mick_trist

A rather "off-beat" solution (worthy of consideration if cost is an issue) is to buy a manual lens - there are some reputedly excellent russian zenitar 16mm available for $100 or so with an M42 mount or $120 for EOS.

 

You can but M42/EOS adaptors, and the lenses, on EBay.

 

I'm awaiting delivery of one myself.

According to Phil Askey's review of the Canon Rebel/300D, the sensor is less prone to collecting dust than other DSLRs, but he doesn't elaborate as to why this is the case.

 

Does anyone have any knowledge of any design measures that contribute to this ?

Kenneth Katz said :

 

"Current DSLRs do not handle high contrast nearly as well as color print film, and there is nothing one can do to change that."

 

It is true that Digital camera images, left unmodified, are of lower contrast than those obtained directly from film.

 

Whether or not this is a negative or a positive attribute is a matter of opinion !

 

Contrast is easily adjusted in post-processing.

 

How you best set the parameters depends on how you will use and later process the image. If you want ot print direct from the camera, then high contrast, sharpening and saturation settings are generally the way to go.

 

If you plan to process the image in Photoshop, then leave them at mid-range or reduce them. This is particularly important for the level of sharpening, since sharpening will introduce image artifacts which then can cause problems when adjusting colour balance etc.

 

Great thing is - with digital you can experiment and learn at zero cost !

I am attempting to adapt older manual lenses for 2 reasons:

 

1 - I'm mean !

 

2 - I prefer the control that manual lens focussing gives me - their depth of field scales are much more intuitive to me than trying to use the EOS automated equivalents, and I like being in control.

 

One of my first shots on the 300D was of 4 ladies sat on a bench. I thought the camera had focussed on their eyes, but downloading the image revealed pin-sharp knees and rather softer faces !

 

Now, I might have made as bad a job of it manually, but at least I would have aimed for the correct point.

 

It is true that there are plenty of good used EF lenses around, but they still command high prices. For example, the first manual lens I've bought cost me about $55. The nearest Canon EF equivalent - 50mm f1.4 - costs over $200. This difference is reflected across all focal lengths.

 

There are some truly superb M42 lenses available - Carl Zeiss and Pentax Super Takumar in particular, not to mention the Mamiya-Sekkor I've just received. The Pentax M42s are considered by many to be among the sharpest and punchiest lenses ever made - as born out by data on photodo.com.

 

So, I reckon that for about $200, maybe less, I can equip myself with 4 meaty primes that will at least match Canon's "mid-range" lenses in performance.

 

What remains to be seen are the actual downsides. Provided I avoid the electrical models, then my biggest potential problem is inaccurate exposure, requireing compensation. How the 300D performs in this respect is key here.

 

The actual task of adjusting the lens is not so bad - this lens I've just bought allows you to swtich between full aperture and stopped down by means of the Auto/Manual switch, so in this respect its already looking easier than the old Zenit I first cut my teeth on.

 

With that (and the exact details may be a little garbled by time !), I had to meter on full aperture, read off the exposure from the meter, which, as I recall, had an adjustment to allow you to set either the shutter and/or aperture and read the corresponding setting, which you then set manually.

 

I will report back when I have some results to share !

If you have a $1000 budget to include scanner and printer, then consider a good used "pro-sumer" (I HATE that word !) digital camera.

 

You won't go far wrong with a (Used) G3 - plenty around at a good price.

 

Main downside re a Rebel is fixed lens and high noise above ISO 100.

 

Good luck !

Thanks to everyone who has helped here. You've almost certainly saved me running up a blind alley !

 

I've bought an M42 to EOS adaptor and have located several promising lenses. I bought one so far - a Mamiya-Sekkor 55mm/1.4 which should prove sharp.

 

I not the warning about exposure campensation. My understanding and hope is that ny 300D will gaive me an accurate "stop-down" metering without any need for compensation, but we'll see. At least, with digital I'll get immediate feedback.

 

I'm really looking forward to having some lenses with "proper" manual controls !

By means of freely available adaptors, it is possible to use Canon FD

and (Pentax) M42 manual lenses on EOS bodies.

 

There is a large volume of used FD lenses available, some of which

are much cheaper than thier EF equivalents (e.g 50mm 1.4).

 

Accepting that I will have to set focus and aperture manually, is

this a "valid" means of obtaining high(er) quality images than buying

EF lenses ?

These 3 shots confirm all the reviews I've read and my own experience - small sensor cams suffer from more noise than the larger sensor variety. This is clear here, even at ISO 100. Wind the ISO up and the prosumers quickly lose it ,whereas the 10D gets to 800 before noise starts to increase significantly

Film never did much for my photography.

 

Being 100% at ease with computers, I do all my own image processing and printing - far cheaper than film equivalent and part of the creative process.

 

I use multiple "stitched" shots to create extra-wide angle shots. not as convenient, but usually acceptable.

Sony ?

 

I didn't know they made compact flash cards, just memory sticks (in 2 "generations") for their own brand digital imaging products.

 

Sony like to keep it proprietry !

Henrys.com are auctioning some simple Canon gadget bags right now. I got one for about $8. It holds my 300D with 18/55 mounted, my 35/105 zoom and a spare battery. It has a pocket which is useful for flash cards etc.

The 35mm SLR systems have been developed for film. There is no good reason per se why an effective "digital successor" should inherit thier features, except where they are totally appropriate to the new media.

 

So SLR ? - LCD panels still can't hack it in bright daylight.

 

Interchangeable lenses - probably going to be stuck with these if we want the best quality - optics is optics.

 

"large" - i.e 35mm-ish sensor size ? - need to be large at present if your want acceptable noise at higher ISO settings. This is one area where things can be expected to change. Smaller sensors of a high enough performance (and the current "full-size" models haven't attained that in all respects yet) will be the main force for the "format of choice" in future to be smaller, bringing cheaper optics.

 

There is, of course, a lot of inertia resisting any departure from the current format - individuals have substantial investments in lenses for one thing.

 

People may well be 100% happy with the 35mm SLR models, but that in itself is not a good reason for not developing something different, provided the differences are more sutied to digital technology. After all, my Gran-Daddy was happy with his model T, but I'd rather not commute in it given today's roads, traffic and pace of life.

 

On a personal note, I'd welcome the digital equivalent of a manual camera - I see that Panasonic/Leica have produced one - it would be nice to see this copied by other manufacturers.

RAW images aren't necessarily any more difficult to prepare for print than jpegs.

 

Whilst its true that you CAN chnage a whole load of things, like W/B and so on before producing an edittable file (like a tiff), you can simply run with the settings determined by the camera in the first place, so your simply faced with pressing the "convert to Tiff" button.

 

It is also true that the conversion process is very slow.

 

I've only ever shot serious photos on my 300D in RAW mode. Apart from allowing you to modify these parameters, RAW images can be pushed and pulled more than jpeg equivalents without bottomimg or topping out on exposure.

 

Oh yes - Flash card ! - the biggest capacity you can afford. Make is not so important- I've used a few obscure cheapies with no problems, except of course, they're quite slow so if you plan to push shots through your Rebel as fast as you can, choose a fast one.

Digital cams often deliver images with lower contrast than film.

 

"Auto-anything" is rarely the answer when using image processing packages, but some controlled adjustment of contrast is usually required, even if the exposure is otherwise spot-on.

My brother-in-law and I both have this camera and they work perfectly.

 

I also know of another guy who bought his from the same dealer and at the same time as I used and he has some options which don't work.

 

So there may be some quality issues - resolvable under warranty, but no "design" related software problems.

 

I do wish though that it were possible to choose the metering mode you use. It seems strange that this (very useful) option is denied whilst some other "less important" features, such as W/B bracketing, are included.

And I've just found this one:

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2964573841&category=4687

 

This one's about $300

Ebay have this one:

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2965018832&category=4687

 

I'm not sure if the link will work - you can search for item number 2965018832

 

They're asking about $400 for it.

What price a crystal ball eh ?

 

I have no better an idea than anyone else as to how Canon, or the market, will move DSLR sensor sizes.

 

From my consumer perspective, I hope that they will work to make sensors small - smaller than 35mm - yet still deliver high resolution and low noise. This will (should?) mean cheaper lenses which provide the same quality as the current 35mm range.

 

Remember that 35mm format is itself a compromise - an attempt to squeeze as much quality as possible out of film at an acceptable price.

Thank you both for your input here.

 

You are both right in what you say. A digital camera body contributes more to image quality then does its film equivalent. Nonetheless, the lens is the "first element" in image capture and is equally important.

 

In buying a cheap lens, I know that I am limiting the quality of results that I can achieve. The question for me is "Do I get acceptable results, bearing in mind the outlay ?"

 

I have already explored the image quality of both my lenses, thought I am still getting to grips with the camera itself. I already know:

 

The 18-55 lens CAN deliver sharp A3 prints, even when wide open, but resolution drops off rapidly as the aperture decreases.

 

Whilst I have not shot so much with the 35-105, my tests show that it is sharper at all apertures than the 18-55 and that resolution does not fall away so rapidly with decreasing aperture.

 

So, with these qualifications accepted, I am obtaining good results.

 

That is not to say I wouldn't like to use higher quality lenses, if I could afford them.

 

For me the bottom line is - with this approach I have opened up a new level of digital photography which otherwise I could not afford.

Having received no comment on the quality of the discontinued Canon

35/105 lens, I took the plunge and, for the princely sum of $90,

bought a near mint example.

 

This model is the most recent of the 3 types made, having a USM motor

and a 4.5/5.6 aperture. 2 earlier, non-USM models were also made, one

having a larger aperture.

 

My first reaction is that it is somewhat sharper than the ubiquitous

18/55 supplied with the camera, and has good contrast.

 

So, for a modest outlay, I now have a well-matched pair of lenses,

with a combined zoom span sufficient to cater for most of my needs.

Apart from the Canon EX range and the Sigma gun you mention, I'm not aware of any other options which give you camera controlled exposure on a 300D.

 

A cheaper option, if you can live with the restriction, is to use a general-purpose Auto gun. This means the gun determines the exposure and the camera must be set to suit. Just make sure that you choose a "recent" design - I understand that the trigger voltage of many older models is too high for a digital camera.

The lack of control as to how much fill-in to apply can be overcome by using a "simple" auto-flash (one that meters exposure itself against a specfic camera aperture).

 

So - say you set the flash for F4 at the ISO setting on the cam., you can then set the camera to a smaller aperture - the actual value will determine how much the effect of the flash is diminished.

 

Only downside here is that auto-flash exposure accuracy depends upon the subject, so can vary.

Reading through this thread, everyone seems to have their own angle - its a very subjective thing. Some observations of mine ?

 

If your only reason for swithcing is to immeduatley evaluate the picture you've just captured, then your missing a HUGE amount. For me these are:

 

Bringing creative image processing out of the chemical tank and onto your desktop, with the ability to quickly and cheaply manipulate and reworek your images in a way you cannot hope to attempt with film.

 

As of now, obtain cleaner (i.e. less noisy) images than you can obtain with film. Contentious statement ? - well all film exhibits grain, a good digital camera of 4 M pixels or better will exhibit less noise (in RAW/TIFF mode) than a 35mm SLR using quality film of ISO 100. If you compare a 6M digital image's resolution to 35mm grain, then 35mm grain is smaller BUT the digital image is "smoother", yielding, IMHO, a better result.

 

I messed with film on and off for many years but was always disappointed with the results because I couldn't house or afford to equip a darkroom. And even if I had, then my temperament would have resulted in more frustration as I wrestled with the chemistry.

 

Digital cameras and desktop processing, have finally delivered a system where I can capture and refine images totally under my own control.

 

To me there's no contest.

If you need maximum angle, then go for the 18-55 lens. You'd have to buy a much more expensive "full-sized" EOS lens to match that.

I have read that the sensor in the Rebel is made using a different process than that for the 10D.

 

Phil Askey's revies suggest that there is no perfomance difference in the sensors, but there might be in the in-camera image processing.