Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question: Should I upgrade???

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 12:48:58 PM

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

Hi, all.

I'm an amateur shutterbug, who has a taste for low-light shots. I'm
getting into some low-light portraiture lately.

I've been using a Nikon Coolpix 4500 for the past couple of years, and
am not thrilled with its behavior in low light. I did one session
recently, and was able to tweak the final image so that I could have it
printed on 24x36" and have it look pretty darned good.

I'm considering switching to DSLR land, specifically to a Rebel 300
DSLR. I have a friend who uses one, and he is pleased with it. I plan
to borrow it shortly to check out its low-light behavior, and the
paradigm shifts I'd have to make to use it.

I can see a lot of draws to DSLR - lens compatibility, response time,
etc.

I also think that in the 'prosumer' range, the Rebel is one of the
'heavy hitters'.

I'll check out reviews on Steve's Digicam site and dpreview.com before
I commit, but I'm curious if people in the group would generally
consider this unit a safe bet, or if there are some little-known
'gotchas' which I should be aware of...

Oh - before anyone's tempted to suggest a unit that's considerably more
expensive - I do not want to drop $1500 on a camera again right now. I
did that with my 4500 when I first bought it. I see an ad for this unit
with all its stock bits for $700 USD, and even at that price I'm
wringing my hands as to whether it's worth it for me. ;-)

Thanks for all feedback!!

BD

More about : question upgrade

Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:57:13 PM

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

I don't know yet. I only know what I want to end up doing with it -
high-quality macro will be important, and I'll want a fair telephoto
eventually. My current cam has a teleconverter which gives me 12x
optical. I'm not up to speed on how to translate that into SLR-ese.

But first things first, I guess.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:57:54 PM

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

So what's standard retail for that? Similar price point as the 300?
Related resources
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 3:10:06 PM

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

Mm. I'll be the first to admit that I need a lot of education here.

For the moment, the feedback I was hoping for was on the base unit
itself. I see a lot of good feedback, and some criticism of a few
points like the body construction. It doesn't sound as if it's a unit
I'd kick myself for having bought, though.

Sad - I could see myself investing many pennies in lenses over time.
But I guess that's just part of the hobby... ;) 
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 3:33:20 PM

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

On 12 Jul 2005 08:48:58 -0700, "BD" <bobby_dread@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi, all.
>
>I'm an amateur shutterbug, who has a taste for low-light shots. I'm
>getting into some low-light portraiture lately.
>
>I've been using a Nikon Coolpix 4500 for the past couple of years, and
>am not thrilled with its behavior in low light. I did one session
>recently, and was able to tweak the final image so that I could have it
>printed on 24x36" and have it look pretty darned good.
>
>I'm considering switching to DSLR land, specifically to a Rebel 300
>DSLR. I have a friend who uses one, and he is pleased with it. I plan
>to borrow it shortly to check out its low-light behavior, and the
>paradigm shifts I'd have to make to use it.

What lenses are you going to get? I would suggest you look at the
50mm F1.4 and the 85mm F1.8.


******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 4:44:57 PM

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

On 12 Jul 2005 09:57:13 -0700, "BD" <bobby_dread@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I don't know yet. I only know what I want to end up doing with it -
>high-quality macro will be important, and I'll want a fair telephoto
>eventually. My current cam has a teleconverter which gives me 12x
>optical. I'm not up to speed on how to translate that into SLR-ese.
>
>But first things first, I guess.

The two lenses I suggested were for low light work.

Not knowing what the focal length of your current camera's lens is,
it's hard to convert. It would be 12 times the focal length.


******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 5:43:25 PM

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

On 12 Jul 2005 11:10:06 -0700, "BD" <bobby_dread@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Mm. I'll be the first to admit that I need a lot of education here.
>
>For the moment, the feedback I was hoping for was on the base unit
>itself. I see a lot of good feedback, and some criticism of a few
>points like the body construction. It doesn't sound as if it's a unit
>I'd kick myself for having bought, though.
>
>Sad - I could see myself investing many pennies in lenses over time.
>But I guess that's just part of the hobby... ;) 

You will spend 10 times as much or more on lenses than a body.

You might want to get a copy of "The Eyes of EOS, III" to get an idea
of the Canon lenses and what they can do. It' cheap and very
educational.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...


******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 6:00:14 PM

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

"BD" <bobby_dread@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121183338.700078.291410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, all.
>
> I'm an amateur shutterbug, who has a taste for low-light shots. I'm
> getting into some low-light portraiture lately.
>
> I've been using a Nikon Coolpix 4500 for the past couple of years, and
> am not thrilled with its behavior in low light. I did one session
> recently, and was able to tweak the final image so that I could have it
> printed on 24x36" and have it look pretty darned good.
>
> I'm considering switching to DSLR land, specifically to a Rebel 300
> DSLR. I have a friend who uses one, and he is pleased with it. I plan
> to borrow it shortly to check out its low-light behavior, and the
> paradigm shifts I'd have to make to use it.

There is no question that you'll get some of the best low-light performance
from the CMOS Canon sensor.
Few (if any) DSLR sensors can match it's minimal level of noise in low
light, and point-and-shoot CCDs definitely can't keep up.

-Mark
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 6:22:16 PM

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

>John Stovall writes ...
>
>You might want to get a copy of "The Eyes of EOS, III"

Does this have MTF charts? For the lenses + converters as well?
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 8:24:41 PM

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

BD wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> I'm an amateur shutterbug, who has a taste for low-light shots. I'm
> getting into some low-light portraiture lately.
>
> I've been using a Nikon Coolpix 4500 for the past couple of years, and
> am not thrilled with its behavior in low light. I did one session
> recently, and was able to tweak the final image so that I could have it
> printed on 24x36" and have it look pretty darned good.
>
> I'm considering switching to DSLR land, specifically to a Rebel 300
> DSLR. I have a friend who uses one, and he is pleased with it. I plan
> to borrow it shortly to check out its low-light behavior, and the
> paradigm shifts I'd have to make to use it.
>
> I can see a lot of draws to DSLR - lens compatibility, response time,
> etc.
>
> I also think that in the 'prosumer' range, the Rebel is one of the
> 'heavy hitters'.
>
> I'll check out reviews on Steve's Digicam site and dpreview.com before
> I commit, but I'm curious if people in the group would generally
> consider this unit a safe bet, or if there are some little-known
> 'gotchas' which I should be aware of...
>
> Oh - before anyone's tempted to suggest a unit that's considerably more
> expensive - I do not want to drop $1500 on a camera again right now. I
> did that with my 4500 when I first bought it. I see an ad for this unit
> with all its stock bits for $700 USD, and even at that price I'm
> wringing my hands as to whether it's worth it for me. ;-)
>
> Thanks for all feedback!!
>
> BD


You should consider 350D. It's a lot faster.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 9:44:52 PM

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

BD wrote:
> Mm. I'll be the first to admit that I need a lot of education here.
>
> For the moment, the feedback I was hoping for was on the base unit
> itself. I see a lot of good feedback, and some criticism of a few
> points like the body construction. It doesn't sound as if it's a
> unit
> I'd kick myself for having bought, though.
>
> Sad - I could see myself investing many pennies in lenses over time.
> But I guess that's just part of the hobby... ;) 

I'm among those who agonized over the leap to light-I mean to dSLR. I
have and used to good effect some very good Nikon CoolPixes. Now that
I am a dSLR user for eight months, I can testify that there is a
panoply of genuine advantages to interchangeable lenses and larger
sensors. The CPS worked good and made good pictures, but compared to
what is now the norm, it was always a bit of a struggle.

If you have no arsenal of lenses, you have the opportunity to choose
on the basis of your needs. I think you'll hear from partisans of one
brand and another. During your education you will read reviews that
contradict the testimonials, or support them. You get to decide who or
what to believe.

My testimony: I believe you will get better low-light results with a
Canon camera, 300D/XT, or 20D. Long list of lens choices, produce
excellent photos.

Buy the Rebel 350D/XT or 20D, and a Canon 50mm 1.4. That combination
has the potential for excellent low-light portraiture.

--
Frank ess

PS: Leave some of the post you are responding to, or your replies will
make less sense than they might.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 10:28:59 PM

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

> John Stovall writes ...
>
>Yes, it does have MTF charts for all lenses and for both the 1.4
>and 2.0 Extenders.

I was able to download MTF charts for all my lenses from the Canon site
but these didn't have the 1.4x and 2x converters and I'd be curious to
see what those cost you. My 500 f/4 L IS with a 1.4x is so sharp it's
hard to believe ... the straight 500 f/4 has a near-perfect MTF chart
(ie, high initial quality with almost no edge fall off at both wide
open and at f/8) and I'm curious what effect the converter has.
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 12:09:59 AM

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

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 08:48:58 -0700, BD wrote:

> Hi, all.
>
> I'm an amateur shutterbug, who has a taste for low-light shots. I'm
> getting into some low-light portraiture lately.
>
> I've been using a Nikon Coolpix 4500 for the past couple of years, and am
> not thrilled with its behavior in low light. I did one session recently,
> and was able to tweak the final image so that I could have it printed on
> 24x36" and have it look pretty darned good.
>
> I'm considering switching to DSLR land, specifically to a Rebel 300 DSLR.
> I have a friend who uses one, and he is pleased with it. I plan to borrow
> it shortly to check out its low-light behavior, and the paradigm shifts
> I'd have to make to use it.
>
> I can see a lot of draws to DSLR - lens compatibility, response time, etc.
>
> I also think that in the 'prosumer' range, the Rebel is one of the 'heavy
> hitters'.
>
> I'll check out reviews on Steve's Digicam site and dpreview.com before I
> commit, but I'm curious if people in the group would generally consider
> this unit a safe bet, or if there are some little-known 'gotchas' which I
> should be aware of...
>
> Oh - before anyone's tempted to suggest a unit that's considerably more
> expensive - I do not want to drop $1500 on a camera again right now. I did
> that with my 4500 when I first bought it. I see an ad for this unit with
> all its stock bits for $700 USD, and even at that price I'm wringing my
> hands as to whether it's worth it for me. ;-)

If you looking to save a little money and still want a DSLR, take a look
at getting a used Canon D30 (3.1 MP) or D60 (6.0MP) off eBay. Their CMOS
sensors both produce very low noise images, even at high ISOs. I have the
D30. Don't let the 3.1 MP sensor deter you from considering it. Because
it's so large (compared to your 4MP 4500), 15x22mm, and the image
captures so "smooth", it produces very nice enlargements. The D60 does
even a better job.

I got my D30 off eBay last fall, in mint condition with all that
originally came with it, for $400 US. It's now running a little less.
The D60's going for about $500 to $600 US, depending.

As far as lenses, since you're into the low light stuff (all hand-held, I
assume), I suggest you by-pass zooms and go only with primes. Canon's
50mm f1.4 would make a good first lens, and a good focal length for
portraits, then the 85 f1.8 or 100 f2.0 for a little reach and finally,
the 28 f1.8, for kinda of a "normal." Nice thing with this setup, if
you ever get a Canon film body, you've already got a nice 3 lens setup.
And none of the lenses is outrageously expensive -- $300 to $400 each at
B&H Photo.


Stefan
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 12:57:04 AM

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

> So what's standard retail for that? Similar price point as the 300?

It's probably a little more, but for me, the faster "boot-up" time, the
more advanced focussing modes, and the faster burst rate are enough to make
it worth the extra bit.

Remember, once you buy an expensive dSLR, you still need to get lenses,
and really good lenses can make the extra couple of hundred bucks you put
into the camera seem like nothing. : )

steve
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 1:31:23 AM

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

"stefan patric" <not@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.07.13.03.09.58.746602@thisaddress.com...

>
> If you looking to save a little money and still want a DSLR, take a look
> at getting a used Canon D30 (3.1 MP) or D60 (6.0MP) off eBay. Their CMOS
> sensors both produce very low noise images, even at high ISOs. I have the
> D30. Don't let the 3.1 MP sensor deter you from considering it. Because
> it's so large (compared to your 4MP 4500), 15x22mm, and the image
> captures so "smooth", it produces very nice enlargements. The D60 does
> even a better job.
I wouldn't say that the D30 has a low noise level at high ISOs, I'd consider
it a near disaster if and when I had to shoot at 1600ISO:
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
>
> I got my D30 off eBay last fall, in mint condition with all that
> originally came with it, for $400 US. It's now running a little less.
> The D60's going for about $500 to $600 US, depending.
>
>
> Stefan
>

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 2:38:27 AM

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

On 12 Jul 2005 14:22:16 -0700, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com>
wrote:

>>John Stovall writes ...
>>
>>You might want to get a copy of "The Eyes of EOS, III"
>
>Does this have MTF charts? For the lenses + converters as well?

Yes, it does have MTF charts for all lenses and for both the 1.4 and
2.0 Extenders. It covers them on all lenses from the 70-200's to the
1200.

I can not image considering any EF lens without having this as a
reference. It is date in it only covers lenses in production in 2003.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
July 13, 2005 3:34:55 AM

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

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:o 2s7d1dbej7dk4b15su2fnhjoaco33e1v5@4ax.com...
> On 12 Jul 2005 08:48:58 -0700, "BD" <bobby_dread@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi, all.
> >
> >I'm an amateur shutterbug, who has a taste for low-light shots. I'm
> >getting into some low-light portraiture lately.
> >
> >I've been using a Nikon Coolpix 4500 for the past couple of years, and
> >am not thrilled with its behavior in low light. I did one session
> >recently, and was able to tweak the final image so that I could have it
> >printed on 24x36" and have it look pretty darned good.
> >
> >I'm considering switching to DSLR land, specifically to a Rebel 300
> >DSLR. I have a friend who uses one, and he is pleased with it. I plan
> >to borrow it shortly to check out its low-light behavior, and the
> >paradigm shifts I'd have to make to use it.
>
> What lenses are you going to get? I would suggest you look at the
> 50mm F1.4 and the 85mm F1.8.

Altough those lenses are very good, you may find them almost useless for day
to day shooting. The Drebels (and the 10D, 20D) have a crop or
multiplication factor of 1.6X so a 50mm lens is like an 80mm lens on a 35mm
camera. Also fast lenses like those have a very very shallow depth of field
at close range so you may find all your pictures are out of focus unless you
close the iris enough to gain acceptable depth of field. I have the 50mm
f1,8 and I don't use it very much because I find it too long.

Some may scoff at the "kit" lens (the 18-55mm) but it does a fair job
another one worth looking at is the 75-300mm with IS which retails for about
$400.

Naturally, the Canon "L" lenses are worth every penny. The 70-200 f4 is a
good choice if your budget will allow it.

My 2¢

Jean
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 4:27:43 AM

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:qO0Be.12284$HV1.8659@fed1read07...
>
>
>
> "stefan patric" <not@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:p an.2005.07.13.03.09.58.746602@thisaddress.com...
>
>>
>> If you looking to save a little money and still want a DSLR, take a look
>> at getting a used Canon D30 (3.1 MP) or D60 (6.0MP) off eBay. Their CMOS
>> sensors both produce very low noise images, even at high ISOs. I have
>> the
>> D30. Don't let the 3.1 MP sensor deter you from considering it. Because
>> it's so large (compared to your 4MP 4500), 15x22mm, and the image
>> captures so "smooth", it produces very nice enlargements. The D60 does
>> even a better job.
> I wouldn't say that the D30 has a low noise level at high ISOs, I'd
> consider it a near disaster if and when I had to shoot at 1600ISO:

At the time of it's **release,** the low noise was a breakthrough.

> http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 4:30:28 AM

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:qO0Be.12284$HV1.8659@fed1read07...
>
>
>
> "stefan patric" <not@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:p an.2005.07.13.03.09.58.746602@thisaddress.com...
>
>>
>> If you looking to save a little money and still want a DSLR, take a look
>> at getting a used Canon D30 (3.1 MP) or D60 (6.0MP) off eBay. Their CMOS
>> sensors both produce very low noise images, even at high ISOs. I have
>> the
>> D30. Don't let the 3.1 MP sensor deter you from considering it. Because
>> it's so large (compared to your 4MP 4500), 15x22mm, and the image
>> captures so "smooth", it produces very nice enlargements. The D60 does
>> even a better job.
> I wouldn't say that the D30 has a low noise level at high ISOs, I'd
> consider it a near disaster if and when I had to shoot at 1600ISO:
> http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...

It's pretty tough to analyse noise in that shot, since the red portions are
of stucco that is covered wildly interrupted by tiny shadows due to it's
texture and the angled light falling accross it from the neon...
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 4:31:30 AM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:o q3Be.8735$Eo.8724@fed1read04...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:qO0Be.12284$HV1.8659@fed1read07...
>>
>>
>>
>> "stefan patric" <not@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
>> news:p an.2005.07.13.03.09.58.746602@thisaddress.com...
>>
>>>
>>> If you looking to save a little money and still want a DSLR, take a look
>>> at getting a used Canon D30 (3.1 MP) or D60 (6.0MP) off eBay. Their
>>> CMOS
>>> sensors both produce very low noise images, even at high ISOs. I have
>>> the
>>> D30. Don't let the 3.1 MP sensor deter you from considering it.
>>> Because
>>> it's so large (compared to your 4MP 4500), 15x22mm, and the image
>>> captures so "smooth", it produces very nice enlargements. The D60 does
>>> even a better job.
>> I wouldn't say that the D30 has a low noise level at high ISOs, I'd
>> consider it a near disaster if and when I had to shoot at 1600ISO:
>> http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
>
> It's pretty tough to analyse noise in that shot, since the red portions
> are of stucco that is covered wildly interrupted by tiny shadows due to
> it's texture and the angled light falling accross it from the neon...

--At least not at the resolution posted there...
:) 
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 4:50:51 AM

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

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:44:57 -0500, John A. Stovall wrote:

>>eventually. My current cam has a teleconverter which gives me 12x
>>optical. I'm not up to speed on how to translate that into SLR-ese.
>
> Not knowing what the focal length of your current camera's lens is,
> it's hard to convert. It would be 12 times the focal length.

Well . . . 12 times the focal length of the lens zoomed to its
widest, without the teleconverter in place. So if the lens (in 35mm
equivalence) is a 35mm to 140mm (4x zoom) with a 3x teleconverter,
he'd need a 35mm x 12, or 420mm lens. Or he could multiply 140mm by
the 3x of the teleconverter getting the same 420mm result. But it
would be best to handle the camera/lens in a store rather than doing
the math and buying sight unseen. A 400+ mm lens on the end of a
Rebel 300 might be uncomfortably large, making a smaller 300mm lens
much more desirable, especially after being used to the relatively
small CP4500.
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 5:46:20 AM

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

In article <1121191806.821881.326630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"BD" <bobby_dread@hotmail.com> wrote:

> For the moment, the feedback I was hoping for was on the base unit
> itself. I see a lot of good feedback, and some criticism of a few
> points like the body construction. It doesn't sound as if it's a unit
> I'd kick myself for having bought, though.

I think these kinds of critical points are very small beer in comparison
to the overall quality you'll get from the Digital Rebel line. I'm a
beginner. When I first got my Digital Rebel, I let it do some of the
work and I found its functions in that regard were excellent. Now I've
graduated to shooting in full manual mode and I find it's an excellent
camera there too. At the moment, the only thing holding my images back
is me. I suppose a professional may have legitimate quibbles, but don't
let the comparison geeks make you feel insecure. If you have a good
feeling about the Digital Rebel, get the best one you can afford, a
couple of decent lenses, and you'll be set. I know half a dozen
prosumer-type owners and none has complained, only raved. Best of luck
in whatever you decide.

Sean

--

PHOTO FORTNIGHT
Two Weeks. One Shot.
http://www.PhotoFortnight.com/
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 9:36:52 AM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:o q3Be.8735$Eo.8724@fed1read04...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:qO0Be.12284$HV1.8659@fed1read07...
>>
>>
>>
>> "stefan patric" <not@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
>> news:p an.2005.07.13.03.09.58.746602@thisaddress.com...
>>
>>>
>>> If you looking to save a little money and still want a DSLR, take a look
>>> at getting a used Canon D30 (3.1 MP) or D60 (6.0MP) off eBay. Their
>>> CMOS
>>> sensors both produce very low noise images, even at high ISOs. I have
>>> the
>>> D30. Don't let the 3.1 MP sensor deter you from considering it.
>>> Because
>>> it's so large (compared to your 4MP 4500), 15x22mm, and the image
>>> captures so "smooth", it produces very nice enlargements. The D60 does
>>> even a better job.
>> I wouldn't say that the D30 has a low noise level at high ISOs, I'd
>> consider it a near disaster if and when I had to shoot at 1600ISO:
>> http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
>
> It's pretty tough to analyse noise in that shot, since the red portions
> are of stucco that is covered wildly interrupted by tiny shadows due to
> it's texture and the angled light falling accross it from the neon...
>
Well, if you look at the window, you'll see a lot of noise in the wall and
ceiling of the room.
To my remembrance, this is the only instance of me shooting at that high ISO
with that camera. It was really to be avoided. OTOH, just the fact that
1600 was available was a breakthrough in and of itself, IIRC. There were
complaints about the noise levels, but not many cameras went to that ISO.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 11:41:30 AM

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

I've heard enough 'iffy' comparisons between the 300 and the 350 to not
be particularly persuaded towards it - but I will review it again. ;) 
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 6:10:23 PM

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

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
> "stefan patric" <not@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
>>
>> If you looking to save a little money and still want a DSLR, take a look
>> at getting a used Canon D30 (3.1 MP) or D60 (6.0MP) off eBay. Their CMOS
>> sensors both produce very low noise images, even at high ISOs. I have
>> the
>> D30. Don't let the 3.1 MP sensor deter you from considering it. Because
>> it's so large (compared to your 4MP 4500), 15x22mm, and the image
>> captures so "smooth", it produces very nice enlargements. The D60 does
>> even a better job.
> I wouldn't say that the D30 has a low noise level at high ISOs, I'd
> consider it a near disaster if and when I had to shoot at 1600ISO:
> http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...

Really. Even the D60 was problematic at high ISOs.

It wan't until the 10D, 300D, and (Nikon) D100 that decent ISO 1600
performance became affordable.

The D30 produced wonderful ISO 100 images, though. Worlds better than the
5MP images from the 2/3" 5MP dcams of its day.

The interesting point is that the difference between the F707 and the best
of the current dcams is a lot less than the difference between the D30 and
the 350D.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 7:43:38 PM

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

On 12 Jul 2005 18:28:59 -0700, "Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com>
wrote:

>> John Stovall writes ...
>>
>>Yes, it does have MTF charts for all lenses and for both the 1.4
>>and 2.0 Extenders.
>
>I was able to download MTF charts for all my lenses from the Canon site
>but these didn't have the 1.4x and 2x converters and I'd be curious to
>see what those cost you. My 500 f/4 L IS with a 1.4x is so sharp it's
>hard to believe ... the straight 500 f/4 has a near-perfect MTF chart
>(ie, high initial quality with almost no edge fall off at both wide
>open and at f/8) and I'm curious what effect the converter has.

The MTF charts for the Converter are with them on the different
lenses.

1.4 on the 500 cases the edge to fall below .6 at 15.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 1:32:37 PM

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

"BD" <bobby_dread@hotmail.com> writes:

> Hi, all.
>
> I'm an amateur shutterbug, who has a taste for low-light shots. I'm
> getting into some low-light portraiture lately.
>
> I've been using a Nikon Coolpix 4500 for the past couple of years, and
> am not thrilled with its behavior in low light. I did one session
> recently, and was able to tweak the final image so that I could have it
> printed on 24x36" and have it look pretty darned good.
>
> I'm considering switching to DSLR land, specifically to a Rebel 300
> DSLR. I have a friend who uses one, and he is pleased with it. I plan
> to borrow it shortly to check out its low-light behavior, and the
> paradigm shifts I'd have to make to use it.

Bear in mind that many of the consumer oriented lenses (ie, cheap) are fairly
slow (and even worse, are fairly soft when shot wide open, so you lose an other
f/stop or two getting the lens so it is an acceptable quality). So while you
will gain more ISO levels, you will effectively lose some of the ISO advantage
with a slower lens. If memory serves, the 50mm f/1.8 is fairly reasonable in
cost, but it is a prime lens, which means the only way to zoom the image is to
move the camera forward/backward. For some things a prime works well, but for
other things you want the flexibility of a zoom.

Another thing to think of is a lot of people bad mouth the quality of the 300D
kit lens. Since I don't have a Canon, I can't say one way or another.

Finally, coming from a prosumer camera, you will have to contend with reduced
depth of field. It may be when you are shooting with a 50mm at f/1.8 at ISO
1600, the depth of field is so narrow, not all of your subject is in focus.
Sometimes you want reduced depth of field (for example portraits), sometimes
you don't (for example, many macro shots).

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 3:13:53 PM

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

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:31:23 -0700, Skip M wrote:

>
>
>
> "stefan patric" <not@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
> news:p an.2005.07.13.03.09.58.746602@thisaddress.com...
>
>
>> If you looking to save a little money and still want a DSLR, take a look
>> at getting a used Canon D30 (3.1 MP) or D60 (6.0MP) off eBay. Their
>> CMOS sensors both produce very low noise images, even at high ISOs. I
>> have the D30. Don't let the 3.1 MP sensor deter you from considering
>> it. Because it's so large (compared to your 4MP 4500), 15x22mm, and the
>> image captures so "smooth", it produces very nice enlargements. The D60
>> does even a better job.
>
> I wouldn't say that the D30 has a low noise level at high ISOs, I'd
> consider it a near disaster if and when I had to shoot at 1600ISO:
> http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...

You call THAT noise? You seem to expect high ISO images to be as clean as
the ones shot at 100. Technology has certainly spoiled you, whether
digitally or with film. Compared to the OP's Nikon 4500 at 400, it's
heavenly. Yes, later DSLRs like the 10D with improved built-in noise
reduction algorithms paled the old D30, but it's still not all that bad.

From an old film guy like myself, who started his professional career
shooting rock concerts, when the fastest color film around was High Speed
Ektachrome Tungsten at 160 speed, which was grainy to begin with, and when
pushed to 320, it was grainier than D30 shots at 1600; and at around 640,
you got golf ball sized grain, not to mention so much contrast as to be
mostly useless. Of course, then there was the noir street photographer's
film of choice: Kodak Recording film -- b&W, extended red sensitivity --
souped in DK-50 1:1. Talk about grain.... Ah, the good ol' days....


Stefan
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 7:40:05 PM

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

"stefan patric" <not@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.07.14.18.13.49.940293@thisaddress.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:31:23 -0700, Skip M wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> "stefan patric" <not@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
>> news:p an.2005.07.13.03.09.58.746602@thisaddress.com...
>>
>>
>>> If you looking to save a little money and still want a DSLR, take a look
>>> at getting a used Canon D30 (3.1 MP) or D60 (6.0MP) off eBay. Their
>>> CMOS sensors both produce very low noise images, even at high ISOs. I
>>> have the D30. Don't let the 3.1 MP sensor deter you from considering
>>> it. Because it's so large (compared to your 4MP 4500), 15x22mm, and the
>>> image captures so "smooth", it produces very nice enlargements. The D60
>>> does even a better job.
>>
>> I wouldn't say that the D30 has a low noise level at high ISOs, I'd
>> consider it a near disaster if and when I had to shoot at 1600ISO:
>> http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user...
>
> You call THAT noise? You seem to expect high ISO images to be as clean as
> the ones shot at 100. Technology has certainly spoiled you, whether
> digitally or with film. Compared to the OP's Nikon 4500 at 400, it's
> heavenly. Yes, later DSLRs like the 10D with improved built-in noise
> reduction algorithms paled the old D30, but it's still not all that bad.
It was a lot noisier than the then current 1600 film, which, at the time,
was all I had to compare it to. It isn't bad, for 3mp digital dating back
3-4 years, but it ain't good, either...
Of course, it's all in the perception. I wanted it grainy, since I felt
that would enhance the mood of the image, and it really did, especially
after I converted it to greyscale.

>
> From an old film guy like myself, who started his professional career
> shooting rock concerts, when the fastest color film around was High Speed
> Ektachrome Tungsten at 160 speed, which was grainy to begin with, and when
> pushed to 320, it was grainier than D30 shots at 1600; and at around 640,
> you got golf ball sized grain, not to mention so much contrast as to be
> mostly useless. Of course, then there was the noir street photographer's
> film of choice: Kodak Recording film -- b&W, extended red sensitivity --
> souped in DK-50 1:1. Talk about grain.... Ah, the good ol' days....

I was used to Ilford Delta 1600, which had a more pleasing grain to it:
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/inloo.html (nude warning!)
I'm an old film guy, too, but I kept to low ISO films, usually. K25, Reala,
Ilford XP-2 shot at 100 or 200. I found K200 and the earlier high sat. E100
to be unacceptably grainy.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
!