Canon 350D opinions?

25? isn't she about 30 odd? although fit for her age.. hmm yummy mummy!

I have decided to 'borrow' a couple of her photos as background images on my Macbook

Would you care to elaborate more? Does it really matter that much, I thought that the focal distance changes in that case and it wouldn't be large problem?

 

Indeed, she's quite an attractive lady. IIRC she's 26, mother of two. Icelandic, but grew up in Florida, hence her excellent grasp of English.

As for the school comment; she's studying at a local graphic arts college which she tends to refer to as school in much the same way that our American counter-parts do (see above).

Very fortunate, imo, living somewhere as beautiful and chaotic as Iceland. So many wonderfully different and beautiful locations to shoot.

EF-S lenses only fit on EF-S compatible cameras. At present, the list comprises:
300D
350D
20D
30D

EF-S lenses won't fit on any other body. It means if you later upgrade to a full-frame body (5D, 1D, 1Ds), or even add a cheaper 2nd-hand older 1.6x body (D30, D60, 10D) you won't be able to use the 10-22 with it.

Whilst it's a good point and something I've considered when buying most of my lenses, I think an exception can be made for the 10-22 as without it, you can't achieve true wide-angle on any of the 1.6x bodies. The closest (non fish-eye) Canon being the rather pricey EF14mm L prime at £1449.

 

Ah ic, if you have no aspirations of going really professional, then it shouldn't really matter as the 20D is pro enough for most amateurs no? But then there is always the possibility that you'll get really good enough to warrant an upgrade to a 1Ds.

I actually took a short trip into town today, where I live in Worcester the only decent shops are the London Camera Exchange and two branches of Jessops (one branch absolutely awful btw.. didn't know squat but the other had a camera guru in it!)

Anyhoo, I had a quick feel around with the 350D and I actually found it quite comfortable to use and less un-wieldly than the D50... and on asking the nice chap at the LCE about the Canon 10-22, he suggested that I should also look at the Sigma 10-20 as an alternative as that has comparable quality, is cheaper, is designed specifically for dSLRs and will isn't limited to specific Canon bodies as the Canon 10-22.

SO.. with that in mind, i'm thinking of going for the 350D Body kit, the sigma 10-20mm lens and a Sandisk 1GB 133x CF card as a starter... which would bring the cost to £850 odd.... Quite an investment, a bit more than I was expecting to pay so it'll be a little while before I splash out.

btw.. i've also found out that she's 28.

 

Make sure you try the 10-20 instore before you buy it, as there are numerous reports of copies of this lens with a very soft right hand side.

 

Cool, noted. Thanks for letting me know.. i think I better do some more research into the sigma.

 

And even a lot of pros don't use the 1 series if they don't need to. For one they're bloody expensive. For example, Pookeyhead on these thar forums uses a 350D as a pro.

Bah, I was close.

 

Indeed I do. I love the 350d.

I do have some issues with it however.
A. Manual control is not very intuitive. I never use it where speed is required.... not manually anyway. Used in program mode it's a wickedly fast little camera, but if you need full manual control AND speed of use, forget it.

B. It feels like a plastic toy compared to "better" cameras. Adding the additional battery grip helps, but there's no escaping the fact that this camera is built to a price.

C. The kit zoom lens is pants.

Apart from these though, it creates some superb images. It's got a great sensor, and the same image processor as the 20d, so the quality from both the 350d and the 20d are pretty much identical if you use the same lenses.

Noise levels are amongst the lowest I've seen, and ISO 400 and below is almost noiseless. Even at 1600 it's better than cameras costing 3 times as much.

It's framerate is superb, and the buffer is large.

I doubt you'll get more camera for your money than the 350d, but if you're bothered about it being light and plasticky, look elsewhere. LIkewise, if you're the type to wear a camera as a status symbol, look elsewhere... as it looks rubbish.

Just remember, it's not the camera that takes good photos, it's you. I'll use anything... cameras are just tools to me. I've shot professional assignments on the most budget of cameras imaginable. I use teh best tool for the job, and if the job demands a light, small, unobtrusive camera, the 350d is the one I'll use.

Pookey rating: 4/5 Recommended

 

Jessops seem to have two different 18-55mm lenses a USM and a non-USM (ultra sonic motor apparently) does it make any diffence in quality?

 

No difference in quality but the USM (non ring type USM) will be a bit quieter than the non-USM model.

Here are all of the EF-S 18-55mm specs...

EF-S 18-55mm

EF-S 18-55mm USM

EF-S 18-55mm II

EF-S 18-55mm II USM

 

usm should be smoother when manual focusing and also less proable to fail

 

Not just in MF, but also quicker and quieter AF, too.

Supposedly, anyway. I can't say from exprience, all my lenses are USM.

 

You're correct. AF is practically silent, and is noticeable faster.

 

Well, i finally went and bought myself one of those nice and shiny 350D cameras, although I think i'll have to take this one back as there is a persistent blemish on the extreme left of all my photos.

Anyway, I also went to Jessops and ask if I could just borrow a lens and take some shots outside and they were very helpful... not even a second thought of saying yes and at two different branches too.

First I tried the Sigma 10-20mm at Jessops in Worcester a few days back... awesome lens, but it did exhibit a slight blurring of the right hand side, not as much as the examples on the web but evident none-the-less. I've asked Jessops to try and source a few more for me.

Today, I was in Bristol for a meeting and decided to spend the rest of the afternoon taking shots. Great city for shooting architecture btw

Popped into Jessops and asked if I could take the Canon 10-22mm for a spin!
OMG! that lens is fantastic!, much higher contrast and saturation than the Sigma and shaper to boot.

It's really making me want to spend the extra £250 for the Canon 10-22mm, it's sooo good.

But is it really worth the extra cost of the Canon if I do find a sharp Sigma, considering the saturation and contrast will have to be changed during post-processing of the RAW anyway?

The decrease in sharpness of the Sigma I can live with for a saving of £250, but the quality of the other aspects of the Canon really do make me want to buy it!

 

Can't speak for the Sigma, but I'll vouch for the Canon. Whilst I don't use mine much, when I do, it's solid.

If you were in Bristol, you shoulda popped in at Bristol Cameras. The shop ain't big enough to swing a kitten but don't let that put you off. They have good stock, including second-hand, and are helpful guys.

 

Thanks, those prices are superb! much cheaper than Jessops... got to pop by next time i'm in Bristol.

 

Oh yeah, forgot to mention they're competitive.

 

a friend has the sigma 10-20. She got it cheap from a mate who worked at jessops but says that if you get a good copy (quality control is a bit iffy on them) there's not a lot between it and the canon. and i suspect the money saved woud be well spent elsewhere

 

Well, checking up on the prices at Bristol Cameras and I can definitely say that'll i'll be buying more lenses sooner rather than later.

Canon 10-22mm is only £475, and with the Canon £70 rebate promotion means it is now only £110 more expensive than the Sigma 10-20mm... now that price difference i'm willing to pay and can live with.

I'm also going to get a Sigma 24-70mm EX lens to replace the 18-55 kit lens and at £275 it's a steal so i've been told. Use it in the interim and upgrade to a Canon L in the distant future.
I may also go crazy and get myself a Canon 50mm f1.8 prime lens as well although i'm seriously tempted by the f1.4 as although it's 3 times the price of the f1.8, it's actually not bad a price to pay compared to everything else i'm getting/wanting to get.

 

get the 1.8!!!! it's almost throwaway at the price you can get it at (i got mine for £54) and the pic quality..... it's just great! i love it beyond measure!

word of advice, go easy on the lens buying with a new camera. far better to learn the ins and outs of a cam with a prime mounted than be carrying 5 lenses around swapping willy-nilly, not knowing why you *really* wanted to use that lens.

 

Good advice there Fod, but I do have my reasons for going with these particular choices.

Wide angle lens... very straight forward, it's the reason why I wanted to get back into serious photography in the first place and was right at the top of my list from the get go... there are some very particular styles of shooting I hope to achieve with it.

The Sigma 24-70mm, although the kit lens is great for what is essentially a bonus when you buy the body and hard to fault in that respect, I do fail to see the point in having two lenses which overlap (10-22 / 17-55) and is it as a great opportunity to upgrade to something a little better quality. I reckon it's the perfect interim lens for use until my photography progresses to a level where I can justify paying £800-1000+ for an L lens.

The 50mm f1.8? It's a no brainer actually, like you said, it's a throwaway price and having a wide aperture would really help in those random indoor - having fun with you mates - shoots. The f1.4? In the grand scheme of things, I don't think it's particularly expensive if I just go the whole hog and buy it because i'm sure that lens would be a keeper for a long time to come.