The smaller sensors on Canon cameras are APS-H (1.3x) and APS-C (1.6x). The 350D, 400D, 30D, 40D etc... have APS-C sensors (hence they can take the EF-S lenses) while the low-end professional line (the 1D series) has the APS-H. Only the top of the line professional cameras (the 1Ds series) and the 5D have full-frame sensors.
The smaller sensors on Canon cameras are APS-H (1.3x) and APS-C (1.6x). The 350D, 400D, 30D, 40D etc... have APS-C sensors (hence they can take the EF-S lenses) while the low-end professional line (the 1D series) has the APS-H. Only the top of the line professional cameras (the 1Ds series) and the 5D have full-frame sensors.
ok, looks like i'll be getting the 400D, saw a kit of it on amazon, all adding up to £385...Also my uncle is a professional photographist, and he lives only down the road....so he can help me out 
Well, if you want to ignore all the advice in this thread then by all means go for it. I assume your uncle also uses Canon equipment? If you're going to expect help from him, it's probably worth going with the same brand as he uses.
Bear in mind that the standard 400D kit doesn't come with a memory card. You'll need to buy a CF card seperately. A case might be also be a good idea unless you want to leave your £400 camera sitting around loose.
Why get the 400D?, you can get a 350D (almost the same camera) for a lot less, trust me, it will suit you for everything you will ever need.
My 350D is a great camera, and I can't see any real reasons (yet) to upgrade to the 400D.
My 350D is a great camera, and I can't see any real reasons (yet) to upgrade to the 400D.
Doesn't he ALWAYS?
Guys, you knew this would happen. He's 13, he knows better than all of you, despite his lack of experience, knowledge or common sense, and irrelevant of how many (a surprising number) decent photographers we have here.
He'd probably already decided what he was gonna get before he posted his first question. He does it because he's rich and bored.
He'll take a load of pics with it for a few days (most of them will be of random crap) and then the camera will get discarded, forgotten about and stuck in a drawer somewhere. Or broken when he tries to get a motion blur effect out a car window or something.
He'd probably already decided what he was gonna get before he posted his first question. He does it because he's rich and bored.
He'll take a load of pics with it for a few days (most of them will be of random crap) and then the camera will get discarded, forgotten about and stuck in a drawer somewhere. Or broken when he tries to get a motion blur effect out a car window or something.
They do indeed. It's also the reason I consider any Canon or Nikon to be a waste of money.
The Alpha bodies are good value, although the Sony lenses tend to be expensive. However the only thing that makes it more expensive is not the Sony name - the A100 is essentially a Minolta 5D MkII, and comes with all the Minolta ergonomics and advantages that characterised Minotas digital SLRs.
Yes, if you have Minolta A-mount lenses, they will work on the Sony. Best of all, Minolta lenses can be had cheap on ebay, although the 2nd hand prices are steadily going up as Sony increases their market share and the proportion of A-mount users increases.
Well, I might be a little biased, as I have a Sony A100 and frankly wouldn't choose any other "entry level" DSLR. I use the term "entry level" loosely as all of these low-end DSLRs are capable of highly professional results in the right hands. The A100 resolves more detail at low ISO than any other camera in it's class (and most of those costing twice as much, too). This leads to fantastic image quality at low ISO, and it also has in-body image stabilisation, incredible battery life, brilliant ergonomics and intuitive controls (I've had to look at the manual about twice in over a year), wireless flash capability out of the box, and renders some very nice colours imho.
Whatever the differences between Sony and Olympus' cleaning systems (I have embarassingly little knowledge of the whole Olympus camera system despite being a keen photographer), the Sony's certainly works. I've noticed a couple of spots on an image before, then next time I've switched the camera off and on again, and they're gone. Only once have I had to resort to using the rocket blower to dislodge some dust.
Also note that if you're comparing the Sony at dpreview to their other reviews, be aware that there are several glaring omissions and inaccurate statements in the A100 review, which have steadily remained uncorrected despite repeated complaints about them from the Minolta/Sony community.
Personally I find the dpreview analysis useful for comparing absolute image quality, but more and more irrelevant as I've become more experienced/involved with photography. Imo it's far more important how a camera feels, responds and performs in real life, on real assignments or in real situations, rather than test shots of charts and bottles.Although of course, most of this thread is redundant now anyway since harjun decided to ignore the cries of "an SLR isn't what you're looking for" and get one regardless. Who'd have thought, huh?
If you are right than nothing to say about it
Just out of interest, how effective is the in-body stabilisation? I've often heard that it's not as good as in-lens stabilisation.
That's pretty much bullshit, tbh. I'd never, ever buy a camera body without inbody stabilisation. It's a bit like having aircon in a car. Once you've had it, you just can't go without it.
Or put it this way - in-body routinely provides me with a couple of stops slower shutter speed that I can safely get with it turned off. And the killer fact is that every lens is stabilised. Including cheap primes off ebay.
Naturally it's not much use for, say, a studio photographer. And a sports photog with a long fast lens is probably better off using a monopod than any kind of stabilisation. But for everyday photography (walkaround, candids, family, etc) then having every lens stabilised in-body is just unbeatable imho.
that's a great point, and a point that i'm slowly beginning to realize the more i research camera bodies. some bodies seem to be able to handle certain situations better than other, and some have more features than other, and they all the ones i've seriously looked have been capable of taking high quality pictures, but not all the cameras have the same availability of lenses.
last night i started looking at lens options more seriously, and it might end up leading me to a different camera than i was initially thinking.
i've found the last 2 pages far more informative than the first 2
Hey, look at the bright side, at least this thread is full of useful information if someone else is looking into buy a dSLR.
@STROBE, well hey if the Sony Alpha turns you on, go for it.
I landed up going the Nikon route for many reasons. Nikon is extremely well known, and has fantastic lenses out there for vvvvery cheap, and they also support lenses from back in the 50s!
Yes Canon makes very good lenses, very fast lenses too, but at a very unaffordable price for a college bound student.
I really don't mind having to put up with sensor dust, I usually don't have problems but.. someone... won't say names here, played with my camera and put a lens on the way an idiot would, instead of doing how I said because she "didn't know how it went on", so she held the camera directly upwards and let all the dust in it.. yea I was mad.
Luckily I came home, got a good cue tip (not suggested though), used firefox's about:blank for my white backdrop, took my manual 50mm 1.8, took it down to 22 and just let her rip until i got all the dust out which I have.
Soon though I'm going to be upgrading to the D300 for it's fantttttastic colors, iso range of 100-64000, has buttons right where my hands are so I can change white balance or iso nearly instantly, change aperture and speed with my thumb and index finger now, instead of having to do one, then press a button to do the other like on my D40.
Plus the body is only like $1,800 yes it's a bit steep, but it's a mid-pro range camera. Plus the price will drop over the years when I can afford it lol
ISO 64000 you say? that's impressive
I already did thanks, nearly a year and a half ago with the A100.
13,000 exposures later and I still prefer it to any camera in it's class. Wouldn't mind an A700 though. 
Of course my comment about Canikons being a waste of money was somewhat blase (dunno how to get the accent on the e). Canikon systems equally have plenty advantages over the Minolta/Sony system (AF speed being one of them, and the Sony A100 has well documented issues with flash exposure). Their lenses are fine too, although being a Sony/Minolta user I have to point out that the traditional Minolta G lenses tend to be simply the best you can get, period. Fast, incredible image quality, and built like a tank to the extent that they need their own transport system. Unfortunately, you can actually probably buy a real tank for less than the top end Sony/Minolta glass. Owning those kind of hand crafted lenses really is something to aspire to for those of us not called harjun.
But back in the real, sensible world, it's just that the choice of in-body IS vs not-in-body IS is such a no-brainer to me, that I can't see why anyone would choose a Canikon unless they've already got lenses, flashes etc that work with the system (or need compatibility with borrowed/hired lenses / colleagues / family etc), or for professional reasons (i.e. no other manufacturer offers whatever specialised lens or accessory is needed).
It isn't pretty though, it has lots of noise reduction, thus not very sharp.
ISO 3200 looks alright on it though, D40 is sharper, but has far to much noise for my liking.
If you want to see something serious, check out the D3, it goes up to 25,600.
Keep in mind though, ISO is just a rating, you can, what is called "push" in the film industry a photo to a higher ISO by underexposing it, and then increasing the gamma afterwards
Ken Rockwell did an excelent ISO comparison between the D40, D200, D300, and Canon 5D (full frame). Here
Keep in mind though, the 5D is a full frame camera, so of course it is going to be far better than the others.
@STROBE, yay someone brought up Minolta, whatever happened to Minolta, they've stopped everything, has Sony bought them out, or did they just close shop?
ISO 3200 looks alright on it though, D40 is sharper, but has far to much noise for my liking.
If you want to see something serious, check out the D3, it goes up to 25,600.
Keep in mind though, ISO is just a rating, you can, what is called "push" in the film industry a photo to a higher ISO by underexposing it, and then increasing the gamma afterwards
Ken Rockwell did an excelent ISO comparison between the D40, D200, D300, and Canon 5D (full frame). Here
Keep in mind though, the 5D is a full frame camera, so of course it is going to be far better than the others.
@STROBE, yay someone brought up Minolta, whatever happened to Minolta, they've stopped everything, has Sony bought them out, or did they just close shop?
Sony bought out the Minolta system when Konica Minolta bailed out a couple of years ago. They also got Minolta staff - engineers, designers, and it's also rumoured they use the same lens plants. It kinda shows - Minolta 5D users find the A100 incredibly familiar, and the evidence of the similar design ethos between them is well documented. If you look at all the improvements and technologies Minolta has developed and brought to photography over the years, it's a great thing that the heritage and A-mount continues but with the better backing and extra resources from Sony.
Nikon groupy here
I'm a self confessed Nikon groupy. I own a D70 which I bought new a few years ago. And a D80 that I got last year. They are both exellent cameras and far from being pro versions.
But it is all about what you know not what camera you have. I see so many people with the same cameras as me and not a clue how to use them. If you are never going to take the camera off auto then buy a point and shoot. You will enjoy it more.
Don't get me wrong I use auto sometimes too. When I'm out with the family for a walk and am taking snaps of the kids I don't want to think about the camera.
But I also shoot almost all of my clients pics on full manual so I get what I want. This takes some learning though. Not nessesarily from a school but at least trial and error.
http://toddsphotography.smugmug.com/
But it is all about what you know not what camera you have. I see so many people with the same cameras as me and not a clue how to use them. If you are never going to take the camera off auto then buy a point and shoot. You will enjoy it more.
Don't get me wrong I use auto sometimes too. When I'm out with the family for a walk and am taking snaps of the kids I don't want to think about the camera.
But I also shoot almost all of my clients pics on full manual so I get what I want. This takes some learning though. Not nessesarily from a school but at least trial and error.
http://toddsphotography.smugmug.com/
You've not lost your interest in ballzing things up have you?
Phenomenon
There really isn't a word in the dictionary to describe what you are. Once there is, expect me to call you one a lot.
The word "harjun" will really be an internet phenomenon before soon.
Funny little work story. A guy I work with (there's just 2 of us in the department) was wanting to buy a camera right before Christmas, just as I was. Now, here I am, looking at the larger bodied non-dSLRs thinking that it would be better to spend just a little bit of money and learn photography on it to see if it would be worth moving up to a dSLR in the future.
Him? He's never even picked up a dSLR in his hands and he orders his Rebel XTi on E-bay with a complete accessory kit (kit lens + 3 others, tripod, bag, filters, the works). I asked him today if he got it yet. He did. He said he called the guy and was talked into a few different lenses than what was listed on e-bay. He spent over $1500. I asked how it was and he says, "It works great! It has automatic, I put it in automatic and it takes perfect pictures!" LOL, I tried to tell him that by using it in automatic, he is only using about 1% of it's potential. Doesn't matter, all he wants to do is take pictures in automatic. $1500 for a point-and-shoot, LOL.
Him? He's never even picked up a dSLR in his hands and he orders his Rebel XTi on E-bay with a complete accessory kit (kit lens + 3 others, tripod, bag, filters, the works). I asked him today if he got it yet. He did. He said he called the guy and was talked into a few different lenses than what was listed on e-bay. He spent over $1500. I asked how it was and he says, "It works great! It has automatic, I put it in automatic and it takes perfect pictures!" LOL, I tried to tell him that by using it in automatic, he is only using about 1% of it's potential. Doesn't matter, all he wants to do is take pictures in automatic. $1500 for a point-and-shoot, LOL.
could someone comment on what exactly flash synch is? its something that i've seen numbers for all over the place, but not what it is or why its important.
As in, the shutter sync speed? It's the maximum shutter speed you can use with flash, simple as that. Afaik it equates to the actual physical speed the shutter moves at. So if your flash sync speed is 1/125, then when you're not using flash and have a shutter speed of 1/150 or less, the shutter is never actually fully open during the exposure (one shutter curtain starts to close before the other is fully open).
With flash photography, the exposure is determined by the burst of flash light, not your shutter speed (the burst of light being many many times shorter in duration than what any shutter can achieve). Obviously, if the time which your shutter is open is too short, and at no point is the image wholly projected onto the sensor/film, then you'll "see" the shutter in the image at the point when the flash goes off.
Faster sync speeds therefore require physically faster, lighter, more fragile, less reliable shutters.
With flash photography, the exposure is determined by the burst of flash light, not your shutter speed (the burst of light being many many times shorter in duration than what any shutter can achieve). Obviously, if the time which your shutter is open is too short, and at no point is the image wholly projected onto the sensor/film, then you'll "see" the shutter in the image at the point when the flash goes off.
Faster sync speeds therefore require physically faster, lighter, more fragile, less reliable shutters.
I have an XTi/400D, and it is a wonderful camera, I don't know what some of you are on about. My dad got a sony a100, and that thing is a clunky piece of junk. It feels like cheap plastic, is loud, focuses slow and has a really annoying interface.
In body IS is okay...I guess. Photographers have been taking pictures without IS for a hundred years, it isn't that big of a deal really. It is only useful for taking pictures of still things. When there's action you need a high shutter speed and that makes IS unnecessary. And don't forget to turn it off when you use a tripod.
Most of the pictures on the first page here were taken with my XTi.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stregone/
In body IS is okay...I guess. Photographers have been taking pictures without IS for a hundred years, it isn't that big of a deal really. It is only useful for taking pictures of still things. When there's action you need a high shutter speed and that makes IS unnecessary. And don't forget to turn it off when you use a tripod.
Most of the pictures on the first page here were taken with my XTi.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stregone/
Fixed it for you.
Ergonomics are of course a matter of taste. I tried the 400D and couldn't stand it. Far too small, like it was designed for girls' hands - felt like I was about to drop it, even with the crappy kit lens attached. And the interface was really, really annoying. Even changing the simplest thing required so many button presses. With the A100 you just turn the shoulder dials - turn, choose, enter, done. But again, it's all a matter of preference. However I do believe that if there's one thing Minolta had right, it's ergonomics.
And they used to use pinhole cameras and the Kodak Brownie - shall we go back to them too?
And finally if the A100 feels like cheap plastic to you, rest assured it has a full metal chassis underneath the skin. I should know, I bounced mine off a concrete car park floor which resulted in a twisted lens and indentations of the concrete grit in one of the shoulder dials - it took a hell of a bash. Still works perfectly.
Digital SLR Cameras
(155 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG