Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Buying a Canon EOS 300D Digital camera

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
April 24, 2005 8:24:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:

I am thinking of buying the Canon EOS 300D digital camera. I own the
35mm version of this camera.
I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
wide angle photos.

The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed per
photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and the
cost.
There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
more for the updated camera?
As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
advantage to me?

I have a Sony video camera that takes good photos of 1360 x 1020 using
1.3 Megapixels so I'm wondering if it's worth buying another digital
camera.

Hoping for a reply

Regards Brian
April 24, 2005 8:24:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:24:52 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:

>Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>I am thinking of buying the Canon EOS 300D digital camera. I own the
>35mm version of this camera.
>I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
>The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
>over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
>wide angle photos.
>
>The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed per
>photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and the
>cost.
>There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
>350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
>more for the updated camera?
>As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
>and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
>advantage to me?
>
>I have a Sony video camera that takes good photos of 1360 x 1020 using
>1.3 Megapixels so I'm wondering if it's worth buying another digital
>camera.
>
>Hoping for a reply
>
>Regards Brian
\

I like mine.

Not much of a reply, I guess. Not at all sorry that I bought it.

I've used Vivitar and Pentax 35mm stuff, Bronica 6X6, Nagaoka 4X5
Nikon 900, 950, 990.

None professionally, just for fun.




--
Charles

Does not play well with others.
April 24, 2005 8:24:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian wrote:
> Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I am thinking of buying the Canon EOS 300D digital camera. I own the
> 35mm version of this camera.
> I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
> The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
> over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
> wide angle photos.
>
> The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed per
> photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and the
> cost.
> There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
> 350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
> more for the updated camera?
> As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
> and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
> advantage to me?
>
> I have a Sony video camera that takes good photos of 1360 x 1020 using
> 1.3 Megapixels so I'm wondering if it's worth buying another digital
> camera.
>
> Hoping for a reply
>
> Regards Brian


By today's standard of dSLR, 300D is slow that might affect your chance
of getting the shots but it produces great pictures. It's still way
ahead of your film based SLR and many digital P&S.

Nowadays, high capacility CF is VERY cheap. And of course, more MP is
better. If you have a Costco nearby, you can print 8x12, 12x16 for $2
and $3, respectively.

if you're getting one of the 3x0D series, get the kit.
Related resources
April 24, 2005 8:24:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian wrote:
> Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I am thinking of buying the Canon EOS 300D digital camera. I own the
> 35mm version of this camera.
> I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
> The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
> over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
> wide angle photos.
>
> The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed per
> photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and the
> cost.
> There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
> 350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
> more for the updated camera?
> As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
> and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
> advantage to me?
>
> I have a Sony video camera that takes good photos of 1360 x 1020 using
> 1.3 Megapixels so I'm wondering if it's worth buying another digital
> camera.
>
> Hoping for a reply
>
> Regards Brian


Nevermind, I just realize you're in New Zealand but many of the comments
still apply. You'd want to print more large sizes photo if you know a
cheap photo printing shops or print your own on inkjets.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:24:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I am thinking of buying the Canon EOS 300D digital camera. I own the
> 35mm version of this camera.
> I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
> The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
> over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
> wide angle photos.

HEADS UP! Just in case you are not aware of this: the 300D and 350D have
sensors that are much smaller than the 35mm film frame, so your wide angle
lenses get a lot less wide.

So to do wide angle work with the 300D (or 350D), you'll need something like
the (expensive) Canon 10-22mm lens, or one of the still nowhere near cheap
third party superwide zooms that start at 10, 11, or 12mm.

> The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed per
> photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and the
> cost.

Big CF cards are getting cheaper.

> There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
> 350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
> more for the updated camera?

Yes. The 300D is a lovely 6MP camera, but the 350D has much faster startup
and CF card write times, so will be nicer to use. The 350D also has better
control over AF mode, metering mode, and flash exposure. IMHO, it is very
much worth the extra money.

Note, however, that:
If you have really small hands, you may not like the 300D.
If you have really large hands, you may not like the 350D.
They are physically very difference cameras.

> As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
> and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
> advantage to me?

Well, not really, actually. The 300D/350D come into their own when you make
8x10" or larger prints.

But if you buy the (expensive) 10-22mm zoom lens, you'll be able to do
amazing wide angle work that you really can't with any of the P&S cameras.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:24:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian wrote:

> Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:

> The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed per
> photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and the
> cost.
> There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
> 350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
> more for the updated camera?
> As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
> and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
> advantage to me?
>
> I have a Sony video camera that takes good photos of 1360 x 1020 using
> 1.3 Megapixels so I'm wondering if it's worth buying another digital
> camera.

If you get the 300D or newer 350D, I'm pretty sure that in a few
months you'll wonder why you're bothering to buy film for your
old Rebel. It will start collecting dust :-)

If you can afford it, go for the 350D.. It has a LOT more
advancements over the 300D.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:24:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
> The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
> over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
> wide angle photos.

Talking about controls, these cameras are quite close to the "chemical"
Rebel, and you will be operative quite fast.

But as said, the choices in true wide-angles are not really cheap : the
cheapest should be the tokina12-24, gives you the same field of view on
a 3x0d as a 19-38 on your Rebel, around 400-500$. Canon 10-22 (eq.
16-35) is around 800$.
With the 18-55 kit lens, you have the equivalent of a 28-90. If it's
enough of a wide angle for you, just go for it.


> The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed
per
> photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and
the
> cost.

Simply think of the cost of film!
You pay around 75US$ or EUR for a standard 1GB card (no need of a quick
one for the 300d, but it would be much more useful to spend money on it
for the 350d). I feel it's quite enough in size (about 150 RAW frames,
or 350 jpegs, ie 4 or 10 rolls of film).
For these 75 bucks, you can't buy and process ten rolls of slides (at
least here in Europe)!

Talking about storage, you will burn CDs or DVDs : not really expensive
as well.


> There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
> 350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
> more for the updated camera?

In US and Europe, the difference between a new 300d and a new 350d is
much smaller (100-150US$). That makes sense to buy the 350d, I'd think
(but I already own a 300d).


> As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
> and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
> advantage to me?

For THAT particular size 1500*1000 is OK. But you can't really go
farther.
3000*2000 is OK for 8.5*11" and still very good for 11*17".


> I have a Sony video camera that takes good photos of 1360 x 1020
using
> 1.3 Megapixels so I'm wondering if it's worth buying another digital
> camera.

Not very easy to tell it for you...
But with a 3x0d you will feel a true camera with a true viewfinder and
full control, not a camcorder or another silly computerized toy taking
pictures in your place ;o).
That said, camcorders like yours CAN take good photographs.

Greetings from France!
Nicolas
April 25, 2005 2:38:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nikojorj_jaimepaslapub@yahoo.Fr wrote:

> the "chemical" Rebel


LOL, I've never heard it put that way, chemical/digital.

: - )
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 4:07:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian wrote:
> Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I am thinking of buying the Canon EOS 300D digital camera. I own the
> 35mm version of this camera.
> I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
> The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
> over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
> wide angle photos.
>
> The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed
per
> photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and
the
> cost.
> There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
> 350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
> more for the updated camera?
> As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
> and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
> advantage to me?
>

I have the 300D. After that, seen Nikon come out with the D70 and Canon
come out with the 20D and the 350D. All three have much faster
electronics than the 300D but what I gather from the reviews and
postings, the D70 and 300D are neck to neck in image quality and the
20D/350D are marginally better because of more megapixels. I have never
found the 300D to be too slow for my needs nor have I ever missed a
shot so I don't really miss having its faster siblings. And with the
wasia hack, I got some nice features like mirror lockup and extra ISO
(there are more but I use these two often). At $700 with the kit lens,
I think its still the cheapest dSLR and hell of a lot value for money.

If you are into shooting action or sports then you should definitely
consider the Nikon D70 or the Canon 20D/350D. If not, I would urge you
to spend more time selecting and spending on the lenses and not worry
too much about the body.

- Siddhartha
April 25, 2005 12:34:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1114412875.510435.202320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Brian wrote:
>
> I have the 300D. After that, seen Nikon come out with the D70 and Canon
> come out with the 20D and the 350D. All three have much faster
> electronics than the 300D but what I gather from the reviews and
> postings, the D70 and 300D are neck to neck in image quality and the
> 20D/350D are marginally better because of more megapixels. I have never
> found the 300D to be too slow for my needs nor have I ever missed a
> shot so I don't really miss having its faster siblings. And with the
> wasia hack, I got some nice features like mirror lockup and extra ISO
> (there are more but I use these two often). At $700 with the kit lens,
> I think its still the cheapest dSLR and hell of a lot value for money.
>
> If you are into shooting action or sports then you should definitely
> consider the Nikon D70 or the Canon 20D/350D. If not, I would urge you
> to spend more time selecting and spending on the lenses and not worry
> too much about the body.
>
> - Siddhartha
>


I support fully this detailed opinion, beginning to end.
I am a happy 300D/D Rebel user.

One more goodie: all 300D lemons (if any?) are a thing of the past.
The black bodies are, as far as I understood, the latest releases...

Buying brand new incarnation models takes some more faith.

--
Mike
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 12:58:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114412875.510435.202320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Brian wrote:
>
> If you are into shooting action or sports then you should definitely
> consider the Nikon D70 or the Canon 20D/350D. If not, I would urge you
> to spend more time selecting and spending on the lenses and not worry
> too much about the body.
>
> - Siddhartha

Could you elaborate on how this difference is in action photography? I
just purchased a used 300D and will use it mostly for sports photography. I
had in mind that it's my first SLR of any type, and intend to learn how to
use the 300D well, and then upgrade to a better camera in a year or two.
But it will help greatly to know what I am (not) missing out on.

Dave
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 4:07:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Geesaman wrote:
> Could you elaborate on how this difference is in action
photography? I
> just purchased a used 300D and will use it mostly for sports
photography. I
> had in mind that it's my first SLR of any type, and intend to learn
how to
> use the 300D well, and then upgrade to a better camera in a year or
two.
> But it will help greatly to know what I am (not) missing out on.
>

The difference is in the electronics. Below are the shooting rates of a
few camears:
Canon 300D - 2.5 frames per second upto a max of four RAW/JPEG
Canon 20D - 5 fps upto a max of 25 JPEG or 6 RAW images
Nikon D70 - 2.9 fps upto a max of four RAW or 12 JPEG images
Canon 350D - 2.9 fps upto a max of six RAW or 27 JPEG images

As you can see every camera other than the 300D can shoot more number
of frames per second and can sustain the shooting rate for a longer
duration. Also, the cameras introduced after the 300D have faster
autofocus (also depends on the lens though).

Faster shooting rate combined with faster AF give cameras newer than
the 300D an upperhand in action photography. So if you can afford it
and can return your 300D purchase then you might want to look at
another Canon dSLR model.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 2:25:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 25 Apr 2005 00:07:55 -0700, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com>
wrote:

>If you are into shooting action or sports then you should definitely
>consider the Nikon D70 or the Canon 20D/350D. If not, I would urge you
>to spend more time selecting and spending on the lenses and not worry
>too much about the body.

For myself, if I were to upgrade, it would probably be to the 20d, for
the ability to take more pics in a short time.
I often take pics in zoos, and the DR/300D is limiting in how many
pics I can take within, say, 10 seconds. Even spacing out the shots,
after a few, I need to wait for one to be written to the card before I
can shoot again. When a tiger is on the move, that's limiting.
However, looking to a time when I can justify a new camera, the 20D
will in all likelyhood be replaced (at least once) by something
better.
Which is good! :-)

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 6:26:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:

>David Geesaman wrote:
>
>
>> Could you elaborate on how this difference is in action
>>
>>
>photography? I
>
>
>>just purchased a used 300D and will use it mostly for sports
>>
>>
>photography. I
>
>
>>had in mind that it's my first SLR of any type, and intend to learn
>>
>>
>how to
>
>
>>use the 300D well, and then upgrade to a better camera in a year or
>>
>>
>two.
>
>
>>But it will help greatly to know what I am (not) missing out on.
>>
>>
>>
>
>The difference is in the electronics. Below are the shooting rates of a
>few camears:
>Canon 300D - 2.5 frames per second upto a max of four RAW/JPEG
>Canon 20D - 5 fps upto a max of 25 JPEG or 6 RAW images
>Nikon D70 - 2.9 fps upto a max of four RAW or 12 JPEG images
>Canon 350D - 2.9 fps upto a max of six RAW or 27 JPEG images
>
>As you can see every camera other than the 300D can shoot more number
>of frames per second and can sustain the shooting rate for a longer
>duration. Also, the cameras introduced after the 300D have faster
>autofocus (also depends on the lens though).
>
>Faster shooting rate combined with faster AF give cameras newer than
>the 300D an upperhand in action photography. So if you can afford it
>and can return your 300D purchase then you might want to look at
>another Canon dSLR model.
>
>- Siddhartha
>
>

The DRXT is faster than the DR (300D) byt slower than the D20. The D20
costs 50% more.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 7:07:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114499255.438514.278960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> David Geesaman wrote:
>> Could you elaborate on how this difference is in action
> photography? I
>> just purchased a used 300D and will use it mostly for sports
> photography. I
>> had in mind that it's my first SLR of any type, and intend to learn
> how to
>> use the 300D well, and then upgrade to a better camera in a year or
> two.
>> But it will help greatly to know what I am (not) missing out on.
>>
>
> The difference is in the electronics. Below are the shooting rates of a
> few camears:
> Canon 300D - 2.5 frames per second upto a max of four RAW/JPEG
> Canon 20D - 5 fps upto a max of 25 JPEG or 6 RAW images
> Nikon D70 - 2.9 fps upto a max of four RAW or 12 JPEG images
> Canon 350D - 2.9 fps upto a max of six RAW or 27 JPEG images
>
> As you can see every camera other than the 300D can shoot more number
> of frames per second and can sustain the shooting rate for a longer
> duration. Also, the cameras introduced after the 300D have faster
> autofocus (also depends on the lens though).
>
> Faster shooting rate combined with faster AF give cameras newer than
> the 300D an upperhand in action photography. So if you can afford it
> and can return your 300D purchase then you might want to look at
> another Canon dSLR model.
>
> - Siddhartha

Thanks for the follow-up. I had read the specs and considering that I'm
not earning a living on this camera and whether or not I get 5 good frames
instead of 3, I wasn't worried about it. I still need to learn to use the
camera well, and I think the 300D will get me thru at least a year so I can
upgrade later.
Now I just need to find a 75-300mm that won't bust my wallet but gives
good value as far as performance. ;o)

Dave
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 3:25:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David Geesaman wrote:
> Now I just need to find a 75-300mm that won't bust my wallet but
gives
> good value as far as performance. ;o)
>

Look at the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Super-II. Costs $219 and has
been rated favourably over similar priced lenses from Canon and Tamron.

- Siddhartha
April 27, 2005 6:00:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:

>Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>
>I am thinking of buying the Canon EOS 300D digital camera. I own the
>35mm version of this camera.
>I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
>The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
>over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
>wide angle photos.
>
>The things that put me against this camera is large storage needed per
>photo (1.2 megs to 6 megs, most high photos would be 3.1 megs) and the
>cost.
>There is an updated version of this camera the Canon EOS
>350D digital camera, would there be much improvement in paying $400
>more for the updated camera?
>As I print in 6 x 4 inch sized photos would the 3072x2048, 2048x1360
>and 1536 x 1024 pixel size that the Canon EOS 300D offer be of any
>advantage to me?
>
>I have a Sony video camera that takes good photos of 1360 x 1020 using
>1.3 Megapixels so I'm wondering if it's worth buying another digital
>camera.
>
>Hoping for a reply
>
>Regards Brian

Thanks for everyone's feedback on this camera.
I decided to buy the Canon EOS 300D as money was a bit tight and the
EOS 300D had everything that I needed in a digital camera.
For about a week I'll be studying the manual and learn about the many
functions that this camera offers.
Other reasons were; I prefer a heavier camera that won't slip out of
my hands. The battery for the 300D lasts longer. The money I saved
could be spent on another lens later on.
Good to know there are happy EOS 300E camera owners.

Regards Brian
April 27, 2005 9:15:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

>On 25 Apr 2005 00:07:55 -0700, "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>If you are into shooting action or sports then you should definitely
>>consider the Nikon D70 or the Canon 20D/350D. If not, I would urge you
>>to spend more time selecting and spending on the lenses and not worry
>>too much about the body.
>
>For myself, if I were to upgrade, it would probably be to the 20d, for
>the ability to take more pics in a short time.
>I often take pics in zoos, and the DR/300D is limiting in how many
>pics I can take within, say, 10 seconds. Even spacing out the shots,
>after a few, I need to wait for one to be written to the card before I
>can shoot again. When a tiger is on the move, that's limiting.
>However, looking to a time when I can justify a new camera, the 20D
>will in all likelyhood be replaced (at least once) by something
>better.
>Which is good! :-)

Hi Big Bill
What camera are you regering to, the Canon 300D or the 20D, or do you
own both of these?

Regards Brian
April 27, 2005 11:47:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike" <mike@home.com> wrote:

>
>"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
>1114412875.510435.202320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Brian wrote:
>>
>> I have the 300D. After that, seen Nikon come out with the D70 and Canon
>> come out with the 20D and the 350D. All three have much faster
>> electronics than the 300D but what I gather from the reviews and
>> postings, the D70 and 300D are neck to neck in image quality and the
>> 20D/350D are marginally better because of more megapixels. I have never
>> found the 300D to be too slow for my needs nor have I ever missed a
>> shot so I don't really miss having its faster siblings. And with the
>> wasia hack, I got some nice features like mirror lockup and extra ISO
>> (there are more but I use these two often). At $700 with the kit lens,
>> I think its still the cheapest dSLR and hell of a lot value for money.
>>
>> If you are into shooting action or sports then you should definitely
>> consider the Nikon D70 or the Canon 20D/350D. If not, I would urge you
>> to spend more time selecting and spending on the lenses and not worry
>> too much about the body.
>>
>> - Siddhartha
>>
>
>
>I support fully this detailed opinion, beginning to end.
>I am a happy 300D/D Rebel user.
>
>One more goodie: all 300D lemons (if any?) are a thing of the past.
>The black bodies are, as far as I understood, the latest releases...
>
>Buying brand new incarnation models takes some more faith.

What was wrong with them?

Regards Brian
April 28, 2005 12:31:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>> Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> I am thinking of buying the Canon EOS 300D digital camera. I own the
>> 35mm version of this camera.
>> I'd be interested in comments about this camera.
>> The reasons for buying this camera is changeable lens and control
>> over the shutter speed and aperture settings and being able to take
>> wide angle photos.
>
>HEADS UP! Just in case you are not aware of this: the 300D and 350D have
>sensors that are much smaller than the 35mm film frame, so your wide angle
>lenses get a lot less wide.
>
>So to do wide angle work with the 300D (or 350D), you'll need something like
>the (expensive) Canon 10-22mm lens, or one of the still nowhere near cheap
>third party superwide zooms that start at 10, 11, or 12mm.

I still have my Canon EOS 300 camera that takes 35mm film.
I compared the wide angle range for the 300 and 300D (digital camera)
and the 300D gives me a slightly wider wide angle then the 300.
I took a digital photo to prove it just encase the view finder is
different to the actual photo.
300D is 18mm lend (18*1.6 =28.8)
300 is 27mm lens.
This pleases me as I wanted a digital camera that has a simular wide
angle as the 300 film camera.

Regards Brian


>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>
>
!