The 350D review is up

paulbod2 said:

Please do not mix resolution with pixel count.

Click to expand...

I'm not. It's just that I'm not focal length limited

paulbod2 said:

Resolution is how small a detail can be discerned [LF+CR inserted]

Click to expand...

I'm agreeing with you so far.

paulbod2 said:

[cont] and is function
of pixel size and focal lenght.

Click to expand...

Definitely not. A cameras resolution can not be judged by what focal length is used. We compare to cameras here, keeping focal length constant between two different systems is in no way relevant. Unless you use SSD9-logic

paulbod2 said:

Pixel count is related to how large you can print at the same density.

Click to expand...

If you have the same quality per pixel count. Which is not the case here. All evidence tell me that the 350D is little better, even at low ISO and RAW, per sensel/pixel. The difference is not great though.

--
Henrik

tonydee said:

To me the review was written like a P&S

no comparion to Nikon etc

a very straight forwood review

i am still not convinced..

Click to expand...

I am. I actually bought the XT and take pictures (what a concept!) . I think Phil's review was very modest, the XT is fantastic and is only limited by skill and the glass you put on it.

Sal

Sorry I was not clear.

If we put the same 50/2 on E-300 and D2X at the same distance from the board, they will get the same detail (similar photosite size).

If we put the same 50/1.8 on the D2X and D2H, at same distance, obviously D2X will get more detail.

If we put E-300 and 350D XT at same distance with same focal lenght, E-300 will have an advantage by 25 % (photosite size). This is simple geometry.

Phil-osopher puts the 350D nearer than E-300 to the board because is reframing...
and will put D2X as well I guess.

If you are a bird watcher, and have the same detail with a 400 (+ E-300) or with 500 (+350D) which will you buy ?

I would buy the lightest, and hopefully cheaper. But today there is nothing yet on the market for 4/3rds above 200mm except the 300/2.8.

This will be changed soon I hope, and in a few years time the market will be balanced.

Today I am looking at colors because I am using a Sigma 55-200/4-5.6 plus Raynox 2020 (total 440mm) on the E-300 - equivalent to a 550mm on the 350D. This combination is light (approx 600 gms) and cheap (under 400 usd), not strong.

The problem is that color is not too correct, and the large lens of the Raynox can fool the exposure.

But if the 350D has focusing problems and its color is not correct either, prefer keeping my E-300 plus Raynox plus Sigma and be happy.. better than spend 1500 usd for the 350D +500 zoom and having backfocused and violet images CA..

I can post Surf images if you like... after sharpening and correcting exposure they are fabulous..

Almost any half decent camera can give good results with careful manipulation of RAW images. But not everyone has the time and patience to process every picture they take. Canon produce better out of camera jpegs. I think most of us here will agree with that.

If you like blown highlights!

Sorry couldn't resist that one... me backs awaay slowly ;-)

ledderlappan said:

If you buy the 350D should you just buy the body and not the kit? I
have heard that the lens from the 350D kit isn't very good.
Actually a salesman from the local camerashop said it should only
be used as an ashtray

Click to expand...

I think that salesman was exaggerating. As long as you are aware of the limit of the kit lens, it does a good job for the price you paid.

ledderlappan said:

There isn't a big price difference between the kit price and the
body price, but would you be better off saving that bit of money
and buy a better lens from the beginning?

Click to expand...

I had a limited initial budget, so I got the kit along with a 50/1.8II. I will be adding a 17-40/4L and 70-200/4L later this year.

--
A DP beginner(350D + S60).
http://www.pbase.com/knight_parn

Gabi said:

You forgot to mention that the Canon 17-85 IS lens is image
stabilized...

Click to expand...

I own a Minolta A1 with its Anti-Shake sensor.

The price of SLR cameras like the 350 and E-300 has dropped to nearly what I paid for the A1.

So I have started thinking about upgrading the A1 but if there is one feature of this camera that is outstanding it is the AS.

So when I heard about the 350D and then the 17-85 IS I was thinking, well there is a logical upgrade.

Then I saw how much the IS lens would add to the cost of the package.

350D body. £600. 17-85 £429. That is £1029 and way too much for my budget. I have also read that IS aside the 17-85 isn't too hot optically.

A Minolta 7D D-SLR is £930 body-only. Now I'd have to add a lens to that but what this shows is that the 350D plus IS option isn't particularly good value for money. The 7D is a 20D competitor and you get the AS on all lenses.

Still too pricy for me but hopefully you get the point.

But back to my budget, if I went with the 350D kit lens you are talking £639

The E-300 from the same shop is £535 complete with kit lens.

I reckon unless you want ISO 800 and 1600 the E-300 is a better specced camera than the 350D. It's got true spot metering for a start which is a real plus point.

As to the lens range. How many do you need? You can get 28 to 300 equivalent in two lenses with the Oly. A good marco lens is available and for the amateur I can't see them wanting for much. Sure professionals might want the lens range of Canon (or Nikon) but the 350D is aimed at amateurs and most will go for the kit lens plus the 55-200 which is equivalent to the Oly kit lens and 40-150.

Dave

Personally, I came from the Nikon world. Both companies make good cameras. But I would by no means say that Nikon is the innovater now days.

--

Please respect my copyright and do not repost my images. This includes edits that show possible improvements. I appreciate your thoughts and ideas but I want to retain control of how and when my images are seen. Thanks!

It is easier to blame the firmware than the wetware.

For a gallery of my photographs, see:
http://www.pbase.com/ratphoto

See my profile for my equipment

I feel this way too. I've been using Canon cameras since the 70s.

Of course, you have to realize that SLR manufacturers have something of a customer lock-in due to the proprietary lens mounts. Most of us can't really consider buying another brand of camera if we already have a collection of Canon lenses. I'm attracted to the new four-thirds camera made by Olympus, for example, but it wouldn't make a lot of sense for me to buy all new lenses for it.

It's too bad camera manufacturers never collaborated on a common lens format for SLRs.

by this review. None of the 30 images were taken with the kit lens while most of the samples for the 300D review were. While I agree that the 350D is more capable in terms of features, Phil really hasn't given 300D owners a good comparison of image quality in his review:-(
--
http://www.palumbo.RebelPride.photoshare.co.nz

http://photobucket.com/albums/v428/wpalumbo/Digital%20Rebel/

paulbod2 said:

If we put E-300 and 350D XT at same distance with same focal
lenght, E-300 will have an advantage by 25 % (photosite size). This
is simple geometry.

Click to expand...

And my point is that this is not a fair comparation of cameras and their systems, you admit it further down in your post, you have just not realized it yet ;-)

Two different camera systems have NO reason to be compared at same focal length when they have different sensor sizes.

paulbod2 said:

Phil-osopher puts the 350D nearer than E-300 to the board because
is reframing...
and will put D2X as well I guess.

Click to expand...

This is the second best to do. The best thing is to use the same angle of view and same focus distance. This means different focal length. Compare the FourThirds with a 50mm lens and the 1DsmkII with a 100mm lens at same distance. Personaly I think that Phil should change the framing to not favoring any aspect ratio.

paulbod2 said:

If you are a bird watcher, and have the same detail with a 400 (+
E-300) or with 500 (+350D) which will you buy ?

Click to expand...

Since the 500 can have a 'worse' F-value for same optical signal to noise ratio per same detail in the final image, I would choose the camera and lens that best suited me. For me the 350D is better. But focus speed, FTM, IS and other things matter too. I don't see any drawbacks by choosing the 350D over the E300 for bird photography ... but I don't shoot birds so it could be other things that I'm not considering.

paulbod2 said:

I would buy the lightest, and hopefully cheaper. But today there is
nothing yet on the market for 4/3rds above 200mm except the 300/2.8.
This will be changed soon I hope, and in a few years time the
market will be balanced.

Click to expand...

There you see. The FourThirds system have shorter focal length lenses becouse they don't need as long focal length to get the most used angle of views.

Olympus will probably release longer focal length lenses. but it exist even longer for the bigger formats. Totaly natural since the bigger formats need them to get the angle of view desired.

Don't be so focal length fixated. Angle of view is what is often more interesting when shooting images. Focal length is just the mean to get there. Let it scale with the system.

--
Henrik

And put things into perspective - the 300D is a plastic crippled 10D which actually meters and AFs reliably and the 350D is a tiny plastic 20D with the 300D AF system and some minor functionality losses ..

there never was any difference between the Image quality of the 300D and the 10D (or none to the disadvantage of the 300D anyway) and there isn't any really between the 350D and 20D - given that the difference in IQ is really a minor Megapixel upgrade from the 6.3Mp bodies, there won't be a lot of difference between the 8Mp ones and the 300D.. so I think most people realise to base any advantages of the 350D on physical performance and enhancement improvements and NOT on IQ.. so who cares about what Lenses Phil used ? in fact, using the EFS stuff instead of the 50mm F1.4 is a Disadvantage

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Parn said:

I had a limited initial budget, so I got the kit along with a
50/1.8II.

Click to expand...

I choosed the same lenses. I think I bought some time to evaluate those new ultra wide angle zooms from Tokina, Tamron and Sigma vs the Canon lens by doing this.

When I've bought some better lenses these two will make a good, light and cheap kit to bring to places I wouldn't bring expensive, big and bulky stuff.

Parn190423 said:

A DP beginner(350D + S60).

Click to expand...

Welcome !

--
Henrik

Phil, I am curious as to the red/green shading on the viewfinder spec's on p21 of the review. It lists the D70 as having a Pentaprism which I believe is incorrect. Also, how was the decision made to mark the 350D down in this are and the D70 up? The listed eyepoint and magnification spec's do not support this decision particularly when compared to the E300 spec. Was the decision made from use and not spec?

Thanks for the review!

Looks like a too-quick-cut-and-paste error in WB shift section from the 20D review --

New WB shift / WB bracketing screen

The EOS 350D's white balance shift now provides shift in two axes; Blue to Amber and Magenta to Green.
WB shift is achieved on this new screen using the new

mpixel said:

joystick controller

Click to expand...

and you can add bracketing by simply turning the

mpixel said:

quick control dial

Click to expand...

(See page 59 of the XT manual.)
Just trying to be helpful! Thanks again for putting together the great review!

--
==========

Dave Oddie said:

I reckon unless you want ISO 800 and 1600 the E-300 is a better
specced camera than the 350D. It's got true spot metering for a
start which is a real plus point.

Click to expand...

the olympus cannot really be compared with the XT as it is the speed of the one and half year old 300d. only 4 frames at 2.5fps. that is really different from the XT. you will wait with teh oly camera but you will not wait with the XT..if that mean something to you.

Dave Oddie said:

As to the lens range. How many do you need?

Click to expand...

only one and they don't have it. 400mm F5.6 L quality.

You can get 28 to 300

Dave Oddie said:

equivalent in two lenses with the Oly.

Click to expand...

that's not what people doing wildlife want's..nor sport.

A good marco lens is

Dave Oddie said:

available and for the amateur I can't see them wanting for much.

Click to expand...

I am an amateur..I want much more.

Dave Oddie said:

Sure professionals might want the lens range of Canon (or Nikon)
but the 350D is aimed at amateurs and most will go for the kit lens
plus the 55-200 which is equivalent to the Oly kit lens and 40-150.

Click to expand...

most? judging by the number of birds and wildlife photos in this forum..and judging by the number of canon camera that I see in park when I go hiking, there is a lot of amateur hwo are into wilflife.

Dave Oddie said:

Dave

Click to expand...

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

paulbod2 said:

If you have a look at the Olympus forum you will realize that most
posters are professional photographers..
have a look at their galleries...

Click to expand...

I did..don't see anything pro in there. maybe bad timing.

--



Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.

I have a lot of lenses. Too many probably, including some L stuff but I'm not too embarrassed to keep that kit lens on my 350D. Like a lot of things you read here it's the fashionable thing to jump on the bandwagon and trash something, especially if it doesn't cost an arm and a leg. It's very light for a start so it's very convenient for just carrying around on the 350D taking snaps. Oh sorry I forgot - snapshots's an unfashionanble word too I guess. Actually the first half-dozen shots of my grandson I took with my 350D on Auto setting, straight out of the box (luckily I already had a battery charged up from my S60) with the kit lens in a dark room are as good as some of the best I took of his mother 30 years ago with my beautiful Nikon lenses. In fact I rattled off about fifty there and then and there just wasn't a dud amongst them.

GOP

What is the conclusion ?

A lot of people will buy the 350D.

It has the worst colors of any other brand DSLR, the flimsiest construction, and it will last just one or two years.

Nobody will care, after two years they will buy the new model.
Colors people have accustomed to, so they think this is the way to go.
OOF (out of focus) = OOB (out of business)

No people will keep buying, in any case they are looking at the images on the screen, or sometimes printing 6"x4", so a little softness won't be a problem.

Phil will be put into jail because somebody in his staff has been a guest of Canon in Africa ?
He should, but improbable.

So why reading the reviews, looking at samples etc...
Blindness is the best property in photography.

No Text.None needed!