Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Upgrading to a DSLR question.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 20, 2005 3:47:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

I am upgrading from an Oly C4040. and I am trying to decide between the
Evolt, EOS 300D, EOS 350D, and the EOS 20D. Mainly between the Evolt and the
EOS 350D. I know the Oly has the CCD and the Canon has the CMOS. Back When I
bought the C4040 I read that the CCD was the way to go. I am not sure now.
Any advice and comments between the EOS 350D and the Evolt would be greatly
appreciated.

Thanks
Robert
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 4:05:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

"Robert" <rlg@NO.premier1.net> wrote in message
news:qZOdncWtpMGUrBPfRVn-jA@seanet.com...
> I am upgrading from an Oly C4040. and I am trying to decide between the
> Evolt, EOS 300D, EOS 350D, and the EOS 20D. Mainly between the Evolt and
the
> EOS 350D. I know the Oly has the CCD and the Canon has the CMOS. Back When
I
> bought the C4040 I read that the CCD was the way to go. I am not sure now.
> Any advice and comments between the EOS 350D and the Evolt would be
greatly
> appreciated.
>

I own a Rebel XT, and I owned an original Rebel. I would skip the original
Rebel/300D unless you really need to save money. Of all four cameras I
would get the 20D if you have the money. It's all around the best of the 4
cameras in your list. Between the Oly and the Rebel XT/350D I would pick
the 350D due to more lens options including plenty of 3rd party lenses and
it not being 4/3. The only thing I don't like about my XT is the relatively
small size, although it looks like the Evolt is relatively small, too. One
interesting feature of the Evolt is it's Supersonic Wave Filter for
theoretically keeping dust off of the sensor.

My recommendation is the 20D if you have the money, 350D if not.

Keep the C4040 as a p&s backup either way.

Greg
May 20, 2005 4:46:26 PM

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

Personally I think Canon is the way to go. Much lower noise levels.

For what it is worth, I currently have a 10D and love it.

www.dpreview.com offers good reviews on many digital cameras. You might
want to browse the reviews and see what they had to say.

Steve



Robert wrote:
> I am upgrading from an Oly C4040. and I am trying to decide between the
> Evolt, EOS 300D, EOS 350D, and the EOS 20D. Mainly between the Evolt and the
> EOS 350D. I know the Oly has the CCD and the Canon has the CMOS. Back When I
> bought the C4040 I read that the CCD was the way to go. I am not sure now.
> Any advice and comments between the EOS 350D and the Evolt would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Robert
>
>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 7:37:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

"Robert" <rlg@NO.premier1.net> wrote in message
news:qZOdncWtpMGUrBPfRVn-jA@seanet.com...
>I am upgrading from an Oly C4040. and I am trying to decide between the
> Evolt, EOS 300D, EOS 350D, and the EOS 20D. Mainly between the Evolt and
> the
> EOS 350D. I know the Oly has the CCD and the Canon has the CMOS. Back When
> I
> bought the C4040 I read that the CCD was the way to go. I am not sure now.
> Any advice and comments between the EOS 350D and the Evolt would be
> greatly
> appreciated.

I agree with the advice you have already received (get the 20D) and I'll add
that CMOS used to be inferior, but that has changed.
May 20, 2005 11:59:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Robert wrote:

> Any advice and comments between the EOS 350D and the Evolt would
> be greatly appreciated.
>
>

My advice is to go somewhere that will let you shoot a couple of shots with
both and have a couple of prints made on the spot (or take them home,
you'll need 2 CF cards for that.) . I took my own CF cards to a local pro
shop, shot with a 10D-20D, then did the same with the E1-E300.

I then looked at the features both had, if they had good lenses avalible
that would do what I needed and then tried to look at issues like which
focus screen worked well manually focusing the lens for macro work, do I
like the view I see looking through the finder, how I like the
feel/handling of the camera and made my choice based on my own personal
preferences rather than reading what someone else likes.

There are also issues like which has a better kit lens (lenses?) if you're
going to be stuck with that for a while, which has better high ISO
performance if you need that, if you want to deal with cleaning the sensor
(if you're not going to be changing lenses much that's not an issue at
all), if you are going to be doing post processing (don't mind using noise
reduction software) or need/want clean out of camera jpegs, will you be
shooting RAW or Jpeg, do you need a spot meter or not, do you have lenses
from an old system you want to use etc. These are choices -you- have to
decide.

Every camera has it's strong and weak points, you have to decide which ones
are a problem and which aren't. If I was shooting nightclubs using avalible
light instead of landscapes, that would have changed which camera I bought.

In the end, one camera had a look to the 8X10 prints I made that =I=
prefered and that was what made my choice easy.. Someone else might have
liked the other better, that's why this is so subjective. IMHO it is the
end results in print that matter most to me and what looks good to me. I'm
sure you'll get mostly "buy what I did" from your question, I'm not going
to do that mainly because you haven't said enough about what you'll use
this camera for to even make a recomendation. Some people believe their
camera choice is "The best" for anyone, I don't agree.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 12:10:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

"Robert" <rlg@NO.premier1.net> wrote in message
news:qZOdncWtpMGUrBPfRVn-jA@seanet.com...
> I am upgrading from an Oly C4040. and I am trying to decide between the
> Evolt, EOS 300D, EOS 350D, and the EOS 20D. Mainly between the Evolt and
the
> EOS 350D. I know the Oly has the CCD and the Canon has the CMOS. Back When
I

If those 4 choices are in your basket then surely there can only be one
winner, the 20D.
The Evolt and the 350D are hardly in the same class.
Hannah.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 1:43:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

"Robert" <rlg@NO.premier1.net> wrote in
news:qZOdncWtpMGUrBPfRVn-jA@seanet.com:

> I am upgrading from an Oly C4040. and I am trying to decide
> between the Evolt, EOS 300D, EOS 350D, and the EOS 20D. Mainly
> between the Evolt and the EOS 350D. I know the Oly has the CCD and
> the Canon has the CMOS. Back When I bought the C4040 I read that
> the CCD was the way to go. I am not sure now. Any advice and
> comments between the EOS 350D and the Evolt would be greatly
> appreciated.

Sigma will be announcing several new bodies before the end of the
summer so it might be better to wait. If you want to start shooting
with a DSLR immediately you can find really excellent deals on used
Sigma SD10 and SD9 bodies, which have a way better sensor than the
DSLRs of all other manufacturers. If you are set on Four Thirds, then
it would be best to wait for the Sigma Four Thirds body to ship because
the Oly models are essentially junk.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 1:43:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

George Preddy wrote:
> "Robert" <rlg@NO.premier1.net> wrote in
> news:qZOdncWtpMGUrBPfRVn-jA@seanet.com:
>
>
>>I am upgrading from an Oly C4040. and I am trying to decide
>>between the Evolt, EOS 300D, EOS 350D, and the EOS 20D. Mainly
>>between the Evolt and the EOS 350D. I know the Oly has the CCD and
>>the Canon has the CMOS. Back When I bought the C4040 I read that
>>the CCD was the way to go. I am not sure now. Any advice and
>>comments between the EOS 350D and the Evolt would be greatly
>>appreciated.
>
>
> Sigma will be announcing several new bodies before the end of the
> summer so it might be better to wait. If you want to start shooting
> with a DSLR immediately you can find really excellent deals on used
> Sigma SD10 and SD9 bodies, which have a way better sensor than the
> DSLRs of all other manufacturers. If you are set on Four Thirds, then
> it would be best to wait for the Sigma Four Thirds body to ship because
> the Oly models are essentially junk.

Interesting choices. Say, I note that you haven't answered my question
in another thread. Please identify sources for three instances where the
front lens element has fallen off a Nikon kit lens and a Canon kit lens
under light usage conditions. Yesterday you claimed that you'd heard
numerous reports of this.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 1:43:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

> Sigma will be announcing several new bodies before the end of the
> summer so it might be better to wait. If you want to start shooting
> with a DSLR immediately you can find really excellent deals on used
> Sigma SD10 and SD9 bodies, which have a way better sensor than the
> DSLRs of all other manufacturers. If you are set on Four Thirds, then
> it would be best to wait for the Sigma Four Thirds body to ship because
> the Oly models are essentially junk.

Say no to GP and Sigma SD cameras. However, Sigma just might have an ace up
their sleeve and might announce a new camera that could be worth looking at.
On the other hand, GP seems to have a jackass up his sleeve.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 2:54:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Robert wrote:

> I am upgrading from an Oly C4040. and I am trying to decide between
> the Evolt, EOS 300D, EOS 350D, and the EOS 20D. Mainly between the
> Evolt and the EOS 350D. I know the Oly has the CCD and the Canon has
> the CMOS. Back When I bought the C4040 I read that the CCD was the
> way to go. I am not sure now. Any advice and comments between the
> EOS 350D and the Evolt would be greatly appreciated.

CMOS got its start as a cheap sensor technology not used in even decent
consumer digicams; it was typically found in webcams. Canon's
technology changed all that; it's arguably the best sensor technology
available today, especially in terms of sensitivity.

As others have said, if the money's not an issue, get the 20D. Superb
camera. If money is tighter, I'd lean towards the 350D, and I'd also
check out the Nikon D70 and D70s.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:35:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

"Robert" <rlg@NO.premier1.net> wrote in message
news:qZOdncWtpMGUrBPfRVn-jA@seanet.com...
>I am upgrading from an Oly C4040. and I am trying to decide between the
> Evolt, EOS 300D, EOS 350D, and the EOS 20D. Mainly between the Evolt and
> the
> EOS 350D. I know the Oly has the CCD and the Canon has the CMOS. Back When
> I
> bought the C4040 I read that the CCD was the way to go. I am not sure now.
> Any advice and comments between the EOS 350D and the Evolt would be
> greatly
> appreciated.
The 20D is not in the same category as the 300D or 350D or the E-300.
Obviously comparing just these models the 20D is the much better camera. But
it is also more expensive, and if that is an issue then the equation becomes
a little blurred. The standard Canon kit lenses are truly awful, so for the
same money as a 20D with it's kit lens, you could get a 300D or 350D with a
half decent lens (From what I've seen, even the much maligned sigma lenses
perform better than Canon's cheap lenses). Using a 20D (or even the 300 or
350) with the kit lens is like using standard petrol and tyres with a
Ferrari.
I find the E-300 a bit of a quandary - it's kit lens is many orders of
magnitude better than Canon kit lenses, it's build quality leaves the
similar priced Canon's feeling like bits of plastic junk, but it is let down
by a very noisy sensor and I found some of it's functions such as "hold the
button down" exposure lock, and the lack of mirror lock up to be quite
annoying. If you mainly shoot in daylight, and want to use it as an advanced
P&S it is a great little camera - if you want to use it in low light
situations or in tricky shooting situations it is a bit limited. The sensor
cleaning function is fantastic however, and could tip the scales well away
from any other models in this league.
Why limit yourself to the models you listed? If you like the Olympus cameras
and are looking at something in the same league as the 20D, the E-1 ships
with an extremely good kit lens, and picture quality and camera features are
miles ahead of the E-300 (despite the lower number of pixels). I'd prefer 5
million excellent pixels over 8 million average pixels any day. The E1's
build quality is 2nd to none, it is very rugged, can handle a bit of rain or
snow, and won't need to be sent for sensor cleaning every couple of months.
If you are looking at something in a similar price range to the
E300/300D/350D, I think it's hard to go past the Pentax *istDS. Build
quality and feel is miles ahead of the Canons - again makes the Canons feel
like plastic pieces of junk. Pentax lenses are excellent, or alternatively
(here in Australia at least) it is often bundled with Sigma lenses which are
not great but significantly better than the cheap Canon offerings. The
camera is compatible with the zillions of K-mount lenses around, plus you
can use the old screw-mount lenses with adapters. This gives you access to a
huge variety of lenses, new & used, at all price/quality levels including
some of the finest lenses that have ever been made.
Another alternative is the highly rated Nikon D70 - it is an excellent
camera, and the 18-70 DX lens is excellent. It is a bit higher priced than
the E300/300D/350D/istDS, but quite a bit lower than the 20D. Personally I
think they are a little on the large and heavy side, but they do feel solid.
>
> Thanks
> Robert
>
>
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:35:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

"Justin Thyme" <pleasedontspamme@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:KpCje.524$oj7.10724@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
>
> "Robert" <rlg@NO.premier1.net> wrote in message

The standard Canon kit lenses are truly awful,<<


They look and feel awful, admittedly, but the image quality of the 18-55mm
is surprisingly good. As good as the kit lens shipped with the E300. I've
took quite a few shots with both, and the Canon seemed equal - although, it
might well have been the E300's in-camera processing that was limiting the
lens.

> I find the E-300 a bit of a quandary - it's kit lens is many orders of
> magnitude better than Canon kit lenses, it's build quality leaves the
> similar priced Canon's feeling like bits of plastic junk<

Not really - the E300 is every bit as plastic as the 350D - and the card
door on the E300 is a joke.


but it is let down
> by a very noisy sensor and I found some of it's functions such as "hold
> the button down" exposure lock, and the lack of mirror lock up to be quite
> annoying. <


I think that mirror lock-up has been added via firmware upgrade


If you mainly shoot in daylight, and want to use it as an advanced
> P&S it is a great little camera <

Agreed - it is best regarded as a good P&S


> Why limit yourself to the models you listed? If you like the Olympus
> cameras and are looking at something in the same league as the 20D, the
> E-1 ships with an extremely good kit lens, and picture quality and camera
> features are miles ahead of the E-300 (despite the lower number of
> pixels)<<

True - but, once again, the E1 is extremely noisy above 400 ISO (even above
200, sometimes)

I think that consumers are far less tolerant of noise than they use to be -
thanks largely to Canon, who have shown what is possible in 'cheap' end of
the market.


> E300/300D/350D, I think it's hard to go past the Pentax *istDS. Build
> quality and feel is miles ahead of the Canons<

Why? - same plastic body, same plastic mirror mechanism.



> Another alternative is the highly rated Nikon D70 - it is an excellent
> camera, and the 18-70 DX lens is excellent. It is a bit higher priced than
> the E300/300D/350D/istDS, but quite a bit lower than the 20D. Personally I
> think they are a little on the large and heavy side, but they do feel
> solid.


The D70 is noisier than the Pentax - no question. Also, the feeling of
solidity comes entirely from the kit lens - take the lens off the body and
you are left with a very lightweight, cheap feeling, plastic shell.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:35:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

> Another alternative is the highly rated Nikon D70 - it is an excellent
> camera, and the 18-70 DX lens is excellent. It is a bit higher priced than
> the E300/300D/350D/istDS, but quite a bit lower than the 20D. Personally I
> think they are a little on the large and heavy side, but they do feel
> solid.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Robert

To start with you could get the 50mm 1.8 lens. Superb quality, very sharp,
and cheap.
This goes for Nikon's offering as well. A great lens to start with.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:35:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Justin Thyme wrote:
> "Robert" <rlg@NO.premier1.net> wrote in message
> news:qZOdncWtpMGUrBPfRVn-jA@seanet.com...
>> I am upgrading from an Oly C4040. and I am trying to decide between
>> the Evolt, EOS 300D, EOS 350D, and the EOS 20D. Mainly between the
>> Evolt and the
>> EOS 350D. I know the Oly has the CCD and the Canon has the CMOS.
>> Back When I
>> bought the C4040 I read that the CCD was the way to go. I am not
>> sure now. Any advice and comments between the EOS 350D and the
>> Evolt
>> would be greatly
>> appreciated.
> The 20D is not in the same category as the 300D or 350D or the
> E-300.
> Obviously comparing just these models the 20D is the much better
> camera. But it is also more expensive, and if that is an issue then
> the equation becomes a little blurred. The standard Canon kit lenses
> are truly awful,

Hyperbole alert: the 18-55 is not that bad.
http://www.fototime.com/inv/191CD1A6774DAD3

> so for the same money as a 20D with it's
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/

kit lens,
> you could get a 300D or 350D with a half decent lens (From what I've
> seen, even the much maligned sigma lenses perform better than
> Canon's
> cheap lenses). Using a 20D (or even the 300 or 350) with the kit
> lens is like using standard petrol and tyres with a Ferrari.
> I find the E-300 a bit of a quandary - it's

_ibid._

kit lens is many orders of
> magnitude better than Canon kit lenses, it's

_ditto_
(it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it)

build quality leaves the
> similar priced Canon's feeling like bits of plastic junk, but it is
> let down by a very noisy sensor and I found some of it's

....

functions
> such as "hold the button down" exposure lock, and the lack of mirror
> lock up to be quite annoying. If you mainly shoot in daylight, and
> want to use it as an advanced P&S it is

missed your chance!

a great little camera - if
> you want to use it in low light situations or in tricky shooting
> situations it is a bit limited. The sensor cleaning function is
> fantastic however, and could tip the scales well away from any other
> models in this league. Why limit yourself to the models you listed?
> If you like the Olympus
> cameras and are looking at something in the same league as the 20D,
> the E-1 ships with an extremely good kit lens, and picture quality
> and camera features are miles ahead of the E-300 (despite the lower
> number of pixels). I'd prefer 5 million excellent pixels over 8
> million average pixels any day. The E1's build quality is 2nd to
> none, it is very rugged, can handle a bit of rain or snow, and won't
> need to be sent for sensor cleaning every couple of months. If you
> are looking at something in a similar price range to the
> E300/300D/350D, I think it's hard to go past the Pentax *istDS.
> Build
> quality and feel is miles ahead of the Canons - again makes the
> Canons feel like plastic pieces of junk.

If you used scientific language in place of tabloid language, I
believe you would be more credible.

Pentax lenses are excellent,
> or alternatively (here in Australia at least)

Now I get it - you're just oriented upside-down, universally speaking.

it is often bundled
> with Sigma lenses which are not great but significantly better than
> the cheap Canon offerings. The camera is compatible with the
> zillions
> of K-mount lenses around, plus you can use the old screw-mount
> lenses
> with adapters. This gives you access to a huge variety of lenses,
> new
> & used, at all price/quality levels including some of the finest
> lenses that have ever been made. Another alternative is the highly
> rated Nikon D70 - it is an excellent
> camera, and the 18-70 DX lens is excellent. It is a bit higher
> priced
> than the E300/300D/350D/istDS, but quite a bit lower than the 20D.
> Personally I think they are a little on the large and heavy side,
> but
> they do feel solid.
>>

Relax. You have good knowledge and valuable opinions. Let them sell
themselves. Histrionics are Preddy territory.

Yes it's.


Resp'y,

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:35:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

> As with many of Canon's consumer level lenses, there seems to be a wide
> variation in samples. This was taken with the 18-55 that was bundled with
> my wife's 20D:
> http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
> Sharp, good color, not much more that you can ask for in a lens that runs
> about $100.

I'm guessing the shot was made at f/8 to f/11 ... almost any lens will
do well in bright light and those aperture settings.

The real test is wide open...

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:36:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> As with many of Canon's consumer level lenses, there seems to be a
>> wide variation in samples. This was taken with the 18-55 that was
>> bundled with my wife's 20D:
>> http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
>> Sharp, good color, not much more that you can ask for in a lens
>> that
>> runs about $100.
>
> I'm guessing the shot was made at f/8 to f/11 ... almost any lens
> will
> do well in bright light and those aperture settings.
>
> The real test is wide open...
>

The real test is: Did it make an attractive image for viewing in these
circumstances, and it did. A "truly awful" lens would not have been
able to dpo that.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:36:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 6nl0o$ime$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> As with many of Canon's consumer level lenses, there seems to be a wide
>> variation in samples. This was taken with the 18-55 that was bundled
>> with my wife's 20D:
>> http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
>> Sharp, good color, not much more that you can ask for in a lens that runs
>> about $100.
>
> I'm guessing the shot was made at f/8 to f/11 ... almost any lens will do
> well in bright light and those aperture settings.
>
> The real test is wide open...
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.

You're right, f8 at 1/200. But I feel that the lens is in no way as
scabrous as many portray it. Stopped down, or no, there are lenses that
won't perform as well, the Vivitar 17-35 AF lens springs to mind. And it
costs more than the Canon.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:36:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Skip M wrote:
>>
>>> As with many of Canon's consumer level lenses, there seems to be a
>>> wide variation in samples. This was taken with the 18-55 that was
>>> bundled with my wife's 20D:
>>> http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
>>>
>>> Sharp, good color, not much more that you can ask for in a lens that
>>> runs about $100.
>>
>>
>> I'm guessing the shot was made at f/8 to f/11 ... almost any lens will
>> do well in bright light and those aperture settings.
>>
>> The real test is wide open...
>>
>
> The real test is: Did it make an attractive image for viewing in these
> circumstances, and it did. A "truly awful" lens would not have been able
> to dpo that.

See above. Even awful lenses do well in high contrast light and a few
stops down. I used to have the Minolta 28-80xi lens, which was mediocre
to good at best. Yet, in bright conditions stopped down, I mades some
wonderful images with it.

As to the person who made the "truly awful" statement about Canon kit
lenses, he is wrong in many instances. The more recent 28-80's were not
only good, they were very good for their price. Better than Nikon and
Minolta in that 'class' and price range.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 10:36:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:D 6nl0o$ime$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>Skip M wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As with many of Canon's consumer level lenses, there seems to be a wide
>>>variation in samples. This was taken with the 18-55 that was bundled
>>>with my wife's 20D:
>>>http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
>>>Sharp, good color, not much more that you can ask for in a lens that runs
>>>about $100.
>>
>>I'm guessing the shot was made at f/8 to f/11 ... almost any lens will do
>>well in bright light and those aperture settings.
>>
>>The real test is wide open...
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Alan.
>
>
> You're right, f8 at 1/200. But I feel that the lens is in no way as
> scabrous as many portray it. Stopped down, or no, there are lenses that
> won't perform as well, the Vivitar 17-35 AF lens springs to mind. And it
> costs more than the Canon.

I've yet to hear (or maybe remember) anything good about any Vivitar lens.

As I said in another post, some Canon kit lenses are better than their
competitor company counterparts. I'd have little trouble believing the
18-55 is decent too. Having said that, it just occured to me to go to a
source:

.... page 159 of the March 2004 (No. 261) issue of Chasseur D'Images
reports on the Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6:

scores after measurement as being:

Distortion: 4/5
Vignetting: 3/5
Ctr sharp: 3/5
Edge sharp: 3/5
Overal score: 3/5

Comments:

wide angle /wide open vignetting: poor
f/5.6: good (they say "honorable results"
which from the French also describes whores who overcharged Nazi
officers while giving them syphillis... interpret appropriately)

Chromatic abberations: short FL, noticeable, overall not too bad for an
'economical' lens.

Distortion: bad pincushion from 18 to 28mm, though not "catastrophically
so" for a zoom. From 28 up, negligible.

Optical qualities: "Forget wide open!" If used from f/5.6 to f/16 then
the center sharpness is darned satisying for a lens of this price. On
the edges, 'drags' a bit. [They use the word "fichtrement" ...
'darned', and "traine" .. 'drags' some things just don't translate well]

Best used f/8 to f/11 is their conclusion ... and I swear I didn't look
up the report for my prev. reply!

The accompanying graphs do show the best sagital/tangential performance
at 55mm, f/11 - f/16; and very good at 25mm from f/5.6 to f/16.

If you like, I'll scan the report summary (4" x 8" roughly) and e-mail
it to you... your High School French (or Spanish) should suffice.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 21, 2005 10:56:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Justin Thyme wrote:

>
>I found some of it's functions such as
> "hold the button down" exposure lock,

That is annoying.

> and the lack of mirror lock up

It's been included in the latest firmware.


--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 2:48:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

"Jim Waggener" <jimw@nospam.visi.net> wrote in message
news:428f24e4$1_2@spool9-west.superfeed.net...
>> Another alternative is the highly rated Nikon D70 - it is an excellent
>> camera, and the 18-70 DX lens is excellent. It is a bit higher priced
>> than the E300/300D/350D/istDS, but quite a bit lower than the 20D.
>> Personally I think they are a little on the large and heavy side, but
>> they do feel solid.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Robert
>
> To start with you could get the 50mm 1.8 lens. Superb quality, very sharp,
> and cheap.
> This goes for Nikon's offering as well. A great lens to start with.
Or with the pentax he could get a 50/1.4 - well reknowned as one of the best
lenses ever made. On a DSLR it becomes equivalent to a 75mm, which is a
great length for portraits.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 2:48:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

>> To start with you could get the 50mm 1.8 lens. Superb quality, very
>> sharp, and cheap.
>> This goes for Nikon's offering as well. A great lens to start with.
> Or with the pentax he could get a 50/1.4 - well reknowned as one of the
> best lenses ever made. On a DSLR it becomes equivalent to a 75mm, which is
> a great length for portraits.

oops, yer right about the Pentax, forgot that one.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 2:59:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 6o92e$bli$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:D 6nl0o$ime$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>>
>>>Skip M wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>As with many of Canon's consumer level lenses, there seems to be a wide
>>>>variation in samples. This was taken with the 18-55 that was bundled
>>>>with my wife's 20D:
>>>>http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
>>>>Sharp, good color, not much more that you can ask for in a lens that
>>>>runs about $100.
>>>
>>>I'm guessing the shot was made at f/8 to f/11 ... almost any lens will do
>>>well in bright light and those aperture settings.
>>>
>>>The real test is wide open...
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Alan.
>>
>>
>> You're right, f8 at 1/200. But I feel that the lens is in no way as
>> scabrous as many portray it. Stopped down, or no, there are lenses that
>> won't perform as well, the Vivitar 17-35 AF lens springs to mind. And it
>> costs more than the Canon.
>
> I've yet to hear (or maybe remember) anything good about any Vivitar lens.
>
> As I said in another post, some Canon kit lenses are better than their
> competitor company counterparts. I'd have little trouble believing the
> 18-55 is decent too. Having said that, it just occured to me to go to a
> source:
>
> ... page 159 of the March 2004 (No. 261) issue of Chasseur D'Images
> reports on the Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6:
>
> scores after measurement as being:
>
> Distortion: 4/5
> Vignetting: 3/5
> Ctr sharp: 3/5
> Edge sharp: 3/5
> Overal score: 3/5
>
> Comments:
>
> wide angle /wide open vignetting: poor
> f/5.6: good (they say "honorable results" which
> from the French also describes whores who overcharged Nazi officers while
> giving them syphillis... interpret appropriately)
>
> Chromatic abberations: short FL, noticeable, overall not too bad for an
> 'economical' lens.
>
> Distortion: bad pincushion from 18 to 28mm, though not "catastrophically
> so" for a zoom. From 28 up, negligible.
>
> Optical qualities: "Forget wide open!" If used from f/5.6 to f/16 then
> the center sharpness is darned satisying for a lens of this price. On the
> edges, 'drags' a bit. [They use the word "fichtrement" ... 'darned', and
> "traine" .. 'drags' some things just don't translate well]
>
> Best used f/8 to f/11 is their conclusion ... and I swear I didn't look up
> the report for my prev. reply!
>
> The accompanying graphs do show the best sagital/tangential performance at
> 55mm, f/11 - f/16; and very good at 25mm from f/5.6 to f/16.
>
> If you like, I'll scan the report summary (4" x 8" roughly) and e-mail it
> to you... your High School French (or Spanish) should suffice.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>

Nah, that's ok, it's pretty similar to my own experience, it's just that the
lens gets excoriated beyond what's justified. For the price, it's not bad,
that's all.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 23, 2005 3:17:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:


>
> Nah, that's ok, it's pretty similar to my own experience, it's just that the
> lens gets excoriated beyond what's justified. For the price, it's not bad,
> that's all.

I sent it anyway.

There's no way a lot of 'good' lenses can survive comparison to 28-80
f/2.8 lenses, but some seem content to do so.

Cheers,
Alan.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 12:21:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 6ss6v$2em$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>
>>

>
> I sent it anyway.
>
> There's no way a lot of 'good' lenses can survive comparison to 28-80
> f/2.8 lenses, but some seem content to do so.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
>
>
Heck, my favorite lens, the 28-135 IS, pales in comparison to the 24-70
f2.8L. And the 18-55 certainly isn't any 28-135 IS, either... ;-)
BTW, I didn't get the summary...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 24, 2005 2:31:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:D 6ss6v$2em$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>
>
>>I sent it anyway.
>>
>>There's no way a lot of 'good' lenses can survive comparison to 28-80
>>f/2.8 lenses, but some seem content to do so.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Alan.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Heck, my favorite lens, the 28-135 IS, pales in comparison to the 24-70
> f2.8L. And the 18-55 certainly isn't any 28-135 IS, either... ;-)
> BTW, I didn't get the summary...
>
I sent it to the e-mail address you use in your postings. No error
return. I'll send again..

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 25, 2005 1:43:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 6vdsd$sve$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:D 6ss6v$2em$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
>>
>>>
>>
>>>I sent it anyway.
>>>
>>>There's no way a lot of 'good' lenses can survive comparison to 28-80
>>>f/2.8 lenses, but some seem content to do so.
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Alan.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Heck, my favorite lens, the 28-135 IS, pales in comparison to the 24-70
>> f2.8L. And the 18-55 certainly isn't any 28-135 IS, either... ;-)
>> BTW, I didn't get the summary...
>>
> I sent it to the e-mail address you use in your postings. No error
> return. I'll send again..
>

Got it this time! Thanks, I think my email was having issues the last
couple of days, my wife sent me a link that I never got, but the 4 or 5
people she CC'd it to got it...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
!