Dust Reduction v Image Stabilization

[compuwar]

I'd rather see it put into the body to make it work properly than to add weight and cost to individual lenses. However, for Canon and Nikon to do that, they'd have to start designing new bodies and they're loath to do that.

It's not that- it's much less effective in the body, and neither company wants to give up that edge to the other. I wouldn't be surprised to see it in some of the "big point and shoot" model SLRs over time, but I doubt they'll cede the pro ground to one another anytime soon.

I've found a used Digital Rebel (300D) for $399. I've also found a used Olympus E-300 with the kit lens for $379. Which one would ya'll choose? I've got the kit lens from my old film Canon and even with the FOV crop, it should still work alright until I can get a really nice Canon L lens. Or would the Olympus be a better starting point?

Fire away...

I'd get the Canon. You're not just buying a camera body, you're buying into a system. Canon's lens selection is great, you'll find more used lenses, and it'll hold its value longer. But the real issue is that it will not be your last digital body if you find you get into it- and you can keep your lens investment paying off for much longer with either Canon or Nikon than with any other manufacturer. It's also more likely that Canon and Nikon will still be making DSLR bodies if the market starts to throw out the outliers.

 

[maxi]

uhm, did you ever try image stabilization? it clearly helps a lot even when your subject moves (a car driving by or a bird for example). When you follow it with your camera the image stabilization makes it much easier to get a sharp picture. that's because when you move the camera along you also get a lot of vibration from muscle tremor. that vibration is compensated (of course the wings of a bird would still be blurred). at least in my experience it really helps and i wouldn't want to miss it.

You are right, it clearly can help if you are "panning" (many VR systems even have a "panning" mode).
BUT if you are targeting the VR towards the P&S audience (which they clearly are) then panning is almost out of the question.
VR is most useful between 1/2s and 1/60s. If the subject moves, you'll need to go over (around) 1/250s in order to freeze the action. At that shutter speed VR is useless, and the help you may find is merely psychological.

 

[G4scott]

Perhaps it's been mentioned before, but isn't IS/VR in a dSLR based entirely on the lens and not the camera body? If so, you can get a body with the dust reduction, and later on, get lenses with IS.

 

[job]

Some camera bodies now have IS/VR built into the bodies themselves.

Check out some of the newer Pentax bodies for this.

Canon and Nikon have stuck that technology on their lenses.

 

[clintob]

Dust has been a problem for photographers since the camera was invented, and it will always be a problem until we all burn to a crisp when the sun explodes. Dust can appear on your sensor, which the reduction tool might help a little, but it can ALSO appear on the edges of your shutter, on your lens mount, on your lens cover, on your filter, or even on your print itself! Good luck getting a tool to reduce all of those other than patience and care.

Go for the IS, absolutely no contest whatsoever. Almost any dust problems can be cured in the darkroom/Photoshop, wheres even the best sharpening tools can't reproduce a truly sharp photo. IS isn't perfect, not even close, but it works a heck of a lot better at what it's supposed to do than the Dust Reduction B.

 

[John T]

I've found a used Digital Rebel (300D) for $399.

If that's the case, I go for it! If your aim is producing good quality pictures - and on a budget - the 300D needs a bit of beating.

Please ignore the rubbish about it being x years old and only having so many megapixels etc. This, in my opinion, "equipment collector" comments. When you buy a camera your choice is governed by budget and what sort of pictures you will be taking and not to pose!!

Nowadays I mainly use a 30D but still use a 300D. For "normal" size enlargements you have to look hard to see the difference!

 

[beavo451]

If that's the case, I go for it! If your aim is producing good quality pictures - and on a budget - the 300D needs a bit of beating.

Please ignore the rubbish about it being x years old and only having so many megapixels etc. This, in my opinion, "equipment collector" comments. When you buy a camera your choice is governed by budget and what sort of pictures you will be taking and not to pose!!

Nowadays I mainly use a 30D but still use a 300D. For "normal" size enlargements you have to look hard to see the difference!

It is a digital body. The end of its useful lifespan is very near. Would you buy a two year old, used computer?

You can find a used 350D for around $520, which I would consider a better buy.

 

[jlcharles]

It is a digital body. The end of its useful lifespan is very near. Would you buy a two year old, used computer?

You can find a used 350D for around $520, which I would consider a better buy.

That's absolutely not true. If the 300D could make great prints when it came out, why can't it do the same now? The only thing to limit it's life is if it breaks.

The analogy to a computer doesn't work. The computer needs to run bigger and better software. The camera is going to do the same thing year after year. The feature set may change with new models, but that hardly affects the pictures that particular camera will take.

 

[bousozoku]

If that's the case, I go for it! If your aim is producing good quality pictures - and on a budget - the 300D needs a bit of beating.

Please ignore the rubbish about it being x years old and only having so many megapixels etc. This, in my opinion, "equipment collector" comments. When you buy a camera your choice is governed by budget and what sort of pictures you will be taking and not to pose!!

Nowadays I mainly use a 30D but still use a 300D. For "normal" size enlargements you have to look hard to see the difference!

You're right about the age and megapixels being poor criteria but the 300D is a point and shoot in an SLR body. The 350D and 400D XTi or whatever are much different, better cameras.

 

[John T]

................but the 300D is a point and shoot in an SLR body.

Pardon!? Hardly - When Digital Photography Review tested the camera, they began their conclusions:

"The EOS 300D is a formidable camera, not from a feature set point of view. Not from a body finish point of view (which is actually better than I'm sure you're thinking). Not from how its feature set compares to other digital SLR's (although it can certainly hold its own), but rather for what it offers, for its value for money. And for what this camera could mean for the future of digital SLR's and the entire prosumer digital camera market. There's no doubt that there is an important place for cameras such as Sony's DSC-F828 and Minolta's DiMAGE A1, but you would have to be wearing blinkers not to realize that anyone considering spending over $1000 on an all-in-one camera such as that will now put the EOS 300D Kit high on their list.........."

The 350D and 400D XTi or whatever are much different, better cameras.

I suggest you check the criteria in this thread!

 

[job]

It is a digital body. The end of its useful lifespan is very near. Would you buy a two year old, used computer?

You can find a used 350D for around $520, which I would consider a better buy.

I'd buy a 350D if:

1. I had the money to spend. Yes, the extra $120 is a lot for me right now.
2. I could actually use it to its fullest capabilities. I don't think my photographic skills could even begin to do the 300D justice, let alone the 350D.

For my first foray into digital, I don't need even the second tier body. As long as I can shoot digital and learn the finer points about f/#s, ISO sensitivity, and other stuff, I'll be happy.

I appreciate the suggestion though. Maybe in a few years.

 

[sjl]

For my first foray into digital, I don't need even the second tier body. As long as I can shoot digital and learn the finer points about f/#s, ISO sensitivity, and other stuff, I'll be happy.

In that case, by all means go for the 300D. Save your money, buy some high quality glass, then when the 300D eventually gives up the ghost, you're set to go for a good body (the 30D would be a very nice upgrade, for example, or maybe the 5D if you want full frame - replace with whatever models Canon replaces them with, of course.)

If you're sure you'll be happy with a crop body in the long term, by all means buy EF-S glass to use on the 300D. If you're not, I'd suggest spending the extra money on (eg) the 17-40mm f/4 L, rather than the 17-55, 18-55, or 17-85, because that's a lens you can take with you to any body Canon may come out with in the future (unless they change their lens mount again, which I doubt will happen in the foreseeable future.)

Don't waste your time with the EF-S 60mm macro, though; the 100mm is a better choice, and not all that much more expensive (just as a data point on EF-S glass.)

 

[job]

In that case, by all means go for the 300D. Save your money, buy some high quality glass, then when the 300D eventually gives up the ghost, you're set to go for a good body (the 30D would be a very nice upgrade, for example, or maybe the 5D if you want full frame - replace with whatever models Canon replaces them with, of course.)

That's the plan. I figure better lenses are a better "investment" as opposed to a body that will be outdated within a year of its release.

Don't waste your time with the EF-S 60mm macro, though; the 100mm is a better choice, and not all that much more expensive (just as a data point on EF-S glass.)

I'll probably deal with the FOV crop and buy only EF lenses. I'll keep my film body around and if I ever want to swap those lenses back, it'll be nice to have the compatability. How's the 50mm f/1.4 lens?

How beneficial are the Canon lenses when it comes to IS (e.g. the 70-200mm f/2.8L with IS?) Obviously thats a long, long, long term goal, but I was just wondering if the IS was worth the substancial price difference as compared to the same lens without IS. At what shutter speeds and focal length does IS really start to help?

 

[sjl]

I'll probably deal with the FOV crop and buy only EF lenses. I'll keep my film body around and if I ever want to swap those lenses back, it'll be nice to have the compatability. How's the 50mm f/1.4 lens?

Very drool worthy. Don't know how drool worthy the f/1.2 will be, but I'd love to have the 1.4 in my kit - the five-bladed aperture of the f/1.8 is starting to bug me, to the point where I usually only shoot with it at f/1.8 (with all the depth of field issues that entails.)

How beneficial are the Canon lenses when it comes to IS (e.g. the 70-200mm f/2.8L with IS?) Obviously thats a long, long, long term goal, but I was just wondering if the IS was worth the substancial price difference as compared to the same lens without IS. At what shutter speeds and focal length does IS really start to help?

Well, I've made good use of the IS on my 17-85mm. The rule of thumb is 1/focal length for handheld shots on a 35mm body. This implies 1/1.6*focal length for an EF-S camera (to me at least) - so if you put a 50mm lens on your EF-S body, you want a shutter speed of 1/80th of a second, or faster, for example. IS gives you an extra two stops (or three, depending on the IS version) - so that 1/80th would become 1/20th or even 1/10th of a second if you had a 50mm lens with IS.

I seem to recall that IS does slightly affect image quality - apparently the 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS is slightly sharper than the IS version - but not to an extent that you'll notice on anything except the highest quality film. Suffice to say that I'd much rather spend my money on IS glass than non-IS.

Remember, too, to turn it off if you're using a tripod (although some Canon lenses can sense tripod use, and turn IS off automatically) - the feedback loops render images utterly useless if IS is on in this situation (unless you want that particular effect, which you probably don't). I know - I tried it (deliberately) once with the 100-400mm; the tripod I had wasn't up to holding it steady, so I tried IS to see if it would help. It didn't. I bought a better tripod.

 

[beavo451]

That's absolutely not true. If the 300D could make great prints when it came out, why can't it do the same now? The only thing to limit it's life is if it breaks.

The analogy to a computer doesn't work. The computer needs to run bigger and better software. The camera is going to do the same thing year after year. The feature set may change with new models, but that hardly affects the pictures that particular camera will take.

Thanks for telling me that my opinion is false. The was directed at the rather insulting notion of "equipment collectors". So sue me that I want the very best technology has to offer.

The computer analogy is perfectly valid. The camera itself is a computer. It is an electronic device that will eventually fail. Yes it took pictures then and it still takes the same ones now. But, added features to keep pace with the times is still important. USB 2.0 vs. USB 1.1 is a major improvement and could be an important feature. Improved white balance control, instant start-up, etc. don't really improve the pictures per-se, but it does improve the usability. It is (in my opinion) at around the 350D and D70 generation is where digital technology could stand up against film camera technology.

My suggestion is saving up that little bit of extra cash and may very well provide a better entrance into digital SLR's. Contrary to popular belief that lenses are the end-all be-all, digital photography is a system that is based on electronics and technology more than it ever has in the past. The body is an important part of that system. Otherwise, we should all be content with D50s and 400Ds.

For my first foray into digital, I don't need even the second tier body. As long as I can shoot digital and learn the finer points about f/#s, ISO sensitivity, and other stuff, I'll be happy.

I take it from your posts that you already have a Canon EOS film body. If so, don't you already know about f-stops, ISO, and other stuff? If not, why don't you use that film camera to learn techniques? $400 can buy alot of film and development.

 

[Teddy's]

Works for me...

The new Canon Rebel XTi has a nice cleaning system. I think it works well. But let's face it, A bottle of Green Clean should be in your equipment list.
As for image stabilization, Canon has the EF-S 17-85 IS USM. IS is for image Stabilization. It also works well.

 

[job]

I take it from your posts that you already have a Canon EOS film body. If so, don't you already know about f-stops, ISO, and other stuff? If not, why don't you use that film camera to learn techniques? $400 can buy alot of film and development.

That's correct. I do have a Canon EOS film body. It's not as if I don't have any idea about f-stops and ISO sensitivity. I have a good understanding and the film body has served me well. That's actually why I've held off getting a digital for the last 4 years, simply because film was working so well for me. I was able to get the results I wanted from film and still learn in the process.

I want to go digital for several reasons: 1. Shoot in RAW and have good digital images for PP. Getting the images put on a CD when I get the film developed is usually hit or miss in terms of quality around here. 2. Instant results. I have had plently of pictures that would have been just a little better with some tweaking and a reshoot. 3. Film development is actually pretty close to the cost of the digital body. Getting three 24 ex. rolls developed here with a film CD for each is $24.95. I shoot about 3-4 rolls every weekend for various organizations here on campus. That's about $100 per month on development, not counting purchasing the film. So I figure the digital body will pay itself off in about 4 months.

My suggestion is saving up that little bit of extra cash and may very well provide a better entrance into digital SLR's. Contrary to popular belief that lenses are the end-all be-all, digital photography is a system that is based on electronics and technology more than it ever has in the past. The body is an important part of that system. Otherwise, we should all be content with D50s and 400Ds.

I'd love to get a 350D if I could, but I've ear-marked that money for a new lens.

 

[beavo451]

I'd love to get a 350D if I could, but I've ear-marked that money for a new lens.

If you believe that it is best for you, then go for it.

 

[Forced Perfect]

If you are using a tripod Image Stabilization is not needed. It can only help with hand held shots

Agreed. However, at least on Canon's better ISed lenses the IS system functions while using a tripod and corrects for mirror slap, etc. But your average IS/VR system made by anyone should usually be turned OFF when using a tripod or whenever there isn't much or any camera shake as it can actually introduce blur.

 

[sjl]

The computer analogy is perfectly valid. The camera itself is a computer. It is an electronic device that will eventually fail.

True, but (somewhat) misleading: there are computers that are ten, twenty years old, and still working perfectly. If they break, you'd struggle to find replacement parts, but until then, they still work.

Would one such system be slow compared with modern day systems? Yes. No two ways about it. But if it did everything you wanted to, where's the need to upgrade?

Yes it took pictures then and it still takes the same ones now. But, added features to keep pace with the times is still important. USB 2.0 vs. USB 1.1 is a major improvement and could be an important feature.

Disagree here. Twenty (australian) dollars will buy a USB 2.0 card reader. Stick in a standard CF card (be it something "slow" like the original SanDisk, or "fast" like the Extreme 3), pull it out when you're done, and you have a much faster connection to the photos via the reader.

I've also found (on the Mac, at least) that the card reader is more reliable than the camera link, to the point where I haven't connected a USB cable to my 20D since about a week after I bought it.

Improved white balance control, instant start-up, etc. don't really improve the pictures per-se, but it does improve the usability. It is (in my opinion) at around the 350D and D70 generation is where digital technology could stand up against film camera technology.

True, but I'd assume the OP already understands this. Will the 300D take good pictures? Yes. Could he do better if he spent a bit more money? Yes. But if he's not willing to spend that money, the 300D will do the job until he can get more money for a better body, or it breaks (at which point he'll have a very nice collection of lenses to put on that better body.)

 

[bousozoku]

Pardon!? Hardly - When Digital Photography Review tested the camera, they began their conclusions:

"The EOS 300D is a formidable camera, not from a feature set point of view. Not from a body finish point of view (which is actually better than I'm sure you're thinking). Not from how its feature set compares to other digital SLR's (although it can certainly hold its own), but rather for what it offers, for its value for money. And for what this camera could mean for the future of digital SLR's and the entire prosumer digital camera market. There's no doubt that there is an important place for cameras such as Sony's DSC-F828 and Minolta's DiMAGE A1, but you would have to be wearing blinkers not to realize that anyone considering spending over $1000 on an all-in-one camera such as that will now put the EOS 300D Kit high on their list.........."


I suggest you check the criteria in this thread!

I know the criteria of the thread very well. The point was that those two cameras are meant to be SLRs and that they're quite a leap forward from the 300D.

I'm sure you can find a boatload of people who will say that any Canon blah blah blah best thing on the planet blah blah blah. If Nikon had introduced such a camera, all of the Canon people would have been laughing at it.

 

[Forced Perfect]

True, but (somewhat) misleading: there are computers that are ten, twenty years old, and still working perfectly. If they break, you'd struggle to find replacement parts, but until then, they still work.

Would one such system be slow compared with modern day systems? Yes. No two ways about it. But if it did everything you wanted to, where's the need to upgrade?



Disagree here. Twenty (australian) dollars will buy a USB 2.0 card reader. Stick in a standard CF card (be it something "slow" like the original SanDisk, or "fast" like the Extreme 3), pull it out when you're done, and you have a much faster connection to the photos via the reader.

I've also found (on the Mac, at least) that the card reader is more reliable than the camera link, to the point where I haven't connected a USB cable to my 20D since about a week after I bought it.



True, but I'd assume the OP already understands this. Will the 300D take good pictures? Yes. Could he do better if he spent a bit more money? Yes. But if he's not willing to spend that money, the 300D will do the job until he can get more money for a better body, or it breaks (at which point he'll have a very nice collection of lenses to put on that better body.)

I think the real limitation of the 300D/Rebel is it's speed. The buffer clearing times and playback of images are both painfully slow (I use my wife's 300D all the time). The photo quality can be stunning with the right lens and photographer on the other hand. It's very easy to use and if you don't mind the speed will do the job just fine. The slow write times drive me nuts though. Especially when doing panoramas holding a (relatively) heavy L series lens.

 

[compuwar]

The slow write times drive me nuts though. Especially when doing panoramas holding a (relatively) heavy L series lens.

Please don't taken this the wrong way, but it always puzzles me- Why would someone spend serious money on high-end glass, then not do the most to get the sharpest picture possible by putting it on a tripod?

 

[Forced Perfect]

Please don't taken this the wrong way, but it always puzzles me- Why would someone spend serious money on high-end glass, then not do the most to get the sharpest picture possible by putting it on a tripod?

I use one whenever possible. But to be honest, I'm lazy. And in many cases (such as hunting for cute furry critter photos) I don't want to be moving a tripod around. But I totally agree that using a tripod is way better than IS (although not better than a faster aperture lens because you'll never get the background blur that can make a photo really stand out) but most people don't want to carry theirs around - especially if they don't have a carbon fiber one that doesn't weigh anything and won't turn to ice in the cold. My know my crappy $30 one gets so damn cold I don't touch it in the winter.

 

[John T]

Please don't taken this the wrong way, but it always puzzles me- Why would someone spend serious money on high-end glass, then not do the most to get the sharpest picture possible by putting it on a tripod?

Absolutely! I can't see how you can take a proper panorama without a tripod!