Is Canon Rebel 350D a good SLR?
- Thread starter Meithan
- Start date
- Status
Crysalis
Systems Engineer
- Messages
- 1,675
- Location
- United States
Switch is the man to talk to.
Mr. Switch
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,841
Seriously, it all boils down to how good the camera feels in your hands, and which camera's button layout makes more sense. Does your dad have pretty big hands? If so, the Rebel isn't really a good choice unless he likes the small size.
I prefer Nikon's because they're generally larger and IMO have better ergonomics. I don't have to flip through menus just to change the common things on my D70, and I have 2 command dials on both the front and rear of the body to change aperture and shutter speed independently. Rebels have one dial that does a whole bunch of things and ultimately ends up being a bit crowded IMO, you also have to slow down and go through the LCD menu to change your WB, ISO, IQ, and other common adjustments. One of the main purposes of an SLR is the fast operation, and whatÂ’s fast about flipping through pages of menus to change your WB and ISO? On all Nikons, just hold down the ISO, WB, or IQ buttons on the back and turn the rear dial. Done.
I really like my D70s. It does 99% of what I need it to do and it feels great when I got my 80-200mm on it. I've used an XTi with the 70-200 f/2.8L and it was not fun. The balance was way off and there was no way to comfortably hold it.
The best thing you can do is go into town, go to camera shops that sell both Nikon and Canon, and actually feel, hold, and use them. DO NOT go to Best Buy or Circuit City to test them out because they have been used and abused, and have the big wire braces on them to protect against theft and they get in the way and totally alter the balance of the bodies.
Also, megapixels don't matter. My D70 will make just as good prints as an XTi. I've made 20x30 prints off my D70s and they come out stellar. I'm seriously considering printing the picture of the first boat in this thread to a 12x18. Any SLR will make an amazing image, It's mainly up to the technique of the photographer and the optics. I've made 12x18 comparison prints from a Rebel XT and my D70 and the only way you could tell a difference between the two was becuase the XT white balance was a little off because unlike most Nikon's, Canon Rebel's can't do white balance fine tuning.
And for God's sake, PLEASE DO NOT buy a silver SLR. Not only will you look rediculous, but nobody will take you seriously because of it.
I prefer Nikon's because they're generally larger and IMO have better ergonomics. I don't have to flip through menus just to change the common things on my D70, and I have 2 command dials on both the front and rear of the body to change aperture and shutter speed independently. Rebels have one dial that does a whole bunch of things and ultimately ends up being a bit crowded IMO, you also have to slow down and go through the LCD menu to change your WB, ISO, IQ, and other common adjustments. One of the main purposes of an SLR is the fast operation, and whatÂ’s fast about flipping through pages of menus to change your WB and ISO? On all Nikons, just hold down the ISO, WB, or IQ buttons on the back and turn the rear dial. Done.
I really like my D70s. It does 99% of what I need it to do and it feels great when I got my 80-200mm on it. I've used an XTi with the 70-200 f/2.8L and it was not fun. The balance was way off and there was no way to comfortably hold it.
The best thing you can do is go into town, go to camera shops that sell both Nikon and Canon, and actually feel, hold, and use them. DO NOT go to Best Buy or Circuit City to test them out because they have been used and abused, and have the big wire braces on them to protect against theft and they get in the way and totally alter the balance of the bodies.
Also, megapixels don't matter. My D70 will make just as good prints as an XTi. I've made 20x30 prints off my D70s and they come out stellar. I'm seriously considering printing the picture of the first boat in this thread to a 12x18. Any SLR will make an amazing image, It's mainly up to the technique of the photographer and the optics. I've made 12x18 comparison prints from a Rebel XT and my D70 and the only way you could tell a difference between the two was becuase the XT white balance was a little off because unlike most Nikon's, Canon Rebel's can't do white balance fine tuning.
And for God's sake, PLEASE DO NOT buy a silver SLR. Not only will you look rediculous, but nobody will take you seriously because of it.
Mr. Switch
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,841
Oh, and for God's sake, watch out for the D40. Unlike every other AF Nikon SLR ever made, the D40 will only autofocus with AF-S and AF-I lenses becuase the body doesn't have it's own AF motor.
HAVOC
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 4,217
- Location
- Milford, Connecticut
OMG Switch is going to hurt himself!!!
If you wanna hear hours and hours of Photography babble, join the ToV vent server and switch will give you plenty of thoughts and ideas about photography... BTW, he knows his stuff.
If you wanna hear hours and hours of Photography babble, join the ToV vent server and switch will give you plenty of thoughts and ideas about photography... BTW, he knows his stuff.
Thanks, Switch, and sorry for replying this late, I just got home.
First off, how do the E350D and D70 compare in price? My dad is expecting to pay some $700 (which translate to around $1000 here).
I've read a few reviews and the size/weight and menu system seem to be the more important cons of the camera. About the size issue, I guess he'd have to hold it and try it personally to see if it's really a problem.
About the menu system, and forgive my ignorance about digital SLRs, aren't there manual adjustment rings/knobs for aperture and speed? If I'm going to use the camera in manual mode, then I don't really need the menus, do I?
First off, how do the E350D and D70 compare in price? My dad is expecting to pay some $700 (which translate to around $1000 here).
I've read a few reviews and the size/weight and menu system seem to be the more important cons of the camera. About the size issue, I guess he'd have to hold it and try it personally to see if it's really a problem.
About the menu system, and forgive my ignorance about digital SLRs, aren't there manual adjustment rings/knobs for aperture and speed? If I'm going to use the camera in manual mode, then I don't really need the menus, do I?
Mr. Switch
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,841
The D50 is in that range, not sure about the Rebel or the D70s.
EDIT:
The D70s is a more expensive camera, but If you get the D70s and 18-70mm kit, than you'll be hooked up with a set up that IMO is worth the extra costs. You can also get a D80 with an 18-135mm lens, but that's getting spendy and the 18-135mm, although having some nice bokeh and great flexibility, has noticeable falloff throughout the zoom range.
I don't buy kit lenses. I don't like kit lenses, they're too slow for me and on some, the build quality just doesn't exist IMO.
IMO, ALL SLR's should have different dials for aperture and shutter speed, but some don't. On rebels, if you use manual mode, the command dial controls aperture, and you have to hold a different button and than rotate the dial again to control the shutter speed. On my D70, I can control both independently and simultaneously as well. As far as the menus go, on Rebel's, you only use those to change settings like WB, ISO, etc... not aperture and shutter speed. Nikon D70's and up have buttons on the back or top of the body for WB, QUAL, and ISO to hold, and you twist a dial on the back to change those things untill what you see on the top display is what you want, or just keep looking through the viewfinder to see what you want. That is one of the main reasons why I prefer Nikon. It's just quicker.
There is no real awnser to which one is better. It's too subjective. You need to go to a camera store, use the D50, D70, D80, and Rebel, and base your decision there. You also need to ask yourself "why am I buying an SLR?" "what limitations am I running into using what i've got now?" "will this kit satisfy my needs?" "does this camera feel better or make more sense to me than the other?" etc... I ask myself questions like that before I buy my gear because this stuff isn't exactly cheap. My 80-200mm f/2.8 cost me $935 after shipping. I needed that lens, becuase the alternative 70-300's had too slow of apertures for sports. I knew why I needed it then, I knew why I needed it in the future, and it ended up paying for itself in about 4 weeks.
I'm fed up of seeing a bunch of people buying SLR's thinking that they'll instantly be able to make better images just because it's an SLR, or becuase they want to look legit. But they didn't ask the right questions about what they needed and as a result, end up making poorer images.
EDIT:
The D70s is a more expensive camera, but If you get the D70s and 18-70mm kit, than you'll be hooked up with a set up that IMO is worth the extra costs. You can also get a D80 with an 18-135mm lens, but that's getting spendy and the 18-135mm, although having some nice bokeh and great flexibility, has noticeable falloff throughout the zoom range.
I don't buy kit lenses. I don't like kit lenses, they're too slow for me and on some, the build quality just doesn't exist IMO.
IMO, ALL SLR's should have different dials for aperture and shutter speed, but some don't. On rebels, if you use manual mode, the command dial controls aperture, and you have to hold a different button and than rotate the dial again to control the shutter speed. On my D70, I can control both independently and simultaneously as well. As far as the menus go, on Rebel's, you only use those to change settings like WB, ISO, etc... not aperture and shutter speed. Nikon D70's and up have buttons on the back or top of the body for WB, QUAL, and ISO to hold, and you twist a dial on the back to change those things untill what you see on the top display is what you want, or just keep looking through the viewfinder to see what you want. That is one of the main reasons why I prefer Nikon. It's just quicker.
There is no real awnser to which one is better. It's too subjective. You need to go to a camera store, use the D50, D70, D80, and Rebel, and base your decision there. You also need to ask yourself "why am I buying an SLR?" "what limitations am I running into using what i've got now?" "will this kit satisfy my needs?" "does this camera feel better or make more sense to me than the other?" etc... I ask myself questions like that before I buy my gear because this stuff isn't exactly cheap. My 80-200mm f/2.8 cost me $935 after shipping. I needed that lens, becuase the alternative 70-300's had too slow of apertures for sports. I knew why I needed it then, I knew why I needed it in the future, and it ended up paying for itself in about 4 weeks.
I'm fed up of seeing a bunch of people buying SLR's thinking that they'll instantly be able to make better images just because it's an SLR, or becuase they want to look legit. But they didn't ask the right questions about what they needed and as a result, end up making poorer images.
I talked to my dad and he seems convinced about the Canon 350D. He already tried the camera and liked the feel of it.
We also figured we'll probably shoot in semi-auto mode unless a particular scene requires fine tuning. It's all about priorities: shutter speed or diaphragm aperture. We thought you don't really need to adjust both, unless you wanna control field-of-depth, show/hide movement or make the shot brighter/darker than normal. You can then immediately preview your pic to judge if it's as you intended it, that's the beauty of digital cameras.
We also figured we'll probably shoot in semi-auto mode unless a particular scene requires fine tuning. It's all about priorities: shutter speed or diaphragm aperture. We thought you don't really need to adjust both, unless you wanna control field-of-depth, show/hide movement or make the shot brighter/darker than normal. You can then immediately preview your pic to judge if it's as you intended it, that's the beauty of digital cameras.
Mr. Switch
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,841
i dont' know if you got my edit, but whatever. the sprinkler shot i have here wasn't at the "correct" aperture/shutter speed combination. I think the "correct" exposure was at 1/4000 at f/2.8. I took my D70 into manual mode by turing the top dial, and quickly made the adjustment to 1/8000th of a second at f/8 to make sure that I don't blow out the highlights of the water comming from the sprinklers. The image straight from the camera was almost pitch black on the LCD in the bright sun except for the spot of the water in the far sprinklers. On my computer I adjusted the shadows in Camera RAW and was able to create the final image you see there by fine-tuning the levels, dodging and burning in the appopriate places, adding a subtle vignette, and cloning out what wasn't needed.
That was an example of when Manual mode is neccesary. Other than that, I shoot in Aperture priority 90% of the time.
That was an example of when Manual mode is neccesary. Other than that, I shoot in Aperture priority 90% of the time.
I posted my last reply before you edited, so I just read it now.
You make good points, of course. I know enough about SLRs to take decent pictures with one, and my father is an amateur photographer. I learned with his old Pentax SLR, but it's old and barely working now. Digital is the way to go.
Now, I agree with you: SLRs are not about taking better pictures - that's too subjective to even define, and people expecting this from a SLR will be disappointed. In my opinion, it's about being able to control how the camera images the picture you have in mind, in order for the final photo to look as you want, at least within the capacity of the device. SLR cameras are just much more capable of delivering this than any point-and-shoot.
That was just rambling, lol
. I think the whole point is that, as you said, semi-auto mode (such as aperture priority) is good enough for 90% of the shots. For the other 10%, it's nice to be able to quickly set all the parameters, but if I have to spend 5-10 more seconds doing it, it won't really matter: the shot is worth it, and you'll end up taking it many times anyway.
So it's really a matter of commodity vs price, again. My father tends to go for price, hehe.
It's freaking 5am so I might not be making much sense. I apologize in advance.
PS: that sprinkler shot is awesome, btw.
You make good points, of course. I know enough about SLRs to take decent pictures with one, and my father is an amateur photographer. I learned with his old Pentax SLR, but it's old and barely working now. Digital is the way to go.
Now, I agree with you: SLRs are not about taking better pictures - that's too subjective to even define, and people expecting this from a SLR will be disappointed. In my opinion, it's about being able to control how the camera images the picture you have in mind, in order for the final photo to look as you want, at least within the capacity of the device. SLR cameras are just much more capable of delivering this than any point-and-shoot.
That was just rambling, lol
. I think the whole point is that, as you said, semi-auto mode (such as aperture priority) is good enough for 90% of the shots. For the other 10%, it's nice to be able to quickly set all the parameters, but if I have to spend 5-10 more seconds doing it, it won't really matter: the shot is worth it, and you'll end up taking it many times anyway. So it's really a matter of commodity vs price, again. My father tends to go for price, hehe.
It's freaking 5am so I might not be making much sense. I apologize in advance.
PS: that sprinkler shot is awesome, btw.
- Status
