Considering one of these and wondered what people's personal opinions are on them or other digital SLRs in that sort of price range (£6-700).

thoughts very much appreciated.

Do a search for the SN Nikon D70 thread m8, quite a bit of feedback regarding the merits/drawbacks of the 300D.

I was a big Nikon user, used to do sports photography semi professionally. Now just use an EOS 300D for like fun type of piccy taking. Its fine, good results and easy to use. One tip is to buy the body only as the kit lens is not as good.
The Nikon is very good but the menus are more complex and the're not so easy to get to grips with if your a technophobe.............

The Nikon is very good but the menus are more complex and the're not so easy to get to grips with if your a technophobe.............

That's an interesting viewpoint. I am a D70 user and you don't have to use the menus to change virtually all of the functions you would want to in normal shooting. Nikon have very cleverly made them all changeable using a combination of the buttons on command dials, visible thru the viewfinder, so you don't even have to take your eye off the subject.

The D70 is a more user friendly and versatile piece of kit, but for absolute picture quality there is little or nothing to choose between them.

The prices are remarkably close too now, so just go to your local Dixons/Jessops etc., handle them both to see which one you prefer, then buy them for a sensible price off the internet!

Geezer

out of interest, at the quality of SLR digital camera pics much better than an average priced standard digital camera of same resolution?

cheers

I have also been looking at the 300D recently with the intention of purchasing, and this looks to be the cheapest place I have found so far.

http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=777_4_409_40901

Body Only £579
Body and Lens £645

the memory cards are quite cheap there as well.

Thanks
Tebo

I believe that the quality of pictures produced by digital SLRs will be better than those produced on a compact of the same or greater resolution.

I do not know the technicalities, but it had something to do with superior capture of colour and tonal range on the larger sized sensors used in DSLR.

Another factor is the glass. The lenses used in compact digi cameras are a compromise to allow decent results over a wide range of situations.

The lenses you can use in a SLR are specifically designed for a much narrower range of usage and so are better at a specific task (e.g wide angle or telephoto). They are also much more expensive!

Geezer

Considering one of these and wondered what people's personal opinions are on them or other digital SLRs in that sort of price range (£6-700).

thoughts very much appreciated.
Very happy with my EOS 300D. Bought to supplement a fair bit of Canon kit, including an EOS 3 body, lenses and flash units.

Easy to operate, excellent results. Considerably better than 'compact' digis...

For all those Nikon D70 addicts, have a look at the upcoming Canon EOS 20D.:D

Tebo,

7dayshop are based in Jersey and quite a few people have been 'hit' by VAT and duty fees. On the other hand www.warehouseexpress.co.uk are selling the 300D (body only) for £599 which is a bloody good price.

For more reviews on the 300D have a look at www.photo.net or on the forums at www.dpreview.com.

I've heard a few bad things, but I've more good things about this camera, if I had the money I'd be playing with on now. Its a great camera

Darren

For all those Nikon D70 addicts, have a look at the upcoming Canon EOS 20D.:D

Hmmmm, I think not. I think Canon make excellent cameras, and my view on the 20D has nothing to do with me being a Nikon user. But, the 10D is a superb piece of kit, has some features I would love on mine (and no doubt 10D users would like some of the D70 features), but the 20D is not such a leap from the 10D that it will attract people to upgrade. At about £1300 body only, it's hardly going to persuade the 300D/D70 brigade to rush out and buy one either.

It just isn't enoought of a move by Canon, I don't really know why they've done it.

However, I'm sure it's replacement will be what this one should have been.

Geezer

cheers chaps, this is quite useful in so far as i've been looking at 2 cameras: 300D and D70. the D70 is the only other in that class you've all mentioned.

g/f is also looking at cameras. her choices are the casio exilim P700 (7.1megapixel) and the olympus C50xx and C80xx series (all Zooms). any experiences with these ones?

out of interest, at the quality of SLR digital camera pics much better than an average priced standard digital camera of same resolution

Yes - much, much better, especially in poor light where images from compact cameras very quickly become hopelessly noisy. Here (http://www.cawte.nildram.co.uk/D30/) are some full-size 3MP images from my old Canon D30 - the camera that really kicked off the consumer DSLR revolution.

D70 is probably the better of the two. Nikon have an excellent reputation, but its horses for courses, the features that are extra on the D70 you may never use. You will probably never spot any performance differences either. But handle both and make your choice. I did have a Nikon Coolpix 5700 for a while and changed to an SLR the only one available at that time was the EOS300D or I would have gone for the Nikon. However I am not dissapointed. I did find the menus on the 5700 real hard work.
One last comment I would make as far as your GF's choice is buy a camera made by a camera company. They tend to handle better and know what it takes to get the ergonomics right. Just my opinion of course. The Ixus range is superb for a point and shoot.

I've got a 300d and it's excellent. I went with Canon because I think the range of available lenses is better

tricky choice between the canon and the nikon. I think i'll have to pop down a shop to have a play. I have a nikon coolpix at the mo and like the menu systems, but from an SLR pov liked the canon range.

Does the 300D have any benefits over the 300V or is it just the digital guff that's different?:)

Yes, it doesn't need film :razz:

Andy, got your new car yet?:p:D

(Slinks off into his scruffy old van and slams the door)

Why is everybody assuming that interchangeable SLR lenses are better than those on fixed-lens digi-compacts? Not sure that's true at all. Interchangebale SLR lenses have a lot of compromises to get around that others don't.

Most significantly, they have to have a long back-focus to make room for the mirror and that is why really wide-angle SLR lenses are only just making the grade now. They also need a wider aperture for a bright viewfinder image than that which is normally needed in actual picture taking. And they are made to focus on a flat piece of film, whereas if it was concave the lens designer's life would be much easier. And of course, almost all except some very new digital-dedicated lenses are designed to cover full-frame 35mm so most of the image is wasted and just goes bouncing around the mirror box.

But digital does offer some really exciting potential for some fabulous lenses as all of the above compromises are brought about by the need for film. When manufacturers finally decide on what size the digital SLR sensor is going to be, then we'll get smaller cameras and better lenses. And does a digital chip have to be made flat? Can it be concave?

So what is THE ULTIMATE digital format going to be? Will there be just one, or maybe two? After all, 120 roll-film and 35mm film have coexisted very happily for decades.

Be interested in your views on the above. I know a bit about photography but bu99er-all about digital :eek:

Cheers,

Richard.

Whichever you choose, I'm sure you won't be disappointed

Geezer

I guess at this level of camera you've got to be pretty serious about your photography. I've been working my way up through a succession of digital cameras and I'm now at that stage where in a year or so I would like to go down the digital SLR route. I also know I've got to practice a lot more to make it worth it.

The Nikon and Canon DSLRs seem to be the way to go. At the moment the 10D seems to give stunning results. Have a look at some of the stuff (http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=358113) that springbok (aka Grahame Wright) posts up. I think he uses a 10D.

I've learnt enough about photography to know that, as Hoppy says, the type and quality of the lens you attach to the body makes a huge difference. So, if the 300D with a decent lens gives results anywhere close to that of the 10D - I'd be a happy man.

Chris

I can answer a few questions straight off:

- I suppose a concave sensor is theoretically possible, but it would require that 20 years' worth of IC fabrication technology and equipment be junked and replaced. It would require millions if not actually biillions' worth of investment in R&D (yes, wafer fabs are THAT expensive) which would never be cost-effective. It's just not going to happen.

- I like my wide aperture for taking pictures. Portable flashes suck.

- The problem with fixed lens compacts is that, for cost reasons, they use physically very small sensors - so any aberrations in the lens are magnified. At best, the cost of fabricating a sensor increases linearly with area - but due to the presence of scattered point defects on the silicon wafer, large defect-free sensors can be much, much more expensive than that. (In fact no consumer sensor is defect free, but unlike a display screen, faulty pixels can be identified and mapped out, ie. their signal is mathematically replaced by the average of the pixels around them. It's bigger defects, which affect whole groups of pixels or an entire row or column, that are the real killer). So, although the lens in a compact digi has fewer compromises, its defects are magnified out of all proportion - unlike the lens in a compact 35mm camera which can be very good.

- Olympus and others have already tried to introduce a high-end, digital-only, interchangeable lens system called 'four thirds'. It undoubtedly has its plus points, but I don't think it has the commercial backing or the killer advantage over 35mm-based systems to end up anything other than a footnote in the history of photography. It's expensive and just not that good.

- don't forget, the small digital sensor crops the sharpest bit out of the middle of an SLR lens - so the bits of the image that are wasted are the fuzzy bits.

- with all that in mind, I think we'll be using 35mm-based DSLRs with smallish sensors for a while yet. The end-user benefit of a full-frame 35mm sensor just doesn't justify the cost yet, and I genuinely don't believe that sensor costs (per unit area) will fall anything like as fast as many people predict. Most technological progress is due to ICs being made smaller. Here we want them bigger, and that just goes against the flow.

Fosters,
I belive that TopBanana hit the nail on the head!! Pick your camera based on the lens selection/collection by Canon or Nikon, it's your choice. I own the Canon EOS 10D and am very happy with it. Please be prepared that lenses steal your money! ;) And it's the lenses that you keep and the camera that you change sooner or later. I also made my decision based on the lens selection that Canon has. Ask some of your friends, maybe you can borrow lenses, if they have the same brand and a SLR Camera. I personally would wait until the Canon 20D is released and then get the advantage of a possible price drop for the Canon 10D. You will have the best of both sides. Otherwise get the 300D (Digital Rebel) and a decent lens with it. I personally don't upgrad to from 10D to 20D (when it comes out). I will go straight to the 1d MKII, being a real upgrade to the 10D and keep the 10D as a backup. ;) Hope this helps. My final words are: Both, Nikon and Canon make EXCELLENT cameras and I really hate the whole brand war, that is currently going on. I believe you can't go wrong with either brand, it's a save buy.
Cheers,
Daniel
--> http://www.danielsaredi.fotopic.net

wait for the autumn and the new minolta digital slr that what i'm doing ;)

Yeah anyway, is the 300D better than my 300V, ignoring the film v digital war!:D

I've got a 300D, and it's a fabulous piece of kit for what I use it for. I decided on Canon as I already had an EOS5.

John.

I've got a 300D, and it's a fabulous piece of kit for what I use it for. I decided on Canon as I already had an EOS5.

John.
That's the self same reason that I went for the EOS 300D. I've a lot of Canon 35mm SLR stuff already, and it makes sense to be able to use this.

The 300D is excellent for what it is - witness the fact that I now use it in preference to my EOS 3.:)

Why is everybody assuming that interchangeable SLR lenses are better than those on fixed-lens digi-compacts? Not sure that's true at all. Interchangebale SLR lenses have a lot of compromises to get around that others don't

If you want to do any action pics, then its very difficult unless its an SLR. The delay is difficult (not impossible) but difficult to over come.

Andy, good points, mate.

Canon seem to have put a marker down on digital sensor size by beginning a dedicated lens range, so I guess the x1.5-ish format is here for a while. It makes sense, as hardly anyone honestly needs more than 8m pixels (max 3m on 6x4in prints?) and there are many advantages to stoppng where we are. Time to put the development resource into other aspects of the electronic performance (plenty of scope there), making the mirror-box smaller to reduce back-focus distance and optimise lenses for the new format (lots of scope there, too) :)

Cost will continue to tumble for mass-market products, and I include the currently £1,000 digi-SLRs in that category, while pro-spec cameras will remain expensive but with features we can only dream of today. How about 100 frames at 50fps, all with flash synched at 1/1000th :) Current limitations are the mechanics of the focal-plane shutter and reflex mirror. Anyone remember Canon's fixed but see-through Pellicle (sp?) mirror? Couple that with a rotary shutter (like a 2-stroke rotary valve) and you've got a photo-Kalashnikov :eek: 10x f/2 zoom anyone? Whatever happens, I don't think we've seen nothin' yet!

I like big apertures, too, but hardly anyone uses them. All the automated programs will pick 1/125th at f/5.6 over 1/1000th at f/2 everytime, even if big apertures were available. I guess nice big-aperture lenses will come along, eventually, but at a hefty price and weight :(

But I disagree on lens aberations being magnified on smaller sensors - you seem to say this yourself when you point out that smaller digital sensors use the sharpest part of the image in the center of the frame. I don't think format, focal length or magnification are key factors - the trade-off in lens design is between fine detail and contrast. It may be a bit of a myth, but it used to be said that Leitz (Leica) went for detail first, even if their images were a little flat in comparison to Zeiss (Contax) who produced really punchy images that lacked really fine detail in a big blow-up. Modulation Transfer Funcion, and all that. Not that it matters now with Photoshop!

Oh, and I wouldn't buy a posh digital SLR before Photokina (October) or maybe the PMA Show (Feb 05) when I think the big players will have shown their hands and the short-term future will become clear.

That's enough dreaming for now - still got to find the dosh to fit my 2.5l motor yet ;)

Richard.