Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
About The Canon 350D SRL. 8 M Pixels  
User currently offlineTACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3423 times:

Hi,

Does anyone have the Canon 350?

How does it performed? Too much difference with the 300?

As a simple amateur, I'm undecided between 6,3 and 8 mega pixels.

Comments welcome.

Thanks in advance to all.

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3048 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3407 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi,

I'm no expert, but I think you'll find that the difference between 3 and 6 megapixels is huge in terms of quality. Even if you are a 'simple' amateur, that difference will be obvious in your photographs and, given the huge price reductions in the area of 6 megapixels, I would go for that at the minimum without thinking twice.

Obviously, the more pixels the better but, having looked at a lot of photos from the 20D (same pixels as the 350D), I don't think the improvement in quality is of the same order as the jump from, say, 3 to 6 megapixels.

I have a 300D and am very happy with the picture quality. But that's not to say I wouldn't like to 'upgrade'  biggrin . There are aspects of the 350D that I think, as a 300D user, would be very beneficial, but the price difference will be a key factor for some time to come, as the 300D is now getting so much cheaper. I'm planning on further introductions which will result in the 20D price eventually dropping in the way the 300D recently has done  wink .

Paul


User currently offlineOD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1925 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3402 times:

You shouldn't be fooled by the MPs of the camera. This doesn't mean that it's not too important, I think Paul explains it quite well.

Here are a few things you should worry about between the 300D and 350 D.

350D has a bigger buffer meaning that you can take more consecutive shots at a time.
350D has AI Servo which most consider important in sports photography.
350D starts up almost instantly, 300D takes between 3-4 seconds and some think that they may miss a shot.

A disadvantage of the 350D is that it's too small and large lenses may feel a little disbalanced when attached to it. But since you are getting the 75-300, you shouldn't worry about it.

Hope this helps.


User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1325 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3374 times:

If anything, the 350D is much easier to handle than some of the earlier, heavier digital SLR models. I think there's a bit of a myth, of the bigger the camera, the better! (now, now, no smirking)

As an aside, one of the things which put me off the 10D is seeing a photographers with great big battery packs strapped on them; it all looked a bit too cumbersome.

350D does RAW, which I don't think the 300D does.


User currently offlineGOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3365 times:

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 3):
350D does RAW, which I don't think the 300D does.

Wrong. The 300D takes RAW-pictures.

/Robert



Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3356 times:

Now that I've seen the 350 a few times, I don't think much on the size issue. What I would say is get a 300D and a decent lens - you can get very good results with it.

Cheers


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineTACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3330 times:

Sincere thanks to all folks!  Smile

User currently offlineTACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3319 times:

Quoting GOT (Reply 4):
The 300D takes RAW-pictures.

once again sorry for my ignorance. What's a RAW picture?


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3317 times:

Quoting TACAA320 (Reply 7):
once again sorry for my ignorance. What's a RAW picture?

When you shoot jpeg, the camera actually converts the image to .jpg format with certain defined parameters, such as colour tone, contrast, exposure compensation, sharpness, and white balance.

Example:

It's a nice sunny day, and you're shooting a white painted aircraft. You know the 300D will probably blow the exposure on the fuselage, so you set -0.6 so that the camera underexposes a little. You also set the white balance to 'sunny' or 'auto' so that the appropriate colour temperature is applied.

A straight conversion to jpeg will give a nice image, but you might get something a little dull with a blue colour cast because the camera's borked the colour temperature. but if you record it as RAW you can alter these things with no loss in quality, before you convert it. It means editing takes a little longer, but you've much greater control, and get the scene looking how it did on the day.

All this is before you start fooling around with levels, curves, and sharpening etc in photoshop. Since using raw my PS workflow is a bit quicker, because you have a much nicer image to start off with.


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineTACAA320 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3304 times:

Thanks James.

Understood.


User currently offlineUnited_Fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7496 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3276 times:

I just got one and I love it! I also bought a 70-300mm lense. What an improvement from the Sony 717 it replaced. I love that it takes shots as fast as you can push the button . It doesn't have the delay like the Sony did.

Here's a shot I got accepted with it...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Scott Kerhaert



Scott.



'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
User currently offlineG-CIVP From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1325 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3262 times:

Robert - Noted. Thanks for the correction. Tim.

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3241 times:

Well, I don't post much in this forum as I haven't uploaded anything to Airliners.net in 3 years but the 350D is something I can actually talk about.

Having used the 350D twice now, once at IAH and once at DFW, I can say the camera itself produces excellent pictures. The 350D's only *possible* drawback (at least that I've found so far) would be its smaller size but of course this won't bother everyone. I haven't found it to be a problem but then again it isn't much smaller than the film SLR I was using before. The quality of the pictures has been far better than anything I ever had with a slide scanner. As of right now I don't think I have any pictures that would get accepted here, not because of quality, but simply because they're too plain and "common". (I might try uploading one of the water cannon salute for SWA's last IAH flight.)

Just as a side note, the 350D's RAW files can't be opened in Photoshop Elements (and I'm assuming most other photo editing programs) right now. Adobe hasn't released an update for the 350D and the one that they released for the 20D doesn't work for the 350D.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Replacement For The Canon 350D? posted Sat Apr 29 2006 20:06:26 by 9VSPO
Is There An Alternative To The Canon 350D? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 23:49:25 by Jorge1812
Thoughts About The Canon EF 28-135? posted Sun Nov 16 2003 09:41:55 by Airways
Question About The Canon 30 / 50E posted Tue Sep 4 2001 21:43:45 by Mirage
What Lenses Are Good For The Canon EOS 350D/Rebel posted Thu Feb 9 2006 20:00:06 by Jorge1812
Sony Alpha, Nikon D80, Or The Canon 30D? posted Sun Dec 3 2006 07:52:33 by Kaitak744
Canon 350D And D70 Lenses posted Sun Nov 5 2006 00:03:08 by Jspitfire
Too Artsy+ What About The Contrast? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 18:06:51 by Rotate
I've Decided To Buy The Canon EOS 30D posted Tue Aug 15 2006 11:25:03 by AussieAviator
Is The Canon Is Worth It? posted Mon Aug 14 2006 23:54:11 by KBFIspotter