Canon 350D opinions?

Wow guys! Thanks for all the info.. i didn't know about the voucher book but it says that you can get £70 cash back on the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lens.

That may just bring the price down to acceptable levels (for me anyway!)

And i've also heard good things about Sigma lenses, i'll check out the 30mm f1.4.

Also, another question too.. do you think it's worth saving the £40-50 by ditching the standard 18-55mm lens that comes with the kit and using the cash saved towards one of the fixed length lenses i've mentioned (or the 10-22mm one?).

I'm erring towards a yes, ditch the standard lens, but i'm worried my learning curve may be affected and held back by not having a tele-focal to play with.

Any opinions?

BTW guys, all your responses and help is very much appreciated.. learning a lot of new stuff here before a purchase, i'm sure Buzzons feels the same way too.

 

Just search flickr for "350d" or "rebel xt" - there'll be an endless supply of pictures there. here you go

--

I have one myself and it's one of the best purchases i've ever, ever made

You've already said you're not bothered about the size of it but here's my 2p on that issue for anyone else reading - once you slap a decent lens on* it you mostly support the camera by the lens anyway, meaning you aren't holding the majority of the camera's weight by the rather small hand grip... which makes it way more comfy and far less of an issue.

*obviously doesn't apply to primes as they're small and very light mostly

Buy it anyway IMO. It's only 40 quid and you'll use it still - it's small, light and makes an acceptable general purpose lens. It isn't amazing but it doesn't have to be. Anyway, it's more about the person behind the camera than the camera itself, right?

 

Yay, this thread is just what I was after, I've also been thinking about getting a new/better camera.

 

You make an obvious but fair point.. i'll think i'll keep it in the pack in that case.

 

They fetch 40-45 quid on ebay anyway if you decide you don't need or use it (example). I've no plans to sell mine though and i've replaced it with a 28-105 mk2 (the mk2 is important!) as my general purpose, every day lens, so it's already technically redundant and yet still gets used due to just how small and light it is.

 

Thats a few £ cheaper than I found, but Jessops will only match the price inc. postage. They will also try and sell you loads of stuff (CF cards, cases, filters, lenses) but remember that you can probably buy them all cheaper elsewhere. You also get a book of cashback vouchers for different lenses when you buy the camera - so might be worth waiting until you buy it before you splash out on extra kit.

 

By the way, the book gets you...

£35 off...

Speedlite 580EX
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Extender EF 1.4x II
Extender EF 2x II
EF-S 60 f/2.8 Macro USM
Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX

£70 off...

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
18x50 IS All Weather (Binoculars)

£105 off...

EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
10x42L IS WP (Binoculars)
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

 

I too have been looking at a 350d for some time, as I like the idea of an SLR (I've never really had what you would call a pro-sumer camera, but just love the idea of having one).

Thing is, I'm finding it hard to justify one... Pics from my old Olmpus C770UZ look fab when printed out on photo paper, and they're only 4mp pics. Will 8mp be *that* much better than 4? What happened to the megapixal myth? Or are the photos better due to superior optics?

And if you're an SLR novice, is it too much of an ask to step up to something that capable? Ok, they're 'relatively speaking' cheap for a dSLR - but it's still the best part of £500 to go spend on something that you may not get the most out of, due to lack of talent.

 

RTT makes a fair point about keeping the kit lens as it will certainly be 'useful'. I've got a few zooms and they are invaluable but, as far as learning goes, I'd say ditch it and spend the money on the primes.

I've learnt far more about image composition going out all day with my 50mm prime than carrying around a zoom. The primes force you to think more about how you frame your image, what you include, and make you phyically move to alter the composition.

At the same time, you said you're looking at the 10-22mm. I'd consider very carefully what you intend on shooting with your DSLR. 10mm is very wide (16mm after 1.6x APS-C crop factor). I have this lens for my 20D and, whilst it's a great lens to have at my disposal, it's easily my least used lens - as I've discussed with RTT before. But I'm not much of a landscape photographer whereas I know other people that are and the 10-22mm barely leaves their camera.

If you'll genuinely have use for such a wide lens, then great, otherwise I honestly think if you opt to get and keep the kit lens then 17mm will be plenty wide enough for most situations. Of course, if you ditch the kit lens for a prime of around 24-35mm then you might want the 10-22 as you'll have no wide-angle option.

Megapixels in the understanding of the joe public is very miscomprehended. They don't make your pictures any better quality. The quality of the sensor recording those pixels will make a difference, as will the glass through which it's being recorded. And, of course, the user is one of the biggest factors.

Basically, increased megapixels means you can do one of two things:
a) Print bigger images. If you're currently using a 4MP camera, you can print up to 10x8, maybe a little bigger at a push depending on the quality of your sensor. With 8MP you're looking at least double that. Easily A2 (16.5x23.4in), and I know of people that print much bigger than that, around A0 (33x47in)

b) Print the same size images, but with a smaller portion of the original image. By this I mean you can take a picture where the subject fills only half of the frame (maybe for restrictive reasons you can't get closer). 8MP over 4MP would mean you could crop out 50% of the image and still print to the same size print with the same quality.

Of course, that's just differences in MP. If you're thinking of going DSLR there's advantages of manual control allowing you to experiment with and control things like DOF (depth of field - how much of the image is in focus), shutter speed, etc etc.

Personally, I knew that I'd started to outgrow my compact. I still use it for numerous things where an SLR is just overkill and un-necessary, but for a lot of what I wanted to do, I was limiting myself with a creative compact.

 

I totally aggree with Hwulex, and the sigma stuff is top notch (I have a 300d and a couple of sigmas "cheap" Digital lenses) and short of operator error, they are faultless.

 

Thanks for the advice Hwulex... I want primes because of the type of photography i'm mostly interested in, and that's architecture an city landscapes.

If i'm not mistaken, a lens of 10-22mm would give some very interesting shots (if i learn to use it properly that is!).

What i'm thinking of now is to get a 350D, a 30/50mm? and a 10-22mm?

Or shall I get the 350D with the standard 18-55mm kit lens and a 28mm or 30 mm f1.4, which would be slightly cheaper bundle.

But both of these options mean serious £££... i'm happy just to play with only one lens for a while until I decide I need another one, and if the 10-22mm is too restrictive then maybe just a 30 or 28mm?

 

I think if you're wanting to start off with only a single lens to keep costs down, then I would recommend either sticking with the kit lens, or getting one of the primes.

Of course, they offer very different opportunities. The kit lens goes quite wide so you get to toy with some wide-angle stuff to see if it suits what you want and you'll be able to see if you want wider with the 10mm.

Imo, I don't think the 10-22 range offers enough versatility to serve as a single lens solution unless you're being very particular about your subject matter.

The primes being fixed length offer a better learning process, imo, and also are much faster. Any of the primes you've listed are anything between half and three and a half stops faster which will allow you to use far faster shutter speeds in lower light. They will also allow you to be much more creative with the DOF. Useful for shooting things like portraiture and still life.

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ - a good resource for lens reviews of all types and makes, J-Pepper

Another benefit you may find with using the kit lens for a while and not buying another lens right away is finding out what type of photography you like. You've already got your eye on wide lenses, as did I, but infact I ended up realising that a wide angle is futher down the buy list than I first thought. [/2 pence]

 

Awesome, thanks for the link, just what I needed

 

The kit lens is not TERRIBLE. It's noticeably soft compared to others at the long end, and strangley, more so at small apertures, which is indicative of difraction problems caused by a poorly designed aperture diaphragm. I'm unusually fussy however. It would be worth replacing as and when you can afford it however.

10mm is very wide indeed, and you should question how often you would actually use it.

My advice right now is to just get the 350d (whether it's with the kit lens, or withought is your choice) and just use it for a while, and decide what glass you need to buy a little later.

Sigma are indeed great lenses, and in some cases, better than the EF lenses. Someone already beat me to posting that lens review site, and this thread has grown a great deal since I was here last (damn being at work all day).

Loads of good advice here... but use the camera for a while to establish what your next move is. Only you, and your photographic style will determine that. I'm still concerned about the quality of the kit lens however... whether mine was unusually bad I have no idea, but if you can take some test shots with it at the lng end at around f11 before you buy it, you can decide yourself.

One way or the other tho, it's a fab little camera once you get used to the small size, and the slightly awkward manual controls.

 

Well, i'm not a *total* novice, although still very amateur.

More than a few years back when I was starting my A-Levels, my school very generously provided unlimited access to their dark room out of school hours as well as during and so I started out as an amateur photographer then.

But since leaving school and having no dark room to play with, I found that I just stopped.

That was around 5 years ago, so I have a general idea of what I want to achieve and what artistic direction I want to be heading in, hence the question on wide angle lenses.

I guess i'll just have to get hold of one and have a serious play around with it first.

 

Whilst her work is quite exceptional, and is now being commissioned, Rebekka's Flickr gives you some idea of what can be achieved using a Canon 350D, the kit lens, a 10-22mm, and a flashgun, if you really know what you want to achieve.

 

Great stuff... one of my favourites is ddoi and he uses a 350D with the 10-22mm lens to great effect as well.

edit: looking at these examples of great photography only seems to cement the idea that I need to get a wider lens!

 

I would love to get the 10-22mm lense, but I am hesitant, as it being an EF-S lense, would mean incompadabilities with full frame (35mm/35mm sensor) cameras if I ever were to upgrade.

But Rebel XT is an awesome camera. Cheap, but loads of features. The kit lense is a little weak though.

 

Wow! Not only are those pics incredible she's damn fine as well

Win win.

edit: she says "scanner at school" I hope that's an english translation error cause she looks about 25, not 16.