Reading mode: Light Dark

300D Not a professional camera? I beg to differ!

Go to last post
G

Gary Steel

Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Looking at the many reviews around the internet of my new 300D, I see the camera described as an ‘entry level SLR model’. Many photographers that have written in these very forums have tried to argue that the 300D is a ‘none professional camera’.

My post is to disagree with this mind-set and touch on a few points which you may like to hear.

Let me start by telling you about my 2 main film cameras in the hope that it may demonstrate to you that I favour quality heavily. Camera one is my Hassleblad 900cm and camera two is my Contax RTS. If you know your cameras then you will know how legendary these cameras are. So now for my digital work I comfortably use my 300D. Compare your 300D to the top most available cameras of as little as say 10 years ago. Can you honestly say a camera at that time had a 3rd of the features that your 300D has now? I doubt it. In fact, if someone had owned a one off 300D 10 years, ago it would have been worth a fortune and the world envy of the photographic community. Problem is with us humans is that we live in a relative world and gladly accept it without batting an eyelid. Imagine when you had your Sinclair Spectrum computer, or your BBC Acorn, someone came along and offered you a computer with the kind of power that is the standard today . . . Laughable really isn’t it! We just don’t know when we are well off.

I can’t really think off anything significant that I cannot do with my 300D. There is no shot type impossible that I can’t plan for. It takes pin sharp pictures that definitely stand shoulder to shoulder with the kind of quality I am used to with my film cameras previously mentioned. More importantly, I am using it as part of my job to shoot publicity photographs for working singer / vocalists that rely on high quality portfolio shots. This camera has totally revitalised my interest in hobby photography as well as enhanced my professional work. It’s earning me money and my clients are happy.

If you own a 300D and most of us in this forum does. You have spent on average £880 for it and that’s a lot of money to me. You also own something that contains cutting edge technology only once dreamed about as little as a few years ago. This camera is ‘not’ a point and shoot camera, and you do need considerable knowledge of photographic science to fully appreciate its abilities.

Take a look around at some of the 300D user’s gallery’s. Some of the shots I have seen are nothing short of stunning. The sort of shots that have been planned out and worked for. Not shots obtained by point and shoot, in the dreaded green square mode.

Feel good about your Dreb, you have a wonderful piece of apparatus. And I was one of those who had a faulty 1st camera and had it replaced.

Long live the 300D. A truly professional camera!
 
Eric C. Au said:
Whatever.... 300D is based on EOS300v, a truly amature cheap camera.

I love my 300D, but I won't call it professional
Click to expand...
You know usually its amateurs that are often the first to argue for the notion that "professional" is somehow a product of equipment versus the individual using the equipment. It's not just a dynamic in photography as a field, but it sure does show up here a lot.

If you're considering professional quality photos, I'd think that the order of importance would be
1. Skill of person behind the camera
2. The lens used
3. The light metering and light kit available
4. The body of the camera

For many folks, making equipment decisions with a set budget (a very professional consideration to make) and electing to save money on the body in order to get better glass, lights, and off camera meter can make a lot of sense.

That's particularly true when you consider that both the 10d and 300 are going to be surpased by new bodies in the not all that wildly distant future. Saving money on the body, which is bound to depreciate in a hurry, and instead investing in glass, metering, or lights that will go on to still be useful with future cameras makes sense. And regardless of all this tech stuff, a skilled photographer is going to be able to produce fantastic pictures with cameras far less well equiped than the 300d.
 
Bah. Buyer's Guides and magazines have "Professional" on cameras that not only are black, but have almost everything that they think a pro might need.

My Elan 7e is an amazing camera. Its black, has some custom settings, however, DOES NOT HAVE A SPOTMETER!! This is obviously not "professional" then... Whatever...I made $3000 + the cost of the camera by using it.

Basically, "Professional" means that you are willing to mortgage the house in order to buy it.
john_dc said:
Eric C. Au said:
Whatever.... 300D is based on EOS300v, a truly amature cheap camera.

I love my 300D, but I won't call it professional
Click to expand...
You know usually its amateurs that are often the first to argue for
the notion that "professional" is somehow a product of equipment
versus the individual using the equipment. It's not just a dynamic
in photography as a field, but it sure does show up here a lot.

If you're considering professional quality photos, I'd think that
the order of importance would be
1. Skill of person behind the camera
2. The lens used
3. The light metering and light kit available
4. The body of the camera

For many folks, making equipment decisions with a set budget (a
very professional consideration to make) and electing to save money
on the body in order to get better glass, lights, and off camera
meter can make a lot of sense.

That's particularly true when you consider that both the 10d and
300 are going to be surpased by new bodies in the not all that
wildly distant future. Saving money on the body, which is bound to
depreciate in a hurry, and instead investing in glass, metering, or
lights that will go on to still be useful with future cameras makes
sense. And regardless of all this tech stuff, a skilled
photographer is going to be able to produce fantastic pictures with
cameras far less well equiped than the 300d.
Click to expand...
--
Never Underestimate The Predictability of Stupidity
 
300D is no way a pro camera.

Have you compared the features with a pro camera?

It might be an overkill for most of people, but no way a pro camera.
Gary Steel said:
Looking at the many reviews around the internet of my new 300D, I
see the camera described as an ‘entry level SLR model’. Many
photographers that have written in these very forums have tried to
argue that the 300D is a ‘none professional camera’.

My post is to disagree with this mind-set and touch on a few points
which you may like to hear.

Let me start by telling you about my 2 main film cameras in the
hope that it may demonstrate to you that I favour quality heavily.
Camera one is my Hassleblad 900cm and camera two is my Contax RTS.
If you know your cameras then you will know how legendary these
cameras are. So now for my digital work I comfortably use my 300D.
Compare your 300D to the top most available cameras of as little as
say 10 years ago. Can you honestly say a camera at that time had a
3rd of the features that your 300D has now? I doubt it. In fact,
if someone had owned a one off 300D 10 years, ago it would have
been worth a fortune and the world envy of the photographic
community. Problem is with us humans is that we live in a relative
world and gladly accept it without batting an eyelid. Imagine when
you had your Sinclair Spectrum computer, or your BBC Acorn, someone
came along and offered you a computer with the kind of power that
is the standard today . . . Laughable really isn’t it! We just
don’t know when we are well off.

I can’t really think off anything significant that I cannot do with
my 300D. There is no shot type impossible that I can’t plan for. It
takes pin sharp pictures that definitely stand shoulder to shoulder
with the kind of quality I am used to with my film cameras
previously mentioned. More importantly, I am using it as part of my
job to shoot publicity photographs for working singer / vocalists
that rely on high quality portfolio shots. This camera has totally
revitalised my interest in hobby photography as well as enhanced my
professional work. It’s earning me money and my clients are happy.

If you own a 300D and most of us in this forum does. You have spent
on average £880 for it and that’s a lot of money to me. You also
own something that contains cutting edge technology only once
dreamed about as little as a few years ago. This camera is ‘not’ a
point and shoot camera, and you do need considerable knowledge of
photographic science to fully appreciate its abilities.

Take a look around at some of the 300D user’s gallery’s. Some of
the shots I have seen are nothing short of stunning. The sort of
shots that have been planned out and worked for. Not shots obtained
by point and shoot, in the dreaded green square mode.

Feel good about your Dreb, you have a wonderful piece of apparatus.
And I was one of those who had a faulty 1st camera and had it
replaced.

Long live the 300D. A truly professional camera!
Click to expand...
 
The 300D is probably faster handling than, say, an old F-1 or a bottom loading Leica M. What! No autofocus? Load film by weird mechanics from the bottom? No rewind crank on a $1,000-$2,000 camera? What lousy features!

Yes, there are specialized settings it does not have, but believe it or not, if you are in "pro" mode just add a 550EX flash and get your advanced flash settings and add a battery handgrip for mass and battery power and you're there!

The upper level EOS have no built in flash, as you know. Are they less capable than the Rebel?

And so far my 300D has taken some hard knocks without problems.

--Steve
EOS.user said:
Have you compared the features with a pro camera?

It might be an overkill for most of people, but no way a pro camera.
Gary Steel said:
Looking at the many reviews around the internet of my new 300D, I
see the camera described as an ‘entry level SLR model’. Many
photographers that have written in these very forums have tried to
argue that the 300D is a ‘none professional camera’.

My post is to disagree with this mind-set and touch on a few points
which you may like to hear.

Let me start by telling you about my 2 main film cameras in the
hope that it may demonstrate to you that I favour quality heavily.
Camera one is my Hassleblad 900cm and camera two is my Contax RTS.
If you know your cameras then you will know how legendary these
cameras are. So now for my digital work I comfortably use my 300D.
Compare your 300D to the top most available cameras of as little as
say 10 years ago. Can you honestly say a camera at that time had a
3rd of the features that your 300D has now? I doubt it. In fact,
if someone had owned a one off 300D 10 years, ago it would have
been worth a fortune and the world envy of the photographic
community. Problem is with us humans is that we live in a relative
world and gladly accept it without batting an eyelid. Imagine when
you had your Sinclair Spectrum computer, or your BBC Acorn, someone
came along and offered you a computer with the kind of power that
is the standard today . . . Laughable really isn’t it! We just
don’t know when we are well off.

I can’t really think off anything significant that I cannot do with
my 300D. There is no shot type impossible that I can’t plan for. It
takes pin sharp pictures that definitely stand shoulder to shoulder
with the kind of quality I am used to with my film cameras
previously mentioned. More importantly, I am using it as part of my
job to shoot publicity photographs for working singer / vocalists
that rely on high quality portfolio shots. This camera has totally
revitalised my interest in hobby photography as well as enhanced my
professional work. It’s earning me money and my clients are happy.

If you own a 300D and most of us in this forum does. You have spent
on average £880 for it and that’s a lot of money to me. You also
own something that contains cutting edge technology only once
dreamed about as little as a few years ago. This camera is ‘not’ a
point and shoot camera, and you do need considerable knowledge of
photographic science to fully appreciate its abilities.

Take a look around at some of the 300D user’s gallery’s. Some of
the shots I have seen are nothing short of stunning. The sort of
shots that have been planned out and worked for. Not shots obtained
by point and shoot, in the dreaded green square mode.

Feel good about your Dreb, you have a wonderful piece of apparatus.
And I was one of those who had a faulty 1st camera and had it
replaced.

Long live the 300D. A truly professional camera!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
EOS.user said:
300D is no way a pro camera.
Have you compared the features with a pro camera?
Click to expand...
Not features make a camera professional, but use. If you use it to earn money it's professional. What could be referred to camera in terms of being professional is (if anything at all) its lifetime. I mean, it's hard to make money on a camera that breaks every 100 pics and needs a $100 repair then.

Look at the features of, say, some 30 years old Praktica. You won't find ANY of the features 300D has, leave alone what 10D could have. Yet, yes, it was and is a professional camera if used for earning money...

--
Marek
300D pics: http://www.stud.uni-karlsruhe.de/~uyh0/eos/
SLR == Some Learning Required
 
Tell me how many pros still use F-1 for their work?
Stephen DeNagy said:
Yes, there are specialized settings it does not have, but believe
it or not, if you are in "pro" mode just add a 550EX flash and get
your advanced flash settings and add a battery handgrip for mass
and battery power and you're there!

The upper level EOS have no built in flash, as you know. Are they
less capable than the Rebel?

And so far my 300D has taken some hard knocks without problems.

--Steve
EOS.user said:
Have you compared the features with a pro camera?

It might be an overkill for most of people, but no way a pro camera.
Gary Steel said:
Looking at the many reviews around the internet of my new 300D, I
see the camera described as an ‘entry level SLR model’. Many
photographers that have written in these very forums have tried to
argue that the 300D is a ‘none professional camera’.

My post is to disagree with this mind-set and touch on a few points
which you may like to hear.

Let me start by telling you about my 2 main film cameras in the
hope that it may demonstrate to you that I favour quality heavily.
Camera one is my Hassleblad 900cm and camera two is my Contax RTS.
If you know your cameras then you will know how legendary these
cameras are. So now for my digital work I comfortably use my 300D.
Compare your 300D to the top most available cameras of as little as
say 10 years ago. Can you honestly say a camera at that time had a
3rd of the features that your 300D has now? I doubt it. In fact,
if someone had owned a one off 300D 10 years, ago it would have
been worth a fortune and the world envy of the photographic
community. Problem is with us humans is that we live in a relative
world and gladly accept it without batting an eyelid. Imagine when
you had your Sinclair Spectrum computer, or your BBC Acorn, someone
came along and offered you a computer with the kind of power that
is the standard today . . . Laughable really isn’t it! We just
don’t know when we are well off.

I can’t really think off anything significant that I cannot do with
my 300D. There is no shot type impossible that I can’t plan for. It
takes pin sharp pictures that definitely stand shoulder to shoulder
with the kind of quality I am used to with my film cameras
previously mentioned. More importantly, I am using it as part of my
job to shoot publicity photographs for working singer / vocalists
that rely on high quality portfolio shots. This camera has totally
revitalised my interest in hobby photography as well as enhanced my
professional work. It’s earning me money and my clients are happy.

If you own a 300D and most of us in this forum does. You have spent
on average £880 for it and that’s a lot of money to me. You also
own something that contains cutting edge technology only once
dreamed about as little as a few years ago. This camera is ‘not’ a
point and shoot camera, and you do need considerable knowledge of
photographic science to fully appreciate its abilities.

Take a look around at some of the 300D user’s gallery’s. Some of
the shots I have seen are nothing short of stunning. The sort of
shots that have been planned out and worked for. Not shots obtained
by point and shoot, in the dreaded green square mode.

Feel good about your Dreb, you have a wonderful piece of apparatus.
And I was one of those who had a faulty 1st camera and had it
replaced.

Long live the 300D. A truly professional camera!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Professional photographers (people who make their living taking pictures) have and always will buy the equipment they feel have the features needed for their line of work. If professionals are not buying 300D's it is because it does not have the features they want for their photography. Does this mean the 300D can't take professional quality images? No. Does this mean a professional would never use a 300D? No. It just simply means that there are other cameras that have features that a photographer's livlihood may rely on for their profession. Essentially, professional cameras are cameras that the professionals consider standard equipment. Time will tell if the professionals subscribe to the 300D as standard-issue. My guess is that the professionals will want all of the bells and whistles on their prized posession.

Maxrat
Locust said:
EOS.user said:
300D is no way a pro camera.
Have you compared the features with a pro camera?
Click to expand...
Not features make a camera professional, but use. If you use it to
earn money it's professional. What could be referred to camera in
terms of being professional is (if anything at all) its lifetime. I
mean, it's hard to make money on a camera that breaks every 100
pics and needs a $100 repair then.

Look at the features of, say, some 30 years old Praktica. You won't
find ANY of the features 300D has, leave alone what 10D could have.
Yet, yes, it was and is a professional camera if used for earning
money...

--
Marek
300D pics: http://www.stud.uni-karlsruhe.de/~uyh0/eos/
SLR == Some Learning Required
Click to expand...
 
If you can say so boldly that it is in NO WAY a pro camera, could you explain what the definition is of a pro camera?

Sure you can name all the features it doesn't have compared to a camera that costs three times as much, but that doesn't say ANYTHING about the professionality of the camera.

If I may compare this to aviation, a B747 is in no way more professional than a cessna 172. You need good airmanship on BOTH in order to get home safe. In a 172, you even have to do it with limited instrumentation compared to the 747.

Although I have to agree with you that the 747 is regarded pro, and a 172 not. A 300D is regarded not to be pro. But you sure as hell can take pro IMAGES with it!
EOS.user said:
Have you compared the features with a pro camera?

It might be an overkill for most of people, but no way a pro camera.
Gary Steel said:
Looking at the many reviews around the internet of my new 300D, I
see the camera described as an ‘entry level SLR model’. Many
photographers that have written in these very forums have tried to
argue that the 300D is a ‘none professional camera’.

My post is to disagree with this mind-set and touch on a few points
which you may like to hear.

Let me start by telling you about my 2 main film cameras in the
hope that it may demonstrate to you that I favour quality heavily.
Camera one is my Hassleblad 900cm and camera two is my Contax RTS.
If you know your cameras then you will know how legendary these
cameras are. So now for my digital work I comfortably use my 300D.
Compare your 300D to the top most available cameras of as little as
say 10 years ago. Can you honestly say a camera at that time had a
3rd of the features that your 300D has now? I doubt it. In fact,
if someone had owned a one off 300D 10 years, ago it would have
been worth a fortune and the world envy of the photographic
community. Problem is with us humans is that we live in a relative
world and gladly accept it without batting an eyelid. Imagine when
you had your Sinclair Spectrum computer, or your BBC Acorn, someone
came along and offered you a computer with the kind of power that
is the standard today . . . Laughable really isn’t it! We just
don’t know when we are well off.

I can’t really think off anything significant that I cannot do with
my 300D. There is no shot type impossible that I can’t plan for. It
takes pin sharp pictures that definitely stand shoulder to shoulder
with the kind of quality I am used to with my film cameras
previously mentioned. More importantly, I am using it as part of my
job to shoot publicity photographs for working singer / vocalists
that rely on high quality portfolio shots. This camera has totally
revitalised my interest in hobby photography as well as enhanced my
professional work. It’s earning me money and my clients are happy.

If you own a 300D and most of us in this forum does. You have spent
on average £880 for it and that’s a lot of money to me. You also
own something that contains cutting edge technology only once
dreamed about as little as a few years ago. This camera is ‘not’ a
point and shoot camera, and you do need considerable knowledge of
photographic science to fully appreciate its abilities.

Take a look around at some of the 300D user’s gallery’s. Some of
the shots I have seen are nothing short of stunning. The sort of
shots that have been planned out and worked for. Not shots obtained
by point and shoot, in the dreaded green square mode.

Feel good about your Dreb, you have a wonderful piece of apparatus.
And I was one of those who had a faulty 1st camera and had it
replaced.

Long live the 300D. A truly professional camera!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Flying Finn said:
If you can say so boldly that it is in NO WAY a pro camera, could
you explain what the definition is of a pro camera?
Click to expand...
a pro camera is what professionals use.
Flying Finn said:
Sure you can name all the features it doesn't have compared to a
camera that costs three times as much, but that doesn't say
ANYTHING about the professionality of the camera.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. A pro camera is usually full featured.
Flying Finn said:
A 300D is regarded not to be pro. But you sure as hell
can take pro IMAGES with it!
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you can't take good/pro(images that can sell) images with it. It's just easier to take good/pro images with a pro camera, not all but in many cases.
 
I don't consider it to be a pro camera because it's the baby brother of the 10D

however, if there was no 10D on the market, this camera would be pro.

Additionally, this camera would perfectly suit many professionals - it's a perfectly adequate prosumer camera, but it's simply regarded as a consumer camera

also...honestly, if the camera was black do you think more people would regard it as professional?
 
Guy,

I also have a 300D with me , altought i am a new user of it , not only according the article i have been read. the canon EOS 300D is just a middle range of professional, what make me think that : let see

1) The metering was not so pro in the 300D.

2) The AF have some error during used with the kit lens ( i dont know about other will tried to buy another high end lens.)

3) The 7 focusing point was not so pro, if we want to focusing some location and within the point, some time we need to shift the view abit, then this will cause a perfect view to become worse, as every one know we can take good photo at any where , just how good your technic and the view you get, so the more complete focus point will be better, if not at lease there can used the system like canon G3 with the manual moving focus point.

4) Material wise make people felt not so solid, sometime if a muscle people to used the camera will felt like the case is too soft.

5) Not a full frame, this will make our wrong judgement during on the viewfinder, all have been step down to 1.6X, i not requesting people buy canon EOS 1DS, just hope canon will come out another model can used more cost focus on the AF point and the sensor , full frame will make photography judge the photo accurately.

for the explaination above is not agree please kindly let me know , because it just mt own think, and i am the new user on camera, before this i did not have any analog camera or digital camera.

thank

rgds
YONG.
john_dc said:
Eric C. Au said:
Whatever.... 300D is based on EOS300v, a truly amature cheap camera.

I love my 300D, but I won't call it professional
Click to expand...
You know usually its amateurs that are often the first to argue for
the notion that "professional" is somehow a product of equipment
versus the individual using the equipment. It's not just a dynamic
in photography as a field, but it sure does show up here a lot.

If you're considering professional quality photos, I'd think that
the order of importance would be
1. Skill of person behind the camera
2. The lens used
3. The light metering and light kit available
4. The body of the camera

For many folks, making equipment decisions with a set budget (a
very professional consideration to make) and electing to save money
on the body in order to get better glass, lights, and off camera
meter can make a lot of sense.

That's particularly true when you consider that both the 10d and
300 are going to be surpased by new bodies in the not all that
wildly distant future. Saving money on the body, which is bound to
depreciate in a hurry, and instead investing in glass, metering, or
lights that will go on to still be useful with future cameras makes
sense. And regardless of all this tech stuff, a skilled
photographer is going to be able to produce fantastic pictures with
cameras far less well equiped than the 300d.
Click to expand...
 
first, don't get me wrong.. i love me 300d. i think it's an incredible camaera for it's money.

but it's missing the durability factor of a pro camera. it doesn't have the seals that when used with the L lenses keeps out dust and drip.
It isn't built to take abuse as much as the more pro cams, etal.

other than that, the drive speed, the buffer size, and a few other things that push it there.

again, the 300s is a great camera, but it's still missing a few professional touches. ironically, i don't think those missing features have to do with image quality.

--

ryusenkai.org for some pictures. Early shots taken with Canon G-1, later stuff with 300D
 
EOS.user said:
EOS.user said:
If you can say so boldly that it is in NO WAY a pro camera, could
you explain what the definition is of a pro camera?
Click to expand...
a pro camera is what professionals use.
Click to expand...
OK. What do professionals use?
EOS.user said:
EOS.user said:
Sure you can name all the features it doesn't have compared to a
camera that costs three times as much, but that doesn't say
ANYTHING about the professionality of the camera.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. A pro camera is usually full featured.
Click to expand...
Allright. Can live with that. Although it means that the professionalism of a camera changes over time. But in a funny way you're right.
EOS.user said:
EOS.user said:
A 300D is regarded not to be pro. But you sure as hell
can take pro IMAGES with it!
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you can't take good/pro(images that can sell) images
with it. It's just easier to take good/pro images with a pro
camera, not all but in many cases.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...easier to take pictures with a pro camera...

I see what you mean by all this!! And you're right, a pro photographer wouldn't quickly buy a 300D because the options are limited! That's freaking ALL!!! (I think) ;-)

No hard feelings?
 
I'm a happy Digital Rebel user...

PS- a pro uses 1D/1Ds.
Flying Finn said:
EOS.user said:
Flying Finn said:
If you can say so boldly that it is in NO WAY a pro camera, could
you explain what the definition is of a pro camera?
Click to expand...
a pro camera is what professionals use.
Click to expand...
OK. What do professionals use?
Flying Finn said:
Flying Finn said:
Sure you can name all the features it doesn't have compared to a
camera that costs three times as much, but that doesn't say
ANYTHING about the professionality of the camera.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. A pro camera is usually full featured.
Click to expand...
Allright. Can live with that. Although it means that the
professionalism of a camera changes over time. But in a funny way
you're right.
Flying Finn said:
Flying Finn said:
A 300D is regarded not to be pro. But you sure as hell
can take pro IMAGES with it!
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you can't take good/pro(images that can sell) images
with it. It's just easier to take good/pro images with a pro
camera, not all but in many cases.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...easier to take pictures with a pro camera...

I see what you mean by all this!! And you're right, a pro
photographer wouldn't quickly buy a 300D because the options are
limited! That's freaking ALL!!! (I think) ;-)

No hard feelings?
Click to expand...
 
john_dc said:
Eric C. Au said:
Whatever.... 300D is based on EOS300v, a truly amature cheap camera.

I love my 300D, but I won't call it professional
Click to expand...
You know usually its amateurs that are often the first to argue for
the notion that "professional" is somehow a product of equipment
versus the individual using the equipment. It's not just a dynamic
in photography as a field, but it sure does show up here a lot.

If you're considering professional quality photos, I'd think that
the order of importance would be
1. Skill of person behind the camera
2. The lens used
3. The light metering and light kit available
4. The body of the camera

For many folks, making equipment decisions with a set budget (a
very professional consideration to make) and electing to save money
on the body in order to get better glass, lights, and off camera
meter can make a lot of sense.

That's particularly true when you consider that both the 10d and
300 are going to be surpased by new bodies in the not all that
wildly distant future. Saving money on the body, which is bound to
depreciate in a hurry, and instead investing in glass, metering, or
lights that will go on to still be useful with future cameras makes
sense. And regardless of all this tech stuff, a skilled
photographer is going to be able to produce fantastic pictures with
cameras far less well equiped than the 300d.
Click to expand...
ABSOLUTELY John ....

I own the exact piece of software that the top graphic art studios around the world have ... and yet I do very limited work on it due to my skill level ... hence Im amateur and they are professionals ....

Oh ... BTW .. the software of course is Photoshop ...

ATB,

DG
 
Gary Steel said:
Looking at the many reviews around the internet of my new 300D, I
see the camera described as an ‘entry level SLR model’. Many
photographers that have written in these very forums have tried to
argue that the 300D is a ‘none professional camera’.

My post is to disagree with this mind-set and touch on a few points
which you may like to hear.

Let me start by telling you about my 2 main film cameras in the
hope that it may demonstrate to you that I favour quality heavily.
Camera one is my Hassleblad 900cm and camera two is my Contax RTS.
If you know your cameras then you will know how legendary these
cameras are. So now for my digital work I comfortably use my 300D.
Compare your 300D to the top most available cameras of as little as
say 10 years ago. Can you honestly say a camera at that time had a
3rd of the features that your 300D has now? I doubt it. In fact,
if someone had owned a one off 300D 10 years, ago it would have
been worth a fortune and the world envy of the photographic
community. Problem is with us humans is that we live in a relative
world and gladly accept it without batting an eyelid. Imagine when
you had your Sinclair Spectrum computer, or your BBC Acorn, someone
came along and offered you a computer with the kind of power that
is the standard today . . . Laughable really isn’t it! We just
don’t know when we are well off.

I can’t really think off anything significant that I cannot do with
my 300D. There is no shot type impossible that I can’t plan for. It
takes pin sharp pictures that definitely stand shoulder to shoulder
with the kind of quality I am used to with my film cameras
previously mentioned. More importantly, I am using it as part of my
job to shoot publicity photographs for working singer / vocalists
that rely on high quality portfolio shots. This camera has totally
revitalised my interest in hobby photography as well as enhanced my
professional work. It’s earning me money and my clients are happy.

If you own a 300D and most of us in this forum does. You have spent
on average £880 for it and that’s a lot of money to me. You also
own something that contains cutting edge technology only once
dreamed about as little as a few years ago. This camera is ‘not’ a
point and shoot camera, and you do need considerable knowledge of
photographic science to fully appreciate its abilities.

Take a look around at some of the 300D user’s gallery’s. Some of
the shots I have seen are nothing short of stunning. The sort of
shots that have been planned out and worked for. Not shots obtained
by point and shoot, in the dreaded green square mode.

Feel good about your Dreb, you have a wonderful piece of apparatus.
And I was one of those who had a faulty 1st camera and had it
replaced.

Long live the 300D. A truly professional camera!
Click to expand...
 
it's too crippled to be a professional camera. meetering linked to the focusing mode...AI mode not selectable...

There is not much control.
Gary Steel said:
Looking at the many reviews around the internet of my new 300D, I
see the camera described as an ‘entry level SLR model’. Many
photographers that have written in these very forums have tried to
argue that the 300D is a ‘none professional camera’.

My post is to disagree with this mind-set and touch on a few points
which you may like to hear.

Let me start by telling you about my 2 main film cameras in the
hope that it may demonstrate to you that I favour quality heavily.
Camera one is my Hassleblad 900cm and camera two is my Contax RTS.
If you know your cameras then you will know how legendary these
cameras are. So now for my digital work I comfortably use my 300D.
Compare your 300D to the top most available cameras of as little as
say 10 years ago. Can you honestly say a camera at that time had a
3rd of the features that your 300D has now? I doubt it. In fact,
if someone had owned a one off 300D 10 years, ago it would have
been worth a fortune and the world envy of the photographic
community. Problem is with us humans is that we live in a relative
world and gladly accept it without batting an eyelid. Imagine when
you had your Sinclair Spectrum computer, or your BBC Acorn, someone
came along and offered you a computer with the kind of power that
is the standard today . . . Laughable really isn’t it! We just
don’t know when we are well off.

I can’t really think off anything significant that I cannot do with
my 300D. There is no shot type impossible that I can’t plan for. It
takes pin sharp pictures that definitely stand shoulder to shoulder
with the kind of quality I am used to with my film cameras
previously mentioned. More importantly, I am using it as part of my
job to shoot publicity photographs for working singer / vocalists
that rely on high quality portfolio shots. This camera has totally
revitalised my interest in hobby photography as well as enhanced my
professional work. It’s earning me money and my clients are happy.

If you own a 300D and most of us in this forum does. You have spent
on average £880 for it and that’s a lot of money to me. You also
own something that contains cutting edge technology only once
dreamed about as little as a few years ago. This camera is ‘not’ a
point and shoot camera, and you do need considerable knowledge of
photographic science to fully appreciate its abilities.

Take a look around at some of the 300D user’s gallery’s. Some of
the shots I have seen are nothing short of stunning. The sort of
shots that have been planned out and worked for. Not shots obtained
by point and shoot, in the dreaded green square mode.

Feel good about your Dreb, you have a wonderful piece of apparatus.
And I was one of those who had a faulty 1st camera and had it
replaced.

Long live the 300D. A truly professional camera!
Click to expand...
--
I am not an English native speaker!
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=26918
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top