300D good enough ?

I want to get more in depth into digital photography, but have never owned an SLR. I'm trying to learn everything I can about cameras & taking quality photos, and am looking for a camera that won't overwhelem me as I'm getting started, but also one that I can grow & learn with & use for years. I don't mind spending a bit of money to get quality. I have heard all kinds of talk comparing the 300D to the 10D, and it seems like the only difference is the built in software that lets you do more fine tuning.

From a relative beginner's point of view, is the 300D good enough for now AND the future, or should I be looking for 10D or something better ? ( I plan on picking up a few extra lenses & maybe a flash, if that makes a difference)

Pros ? Cons ?

Thanks ...

Gitcho said:

Pros ? Cons ?

Click to expand...

Cons -- you give up some shooting speed and buffer, mirror-lockup, and some of the more esoteric metering modes. It's not dramatically better than the film Rebel, which a lot of people have been satisfied with for a decade.

Pros -- a wonderful CMOS chip. Good autofocus, and manual focus override. Av, Tv, and M modes. EF lenses -- the lens creates an image, and the sensor ( film/CMOS ) records it. Having good lenses will contribute a lot more to good photo quality, than the sensor ever will.

Without knowing more about what ( and how ) you plan to shoot, I can't really say a great deal about how appropriate one or the other body is for you personally ... but for most, it's a better option to put the $600 you'd save over a 10D into lenses that will still be marvelous when everybody's forgotten that 10D.

Forrest
http://www.valhallaphotos.com

It's good enough for today because there's always the excitement of having new gear in the hand. And probably sometime tomorrow, if not before, you'll start to really learn what you can like and what you cannot like about it.

This means that predicting where you'll be in six months to a year is nearly impossible.

Gitcho said:

I want to get more in depth into digital photography, but have
never owned an SLR. I'm trying to learn everything I can about
cameras & taking quality photos, and am looking for a camera that
won't overwhelem me as I'm getting started, but also one that I can
grow & learn with & use for years. I don't mind spending a bit of
money to get quality. I have heard all kinds of talk comparing the
300D to the 10D, and it seems like the only difference is the built
in software that lets you do more fine tuning.

From a relative beginner's point of view, is the 300D good enough
for now AND the future, or should I be looking for 10D or something
better ? ( I plan on picking up a few extra lenses & maybe a flash,
if that makes a difference)

Pros ? Cons ?

Thanks ...

Click to expand...

--

Ulysses

Gitcho said:

I want to get more in depth into digital photography, but have
never owned an SLR. I'm trying to learn everything I can about
cameras & taking quality photos, and am looking for a camera that
won't overwhelem me as I'm getting started, but also one that I can
grow & learn with & use for years. I don't mind spending a bit of
money to get quality. I have heard all kinds of talk comparing the
300D to the 10D, and it seems like the only difference is the built
in software that lets you do more fine tuning.

Click to expand...

A few things to consider based on your comments above:

• It will depend on where you are coming FROM and where you think you might GO. If you haven't used an SLR, I assume you are coming from a prosumer digital camera or some sort? In that case, the 300d will most likely be a considerable upgrade that could very well last for years. However, you may find yourself wanting to upgrade every couple of years like many of us do! ;-)

• Personally, I think the 300d will be easy enough for an amateur to use and flexible enough for most of us enthusiasts. If you want to get into pro territory, the 300d certainly is not going to suffice. So if you are looking for something that will last for a very long time and you expect your photographic skills to improve into the professional level, then the 300d is probably not for you. But if you look at the 300d as an entry-level DSLR that will allow you to get accustomed to SLR's as well as give you some room to grow, then I'd say go for it!

• Also, keep in mind that there are quite a few differences (other than the software you mentioned) between the 300d and 10d. The 10d has a stronger body with more flexible controls. You'll need to do the research to determine if the 300d would be too limiting for you, or if it offers enough flexibility to satisify your criteria.

Gitcho said:

From a relative beginner's point of view, is the 300D good enough
for now AND the future, or should I be looking for 10D or something
better ? ( I plan on picking up a few extra lenses & maybe a flash,
if that makes a difference)

Click to expand...

Again, it all depends on what you mean by "future". Personally, no matter which DSLR I got today, I'd still probably want to upgrade in a couple of years or so just to take advantage of the advances in sensor technology and better image quality. Digital cameras, despite being available for quite a few years now, are still in the growing stages and there is still a lot of room for improvement. On the other hand, if you buy a DSLR now and ignore the advances in technology, the 300d or 10d may both last you for a long time!

Travis

Thanks for the info all ...

I've just recently had a Sony DSC-S85 P&S digital ... I'll initially want to shoot family shots ( I could never get good indoor shots ), and shoot sports (tennis, mostly)... I'll probably want to shoot landscapes and scenery as well ...

Maybe I need to worry more about learning to take better pictures than trying to get the best camera ...

I guess I just don't want the camera to be the cause of any missed shots - eg. can't capture a tennis serve without blurring, or can't capture time-delayed waterfall-type shots ...

You can do all the with the 300D. After you learn the camera and more about photography, say in a couple of years you can move up. And an added bonus is in a couple of years the much more expensive models of today will be replaced with something better and way cheaper.

I wouldn't hessitate to get a 300D if your looking at diving into a DSLR>

Gitcho said:

I want to get more in depth into digital photography, but have
never owned an SLR. I'm trying to learn everything I can about
cameras & taking quality photos, and am looking for a camera that
won't overwhelem me as I'm getting started, but also one that I can
grow & learn with & use for years. I don't mind spending a bit of
money to get quality. I have heard all kinds of talk comparing the
300D to the 10D, and it seems like the only difference is the built
in software that lets you do more fine tuning.

From a relative beginner's point of view, is the 300D good enough
for now AND the future, or should I be looking for 10D or something
better ? ( I plan on picking up a few extra lenses & maybe a flash,
if that makes a difference)

Pros ? Cons ?

Click to expand...

I think you have gotten some very good advice so far.

I have a 300d on order. For me (and I suspect for you, it is a question of the 300d vs. the 10d). I came to the conclusion that as a practical matter there is a 1000$+ difference in the price of the two cameras. That difference comes from the simple difference in price (1500$-1000$) and the fact the 300d comes with an adequate (but not great) wide angle lens (another 500$+ .For example the often used 17-40 is a 800$ lens).

I can take that money saved and put it into other equipment. For example, you could buy a 70-200 F4L lens for 580$ and a 550 EX speedlight (flash) for 330$ for a total of 910$.

When you look at it that way, the feature set of the 300d starts to look pretty good! And what is even better, those additional features you buy like lens are very likely to be useful in the future even if you upgrade the body (as long as you choose carefully).

Now before someone jumps all over this, I am NOT saying the 300d is always the correct buy. There are certain features a person might want to have for some particular purpose that simply are not available on the 300d (mirror lockup perhaps). And I am certainly not saying people who bought (or will buy) the 10d wasted their money. They got the use of the camera until the 300d came out if they didn't need the additional features. Or if they buy now, they get those extra features. Only they can determine if those extra features are worth the price to them.

--
For a small gallery of my pictures, see:
http://ratphoto.home.comcast.net/

Forrest said:

the lens creates an
image, and the sensor ( film/CMOS ) records it. Having good
lenses will contribute a lot more to good photo quality, than the
sensor ever will.

Click to expand...

Err, I think you mean than the body ever will. The best lens in the world coupled to a consumer CCD is still gonna take mediocre pictures.

Of course, the 300D and 10D use nearly identical sensors, so that really isn't an issue in this case.

I did notice in the review that the mirror had some vibration. I did not see if it had a mirror lock up or if you could time the mirror release to be a significant time prior to the shutter release. From your comments, there is no way to deal with this mirror issue.

This sounds like a pretty good camera. Too bad Canon didn't supply a mirror lock up option. That pretty much kills it for me.

Truman

Forrest said:

Forrest41926 said:

Pros ? Cons ?

Click to expand...

Cons -- you give up some shooting speed and buffer, mirror-lockup,
and some of the more esoteric metering modes. It's not
dramatically better than the film Rebel, which a lot of people have
been satisfied with for a decade.

Click to expand...

Truman

Great reply, i agree that i'd prefer to spend the extra money on better quality lenses. The only significant drawback of the 300D to me is the plastic body, however from what i've heard this should'nt be that much of a problem. Even though it's plastic... i heard it's made pretty strong.

Anyways, so i've been drawn into the 300D. But i do have a question now,

What is mirror lock up? And how is it bad not to have it?

Does it mean that i won't be able to do star trails?

thanks,

Easton-

Forrest said:

Forrest41926 said:

Pros ? Cons ?

Click to expand...

Cons -- you give up some shooting speed and buffer, mirror-lockup,
and some of the more esoteric metering modes. It's not
dramatically better than the film Rebel, which a lot of people have
been satisfied with for a decade.

Pros -- a wonderful CMOS chip. Good autofocus, and manual focus
override. Av, Tv, and M modes. EF lenses -- the lens creates an
image, and the sensor ( film/CMOS ) records it. Having good
lenses will contribute a lot more to good photo quality, than the
sensor ever will.

Without knowing more about what ( and how ) you plan to shoot, I
can't really say a great deal about how appropriate one or the
other body is for you personally ... but for most, it's a better
option to put the $600 you'd save over a 10D into lenses that will
still be marvelous when everybody's forgotten that 10D.

Forrest
http://www.valhallaphotos.com

Click to expand...

Most good cameras from 35 mm to medium format have the abillity to lock up the mirror prior to releasing the shutter. Even in the best cameras when the mirror goes up just prior to the shutter opening, there is some vibration. At fast shutter speeds, it's not an issue. But when you have to put the camera on a tripod to shoot at low shutter speeds this vibration becomes the limiting factor to sharpness. Given the slow lenses that seem to support this camera, it's even a bigger issue.

It's easy to do. Why didn't Canon do it?

Truman

Easton said:

Anyways, so i've been drawn into the 300D. But i do have a question
now,

What is mirror lock up? And how is it bad not to have it?

Does it mean that i won't be able to do star trails?

thanks,

Easton-

Forrest said:

Easton said:

Pros ? Cons ?

Click to expand...

Cons -- you give up some shooting speed and buffer, mirror-lockup,
and some of the more esoteric metering modes. It's not
dramatically better than the film Rebel, which a lot of people have
been satisfied with for a decade.

Pros -- a wonderful CMOS chip. Good autofocus, and manual focus
override. Av, Tv, and M modes. EF lenses -- the lens creates an
image, and the sensor ( film/CMOS ) records it. Having good
lenses will contribute a lot more to good photo quality, than the
sensor ever will.

Without knowing more about what ( and how ) you plan to shoot, I
can't really say a great deal about how appropriate one or the
other body is for you personally ... but for most, it's a better
option to put the $600 you'd save over a 10D into lenses that will
still be marvelous when everybody's forgotten that 10D.

Forrest
http://www.valhallaphotos.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Truman

Easton said:

What is mirror lock up? And how is it bad not to have it?

Click to expand...

Being able to lock the mirror up helps sometimes on exposures that are longer than you normally would hand hold. Like on a tripod at 1/2 second or such. I don't really think it's that much of a factor if the camera is mounted on a tripod though.

Easton said:

Does it mean that i won't be able to do star trails?

Click to expand...

Don't worry, you'll still be quite able to do star trails without a mirror lockup function. In fact, you'll be able to do quite long exposures with the bulb function on the 300D (note that even though I'm from the US, I like to think of it as the 300D as opposed to the Dgiital Rebel).. That bulb function is supposed to support exposures as long as 2.5 hours or so...

Note though that I assume you will have to use Canon's remote cable for that bulb function. Would be nice to have a box that you could use to control the length of such long exposures.. Maybe someone will or does make one??

Miscellaneous A70 pics
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bdolson/a70/a70.html
Sincerely, Bob the Printer

If you don't intend to ever upgrade the camera body, and you don't want a camera you'll outgrow, I'd say go with the 10D.

Anything you can do on the 300D you can do on the 10D. It doesn't work in reverse, though.

However, if you'll probably upgrade camera bodies in a few years anyway, then a 300D makes a lot of sense. UNLESS you think you'll want some of the missing features sooner rather than later.

If you've got the money, and can afford to spend the extra, I'd say go with the 10D. People rarely regret spending a little additional money for a much better item.

Gitcho said:

I want to get more in depth into digital photography, but have
never owned an SLR. I'm trying to learn everything I can about
cameras & taking quality photos, and am looking for a camera that
won't overwhelem me as I'm getting started, but also one that I can
grow & learn with & use for years. I don't mind spending a bit of
money to get quality. I have heard all kinds of talk comparing the
300D to the 10D, and it seems like the only difference is the built
in software that lets you do more fine tuning.

From a relative beginner's point of view, is the 300D good enough
for now AND the future, or should I be looking for 10D or something
better ? ( I plan on picking up a few extra lenses & maybe a flash,
if that makes a difference)

Pros ? Cons ?

Thanks ...

Click to expand...

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

Buy it!! Spend the money on lenses!! Unless you have a lot of money and can handle the heavy and more feature enriched 10d. I want a light digital SLR that I can hang around my neck and my wife can use it too.

Camera companies will always upgrade. So dont wait. Jump on the bandwagon now and there's always ebay when you want to offload your
hit.
My 2 cents worth

I'm in similar circumstances. However I used my G2 at my sons soccer game (first game, so new photo experience) and found it's dificult to get good shots. The range of the lense for one thing, the speed of the AF for another, and the fact you have to stay on the side line and can't get in the midle of the game... I developed a false confidence with easter egg hunt photos over the last few years.....

I'm wondering if I would be disapointed in the 300D in photographing soccer.... then again, 5 year old soccer isn't serious...

I agree that the effective cost diference is > $1000 or so when you consider buying an intial wide angle lense. I realize you get more; but from what I've read I'm sure the optional lense packaged with the 300D would not disapoint me since I'm actually happy with photo quality from my G2. The larger buffer I suppose is what is tempting me, but I don't really know if I'll need it....

Any thoughts?

Gitcho said:

I want to get more in depth into digital photography, but have
never owned an SLR. I'm trying to learn everything I can about
cameras & taking quality photos, and am looking for a camera that
won't overwhelem me as I'm getting started, but also one that I can
grow & learn with & use for years. I don't mind spending a bit of
money to get quality. I have heard all kinds of talk comparing the
300D to the 10D, and it seems like the only difference is the built
in software that lets you do more fine tuning.

From a relative beginner's point of view, is the 300D good enough
for now AND the future, or should I be looking for 10D or something
better ? ( I plan on picking up a few extra lenses & maybe a flash,
if that makes a difference)

Pros ? Cons ?

Thanks ...

Click to expand...

Bob the Printer88467 said:

Bob the Printer88467 said:

Does it mean that i won't be able to do star trails?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Bob the Printer88467 said:

Don't worry, you'll still be quite able to do star trails without a
mirror lockup function. In fact, you'll be able to do quite long
exposures with the bulb function on the 300D (note that even though
I'm from the US, I like to think of it as the 300D as opposed to
the Dgiital Rebel).. That bulb function is supposed to support
exposures as long as 2.5 hours or so...

Click to expand...

You aren't using the battery to hold the shutter open, so it's not much of an issue. But you do use the battery to read off the CMOS chip, process a photo, and save it tothe CF card. If you shoot star trails in the cold ( to control noise ), this can become an issue. In any case, quality is going to limit you to 10 to 20 minutes, which is plenty.

Bob the Printer88467 said:

Note though that I assume you will have to use Canon's remote cable
for that bulb function. Would be nice to have a box that you could
use to control the length of such long exposures.. Maybe someone
will or does make one??

Click to expand...

Canon makes a release like this, but I don't think it fits the 300D. I think they used a simpler interface between the camera and the remote, to keep the costs down. But a laptop should do.

More:

http://valhallaphotos.com/html/Misc/Articles/ShootingStarTrails.htm

Gosh man.. that looks absolutely beautiful. I thought only long star trails looked great but that pic just proved me wrong.

If you don't mind me asking.. how many minutes was that open for?

Forrest said:

Forrest41926 said:

Forrest41926 said:

Does it mean that i won't be able to do star trails?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Forrest41926 said:

Don't worry, you'll still be quite able to do star trails without a
mirror lockup function. In fact, you'll be able to do quite long
exposures with the bulb function on the 300D (note that even though
I'm from the US, I like to think of it as the 300D as opposed to
the Dgiital Rebel).. That bulb function is supposed to support
exposures as long as 2.5 hours or so...

Click to expand...

You aren't using the battery to hold the shutter open, so it's not
much of an issue. But you do use the battery to read off the
CMOS chip, process a photo, and save it tothe CF card. If you
shoot star trails in the cold ( to control noise ), this can become
an issue. In any case, quality is going to limit you to 10 to 20
minutes, which is plenty.

Forrest41926 said:

Note though that I assume you will have to use Canon's remote cable
for that bulb function. Would be nice to have a box that you could
use to control the length of such long exposures.. Maybe someone
will or does make one??

Click to expand...

Canon makes a release like this, but I don't think it fits the
300D. I think they used a simpler interface between the camera and
the remote, to keep the costs down. But a laptop should do.

More:

http://valhallaphotos.com/html/Misc/Articles/ShootingStarTrails.htm

Click to expand...

Easton said:

Gosh man.. that looks absolutely beautiful. I thought only long
star trails looked great but that pic just proved me wrong.

Click to expand...

Thanks!!

Easton said:

If you don't mind me asking.. how many minutes was that open for?

Click to expand...

This was ten minutes at 16 mm. The trails would have been a lot longer with a longer lens, but then I would have missed the tree. We were camping in Zion National Park ( in south-west Utah ), and had a nice fire going, which is where the red comes from on the branches. I shot this at the tail end of twilight, which contributed a bit to the color in the sky.

Here's another, 20 minutes at f/5.6, again at 16 mm:

Kartik Agarwal said:

Buy it!! Spend the money on lenses!! Unless you have a lot of money
and can handle the heavy and more feature enriched 10d. I want a
light digital SLR that I can hang around my neck and my wife can
use it too.

Click to expand...

I agree about saving money on a very, very similar body, and putting it into lenses. But the 10D is very similar to the D60, which my girlfriend ( 5'1" ) has no problem using, even with a 300/4L IS attached. People make dSLRs out to be giant beasts, but they're pretty reasonably sized, and they feel comfortable in the hand.

bdmm said:

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

The Rebel D shares the same sensor and AF system as the 10D, as well as the same lens selection. You can't set which AF mode you're using, but this probably won't be much of a problem in the real world.

Shooting sports, the only practicle differences are likely to be the buffer -- will you want to shoot more than four shots at once ? -- and possibly ISO 3200, although my D60 does pretty well, being limited to ISO 1000.

The Rebel D should be an improvement over the D60 in this regard ( sports ) ... and the D60 lets me get shots like this: