SLR and D-SLR comparisons please (and HELP!)
Discussion
I have an EOS300 and am considering going to a EOS300D.
Well actually, to tell the truth, Im trying to warrent spending £700+ on a camera. Help!
1. Does the D-SLR mentioned have all the same features of the SLR or will I be missing out on anything?
2. Can I get international camera insurance?
3. What are the quality of the prints like? Will I notice a difference?
Well actually, to tell the truth, Im trying to warrent spending £700+ on a camera. Help!
1. Does the D-SLR mentioned have all the same features of the SLR or will I be missing out on anything?
2. Can I get international camera insurance?
3. What are the quality of the prints like? Will I notice a difference?
I've not used either camera, so can't answer 1) but I doubt that there are any features missing from the 300D that you have on the 300.
Again, not sure about 2) but most camera mags normally come with a leaflet for camera insurance, and I would be surprised if it didn't cover taking your gear abroad. I'll see if I've got a copy at home and will let you know the details.
3) This depends on a number of things, although judging by comparisons of the 1Ds and film cameras that I've seen, the 300D should at least match the 300 if not surpass it in some situations.
Again, I've not used a 300D, but have played around with a 10D which has the same 6MP image chip I believe.
The quality was very good, and there should be sufficient pixels to print up to A3 (assuming you don't compress the files too much on the camera). If you intend to print larger than A3, then you'd probably be better off sticking to film, but below this then digital will do very nicely indeed!
Quality from the 300 will depend on what film you use, how it's developed and how you scan it in. There will be a big difference in quality between a scan of a Velvia slide on a decent film scanner compared to a print of some cheap Jessops film processed at Boots, scanned on a budget flatbed.
Why not see if you can borrow a 300D and take your 300 along at the same time to take the same picture on both, then compare the results? Bear in mind as well that the quality of the lens plays a part in the image too, so make sure you use the same lens and aperture settings if you do a comparison.
I'd be interested to see what you think!
Again, not sure about 2) but most camera mags normally come with a leaflet for camera insurance, and I would be surprised if it didn't cover taking your gear abroad. I'll see if I've got a copy at home and will let you know the details.
3) This depends on a number of things, although judging by comparisons of the 1Ds and film cameras that I've seen, the 300D should at least match the 300 if not surpass it in some situations.
Again, I've not used a 300D, but have played around with a 10D which has the same 6MP image chip I believe.
The quality was very good, and there should be sufficient pixels to print up to A3 (assuming you don't compress the files too much on the camera). If you intend to print larger than A3, then you'd probably be better off sticking to film, but below this then digital will do very nicely indeed!
Quality from the 300 will depend on what film you use, how it's developed and how you scan it in. There will be a big difference in quality between a scan of a Velvia slide on a decent film scanner compared to a print of some cheap Jessops film processed at Boots, scanned on a budget flatbed.
Why not see if you can borrow a 300D and take your 300 along at the same time to take the same picture on both, then compare the results? Bear in mind as well that the quality of the lens plays a part in the image too, so make sure you use the same lens and aperture settings if you do a comparison.
I'd be interested to see what you think!
ehasler said:
Quality from the 300 will depend on what film you use, how it's developed and how you scan it in. There will be a big difference in quality between a scan of a Velvia slide on a decent film scanner compared to a print of some cheap Jessops film processed at Boots, scanned on a budget flatbed.
The developer does make a huge difference, you're right. I've just compared films developed on Kodak royal at a cack developers and on quality Fuji paper at Jessops.
The quality I have received from Jessops is far far surperior. Hard to believe the shots were taken with the same camera.
Your points are all very good Ed, thanks. I have had a very quick play at the zoo with a 300D and 10D both fitted with 300mm zooms. Was impressed with the cameras but didnt get to see the results to compare them with 35mmfilm. (Thanks to the people that let me play with their cameras!).
As for the lenses Im trying to find the best ones for my limited budget. I realise that optics is the biggest factor in this (and something i can use on either camera so could buy now). I was trying to buy 2 lenses to cover the widest angle and longest zoom I could for £300. I think I'll start a differnt thread on the lenses though.
So to summarise. Should I get the digital SLR?
If so should I get the EOS300D? Anyone noticed the savings in not having to develop films?
Digital is definitely the way forward, and as long as you're not looking to print anything bigger than A3 then quality should be at least as good as the film camera.
Savings over film obviously depends on how many films you go through. I don't shoot that many pictures, but have still managed to get through about 30 films in the last year, so at an average cost of £7 per film (including developing) that's a cost of over £200, plus the cost of a film scanner, plus the time it takes to scan each slide in and clean it up in Photoshop, plus storage of all your slides.
Why not try to rent one for a few days and see what you think? MadDave had a thread on here a few days ago which had a few suggestions for places that would hire then out.
Edited coz I can't spell!
>> Edited by ehasler on Wednesday 19th May 11:30
Savings over film obviously depends on how many films you go through. I don't shoot that many pictures, but have still managed to get through about 30 films in the last year, so at an average cost of £7 per film (including developing) that's a cost of over £200, plus the cost of a film scanner, plus the time it takes to scan each slide in and clean it up in Photoshop, plus storage of all your slides.
Why not try to rent one for a few days and see what you think? MadDave had a thread on here a few days ago which had a few suggestions for places that would hire then out.
Edited coz I can't spell!
>> Edited by ehasler on Wednesday 19th May 11:30
You can get an excellent comparison at www.dpreview.com. Go to Buying Guide and select 'side-by-side'.
That should keep you busy!
That should keep you busy!
It depends (as has already been said) on what your comapring. IMO, high quality scans of velvia (ie 4000dpi and a high end scanner) will still surpass a 6mp d-slr but it easlily the equal of print film, albeit with only the dynamic range of transparancy film. I've tested this myself and am satisfied im right. Theres a website out there claiming the Cannon D30 ( 3mp)surpassess 4x5" sheet film, this is quite clearly nonsense.
However, my scanned 6x4.5 positives scanned by a high end scanner make the previously mentioned look like they were taken using toys when large prints are made. Up to A3 it is pretty much the same though, its only if your being ultra critical. (which is all relative after all)
As with film cameras it depends on your final usage as to what you buy, before digital if you needed to print high quality prints chocked with detail at 40x30 or larger then you'd perhaps not want a 35mm camera. same still applies IMO.
This is all assuming high quality lenses are used, Digital capture will suffer from poor optics. Don't scrimp in your lenses if you go digital, its simply not worth it.
Im extremely pleased with the results from my nikon d-slr, and despite what i've just put, i do highly recommend them!
However, my scanned 6x4.5 positives scanned by a high end scanner make the previously mentioned look like they were taken using toys when large prints are made. Up to A3 it is pretty much the same though, its only if your being ultra critical. (which is all relative after all)
As with film cameras it depends on your final usage as to what you buy, before digital if you needed to print high quality prints chocked with detail at 40x30 or larger then you'd perhaps not want a 35mm camera. same still applies IMO.
This is all assuming high quality lenses are used, Digital capture will suffer from poor optics. Don't scrimp in your lenses if you go digital, its simply not worth it.
Im extremely pleased with the results from my nikon d-slr, and despite what i've just put, i do highly recommend them!
I've found the ad for camera gear insurance, and they do offer international cover.
www.eandl.co.uk/uk-photographic-equipment-insurance.htm#
www.eandl.co.uk/uk-photographic-equipment-insurance.htm#
ehasler said:
I've found the ad for camera gear insurance, and they do offer international cover.
www.eandl.co.uk/uk-photographic-equipment-insurance.htm#
Cheers Ed,
Opened my new Photogrpahy Monthly last night and out fell the insurance leaflet! I then realised that its in there every month and I just bin it assuming its junk loan type crap!
Proves that magazine leaflet advertising doesent work on me (until prompted!)
DustyC said:
That is an excellent review!
can the EOS300D do a-sync flash (as in not flashing at the start of a shot)?
also can the EOS300 do this? I've lost my manual!
I think you mean rear curtian sync, where the shuter opens and the flash goes off at the end ( ideal for getting that effect where stuff under natural light is lit and the subject in the centre has the flash, or for lighting up a subject and having the night background blurred..)
No.. Don't think the 300d will let you do that.
For under £1000, the new Nikon D70 is easily the best DSLR you can buy.
I have just got one to go with my other Nikon gear. The D70 is fantastic, and easily the best camera under £1500 IMO - the 18-70 lens it comes with is awesome too.
DustyC said:
I have an EOS300 and am considering going to a EOS300D.
Well actually, to tell the truth, Im trying to warrent spending £700+ on a camera. Help!
1. Does the D-SLR mentioned have all the same features of the SLR or will I be missing out on anything?
2. Can I get international camera insurance?
3. What are the quality of the prints like? Will I notice a difference?
If the EOS300D is even a 3rd as good as the EOS10D then just do it - I've never been so impressed with a camera as with my 10D. Had to think about it for a while and only wish I did it sooner.
Re Insurance - my EOS10D & 'gubbins' (misc lenses etc to a total of about £2300) are all covered as part of our house insurance (with First Direct). All we had to do was list them on it and they are now covered for any damaged, loss, theft etc anywhere in the world for any use. Was quite sceptical so had them do a specific letter re it - added about £30 to house insurance, far less than the dedicated ones.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff