Reading mode: Light Dark

What to do? 300D to much Camera - NEED HELP PLEASE!!

Go to last post
Whilst in no way wanting to add confusion to the solution path of this enquiry:
Mike Hunt said:
One full stop is a lot.> >
Click to expand...
True, but the AS makes up for it?
Mike Hunt said:
It is extremely slow, particularly in low light and at smaller
apertures, compared to an SLR.> >
Click to expand...
Is it not based on a different system; does it not do rather well for what it is?
Mike Hunt said:
Still no match for an SLR's big and bright optical viewfinder with
virtually no blackout between shots.> >
Click to expand...
But they're not as big and bright as my film SLRs used to be and neither do they show the whole image area. Nice to have all the data on the EVF too and a histogram to check. But I agree DSLR is a LOT better for seeing - and more importantly - anticipating sports activity indoors!
Mike Hunt said:
Exactly, which is why I haven't used an SLR in years. But the
person who originated this thread was focusing on sports
photography, and nothing can come close to an SLR for this sort of
work, especially indoors.> >
Click to expand...
I wont argue with that; and would add that an IS lens or Anti-Shake behind the sensor can only help matters which is why I await Minolta's 6mp 7D (September if the Jessops catalog is to be believed) with considerable interest.

John.
 
The limitation of prosumer cameras is that the sensor is smaller resulting in a lower ISO. Canon prosumer cameras generally do not take images without substantial noise above 200 ISO and can only go to 400. The 300D with a larger sensor can produce very good images at ISO 1600. I upgraded from a G2 to a 300D. I can take photos in low light that were not possible with a G2. Unless your sports photos are in bright daylight, a prosumer camera will not work at this time (wait 3 years & things will change).
--
Bill Liggett, Honolulu, Hawaii
http://www.alohalogue.com - Hawaii Photos
 
Bill Liggett said:
The limitation of prosumer cameras is that the sensor is smaller
resulting in a lower ISO. Canon prosumer cameras generally do not
take images without substantial noise above 200 ISO and can only go
to 400. The 300D with a larger sensor can produce very good images
at ISO 1600. I upgraded from a G2 to a 300D. I can take photos in
low light that were not possible with a G2. Unless your sports
photos are in bright daylight, a prosumer camera will not work at
this time (wait 3 years & things will change).
Click to expand...
Faith in techology, or are you expecting some specific development that would allow it?
 
Computers have been driven by Grodon Moore's Law - every 18 months the density of chips will double. Moore was one of the founders of Intel & he stated this in the early 1970's. Actually, density has surpassed Moore's Law. This has not yet reached the Digital Camera. Basically, models are only replaced yearly. However, given the increased demand & sales, Moore's Law will rule. Essentially, more sales = more money = more R & D.

Yes, both Faith & sales will drive development. It's just a matter of time & sales volume before cameras are replaced as fast as computers. We are already starting to see this in cell phones. Cameras will not be far behind! Also, I expect to see GPS in most cameras within 3 years. You will know where you took that photo (within 20 ft). Cameras just like cell phones & computers will be driven by features.
Mike Hunt said:
Faith in techology, or are you expecting some specific development
that would allow it?
Click to expand...
--
Bill Liggett, Honolulu, Hawaii
http://www.alohalogue.com - Hawaii Photos
 
Bill Liggett said:
Computers have been driven by Grodon Moore's Law - every 18 months
the density of chips will double. Moore was one of the founders of
Intel & he stated this in the early 1970's. Actually, density has
surpassed Moore's Law. This has not yet reached the Digital Camera.
Basically, models are only replaced yearly. However, given the
increased demand & sales, Moore's Law will rule. Essentially, more
sales = more money = more R & D.
Click to expand...
I do expect resolution to continue to increase, but I don't see a corresponding trend towards higher density imaging chips yielding lower noise levels and increased light sensitivity. Seems that we have to buy higher resolution cameras just because they're there... whether we need them or not...
Bill Liggett said:
Also, I expect to see GPS in most
cameras within 3 years. You will know where you took that photo
(within 20 ft). Cameras just like cell phones & computers will be
driven by features.
Click to expand...
All that makes sense, except for the ISO/noise/optics issue. Seems to be a physical limitation that cannot be easily overome through technology. Only solution seems to be a larger sensor, but that would require a larger camera and lens.
 
The chips already exist. It just takes time to make them smaller & cheaper. Also expect the ability to do things that are only in Spy Satellites within 3 to 5 years.
Mike Hunt said:
I do expect resolution to continue to increase, but I don't see a
corresponding trend towards higher density imaging chips yielding
lower noise levels and increased light sensitivity. Seems that we
have to buy higher resolution cameras just because they're there...
whether we need them or not...
Click to expand...
--
Bill Liggett, Honolulu, Hawaii
http://www.alohalogue.com - Hawaii Photos
 
They have small CCD imaging chips with high resolution, high senstivity, and low noise?
Bill Liggett said:
Mike Hunt said:
I do expect resolution to continue to increase, but I don't see a
corresponding trend towards higher density imaging chips yielding
lower noise levels and increased light sensitivity. Seems that we
have to buy higher resolution cameras just because they're there...
whether we need them or not...
Click to expand...
--
Bill Liggett, Honolulu, Hawaii
http://www.alohalogue.com - Hawaii Photos
Click to expand...
 
I sold my 300Dw/28-135IS for the same reasons as you, I bought a G-5 & S400 (everyday cam) very happy with my decision. I have always owned prosumers Nikon 950/TC E2/B300, Nikon 4500, Canon S30 to name a few. The 300D is a great camera took very nice pics and what I miss most about the camera vs the G5 is NO LAG, lens options, clean low light pics and for my kids sports better vs G-5.

What I like better about the G5 lighter more compact (fits jacket inner pocket)/ meters easier than D300, love the tilt LCD, LCD self portrait, preview on LCD, remote, and just easier camera to use. Lock it down to ISO 50 and your good to go.

If I had to do it again I'd still get the G5 over the 300D
Dougsmitty said:
I purchased a Rebel 300D with Lens kit and a 75-300 IS Lens for the
purpose of having a camera I can use to photograph pictures of my
kids in sports. This camera works great takes wonderful pictures.
NO PROBLEMS. BUT...I spent $1000 for the Rebel Kit and additional
$450 for the Zoom lens. Plus the memory cards and a case and an
extra battery.....Then I have to lug all this heavy equipment
around switching lens worrying about dropping one or breaking it.
Its not really for me. I need simple.

Plus, I am not a photographer and feel that I went a bit over my
head buying all this equipment.

It's looking like I may want to sell the whole package and get
something a little easier to use, BUT, at the same time can take
NICE Closeup Sports pictures of the kids in action.

I own a S400 which I love and is good for many reasons but not for
sports.

I am VERY confused on what my options are. I've been reading though
the forums everynight to see if anyone else was in the same boat.

Can anyone offer any advise?

ALL I WANT IS A CAMERA THAT IS EASY TO USE, NOT SO MUCH HEAVY
EQUIPMENT TO LUG AROUND & CAN TAKE DECENT PHOTOS OF THE KIDS IN
ACTION!

Money is not the problem.
Click to expand...
 
I love the rebel but dont like to carry the load.

I am torn between an Pro 1, Coolpix 8700, Z2, Sony F828, FZ10 or S1 IS.
So many choices.
Texsstar said:
What I like better about the G5 lighter more compact (fits jacket
inner pocket)/ meters easier than D300, love the tilt LCD, LCD self
portrait, preview on LCD, remote, and just easier camera to use.
Lock it down to ISO 50 and your good to go.

If I had to do it again I'd still get the G5 over the 300D
Dougsmitty said:
I purchased a Rebel 300D with Lens kit and a 75-300 IS Lens for the
purpose of having a camera I can use to photograph pictures of my
kids in sports. This camera works great takes wonderful pictures.
NO PROBLEMS. BUT...I spent $1000 for the Rebel Kit and additional
$450 for the Zoom lens. Plus the memory cards and a case and an
extra battery.....Then I have to lug all this heavy equipment
around switching lens worrying about dropping one or breaking it.
Its not really for me. I need simple.

Plus, I am not a photographer and feel that I went a bit over my
head buying all this equipment.

It's looking like I may want to sell the whole package and get
something a little easier to use, BUT, at the same time can take
NICE Closeup Sports pictures of the kids in action.

I own a S400 which I love and is good for many reasons but not for
sports.

I am VERY confused on what my options are. I've been reading though
the forums everynight to see if anyone else was in the same boat.

Can anyone offer any advise?

ALL I WANT IS A CAMERA THAT IS EASY TO USE, NOT SO MUCH HEAVY
EQUIPMENT TO LUG AROUND & CAN TAKE DECENT PHOTOS OF THE KIDS IN
ACTION!

Money is not the problem.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It's a case of buying and using the most appropriate tool for the job...

For the working sports photojournalist it's the SLR system. He or she is only there to get the shots and get them quickly and as best he or she can.

The merits of available image quality have already been beaten to death here so the final decision rests with you Doug, are you willing to commit to a compromise?

I personally believe that both an EOS-300D and any prosumer non-DSLR are equally complicated beasts to operate. They both have a learning curve attributed to them but once conquered it becomes a non issue. What remains are the physical differences.

The only way you're going to be satisfied is if you obtain one of these prosumer non-DSLR mega zoom things, take it to the sports and put it through a thorough test. Is it easier to use and carry around? Are you finding it as easy to get the shots you want? Do you like the results better?

I don't think it particularly matters which one of these you obtain; the results I've seen coming from the major players- the Sony 828, Canon Pro-1, Minolta A2- are as much dependent on the shooting circumstance and exposure accuracy of the photographer as they are the camera/lenses' inherent flaws.

(IE, some complain of horrible purple fringing on G3/5 cameras, I personally don't see it on the G3 much unless I blow out the highlights big time, in which case I'd delete the picture anyhow.)

In 5, 10 years you're probably not going to have anything left of all this other than the images so the question is, will you actually care much about how noisy these images are or will you cherish the memories?
--
Michael King

Who cares how you get the shot; just photograph it and photograph it well
 
So far the Pro-1 is my choice if I do decide to make the change.

Thanks
dog010 said:
It's a case of buying and using the most appropriate tool for the
job...

For the working sports photojournalist it's the SLR system. He or
she is only there to get the shots and get them quickly and as best
he or she can.

The merits of available image quality have already been beaten to
death here so the final decision rests with you Doug, are you
willing to commit to a compromise?

I personally believe that both an EOS-300D and any prosumer
non-DSLR are equally complicated beasts to operate. They both have
a learning curve attributed to them but once conquered it becomes a
non issue. What remains are the physical differences.

The only way you're going to be satisfied is if you obtain one of
these prosumer non-DSLR mega zoom things, take it to the sports and
put it through a thorough test. Is it easier to use and carry
around? Are you finding it as easy to get the shots you want? Do
you like the results better?

I don't think it particularly matters which one of these you
obtain; the results I've seen coming from the major players- the
Sony 828, Canon Pro-1, Minolta A2- are as much dependent on the
shooting circumstance and exposure accuracy of the photographer as
they are the camera/lenses' inherent flaws.

(IE, some complain of horrible purple fringing on G3/5 cameras, I
personally don't see it on the G3 much unless I blow out the
highlights big time, in which case I'd delete the picture anyhow.)

In 5, 10 years you're probably not going to have anything left of
all this other than the images so the question is, will you
actually care much about how noisy these images are or will you
cherish the memories?
--
Michael King

Who cares how you get the shot; just photograph it and photograph
it well
Click to expand...
 
If money is not object, get the Pro1 and give it a test ride before you unload the Rebel, this way you can be sure you made the right decision.

If you bought the canon 28-135IS (216mm at the long end) that's all you would need. It's not a large lens and the quality is excellent. I have or had about 8 point and shoot cameras and none came close to the DSLR for action shots. The Oly C2100 10X IS was one of the best long zooms built, but was hit and miss shooting action. I currently have the D60 and Rebel for shoot weddings and portraits, but like to shoot birds in my spare time. It was not possible with a PS and even worse with the EVF. They have their place, but sports action is not one of them. You have to decide if you want convenience and miss the majority of the action or put up with a larger camera and get the shots you want. It's a short time taking the pics but a lifetime enjoying them. Remember, you can't go back for a retake. ;o)
Dougsmitty said:
Thanks
dog010 said:
It's a case of buying and using the most appropriate tool for the
job...

For the working sports photojournalist it's the SLR system. He or
she is only there to get the shots and get them quickly and as best
he or she can.

The merits of available image quality have already been beaten to
death here so the final decision rests with you Doug, are you
willing to commit to a compromise?

I personally believe that both an EOS-300D and any prosumer
non-DSLR are equally complicated beasts to operate. They both have
a learning curve attributed to them but once conquered it becomes a
non issue. What remains are the physical differences.

The only way you're going to be satisfied is if you obtain one of
these prosumer non-DSLR mega zoom things, take it to the sports and
put it through a thorough test. Is it easier to use and carry
around? Are you finding it as easy to get the shots you want? Do
you like the results better?

I don't think it particularly matters which one of these you
obtain; the results I've seen coming from the major players- the
Sony 828, Canon Pro-1, Minolta A2- are as much dependent on the
shooting circumstance and exposure accuracy of the photographer as
they are the camera/lenses' inherent flaws.

(IE, some complain of horrible purple fringing on G3/5 cameras, I
personally don't see it on the G3 much unless I blow out the
highlights big time, in which case I'd delete the picture anyhow.)

In 5, 10 years you're probably not going to have anything left of
all this other than the images so the question is, will you
actually care much about how noisy these images are or will you
cherish the memories?
--
Michael King

Who cares how you get the shot; just photograph it and photograph
it well
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Tom
 
I had over 5k invested in glass and a 10D that I seldom used due to the weight and size of the equipment. I sold it all and bought a sports car, G3, and an S400. I've been very happy with my decision and have taken many more images than with the 10D. The best camera is the one you are willing to carry. good luck.
 
It's so hard making this decision. One day I wanna keep my rebel the next I wanna sell it for another. My s400 is with me all the time now.

I'm really thinking about selling the Rebel and getting either the Pro1, A1 or 828. AND then buy a nice digicam so i can film the kids in action on video and use the the camera for simple shots. I never was a photographer I just liked taking pix of the kids, but maybe movie would be better for sports.



Taking a picture of my kids like this far away from the lodge is possible with the 75-300mm IS zoom lens.
I hope I can still get nice shots with a all-in-one camera if I make the switch.

Thanks
EdBiggs said:
I had over 5k invested in glass and a 10D that I seldom used due to
the weight and size of the equipment. I sold it all and bought a
sports car, G3, and an S400. I've been very happy with my decision
and have taken many more images than with the 10D. The best camera
is the one you are willing to carry. good luck.
Click to expand...
 
john farrar said:
your best bet by far would be a Minolta A2....
You will still need to keep the s400 and will probably be making
even greater use of it - but what's wrong with that?.
If it's just good pictures and no hassle you want then you could
look at the 4mp Panasonic FZ10. This has an excellent bright lens
all the way thru and a 12x zoom ability as well.
Click to expand...
John, very much my own thoughts. i have the S400..will always have it and use it. recently bought the FZ10, still in the learning curve. and am probably going to buy a used A1, not cause i'm ready for it, but cause it's a one-of-a-kind cam that's appealed to me almost since starting all this and will soon be impossible to find. much like the G3 is now.

a note on the A2s..if you've been following Minolta forum will know many are glitchy in these initial batches. a highly complex camera, almost bound to happen. parta why i'm more interested in a used A1, prefer to pick up a 'perfect' one that someone else has already worked thru. just wish it had the A2's EVF.

agree that 'prosumer' cams are the place to look if the weight/complexity of DSLR isn't one's bag. they'll never match the sheer 'being there' quality of DSLRs (imo), but for me the tradeoff isn't worth it at this time.

Karen
 
Dougsmitty said:
Taking a picture of my kids like this far away from the lodge is
possible with the 75-300mm IS zoom lens.
I hope I can still get nice shots with a all-in-one camera if I
make the switch.
Click to expand...
Hi again,

IF you insist on getting rid of the Rebel, then, IMHO, the only camera that comes close to meeting your request above is the Panasonic FZ10.

The Pro 1 has a range of 28-200mm

The FZ10 is 35-420mm with optical gyro stabilization. F2.8 throughout the entire zoom.

Your 75-300mm lens is giving the 460mm

Now, you could buy a converter to get more range out of the Pro 1 or use digital zoom. The Pro 1 is obviously a very good camera, nevertheless.

My Rebel with the 75-300mm IS lens weighs almost exactly 3 pounds, compared to the 1.21 lbs of the Panasonic. So, the later is not exactly a pocket camera,but it is almost 2 pounds lighter and is a lot less bulky than the Rebel.

Good luck,bob
 
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