Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Body colours of Canon 350D

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
RichA - 12 Mar 2005 17:51 GMT
I've noticed that the "painted silver" colour
on plastic-bodied cameras tends to wear out,
leaving whatever is under it to show through.
Does anyone know if the black colour you can
choose is solid black plastic, or some kind
of paint covering?
Tumbleweed - 12 Mar 2005 18:17 GMT
> I've noticed that the "painted silver" colour
> on plastic-bodied cameras tends to wear out,
> leaving whatever is under it to show through.
> Does anyone know if the black colour you can
> choose is solid black plastic, or some kind
> of paint covering?

Forgive a wry smile!
Back in the days when I earned a living with my cameras the "standard"
finish on bodies was a matt chrome plate.
It was durable, but too visible.
So "Pro" cameras started to appear in satin black enamel.
These were less visible, but prone to scratching and wear.
I used to wear my battered bodies with pride, the brass showing through on
the strap eyelets, the prism edges and baseplate being proof that my cameras
earned their keep!
Only rookies had shiny pristine bodies. (Both camera body and their own!)
Randall Ainsworth - 12 Mar 2005 19:12 GMT
> Forgive a wry smile!
> Back in the days when I earned a living with my cameras the "standard"
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> earned their keep!
> Only rookies had shiny pristine bodies. (Both camera body and their own!)

That's right. I remember some of my news buddies that had Nikon Fs with
that huge old prism who were proud to have the brass showing through.
Sheldon - 12 Mar 2005 23:42 GMT
>> Forgive a wry smile!
>> Back in the days when I earned a living with my cameras the "standard"
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> That's right. I remember some of my news buddies that had Nikon Fs with
> that huge old prism who were proud to have the brass showing through.

I still have two old F's (silver) and wished I had black ones just so they
would "wear in."  Kinda like an old guitar that's been around.  Just adds
character.  When I was a working pro nobody ever thought to use a
"nEverready" case, and we wore two and three cameras around our neck banging
the heck out of each other.  Never had a failure, and they still work
perfectly today.
RichA - 13 Mar 2005 02:43 GMT
>> I've noticed that the "painted silver" colour
>> on plastic-bodied cameras tends to wear out,
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>earned their keep!
>Only rookies had shiny pristine bodies. (Both camera body and their own!)

Honestly, brass showing through on worn eyelets or edges is a badge
of honour.  Yellow plastic showing through silver paint just means
you took the plastic camera out of it's case a few times!
Steve Wolfe - 12 Mar 2005 18:18 GMT
> I've noticed that the "painted silver" colour
> on plastic-bodied cameras tends to wear out,
> leaving whatever is under it to show through.
> Does anyone know if the black colour you can
> choose is solid black plastic, or some kind
> of paint covering?

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

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

steve
Chin Jin Phua - 12 Mar 2005 19:08 GMT
Hey, since you seem to have both cameras. Do you think it is worth $999 to
get the 350D vs the 300D (about $650 in some places)? are there any
compelling reason to go for the latest other than the extra 2MP and new
firmware for a guy who had only owned a Powershot G1 and thinking of moving
into DSLR?

Thanks
CJ

>> I've noticed that the "painted silver" colour
>> on plastic-bodied cameras tends to wear out,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> steve
Jim Redelfs - 12 Mar 2005 21:10 GMT
> Do you think it is worth $999 to
> get the 350D vs the 300D (about $650 in some places)?

Yes.  Absolutely.

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck!
                  :)
JR
Stacey - 13 Mar 2005 09:20 GMT
> Nevermind the extra 2MP.  The new DigiReb has Canon's new image processor
> and
> USB 2.0 output.  

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

Signature


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

Steve Wolfe - 13 Mar 2005 05:56 GMT
> Hey, since you seem to have both cameras. Do you think it is worth $999 to
> get the 350D vs the 300D (about $650 in some places)? are there any
> compelling reason to go for the latest other than the extra 2MP and new
> firmware for a guy who had only owned a Powershot G1 and thinking of moving
> into DSLR?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

steve
Chin Jin Phua - 13 Mar 2005 23:36 GMT
Thanks for the reply and info. I had a look at the 350D at B&H today. The
kit lens looks kinda cheap and from the limited time I had with it, seems
pretty limited in terms of range. I am thinking of going with the 17-85 IS
USM for another $400, is the money worth it? Or will I regret later?

>> Hey, since you seem to have both cameras. Do you think it is worth $999
>> to get the 350D vs the 300D (about $650 in some places)? are there any
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
>
> steve
Steve Wolfe - 13 Mar 2005 23:47 GMT
> Thanks for the reply and info. I had a look at the 350D at B&H today. The
> kit lens looks kinda cheap and from the limited time I had with it, seems
> pretty limited in terms of range. I am thinking of going with the 17-85 IS
> USM for another $400, is the money worth it? Or will I regret later?

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

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

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

steve
RichA - 13 Mar 2005 02:44 GMT
>> I've noticed that the "painted silver" colour
>> on plastic-bodied cameras tends to wear out,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>steve

Good!  I was hoping that was the case.
Thanks!
-Rich
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.