Phxplanes From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2472 times:
I am looking at buying a new camera. currently I have a panasonic lumix fz20. So is the digital rebel xt worth buying? I have looked through pictures on a.net and a lot say eos 300, is the 350 better or about the same. Also how good is the lense that comes with it. Atleast for now I dont want to spend a lot of money so I wont buy a new lense right a way.
Is there any other camera in the same price range that would be better?
How much better is the rebel compared to what I have?
Finally, I take photos of many different subjects but I want a camera that will be great for aviation photography.
Phxplanes From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2461 times:
Sorry I forgot something, my current camera has 12x optical zoom, with the standard lense on the 350 what would the zoom be compared to the fz20.
Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2455 times:
The 350D is faster than the 300D (start-up etc) and produces images with lower noise at high ISO levels. It has 8 megapixels compared to 6, but at 1024 x 683 pixels and ISO100 you won't see any noticeable difference in image quality over the 300D. I haven't used the Lumix but going by other point-and-shoot cameras you'll find the 350D to be a quantum leap ahead in terms of image quality. But the kit lens is 18-55mm only, or x3 zoom. You would definitely need a longer lens for aviation photography.
Charles
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
9VSPO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2447 times:
Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 2): The 350D is faster than the 300D (start-up etc) and produces images with lower noise at high ISO levels. It has 8 megapixels compared to 6, but at 1024 x 683 pixels and ISO100 you won't see any noticeable difference in image quality over the 300D. I haven't used the Lumix but going by other point-and-shoot cameras you'll find the 350D to be a quantum leap ahead in terms of image quality. But the kit lens is 18-55mm only, or x3 zoom. You would definitely need a longer lens for aviation photography.
And that is where your budget goes...not on the camera.
OlegShv From Sweden, joined Mar 2006, 683 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2408 times:
Unless you have ramp access (I wish I had that ), you will need a telephoto lense for spotting. This should be in the range between 70-300 mm. The kit lense with rebel xt is a general zoom with 18-55mm range. Remember, the zoom is only a ratio of max/min focal length. "Magnification", or ability to close in on a distant subject, is really a function of focal length and view angle, that's why you need a lense with longer focal length.
Another camera you might want to look at is Nikon D50. Oh, and don't get into "analysis paralisys" over the camera body at first. It's better to have a cheaper body with better glass than a top of the line body coupled with cheap glass. Advanced (pro-level) bodies will only emphasize the deficiencies of the low quality glass and inexperienced photographer.
Scottieprecord From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1363 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2405 times:
I own both cameras. The 350D is more conveniant due to its speed, but the 300D is still an awesome camera.
If you're budget is somewhat low, you might want to consider a used 300D. That could give you the opportunity to acquire better glass to start out with. Just a thought...
Phxplanes From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2392 times:
Thanks for the responses, they help a lot. I am still trying to make my mind up on what to do because I dont just want to buy any old camera but these responses help.
Any one else who has knowledge of the cameras feel free to comment.
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 31 Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2377 times:
Quoting OlegShv (Reply 4): It's better to have a cheaper body with better glass than a top of the line body coupled with cheap glass. Advanced (pro-level) bodies will only emphasize the deficiencies of the low quality glass and inexperienced photographer.
This is very good advice. You might consider not buying the body with the kit lens, but the body and, say, a 70-300mm zoom. Any DSLR body, with a good lens, is capable of excellent aviation shots.
Whether you go for Canon or Nikon is a matter of personal preference - I don't want to re-ignite the Canon v. Nikon debate here.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
Glennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 56 Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2364 times:
Quoting 9VSPO (Reply 3): And that is where your budget goes...not on the camera.
Quoting Viv (Reply 7): Whether you go for Canon or Nikon is a matter of personal preference
True...
If you don't have lenses, see if you can sample a Canon and a Nikon. Maybe your friends have them (i.e. just shoot with your CF card).
If the two cameras have similar level lenses, then I can guarantee you. You'll buy the Canon
The image is just another step up in quality thanks to the Canon sensor. The Sony(*) sensor just isn't as good yet.
(*) Nikon doesn't make sensors
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
Pavvyben From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 178 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2350 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 7): I don't want to re-ignite the Canon v. Nikon debate here.
I think im just about to do so :S
Quoting Glennstewart (Reply 9): If the two cameras have similar level lenses, then I can guarantee you. You'll buy the Canon
The image is just another step up in quality thanks to the Canon sensor. The Sony(*) sensor just isn't as good yet.
That is debatable. It is down to personal preference like has been said before. Ive seen alot of photos taken by the top of the range Nikon bodys and lenses that are outstanding and win hands down to Canon. These two companies make fantastic equipment, no doubt about it and each are better in different situations. I would say "personally" that some of the Canon bodies are better compared to Nikon, but i also think that Nikon glass is better than Canons + the technology that goes in to them is more advanced imo. Lets face it, Nikon used some of Canon's ideas like IS and made them better again imo . Nikon also took longer to get into the digital age whereas Canon had a bit of a head start. In terms of SLR, Canon is the new kid on the block compared to Nikon who have been making cameras and lenses for over 50 years.
Ive tried to be as impartial as possible (i own Nikon), but its stupid to say "Oh the quality isn't as good". If that was true, why are alot of pro's using Nikon and getting better results than Canon users? Its more to do with the photographer than the equipment.
Whatever you decide, im sure you will love it either way. You can't go wrong with either
Philhyde From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 674 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2323 times:
Quoting Kukkudrill (Reply 2): I haven't used the Lumix but going by other point-and-shoot cameras you'll find the 350D to be a quantum leap ahead in terms of image quality.
Maybe, and maybe not. A DSLR is not a guarantee of better image quality over equally modern point-and-shoot cameras. They are obviously very capabale cameras, but not a silver bullet.
As others have mentioned here, you need to pair it with good glass. The Leica lens on the Panasonic seems fairly good, and sports a 12X zoom with constant f2.8 aperture. You said yourself that you want the camera for a variety of subjects. By specs alone, you will need to consider a lens with at least 200mm of zoom and possibly a f2.8 maximum aperture. This can equate to serious dollars and make your camera body purchase seem like the cheap part!
It is worth you time investing in the research before making a purchase. You should fully understand the challenges and limitations that you will experience with a DSLR. Fortunately, this is a great place for that!
Kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2311 times:
Quoting Philhyde (Reply 11): A DSLR is not a guarantee of better image quality over equally modern point-and-shoot cameras.
Compared to the point-and-shoots I've used, my 350D offers better definition of detail at the same resolution; ISO100 images that are virtually free from noise, halos, and other processing artifacts; higher ISO levels that are actually usable; a higher dynamic range, meaning little fear of blown highlights unless I mess things up; and more consistently accurate autofocus and exposure metering. All of these, with the partial exception of the first, have to do with the sensor and in-camera processing not the lens.
Yes of course the lens quality makes a difference but let's not exaggerate. My consumer-grade Canon 75-300mm zoom still delivers good results over much of its focal length and aperture ranges. Bad optics can partially negate the DSLR's advantages but good optics cannot make good the point-and-shoot's shortcomings.
Quoting Philhyde (Reply 11): They are obviously very capabale cameras, but not a silver bullet.
I'm with you here. If you don't know how to get the best from your p&s you won't know how to get the best from a DSLR.
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
Phxplanes From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2290 times:
well after reading these comments I'm thinking about just buying the body (maybe even the 300D) and buying a good lense.
Phxplanes From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2229 times:
Sorry, my mistake. I tried to quote another thread, and I mixed up things.
Sorry again.
This is the correct one...http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/240097/
Phxplanes From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2158 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 436 posts, 
From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1122 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
And that is where your budget goes...not on the camera. 
From Sweden, joined Mar 2006, 683 posts, 
), you will need a telephoto lense for spotting. This should be in the range between 70-300 mm. The kit lense with rebel xt is a general zoom with 18-55mm range. Remember, the zoom is only a ratio of max/min focal length. "Magnification", or ability to close in on a distant subject, is really a function of focal length and view angle, that's why you need a lense with longer focal length.
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, 
. Nikon also took longer to get into the digital age whereas Canon had a bit of a head start. In terms of SLR, Canon is the new kid on the block compared to Nikon who have been making cameras and lenses for over 50 years. 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
