 |
 | 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 / March 2005Is the 350D a 20D in a polycarb body ?
Like the 300D was a 10D in a polycarbontae body with certain functions disabled, is the 350D a 20D in a polycarb body with less functions (if any) disabled ? Thanks Wander over to DPReview.com and do a side by side comparison (under buying guide) to answer this question in the best way.... When considering moving up to DSLR, I decided not to buy Canon simply because of what I considered a bit of heavy handed "handicaping" of the 300... But when they released the 20D and I realised how nice a camera it is, I changed my mind at the last minute. (I was waiting for the Pentax DS to hit the stores) From what I can see, Nikon taught them not to be to obvious about depriving customers of functionality in the low end cameras. It looks like the only places where the 350D is inferior to the 20D are in places where the bits clearly cost less. (as opposed to arbitrary withholding of functions in firmware as they did before) If I was still making my decision today, I'd be forced to ask myself, "do I really need the extra FPS, the extra metering points, the slightly more accurate autofocus, the brighter viewfinder?" For the money, it's possible that I'd go with the new one.... but I do like my 20D! Al... > Like the 300D was a 10D in a polycarbontae body with certain functions > disabled, is the 350D a 20D in a polycarb body with less functions (if > any) disabled ? > > Thanks > Wander over to DPReview.com and do a side by side comparison (under buying > guide) to answer this question in the best way.... Thanks Alan, I compared them on the UK Canon site and they look pretty similar on features, 20D better on some. I'd be interested to know how the results compare seeing they appear to use a different CMOS chip, maybe the 350D is better ?, certainly looks good value. Cheers > Like the 300D was a 10D in a polycarbontae body with certain functions > disabled, is the 350D a 20D in a polycarb body with less functions (if any) > disabled ? > > Thanks There does (according to the spec sheet) seem to be a slight difference in sensor size, so it MAY be a totally different sensor. They both (Rebel xt & D20) have the digic II chip, so there probably isnt a huge difference in what the cameras a capable of. Once the 350 has been around for a while, and the hackers try to upgrade the firmware, we'll know more about it.  SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. > Like the 300D was a 10D in a polycarbontae body with certain functions > disabled, is the 350D a 20D in a polycarb body with less functions (if any) > disabled ? > > Thanks I don't think so. Canon didn't withhold any arbitrary features like in 300D. The 350D has everything the hardware is capable of. It's very competitive which can steal many, many would-be 20D buyers if they don't mind a slower processor, pentamirror, a different sensor, or less "luxurious" construction. I wonder if the 350D comes with the lockup problems, underexposure, and the banding issues. >> Like the 300D was a 10D in a polycarbontae body with certain functions >> disabled, is the 350D a 20D in a polycarb body with less functions (if [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mind a slower processor, pentamirror, a different sensor, or less > "luxurious" construction. > I wonder if the 350D comes with the lockup problems, underexposure, and the > banding issues. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>mind a slower processor, pentamirror, a different sensor, or less >>"luxurious" construction. You seem to be jealous that you can't afford the lovely 20D! ;) >> I wonder if the 350D comes with the lockup problems, underexposure, and >> the banding issues. > You seem to be jealous that you can't afford the lovely 20D! ;) Well, he might be jealous but he does have a point about lockups. I have had 5 lockups with my new 20D and 100-400 IS lens. >>> I wonder if the 350D comes with the lockup problems, underexposure, and >>> the banding issues. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Well, he might be jealous but he does have a point about lockups. I have >had 5 lockups with my new 20D and 100-400 IS lens. Was it always with the same battery? I had my first 20D/100-400 lockups recently, but they were all with the same old battery (which lost its charge fairly quickly. It has only occured during one use of a specific battery (about 4x, before I swapped the battery). After I replaced the battery, it never happened again. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >[Canon EOS 350D] can steal many, many would-be 20D buyers >if they don't mind a slower processor, Is there a slower precessor in 350D? I was under the impression that there was the same DICIC II processo rin both cameras. Jan Böhme Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik. Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur. Jan Böhme wrote: >>[Canon EOS 350D] can steal many, many would-be 20D buyers >>if they don't mind a slower processor, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik. > Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur. Not necessary. The ELPH has the same DIGIC II processor but I doubt they are as fast as the DSLR versions. Is the mirror box construction on the 350D same as 20D? > Is the mirror box construction on the 350D same as 20D? No: the 350D has a pentamirror while the 20D has a pentaprism. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >>Is the mirror box construction on the 350D same as 20D? > > No: the 350D has a pentamirror while the 20D has a pentaprism. You're refering to the viewfinder. I mean the mechanism that flips the mirror up when you push the shutter. it might not be strong enough to handle 5fps. >>>Is the mirror box construction on the 350D same as 20D? >> >> No: the 350D has a pentamirror while the 20D has a pentaprism. > > You're refering to the viewfinder. I mean the mechanism that flips the > mirror up when you push the shutter. Duh, I'm sorry. > it might not be strong enough to handle 5fps. Dpreview.com says 2.8 fps. Are you suggesting that the limiting factor might be the mirror assembly rather than the processor? Hmm ... the 350D's max shutter speed is 1/4000s to the 20D's 1/8000s. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >>>>Is the mirror box construction on the 350D same as 20D? >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > factor might be the mirror assembly rather than the processor? Hmm > ... the 350D's max shutter speed is 1/4000s to the 20D's 1/8000s. Actually, I think all the components are chosen for the specification they designed, including the processor. The DIGIC II in 20D is abviously not the same as one used in 1DsMKII. Likewise, there are many versions of Athlon64. >>>>Is the mirror box construction on the 350D same as 20D? >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > factor might be the mirror assembly rather than the processor? Hmm > ... the 350D's max shutter speed is 1/4000s to the 20D's 1/8000s. The mirror assembly has nothing to do with shutter speed. Most likely, the shutter is the same, just slowed down in firmware. The mirror could contribute to shutter lag (if different and slower that the 20D's). It's possible that the frame rate is showed down in firmware. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. 350D is a stripped down version of 20D. See this: http://www.bobatkins.com/photograph..._xt_vs_20d.html > Like the 300D was a 10D in a polycarbontae body with certain functions > disabled, is the 350D a 20D in a polycarb body with less functions (if any) > disabled ? > > Thanks http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_vs_20d.html > http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_vs_20d.html This is not what the OP ask for. The 350 is clearly a strip down version of 20D. The OP's wondering if a hack could restore some functions of 350D. It's clearly NO. It's a different story from 300D. Canon eliminated custom functions in the 300D but the core is the same as 10D. The hack merely enables some custom functions. 350D has its own custom functions. No hack can increase it's frame rates. >> http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_vs_20d.html > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The hack merely enables some custom functions. 350D has its own custom >functions. No hack can increase it's frame rates. If the internals are less robust than the 20Ds, you might not want to hack it to increase the frame rate anyhow. They could be using cheaper motors, plastic gear sets, etc. -Rich > The OP's wondering if a hack could restore some functions of >350D. It's clearly NO. It's a different story from 300D. Canon >eliminated custom functions in the 300D but the core is the same as 10D. >The hack merely enables some custom functions. 350D has its own custom >functions. No hack can increase it's frame rates. Since the XT is still quite new, I thought no one would have ripped and disassembled the firmware code for the XT yet. > 350D is a stripped down version of 20D. > See this: http://www.bobatkins.com/photograph..._xt_vs_20d.html The 20D has a different sensor. They are different cameras. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > The 20D has a different sensor. They are different cameras. Of course they are different cameras. But it's not much that is different except that much is less in 350D. Like 7 AF point instead of 9 in 20D, 5fps instead of 3 etc etc... It's all written so nice if you just read the link I posted. PS. Well, I could have been unclear of what I said, Read "stripped down version" as "slim version" instead. > It's all written so nice if you just read the link I posted. Your link is nothing but a thinly disguised SPAM effort. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >> It's all written so nice if you just read the link I posted. > > Your link is nothing but a thinly disguised SPAM effort. Bollocks. If you hang around photo.net you'll find out who Bob Atkins is. Spam is not his style. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >>>It's all written so nice if you just read the link I posted. >> >>Your link is nothing but a thinly disguised SPAM effort. > > Bollocks. If you hang around photo.net you'll find out who Bob Atkins > is. Spam is not his style. If I was wrong, I'll apologize. However, when someone like "Richard Anderson" shows up, having never posted on a photo usenet group, ever, and posts links to a commercial site, twice in a row, the conclusion is hard not to come by. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > However, when someone like "Richard Anderson" shows up, having never > posted on a photo usenet group, ever, and posts links to a commercial > site, twice in a row, the conclusion is hard not to come by. The first instance was non-functional, I believe. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall > However, when someone like "Richard Anderson" shows up, having never > posted on a photo usenet group, ever, and posts links to a commercial > site, twice in a row, the conclusion is hard not to come by. Now I really don't like you! The link I posetd first was broken, wrong, didn't work! Do you get it!? Like in forums you can edit your message, you can't do that here! So, I posted the (correct) link again because it had a meaning with my message, okay!? My question is how can you have the cheek to report me for SPAMMING when you evern know it's the first time I posty in here and don't even post me a sipmle message telling me that YOU didn't like me when I posting a correct link that is working HUH? tell me.... I'm already waiting... >>However, when someone like "Richard Anderson" shows up, having never >>posted on a photo usenet group, ever, and posts links to a commercial [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sipmle message telling me that YOU didn't like me when I posting a correct > link that is working HUH? tell me.... I'm already waiting... Keep your shorts on. 1) You're completely unknown on any photo usenet group (AFAICT from Google). Your first post to this NG is a link to a commercial page. 2) The page you linked to has advertising right by the content. No matter what review you click to there, there is advertising. 3) In your second post you did not post an error warning. It is common to put an "oops" or "corrected link" (or whatever pleases you) in the subject line when correcting information. I apologize to you for the quick reaction. However you should understand that usenet is uncontrolled, unmoderated and unfortunately is susceptible to spamming. Members like myself are quite reactive to whatever looks like SPAM. Further, just because this NG is new to you, don't assume that differences between the 20D and 350D are not clear to us. Your statement: "It's all written so nice if you just read the link I posted." refers. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > Keep your shorts on. > > 1) You're completely unknown on any photo usenet group (AFAICT from > Google). Your first post to this NG is a link to a commercial page. So? It was containing a comparsion to 350D and 20D. > 2) The page you linked to has advertising right by the content. No > matter what review you click to there, there is advertising. You got to be kidding me!? Do you call me spammer because of THAT!? Do you really believe I posted that link because of all advetiseing it contains? Come un, give me a break... > 3) In your second post you did not post an error warning. It is common > to put an "oops" or "corrected link" (or whatever pleases you) in the > subject line when correcting information. Yeah, I'm sorry, "new link" didn't sound like "correct link" or whatever... but you could have thinked twice before the report! Why would I want to post a link again if it wasn't broken or something!? > I apologize to you for the quick reaction. However you should > understand that usenet is uncontrolled, unmoderated and unfortunately is > susceptible to spamming. Members like myself are quite reactive to > whatever looks like SPAM. I know that, but I didn't even get a warning first, you reported me rigth away! If something happens with the report I promise I'll let you know... > Further, just because this NG is new to you, don't assume that > differences between the 20D and 350D are not clear to us. Your > statement: "It's all written so nice if you just read the link I > posted." refers. Okay, you say that I'm not smart enough to know about the difference between the two cameras so I'm supposed to shut up and let the regulars post messages. That's how I understand the words from you... I didn't say that anyone here don't know the difference, but that link contained interesting information I thought. > You got to be kidding me!? Do you call me spammer because of THAT!? Do you > really believe I posted that link because of all advetiseing it contains? > Come un, give me a break... I'll certainly give you a break as you seem new to usenet. Spammers are constantly posting links here in the guise of contribution. They get reported to their ISP's. They get plonked. >>3) In your second post you did not post an error warning. It is common >>to put an "oops" or "corrected link" (or whatever pleases you) in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but you could have thinked twice before the report! Why would I want to post > a link again if it wasn't broken or something!? Don't assume that _your_ first post is the first post of yours that everyone sees, or that everyone tries the link (I didn't in the 1st post). The vaggaries of message propagation, newsreaders and NG partipants habits make the reading order unpredictable. >>I apologize to you for the quick reaction. However you should >>understand that usenet is uncontrolled, unmoderated and unfortunately is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I know that, but I didn't even get a warning first, you reported me rigth > away! If something happens with the report I promise I'll let you know... Pause for trembling. (I'm sending them a retraction). >>Further, just because this NG is new to you, don't assume that >>differences between the 20D and 350D are not clear to us. Your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the two cameras so I'm supposed to shut up and let the regulars post > messages. That's how I understand the words from you... Understand that the moon is green cheese for all I care. There is more knowledge about digital SLR cameras in this NG than I think you suspect. Another bit of NG Nettiquette is to "listen" to the traffic foe a few days before jumping in. Everyone is welcome to post, just don't assume ignorance. > I didn't say that anyone here don't know the difference, but that link > contained interesting information I thought. Had you read here before you would realize that the 350D has been discussed in this NG in great detail already. Most people interested in it have read the releases, the reviews and at least one poster that I noted has the beast already. Your statement "350D is a stripped down version of 20D." is wrong (different sensor, different processor) so your reference to the BA article was suspect, at best. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > how can you have the cheek to report me for SPAMMING I don't believe Alan reported you -- at least, he didn't say that he did. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall > I don't believe Alan reported you -- at least, he didn't say that he did. Do you know who he is? Yes? Then you should start and get to know him better, I received a copy of the report - and it pissed me hell off! >>I don't believe Alan reported you -- at least, he didn't say that he did. > > Do you know who he is? Yes? > Then you should start and get to know him better, I received a copy of the > report - and it pissed me hell off! You should be happy I CC'd you. Most people reporting abuse don't provide that courtesy. I'll write them a retraction, however. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >>how can you have the cheek to report me for SPAMMING > > I don't believe Alan reported you -- at least, he didn't say that he did. I did. I don't make public bones about it. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. |
Reply to this Message |
 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.