erb_duchenne

Well I've heard a lot of complaints (myself included) that the 350D is just too small. Ridiculously so in fact. Could it be that the 350D is not selling as well as anticipated?

 

It could just be that the 350D stocks in India are not moving fast enough, while they're out of the 300D, which has to be ordered and imported.

No. It's not worth it if you're using an EOS Elan series camera.

Could you have accidentally switched focussing to another button?

4 x 6 (1200 x 1800). This will be 300dpi. Anything beyond is overkill. If you want to print 4 x 6 and publish on web, edit 2 pics, 2 sizes. Don't use the same pic for both. How difficult is it to resize?

I believe the 300D's and 10D's sensors were also made separately... thus the 350D having a separate sensor from the 20D isn't completely ludicrus.

 

Like many 10D owners who said the 20D wasn't enough of an upgrade, I say the 350D isn't really worth the upgrade if you've just bought a 300D.

As far as I can tell the differences are still large.

The 10D's grip was from the D30 days. Old old old! No dial etc. Wouldn't make sense to keep using it on the state of the art cameras...

Someone recently told me that the EF-S 10-22 made use of L glass

(meaning the elements are L quality). The only reason it CANNOT be an

L lens is that it is an EF-S lens. Anyone know if this is true... or

if there's any information on the internet in this?

Don't worry about it. The 50mm SHOULD be more solid, despite its plastic mount.

My preference

Cheaper:

1)EF-S 10-22

2)Sigma 24-70/2.8

3)Sigma 70-200/2.8

 

More expensive

1)EF-S 10-22

2)EF 24-70/2.8L

3)EF 70-200/2.8L IS

Well, the competitors are all moving up in megapixels. And it's not like Canon hasn't already got a factory churning out 8MP 1.6x cropped CMOSes. Perhaps it'll start-up a lot quicker, have a slightly larger buffer and frame-rate... maybe 3 frames per second and up to 9 JPEGs. Certainly E-TTL II. Remains light and cheap with plastic body.

I wonder what battery it uses. Still available?

Waiting to get a D20? How long? Sure you won't want to wait for Canon's next incarnation by then? Anyway 300D... yes, it's good and no issues with both that lens or flash. All EX flashes work. And all EF lenses. All in all I think it's good enough for what you're asking. Whether you want to have all the extras with the 20D... that's completely up to you.

I know a lot of PJ's who've just given up carrying the 24-70 around, except for certain occassions. Whether the focal length range is not as useful as 16-35 and 70-200, or it's neither here nor there, or they can get away with not having it, or it's just too heavy... I don't know. The question is if a 24-70/4 will be light and small enough to go back in the bag.

Kim, I don't think the size of the sensor is the major factor here, since the 1D and 1D MkII both are 1.3x crops (ie, same size sensor) but the 1D has faster sync speed than MkII.

Thanks. That is the logic I go with... but it doesn't explain the D70's CCD 1/500 and 1D MKII's CMOS 1/250 difference.

 

Any reading/URL recommendation on this high speed sync and difference between sensors?

I've come across several (attempted) explanations on types of sensors

and flash synch speed. Unfortunately I haven't found one which

illustrates or explains it well to a non-technically minded or poor

flash understood person.

 

Is there ANYONE at all to can explain it in simpler terms or is it

just something techies can appreciate? Why does the D70 sync at 1/500

while the 1D MkII only at 1/250?

My preference<p>

1. 28-135 IS<br>

2. 28-105<br>

3. 28-200

I hear poor views on the Sigma 24-70/2.8 but I believe they've just released a new version. I wonder if it'll be much better, because the focal length is certainly nice. The 85 or 70-200 are great lenses but almost unusable in smaller studio setups.

I use the 75-300 IS frequently with IS even at 75mm. I think IS is invaluable. Perhaps not so much in very bright light/sun, but it seems all other times (which is a lot) it comes in real handy.

 

You can't really compare optics at all, but a sharp sharp lens with camera shake still produces horrible pictures. The 75-300 is better stopped down, but then you're comparing an f/8 lens against an f/4 and sadly, the f/4 still has the upper hand.

 

The 75-300 also takes an eternity to focus, compared to the 70-200. So if you like to track subjects and use AI Servo alot, the 75-300 may be too slow... in more ways than one.

Is the MLU for macro of slower photography? I shoot fast macro and the 300D is just great for macro. Depends more on the lens... and less on the body.

It really depends on your luck, I guess. But you seem to have got quite a life out of you 300D before it caved. My shutter got shredded just below 25000, but within the warranty period Canon replaces it for free. Besides I know of others who've had much less luck on actuations, on the 300D, 10D and even D100, as low as 6000+.

 

I totally agree. For heavy use... don't stay with a 300D. Perhaps the 20D might be a good bet... and if you can go for the pro models, even better.

What's the feasibility of using two 550EX for 100mm or 180mm macro,

one on either side of the lens, with one on off-shoe cord as master,

and the other as slave?

Thanks for the many responses. I was thinking of the 17-85 IS as more of a replacement for my current 18-55 kit. It's got a nice range of zoom and thus covers a lot of ground, suitable as a walk-around, stay on the camera almost permanently, kind of lens. The IS is also nice for lower light conditions, especially at 85mm. I never even thought of the Sigma 18-125mm. It hasn't IS, but the zoom range is even better! And it's good on the wide end. The 28-135 IS is also of course an idea. But the thought of having to change lenses... I was at a beach recently... not very lens-change-friendly.

If you think so, then you're right! What was the point again?