Canon 350D – are you serious?

[aladyforty]

KSV wrote:

Thanks everyone. My understanding is that majority of you answering something like that "I do not care about quality execution as long as I can get all gimmicks offered by 350D for reasonable money". Well, it just reflects what happens in whole society - people do not care much about quality, but rather care about gizmos. Sad...

Im sorry KSV, but you appear to be acting elitist, what is so wrong with a camera maker putting out an affordable camera that will (in the right hands) take great photos? Ive seen people with top of the line equipment take crap photos and a good photographer use a cheap model and produce wonderful work. Remember canon, Nikon etc are a business and believe it or not the herds as you call them are a big market, maybe we are not all wonderful photographers but it is our choice, and we DO have choice as to what camera we buy, we are not all wealthy and everyone has the right to buy what ever they like, to make photography with reasonable Dslrs available to only the elite is down right ridiculous and at least these camera makers have bought photography back into fashion so to speak, camera sales have boomed since digital came, why? because its more affordable.

[Kenny_Leong]

KSV wrote:

Thanks everyone. My understanding is that majority of you answering something like that "I do not care about quality execution as long as I can get all gimmicks offered by 350D for reasonable money". Well, it just reflects what happens in whole society - people do not care much about quality, but rather care about gizmos. Sad...

That's not true KSV ... you're the one that just said that, and made that up....because nobody even said what you just said.

Now, this mention of gizmos. Please list these 'gizmos' that you're referring to. Just how many gizmos are there?

[KSV]

Sorry everybody - this would be my last replay in this tread - I just have not got enough time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with 350D - it isgreat camera indeed capable of taking great pix. WhatIMHO is wrong is tendency to start stupid and IMHO unnecessarily race now between DSLR manufactures for megapixel count. Instead of investing money into basic models with basic features, but build to last they (manufactures) going to invest money into megapixels, fps, AF point cont,buffer size etc. I know that this is exactly what crowd wants -just because they can not understand anything else except that8 is greater then 6. I do not believe that this makes benefit for photo enthusiast on budget - they have to upgrade more frequently. I do know that Pentax has tried this approach (basic, but build like tank) with film SLR and lost. What I did not knowwhat is your attitude to this. Now I do. Once again - thanks to everyone.

Edit: Sorry, but I can not see even on horizon basic, affordable well executed DSLR.So there is no choices here - andI am afraid never will be

[robbo]

I am assuming that you will not read this since you just said you had no more time for this thread. However, I think the camera you chose, the Pentax *ist DS, is a basic, well executed, affordable DSLR. A number of reviewers have concluded the same.

Camera companies try to make money. If they could make more money producing 4 megapixel cameras with incredible quality lensesbuilt like tanks than 8 or 10 megapixel cameras built like Kias, they would. I don't fault them for that. If they tried a more "idealistic", "artistic" approach, they could quite possibly lose their jobs and go bankrupt.

Burst modes and large buffers are important for people who take action shots. They may be gimmicky for people who don't.

[jwebbtrumpet]

Would a upgraded 300D be considered a 10D perhaps, at least as far as build quality?

J

[Kenny_Leong]

I'm still wondering what KSV considers to be a 'gizmo', and what KSV's list of considered gizmos are in DSLR cameras.

We already said that all KSV needs to do is to wait around for a little for the prices to come down. But KSV didn't read what we said.

But I just have to say something about this line ...

What IMHO is wrong is tendency to start stupid and IMHO unnecessarily race now between DSLR manufactures for megapixel count. Instead of investing money into basic models with basic features, but build to last they (manufactures) going to invest money into megapixels, fps, AF point cont, buffer size etc.

How about if I say that I want MORE megapixels, as well as improved performance and reliability, BUT I'm not part of the 'crowd'? And how about if I say that I'm happy with the way that the products are progressing, and the way that we know that the features we desire will become lower as DSLR cameras evolve. And as I just said KSV ... afforable DSLR cameras have only just emerged very recently. But you behave as if affordable DSLR cameras have been around for a long time.

[lemondster]

one question: why wouldnt 8 be greater than 6? the cost for canon to put in an 8 MPsensor over a 6 MP sensor has to be very little. so why not?

[KSV]

To robbo: this is why I have chosen *istDS - I believe that currently this is the best compromise between quality and price. But still my father's 50 y.o Leica (entry model by the way!!!) is much better quality by execution. Plus I still can not say that*istDS is "affordable" for masses, proper wording is "became reachable"

To Kenny_Leong: there is no necessityfor 8mp for "normal" photographer, just because we do not have so many receptors in our eyes. Some application does require higher resolution - for example if one like to print murals or sell his/her photos to magazines. But may I suggest YOU go and buy more expensive model with higher megapixels ifYOU reallyneed it? We are talking here about MASS camera, or I miss something? Sure having extra megapixels will not hurt and will work as insurance against my disability to compose my shot properly, but I just do not like to have this in expense of quality. You happy sacrifice quality for extra megapixels but I am not. We have different point of view - no more no less and IMHO this is not a reason for fighting, even verbal. Especially considering that your favorite brand going by your preferable route.

To lemondster: you are wrong. Sensor (and particularly developing brand new sensor) is most expensive part of DSLR - otherwise all of as was shooting on full frame sensors ages ago

[Kenny_Leong]

This link here shows rough prices of DSLR cameras over time. As you can see....the price keeps going down (forget inflation etc). So if we wait long enough, we'll eventually find cameras that can do the jobs of today's best .. at lower prices.

http://www.juzaphoto.com/articles/dslr_evolution_17.htm

[Kenny_Leong]

KSV wrote:

*snip*
To Kenny_Leong: there is no necessity for 8mp for "normal" photographer, just because we do not have so many receptors in our eyes.
*snip*

KSV ... 35 mm film resolution for good to really decent pics may be equivalently from say roughly 12 up to 20 megapixel ... right? So why not strive to approach such resolution in digital cameras ... right? And since you reckon you're a photography lover, then wouldn't you like something that approaches 35 mm film resolution too?

These folks aren't just trying to get higher resolution. They're also trying to get cleaner images, which means trying out different size CCD chips and improving their qualities.

Also, you know that folks are also starting to look at other things too .. like ..

http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?...ber=3&preview=