Is the 350D a 20D in a polycarb body ?

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

Wander over to DPReview.com and do a side by side comparison (under buying
guide) to answer this question in the best way....

When considering moving up to DSLR, I decided not to buy Canon simply
because of what I considered a bit of heavy handed "handicaping" of the
300... But when they released the 20D and I realised how nice a camera it
is, I changed my mind at the last minute. (I was waiting for the Pentax DS
to hit the stores)

From what I can see, Nikon taught them not to be to obvious about depriving
customers of functionality in the low end cameras. It looks like the only
places where the 350D is inferior to the 20D are in places where the bits
clearly cost less. (as opposed to arbitrary withholding of functions in
firmware as they did before)

If I was still making my decision today, I'd be forced to ask myself, "do I
really need the extra FPS, the extra metering points, the slightly more
accurate autofocus, the brighter viewfinder?" For the money, it's possible
that I'd go with the new one.... but I do like my 20D!

Al...

"dylan" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message
news1119f$afp$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Like the 300D was a 10D in a polycarbontae body with certain functions
> disabled, is the 350D a 20D in a polycarb body with less functions (if
> any) disabled ?
>
> Thanks
>

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

"Alan Adrian" <ara__@SPAMNOT.wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:423411c9$0$82420$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> Wander over to DPReview.com and do a side by side comparison (under buying
> guide) to answer this question in the best way....

Thanks Alan,

I compared them on the UK Canon site and they look pretty similar on
features, 20D better on some. I'd be interested to know how the results
compare seeing they appear to use a different CMOS chip, maybe the 350D is
better ?, certainly looks good value.

Cheers

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

I wonder if the 350D comes with the lockup problems, underexposure, and the
banding issues.


"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:qdYYd.9127$cN6.6764@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> dylan wrote:
>> Like the 300D was a 10D in a polycarbontae body with certain functions
>> disabled, is the 350D a 20D in a polycarb body with less functions (if
>> any) disabled ?
>>
>> Thanks
>
>
> I don't think so. Canon didn't withhold any arbitrary features like in
> 300D. The 350D has everything the hardware is capable of. It's very
> competitive which can steal many, many would-be 20D buyers if they don't
> mind a slower processor, pentamirror, a different sensor, or less
> "luxurious" construction.

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

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 14:36:06 GMT, leo <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:

>[Canon EOS 350D] can steal many, many would-be 20D buyers
>if they don't mind a slower processor,

Is there a slower precessor in 350D? I was under the impression that
there was the same DICIC II processo rin both cameras.

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.

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

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:45:32 GMT, leo <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> Is the mirror box construction on the 350D same as 20D?

No: the 350D has a pentamirror while the 20D has a pentaprism.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

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

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:04:24 GMT, leo <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
> Ben Rosengart wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:45:32 GMT, leo <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Is the mirror box construction on the 350D same as 20D?
>>
>> No: the 350D has a pentamirror while the 20D has a pentaprism.
>
> You're refering to the viewfinder. I mean the mechanism that flips the
> mirror up when you push the shutter.

Duh, I'm sorry.

> it might not be strong enough to handle 5fps.

Dpreview.com says 2.8 fps. Are you suggesting that the limiting
factor might be the mirror assembly rather than the processor? Hmm
.... the 350D's max shutter speed is 1/4000s to the 20D's 1/8000s.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:04:24 GMT, leo <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
>>Ben Rosengart wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 18:45:32 GMT, leo <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is the mirror box construction on the 350D same as 20D?
>>>
>>>No: the 350D has a pentamirror while the 20D has a pentaprism.
>>
>>You're refering to the viewfinder. I mean the mechanism that flips the
>>mirror up when you push the shutter.
>
>
> Duh, I'm sorry.
>
>
>>it might not be strong enough to handle 5fps.
>
>
> Dpreview.com says 2.8 fps. Are you suggesting that the limiting
> factor might be the mirror assembly rather than the processor? Hmm
> ... the 350D's max shutter speed is 1/4000s to the 20D's 1/8000s.

The mirror assembly has nothing to do with shutter speed. Most likely,
the shutter is the same, just slowed down in firmware.

The mirror could contribute to shutter lag (if different and slower that
the 20D's).

It's possible that the frame rate is showed down in firmware.

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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

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

In message <NfmdnVve1fUHWqnfRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

>"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>news:9CZYd.8126$oO4.3224@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Charle wrote:
>>> I wonder if the 350D comes with the lockup problems, underexposure, and
>>> the banding issues.
>
>
>> You seem to be jealous that you can't afford the lovely 20D!
>
>Well, he might be jealous but he does have a point about lockups. I have
>had 5 lockups with my new 20D and 100-400 IS lens.

Was it always with the same battery? I had my first 20D/100-400 lockups
recently, but they were all with the same old battery (which lost its
charge fairly quickly. It has only occured during one use of a specific
battery (about 4x, before I swapped the battery). After I replaced the
battery, it never happened again.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

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

http://www.bobatkins.com/photograp [...] s_20d.html

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

> The 20D has a different sensor. They are different cameras.
>

Of course they are different cameras. But it's not much that is different
except that much is less in 350D. Like 7 AF point instead of 9 in 20D, 5fps
instead of 3 etc etc...

It's all written so nice if you just read the link I posted.

PS.
Well, I could have been unclear of what I said, Read "stripped down version"
as "slim version" instead.

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

Rickard Andersson wrote:

> It's all written so nice if you just read the link I posted.

Your link is nothing but a thinly disguised SPAM effort.

--
-- 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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:05:18 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Rickard Andersson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's all written so nice if you just read the link I posted.
>>
>>Your link is nothing but a thinly disguised SPAM effort.
>
>
> Bollocks. If you hang around photo.net you'll find out who Bob Atkins
> is. Spam is not his style.

If I was wrong, I'll apologize.

However, when someone like "Richard Anderson" shows up, having never
posted on a photo usenet group, ever, and posts links to a commercial
site, twice in a row, the conclusion is hard not to come by.

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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

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

> However, when someone like "Richard Anderson" shows up, having never
> posted on a photo usenet group, ever, and posts links to a commercial
> site, twice in a row, the conclusion is hard not to come by.

Now I really don't like you!
The link I posetd first was broken, wrong, didn't work! Do you get it!? Like
in forums you can edit your message, you can't do that here! So, I posted
the (correct) link again because it had a meaning with my message, okay!? My
question is how can you have the cheek to report me for SPAMMING when you
evern know it's the first time I posty in here and don't even post me a
sipmle message telling me that YOU didn't like me when I posting a correct
link that is working HUH? tell me.... I'm already waiting...

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

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:35:16 GMT, Rickard Andersson
<rickard340112@telia.com> wrote:
>
> how can you have the cheek to report me for SPAMMING

I don't believe Alan reported you -- at least, he didn't say that he did.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

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

>
> I don't believe Alan reported you -- at least, he didn't say that he did.
>

Do you know who he is? Yes?
Then you should start and get to know him better, I received a copy of the
report - and it pissed me hell off!

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

Rickard Andersson wrote:

>>I don't believe Alan reported you -- at least, he didn't say that he did.
>>
>
>
> Do you know who he is? Yes?
> Then you should start and get to know him better, I received a copy of the
> report - and it pissed me hell off!

You should be happy I CC'd you.

Most people reporting abuse don't provide that courtesy.

I'll write them a retraction, however.

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: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

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

leo wrote:

> The OP's wondering if a hack could restore some functions of
>350D. It's clearly NO. It's a different story from 300D. Canon
>eliminated custom functions in the 300D but the core is the same as 10D.
>The hack merely enables some custom functions. 350D has its own custom
>functions. No hack can increase it's frame rates.

Since the XT is still quite new, I thought no one would have ripped and
disassembled the firmware code for the XT yet.