Canon 30D or 350D?

"Eatmorepies" <naj9daynum3 DeleteThis @lineone.net> wrote in message
news:44e83c51$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <protoHAHAHncek DeleteThis @bonbon.net> wrote in message
> news:44e82cfd$1_2@x-privat.org...
>> Currently having S2 compact, going to DSLR - which one to choose ? Or is
>> it unfair comparison ?
>>
>
> I have both. The 30D is usually my first choice because it has a higher
> burst rate and bigger buffer. I like the larger screen and the high
> capacity battery.
>
> The 350D is small and light - its only real advantage.
>
> The 350D has a shutter rated for 50000 shots and the 30D for 100000
> shots - making the 30D cheaper. Body only prices in the uk seem to be £450
> for the 350 and £750 for the 30.
>
> If I could only have one of them? The 30D, no hesitation.
>
> John

Do they really have such a short rated lifespan? 100,000 is a large number
but taken in comparison with the poster this weekend who said they had taken
6000 shots in the first few days of ownership with their new camera that's
only ~17 weeks worth of pictures before the shutter rating is reached for
the 30D or just over 8 weeks for the 350D!

Of course, 6000 photos a week is a lot by many peoples standards but
obviously there are people who do take that many.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 30D or 350D? 

"Jørn Dahl-Stamnes" <DELETEnewsman.DeleteThis@REMOVEdahl-stamnes.net> wrote in message
news:44e84be0@news.broadpark.no...
> Monkee wrote:
>
>>
>> "Eatmorepies" <naj9daynum3.DeleteThis@lineone.net> wrote in message
>> news:44e83c51$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>
>> Do they really have such a short rated lifespan? 100,000 is a large
>> number
>> but taken in comparison with the poster this weekend who said they had
>> taken 6000 shots in the first few days of ownership with their new camera
>> that's only ~17 weeks worth of pictures before the shutter rating is
>> reached for the 30D or just over 8 weeks for the 350D!
>>
>> Of course, 6000 photos a week is a lot by many peoples standards but
>> obviously there are people who do take that many.
>
> I got my 30D in March 23rd and have over 16000 shots on it already. You
> might say that my 30D will be worn out within a few years.
>
> However, before I got a digital camera I got a regular SLR camera for
> nearly
> 20 years (an OM-1 and an OM-2n). The total amount of pictures taken with
> those cameras are not as much as on my 30D...
>
> Lifespan... depend on how you look on it...
>
Oh, man...if that's approximate value of shots made by amateur
photographers, then i'm veeeeery occasional one, and as such, i should
really think twice if getting a SLR would be a good idea for some shots
every now and then...
maybe going from S2 to S3 instead would be a thing to consider !?!?!
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 30D or 350D? 

On 20 Aug 2006 14:08:49 +0200, Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:

>> I got my 30D in March 23rd and have over 16000 shots on it already. You
>> might say that my 30D will be worn out within a few years.
>>
>> However, before I got a digital camera I got a regular SLR camera for
>> nearly
>> 20 years (an OM-1 and an OM-2n). The total amount of pictures taken with
>> those cameras are not as much as on my 30D...
>>
>> Lifespan... depend on how you look on it...
>
> Oh, man...if that's approximate value of shots made by amateur
> photographers, then i'm veeeeery occasional one, and as such, i should
> really think twice if getting a SLR would be a good idea for some shots
> every now and then...
> maybe going from S2 to S3 instead would be a thing to consider !?!?!

Maybe you'd find the S3 to be a better choice, even though it's
not much different than the S2. But I think you're looking at it
the wrong way. Just because one person takes 16,000 shots over a 5
month period doesn't mean that you will. That's a shooting rate
that is very rare except for some pros. It's comparable to a film
photographer shooting 3 to 5 rolls a day, every day of the year.
It's not as if the camera has a USB connection to your brain forcing
you to take many more shots than you'd care to take. <g> I have a
feeling that if you got a 30D that instead of wearing out the
shutter in a couple of years, you'd need a couple of decades to do
it. But if I'm wrong and you'd take so many shots that the shutter
lasts only 6 years, you'd have two choices. Either have Canon
replace the shutter (it's much less expensive than getting a new
camera), or retire the 30D. Chances are pretty good that in 6 years
you'd be coveting one of Canon's newer offerings anyway. Look at
their lineup from 2000 and you'll see what I mean.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 30D or 350D? 

"Jørn Dahl-Stamnes" <DELETEnewsman.RemoveThis@REMOVEdahl-stamnes.net> wrote in message
news:44e85d3a@news.broadpark.no...
> Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jørn Dahl-Stamnes" <DELETEnewsman.RemoveThis@REMOVEdahl-stamnes.net> wrote in
>> message news:44e84be0@news.broadpark.no...
>>> Monkee wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Eatmorepies" <naj9daynum3.RemoveThis@lineone.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:44e83c51$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>>>
>>>> Do they really have such a short rated lifespan? 100,000 is a large
>>>> number
>>>> but taken in comparison with the poster this weekend who said they had
>>>> taken 6000 shots in the first few days of ownership with their new
>>>> camera that's only ~17 weeks worth of pictures before the shutter
>>>> rating
>>>> is reached for the 30D or just over 8 weeks for the 350D!
>>>>
>>>> Of course, 6000 photos a week is a lot by many peoples standards but
>>>> obviously there are people who do take that many.
>>>
>>> I got my 30D in March 23rd and have over 16000 shots on it already. You
>>> might say that my 30D will be worn out within a few years.
>>>
>>> However, before I got a digital camera I got a regular SLR camera for
>>> nearly
>>> 20 years (an OM-1 and an OM-2n). The total amount of pictures taken with
>>> those cameras are not as much as on my 30D...
>>>
>>> Lifespan... depend on how you look on it...
>>>
>> Oh, man...if that's approximate value of shots made by amateur
>> photographers, then i'm veeeeery occasional one, and as such, i should
>> really think twice if getting a SLR would be a good idea for some shots
>> every now and then...
>> maybe going from S2 to S3 instead would be a thing to consider !?!?!
>
> I have never claimed to be a regular amateur photographer...



true...but most reviews still say those slr's are ment for advanced
amateurs... i'd say more like beginner pro's...
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 30D or 350D? 

"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <protoHAHAHncek.DeleteThis@bonbon.net> wrote in message
news:44e85dea_3@x-privat.org...
>

>>>>
>>> Oh, man...if that's approximate value of shots made by amateur
>>> photographers, then i'm veeeeery occasional one, and as such, i should
>>> really think twice if getting a SLR would be a good idea for some shots
>>> every now and then...
>>> maybe going from S2 to S3 instead would be a thing to consider !?!?!
>>
>> I have never claimed to be a regular amateur photographer...
>
>
>
> true...but most reviews still say those slr's are ment for advanced
> amateurs... i'd say more like beginner pro's...
>
DSLRs are, indeed, meant for advanced amateurs, especially ones like the
350D and 30D. They make a great bridge from compact cameras to more
advanced (read: more expensive) DSLRs like the 5D and 1D/1Ds mkII cameras.
My 20D couldn't really stand up to the rigors of being used as a full on pro
use camera for very long, I generally shoot about 4-5000 images a month,
it's shutter was rated at 50,000, like the 350D, so it'd be dead meat in 10
months. My 5D is rated at 200,000 actuations, a much better option. By the
way, I did use a 20D for about a year as a primary wedding camera, and it
didn't fail, nor did my wife's in that same time span. So the shutter
ratings are a little conservative, I'm sure.
SLR type cameras are all about control and image quality.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 30D or 350D? 

"SkipM" <shadowcatcher.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ZVZFg.17729$RD.14890@fed1read08...
> "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <protoHAHAHncek.DeleteThis@bonbon.net> wrote in message
> news:44e85dea_3@x-privat.org...
>>
>
>>>>>
>>>> Oh, man...if that's approximate value of shots made by amateur
>>>> photographers, then i'm veeeeery occasional one, and as such, i should
>>>> really think twice if getting a SLR would be a good idea for some shots
>>>> every now and then...
>>>> maybe going from S2 to S3 instead would be a thing to consider !?!?!
>>>
>>> I have never claimed to be a regular amateur photographer...
>>
>>
>>
>> true...but most reviews still say those slr's are ment for advanced
>> amateurs... i'd say more like beginner pro's...
>>
> DSLRs are, indeed, meant for advanced amateurs, especially ones like the
> 350D and 30D. They make a great bridge from compact cameras to more
> advanced (read: more expensive) DSLRs like the 5D and 1D/1Ds mkII cameras.
> My 20D couldn't really stand up to the rigors of being used as a full on
> pro use camera for very long, I generally shoot about 4-5000 images a
> month, it's shutter was rated at 50,000, like the 350D, so it'd be dead
> meat in 10 months. My 5D is rated at 200,000 actuations, a much better
> option. By the way, I did use a 20D for about a year as a primary wedding
> camera, and it didn't fail, nor did my wife's in that same time span. So
> the shutter ratings are a little conservative, I'm sure.
> SLR type cameras are all about control and image quality.
>

That last statement is kind of complex...i just wrote an article about
it...it seems that (as i did hear quite a lot) people are generally
dissapointed when they get DSLR - as shots are "worse" than ones with
compact... that article indeed shows raw shots out of slr worse than
compact, but only because they are, as said, raw, while compact ones are
already worked out with built-in software.
So, i guess if i do decide to buy, i will need some links to extensive
"how-to" instructions, some advice of which program to use (i've heard, say,
of bibble, then i guess photoshop).

They say going to DSLR is an extensive and complex thing. I guess i am
prepared to step it into it, but only if i will be able to learn things,
linked to it...i'm not that kind-a-guy who would just point'n'shoot and then
complain about bad quality. I do expect my first couple hundred shots to be
bad, but i hope i will be able to learn from them...
right...?
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 30D or 350D? 

"Jørn Dahl-Stamnes" <DELETEnewsman RemoveThis @REMOVEdahl-stamnes.net> wrote in message
news:44e87649@news.broadpark.no...
> Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jørn Dahl-Stamnes" <DELETEnewsman RemoveThis @REMOVEdahl-stamnes.net> wrote in
>> message news:44e85d3a@news.broadpark.no...
>>> Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Jørn Dahl-Stamnes" <DELETEnewsman RemoveThis @REMOVEdahl-stamnes.net> wrote in
>>>> message news:44e84be0@news.broadpark.no...
>>>>> Monkee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Eatmorepies" <naj9daynum3 RemoveThis @lineone.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:44e83c51$1_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do they really have such a short rated lifespan? 100,000 is a large
>>>>>> number
>>>>>> but taken in comparison with the poster this weekend who said they
>>>>>> had
>>>>>> taken 6000 shots in the first few days of ownership with their new
>>>>>> camera that's only ~17 weeks worth of pictures before the shutter
>>>>>> rating
>>>>>> is reached for the 30D or just over 8 weeks for the 350D!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, 6000 photos a week is a lot by many peoples standards but
>>>>>> obviously there are people who do take that many.
>>>>>
>>>>> I got my 30D in March 23rd and have over 16000 shots on it already.
>>>>> You
>>>>> might say that my 30D will be worn out within a few years.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, before I got a digital camera I got a regular SLR camera for
>>>>> nearly
>>>>> 20 years (an OM-1 and an OM-2n). The total amount of pictures taken
>>>>> with those cameras are not as much as on my 30D...
>>>>>
>>>>> Lifespan... depend on how you look on it...
>>>>>
>>>> Oh, man...if that's approximate value of shots made by amateur
>>>> photographers, then i'm veeeeery occasional one, and as such, i should
>>>> really think twice if getting a SLR would be a good idea for some shots
>>>> every now and then...
>>>> maybe going from S2 to S3 instead would be a thing to consider !?!?!
>>>
>>> I have never claimed to be a regular amateur photographer...
>>
>>
>>
>> true...but most reviews still say those slr's are ment for advanced
>> amateurs... i'd say more like beginner pro's...
>
> Or crazy amateurs like me...

well, if i do decide to buy, i WILL have to increase my photo work...a few
shots every few ages certainly doesn't justify so expensive buy...
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 30D or 350D? 

Eatmorepies wrote:
>
> The 350D is small and light - its only real advantage.
>

it has a pop-up flash, it's $750 w/lens, it's better than the nikon
D50.
Are you doing weddings or wild life? if not, what do u need the 30D for
besides fooling around once in a blue moon with all the bells and
whisltes.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 30D or 350D? 

"Mr.Bolshoyhuy" <bolshoyhuy.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156130217.419202.122480@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Eatmorepies wrote:
>>
>> The 350D is small and light - its only real advantage.
>>
>
> it has a pop-up flash, it's $750 w/lens, it's better than the nikon
> D50.
> Are you doing weddings or wild life? if not, what do u need the 30D for
> besides fooling around once in a blue moon with all the bells and
> whisltes.


exactly for that...and for some wedding or similar every ages...but at that
times my head hurts when i see those "average" photos from S2...
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 30D or 350D? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 30D or 350D? 

"Bill" <bill.RemoveThis@c.a> wrote in message
news:B9-dncky3aaqNHTZnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@golden.net...
> Mr.Bolshoyhuy wrote:
>
>>Eatmorepies wrote:
>>>
>>> The 350D is small and light - its only real advantage.
>>
>>it has a pop-up flash,
>
> ???
>
> Umm...yeah, so does almost every other SLR camera.
>
>> it's $750 w/lens,
>
> In this market range, the Nikon D50 is less expensive and performs as
> good as the Canon XT/350D.
>
> Substitute with the Nikon 18-70 lense and the Nikon D50 performs much
> better than the Canon with 18-55, and still costs about the same.
>
>> it's better than the nikon D50.
>
> Only if you're a brand snob.
>
> I have a Canon Rebel XT, and I know what it can do. I also use Nikon
> gear a lot and know what it can do.
>
> The Nikon D50 is currently the best choice in entry level cameras.
>
> The Canon 30D is clearly better than either the D50 or XT, as it should
> be since it costs substantially more.

For now, thanks for all your info, although i'm still (or even more)
confused. i must see through reviews again and sleep over...
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 30D or 350D? 

"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <protoHAHAHncek.DeleteThis@bonbon.net> wrote in message
news:44e876a4$1_3@x-privat.org...
>
> "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <protoHAHAHncek.DeleteThis@bonbon.net> wrote in message
> news:44e871c2$1_2@x-privat.org...

>>>
>>
>> I must take another look into kits...it seems that two are out
>> there...one with famous cheap lens, and other with better 17-85IS lens.
>> i assume that IS means image stabilizer...
>>>
>
> NOW i know why there is a BIG difference in kit prices...those numbers are
> so similar i didn't even see that different lens is involved...
> Tell me....is that 17-85IS lens really that better? It should be, looking
> at the price...
>>>

It is, indeed, that much better.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1855_3556/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm

And, just for hoots,
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm
(Decidedly NOT a kit lens!! <G>)

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 30D or 350D? 

"Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <protoHAHAHncek.TakeThisOut@bonbon.net> wrote in message
news:44e87364$1_2@x-privat.org...
>
> "SkipM" <shadowcatcher.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:ZVZFg.17729$RD.14890@fed1read08...
>> SLR type cameras are all about control and image quality.
>>
>
> That last statement is kind of complex...i just wrote an article about
> it...it seems that (as i did hear quite a lot) people are generally
> dissapointed when they get DSLR - as shots are "worse" than ones with
> compact... that article indeed shows raw shots out of slr worse than
> compact, but only because they are, as said, raw, while compact ones are
> already worked out with built-in software.
> So, i guess if i do decide to buy, i will need some links to extensive
> "how-to" instructions, some advice of which program to use (i've heard,
> say, of bibble, then i guess photoshop).

One of the biggest foibles of the market is the notion of "perceived"
quality. I've seen many shots from compacts that the owner was comparing to
those of his newly acquired DSLR that, while the owner thought they were
sharper, were actually victims of several things, like oversharpening in
camera, artifacts, specular highlights that made things look sharper, but
really weren't. Also, default settings, even with JPEGs, on DSLRs are more
conservative than they are on compacts, as a general rule, which lead many
to think that the DSLR lacks in saturation, sharpness, color rendition, etc.
Actually, the setting leave room for post processing, just as you surmised.
>
> They say going to DSLR is an extensive and complex thing. I guess i am
> prepared to step it into it, but only if i will be able to learn things,
> linked to it...i'm not that kind-a-guy who would just point'n'shoot and
> then complain about bad quality. I do expect my first couple hundred shots
> to be bad, but i hope i will be able to learn from them...
> right...?

Life is a learning experience. <G> Just be patient, which is sounds like
you will be.


--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
 >> Stay informed about: Canon 30D or 350D?