Cannon Digital Rebel

[Anonymous]

Every review I've read gives the d70 very high marks, and in most areas it equals or beats the 300d, except for 2 very critical areas: image quality (there's a noticeable difference, supposedly), and overall bang-for-the-buck. Nikon did a great job with the d70, and would make a freakin killing with it, except that canon's got them beat by several hundred dollars.

Between the 10D and the 300D, they're basically teh same camera except for a couple features and a heavier duty body. The 300d's body is plastic, the 10d's magnesium alloy. The 300d will burst 4 shots, the 10d something like 7 or 10. But the sensor itself, the thing that actually makes the photo, is identical between the 10d and the 300d.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, Dad dropped about a grand on the camera body (he won't tell me, I think he hides this stuff from Mom).
I think he got this either entirely on impulse, or because a friend of his has the same camera (he bought the EXACT same truck as the folks across the street from us, too - Dad's weird like that). I don't think he really researched the camera at all. That's also weird, because I researched mine literally for months before I took the plunge, and I got that personality aspect from him. :|

He's gotten some cheap lenses for it while he gets himself acquainted with the digital format. Once he's done THAT, watch OUT. The man got to study with Ansel ferchrissakes (you folks would really be amazed with his slides)!

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, Dad dropped about a grand on the camera body (he won't tell me, I think he hides this stuff from Mom). 
I think he got this either entirely on impulse, or because a friend of his has the same camera (he bought the EXACT same truck as the folks across the street from us, too - Dad's weird like that). I don't think he really researched the camera at all. That's also weird, because I researched mine literally for months before I took the plunge, and I got that personality aspect from him.  

He's gotten some cheap lenses for it while he gets himself acquainted with the digital format. Once he's done THAT, watch OUT. The man got to study with [b]Ansel[/b] ferchrissakes (you folks would really be amazed with his slides)!

Yep, your dad's kinda weird! Better than my dad; a less evil, more annoying version of myself... :roll:

8O 8O 8O Holy SMIZMAR! Ansel Adams let your dad study with him?!?!?! *faints*
*wakes up, slightly concussed from impact of head-on-floor*
I got another for ya then; my english teacher was Ansel's personal assistant/driver for when Ansel was experimenting/testing the brand new prototype Hasselblad (Spelling?)! It was like in New Mexico or Arizona or something like that... Crazy, huh?! And, he has all of these completely original, candid pictures of Ansel using the new camera! He got almost a million bucks for one for a charity benefit!

Well, I wonder what you meant by "cheap" lenses... Even the used ones Ive been looking at cost like $100 a peice or something crazy!

*sigh*

Wish my graduation money was a couple figures higher!...

 

[Anonymous]

$100/apiece is nothing, try $1500-$2000 for a lens, now that's some glass. What I mean by "cheap glass" is distortion, lack of focus, and so on. For instance, I took some macros of a portion of my boy's new mobo. I KNOW it's square, but when the shots were up on the machine, there was a nice arc to the bottom edge of the mobo. That's the cheap glass in action (however, there was no fuzzing or lack of focus at the edges).

And yeah, my dad was able to study with Adams about two years before he died. You probably already know that anyone who wanted to do this had to submit a portfolio, as well as demonstrate that they have a little more than basic knowledge of photography and techniques, including in the darkroom.

 

[Anonymous]

curvature of the frame doesn't necessarily mean cheap glass. I've seen some wicked-spendy fisheye lenses.

A more accurate description would be light falloff around the edges of the frame. That results in two distortions--uneven lighting to the frame (light in the center and dark around the edges) as well as just plain fuzziness around the edges of the frame.

 

[Anonymous]

Really?? Heh, I thought it was a sign of a flawed lens.

 

[tangir1]

Some lenses are made that way. Aspherical lens, for example. Some lenses we use in my work place are so expensive that we only can rent it. The price for a good zoom lense for an IR camera is about half a mil, and we needed several of them. An one week rental costed the company more than my salary this year.... but then, I don't make much.

Different application calls for different specification. In general, you get the best lense for the amount of money you have. It is always a compromise among different attributes of a lens, and to manager and spouse, over-spec'ed means lack of experience, while to peers, under-spec'ed means you are inferior.

 

[Anonymous]

You're right about that, tan. I did get the best camera I could afford. The lens for the Oly C-740 is built in, no body + add-on lenses. I do have an adapter tube with which I can add filters, and lenses such as telephoto, wide-angle.. oh hell, something else, too, but now I forgot.