What lenses do you use on your AE-1?
There are about 70 different lenses from Canon and probably another hundred from third-party manufacturers that fit the 300D and 10D, primes and zooms. My point was that because the sensor on the DSLR's is larger, lenses have to be larger as well: therefore, none of the superzooms (like 28-200) are as good or as bright as the one on the Sony. You can buy a superzoom, but if you do so, you lose much of the sensitivity and image quality potential of the camera.
Not tomorrow. Probably by this time next year, though. It's digital. Things move quickly.
That depends on your needs. IMO there is no "best" camera, there are only cameras that are "best" for certain purposes or certain photographers. It's certainly a very good camera.
The 10D doesn't come with a lens. The 300D does come with an 18-55 zoom lens, equivalent to 28-90, and it's pretty good quality too. In my opinion, the 300D does almost everything the 10D does at a good deal lower cost. I recommend you read Phil's review of it and take a look at it too.
I will try...
(to be patient...) all answers are just for you! Just one note: I don't believe in long life of our time products... After 32 years old Nikon F2s (F2 is still OK, I think only about 2-3 years for all of my future bodies... C'est la vie!!! 
Decision is yours... --
Kolja posted various places you can get the detailed answers.
I believe some owners of the Sigma 50-500mm may differ with you on this statement about image quality on a superzoom. It isn't a low light zoom but you can't argue about its image quality.
Go with the primes, oh yeah! Then you could clean you sensor every week because you will be constantly changes your lenses and letting in dust on your sensor.
The 18-55 only comes with the 300D if you buy the kit!.
--Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
It's a telezoom, not a superzoom. A superzoom is one that covers wide-angle to tele. The Sigma covers normal to tele. It's much easier to manufacture (well) than a superzoom. Compare the 50-500 to the Canon 35-350L -- the latter is a superzoom, is bigger, more expensive, and optically inferior.
It's kind of funny that it seems the only people who say this are the ones who don't shoot with primes. The ones who do don't seem to have a problem.
I have used an AE-1 since 1977 with eight primes. I just think fewer lens changes with the 10D will prevent less dust on the sensor and the range of zooms benefits you in this area. To imply that no one who has primes has a problem with dust on their sensors is absurd.
You are very lucky to live where the wind doesn't blow but I don't have that luxury. More lens changes opens us average people, in a normal windy environment, to more dust on our sensors. I guess I could shoot with primes and only shoot when the wind isn't blowing, like never!
Maybe if your shooting is single minded. If you are going to need varying focal ranges in an ever changing environment then you are going to have to change lenses. You may only need to change your lens two times but I found that while using primes for over 30 years that I had to change my lens frequently for the changing shooting environment. If I was doing portraits I could probably get away with one lens change but I don't shoot portraits exclusively anymore. The only time I use a prime with my 10D is when I am doing macro work and a lens change is not necessary.
--In fact, with the crop factor, you won't find a good, bright
normal-range zoom, so you'll be changing lenses anyway. The 18-55
kit lens on the 300D is the only solution available, and while
excellent value for money, it's certainly less than ideal in many
respects.
[snip]
Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
That's why I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that most prime guys I've talked to don't find the dust issue any more problematic than most zoom guys I've talked to. In fact, the only guy I know who does clean his sensor every week is strictly zooms-only.
I only wish you were right about the climate where I live. That said, Finland isn't particularly dusty, but for example Provence and Languedoc are, and I didn't have any dust issues there that a blower bulb couldn't fix.
Maybe you could adjust your technique? Instead of fishing for a photo opportunity and then reacting by adjusting your equipment, give yourself a brief, equip yourself accordingly, and hunt for the specific kind of scene you're after. Like, if you're shooting street shots, pick, say, a 35 mm and look for 35 mm scenes. I find that I actually "see" better if I narrow my scope this way. Cartier-Bresson did something like this with nothing but a 50 mm, and he got some pretty nice pictures, I hear.
I am surprised that you even talk to anyone that has a zoom. If someone is cleaning their sensor every week he has a larger problem than changing lenses, either prime or zoom.
I'm certainly not trying to outlaw primes but to use them exclusively when they are zooms whose quality is as good as primes is being closed minded. By the way why would I want to outlaw primes when I still use them.
Looks like Texas!
Not really! I could back up and get a wider angle than you could with a 35mm and with the 70mm I could get closer than your 35mm to fill the frame.
Do you think I haven't done this before? I have eight primes that I use with my AE-1. When I got my first 35mm in 1966 I only had a 50mm. Composition was everything because I had to get what I could with that lens on the camera. Allot of movement was required to vary your perspective because you only had one focal length. I still used this technique when I got my AE-1 and I had eight primes. I didn't enjoy losing a shot because I didn't have the right focal length so you have to be creative. I have over 30 years of experience shooting in this mode and doing so primarily with primes. I also find myself doing the same with zooms and cropping to get what I want later. The difference is I don't have to compromise as much with zooms. If the quality of the zooms today were not comparable to primes then I would join your crusade.
Let me see! I own eight primes, nine counting my macro, and four zooms. I have used primes since 1966, lets see thats 37 years using primes. Does that sound like I am dead set against primes?Why are you so dead set against primes anyway? After all, we are
primates, not zoomates, as Zidar put it.
--[snip]
Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]
Why? I've nothing against zooms, or people who like to use them. I just prefer primes myself.
How is it closed-minded? I've developed a technique around primes: I exploit their strengths (portability, wide apertures) and have found ways of getting around their weakness (less flexibility). I like my primes. I like the way each of them has a different personality, I like the fact that I know exactly what kind of feel they'll give to a picture when they're shot differently, by the way they flare, the way they look wide-open or stopped-down, and so on. I like the simplicity. I "see" better when I'm shooting with them, and my timing is better without the added distraction of a zoom ring.
That was Camargue and Languedoc in France, as a matter of fact. And, as you can see, I changed lenses as those steer were milling around me kicking up dust. Didn't ruin my sensor, although the camera and lenses did need a thorough dusting afterwards.
The 24 would hardly count as wide in my book. You'd need a 17 to 20 for it. But never mind...
Well, more power to you, then -- looks like you've found the tools that suit you. I've found mine, too. Why is it a problem for you that our choice of tools is different?
Nah.Let me see! I own eight primes, nine counting my macro, and fourWhy are you so dead set against primes anyway? After all, we are
primates, not zoomates, as Zidar put it.
zooms. I have used primes since 1966, lets see thats 37 years using
primes. Does that sound like I am dead set against primes?
It probably was better, at least for some specific purpose. I'm sure the zoom in question would be better than the prime for some other purpose.
And I think that limitations can be a great stimulant for creativity. What was the old saw, again? "Necessity is the mother of invention!"
