Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 18, 2005, 2:16 AM   #71
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 935
Default

Yah...I agree. Just get over it. You have a pentax *ist right? Were you intending to buy a 350D? Or what? KSV...if you reckon that the 350D isn't a bad camera at all, then what does 'Canon 350D - are you serious?' actually mean in your topic title? Canon made the 350D...an update on the 300D. There's nothing at all wrong with that. The camera does the job...it works... and works well. It costs less than the highest end cameras because Canon has purposely used parts that make it more affordable for those that want to use a DSLR. They cannot do what 'you' ask for a low price (ie you asked for something like alloy body and pentaprism viewfinder, and near-20D performance features)...because those added features would then give you a near-20D camera...which would cost a lot.

Further, your original post introduces a whole range of things, so that it's difficult to say what your point really is. You first talk about the love of photography, and then you start picking on the 350D (plastic body etc). And then you talk about gizmos....but just how many gizmos are there in a digital camera (not very much at all really)? And now you're saying that one has to be in love with their camera, and 'adore' their camera, and internal satisfaction etc. I reckon that I must be on a different wavelength, or I'm on a different plane of existence.

And you said this...
Quote:
But how one who in-love with photography can be in-love with this camera? Beyond of my imagination. Saying that I do not mean that camera is a bad camera – not at all - and anyone who in love with photography may produce excellent result with it. IMHO it just need to positioned as "below entry" level DSLR and price should be around $500 – an excellent choice for a housekeeper who like to look as a "pro".
The above is like saying...how can anybody be in-love with typical film cameras, since they don't have a memory buffer so that you can't immediately go to review the photograph to see if it turned out ok, or if somebody blinked, etc.

And the camera is truly a good entry level DSLR. So why do you have to say it's a 'below-entry-level' camera? It's a real DSLR already. And your suggested price of $500 is baseless. I mean...why should it be 500 dollars when a bunch of non-DSLR cameras are 500 dollars and more? And what's the deal with all your remarks on the public...such as 'herd' (referring to the general public), and 'housekeeper who like to look as a pro'? It looks as if you're just trying to stir the bucket.
Kenny_Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 3:03 AM   #72
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 935
Default

And KSV...what is it exactly that you want? From my understanding, it seems as if you're not happy with camera companies because they haven't been able to produce a DSLR that has the performance (or near-performance) of a 20D falling within your desired (imaginary) price range....is that right?

The thing here is...I already told you. If you wait long enough, you'll eventually be able to buy a DSLR in your desired price range that has the same (or better) performance than today's 20D. Since we've already told you...then is there any need to do another lap around the track again? (ie run around in circles).

And here's one more thing too....your pentax *ist will have purple fringing effects sometimes in your photos. So maybe you can ask yourself (in your own words) .. how can you be in love with photography if you use a camera that has this kind of flaw (especially known flaw in digital cameras)? That is..how can you adore your camera when it can give you flawed results that you have no control over, and can give you inaccurate visual records of the subject that you're photographing? But you still bought the camera because you 'love' photography ... right? So does the purple fringe effect in the pentax *ist that you own have an influence on your 'love/passion for photography'? Obviously not. So there's absolutely no reason to bag the 350D for something (plastic body etc) that hardly affects its performance.
Kenny_Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 3:04 AM   #73
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Heres an update on the so called crappy plastic body of the 300D (I think the 350D will be the same). To cut a long story short I had an accident which ended up with my camera falling onto concrete from about three to four feet height. Apart from the battery door breaking and the battery coming out (since repaired by myself and also purchased a battery grip) little other damage happened, there was a scratch on the bottom and the lens on the camera was a heavy one that got a minor mark on it but not on the glass. I was devastated when this happened as i knew it was the cheap plastic version and I really thought that I had stuffed up my prize possession, but overall I have to say that Im impressed with how well this camera held up. It was at a wedding and the pro photographer said he had major damage to one of his top of the line cameras from a similar incident and said he was amazed at the sturdiness of the camera as well.



so If the successor to the 300d is even half as good as this one was, it would be a good buy.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 7:27 AM   #74
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

But just think aladyforty, if the camera body had been made of titanium reinforced carbon fiber you could have dropped it from five feet with no body damage. Of course the lens would have been completely destroyed.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 9:45 AM   #75
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Maybe you are right there:-)I don't plan to do something so stupid again.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 10:16 AM   #76
Administrator
 
steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,535
Default

Have we all forgotten that less than ten years ago digital SLR cameras cost around $20,000 and for that you carried around the equivalent mass of a concrete block and got only 1.5 megapixel size images ... I think this topic has been beaten to death so it is hereby closed. Next topic please :?
steve is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:25 AM.