Canon 300d

[barty]

Hi I'm looking at the Canon 300D DSLR camera and was wondering if anybody had any knowledge of this camera and would it be a good start in my digital slr imaging. How would you say it compares in quality to my current Fuji Finepix S7000

[mjs1973]

Hi Barty,

I have the 300D and find it to be a very good DSLR for a starter. Thi image quality is pretty good although the noise levels aren't the greatest above ISO 400. I have had mine for about a year and a half now and have had no problems with it. It does have it's limitations tho depending on how you like to shoot. It only has a 4 shot burst witch I find very limiting for shooting moving objects such as sports or wildlife. It doesn't have the autofocus speed of the higher end Canons, but then again, it doesn't have the price tag either. If I were you, I would take a serious look at the 350D if it's in your price range, but if not, the 300D is a good place to start.

[ekstasis16]

I've had a 300D for about 2 years and it works great for most things except shooting action. I get pretty good photos with it under most circumstances. There are some advance features missing like mirror lockup and AI mode selection, but all in all, its a good camera. The best thing they're dirt cheap since they've been out for so long.

The 350D would be even better. More megapixels, mirror lockup, and a few other features the 300D lacks.

[JETA]

I've had the 300D for a couple of years. It's a fantastic beginner camera. If it's the camera for you really depends on what type of photgraphy you are doing and whay you MAY be doing in the near future.

Last year I grew out of my 300D really fast. I love to shoot sports and there were a few reasons this camear didn't work for me. The biggest one was that I could only take 4 shots in a row and then had to wait for the camera to recover. It was extremely frustrating to me. The other huge factor was the noise level from 800-1600 iso. The pictures to my eye look terrible with the noise the 300D produces.

All of that said I still use my rebel all of the time. I take a lot of personal pics & the Rebel is what I reach for at those times. I still use it constantly.

[livin4lax09]

like JETA said, it really all depends on what you're doing. you don't want it for sports photography. But other than that, it's a great camera. 6.3 MP, and it can be hacked to get mirror lockup, ISO 3200, and many more custom functions. I actually have one for sale, PM me if you are interested.

[mwfanelli]

Hi I'm looking at the Canon 300D DSLR camera and was wondering if anybody had any knowledge of this camera and would it be a good start in my digital slr imaging. How would you say it compares in quality to my current Fuji Finepix S7000

I still use my 300D and see no reason to dump it. I find that everything up through 800 ISO is excellent, 1600 is a little bit noisy but very useable and certainly much much better than 1600 speed film!

A lot of the complaints about this camera are just nit-picking. For example, I've taken great whitewater kayak action shots with it (of course, I even did that with my lag-y S400) as well as images of high school soccer. If you like the whole "shoot the roll and hope for the best" method it won't work. But using a decent card and your brain (!) there is plenty of buffer space.

The metering is good, the lag is not visible, and it runs forever on that big camcorder battery. Since people update technology all the time whether they need to or not, you should get an excellent deal on one.

IMHO, go for it!

[livin4lax09]

If you like the whole "shoot the roll and hope for the best" method it won't work. But using a decent card and your brain (!) there is plenty of buffer space.

I have to disagree with you on this point. Even if you don't unload, the write speed on the 300d is not nearly fast enough to keep up with the action. Even if you have an ultra II card, the 300d can't take advantage of it. I have 3 cards, two of them being ultra II's, one being a common sandisk 512, the kind you can get on ebay for like 15 dollars, and there was no difference in write times merely because the camera can't take advantage of it. The buffer may be ok for some sports, but fast paced sports where action is happening at unknown intervals, you can snap off three shots at something exciting, then another big play happens half a second later, and you've only got one shot left. I barely ever sprayed and prayed, just because of the lack of Al Servo. I would click the shutter, release the button, then press down again for new focus, compose shot, and click it off again. I was getting frustrated ALL the time with the buffer. The camera wouldn't be nearly as bad for sports if it had a) a bigger buffer, and b) Al Servo.

Moral of the story? like I said before, it's not for sports.

[mwfanelli]

OK, I'm in another bad mood so here is a rant. Good grief, am I becoming a techno-Luddite...?

It is amazing to me how lazy we have all become. Sports photography, great sports photography, used to be created long before digital existed. Long before power drives were invented. Before film winders were common. Before meters were in-camera. Before autofocus was around. These photographers got the great shots because they understood the sport, learned what was going on, figured out how to know where and when the next piece of action was going to be. They understood photography as well, knew how the camera and film would react. They were real pros.

Nowadays, people believe that the equipment and random shooting should do all the work. I have no clue where the ball is going so I'll just buy a camera with a huge buffer and keep the shutter pressed! I don't know much about photography so I'll just set everything to auto-focus, auto-meter, and maybe even use program mode. Equipment solves all problems! Look mom, I'm a sports photographer!

Yes, the 300D will not do the random scattershot photography that so many use. FWIW, it does not have to completely empty the buffer to start shooting again. Anything cleared can be used. But regardless, the bottom-of-the-line 300D is a camera that sports photographers 20 years ago would have killed for. And, for most people, it does a great job just as it is. Even for sports.

[JSPhoto]

OK, I'm in another bad mood so here is a rant. Good grief, am I becoming a techno-Luddite...?

It is amazing to me how lazy we have all become. Sports photography, great sports photography, used to be created long before digital existed. .

I have to agree with Liven, the 300D is not a sports shooters camera, but it goes farther than just the small buffer, and lack of AI Servo, it's also notoriously slow AF (besides the AI) and a serious shutter lag that just cannot be overcome. It's low light operation leaves a lot to be disired as well. I have used a 300D for sports while my 1D was being repaired last year, it was so bad I went out and bought a 1D MKII N.
As for buffer use, I rarely take more than 3 consecutive shots, but when I do I have a reason for it, and I want the gear capable of doing the job. One place I do get the buffer use is gymnastics, things happen quick, and you need to be able to shoot away. Some events last just seconds (vault) and you hold the shutter down from the time their hands hit the vault until they hit their landing. In that time I can get off 16 shots and keep two to 4 of them. With the 300D I'd get one shot or two and maybe keep one. Truth is, most places that they ho;d the gymnastics a 300D won't work at all, and they don't allow flash.
The other place I use the buffer is at races, captureing and entire crash at Indy requires a fast camera, fast write speed, and a big buffer, each frame can mean the difference between a big check, or an average one or two shot check. Which would you rather have, $175 for one shot, $300 for two, or $6175 for a series? I'll take the latter. That 6 grand just paid for that 1D MKII N or a lens or two.

JS

[livin4lax09]

I agree with you, sports photography has gotten easier, but also the technology has allowed us better photographs. A lot of people out there nowadays can buy expensive equipment and get good photos, and I think this album that I was looking at recently explains this point.

http://www.photoreflect.com/scripts/...05F5005C040019

check that photo and browse through the next 4 or 5 shots. The equipment made that work. But at the same time, nothing I see in any of those albums really STANDS out to me. Yes, equipment can make a decent photo, but I suggest you pick up "21st century sports photography" and you'll see that even with all of the great equipment nowadays, it gets to a point where money ends and your artistic sight begins. The best sports photographers do have the best equipment, but they aren't the best because of that. But it certainly does help.

Again, referencing 21st century sports photography. I Highly doubt, long ago, photographers could have gotten the same shots. The progress is not intended to make people lazy, it is intended to improve the whole quality of photos.

THose people who buy the expensive equipment may fool the untrained eye, but to people that have been shooting sports for a while, it is very evident whether the person is one of those kinds of people.

I won't lie, I've kind of forgotten the point I am arguing.

I've shot sports for a few years now, and would consider myself fairly knowledgeable (and I bet most shooters in the sports photog forum would agree). I have shot most type of sports, and all I'm saying is that the 300d does not do a good job if you're trying to go into the field. You will have many more keepers with a camera that has Al Servo.
Just because the camera would have been god's gift to sports shooters 20 years ago doesn't mean it's any good for the same now. The sheer fact is that you are competing in a market if you want to be any sort of photographer. If you give a 300d to most of the pros out there, I'm willing to bet they wouldn't be able to get the same shots. And they don't rely on spray and prays.

[Loupey]

I came across this thread just now so excuse me for coming in late...

First of all, it seems we strayed far from the original question. To answer Barty's question whether the 300D was a "good start", I think everyone would agree that it is. After all, when the 300D and the 10D were introduced several years ago, I seem to remember that they were all the rage back then. Just because a few newer models have been introduced since then shouldn't diminish their usefulness/effectiveness to people of similar photographic experience and starting points.

Now for my view for which I'm sure to get some flack. As I have stated in other threads, I too am a little worried about the inter-relationship between technology and photography. Studying photography during the early and mid-80's, I learned about waiting for the decisive moment and about studying a scene before making a single shot. Patience was a necessary part of photography. I understand JS's and Livin's point of view for people making a living in professional sports photography; but how many of us fall in that category? For the rest of us, I do agree with Michael that people tend to put TOO much emphasis on the equipment. During the past 20 years, other than one football job, I have not ever squeezed off 3 shots within a second (let alone 5 or 8!). I shudder to think of a time in the future when digital video cameras will become sophisticated enough that you can pull out a 6 or 8 MP image from anywhere in the recorded video.

It seems to me that photography was actually a lot simplier when all we had to worry about technically was 1) focus, 2) aperture, and 3) shutter speed. Yes, I have a DSLR for the convenience of digital (and I have developed an allergic reaction to fixer, btw) but would trade it all for a digital back for my trusty mechanical everything Bronica medium format equipment.

Just my opinion. You may disagree. But still my opinion.

[Loupey]

I am fortunate to be able to work with many professional photographers. Although they all use top notch equipment, in almost every case they use careful timing in well thought-out sets to get their shots. Shots are taken very deliberately and not in mass bursts. Occasionally, two frames might be taken in rapid succession. Rarely, three.

[WillCAD]

Back to the original question - I recebtly bought a 300D and I think it's an excellent beginner dSLR.

If you have some knowledge about digital cameras, and some knowledge of SLR cameras, then you should have little trouble becoming familiar with the 300D for basic, casual photography.

Judged by pro standards next to pro cameras like the 1DSmk2 or against higher-end dSLRs like the 5d, the 300D can't compare. But it's not meant to compare to those higher-end cameras, it's meant to be an entry-level camera for the casual shooter who wants more capabilities than your average point and shoot, and in that area it excells.

My standards on noise are a lot lower than the pros around here, because I've seen several people mention the unacceptable noise level the 300D produces at 1600ISO, but all of my 1600ISO shots look just fine to me, very clean and noiseless. I might be more critical if I were taking these shots for a living instead of just for fun, but the noise level at 1600ISO is completely acceptable to me, and probably for most casual shooters like me.

The buffer issue doesn't bother me, either. I still tend to shoot like I did when I shot film - I am stingy about how many shots I take, even though I never print and don't have to worry about developing or printing costs any more. I have been consiously trying to take more shots, because my over-cautious method tends to make me miss some good ones, but I don't ever want to get into the "spray and pray" method (old paintball term). I know that shooting from the hip can be important, but I'd rather get a good shot from the hip than 10 poor ones.

I think Barty will be perfectly happy with a 300D, at least in the beginning. If he starts to push the camera beyond its capabilities, he can always upgrade to a 20D, which will hopefully be available cheaper soon now that the 30D has been released.