A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Walking in the UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Canon EOS 300D



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 15th 03, 01:18 AM
ste
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EOS 300D


"Paul Saunders" wrote in message
...
| ste wrote:
|
| Now I really can't wait to get one.
|
| I take it the film scanner and car can now wait? )
|
| I don't know, I'm really tempted. The pro scanner is pretty vital for
| scanning my existing photographs but I should be able to take highly
| sellable photographs with the 300D too. Hard choice.

Decisions decisions... For now, I guess it's a question of choosing which
photos you could sell the easiest - your old images (ie, do you have gems in
there that would benefit from being rescanned?), or would you rather start
your business with new material with a new camera? (but would your
photography gain from having a 300D over your current set of cameras?)
....Or even buy none and save your money until the cheques start coming
through the post!


| Best option is to start selling lots of photos and buy them both! ;-)
|
| I half-wish that I'd just bought the EOS 10D
|
| Really? I'm not sure why so many people still fancy the 10D over the
| 300D. Yes it's a better camera, but by the time you buy a lens to go
| with it the total cost is going to be practically double, and there's no
| way that it's twice as good as the 300D, I'd say perhaps only 10%
| better, and that's only in terms of extra features, there's no benefit
| in picture quality.

At the time, there was no 300D to choose from, so it was 550 versus 1250 +
cost of lenses. That's why the G5 came out on top, and this was only a few
months ago! The 300D being lighter is definitely a good thing, as when I
was looking for a new camera, I thought that even the G5 was quite big!
(compared to my old Fuji FinePix F601!) The size of those SLR's was
definitely a put-off for me, but the G5 isn't that much smaller...

Saying that though, I would still only buy the EOS 10D or nothing, as even
through the differences might be minor, I always think that the extra
features and customisable options could be used in the future, should the
need be there, and I think an extra 20% on the price would be worth it (if I
could manage a grand, then I'm sure I'd stump up another couple of
hundred...). I take it you've read the review of the 300D on
www.dpreview.com?


| And from a walker's perspective, there's the all important weight issue.
| Yes the 10D is more solid, but do you really want to carry all that
| extra weight up a mountain? Having seen the 300d for myself I can
| assure you that even though it's plastic, it's not cheap plastic, and
| the light weight is a *major* benefit for walkers IMO. I probably
| forgot to mention also that the lens that's bundled with it is
| surprisingly small too, much smaller (and lighter) than an equivalent
| lens that you'd have to buy for the 10D.

Yes, I've got a plastic camera now in the G5, and I've got no complaints
about that not being metal! And I'm sure the 300D has at least as good a
build as this, and most probably better. For me, bulk and weight are
definitely a bad thing for walking and taking photos - I've love to be able
to slip the G5 into my pocket...

| Ahh well, there's always the EOS 20D! )
|
| Is that a joke or does it really exist?

It was a joke! ;o) But there's always something new around the corner,
especially with digital. The EOS 10D was announced in February this year I
think, so I'm sure that there will be something else in the pipeline in the
new year. Plus, at 6 megapixels, it doesn't give files that are that much
bigger than what I've got now, even though the quality of the camera and
images would obviously be better (should it be in the hands of someone who
knows what they're doing that is!).


| Are you in any camera clubs or anything like that?
|
| No, they never appealed to me, being a bit of a loner that way (and
| dedicated specifically to landscapes, which is not how camera clubs
| operate). I was also not impressed by the "camera club mentality" of
| people I've met who were in them, but perhaps I just met the wrong
| people. I got the impression that there's a lot of equipment envy in
| these clubs, and the guy with the Hasselblad tends to win all the photo
| competitions. ;-)

I'm similar in that I prefer to do things by myself, rather than in teams;
plus none of my friends have an interest in walking or photography. But
I'll go in and have a look around, and see what they're up to. If nothing
else, I might pick up some local knowledge of good places to shoot etc.


| Also, have you ever had any work published?
|
| I had some shots of Devon and Cornwall published as postcards many years
| ago.

Very good, and I hope you get more soon. My only published piece of work
was a photo of some staff in our work for a company magazine! Hardly counts
though! ;o)


| Paul

Ste


  #12  
Old October 15th 03, 03:07 AM
Paul Saunders
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EOS 300D

Dave Newton wrote:

The 300 is a fine camera - but I have this anxiety about anything
described as a 'cut-down version of....'.


With software I'd tend to agree, but in this case it's important to know
exactly which features have been left out. I've made a detailed
comparison of all the features and most of the features which have been
left out are stuff that I don't need anyway, like zillions of different
customisable auto options. Since I only ever use manual, this stuff is
irrelevant to me.

There are only three *real* advatantages to the 10D as far as I know,
one is the metal body (which is actually a disadvantage from a weight
point of view), a slightly dimmer viewfinder (which I've looked though
and is not a problem - it doesn't look dim at all to me), and the lack
of mirror lock up. This last one is the only feature that I really
would like, but no way could I justify the extra cost. Having fired the
shutter I can say that the mirror slap is not significant, nowhere near
as much as it would be with an MF camera with it's much larger mirror
for example, so unless I use a very long telephoto lens on a flimsy
tripod, it's not likely to be a problem.

So provided I ensure adequate stability for long telephoto shots (and
don't bash the camera against rocks), there is no real advantage to the
10D as far as I'm concerned. In fact there are two serious
disadvantages - the price and the weight!

95% of the differences are crippled software features, and every one of
those relates to customisation of various "auto" parameters, none of
which affect shooting on manual. So although this may be a problem to
the younger generation of "auto-everything" photographers, it would have
no impact on my photographic techniques whatsoever.

The bottom line is the quality, and that's determined by the sensor.
Apparently they both use the same sensor (or a very similar one) and so
there's no difference in the quality of the end result. So really it's
like choosing between a cheap manual film camera and an expensive one
with lots of automatic bells and whistles, but which both use the same
lens. Which one takes the better pictures? They both take exactly the
same quality pictures.

So the choice really depends on how much you rely on fancy auto modes.
I don't use auto, so the 300D is effectively the same camera from my
point of view, but with less weight and without the mirror lock up. I
think the lower weight is probably more of an advantage than the mirror
lock up to me, and the slightly dimmer viewfinder is of no conseqence.

as you quite rightly say Paul,
the weight of these cameras is a huge issue for walkers. There is no
way I could consider carrying a DSLR kit on the tops. I think they
are for lay-by shooting! I'll stick with my 5700 - for now.


But have you felt the weight of the 300D with lens? It's surprisingly
light, lighter than my film SLR's, and I've been carrying those up
mountains since forever. In fact it's probably no heavier than my G3
plus wide angle converter attached. The light weight really is an
attractive feature, don't discount it.

As for camera clubs, I've been a member of ADAPS (
http://www.adaps.org.uk/ ) for 18 months now and it's excellent
company! There is no one-upmanship whatsoever


Glad to hear it. I didn't mean to suggest that all camera clubs were
the same, just that I haven't been impressed by some of the things I've
heard and certain people I've met. I'm not really a club type of person
anyway, I've always been a bit of a loner in many respects and I prefer
it that way.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749


  #13  
Old October 15th 03, 03:17 AM
Paul Saunders
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EOS 300D

david hill wrote:

Though I do confess the 70-200 is not much good for
landscapes in the main.


Depends how you use it. I've always tended to favour wide angles in the
past, but I tend to do more telephoto stuff now, it's far more selective
and compositionally very challenging. I think that telephotos have
great potential for landscapes, but as with everything, it's all a
question of finding suitable subject matter.

I think the mistake I made in the past was the simple assumption that
telephotos were mostly useful for photographing distant mountains. They
certainly can be used for this purpose, but most of the time these
photos are ruined by haze, hence the assumption that they aren't usually
very useful.

What I've since realised though, is that telephoto lenses work much
better on nearer subject matter where haze is not a problem, even
surprisingly close subject matter. This doesn't mean shooting wildlife
or anything like that, you can take real landscapes over relatively
short distances, the problem is simply recognising the opportunities.

I always found that when I went out with a "wide-angle" mindset I'd
rarely see any telephoto opportunities, but one day I went out
specifically looking for them and I found loads, whilst at the same time
I didn't notice many wide-angle opportunities that day. So I think it
really depends on what you're looking for.

If you start thinking with a telephoto mindset and look specifically for
those kind of shots, you might be surprised at how many you'll find.

You can get pretty small, light 70-200 lenses these days mind, mine only
weighs one pound.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749


  #14  
Old October 15th 03, 03:46 AM
Paul Saunders
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EOS 300D

W. D. Grey wrote:

And from a walker's perspective, there's the all important weight
issue. Yes the 10D is more solid, but do you really want to carry
all that extra weight up a mountain?


Get you're priorities right Paul !


They are right, see my other reply to Dave about the actual differences
between the 10D and the 300D. The bottom line is that they have the
same (or virtually identical) sensors and take the same high quality
pictures, so there is no compromise in picture quality.

1) Are you a hillwalker who takes photos, in which case is it the
walk that's more important, or

2) Are you a photographer who wants to sell photos, in which case the
picture taking should be more important that the walk.


Actually I'm both. In the first case I like to travel light, in the
second I'm prepared to carry more. The potential problem is that if the
serious gear is so heavy that I don't take it with me in situation
number 1, then any photo opportunities that I see will suffer, whereas
if it's light enough I can carry it at all times.

For some "classic" photos, you might well find yourself "stuck" in one
place waiting for that elusive bit of sunshine in order to capture the
"perfect" picture. This is where the photography takes over from the
walking.


True, and I often find that a wild camping trip is ideal for shots that
require a lot of waiting around.

The sad fact is that carrying a lot of heavy pro quality gear can
actually be detrimental to landscape photography sometimes.

For example I once set off on a wild camping trip carrying a ton of
photo gear. The weight was so exhausting to carry that I failed to make
it to my first wild camp scenic viewpoint and ended up camping in a
photographic no-man's land, thus missing the next day's sunrise. On the
second day I camped at what should have been the first day's camp site,
and got some great shots the next day, but I never made it to the second
planned camp site. Who knows what other photos I might have taken if
I'd actually got there?

It was this instance that caused me to start thinking lightweight. I
ditched the MF camera, replaced my tripod with a monopod and bought a
small light telephoto lens to replace my big heavy one. Result? Far
easier to carry, able to walk further, more photo opportunities as a
result.

My 60-300 zoom is an excellent lens which gives terrific results, but I
rarely use it because it's so much hassle to carry. My 70-210 is not
such good quality and hasn't got as good a range, but it gets a lot more
use because it's small enough and light enough to take everywhere.
Quality is very important for landscapes, but you can't avoid the
practical limitations of carrying a lot of weight.

My Mamiya Press takes excellent quality 6x9 pictures, but it's heavier
than a lead brick and needs a big heavy tripod too. I'm sure it would
produce excellent photographs from the top of a mountain, but would I
ever reach the top? A shot taken on 35mm is better than the same shot
*not* taken on medium format because I never managed to reach the
viewpoint.

In a perfect world I'd hire sherpas to carry all my gear for me... ;-)

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749


  #15  
Old October 15th 03, 04:26 AM
Paul Saunders
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EOS 300D

ste wrote:

Decisions decisions... For now, I guess it's a question of choosing
which photos you could sell the easiest - your old images (ie, do you
have gems in there that would benefit from being rescanned?),


Absolutely! In fact there's no competition really. Much as I'd like a
new digital camera, the pro scanner is far more important, I've got a
huge photo collection stretching back 19 years, I estimate something in
the region of 35,000 photographs now.

or
would you rather start your business with new material with a new
camera?


The problem there is that it would take a lot of time, money and effort
to build up a new collection of saleable photos. Far more efficient to
use what I already have. I've already spent the time, money and effort
to take them in the past, so that was an investment in my future.

(but would your photography gain from having a 300D over your
current set of cameras?) ...


Yes, for certain types of photos, but I'd still be restricted by lack of
lenses. I'd really need a new set of lenses to go with it. It would
work out a lot more expensive than simply buying the scanner. A good
investment in the long run, but the scanner would give more immediate
benefits (and the camera will be cheaper later, or even superceded by
something better).

Or even buy none and save your money
until the cheques start coming through the post!


I've never been much of a saver, and the scanner will help me to make
money.

Saying that though, I would still only buy the EOS 10D or nothing, as
even through the differences might be minor, I always think that the
extra features and customisable options could be used in the future,
should the need be there,


But those extra features are all auto stuff. If you learn to take
photos *properly*, i.e. using manual settings over which you have total
control, all those extra features are redundant anyway. Doing manual
exposures is really not difficult, and you instantly get to see if you
got it wrong or not. All those automatic modes are just for amateurs
who can't be bothered to learn how to do it properly. And I can't
stress this enough, *MANUAL EXPOSURES ARE NOT DIFFICULT*. I really
don't understand why so many people rely on auto, it's just sheer
laziness IMO, and most of the time auto gets it wrong anyway!

and I think an extra 20% on the price would
be worth it (if I could manage a grand, then I'm sure I'd stump up
another couple of hundred...).


But it's not an extra 20%. You're not allowing for the lens. A 10D
with an equivalent lens would cost nearly twice as much! If they didn't
cripple the software features no-one would buy the 10D, but they only
affect "auto-photographers" anyway, so you'd just be paying double the
price for the luxury of not having to learn how to work out your own
exposures (and did I mention, *IT'S NOT DIFFICULT*).

Perhaps I should put a disclaimer in here. Various auto features can be
very useful and even important for certain types of photography, such as
action/sport/journalism etc. But we're talking about *landscape
photography* here, and it's generally accepted that with landscapes you
have the luxury of being able to carefully set exposures and focusing.
With digital landscapes you have the further luxury of being able to
check the results immediately, make appropriate adjustments, then take
the photo again. So there's really *no* reason to use fancy auto modes
at all.

Tell me, have you tried using manual exposures yet?

I take it you've read the review of
the 300D on www.dpreview.com?


Yep.

"Excellent resolution, matches EOS 10D"

Yes, I've got a plastic camera now in the G5, and I've got no
complaints about that not being metal! And I'm sure the 300D has at
least as good a build as this, and most probably better.


Yes, better.

For me,
bulk and weight are definitely a bad thing for walking and taking
photos - I've love to be able to slip the G5 into my pocket...


Well you couldn't do that with the 300D, but still, a medium sized pouch
on your belt would be ideal.

Plus, at 6 megapixels, it
doesn't give files that are that much bigger than what I've got now,


Ah, but size isn't everything...

even though the quality of the camera and images would obviously be
better


Yes, and the reason they're better is because the sensor is much bigger.
Although much is said about digital SLR sensors being smaller than 35mm
film, they are much bigger than the tiny little sensors that we get in
digital compacts. A big advantage of this is reduced noise.

"Noise free 'silky smooth' images at ISO 100, 200 and 400"
"Very low noise levels even at ISO 1600, virtually unnoticeable below
this"

I can't comment on the noise levels of the G5, but on my G3 I rarely
ever use anything other than ISO 50 because faster film speeds do have
noticeable noise. Even though noise is rarely noticeable at ISO 50, it
is there, and sometimes becomes obvious through post processing.

Ultra low noise is a huge advantage, especially with the post processing
that I tend to do. To have ultra low noise at faster fim speeds would
be a fantastic advantage for me. So it's not just the 6MP resolution
that appeals to me, it's the low noise too.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749


  #16  
Old October 15th 03, 01:10 PM
ste
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EOS 300D


"Paul Saunders" wrote in message
...
ste wrote:

Hi Chris, I'd never buy a film camera myself (I wouldn't even take
photos if it weren't for digital, I don't think...), but it would be
nice to have a proper look at a SLR, just so that I'm not so
ignorant!


Never say never! You never know!

But I agree that you're not going to buy one now, and I don't blame you.
I wouldn't if I were you. It may be nice to learn traditional
techniques but it's not really necessary IMO, you just have to master
digital techniques, which are slightly different. It's like the GPS and
compass thing, some traditionalists will never accept not learning how
to do things "the old way".


You're right, I never plan to buy a film camera, but at the same time, I
think it's good to be aware of different techniques and practices,
especially as these methods can always be adapted for digital anyway.
Ignorance is not always bliss! ;o)

I also have a GPS, but no compass... )


If you've started off using digital then certain film disciplines would
be alien to you, and you really wouldn't like them. For a start, you
can't see what the photo you just took looks like, until a week or two
later when you get it developed. If you're used to seeing instant
results on your LCD then this would seem very strange. I've even
started to occasionally look at the back of my 35mm SLR after taking a
photo expecting to see a picture there and being annoyed that there
isn't one! And there's no histogram either!


The LCD display is a godsend, there's no way I could do without that! And
I've *started* to use the histogram for all my proper shots, so would miss
that too.


Not only do you have to wait days or weeks to see your photographs, you
even have to *PAY* for them! And then you have to scan the damn things
to get them into your computer! Hassles you can well do without I can
assure you. If you've grown up doing things this way it seems perfectly
natural, but if you haven't, just consider yourself lucky. You may not
have all the advantages that film users do yet, but once you get good
enough digital equipment that will no longer be an argument.


I could (grudgingly) live without the LCD and Histogram, but there's no way
I could live with sending the films away to be developed, and paying for it
too! Nothing beats downloading the images onto your computer after a shoot,
and viewing them straight away. For me, digital has become a necessity by
convention.


I've always used film because that was the only option. Now that
digital has just about caught up with film I've started to use it, and
once I get a digital that's as good or better than film I'll use that in
preference to film, *BUT* I'll still continue to use film for some
specialist applications, because at the moment digital can't completely
replace film, and it's not a problem for me since I'm used to it anyway.


That's it, as it's what you've grown up with, it's what you're used to and
it's all second nature. With me, I only got into photography (or should I
call that 'shapshotting!') about 18 months ago when I bought my digital
camera, so this *is* what I've grown up with and got used to. If I bought a
film camera, it would be as alien to me as a digital camera would be for an
older film user. (sorry for the stereotype assumption, but just using it as
an example).


For example;

1. Ultra wide angle shots. Most digitals can't do ultra wide angle
because of the smaller sensors, so it's still worth having a film camera
for that. The solution is digital full frame, like the 1Ds, but they
aren't affordable yet.


It's certainly not affordable, you can say that again! But what about the
wide angle lenses or adaptors? Also, what about the fisheye adaptors? (did
you read the link I posted to you about the fisheye for the G3?)


2. Panoramic shots. That is true panoramics as in a swing lens camera.
No-one has yet attempted to design such a camera for digital yet. It
should be quite possible, it could work like a rotating scanner, it just
hasn't been done yet. Although stitching multiple shots is very popular
these days, it only works with certain types of stationary photos and
often isn't perfect. Even stationary landscapes can be ruined by
swaying foliage or parallax problems, and action shots are out of the
question. No such problems with a true panoramic camera.


Yes, you can stitch shots together if they're still objects, but if it's
moving, then there are limitations. You gave a good example about the tide
on coastal shots. I do love the shots you can get from panorama film
cameras, and they seem to be everywhere! There was a beautiful panorama in
Scotland in this months Practical Photography, by David Noton with a Fuji
GX617.


One area where film is still an advantage is operating in bad weather
conditions. Did I mention that no less than 7 of my 8 film cameras are
completely manual with mechanical shutters? The only one with an
electronic shutter broke down some time ago, with a knackered shutter!
I had two others with electronic shutters, one I took back to the shop
after it screwed up shortly after I bought it and the other I sold
because it let me down in the snow and the rain. Ever get the feeling
that I don't trust electronic cameras?


That's some hard luck stories you've had with electronics! My Fuji digital
camera completely died when I went to Egypt last year, I was gutted! But
luckily, I managed to buy a disposable camera, so I've still got some
tourist shots of me standing by the Pyramids! Phew, thank god for a 10 film
camera... )


I've had no problems with my G3 in adverse weather yet, but that doesn't
mean it won't happen. The great thing about manual mechanical cameras
is that they keep working in any conditions, even if the batteries are
dead due to cold or moisture. This means that I lose my metering and
have to guess the exposures, but that's better than not being able to
take photos at all.


That's true, better to have something than nothing.


The only other reason to use film when digital takes over is to exploit
the characteristics of film, i.e. grain, colour balance, saturation etc.
You might want a grainy effect for arty shots (real grain is more
realistic than Photoshop simulated grain) or you might want the unique
colour qualities of Velvia. These features would probably appeal more
to traditional photographers, although you never know, there may be a
"retro" movement in photography at some point in the future, in much the
same way as modern musicians reverted to using analogue synths in
preference to the more modern digital ones.


As I've never used film, I wouldn't want any of those effects anyway. The
only effect I'd anticipate emulating is a grain effect in a moody black and
white shot, but of course, I wouldn't be able to tell you that Photoshop
wasn't realistic, as I don't know any better! :-s

Hey, I can't believe you were up so late last night and still never uploaded
day 14! ) ...I suppose you're still sleeping now? I know I would be! )

Paul


Stephen


  #17  
Old October 15th 03, 03:07 PM
Paul Saunders
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EOS 300D

ste wrote:

You're right, I never plan to buy a film camera, but at the same
time, I think it's good to be aware of different techniques and
practices, especially as these methods can always be adapted for
digital anyway. Ignorance is not always bliss! ;o)


It's good to know something about film photography because digital is
based on it. For example, you can set "film speeds" on a digital
camera. How on earth can a digital camera have a film speed?

If digital cameras were invented first, it would never have been called
that, they'd probably be called "gain settings" or something, because
that's what they really area. It's like turning up the input level on a
tape recorder, which makes it louder but results in more hiss.

Shutter speeds? Digital cameras don't actually have shutters, do they?
And do you know what f1 means? And why you've probably never seen an f1
lens?

1. Ultra wide angle shots.


But what
about the wide angle lenses or adaptors?


They don't go ultra wide. 15mm on film is equal to about 24mm on
digital, so that's about as wide as you can go without serious
distortion. 15mm is amazingly wide though. Mike Reid has a 17mm lens,
I'm sure he has some photos taken with it on his site.

I did mention creating the effect of such a lens with a small panorama
of vertical shots, but what such a lens is really good for is having an
incredibly close (and thus large) object in the foreground (say a
flower) and a huge expanse of landscape in the backround. Try that with
multiple shots and you probably won't be able to stitch them together
because of parallax problems.

Also, what about the
fisheye adaptors?


They don't count, because there's no distortion correction. The ultra
wides I'm talking about are corrected to have straight lines. Look how
much distortion there is with the G3 adapter!

(did you read the link I posted to you about the
fisheye for the G3?)


No, I must have missed that.

There
was a beautiful panorama in Scotland in this months Practical
Photography, by David Noton with a Fuji GX617.


That's not a true panorama though, strictly speaking that's a "panoramic
format", because it's really a narrow strip through a single wide lens.
It just looks panoramic because of the shape, you can do the same with
any photo. (Some of the lenses for the Fuji aren't even wide angles,
but the results still "look" panoramic because of the shape.) Great
camera though, I'm not slagging it off, but only a swing lens or
rotating camera with curved film is truly panoramic.

This means that
I lose my metering and have to guess the exposures, but that's
better than not being able to take photos at all.


That's true, better to have something than nothing.


Especially if you're used to taking photos manually and are familiar
with typical exposures in various weather conditions. Could you guess
the exposure if you had to?

As I've never used film, I wouldn't want any of those effects anyway.


I don't blame you.

The only effect I'd anticipate emulating is a grain effect in a moody
black and white shot, but of course, I wouldn't be able to tell you
that Photoshop wasn't realistic, as I don't know any better! :-s


Photoshop grain is too regular.

Hey, I can't believe you were up so late last night and still never
uploaded day 14! )


I wasn't up late, I was up early! ;-) But I was busy with other
important things and didn't get around to it. I'm supposed to be
working on my business you know, not chatting on newsgroups all day!
This October project has generated far too much discussion... (Not that
I'm complaining, but it isn't really the best time.)

...I suppose you're still sleeping now? I know
I would be! )


I suppose I should be going out walking now, there's actually some sun
out there for a change. Yippee!!

Good news too, I just bought the scanner! :-) Can't wait to try it
out, but I have other things to do first.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749


  #18  
Old October 15th 03, 04:05 PM
ste
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EOS 300D


"Paul Saunders" wrote in message
...
ste wrote:

Decisions decisions... For now, I guess it's a question of choosing
which photos you could sell the easiest - your old images (ie, do you
have gems in there that would benefit from being rescanned?),


Absolutely! In fact there's no competition really. Much as I'd like a
new digital camera, the pro scanner is far more important, I've got a
huge photo collection stretching back 19 years, I estimate something in
the region of 35,000 photographs now.


That's a lot of photos! :-o


or
would you rather start your business with new material with a new
camera?


The problem there is that it would take a lot of time, money and effort
to build up a new collection of saleable photos. Far more efficient to
use what I already have. I've already spent the time, money and effort
to take them in the past, so that was an investment in my future.


That's true, and as a business, you must be as efficient as possible with
your time and money. Save the fancy stuff until you've got a montly column
in a magazine! ;o)


(but would your photography gain from having a 300D over your
current set of cameras?) ...


Yes, for certain types of photos, but I'd still be restricted by lack of
lenses. I'd really need a new set of lenses to go with it. It would
work out a lot more expensive than simply buying the scanner. A good
investment in the long run, but the scanner would give more immediate
benefits (and the camera will be cheaper later, or even superceded by
something better).


Yes, the scanner is definitely your priority then. How much is it, about a
grand? In work, we have a HP ScanJet 5470C flatbed scanner, and it's fine
for scanning photos. It came with a transparency adaptor, and even at
2400dpi, the output is crap! We just don't scan enough slides (only about
10 a year) to justify the extra cost, so we just send them to our designers,
who then email us a good quality scan from their film scanner.


Or even buy none and save your money
until the cheques start coming through the post!


I've never been much of a saver, and the scanner will help me to make
money.


Yes, it's an investment for your business, of course. The saving bit was me
thinking about what I need to do (I can't live with the parents forever!)


Saying that though, I would still only buy the EOS 10D or nothing, as
even through the differences might be minor, I always think that the
extra features and customisable options could be used in the future,
should the need be there,


But those extra features are all auto stuff. If you learn to take
photos *properly*, i.e. using manual settings over which you have total
control, all those extra features are redundant anyway. Doing manual
exposures is really not difficult, and you instantly get to see if you
got it wrong or not. All those automatic modes are just for amateurs
who can't be bothered to learn how to do it properly. And I can't
stress this enough, *MANUAL EXPOSURES ARE NOT DIFFICULT*. I really
don't understand why so many people rely on auto, it's just sheer
laziness IMO, and most of the time auto gets it wrong anyway!


I mostly use Aperture Priority now (does that count?) Though I was taking a
shot at the weekend, and it was coming out too bright. So I changed it into
Manual and manually changed the aperture to f8 and the shutter speed to a
slightly shorter speed. See, I'm learning! ;o)

I *never* use the full Auto mode, or the P Mode (what's the point in the P
mode?), but I do sometimes use the Portrait and Landscape scene modes. I
know these aren't manual, but after seeing the results, I can tell you that
they are more or less an aperture priorty mode (with Portrait being f2, and
landscape being f8), depending on the light.


and I think an extra 20% on the price would
be worth it (if I could manage a grand, then I'm sure I'd stump up
another couple of hundred...).


But it's not an extra 20%. You're not allowing for the lens. A 10D
with an equivalent lens would cost nearly twice as much! If they didn't
cripple the software features no-one would buy the 10D, but they only
affect "auto-photographers" anyway, so you'd just be paying double the
price for the luxury of not having to learn how to work out your own
exposures (and did I mention, *IT'S NOT DIFFICULT*).


I know, but after the 1250, I could have bought a cheap second hand lens
and then saved for the other lens on a rolling basis. But to be honest, it
would have worked out expensive, I know. ...but after the initial
purchases, I'm sure I wouldn't notice the extras, just the same way that I
haven't noticed the extras I've bought for the G5...


Perhaps I should put a disclaimer in here. Various auto features can be
very useful and even important for certain types of photography, such as
action/sport/journalism etc. But we're talking about *landscape
photography* here, and it's generally accepted that with landscapes you
have the luxury of being able to carefully set exposures and focusing.
With digital landscapes you have the further luxury of being able to
check the results immediately, make appropriate adjustments, then take
the photo again. So there's really *no* reason to use fancy auto modes
at all.


There's always the reason of convenience on certain occasions.


Tell me, have you tried using manual exposures yet?


Yes, see above. But not full manual very much, only when the Aperture
priority hasn't been what I was looking for. Also, I sometimes use manual
modes for my macro shots of insects - where I use f8 and 1/250 second with
my 420ex flash.


I take it you've read the review of
the 300D on www.dpreview.com?


Yep.

"Excellent resolution, matches EOS 10D"


That's the one...

Yes, I've got a plastic camera now in the G5, and I've got no
complaints about that not being metal! And I'm sure the 300D has at
least as good a build as this, and most probably better.


Yes, better.


Excellent, although nobody plans to drop a camera, it's nice to know that if
accidents do happen (like tripping on a rock), then it might not fall into a
thousand pieces, if you see what I mean.


For me,
bulk and weight are definitely a bad thing for walking and taking
photos - I've love to be able to slip the G5 into my pocket...


Well you couldn't do that with the 300D, but still, a medium sized pouch
on your belt would be ideal.


I've seen it in the window of Dixons, I'm sure it would fit nicely in my
LowePro Nova 2.


Plus, at 6 megapixels, it
doesn't give files that are that much bigger than what I've got now,


Ah, but size isn't everything...


That's what I keep telling my girlfriend... ...just kidding! ;o) (that
was terrible I know!)


even though the quality of the camera and images would obviously be
better


Yes, and the reason they're better is because the sensor is much bigger.
Although much is said about digital SLR sensors being smaller than 35mm
film, they are much bigger than the tiny little sensors that we get in
digital compacts. A big advantage of this is reduced noise.

"Noise free 'silky smooth' images at ISO 100, 200 and 400"
"Very low noise levels even at ISO 1600, virtually unnoticeable below
this"

I can't comment on the noise levels of the G5, but on my G3 I rarely
ever use anything other than ISO 50 because faster film speeds do have
noticeable noise. Even though noise is rarely noticeable at ISO 50, it
is there, and sometimes becomes obvious through post processing.


I have no problems with noise on my G5, and I have also started using ISO 50
(on your advice from a previous post in this group). If you read the
dpreview.com review for the G5, it says that altough it has slightly more
noise than the Nikon 5400 and Sony V1 (the competitors in the class) these
are from ISO 100 onwards (even though I've not had complaints myself). I
know that extra noise at ISO 100 isn't very good, but the review also says:
"Overall the G5 has the sharpest image with the most detail, it also has the
least amount of sharpening artifacts (such as halos around dark detail)."
So surely, it's a balance of personal preference between noise and detail?
I'm happy with it anyway, which is what counts for me.

Plus, perhaps I should start turning the sharpening and saturation etc down
to their lowest settings like you do? To make it even better, and more pure
for post-processing?


Ultra low noise is a huge advantage, especially with the post processing
that I tend to do. To have ultra low noise at faster fim speeds would
be a fantastic advantage for me. So it's not just the 6MP resolution
that appeals to me, it's the low noise too.


So noise-free plus extra detail? That's the perfect compromise then isn't
it? ;o)


Paul


Ste


  #19  
Old October 15th 03, 08:20 PM
ste
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EOS 300D


"Paul Saunders" wrote in message
...
| ste wrote:
|
| You're right, I never plan to buy a film camera, but at the same
| time, I think it's good to be aware of different techniques and
| practices, especially as these methods can always be adapted for
| digital anyway. Ignorance is not always bliss! ;o)
|
| It's good to know something about film photography because digital is
| based on it. For example, you can set "film speeds" on a digital
| camera. How on earth can a digital camera have a film speed?

Yes, instead, it's just the sensitivity isn't it?


| If digital cameras were invented first, it would never have been called
| that, they'd probably be called "gain settings" or something, because
| that's what they really area. It's like turning up the input level on a
| tape recorder, which makes it louder but results in more hiss.
|
| Shutter speeds? Digital cameras don't actually have shutters, do they?
| And do you know what f1 means? And why you've probably never seen an f1
| lens?

Sorry, this is where my lack of technical knowledge shows. Digital cameras
don't have shutters? Then what do they have instead? I can see something
closing behind the aperture when I take a photo, and I have a shutter speed!
)

Also, why not a f1.0 lens? I've seen a f1.2 lens, but I'm not sure what the
numbers mean, except that they are small holes with high depths of field!
Is f1.0 so small that it's closed or something? Or does the scale start at
f1.0?


| 1. Ultra wide angle shots.
|
| But what
| about the wide angle lenses or adaptors?
|
| They don't go ultra wide. 15mm on film is equal to about 24mm on
| digital, so that's about as wide as you can go without serious
| distortion. 15mm is amazingly wide though. Mike Reid has a 17mm lens,
| I'm sure he has some photos taken with it on his site.

I've just looked on his website, but I wasn't sure which ones were taken
with the 17mm lens.


| I did mention creating the effect of such a lens with a small panorama
| of vertical shots, but what such a lens is really good for is having an
| incredibly close (and thus large) object in the foreground (say a
| flower) and a huge expanse of landscape in the backround. Try that with
| multiple shots and you probably won't be able to stitch them together
| because of parallax problems.

I need to take some more flower shots some time - I try to take a bit of
everything whilst I'm learning. I'll try and find a flower in a suitable
spot to try the wide angle method - something tells me the flower will be in
a flower pot, and placed on a beach somewhere with the pot out of view...
)


| Also, what about the
| fisheye adaptors?
|
| They don't count, because there's no distortion correction. The ultra
| wides I'm talking about are corrected to have straight lines. Look how
| much distortion there is with the G3 adapter!

Yes, I've noticed that. Even normal shots, and especially portrait format
shots, have curved horizons. Remember that Worms Head shot you put
photosig? That's typical from what I've seen (with my shots and other shots
too). Best to avoid straight horizons I think! ) (nahh, not a chance!)


| (did you read the link I posted to you about the
| fisheye for the G3?)
|
| No, I must have missed that.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=6230787

But no photos were posted I'm afraid, just a gadget report.


| There
| was a beautiful panorama in Scotland in this months Practical
| Photography, by David Noton with a Fuji GX617.
|
| That's not a true panorama though, strictly speaking that's a "panoramic
| format", because it's really a narrow strip through a single wide lens.
| It just looks panoramic because of the shape, you can do the same with
| any photo. (Some of the lenses for the Fuji aren't even wide angles,
| but the results still "look" panoramic because of the shape.) Great
| camera though, I'm not slagging it off, but only a swing lens or
| rotating camera with curved film is truly panoramic.

So is it basically the same effect as you get from cropping the top and
bottom off?

I seen photos taken with an XPan 2 and they were great. I'm guessing that
this is a true panorama camera?


| This means that
| I lose my metering and have to guess the exposures, but that's
| better than not being able to take photos at all.
|
| That's true, better to have something than nothing.
|
| Especially if you're used to taking photos manually and are familiar
| with typical exposures in various weather conditions. Could you guess
| the exposure if you had to?

I could have a go, that's for sure! But I'd have to wait a few weeks to see
if the results were any good... )


| As I've never used film, I wouldn't want any of those effects anyway.
|
| I don't blame you.
|
| The only effect I'd anticipate emulating is a grain effect in a moody
| black and white shot, but of course, I wouldn't be able to tell you
| that Photoshop wasn't realistic, as I don't know any better! :-s
|
| Photoshop grain is too regular.
|
| Hey, I can't believe you were up so late last night and still never
| uploaded day 14! )
|
| I wasn't up late, I was up early! ;-) But I was busy with other
| important things and didn't get around to it. I'm supposed to be
| working on my business you know, not chatting on newsgroups all day!
| This October project has generated far too much discussion... (Not that
| I'm complaining, but it isn't really the best time.)

Early?! Seriously? Ouch! I have been getting up at 6:05am this week, and
it's horriffic! Mainly because I've been going to bed at 2am... :-o
zzzzzZZZZZ How come you woke up so early then?

I know what you mean about chatting on newsgroups all day! That's why I'm
slow at replying to that Jpegs post below! It takes so long to reply to (as
it's such a long post), that I keep putting it off. I'll reply to your
email (with the improved images) at the same time I reply to that post, I
haven't forgotten...


| ...I suppose you're still sleeping now? I know
| I would be! )
|
| I suppose I should be going out walking now, there's actually some sun
| out there for a change. Yippee!!

Hope you had a good one! We all wait for the TR! ) (and photos!)


| Good news too, I just bought the scanner! :-) Can't wait to try it
| out, but I have other things to do first.

Excellent, how is it? Is the quality as you hoped, and is it adding a new
lease of life to your old images? By the way, do your old images
deteriorate over time, or are they as good as if they were taken yesterday?


| Paul

Ste


  #20  
Old October 16th 03, 01:06 AM
Paul Saunders
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon EOS 300D

ste wrote:

Good news too, I just bought the scanner! :-) Can't wait to try it
out, but I have other things to do first.


Excellent, how is it?


Still in the box. Like I said, I have other things to do first.

Is the quality as you hoped,


It better be!

and is it adding
a new lease of life to your old images?


It's bound to.

By the way, do your old
images deteriorate over time, or are they as good as if they were
taken yesterday?


I haven't had any colour fading. Most are just as good, but some of my
old slides from 86-87 have got a bit of fungus growing on them. It will
be interesting to see how the digital ICE copes with that.

Probably best for me to scan and archive the best of my oldest shots
first, before they get any worse.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TR - Moon and Mars over Tryfan Pat Bennett Walking in the UK 23 September 21st 03 07:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.