a reasonable size by turning it into a low quality jpg and >squashing the sh.t out of it My, my, do you really feel the need to disply your potty mouthed abilities in public? Please be civil. >pretty much explains why the kit lens example looks so crappy at anything >over screen resolution. i've got a point and shoot that can take sharper >shots than that So show us poor "idiots" your mastery... files, eh? > looks to me like you're a typical "pro film shooter whos switched to digital > and thinks that they understand it just because they understood film" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > over screen resolution. i've got a point and shoot that can take sharper > shots than that Really, can we see one? Here is the same image saved at quaility 12 http://www.sewcon.com/temp/kit_lens_test_lc.jpg But I rather doubt you can come close to the lower quaility jpeg image seen here http://www.sewcon.com/temp/kit_lens_test.jpg But since you seem to thing it would look better as a 8 MP image here is that note that were I circled the street number you can no longer read the numbers in the 8 MP image whereas they were very readable in the 21 MP image. http://www.sewcon.com/temp/kit_lens_test_small.jpg Now do yo really believe you have an image from a P&S that has more detail then my 21MP image? Scott >Really, can we see one? > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Scott Scott, Would you PLEASE stop interupting the rhetoric with data? You might actually clarify things a bit <g>... John > Scott, > > Would you PLEASE stop interupting the rhetoric with data? You might > actually clarify things a bit <g>... > > John I love playing with these guys, they are so sure that the kit lens can not produce a good image that no matter how good an image I show them they will call it crap. Scott >I love playing with these guys, they are so sure that the kit lens can >not produce a good image that no matter how good an image I show them >they will call it crap. > >Scott I see (in another post) that they fell for it hook, line, and sinker. I hope the OP (javamaan) will successfully wind his way through the thicket of (mis)information, One can't but wonder that such behavior is an attempt to convince themselves that their expenditures were worth the cost. OTOH, maybe they just enjoy being contrary. At least one of them clearly does. John > >I love playing with these guys, they are so sure that the kit lens can > >not produce a good image that no matter how good an image I show them [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > John Yup, it would appear that some people will see what they expect to see and nothing else. The kit lens really is not bad as long as it is not shoot wide open and I rather doubt that many people would be able to tell the difference between the kit lens and a L lens in a 8 x 12 inch print. And if one is really after a sharp image then there are other paths that work much better then just using L glass. Here is a shot of my old trusty F828 http://www.sewcon.com/temp/f828.jpg that one is about 36mp. Scott >Yup, it would appear that some people will see what they expect to see >and nothing else. > >The kit lens really is not bad as long as it is not shoot wide open and >I rather doubt that many people would be able to tell the difference >between the kit lens and a L lens in a 8 x 12 inch print. Yes indeed. I have made 8x10 inch prints from my old Canon G1 (3.1 MP) that have blown away people who were not heavily into photography. Usually, I did so when asked " how good a print can I get from a 3 (or 4, or 5) megapixel camera?" The fact that there is more to camera gear than megapixels, and that technique is even more important, escapes many. That is is the essential truth that escapes equipment fanatics, and why both manufacturers and OEMs produce the more affordable lenses along with the higher priced gear. Leica & Zeiss are falling by the wayside largely because of this - the premium is not worth the results anymore. Once upon a time, when people shot fine grained slide film and projected the results with quality projection lenses to 10 feet in width observed from 8 feet away, superb optics where required and prime (fixed focal lenth) lenses by Leica, Nikon, Pentax, and Canon ruled the day. Such degree of enlargement is rare today, and the improvement in zoom lenses makes the use of primes somewhat academic. The impact of an image cannot be appreciated by viewing it at 100% (or greater) on a 90 ppi monitor. Only by viewing the image in its entirety can that happen. Few people ever see their prints larger than 8x12. >And if one is really after a sharp image then there are other paths >that work much better then just using L glass. Amen. But then you'd have to be producing high quality images to appreciate that, and some folks clearly are incapable of that. >Here is a shot of my old trusty F828 >http://www.sewcon.com/temp/f828.jpg that one is about 36mp. Very high resolution, there, Scott. What stitching program and techniques do you use? John >>Yup, it would appear that some people will see what they expect to see >>and nothing else. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > gear than megapixels, and that technique is even more important, > escapes many. I'll tell ya what though. It's also not just the pure sharpness of a lens. I can tell my sigma 12-24 lens shots are often kind of washed out. I sometimes get nice contrasty shots but less often, and yes the contrast can be boosted in software. Flare, CA, edge to edge performance, bokeh under tough conditions, etc. > That is is the essential truth that escapes equipment fanatics, and > why both manufacturers and OEMs produce the more affordable lenses [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ruled the day. Such degree of enlargement is rare today, and the > improvement in zoom lenses makes the use of primes somewhat academic. It matters for my 13x19 desktop prints. Like it mattered for 8x10s with 3MP. Zooms still don't come in 1.8 or even f/2 which can be got cheap in a fixed lens and can do things a slow lens cannot do at all. > The impact of an image cannot be appreciated by viewing it at 100% (or > greater) on a 90 ppi monitor. Only by viewing the image in its > entirety can that happen. Few people ever see their prints larger than > 8x12. What about cropped at full pixels on the web? You can't do a panorama for once-in-a-lifetime opportunities with wildlife, or family snaps with that perfect expression. I got a cool shot of a Heron a while back with a fish in it's beak but had to crop it hard and it doesn't look that great enlarged. Too bad. >>And if one is really after a sharp image then there are other paths >>that work much better then just using L glass. > > Amen. But then you'd have to be producing high quality images to > appreciate that, and some folks clearly are incapable of that. You can't have it all. > > >> Scott, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > not produce a good image that no matter how good an image I show them > they will call it crap. I'm pleased with mine which I've had for three weeks. I took this at Canary Wharf last Sunday with the kit lens on a EOS 350D - http://tinyurl.com/z2x2o on the Canon image share site. I've done no processing on it at all - it was shot RAW and the image is the jpeg conversion done by iPhoto on a Mac. Shot at 18mm, 1/125th, F10.0. Hmmm, and at ISO 800 for some reason, probably cos I was tinkering. SignatureAndy > > > > >> Scott, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the jpeg conversion done by iPhoto on a Mac. Shot at 18mm, 1/125th, > F10.0. Hmmm, and at ISO 800 for some reason, probably cos I was tinkering. That link takes me to the registration screen. Scott >>> > >>>> Scott, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> > That link takes me to the registration screen. f.cking Canon. That's the last time I try and put an image on that site. Sorry, I'll try again elsewhere. SignatureAndy >> > >>> Scott, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the jpeg conversion done by iPhoto on a Mac. Shot at 18mm, 1/125th, > F10.0. Hmmm, and at ISO 800 for some reason, probably cos I was tinkering. OK, this time it's accessible at http://www.flickr.com/photos/75234631@N00/158858964/ SignatureAndy >> I'm pleased with mine which I've had for three weeks. I took this at >> Canary Wharf last Sunday with the kit lens on a EOS 350D - [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > OK, this time it's accessible at > http://www.flickr.com/photos/75234631@N00/158858964/ Hey, what is that reflections shot? <http://www.flickr.com/photos/75234631@N00/158893896/in/photostream/> Interesting. >>> I'm pleased with mine which I've had for three weeks. I took this at >>> Canary Wharf last Sunday with the kit lens on a EOS 350D - [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Interesting. It's the water under the Docklands Light Railway bridge at Canary Wharf facing approximately south. Taken at about 7pm after a pretty heavy rain squall. You can just see the faint blue and white reflections of two buildings on the other side of the dock, running top to bottom on the left-hand side of the image. As a old dock area, there's probably all sorts of odd currents going on under there which gave this odd pattern of reflections. SignatureAndy > I love playing with these guys, they are so sure that the kit lens can > not produce a good image that no matter how good an image I show them > they will call it crap. Oh how "masterful" of you. Only 1 fly in the ointment - what you posted WAS a crap picture when looked at from the 100% crop point-of-view (ie the way ALL meaningful sharpness evaluations are done) - and as I pointed out originally (go look for yourself, it's there in balck and white) it's hard to determine why the loss of detail because of all the jpeg ghosting. >Oh how "masterful" of you. Only 1 fly in the ointment - what you posted WAS >a crap picture when looked at from the 100% crop point-of-view (ie the way >ALL meaningful sharpness evaluations are done) - and as I pointed out >originally (go look for yourself, it's there in balck and white) it's hard >to determine why the loss of detail because of all the jpeg ghosting. Well, some of us actually use our equipment to make phtographs... Hee hee hee... John >> I'm with Tony on this one - I've owned 2 of the kit lenses - and the only >> sharp images I've ever got were when I kicked the kit lens into orbit and >> strapped on a 24 - 70 2.8L. >> >It is worth noting that lens cost about as much as a 20D body. >Having said that it is still posible to get a very sharp image with the >kit lens with just a bit of effert, this is one of my photos using it. >http://www.sewcon.com/temp/kit_lens_test.jpg >To my way of thinking if I can get a good sharp image using a lens it >is not worthless. Exactly. Not everyone can lay out $1200 bucks for a lens right off the bat. ---- Paul J. Gans >>He already must have EOS EF mount lenses as he has an Elan 7 now. These >>will continue to work on the XT so there is probably no need to buy any >>lenses. However the 18-55 adds not more than $100 to the kit and is very >>small and light and probably better than anything else you can put on for >>$100. >It is worse than almost any lens you can buy for $10 on eBay. Yes, it >really is *that bad*. >>Have you actually tried the 18-55? It may feel very cheap but optically is >>not that bad. >I have tried and tested five samples of this lens. The tests included >bench testing (4 samples) and shooting real images (all 5). There was >only one conclusion that could be drawn: the lens is junk. >$100 is a lot to pay for junk. Must be a fair amount of sample variability in that lens. Mine isn't bad at all. Guess what though? I can tell it from my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. But I paid a little more than $100 for the telephoto. --- Paul J. Gans > I have tried and tested five samples of this lens. The tests included > bench testing (4 samples) and shooting real images (all 5). There was > only one conclusion that could be drawn: the lens is junk. > > $100 is a lot to pay for junk. That is certainly true. $100 is better put toward something good if you find the 18-55 to be not useful. It is quite useful to me and worth the $100. To another, it may not yield good enough results to ever use, in which case it is $100 wasted for sure. I suspect you have very high standards for lens performance. This is good to keep the demand on the manufacturers to improve as then there is a market for the high-end stuff and as the production efficiencies improve and costs come down and the development of the process improves, the low end items will improve also. People who see the pictures I have taken with the EF-S 18-55 always say "wow, what a good picture, you must have a good camera". I haven't tried to blow them up large although I have cropped some quite severly and still got a good print. Compared to any compact camera or point and shoot, I am sure the Rebel XT with the 18-55 outperforms it. Even the bigger point and shoots with the 10x zooms don't go nearly as wide unless they use big, clunky, expensive, end of lens wide converters that add barrel distortion and CA much worse than the 18-55. There is a whole scale of photographic quality out there from cell phones and toy cameras up to models that you could sell for enough money to purchase a modest home with. Some people and art schools use Holga medium format cameras. These cost between 20 and $50 us depending on the model and options and if you get the special black tape to seal the light leaks that doesn't leave sticky residue or just the ordinary black tape. Anyway, I will stop defending the 18-55. It is what it is. If you find the results objectionable, then there are many other options. It is always possible to spend more to get a better result. >>>Hi folks, >>> I am currently using a Elan 7 film camera. I am thinking of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > is not that bad. Compare the reviews for the 17-85 and the 18-55 at > photozone I agree. It is not until you have a good L lens that it starts to look poor! >Hi folks, > I am currently using a Elan 7 film camera. I am thinking of >switching to Digital camera. I am debating between a 30D and Rebel XT. How about the 20D (previous model)? It does most of what the new 30D can do, but will be less expensive. Spot metering will be the biggest thing the 20D lacks. >Nothing else pounces on me. I like spot metering. But this feature >alone is not worth $600 odd difference. Please let me know why you >would choose/chose one over the other? thanks. One of the important factors is handling - you need to pickup the Rebel XT and compare it to the 20D/30D models. The XT is pretty small, and some people have a hard time with it because of the tiny size. You'll have to try it for yourself. For image performance, the XT is almost identical to the 20D even though they use different sensors. Concentrate on the features, performance, and handling differences to see if the price is right. >>Hi folks, >> I am currently using a Elan 7 film camera. I am thinking of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >they use different sensors. Concentrate on the features, performance, >and handling differences to see if the price is right. As an hobbyist, I say the camera you take with you more often is the best. The XT is *much* smaller and lighter that the D30 and if you're like me, that makes the 30D a waste of money as much as I could use the spot meter. I have a 300d which is smaller and lighter than the 30D and it's a *big* camera, especially with a zoom lens. Read the reviews on dpreview.com. Look at the dimensions and try to imagine each. Find something that weighs the same as each and compare. Add the weight of the lens and compare again. Signaturea d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. Proudly then, even more so in hindsight. >>One of the important factors is handling - you need to pickup the Rebel >>XT and compare it to the 20D/30D models. The XT is pretty small, and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I have a 300d which is smaller and lighter than the 30D and it's a >*big* camera, especially with a zoom lens. The 300D is far from big...perhaps compared to a small P&S. I'd say it fits between the XT and 30D, yet closer to the XT in size. Take a look at the 1Ds for a big camera. >Read the reviews on dpreview.com. Look at the dimensions and try to >imagine each. Find something that weighs the same as each and compare. >Add the weight of the lens and compare again. That's not the same as handling the cameras. The position of the shutter release and control dials can be quite different between various models, even within the same brand. And while one person may love the way the 30D feels in their hands, another may prefer the feel and layout of the Nikon D70 instead. It's all a matter of personal preference, and part of that preference depends on your handsize, shape of your fingers, dexterity, etc. It all makes a difference. >That's not the same as handling the cameras. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >depends on your handsize, shape of your fingers, dexterity, etc. It all >makes a difference. Sage advice indeed. The OP's choice will be much easier if he spends the time at the local shop handling the cameras. The last camera I used as a pro was a Canon T90. It had a second shutter release along the battery container that made vertical use far easier and convenient. I chose the 350D over the 20D because it felt better in my hands with the optional battery grip than the 20D with grip did. I also preferred the quick access buttons for ISO & metering on the 350D. The same items on the 20D were menu picks. > I also preferred the quick access > buttons for ISO & metering on the 350D. The same items on the 20D > were menu picks. ISO and metering for the 20D are via buttons on the top of the camera, not menu items. >>I also preferred the quick access >>buttons for ISO & metering on the 350D. The same items on the 20D >>were menu picks. > > ISO and metering for the 20D are via buttons on the top of the camera, > not menu items. I'd bet the 20D/30D has generally better manual controls. I went from a Nikon D70 to D200 and the added physical buttons are a real bonus. I don't know how important that is for a first camera because I didn't control much of anything on the D70 at first but part of the reason may be that it was a hassle to dig through menus. All I can say is now I am much more likely to adjust ISO, focus & metering mode, etc to get what I want. The biggest difference though, and I assume it is similar with these Canon models is the larger brighter viewfinder. If you can compare the 2 cameras in a store, be sure they have the same speed lens at the same focal length, then try manual focusing each & see if you can tell the difference. >>I also preferred the quick access >>buttons for ISO & metering on the 350D. The same items on the 20D >>were menu picks. > > ISO and metering for the 20D are via buttons on the top of the camera, not > menu items. And on the Rebel XT, as opposed to the original Rebel, you now have to push the Set button after setting ISO and metering. The buttons on the back of the camera are just shortcuts to menu items. Greg Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > It had a second shutter release along the battery container that >made vertical use far easier and convenient. I chose the 350D over >the 20D because it felt better in my hands with the optional battery >grip than the 20D with grip did. That's where we differ - I actually don't like the vertical grip on the 350D/XT because my lower two fingers get "bent" out of shape by the vertical portion of the grip - the whole package is too small. I like the balance a bit better, but it's just too cramped. On a larger body, like the 20D or Nikon D70, a vertical grip is more comfortable for me. Originally I bought the XT because it did almost everything the 20D can do, but in a smaller package and lower cost. It was great for day-trips because I took just one lense and had a compact and lightweight camera in a very small case. But now I'm finding I take 2-3 lenses with me in a bigger bag anyway and size/weight is less of an issue. I'm finding that I expect to upgrade again even though I don't really need to do so, simply for comfort and convenience. > I also preferred the quick access >buttons for ISO & metering on the 350D. The same items on the 20D >were menu picks. I think you have that backwards...the 20D has more direct access controls than the XT/350D. But I didn't really care either way. At first I was put off with the menus, but soon learned the shortcuts and it doesn't bother me now. I suppose if I was a dedicated sports shooter, things like quick access to controls would be more important to catch the moment. For instance, a good friend has a new Nikon D200 (very nice camera by the way) and it has almost every control needed at the tip of your fingers instead of inside menus. It's a very good design...better than Canon in my opinion. > > It had a second shutter release along the battery container that > >made vertical use far easier and convenient. I chose the 350D over [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I was put off with the menus, but soon learned the shortcuts and it > doesn't bother me now. I have both the 20D and the XT, have had the 20D for about a year and a half and the XT for just a few weeks. I find the controls on the XT easier to use . I often have the camera mounted on tripod and it is a pain to try and use the top display, the XT has it all on the back where it should be. One thing neither camera has is a display of the ISO in the viewfinder, something that would be very nice to have. For that matter a knob dedicated to the ISO would be really nice as well. Scott Admittedly, my fingers are stubby, hence the 350D fits me better. My palms are not small, so the battery grip results in a fit that I find nearly perfect. >I'm finding that I expect to upgrade again even though I don't really >need to do so, simply for comfort and convenience. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I was put off with the menus, but soon learned the shortcuts and it >doesn't bother me now. Bill - I've no doubt you're correct. My experience with the 20D was shortly after I got the 350D, at my niece's wedding, where I was also using her fathers 20D. I remember that, for me, the 350D was easier to change the ISO and white balance than was the 20D. With a palm grip, I can change the most important settings with just the hand carrying the camera. >I suppose if I was a dedicated sports shooter, things like quick access >to controls |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message