Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2005
Body colours of Canon 350D
|
|
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
|
|
|