Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3065 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3545 times:
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' . 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 .
OD720 From Lebanon, joined Feb 2003, 1926 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3540 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.
Sulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2037 posts, RR: 31
Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3455 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.
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.
It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
United_Fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7554 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3414 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.
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3379 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.