Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 15, 2004, 4:35 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 82
Default

A few months ago I bough a Canon Pro1 and for the most part I am happy with it. This weekend a local retailer has a great price on the EOS 300D, selling it, the Kit Lens, Tripod bag and other accessories for less than what I paid for my Pro 1.

It has really got me tempted to maybe switch, but I am not really sure how much I will gain Vs the trade off of the convenience of the Pro 1.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter ?




Aussie Dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 15, 2004, 11:22 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585
Default

I had the DR as my first dslr. I would recommend it as an upgrade to a point and shoot provided the following:

1. You will have a learning curve to take full advantage of the DR. If you do not want to spend the required effort then I would stick with Pro 1

2. You will buy more lenses as you learn more about the camera. You will have more stuff to keep up with.

I think you need to answer these two questions before making a decision.
gibsonpd3620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2004, 12:40 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

I like the 300D, and think that it's a good choice for a tight budget hobbyist digital camera, at least until its replacement comes out. But with the D70 and the 20D, I think that its time has almost passed. Alternatively, it could still be a good choice even after its replacement is out for someone looking for real value in a DSLR with the lowest cost, with a view towards following the technology curve some time in the future without spending much money.

But I don't think that it will be satisfying to a Pro-1 owner unless that person already understands what an SLR brings (perhaps based on previous SLR experience),and has come up against some specific shortcomings.

The Pro-1 looks to me to be a very nice camera, and equivalent to a DSLR in many respects. The lens looks to be nice, and not obtainable in DSLR's as a single lens, nor as multiple lenses without substantial cost (probably in excess of the cost of the Pro-1 and the 300D). The Pro-1 also has a very nice LCD display -- noticably superior to the 300D's.

I would expect the 300D to have better image quality due to its larger sensor, but this advantage could easily be lost with inferior lenses or poor focusing esp. due to the reduced depth of field. This raises one advantage of the 300D -- the ability to unfocus the background. Perhaps this can be done to some degree with the Pro-1 in the "200" zoom mode, but I still doubt that that would come close to what you can do on the 300D with fast prime lenses. But many people would trade off overrall sharper picture for the ability to background blur and the need to focus more critically.

I haven't used a Pro-1, so I apologize if some of my impressions of it are wrong. I hope not, and that I've helped.
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2004, 6:33 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 13
Default

i think he can unfocus the background just by using a bigger apperture, or am i wrong?
fonfa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2004, 7:18 AM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

fonfa wrote:
Quote:
i think he can unfocus the background just by using a bigger apperture, or am i wrong?
It is very difficult to get a shallow depth of field with a non-DSLR model, especially with a larger subject.

This is because Depth of Field is based on the actual (versus 35mm equivalent) focal length of the lens, aperture, and focus distance (and the lenses on non-DSLR models have much shorter actual focal lengths, for any given 35mm equivalent focal length, due to their much smaller sensors).

So, at any given actual focal length, your subject will occupy a much greater portion of the frame. You can't really help it by using more zoom, since you must shoot from further away, each time you do use a longer focal length.

As a result, due to the dramatically greater depth of field you have with a non-DSLR model, blurring backgrounds with larger subjects is often just too difficult to accomplish (unless you are framing very tightly, with the background located at a much further distance behind the subject).

So, for these types of photos, you really need a DSLR. Although, you can simulate a shallow depth of field using software.




JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2004, 9:53 AM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 39
Default

Madwand wrote:
Quote:
The lens looks to be nice, and not obtainable in DSLR's as a single lens, nor as multiple lenses without substantial cost (probably in excess of the cost of the Pro-1 and the 300D).
This statement is untrue and therefore misleading.

I use a Sigma 18 to 125 on the DR giving an equivalent 28 to 200, the same range as the Pro 1. It may not be a Canon L series as the Pro 1 is claimed to have, but it is available in the UK at around £230.

Please do not give misleading information.

ken from the uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2004, 10:55 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 192
Default

One factor that I didn't mention was the viewfinder. Some people are surprised to find that DSLR's don't have continuous displays on the LCD screen, and as digicam users, they often have become accustomed to this feature and enjoy using it.

On the other hand, the optical viewfinder is a good part of the reason for the SLR's existence, and to date, with these cameras at least, the eye level electronic viewfinders of the Pro-1 do not match the optical viewfinders for clarity. Some people have identified this as in their opinion one of the most significant drawbacks of the Pro-1.

In turn, I often complain that the cropped DSLR optical viewfinders are inferior to what one could get from full frame (film) SLR's, so even the cropped DSLR's aren't the last word in viewfinder quality.


Although it probably has little effect on the quality of results, image clarity affects a good part of the pleasure of my photography, and is the single biggest reason why an otherwisewonderful vintage Contax IIa sits on my shelf, and a Canon F-1n accompanies my cropped DSLR on photographic outings.
Madwand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2004, 12:16 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,585
Default

The digital rebel does not have a movie mode either.
gibsonpd3620 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 7:36 AM.