Canon ..... EOS 300 D vs XT ( 350 D )

11/25/2005 02:23:53 PM · #1

i'm finally buying the rebel, but now i'm wondering if its really worth the extra bux to get the new XT/350D .. and what seperates it from its successor the Canon EOS digital rebel 300 D... i really could use your input on this... any help is appreciated...
...i'm really a beginner here but what is basicly the difference between the 18-55 mm lense and other lenses of longer focal length... thanx

Message edited by author 2005-11-25 14:26:55.

modprod

11/25/2005 02:27:25 PM · #2

Buy the 350D.Even just for the 8 megapixels,AF servo and smaller size and weight.I love mine.

11/25/2005 02:30:14 PM · #3

Youll be happy with either, Id suggest you go to the store and try out both of them as the main turnoff to me with the 350D is the size, but the fast startup time and more pixels are appealing.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

11/25/2005 02:41:36 PM · #4

350xt without question. It wakes up virtually instantaneously when you turn it on, it has much less noise and a higher useable ISO, and it has better autofocus and WB performance, to name just a few advantages. It's a much better platform on which to build IMO.

R.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/25/2005 02:45:20 PM · #5

To continue on Bear's stuff, it's also got a larger buffer, so you can take more pictures in burst mode without having to sit and wait for the pictures to be written, and it's got a faster frames per second as well (I believe)

It also accepts the EFS canon lens series, which has its' own advantages, and the 300 doesn't

bucket

Canon EOS-30D

11/25/2005 02:48:33 PM · #6

Originally posted by bear_music:

those are great reasons no doubt..but make sure you are comfortable holding it..
personally I hated the feel, my hands felt crowded..i would just rather save and make the leap to the 20D
the 300D is a great camera, especially if you are a beginner..

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

11/25/2005 02:51:46 PM · #7

Originally posted by pidge:

300D does accept EF-S lenses.

Steve

11/25/2005 03:00:34 PM · #8

what about the 18-55 mm lense ... is that a good lense, what are its disadvantages... i also like taking pictures with a shallow depth of field .. will i be able to do that with this lense .. for instance if i'm shooting an object 2-3 meters away from the camera, with its wideest apperature will i be able to throw the background out of focus... cuz if this lense is not the right one then i would probably invest more in a better lense than a camera.

pidge

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

11/25/2005 03:03:50 PM · #9

Originally posted by rami:

Personally, I like the lens. Maybe browse through this gallery and see what you think?

11/25/2005 03:15:48 PM · #10

18-55 is a great lense, get the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 (if your rich) these lenses are sharp and ideal for throwing the background out.

My Tamron 17-35 2.8-3.5 isnt that much better than the 18-55, so ive concluded if you want to upgrade the kit lense get either the EF 17-40L or the EF-S 17-85 IS but these are both expensive options and arent going to help you throw out the backgound

11/25/2005 03:29:06 PM · #11

to my understanding the 18 mm gives ya a good wide angle and the 55 a good zoom ?.. is that correct...

11/25/2005 03:36:12 PM · #12

If your like me youll never get wide enough and the 55 is sufficent for portraits etc but not a tele. The problem I found is its expensive to get a good wide angle lense like the EF-S 10-22.

If you go to the canon, Tamron or Sigma website/s you can see a focal length comparison

11/25/2005 03:43:54 PM · #13

Originally posted by rami:

to my understanding the 18 mm gives ya a good wide angle and the 55 a good zoom ?.. is that correct...

If you're familiar with 35mm film cameras (the normal "benchmark" for how wide a lens is), then on these cameras the 18-55 is the equivalent of 29-88mm on the 35mm format. 28mm is on the narrow end of wide, about the same as your average point and shoot camera in terms of angular coverage. 88mm is not much reach at all, your average point and shoot will zoom longer than that. So it's sort of a mid-range lens. Nothing wrong with that, of course.

R.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/25/2005 04:22:45 PM · #14

thanx alot :) ...

Derf

Canon EOS-7D

11/26/2005 12:23:15 AM · #15

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by rami:
to my understanding the 18 mm gives ya a good wide angle and the 55 a good zoom ?.. is that correct...

..........18-55 is the equivalent of 29-88mm on the 35mm format............R.

Um, The Canon 18-55 that came with my rebel XT is an EFS lens and is really 18-55 and not 29-88mm like you said because it is made for the 1.6 crop of the sensor.

I would think of this lens as being your typical 3x zoom digital lens. It is very close to most of them.

The real lens will you are asking about $90 bucks and blur everything in sight!
The 50MM 1.8 is awesome for a shallow depth of field. If you take a close picture of a couple, one of their faces is usualy out of focus if left at 1.8!!

EDIT: The 50mm Canon lens is not an EF-S lens but an EF lens so the lens will act like an 80MM on the DRebles.
A nice shot with the 50MM 1.8 on the Drebel XT

Message edited by author 2005-11-26 00:27:42.

11/26/2005 12:48:02 AM · #16

Originally posted by Derf:

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by rami:
to my understanding the 18 mm gives ya a good wide angle and the 55 a good zoom ?.. is that correct...

..........18-55 is the equivalent of 29-88mm on the 35mm format............R.

Um, The Canon 18-55 that came with my rebel XT is an EFS lens and is really 18-55 and not 29-88mm like you said because it is made for the 1.6 crop of the sensor.

I would think of this lens as being your typical 3x zoom digital lens. It is very close to most of them.

The real lens will you are asking about $90 bucks and blur everything in sight!
The 50MM 1.8 is awesome for a shallow depth of field. If you take a close picture of a couple, one of their faces is usualy out of focus if left at 1.8!!

EDIT: The 50mm Canon lens is not an EF-S lens but an EF lens so the lens will act like an 80MM on the DRebles.
A nice shot with the 50MM 1.8 on the Drebel XT

I want your EF-S 18-55 cause my EF-S 18-55 definently is affected by the 1.6X crop like bear said. Yes it is made for the 1.6 Sensors but this still makes it a 29-88. A side by side comparion with my 17-35 can easily prove that.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/26/2005 01:29:07 AM · #17

Originally posted by Derf:

Yes, of course it's "really" 18-55mm. All lenses are "really" what they are. But the smaller the sensor, the longer the effective focal length of a lens. For example, on a 4x5 inch view camera (the films are 4x5 inches in size) a 70mm lens is a fairly extreme wide angle lens, the equivalent of about a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera.

A "regular" Canon lens can be used on any of the Canon 35mm or digital SLR cameras. The angular coverage of the image decreases (the lens becomes more of a "telephoto") as the sensor gets smaller. Just mentally overlap the full frame sensor with the APC, 1.6 crop sensor and you'll see that the APC sensor is effectively cropping towards the center of the full frame image. The lenses are designed to cover a large enough image cricle that you can fit a ful-frame sensor within it.

The EF-S Canon lenses, on the other hand, are optically engineered specifically for APC sensors and the image circle they project is smaller. If you were able to mount them on a FF camera, you'd get radical vignetting in the corner. But all of this is by way of getting rid of unused image circle, basically; it has no effect on what's IN the part of the image circle being used.

R.

Makka

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/26/2005 01:42:40 AM · #18

The only thing that turned me off upgrading to the 350 was the fact that the batteries are different. I have 6 batteries here which suit both my 300D and my G2 and it meant that if I upgraded and kept the 300D as a backup camera all of a sudden I'm having to buy a heap of new different type of batteries. I'm just gonna get a 20D or similar when I can afford it!

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/26/2005 01:48:37 AM · #19

Originally posted by Makka:

Yeah, that's very strange; 300D and 20D use same battery, 350D a different one. I suppose it has to do with the smaller body size of the 350D.

R.

Makka

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/26/2005 04:42:09 AM · #20

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by Makka:
The only thing that turned me off upgrading to the 350 was the fact that the batteries are different. I have 6 batteries here which suit both my 300D and my G2 and it meant that if I upgraded and kept the 300D as a backup camera all of a sudden I'm having to buy a heap of new different type of batteries. I'm just gonna get a 20D or similar when I can afford it!

Yeah, that's very strange; 300D and 20D use same battery, 350D a different one. I suppose it has to do with the smaller body size of the 350D.

R.

Yeah, I guess it does. It's a real shame though cause now that means I have to do a few more weddings to save a few more $$$! :(

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

11/26/2005 04:53:04 AM · #21

Originally posted by Makka:

Yeah, I guess it does. It's a real shame though cause now that means I have to do a few more weddings to save a few more $$$! :(

I donno. I can't speak for the 350D, but the 20D has amazingly long battery life. I charge my battery every 2 weeks or so whether it needs it or not. I actually have a backup battery, a friend sold his 300D and had a spare battery he gave me, but I've never actually needed the battery in the field. If I used the on-camera flash much I might need it, but I have an external flash that has its own batteries. I shot a wedding as a favor last week and did several hundred images without even putting the battery down to half charge. So it may not be as big an issue as you think.

Robt.

Steveinnz

Canon EOS-60D

11/26/2005 05:04:40 AM · #22

The battery life is amazing! I have a couple of spares but I never use them. Even using the flash a lot it does not seem to flatten the battery anything like my old 300D did.
I found the 350 felt arkward to hold at first but now love the feel and the lighter weight. I tried my old 300d again, it felt huge, prefer the 350 to use now.
I suppose you get comfortable with what you have.

Makka

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

11/26/2005 06:22:18 AM · #23

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by Makka:
Yeah, I guess it does. It's a real shame though cause now that means I have to do a few more weddings to save a few more $$$! :(

I donno. I can't speak for the 350D, but the 20D has amazingly long battery life. I charge my battery every 2 weeks or so whether it needs it or not. I actually have a backup battery, a friend sold his 300D and had a spare battery he gave me, but I've never actually needed the battery in the field. If I used the on-camera flash much I might need it, but I have an external flash that has its own batteries. I shot a wedding as a favor last week and did several hundred images without even putting the battery down to half charge. So it may not be as big an issue as you think.

Robt.

When I've shot roller skating championships here in Perth my camera is pretty much on 6 - 8 hours straight. I run the battery grip so use 2 batteries at a time but, even though the batteries DO run for a damn long time, I find usually I change them atleast once doing these shoots. I've never had to change them whilst doing a wedding yet. But I usually give my 2500 Mha NiMh batteries in my 420ex a change during that time! But I'd rather have too many batteries than not enough. I was in a lucky position that I worked in a camera store so I got them pretty cheap! :)

Keith Maniac