[gringottsdirect]

Hi,
Thanks to witters Canon 350D/Card/Bag bargain thread
Bargain Alert: Canon EOS350D! tempted to change to digital from 35mm.
I have held back so far although nearly bought a Canon 300D last year, the 350D looks like just what I need. The reason I still use 35mm is that when I have 7" x 5" prints from Boots from my 5 megapixel Ricoh Caplio GX they are not as good as the prints made from 35mm.
My only requirement is to capture motorsport images, F1, touring cars, bikes and general travel photography - taking the media card to Boots to print out 7" x 5" to place into photo albums. I have no interest in manipulating images on PC - but I like the idea of watching a slide show through my TV from the media card.
Am I correct in thinking the Canon 350D can equal the picture quality of 35mm negatives when making 7" x 5" prints ?

[Radiohead]

What appeals about the 350D in particular? The Nikon D70 18-70 DX kit can be had for under £600 and has a far, far better lens in the kit.

I had this very debate last week and found the 350D too small and a little lightweight, although the images were very good indeed. The D70 felt, to me, an altogether more serious piece of kit, particularly as the DX lens retails at £300 on its own.

If you haven't invested in a brand and are open to which way you go then you should also consider the D70. IMO, of course.

[dolph]

Originally Posted by gringottsdirect

Hi,
Thanks to witters Canon 350D/Card/Bag bargain thread
Bargain Alert: Canon EOS350D! tempted to change to digital from 35mm.
I have held back so far although nearly bought a Canon 300D last year, the 350D looks like just what I need. The reason I still use 35mm is that when I have 7" x 5" prints from Boots from my 5 megapixel Ricoh Caplio GX they are not as good as the prints made from 35mm.
My only requirement is to capture motorsport images, F1, touring cars, bikes and general travel photography - taking the media card to Boots to print out 7" x 5" to place into photo albums. I have no interest in manipulating images on PC - but I like the idea of watching a slide show through my TV from the media card.
Am I correct in thinking the Canon 350D can equal the picture quality of 35mm negatives when making 7" x 5" prints ?

No digital camera can obviously match the resoltuin of film, however a good 5 megapixel camera should be good enough at 7x5 to make it almost indistinguishable - I'd suggest that perhaps the digital vs film aspect of is less of an issue and perhaps you just prefer to images you get from your 35mm to your digital camera - have you tried other 5 megapixel cameras to see if they give a better result?

[gringottsdirect]

Radiohead,
I looked at the Nikon D70 - it is impressive. I am not too worried about switching from Canon as despite having my A1 SLR since 1982 - I only have two lenses - a Canon 50mm f1.4 and Canon 100 - 300mm zoom.
I like the 350D because it is smaller and lighter - and because it has 8.2 megapixels. Although I do take on board the wisdom that a heavier - more substantial body is possibly desirable, and also that more megapixels isn't a guarantee of better performance. I hoped the 350D would be a reasonable compromise.
If I buy a Nikon SLR I will buy a Nikon 300mm lens. If I buy a 350D then I will probably buy a new Canon 100 - 300mm USM Image Stabilising lens anyway, so not much in it.

Andrew,
I haven't tried prints from other 5 megapixel cameras - but previously I had a 3 megapixel Sony camera - the Ricoh pictures are better.
Although my requirements are pretty basic - the prints from digital are not as clear as from 35mm - the detail is slightly digitised if that makes sense.

My other alternative is to buy a new 35mm SLR instead but honestly - film just seems so old fashioned now - if the results from either a Nikon D70 or Canon 350D were as good then I would definitely fancy digital instead of film.

Thanks both.

[Radiohead]

Sounds like you've given it some thought - I would say that the amount of press and other pros who no longer use film would suggest that digital is good enough now. Remember that SLR's have far bigger sensors than compacts anyway, and that with 7x5 prints the small advantage that 8MP in a DSLR vs 6.1MP for the D70 will be negligible if noticeable at all.

The 350D is a lovely camera, but for me the D70 won the contest. You might come down on the other side of course, and either of the 2 will give you superb results.

[severnsource]

Can't comment on the 350D yet, but I would expect to get perfectly acceptable small prints from any decent camera with more than 3M pixels. From your comment about digitised images it sounds as if either the Ricoh has a poor compression algorithm, the compression setting is to high or the Boots printing process is not very good. The digital SLRs allow you to save images with no compression, so you shouldn't get that sort of processing artifact.

As a long term 35mm user and digital camera sceptic I was converted after I bought Lynne and HP compact digicam 4 years ago. The resolution isn't as good as 35mm but as a general purpose point and shoot camera the advantages of instant feedback and ease of image access, post processing etc mean that we have done very little 35mm photography recently.

Of course, as you are happy with your current set up, the logical thing to do is to wait a bit longer. It seems likely that digital cameras will follow the same course as other electronic kit; the will improve and get more affordable whilst photographic consumables will get more expensive as the market shrinks. In a few years I would expect digital cameras to be better than 35mm and a similar price to 35mm cameras today.

Not that logic has anything to do with buying things!

Bill

[RobertP]

Originally Posted by severnsource

Can't comment on the 350D yet, but I would expect to get perfectly acceptable small prints from any decent camera with more than 3M pixels. From your comment about digitised images it sounds as if either the Ricoh has a poor compression algorithm, the compression setting is to high or the Boots printing process is not very good.

I have to agree something is not right here. I just went and looked again at some 10" x 8" landscape prints from my old 5MP Olympus camera and there is no pixellation at all.

We have photo albums of 7x5" prints some from film and some from digital. No one that looks through them can tell which source they are from.

You can probably get an adaptor off of ebay to use your old lenses on a Canon Dslr - manual function.

[Johndm]

Originally Posted by gringottsdirect

Hi,
Thanks to witters Canon 350D/Card/Bag bargain thread
Bargain Alert: Canon EOS350D! tempted to change to digital from 35mm.
I have held back so far although nearly bought a Canon 300D last year, the 350D looks like just what I need. The reason I still use 35mm is that when I have 7" x 5" prints from Boots from my 5 megapixel Ricoh Caplio GX they are not as good as the prints made from 35mm.
My only requirement is to capture motorsport images, F1, touring cars, bikes and general travel photography - taking the media card to Boots to print out 7" x 5" to place into photo albums. I have no interest in manipulating images on PC - but I like the idea of watching a slide show through my TV from the media card.
Am I correct in thinking the Canon 350D can equal the picture quality of 35mm negatives when making 7" x 5" prints ?

The general idea when using a DSLR is to manipulate images to some degree on a PC, thats why Canon supply Photoshop elements 2 with the camera.

Compact cameras process images within the camera to a higher degree to allow you to take your card straight to Boots for prints.

My 'old' 300D will produce A4 size prints that will blow away any 35mm film shots....pro stuff excluded.

From my experiance with slideshows, straight from the card DSLR images will probably look too dark on a tv, so again, some manipulating then burning to DVD is the best way to go

[Johndm]

Originally Posted by RobertP

I have to agree something is not right here. I just went and looked again at some 10" x 8" landscape prints from my old 5MP Olympus camera and there is no pixellation at all.

We have photo albums of 7x5" prints some from film and some from digital. No one that looks through them can tell which source they are from.

You can probably get an adaptor off of ebay to use your old lenses on a Canon Dslr - manual function.

Older Canon FD lenses are completly incompatable with the newer EF type, no adaptation is possible

[RobertP]

Originally Posted by Johndm

Older Canon FD lenses are completly incompatable with the newer EF type, no adaptation is possible

According to this article Canon made 2 types of FD to EOS adaptors.

There are simple adaptors on ebay such as this

There are also adaptors to mount most other lens makes onto a EOS.

[tomson]

Originally Posted by RobertP

There are simple adaptors on ebay such as this
.

the adaptors don't allow autofocusing, there are issues with metering and you lose about 2/3 of a stop too so they're going to be a compromise rather than a solution.

[owain_thomas]

I've got a nikon D70 and am very, very pleased with it. So far the only prints I have done have been 12"x8" and I defy any one to see any digital artifacts on them, to my mind they are easily the equal of similar sized prints I have seen from 35mm cameras.

The point that Radiohead made about sensor size is important, it means that (due to its larger sensor) a DSLR will produce much better quality pictures than a point and shoot with a similar number of megapixels.

I've held a 300D and found that it doesn't really compare favourably to my nikon D70, AFAIK the 350D is pretty similar to the 300D. For this reason the D70 would get my vote, despite the 350D having a few more megapixels. Either way I'm sure you'd be happy with the printed results at the size you're looking for and probably a bit bigger too.

HTH
owain

[RobertP]

Originally Posted by tomson

the adaptors don't allow autofocusing, there are issues with metering and you lose about 2/3 of a stop too so they're going to be a compromise rather than a solution.

I said manual in my first post. My film SLR was manual so I don't mind manual focusing and sometimes turn AF off on my lenses. The OP has a 50mm 1.4 which would cost £200+ to replace with EF. If I had that lens I would want to see if I could get some use from it.

I have been using a manual lens on my 20D (not a Canon lens) with an adaptor and the metering is spot on in aperture priority mode.

[Johndm]

Originally Posted by RobertP

According to this article Canon made 2 types of FD to EOS adaptors.

There are simple adaptors on ebay such as this

There are also adaptors to mount most other lens makes onto a EOS.

Apologies mate...

I stand corrected....

[lurcher]

[QUOTE=Radiohead]What appeals about the 350D in particular? The Nikon D70 18-70 DX kit can be had for under £600 and has a far, far better lens in the kit.

Hi,
Looking to purchase a Nikon D70 as above , can you point me in the direction of suppliers at that price ?

TIA

[Radiohead]

As easy as going to Jessops - a number of branches are selling at £699 and those that aren't will price-match it. Add in the £100 from Nikon as cashback that's been extended until the end of April and Robert's your Mother's brother.

[lurcher]

Thanks for the quick reply it just happens I have a Jessops card and my son has a Nikon F80 SLR with lens/flash that may be compatable with the D70.
Going to look at the Canon 350 as well.

[Radiohead]

Let us know how you get on

[witters]

I thought Robert was your mother's (or father's) brother

[Radiohead]

ahem

[lurcher]

Well Radiohead I went to Jessops and handled both cameras and it was the Nikon that felt right for me. Now getting to grips with it.
Thanks for the advice.

[Radiohead]

Likewise here - picked up a 70-300 lens this weekend, and have a 50mm prime on order.

It's a slippery slope this SLR game.

:D

[lurcher]

Just so I now what its going to cost me lol, whats the spec and cost of the 2 lenses you mention ?

[Radiohead]

The 70-300 is the lesser G model from the Nikkor range and Jessops price-matched that down to £80 from £120. RRP is £160 and it's pretty decent - a little soft over 220mm but for the money surprisingly capable. If I find myself doing a lot of telephoto then I'll think about going for the ED version which is £250 or so, but as a starter lens the G is good enough for me. If I do find it lacking when I give it a better run out next weekend then I will take it back for the ED version.

The 50mm prime is a fast little lens at f/1.8 and Onestop Digital in HK are offering that for £70 delivered with a no VAT promise. Otherwise it can be had for £100 online. I'm getting this because I do a fair amount of low-light indoor shots of my daughter and it should be good for that purpose and is cheap to buy.

I'm a massive fan of macro so am also thinking about the new Tamron 90mm 1:1 Macro lens but that's a couple of months away while I save some cash - £250 or so for that.

[lurcher]

Thanks for that.

[owain_thomas]

...then I will take it back for the ED version.

Hi Radiohead, be careful about this, I've read that the ED version of this lens is not much more than a marketing ploy, IIRC only one of the lens elements is actually ED coated and there is little to tell between that and what you have now in terms of quality. Might be worth getting a trial of one first to see what you think.

Have a look at the always outspoken ken rockwell's review here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300af.htm

I've got one of the 70-300 G's and I've got to say I'm very pleased with the quality too, amazing really considering how little it costs, like you I may well upgrade in time but for now it'll do me fine.

HTH
owain

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by owain_thomas

Hi Radiohead, be careful about this, I've read that the ED version of this lens is not much more than a marketing ploy, IIRC only one of the lens elements is actually ED coated and there is little to tell between that and what you have now in terms of quality. Might be worth getting a trial of one first to see what you think.

Have a look at the always outspoken ken rockwell's review here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70300af.htm

I've got one of the 70-300 G's and I've got to say I'm very pleased with the quality too, amazing really considering how little it costs, like you I may well upgrade in time but for now it'll do me fine.

HTH
owain

Funny you should say that Owain, as I was reading something else saying this today. It does look like only one of the elements is ED and the lens is actually a Tamron anyway.

I've spent some more time this afternoon with the 70-300 G and I'm perfectly happy with it. It's good enough for me for a good while yet, so no move to the ED. For £80 it was an absolute steal, especially as Winchester Photographic have it in the window for £149.99