Re: Should I go Canon digital?
Do you own Canon lenses? If not you have to take into account the inevitable loss from switching systems. Others are in a better position than I am to compare the differences between the two cameras. At 02:44 AM 9/16/03 +0300, you wrote: I want a digital camera. I need it. For a couple of years I have been eagerly waiting for an affordable to me Pentax DSLR. Now we've got the ist D at $1699. I can't afford it, other than by taking some uncomfortable financial chances. Then the Canon 300D appeared at half the price of the istD. (And for the price of the istD I can get an necessary upgrade of my P166 and P133 computers on Win95 too...) Those of you who have been following specs etc. closer than me: Tell me why I should or should not buy the Canon. Tell me why I still should, or shouldn't, buy the istD, at double the price. Thanks, Lasse To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by the post office, even the sleaze. O'Rourke, P.J.
Re: Should I go Canon digital?
on 16.09.03 1:44, Lasse Karlsson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tell me why I should or should not buy the Canon. Tell me why I still should, or shouldn't, buy the istD, at double the price. For the price of RebelD (plasticky built, little features for advanced photographers, not-so-intuitvie handling as said my friend and his friends Canonians who were with him at Canon's press confernce with 300D aka RebelD in USA) , I would surely buy upcoming Sony F828 - it far more photographic features, it is better built (magnesium-alloy body) and it has great lens made by Carl Zeiss (28-200 f2.0-2.8!) with T* coating - the only one that is as good as Pentax's own SMC... Of course we don't know much about quality of photos, but I am sure it will be far better than current bunch of prosumer digitals - it has new 8MPix RGB+E sensor. I suspect, it could have more noise than APS sized sensors, but thanks to the more pixels it could rival it in terms of resolution. But it is only my speculation - let's wait and see some reviews - it should be available in shops soon... Well at least not only me is impressed with F828 - Mike Johnston seems to be too - he prefers it over RebelD like me:-) -- Best Regards Sylwek
Should I go Canon digital?
On 15/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I want a digital camera. I need it. For a couple of years I have been eagerly waiting for an affordable to me Pentax DSLR. Now we've got the ist D at $1699. I can't afford it, other than by taking some uncomfortable financial chances. Then the Canon 300D appeared at half the price of the istD. (And for the price of the istD I can get an necessary upgrade of my P166 and P133 computers on Win95 too...) Those of you who have been following specs etc. closer than me: Tell me why I should or should not buy the Canon. Tell me why I still should, or shouldn't, buy the istD, at double the price. Hi Lasse, Personally I think you will be disappointed with the 300D. The lower spec of the camera compared with the Canon 10D and the Pentax *ist D (or the pair of Nikon-fit offerings for that matter) will be a real bug bear after the initial honeymoon has worn off. Things like only being able to shoot 4 frames in rapid succession before the camera stops for a few seconds and does its thing before letting you carry on. It's bad enough with 8 frames on the D60. Four would be intolerable for me. The wait is only a matter of a few seconds, but each one of those seconds is how many missed pictures if you need them? Things like the build quality - I must be careful here as I have not seen or touched either camera. I suspect that the build quality of the 300D will not instil a sense of confidence that the build quality of the 10D/ *ist D will. The 300D has more plastic aboard, and will feel like it. It is also nowhere near the Pentax in the beauty contest. The pictures from both cameras will blow you away though. No doubt about that. These 6MP DSLRs are in a league of their own. In your position I would not hesitate - I would wait for the *ist D. It is a few seconds to midnight on the *ist D Delivery Clock. Don't jump as the gate is about to open! If you insist on having one now, and price is a factor, consider a used D60 or 10D. Or how about a Sigma SD-9 and one or two lenses? I wouldn't, but some do ;-) I really think you will kick yourself if you plump for the 300D. Not an easy choice to make when you are really in a position to do it. Much easier for me to make the decision for you, LOL. Good luck Mr Karlsson. This email will self-destruct in 5 seconds. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Should I go Canon digital?
on 16.09.03 7:40, Alan Chan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From what I have read in an asian site, there are concern on the AF and overall quality of the 5400 from the users. AF in 5400 is very slow and noise at isos higher than 100 is worse than from cheaper Sony DSC-V1. Say what you want, but I think with DSC-V1 and DSC-F828 Sony will have this year's best prosumer cameras. It's a pity that Pentax don't want to show us something interesting in this class - more advanced than Optio 550, with bigger, threaded for filters lens, and with hot-shoe for AF360FGZ... *istD is too pricey for me now, but I could buy now smaller-than-dslr (and chepaer) prosumer digicam :-) -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Should I go Canon digital?
Dear Alan, I'd expect any camera not being able to resolve something to give me a fuzzy patch of stuff. If the hair cannot be resolved, I'd expect it to give me back a fuzzy patch of color. But no, I got back a ragged hair, much like on a TV only much worse. The hair has sharp boundaries, but it is not a line, it is ragged. I don't know how to best put this in words, but to me the camera seems to be telling me, I can't render it, so I create it for you. That's why I asked if there are certain settings which would help. -- Bo-Ming Tong - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, September 15, 2003 10:39 pm Subject: Re: Should I go Canon digital? I used the F717 once. I didn't like it at all. I was doing portraits. Hair looked like pixels, not hair. Maybe I am seeing a digital artifact, or the picture was overly sharpened ? But the camera was borrowed and I didn't RTFM. Probably there are settings which would have given me better pictures. You can't blame the camera when the resolving power of your eyes is too high. :-) Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Should I go Canon digital?
I want a digital camera. I need it. For a couple of years I have been eagerly waiting for an affordable to me Pentax DSLR. Now we've got the ist D at $1699. I can't afford it, other than by taking some uncomfortable financial chances. Then the Canon 300D appeared at half the price of the istD. (And for the price of the istD I can get an necessary upgrade of my P166 and P133 computers on Win95 too...) Those of you who have been following specs etc. closer than me: Tell me why I should or should not buy the Canon. Tell me why I still should, or shouldn't, buy the istD, at double the price. Thanks, Lasse
Re: Should I go Canon digital?
Be careful with the 5000s, though... I've seen more of those come back for repair than any other digital we've sold. Ditto with out-of-the-box failures. Nikon seems to have improved the 5400, but I've had nothing but bad experiences with several 5000s. YMMV, of course. chris On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Herb Chong wrote: i would recommend the 5000 over the 5400 unless he needs the extra zoom. the color is a bit better and higher ISO max. Herb - Original Message - From: Anand DHUPKAR [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 7:51 PM Subject: Re: Should I go Canon digital? Are you sure you want an SLR ? Are you sure you want to add on lenses ? Analyze your requirements and if you feel that you might not need to change the lenses, I would strongly suggest Nikon 5400. Its a very very good. I bought Nikon 4500 and after a month or so this 5400 came in the market. Extrem close-up less than 1 cm, compact, extremely handy, beautiful ergonomics are plus points of this equipment. In the category of advanced point and shoot, it is substantially faster in focusing as well. I am sure, you won't feel sorry.
Re: Should I go Canon digital?
Tell me why I should or should not buy the Canon. Tell me why I still should, or shouldn't, buy the istD, at double the price. That depends on what gears you have. If you have some exotic lenses which might benifit us, I'd say jump now and unload them here for us. Otherwise, I don't care. :-) Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Should I go Canon digital?
I used the F717 once. I didn't like it at all. I was doing portraits. Hair looked like pixels, not hair. Maybe I am seeing a digital artifact, or the picture was overly sharpened ? But the camera was borrowed and I didn't RTFM. Probably there are settings which would have given me better pictures. You can't blame the camera when the resolving power of your eyes is too high. :-) Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Should I go Canon digital?
Be careful with the 5000s, though... I've seen more of those come back for repair than any other digital we've sold. Ditto with out-of-the-box failures. Nikon seems to have improved the 5400, but I've had nothing but bad experiences with several 5000s. YMMV, of course. From what I have read in an asian site, there are concern on the AF and overall quality of the 5400 from the users. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
