Flutterby™! : EOS-300D

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics


2003-08-20 22:14:52.418177+00 by Dan Lyke 10 comments

Whoah! Digital Photography Review reprints Canon EOS-300D press release (Via Jerry Kindall). 3072 x 2048. EOS mount lenses. $900.

The 6.3 Megapixel CMOS sensor is almost identical to that found in the EISA award-winning EOS 10D which remains the benchmark for image quality.

Which means that it'll be pretty much totally noise free at ISO200.

[ related topics: Photography Current Events Cool Technology ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: EOS-300D made: 2003-08-21 00:12:39.197401+00 by: ebradway

Ok... So maybe I'm not going to Austin with you. That looks like a better use of my funds! Under $1K for a CCD camera back, and at 6.3Mpix! Woohoo!

#Comment Re: EOS-300D made: 2003-08-21 03:33:23.743207+00 by: Dan Lyke

Remember to budget for the lenses...

#Comment Re: EOS-300D made: 2003-08-21 18:39:42.783131+00 by: Jerry Kindall

I'd spring for the $400 28-135mm zoom with image stabilization. ;)

I'm really torn between this an the new Sony.

Pros for the Canon over Sony:

  1. Low noise
  2. Lots of manual features
  3. Interchangeable lenses
  4. Good depth-of-field control
  5. Probably better built than the Sony

Cons for the Canon vs. Sony:

  1. LCD can't be used to preview your shot, you have to use the viewfinder (Sony has electronic viewfinder and the LCD can be swiveled, very handy)
  2. Only 6 megapixels vs. Sony's 8 (might make up for it with lower noise)
  3. Fast lenses for the Canon are expensive, the Sony has a nice fast lens

All in all I think I'll wait to see samples from the Sony and Phil Askey's review of both cameras before deciding.

#Comment Re: [Entry #6456] EOS-300D made: 2003-08-21 23:01:03.70413+00 by: Shawn

So, I haven't looked at high-end digital cameras yet (and this is still out of my price range), but does this use special lenses or can it take any 35mm? The press release seems to be implying it needs special lenses (although states there are 60 models to chose from).

#Comment Re: [Entry #6456] Re: EOS-300D made: 2003-08-21 23:06:04.17407+00 by: Shawn

What "noise" are you guys referring to? Is this noise in the image, or some kind of actual auditory issue?

#Comment Re: EOS-300D made: 2003-08-22 00:51:46.435399+00 by: Pete

Think of "noise" as the digital camera's counterpart (I soooo wanted to call it the "analog") to grain in film. The digital cameras will always produce and record random electronic fluctuations on their sensors. The more light you give the sensor, the higher the ratio is between the real data (the picture you want) and the noise that gets recorded along with it. So the higher "ISO film speed" you tell the camera to pretend it has (yes, you really do set that), the less light it's using to build the image, making the real signal the light produces weaker and therefore making the omnipresent electronic noise on the sensor more apparent by giving it less real data to be overwhelmed by.

I'm sure there's a better way to explain it, but that's the best that's coming to me right now.

#Comment Re: EOS-300D made: 2003-08-22 00:52:31.619896+00 by: Dan Lyke

Image noise. Kinda like film grain, but not. It's especially noticeable in dark regions of the image with higher sensitivities turned on, do a search for comparisons of the D60 to the 10D and you should be able to find examples.

And, what interests me about this body is that it takes standard Canon EOS mount 35mm lenses. What was confusing about the article is that the specific lens they're packaging with the camera (and Jerry's right, I'd go for the 28-135IS instead) extends back from the mount and probably has limited coverage area in a way that will make it not work with most of the 35mm bodies. The lens they were selling for the EOS mount body which took that funky Kodak replacement to 110 film had the same issue, you'd get circles on a full 35mm frame.

#Comment Re: EOS-300D made: 2003-08-22 17:39:41.04081+00 by: baylink

Can *someone* tell me why in hell it seems only to be the top of line models that they can' be bothered to put a 24x36mm sensor on? Wide angle lenses are expensive *enough*...

#Comment Re: EOS-300D made: 2003-08-22 18:50:35.221599+00 by: Dan Lyke

'cause sensor yield rates are related to area? If Aaron's still around maybe he can pipe in with some notes on silicon yields.

It doesn't solve all the problems, and yes, I miss that my 17-35 becomes a rather mundate 27-56 equivalent, but the Canon cameras do come with an okay panorama stitcher.

#Comment Re: EOS-300D made: 2003-08-23 17:04:38.300956+00 by: Jerry Kindall

I found that Outpost.com has the 10D for a mere $1299 now, about $200 less than other reputable dealers are selling it for. That puts it about $400 more than the 300D. Hmm, hmm, hmm.

Actually, I have found in the past that when buying a digital camera, it's usually cheaper to buy from a reputable computer retailer than a reputable camera retailer. I got a Coolpix 800 back in the day from Mac Zone for $450 when other retailers were charging about $600 (admittedly, they were having a 10% off promotion, but it was still $100 cheaper before that.) I have no idea why this would be the case except that perhaps computer retailers are used to making slim-ish margins on hardware.