Canon EOS D30?
Discussion
agent006 said:
Nope, not missing a 0. The D30, as in the first proper canon digital SLR.
Just wondering if it's any good, as it seems a fair whack cheaper (on the second hand market) than a 300d, and it's got all the features i'll be needing for the moment.
It was an excellent camera, good image quality, well built. AF is a bit slow. If you're not printing above A4, sounds like an interesting option. How much more are D60s going for?
You'll probably not notice much difference between scanned 35mm film and the D30 printed on A4 according to this review on Luminous Landscape.
Unless you want to print larger than A4, then it's a good choice I think, especially if the price is right!
Unless you want to print larger than A4, then it's a good choice I think, especially if the price is right!
simpo two said:
Why buy a digital SLR with a massively lower resolution than 35mm?
Because there's more to photography than resolution? 20 years of film gave me no pictures good enough to hang on the wall. A few months of digital gave me images that are.
Call me old fashioned, but until I see 10mp digital cameras with anywhere near the dynamic range of film, I'm sticking with 35mm
I prefer working on film. The knowledge that it has to be right every time makes me spend more time setting up a shot.
parrot of doom said:I've read that the current crop of DSLRs are actually better than some slide film (Velvia for example) in terms of dynamic range, but there does seem to be a lot of discussion about this. Certainly, I've seen more than a few tests that rate the image quality from a 6MP DLSR as higher than that of scanned 35mm slide film, but that's been image quality overall, and not just dynamic range.
Call me old fashioned, but until I see 10mp digital cameras with anywhere near the dynamic range of film, I'm sticking with 35mm
I prefer working on film. The knowledge that it has to be right every time makes me spend more time setting up a shot.
I'm interested to know why don't think current DSLRs match film in dynamic range, as Google didn't show up any definitive answers.
Only thing to watch for would be wear on a second hand digital. Free photos means lots of exposures will have been made (Mine has made 5000 in 1 year, and it is used lightly.. i.e. every couple of weeks), and the battery may be worn with an older camera such as the D30. My 10Ds is already showing odd symptoms.
Not sure how much batteries are, guessing £50-100?
Russ
'86 190E, '62 Elan
Not sure how much batteries are, guessing £50-100?
Russ
'86 190E, '62 Elan
simpo two said:
parrot of doom said:
I prefer working on film. The knowledge that it has to be right every time makes me spend more time setting up a shot.
That's cool, each to his own. But just to pin this down: the fact you prefer film has nothing to do with resolution then, as previously stated?
No, the resolution certainly does matter, its just one thing that sways my decision. In terms of dynamic range, you can't really compare a scanned slide and a digital image, as the scanner uses a CCD. All I'll say is, blow up a slide, and blow up the digital image, and compare the two
Its not that I have anything against digital, I just don't think the technology is there yet. I'd rather see digital mediums used to their best, and not to try and copy film. See 'Collateral' at the cinema to see what I mean - shot entirely on digital 24p, and not disguised either.
By dynamic range I'm talking about the latitude in exposure that film offers, which in my limited experience (I have played with digital SLRs) is better with slide film. Perhaps the latest DSLRs have better CCDs, but I wouldn't be surprised if they compress their dynamic range to offer a subjective improvement.
Finally, I can still see blue halos around heavily silhouetted objects on digital shots
>> Edited by parrot of doom on Wednesday 29th December 01:37
Sorry about my slightly garbled penultimate sentence. The evils of beer
The AF is much slower on the D30 than the 10D is what I meant to say. And the 10D is slower again by a similar margin than the 1DmkII. This really shows itself on "cheaper" (read non-L) lenses.
The D30 is still a cracking camera though. And if I'd known I could have got 330GBP for mine last year I wouldn't have traded it for less against a 10 bloody D It's probably worth that sort of money though.
Invest in decent lenses if you can - L really does make a big difference to the quality of shots.
Batteries are BP511 (think that's the number) and can be had for about 15 quid I think.
You need to know how many shots its taken though as the shutter is rated to something like 100k frames IIRC. Doesn't mean it will break at that, but it might. Can't recall if you can tell from the menu system how many frames it's done (file names don't necessarily tell you anything).
I wouldn't buy anything without being able to test it. Check that everything works including auto-focus, all the buttons and downloading files. And make sure you get all the manuals and cables with it.
parrot of doom - I think you're one of a minority of people who, shown two prints side by side, one film, one digital would be able to tell the difference.
End of the day, to me it's the output that counts, not the spec sheet. And the D30 is capable of amazing results in this respect, let alone the 10D or 1DmkII (which I'm lucky to own too).
I bet you still dust off your vinyl collection in preference to those pesky CDs and watch your 8mm cine film over DVDs any day
As for collateral, a surprisingly good film. No matter what stock it was shot on.
The AF is much slower on the D30 than the 10D is what I meant to say. And the 10D is slower again by a similar margin than the 1DmkII. This really shows itself on "cheaper" (read non-L) lenses.
The D30 is still a cracking camera though. And if I'd known I could have got 330GBP for mine last year I wouldn't have traded it for less against a 10 bloody D
It's probably worth that sort of money though. Invest in decent lenses if you can - L really does make a big difference to the quality of shots.
Batteries are BP511 (think that's the number) and can be had for about 15 quid I think.
You need to know how many shots its taken though as the shutter is rated to something like 100k frames IIRC. Doesn't mean it will break at that, but it might. Can't recall if you can tell from the menu system how many frames it's done (file names don't necessarily tell you anything).
I wouldn't buy anything without being able to test it. Check that everything works including auto-focus, all the buttons and downloading files. And make sure you get all the manuals and cables with it.
parrot of doom - I think you're one of a minority of people who, shown two prints side by side, one film, one digital would be able to tell the difference.
End of the day, to me it's the output that counts, not the spec sheet. And the D30 is capable of amazing results in this respect, let alone the 10D or 1DmkII (which I'm lucky to own too).
I bet you still dust off your vinyl collection in preference to those pesky CDs and watch your 8mm cine film over DVDs any day
As for collateral, a surprisingly good film. No matter what stock it was shot on.
simpo two said:I've seen quite a few articles that suggest that some DSLRs actually have better range than some slide film (e.g., Velvia). I've not yet found any real proof either way though, but I can't see there being much difference if there are so many people saying that they've found digital to be better.
By dynamic range I'm talking about the latitude in exposure that film offers
I agree with you on that one: it seems to be a major Achilles heel of DSLRs, at least at the lower end of the market. Perhaps a pro DSLR would be better? I don't know.
I know the advantages digital offers, but sometimes its just 'nicer' using film. Do you understand?
Try overexposing some shots. Overexpose them on film, and the colours bleed, and tend to go white. Overexpose on digital, and greens go lurid yellow, skin tones go pink/yellow, it all seems to fall to bits.
I think (although I've done no tests) that long exposures on film work differently to digital. I'm using what I know about video camera design to say this, but doesn't the design of a CCD specifically try to prevent voltage from each pixel 'bleeding' into the next one, to improve resolution?
I'd love to see some long exposures on a DSLR, with highlights, and compare those to the same framing on a film camera, with the same F-stop and shutter speed. It would make for an interesting comparison.
One last point - I think film grain is prettier than video noise
Try overexposing some shots. Overexpose them on film, and the colours bleed, and tend to go white. Overexpose on digital, and greens go lurid yellow, skin tones go pink/yellow, it all seems to fall to bits.
I think (although I've done no tests) that long exposures on film work differently to digital. I'm using what I know about video camera design to say this, but doesn't the design of a CCD specifically try to prevent voltage from each pixel 'bleeding' into the next one, to improve resolution?
I'd love to see some long exposures on a DSLR, with highlights, and compare those to the same framing on a film camera, with the same F-stop and shutter speed. It would make for an interesting comparison.
One last point - I think film grain is prettier than video noise
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff