$4.50: 300D body

Henry Richardson wrote:

I bought one in October 2003 along with the 18-55mm kit lens for $1000. I used it on big multi-week trips in Japan in 2003 and Ecuador in 2005. And I used it in Canada and all over the U.S. until I got a new camera in 2005.

I just found my ancient 2003 thread. What a blast from the past!

2003: 7 weeks in Japan with DRebel (300D)

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/7075850

The photo link doesn't work anymore, but the photos are in the many Japan albums on my website (Galleries 2 and Galleries 1):

http://www.bakubo.com

Henry Richardson wrote:

I bought one in October 2003 along with the 18-55mm kit lens for $1000. I used it on big multi-week trips in Japan in 2003 and Ecuador in 2005. And I used it in Canada and all over the U.S. until I got a new camera in 2005.

2005: Ecuador trip photos

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/13235519

The old photo album link is dead.  The Ecuador photos are here now:

http://www.bakubo.com/Galleries%202/Ecuador/index.html

Henry Richardson wrote:

Today I stopped by a store that sells all kinds of used stuff: books, games, guitars, electronics, etc. They have a glass case with a few old cameras and lenses so when I am in the area I sometimes stop there to take a look. Today they had 2 Canon 300D (Digital Rebel, Digital Kiss) 6.3mp bodies for 500 yen (US$4.50) and 1000 yen (US$9.00). They both worked and looked in pretty good condition. The 500 yen one had a bit of scuffs on the handgrip, etc., but still looked pretty good. I didn't ask to handle them so I was just looking at them through the glass.

I bought one in October 2003 along with the 18-55mm kit lens for $1000. I used it on big multi-week trips in Japan in 2003 and Ecuador in 2005. And I used it in Canada and all over the U.S. until I got a new camera in 2005. It was a really nice camera and I got some great shots with it. Sure, in 2021 I wouldn't pay $1000 for one, but $4.50 is a steal. No, I didn't buy it. I no longer have any Canon lenses and I have several Olympus and Panasonic bodies + a dozen lenses that I am using these days. Also, a couple of 1" digicams (Panasonic and Sony). What a deal though for less than $5!

great story.  those kinds of deals got me into shooting Canon DSLR, i have an old Rebel XS, very solid made in Japan camera. the only thing i miss is a higher iso; the quality however is all i really need.

nice thing about these older DSLR is that ebay is loaded with them as well as others.  they sold me my camera with two 18-55mm kit lenses.

The Rebel 300D was my first digital camera.  I loved the way it fit my hand.  I used the kit lens for awhile then bought Canon's 28-135 IS lens.  Learned a lot using that combination.  At the time I had a T90, AE-1 Program and AT-1 film cameras.  All three are good cameras but I retired them when I realized, with the right software, I could process photographs.  No more film lab disappointments.  Sadly, the T90's shutter died.   I still have my 300D and will never sell it.

zerored wrote:

The Rebel 300D was my first digital camera. I loved the way it fit my hand. I used the kit lens for awhile then bought Canon's 28-135 IS lens. Learned a lot using that combination. At the time I had a T90, AE-1 Program and AT-1 film cameras. All three are good cameras but I retired them when I realized, with the right software, I could process photographs. No more film lab disappointments. Sadly, the T90's shutter died. I still have my 300D and will never sell it.

i have debated selling my cameras, but my old Canons just keep shooting and giving excellent quality.  before getting the Canon dslr, i got some cheaper cameras in the past, but they were not durable.  someone commented that Canon made in Japan are the energizer rabbits of old cameras.

Is the Canon 200D a good camera? Like, performance-wise and image quality? Or should I just stick with 800D? I have been told that the latter performs better in terms of speed but the former is much more efficient. What do you guys think?

Click on original to see a better, sharper image. The photos in a dpreview thread are highly compressed and soft.

bridge77 wrote:

great story. those kinds of deals got me into shooting Canon DSLR, i have an old Rebel XS, very solid made in Japan camera. the only thing i miss is a higher iso; the quality however is all i really need.

nice thing about these older DSLR is that ebay is loaded with them as well as others. they sold me my camera with two 18-55mm kit lenses.

Today I went into Lightroom and looking through the 5502 photos I took with mine in the 1.5 years that I owned it (2003-2005) and I sure got some good photos with it.  Of course, I have gotten many good photos with all the cameras since then too, but that 300D was still a quite capable camera.  For most uses 6.3mp is enough.  Back in those days I made several 12x18 inch prints and they looked really good.

Thank you for sharing these wonderful images!

zerored wrote:

The Rebel 300D was my first digital camera. I loved the way it fit my hand. I used the kit lens for awhile then bought Canon's 28-135 IS lens. Learned a lot using that combination. At the time I had a T90, AE-1 Program and AT-1 film cameras. All three are good cameras but I retired them when I realized, with the right software, I could process photographs. No more film lab disappointments. Sadly, the T90's shutter died. I still have my 300D and will never sell it.

I guess most of us tend to feel nostalgia for our early cameras.

My first SLR was a Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL + 55mm f1.8 that I bought with my own money when I was in high school in the early 1970s. I sold it in 1976 to move onto a different SLR. It still holds a special place in my heart though.

The Canon 300D was my first DSLR. Before it I owned the Minolta D7i, Olympus D-510Z, and Olympus D-340R digicams, but the 300D (actually a DRebel) allowed me to get back to an ILC. It also holds a special place in my heart.

The Light Stalker wrote:

Yep, those old cameras rocked. They were the gateway to digital.

I originally bought a Rebel XT or 350D and loved the heck out of it. Funny thing is that I bought it because at the time it had the best high ISO performance. I eventually sold it to fund an upgrade for $300, I'm sure it'll fetch much less today.

Fork in the Road

Country Road

Just a couple of shots with that early camera, it rocked :-).

Looks good! These early Canon Rebels are even now great cameras.

My first SLR was a Canon AE-1 Program. Although I have not used it in many years I still have it. Using that camera I learned a lot about photography. The films I used were Kodak Royal Gold 100, T-Max 100 and Kodachrome 64 (set at ASA 80). The only limitation was the lack of an aperture priority mode.  Later I purchased Canon's T90 and AT-1 cameras.

Lepewhi wrote:

I have a 400D/XTi which I haven't used in years. Seeing this, I might get it out and use it for the heck of it. I'll have to buy a card reader first.

If I still have my 300D and a lens then I would certainly go out and use it sometimes.  Just for fun.  I have plenty of other gear, but I think the old 300D and certainly your 400D still stands up for many uses.

Click on original to see a better, sharper image. The photos in a dpreview thread are highly compressed and soft.

zerored wrote:

Thank you for sharing these wonderful images!

You are welcome!  All the gear is fun, but for me I mostly care about taking photos.  Looking through some of the old 300D photos in Lightroom brings back the fun and pleasure I had while wandering around taking photos with that camera.

Even the 300D 6.3mp can make nice prints. As I mentioned, I made some very nice 12x18 inch prints back then. Some 300D photos could go much larger. See this thread from 2018 about huge prints made by older cameras from 15+ years ago:

National Geographic photo gallery big prints

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61682138

Yesterday I was at a National Geographic photo gallery. It is very similar to the Peter Lik galleries with dim lighting, black walls, and big, beautiful, glossy, very well lit photos. Of course, they are trying to sell them so the presentation is very nice. The info for each photo was a short caption, location, year, name of photographer, and the size in meters (longest dimension) of the print. The smallest prints were 1 meter and the largest prints were 3 meters, but most were 1.5 and 2 meters. Most of the photos were taken 2004-2015, but I saw one that was in 1999 and another in 2002. A few of the photos were landscapes, but mostly animals in Africa and elsewhere. A few photos included people, but not many. I guess it is harder to sell people photos. Of course, they all looked wonderful and I think the prices are pretty high.

No mention of the camera gear used, but I suspect most of them were taken with DSLRs since the bulk of the photos were 2004-2015 of animals, often in Africa. National Geographic galleries believe they have enough megapixels to print 2 and 3 meter prints from DSLRs made even 14-15 years ago.

https://www.natgeofineart.com/

Most of the worry I see sometimes here about print size is asking about making something like 24x30 or 30x40 inch prints -- that is 0.762 meter or 1.016 meter prints. Just a very small number of the National Geographic prints were 1 meter. Almost all were 1.5 and 2 meters, but several were 3 meters. So, above where I say 'fairly large' that is not really correct. Most people asking and worrying about print sizes here are talking about the smallest or even smaller prints than what they have at the National Geographic photo gallery.

If you don't remember what were the common, high end Nikon and Canon DSLRs back in 2003, 2004, 2005 era that were probably used for many of the photos from 2004, 2005, and 2006 then look back and see. Nikon was selling only APS-C models, but Canon had FF, APS-H, and APS-C.

Later I received an email advertisement from the National Geographic Fine Art Galleries. In it there was a mention that their prints start at $4600. This 2010 one is $4900:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63169520

This 2007 one is $6750:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64219750