Looking to buy a D-SLR Camera.

[jhershauer]

crazy talk? (ppi)

Huh? What does the ppi tag on the image file have to do with quality or processing speed? Isn't it just an arbitrary value placed in the image file, and determined by the camera manufacturer? It has nothing to do with the quality or resolution of the image recorded/stored by the camera.

The 350D has a very slightly smaller CMOS sensor than the 20D, but they're very close in size and should be capable of producing very similar quality pictures.

Isn't the faster processing speed of the 350D more likely due to the use of the Digic II image processor?

Jeff

I wouldn't be surprised that the 350D could take more shots more quickly since the pixels per inch is most likely a lot lower, just like the 300D, which uses 180 ppi. Uggggh.

 

[Jeromie]

This is something I had been meaning to ask about; I currently have an old portable tripod (folds down to about a foot long) but was looking to get something lighter and more stable.

Is there anything you would recommend at a low price-point? (a tripod isn't something I'd want to spend a lot on)

I've been pretty happy with my Slik Sprint Pro [bhphotovideo.com]. It's not the most stable tripod on the market, but it's light enough that I actually carry it with me (again, if you don't take it with you it does no good) and has met my needs fine. It's pretty versatile too, with independently adjustable legs and a reversible center column. Oh, and not too expensive as far as these things go. Which really suprised me. I had no idea what a nice tripod cost before I started researching.

 

[absolut_mac]

From looking at various sites, it seems that the 350D is perfectly suited for someone like me who wants to get started with an SLR, as it has full-auto settings, partially auto settings, and a full-manual mode.

Is this the best option for me to go with, or (within that budget) could I be spending my money better?

First off, £1000 is a lot of money - almost $2000, so be sure of your choice before putting your pounds on the counter.

Secondly, IMHO the only other viable alternative in that price range is the Nikon D70. Either of these fantastic cameras should keep you happy for a very long time.

Do yourself a huge favor and check them out side by side before making your final decision. What may seem like an intuitive menu and ergonomic handling to me on either of these cameras, might seem just the opposite to you.

Keep in mind that all cameras have some compromises, so no one camera is going to be best at everything. A good photographer will learn the strengths of the camera and work around its weaknesses i.e. any photographer worthy of that label will get excellent results, whether shooting with a Kodak Brownie or a top of the line Hassleblad. Digital makes it painless and easy to shoot thousands of *practice* shots without wasting film and processing charges.

With enough practice, your camera should just become an extension that you don't even think about, hence the importance of chooing one that you're comfortable with.

Good luck and let us know what you choose. Oh, and don't forget to post some pics

 

[qzak]

digital rebel xt?

hey, maybe someone mentioned this already in here, but what about the Digital Rebel XT? is it between the 300D and the 350D or what?

 

[Jeromie]

hey, maybe someone mentioned this already in here, but what about the Digital Rebel XT? is it between the 300D and the 350D or what?

The Digital Rebel XT is the same as the 350D.

 

[Bhennies]

Exactly...I have some Sigma glass that is simply amazing considering what I paid for it.

I have the sigma 15-30 on my d-70. Very nice lens. Paid 379 for it.

 

[bousozoku]

Huh? What does the ppi tag on the image file have to do with quality or processing speed? Isn't it just an arbitrary value placed in the image file, and determined by the camera manufacturer? It has nothing to do with the quality or resolution of the image recorded/stored by the camera.

The 350D has a very slightly smaller CMOS sensor than the 20D, but they're very close in size and should be capable of producing very similar quality pictures.

Isn't the faster processing speed of the 350D more likely due to the use of the Digic II image processor?

Jeff

Sure, and if I scan two images at different resolutions, it puts an arbitrary ppi number in there, equal to the resolution used in scanning.

 

[jhershauer]

Sure, and if I scan two images at different resolutions, it puts an arbitrary ppi number in there, equal to the resolution used in scanning.

No. With the scanner, it knows that it is bringing in a 4x6 inch (or whatever size object you scan) image and sets the PPI accordingly (different value depending on what resolution you set). If you pick a higher resolution, it will create a larger image (more pixels), and thus set a higher PPI to keep the print size the same as the original image size.

Canon could choose to attach any PPI value to the image that they want. It has nothing to do with the size/quality of the stored image. PPI is just a piece of information, or "tag", to tell the printer what density to use. I say "arbitrary" value for the camera manufacturer because it's up to them to pick a print size that seems appropriate for the pixel count of the image.

For example, if you import a 2336x3504 pixel image from a Canon 20D into your computer, and print it out at the default 180ppi setting, you'll get a 13x19 inch image printed out. If Canon were to "tag" the image file with a 360ppi value, and you printed that out at its default setting, you'd have a 7.5x9.5 inch print. Presumably it would be better quality, but not as visually obvious as something like a 100ppi print vs. a 200ppi print. I guess somebody at Canon decided that a 13x19 inch printout of a 2336x3505 image from a digital camera will provide "photographic quality". You're free to alter the ppi for your own printing wants/needs.

I don't understand the tone of your posts, or the use of winking emoticons given your apparent lack of knowledge on this subject. It's like going to a car performance thread and saying "well of course your car is slower...you don't have any pinstripes on it! Duh!"

Jeff

[Edit] Yikes. I should have read this thing over before I hit the Post button. I used the term "resolution" inappropriately at one point (I changed it to "size/quality").

 

[skipperchong]

green with ...

as a 300d owner, I'm very envious of the 350d, especially the firmware hack. and the extra button.

*sigh*

 

[andrewfee]

Thanks for the advice and suggestions about tripods; I'll definitely want to buy something better than the one I have as soon as I can from the looks of things.

I got around to reading that luminous-landscape site, and it was really helpful. There's a lot of good information there for beginners with "the understanding series"

I think that, unless I don't actually like the ergonomics of it when I get to test one out, I'm almost certainly going to be picking up a 350D with the kit lens, and a Canon 55-200mm lens for £850, and then a 1gb Sandisk Ultra II CF card.

I'll stick with my current tripod until I can afford something better, and then I'll probably look into getting more lenses. (and I should have a better idea of what I'll need after using the camera and the two lenses for a bit)

 

[bousozoku]

...
I don't understand the tone of your posts, or the use of winking emoticons given your apparent lack of knowledge on this subject. It's like going to a car performance thread and saying "well of course your car is slower...you don't have any pinstripes on it! Duh!"

Jeff
...

It's either that or I'm making fun of the numbers games that doesn't always lead to any visible difference.

 

[jared_kipe]

First off, £1000 is a lot of money - almost $2000, so be sure of your choice before putting your pounds on the counter.

Secondly, IMHO the only other viable alternative in that price range is the Nikon D70. Either of these fantastic cameras should keep you happy for a very long time.

Do yourself a huge favor and check them out side by side before making your final decision. What may seem like an intuitive menu and ergonomic handling to me on either of these cameras, might seem just the opposite to you.

Keep in mind that all cameras have some compromises, so no one camera is going to be best at everything. A good photographer will learn the strengths of the camera and work around its weaknesses i.e. any photographer worthy of that label will get excellent results, whether shooting with a Kodak Brownie or a top of the line Hassleblad. Digital makes it painless and easy to shoot thousands of *practice* shots without wasting film and processing charges.

With enough practice, your camera should just become an extension that you don't even think about, hence the importance of chooing one that you're comfortable with.

Good luck and let us know what you choose. Oh, and don't forget to post some pics

Actually I think the Pentax *istD and *istDS fall into the catagory. But I think the 350D will be better.

 

[jhershauer]

It's either that or I'm making fun of the numbers games that doesn't always lead to any visible difference.

Yeah, I know what you mean about numbers games. That's a real pain in the butt. The numbers themselves are valild and meaningful when used in the right context, but the marketing guys get a hold of them and start twisting things around, and then it's hard to use them in a meaningful way.

 

[bousozoku]

Yeah, I know what you mean about numbers games. That's a real pain in the butt. The numbers themselves are valild and meaningful when used in the right context, but the marketing guys get a hold of them and start twisting things around, and then it's hard to use them in a meaningful way.

Exactly. I see so many people throw numbers out there and well, do they tell the whole story? If they did, I probably wouldn't be using a Macintosh, would I?

By the way, does anyone else consider the to be a kind of sarcasm indicator?

 

[-hh]

Actually, considering what you have there, a canon 10-22 wouldn't be that much more expensive to fill in the wide side of your repertoire there.

True, but its an EF-S lens, which makes it not compatible with film...exactly the "conundrum" that Michael Reichmann states at Luminous Landscape. I might be willing to pick it up if it was only $200, but that incompatibility is a no-go at the $800 price point.

Personally, I don't intend on giving up film, as I'm personally cynical on digital on data archiving robustness for the very long term. What I have (somewhat reluctantly) decided is that 8MP of digital surpasses film at high ISO's, for me this generally means only the longest telephoto work (400mm & beyond), and thus does not apply as the best (IMO) solution for wide angle: my current strategy is to shoot film for WA and a 1.6x-type digital for Tele, and thus, each body can serve as a secondary backup for the other, even though each would be less capable than the other at its focal length extreme.


-hh

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I have the sigma 15-30 on my d-70. Very nice lens. Paid 379 for it.

And compared to the APS-C sensor sized lenses coming from Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina; you have the advantage of being able to use it on a film body. In fact a cheap Rebel Ti, N75, or what have you makes a good back up and gives the ability to take advantage of that wonderful wide angle glass that you bought for "normal" wide angle work on your DSLR.

 

[parrothead]

We use several Canon EOS 10D's at work and I have been very impressed with them. They get banged around pretty good, being that we stick them in housings, carry them on bumpy boat rides, and drag them through the water. They have been durable and the pictures are really nice. I dont know that much about photography, but have found it relatively easy to figure most of the settings on the camera.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Thanks for the advice and suggestions about tripods; I'll definitely want to buy something better than the one I have as soon as I can from the looks of things.

I got around to reading that luminous-landscape site, and it was really helpful. There's a lot of good information there for beginners with "the understanding series"

I think that, unless I don't actually like the ergonomics of it when I get to test one out, I'm almost certainly going to be picking up a 350D with the kit lens, and a Canon 55-200mm lens for £850, and then a 1gb Sandisk Ultra II CF card.

I'll stick with my current tripod until I can afford something better, and then I'll probably look into getting more lenses. (and I should have a better idea of what I'll need after using the camera and the two lenses for a bit)

Tripods are a tough thing. Buy too light of a tripod and you are "marginally" better than hand holding (ok, maybe better than that ). The other thing in using a tripod, either use a cable release or the self timer. And for the best results use a mirror lockup if your camera supports it. Also look at the max weight of what your camera and future lenses may weigh in choosing the right tripod.

In regards to the purchase of the 350D kit. If your budget allows you may find doing the body alone and adding the 17-85IS from Canon to be a better choice. Said to be sharper, but the IS allows for 2 to 3 stops extra control on the shutter speed. And with a 28-135 35mm equiv. focal length, it is the most lens that many find that meets their needs.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

It's either that or I'm making fun of the numbers games that doesn't always lead to any visible difference.

From: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214320,00.html

pixels per inch

In computers, pixels per inch (ppi) is a measure of the sharpness (that is, the density of illuminated points) on a display screen. The dot pitch determines the absolute limit of the possible pixels per inch. However, the displayed resolution of pixels (picture elements) that is set up for the display is usually not as fine as the dot pitch. The pixels per inch for a given picture resolution will differ based on the overall screen size since the same number of pixels are being spread out over a different space. The term "dots per inch" (dpi), extended from the print medium, is sometimes used instead of pixels per inch.

Also PPI could be looked upon as the number of pixels the sensor has at a particular resolution. You have 8MP cameras with with very small chips (tends to very noisy at a given ISO) to something like the sensor size on the 1D mkII which should have lower noise.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Actually I think the Pentax *istD and *istDS fall into the catagory. But I think the 350D will be better.

The big advantage to the Pentax DSLR is the wealth of older lenses that mostly work without a hitch.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

True, but its an EF-S lens, which makes it not compatible with film...exactly the "conundrum" that Michael Reichmann states at Luminous Landscape. I might be willing to pick it up if it was only $200, but that incompatibility is a no-go at the $800 price point.

Personally, I don't intend on giving up film, as I'm personally cynical on digital on data archiving robustness for the very long term. What I have (somewhat reluctantly) decided is that 8MP of digital surpasses film at high ISO's, for me this generally means only the longest telephoto work (400mm & beyond), and thus does not apply as the best (IMO) solution for wide angle: my current strategy is to shoot film for WA and a 1.6x-type digital for Tele, and thus, each body can serve as a secondary backup for the other, even though each would be less capable than the other at its focal length extreme.


-hh

Sort of fits with my comment about a backup 35mm body. Though if one wants to have a superwide angle lens it is harder to get something that will work on both. Sigma has the only two that I am aware of the 15-30 and the 12-24 DG. The problem is using filters on these two lenses compared to the Canon 10-22, or any other DSLR specific ultra-wides.

 

[andrewfee]

Tripods are a tough thing. Buy too light of a tripod and you are "marginally" better than hand holding (ok, maybe better than that ). The other thing in using a tripod, either use a cable release or the self timer. And for the best results use a mirror lockup if your camera supports it. Also look at the max weight of what your camera and future lenses may weigh in choosing the right tripod.

In regards to the purchase of the 350D kit. If your budget allows you may find doing the body alone and adding the 17-85IS from Canon to be a better choice. Said to be sharper, but the IS allows for 2 to 3 stops extra control on the shutter speed. And with a 28-135 35mm equiv. focal length, it is the most lens that many find that meets their needs.

Thanks; that's definitely something to consider. Normally, even when holding the camera, I'll use the self timer if it's not something actually needs me to take the shot quickly, that way I can press the button then try to hold the camera as still as possible when taking the shot which usually gives much better results. The 350D is a light camera (compared to other DSLRs from the looks of it) so I don't think it'll need a really strong tripod to support it properly.

I did like the sound of IS lenses, but I had a feeling they'd be very expensive, so didn't actually look into it. It seems I was right, as a quick search showed that lens as being £460. Pricy. More than 3/5ths the price of the body infact.

The body is only £100 less than the body with kit lens and the Canon 55-200mm lens, so it brings the total up to around £1300, which is quite a bit over my planned budget of £1000. (Around $570 US over)

There's only so much of my income I can dedicate towards a camera/lens as it's a hobby, so if I were to go with this lens, it would probably mean waiting at least an extra six weeks before I can afford this equipment.

Is it really worth it to go with this lens? I get the feeling that it probably is, as later down the line, I probably will want to get an IS lens anyway, and it's got a nice range from 28-135mm; I doubt I'd actually need anything that goes higher than that.

 

[absolut_mac]

Actually I think the Pentax *istD and *istDS fall into the catagory. But I think the 350D will be better.

To be honest I haven't checked out the Pentax digital offerings of late, and nobody seems to mentioning them.

Having said that though, their film cameras were always good value for money, but they just couldn't seem to get their marketing act together i.e. only those who used them knew that they were good.

 

[MacManDan]

[snip]
I did like the sound of IS lenses, but I had a feeling they'd be very expensive, so didn't actually look into it. It seems I was right, as a quick search showed that lens as being £460. Pricy. More than 3/5ths the price of the body infact.
[...]
Is it really worth it to go with this lens? I get the feeling that it probably is, as later down the line, I probably will want to get an IS lens anyway, and it's got a nice range from 28-135mm; I doubt I'd actually need anything that goes higher than that.

The thing about lenses and bodies is that you will keep the lenses for far longer than the bodies, especially in today's digital age. The bodies will change ~18-24 months, but lens technology has remained mostly stagnant in that same time period (Canon's IS, USM, flourite and UD glass are relatively "old" inventions, with the first lenses with these technologies appearing about a decade ago). I could be a bit off base on their age, but I hope you get my point - the lenses will long outlast the camera.

For this reason, consider your lenses as an investment. You also want to make sure you get high-quality lenses that will let the body shine. The camera can't produce details that the lens can't provide. Buying a great body and a crappy lens just doesn't make any sense. I once heard this analogy (I forget where): consider the body of the camera as the CD player, and the lens as the speakers. You can purchase a terrific $1,000 cd player with all the bells and whistles, great DA converter and terrific sound quality, but if you pair it with a set of $10 speakers, you are not letting it perform at its full potential. Might as well get the $10 CD player and the $1,000 speakers.

A little extreme perhaps, but don't be afraid to purchase a cheaper body so that you can buy a nicer lens. The lens is the eye of your camera.

Just something for you to consider.

Edit: oops, I almost forgot my recommendations: I'm a 20D user so I can only help out on the Canon side, if you decide to go that route. The 50 1.8 and 28-105 3.5-4.5 II are both stellar lenses for their price. Definitely a great way to start out your kit - and even though the 28-105 doesn't have IS, it performs very similarly (perhaps even better) than the 28-135 and yet is about half the price. I started out with those lenses and I'll tell you that the 28-105 is a tough & compact .. survived all sorts of stuff I threw at it (snow, rain, little kids..)

 

[Jeromie]

the 28-105 is a tough & compact .. survived all sorts of stuff I threw at it (snow, rain, little kids..)

You threw kids at the lens?!