# 10D or 300D?



## danalec99 (Mar 17, 2004)

Which one is best? And why? Be it for an amateur and/or a newbie.

10D or 300D?


----------



## markc (Mar 17, 2004)

As with many things, there is no "best". The 10D has more features, but the 300D is less expensive. You have to look at how things balance out and decide what is best _for you_. That "for you" should never be left out of the equation. If you need all those features, then the 10D is better for you; if you don't, then the 300D is better for you. In general, if you don't understand what the exra features will do for you, you probably won't use them and can go with the cheaper version without losing anything.


----------



## drlynn (Mar 17, 2004)

Here's what Popular Photography had to say about the 300D (Digital Rebel):

http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=750

And the 10D :

http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=652

Amazingly, in their tests, the 300D actually outperformed several more expensive DSLR's in autofocus times, etc.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 17, 2004)

Thanks!


----------



## mrsid99 (Mar 17, 2004)

markc said:
			
		

> As with many things, there is no "best". The 10D has more features, but the 300D is less expensive. You have to look at how things balance out and decide what is best _for you_. That "for you" should never be left out of the equation. If you need all those features, then the 10D is better for you; if you don't, then the 300D is better for you. In general, if you don't understand what the exra features will do for you, you probably won't use them and can go with the cheaper version without losing anything.



 Sort of agree with you but remember everyone grows so those extra unused features now may soon become a necessity.
 Your main point of deciding for yourself what you're likely to need is the bottom line.


----------



## markc (Mar 17, 2004)

mrsid99 said:
			
		

> Sort of agree with you but remember everyone grows so those extra unused features now may soon become a necessity.


Very true, but I think that's more important with film cameras than digital. By the time you need the extra features on a digital, a newer/better/cheaper camera is likely to be out and the old one has depreciated massively.


----------



## mrsid99 (Mar 17, 2004)

markc said:
			
		

> mrsid99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Sorry but I still disagree on that point, remember that we're not talking about point n' shoots so those extra features are similar to what you'd find on a film camera and therefore will probably become required at some point and probably fairly soon assuming an average learning curve.
 I do agree that digitals have the potential for massive depreciation as better models are introduced but that comes back to deciding what you really need in my opinion.
 I also believe that barring some breakthrough in digital technology the higher end cameras (not counting the 1Ds and other stratospheric price types) will stay around that magic $1,000 mark and that means there's only going to be some incremental feature improvements for some time so something like the 10D or the Rebel (also the D100 and D70 for that matter) should have a fairly lengthy usable life span before truly being obsolete.
 As an example look what happened with film cameras, sure there were lots of improvements in features (autofocus, autoexposure etc.) but the older models still work just fine.


----------



## markc (Mar 17, 2004)

mrsid99 said:
			
		

> I also believe that barring some breakthrough in digital technology the higher end cameras (not counting the 1Ds and other stratospheric price types) will stay around that magic $1,000 mark and that means there's only going to be some incremental feature improvements for some time so something like the 10D or the Rebel (also the D100 and D70 for that matter) should have a fairly lengthy usable life span before truly being obsolete.


I guess that's the crux of the difference. I've been involved with the general high-tech arena for quite a while. I look at the D60 and see a big enough tech and price difference between that when it came out and the 10D. With the tech being even more computer-driven rather than mechanical, we're getting into the arena of Moore's Law now. Sure, film cameras used computers, but it wasn't the center of the camera. The sensor and the systems that handle it are now the focus. I see this kind of tech skyrocketing. The Fovean X3 chip is just scratching the surface.

I guess I just don't see a beginner using the extra features of the 10D over the 300D to any great extent (or good use) until they get a lot of basics under their belt.  I still think a basic camera with manual overrides is the best thing to start out with. I'm glad I started with a used Elan instead of something like the EOS-1v.

I hope this doesn't seem argumentative. I just like debate.


----------



## mrsid99 (Mar 18, 2004)

markc said:
			
		

> I guess that's the crux of the difference. I've been involved with the general high-tech arena for quite a while. I look at the D60 and see a big enough tech and price difference between that when it came out and the 10D. With the tech being even more computer-driven rather than mechanical, we're getting into the arena of Moore's Law now. Sure, film cameras used computers, but it wasn't the center of the camera. The sensor and the systems that handle it are now the focus. I see this kind of tech skyrocketing. The Fovean X3 chip is just scratching the surface.
> 
> I guess I just don't see a beginner using the extra features of the 10D over the 300D to any great extent (or good use) until they get a lot of basics under their belt.  I still think a basic camera with manual overrides is the best thing to start out with. I'm glad I started with a used Elan instead of something like the EOS-1v.
> 
> I hope this doesn't seem argumentative. I just like debate.



 For reference, I've been involved with high-tech for some time as well (42 years) including semiconductor fabrication and production and again I agree that the sensor will improve and there'll probably be more megapixels for less cost and probably data faster transfer rates etc.
However, I think that the main features are now embodied in the higher end cameras so we're only looking at incremental improvements for some time, unless there's the unforeseen breakthrough previously mentioned.
 I think the crux of this discussion centers around how fast do people learn at.
 My opinion is that they'll learn a darn sight faster than the camera will become obsolete but that's only my opinion.
 Thank you for the debate and there's nothing wrong with alternative views, heck it might even help someone decide what they need!


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 18, 2004)

I have been following the debate. Thanks guys.

markc said its good to start with a 300D, but if I tend to pick up things as fast as mrsid99 puts it, dont I have to invest in a 10D a year down the lane? Instead of that, isn't it better if I start off with 10D and not worry about anything for a couple of years?? What do you think?


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 18, 2004)

> Instead of that, isn't it better if I start off with 10D *and not worry about anything for a couple of years*??



I meant, investment.


----------



## markc (Mar 18, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> I have been following the debate. Thanks guys.
> 
> markc said its good to start with a 300D, but if I tend to pick up things as fast as mrsid99 puts it, dont I have to invest in a 10D a year down the lane? Instead of that, isn't it better if I start off with 10D and not worry about anything for a couple of years?? What do you think?



Our main point of contention is that mrsid99 thinks that by the time a person gets better and wants those extra features, a new camera will not be out that will be enough different from the old to make a difference. I think that the average person will still not have advanced enough to take advantage of those features before a new camera comes out that will make the person wish they had invested in something cheaper to start with.

The only way to see who's "right" is to wait and see. And even then it depends on who we look at as "average".

If you have the money and you consider yourself a fast learner, go ahead and get the 10D. We both agree in that respect.

I hope you don't mind me saying this, but it seems like you want us on the board here to make you decission for you. We can't do that. We can give some advice, but you are the one that needs to decide what you want and how the information we give applies to you. This is something that doesn't have an easy answer.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 18, 2004)

> I hope you don't mind me saying this, but it seems like you want us on the board here to make you decission for you. We can't do that. We can give some advice, but you are the one that needs to decide what you want and how the information we give applies to you. This is something that doesn't have an easy answer.



Thats a misapprehension. The more I hear you talk, the more clearer the picture gets. I never said I'm pondering over what to buy. All I asked was which is the best for a beginner; thats all. I'm defenitely going to get the 10D. But since I'm not an authority in the field, I figured it would be constructive to learn from the pros. It defenitely is! the information that I get from the board is helping me tremendously!


----------



## markc (Mar 18, 2004)

Okay. Sorry about that. I tend to get preachy when questions are asked in the yes/no vein, since I have such an "it depends" attitude.

I hope you enjoy the 10D. I sure do!


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 18, 2004)

No need to be sorry and all

I love debates, observing debates, and constructive critisisms. Or else we would not grow!


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 18, 2004)

Wh


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 18, 2004)

Also, is there a way we can opt for NOT having the flash being popping up on 10D IF we do not want it?

Flash is a very difficult area!


----------



## Sharkbait (Mar 18, 2004)

I'll throw in a quick plug for the 300D.  I've been shooting this camera for several months now under all sorts of conditions, and have yet to be let down.  Great autofocus, pretty fast write time, great color rendition, etc.  The 10D has a few more features, but as far as image quality goes it's the same processor, so should be the same.  I shoot everything from indoor hockey games to outdoor soccer games to portrait work, etc.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 18, 2004)

hmm...thats interesting!!

You mean to say all the pics in whiteshark photography was taken by a 300D?

Its the image quality that should matter the most. What are the extra features in 10D? And how does it help to get a better photograph?


----------



## wwjoeld (Mar 18, 2004)

here is a list of differences between the two and maybe you will see how the 10d will be the camera you need.

http://www.marius.org/fom-serve/cache/42.html

The burst rate, ISO and the metal body where the things i looked at most.

I love my 10d, but it is a matter of preference.


----------



## Sharkbait (Mar 18, 2004)

Yeah basically the 10D is a slightly 'heavier duty' version of the 300D.  The innards are all the same.  I think you get a couple extra autofocus options on the 10D, but it's been awhile since I compared them side-by-side.  

IMO, the 300D is probably the best bang-for-the-buck DSLR out there.  

Put it this way as well--I'm going to start shooting weddings and senior portraits and stuff this summer, and I have no worries or reservations at all about shooting my 300D for those.


----------



## drlynn (Mar 18, 2004)

Shark and wwjoeld are right on the money with the differences.  Both cameras have the same image sensor.  The 10D has a faster burst rate and a metal body.  Autofocus speeds are roughly equivalent.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

Does the metal body affects anything at all in the long run?? How about different weather conditions??

Whats a burst  rate??


----------



## Sharkbait (Mar 19, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> Does the metal body affects anything at all in the long run?? How about different weather conditions??
> 
> Whats a burst  rate??



Burst rate is when you're set in 'rapid fire' mode, if you just hold the shutter release down, it continues to take pictures.  My 300D will rattle off 4 or 5 shots in the space of about a second and a half, the 10D will shoot just a little bit faster and will shoot 8 or 9 (if I remember right) before it has to stop to record them to the CF card.

The metal body is really personal preference.  It adds a bit of weight, but will be more durable long-term.  As has been brought up though, I think one of the differences between film and digital cameras is that you could buy a 35mm SLR 40 years ago and expect to keep it most of your life.  A DSLR, with the constant computer upgrades, will last awhile, but I don't think any of us expect to keep our DSLRs 30 or 40 years.  

To respond to your email, Daniel, if money were no object and I could have either/or, I'd go with the 10D simply becuase it does have a couple more features, but considering that I do have a budget, I'm quite happy with my 300D and using that extra to get lenses.  The lens is what _really_ makes the photo anyway.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

Thanks John.

I do not think 'Burst rate' would affect me, since I'm not a photo journalist and I do not work for a sports team, which requires multiple pictures  in a sec or more. Hense, I can ignore that factor.

I think I could probably ignore the aspect of 'metal body', since 10D is not THE DSLR. Its just a very exceptional DSLR for a beginner.  If we were talking about 1D and 300D. I would defenitely vouch for the 1D. 

But the comparison here is between 10D and 300D, and I gather 300D is a better option for a beginner, even though I was keen on getting the 10D.

Its the lens that makes the diference, and that should matter!


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

markc, this is the copy of our conversation we had couple of days ago:



> I recommend starting with a 50mm. For the 10D, the 50/1.8 is an inexpensive but decent lens
> 
> danalec99 wrote:
> Does Canon has a 50/1.8?
> ...



Could you translate this in plain english, please? Say I'm going online lens hunting for a 300D/10D, what/where should I search for?? Is it 50/1.8 or 80/1.8? And which brand?


----------



## markc (Mar 19, 2004)

Because the size of the sensor on the 10D is smaller than film, you need to multiply the focal length of any lens you put on it by 1.6.

A 50mm lens on a 10D or 300D acts like a 80mm lens would on a film camera.
An 85mm lens becomes a 135mm lens.

The one in particular I'm talking about is made by Canon.

Here's a comparison of the 50mm f1.4 and the 50mm f1.8 lenses. The 1.4 lens is more expensive, but I thought it was worth it for the kinds of pictures I do.


----------



## Sharkbait (Mar 19, 2004)

markc said:
			
		

> Because the size of the sensor on the 10D is smaller than film, you need to multiply the focal length of any lens you put on it by 1.6.
> 
> A 50mm lens on a 10D or 300D acts like a 80mm lens would on a film camera.
> An 85mm lens becomes a 135mm lens.
> ...



Something I'm kind of curious about and don't know for sure.  The 300D comes in the kit version, with the 18-55mm lens (which is what I've got).  Since that lens was specifically designed for the 300D, is that 18-55 a true focal length for this camera (already adjusted), or a 35mm focal length?


----------



## voodoocat (Mar 19, 2004)

Shark said:
			
		

> markc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No it still uses the focal length of the lens which you must still take into account the crop factor.


----------



## markc (Mar 19, 2004)

18-55 would be 29-88.

I'm glad I picked up my 22-55 (35-88 ) a while back. It was designed for their APS camera and is flimsy pollycarb, but it was cheap and I find it useful.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

> Shark wrote:
> 
> markc wrote:
> Because the size of the sensor on the 10D is smaller than film, you need to multiply the focal length of any lens you put on it by 1.6.
> ...



I am in the process of a change of mind. Think may be I should go in for the 300D to start with.

For 300D can one use 50mm/f1.4 lens. OR does it ONLY function with the 18-55mm that comes with it? 

If one can use multiple lenses on a 300D, should I get the *80/4.1 or 50/4.1*?


----------



## Chiller (Mar 19, 2004)

I just picked up the Rebel 300D  One reason was I got a good deal on it, and I have been using the other Canon Rebel for a few years now.  The advantage was all my existing lenses would fit.    I am only an amateur/hobby photographer , but I am hoping to grow with the camera, even though it is a little out of my experience level.

Carl


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

Carl, what lens do you use? And can we see a sample(s) of your works??

markc, could we see a sample(s) of your works??


----------



## markc (Mar 19, 2004)

The 300D and the 10D will use any of the basic Canon lenses. The 18-55 is specially made for the 300D, so it can't be used on anything else, but everything will fit the 300D.

There is no 80/1.4. The 50/1.4 acts like an 80/1.4 on the 300D and 10D because of the multiplier.

The 50/1.4 is over three times the price of the 50/1.8, so I would only get it if the small difference is going to matter to you. As a beginner, I would go with the 1.8 for now. If you buy it used off eBay and take care of it, you can sell it again for about the same price if you want to upgrade. I've done that with a couple of lenses.


----------



## markc (Mar 19, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> Carl, what lens do you use? And can we see a sample(s) of your works??
> 
> markc, could we see a sample(s) of your works??


Sure. You can click on the "WWW" button below to see mine. They are from a couple of different cameras and lenses (including the 10D). I have to point out again that the individual photographer, not the equipment, is what makes an image what it is.

One of my pet peeves is when someone says, "Oh, you must have a really nice camera!" (I've had it happen) My response is, "Yes, and Picasso had really nice paintbrushes. You should see the pen Shakespeare used. It's a beaut!" I know several people who take amazing images with a $10 plastic Holga.

I will often ask what equipment, etc, a photographer used, but usually only if I'm curious as to the technical aspect of things. A good camera helps eliminate barriers, but it's not what makes a good picture "good".


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

Excellent pictures!!



> A good camera helps eliminate barriers, but it's not what makes a good picture "good".



I see the point now. Thank you sir.

Where can I find *50/1.4* and/or *50/1.8*??


----------



## Chiller (Mar 19, 2004)

The other lenses I have are a 28mm to 80mm and a 70mm to 300mm, plus a 2x extender.  I was told that the flash is not compatible, but have not tried to see.  Since I have only had the camera for 2 days, I am really looking forward to this weekend to see how it does.  I will post as soon as I can.

Carl


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

Can we have the pop up flash in 300D to function when we want?? OR does it pop up all the time?


----------



## Sharkbait (Mar 19, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> Can we have the pop up flash in 300D to function when we want?? OR does it pop up all the time?



There are several shooting modes.  Some let the flash run automatically, some give the user control over it.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 19, 2004)

Shark wrote:


> There are several shooting modes. Some let the flash run automatically, some give the user control over it.



Which are the modes that we can control?


----------



## Chiller (Mar 19, 2004)

The pop- up flash works like the Rebel G model.  It can be controlled.  I am going to see if the flash I have will work on it.  I had mixed answers, and finally the last guy said that flash  I have(Vivital 728afc) might work.  I have my doubts though.   
Carl


----------



## Digital Matt (Mar 19, 2004)

Danalec99, why don't you go to the Canon website and download the pdf manual, and answer all your questions about what the 300D can and can't do.

I have the 300D with the kit lens (18-55mm), and the 50mm 1.8, and I'm going to purchase a 75-300mm in the next few weeks.  Check out my website if you want further examples of shots from a 300D.

http://www.anti-rejection.com/photography/


----------



## pilgrim (Mar 20, 2004)

markc said:
			
		

> One of my pet peeves is when someone says, "Oh, you must have a really nice camera!" (I've had it happen) My response is, "Yes, and Picasso had really nice paintbrushes. You should see the pen Shakespeare used. It's a beaut!"





A few days ago I was showing a friend some recent pictures I took of him riding, and his first comment was, "wow, that camera takes really nice pictures"  
I think he was just oblivious to the fact that some cameras have manual settings, and the photographer has total control over the image. 
But it still hurt


----------



## markc (Mar 20, 2004)

pilgrim said:
			
		

> I think he was just oblivious to the fact that some cameras have manual settings, and the photographer has total control over the image.
> But it still hurt


I think that's why it can be so hard to make fine-art sales, too. It's really bad here in Rochester, home of Kodak and "You Press the Button. We Do the Rest." Wow... so easy...

Everyone thinks they can do it. Well, if they really wanted to, that is. I mean, how hard can it be?

Pfffft!


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 27, 2004)

Markc,

I finally zeroed in on the 10D. With the couple of hundred dollar difference, I figured it would be nice I picked the metal body!

And I've ordered the EF50 f1.4. Waiting for the online order to arrive.

What do you think of EF 75-300mm? Could I do landscape with it or the 50/1.4?

Thanks,
danalec


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 27, 2004)

Markc,

Are these the same books?

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=37E6C8E1QW&isbn=0817441816&itm=1

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=37E6C8E1QW&isbn=0817441778&itm=2


----------



## markc (Mar 27, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> And I've ordered the EF50 f1.4. Waiting for the online order to arrive.


Wow. I hope you like it. I love mine.



> What do you think of EF 75-300mm?


I haven't used one, but I've heard mixed reports. It's a polycarb body, so a cheaper lens. I'm thinking of getting one myself, though. I don't need a telephoto often enough to justify the cost of a more expensive lens, but I would like to have one at times. I spent the money on the 50/1.4 (instead of the 50/1.8 ), since I knew I would be using that a _lot_.



> Could I do landscape with it or the 50/1.4?


Not traditional ones, where you see a wide vista. For that you would need a wide-angle lens. The Canon 22-55mm has the crop of a 35-88mm on the 10D. I picked one up a while ago when I wanted to experiment with really wide shots on my EOS5. It's perfect for the 10D, as 35mm tends to be a perfered focal length. It's also a cheap polycarb lens, but again, I don't do a lot of landscapes, so I didn't feel like spending the money on something of a higher quality.

This is one of the few shots I have up taken with the 22-55.


----------



## markc (Mar 27, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> Markc,
> 
> Are these the same books?
> 
> ...



Yup, but the first one is a newer printing with 16 more pages. I owned the older one (but donated it to someone). I don't know what the new stuff is that was added. The older book is great, so you can't go wrong with it, but it might be worth the couple of extra bucks to get the newer one.


----------



## markc (Mar 27, 2004)

Whoops. I just realized that I was thinking of the new 100-300, not the 75-300. They both get mixed reviews, but the 75-300 is a metal mount. The 100-300 is the one I was thinking of because of price.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 27, 2004)

50/1.4 is the one that I'm planning to challenge myself with.

The reason why I asked re. ef75-300 is because I would like to have a 'normal' lens that would take normal pics. Is that a good call?


----------



## markc (Mar 27, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> The reason why I asked re. ef75-300 is because I would like to have a 'normal' lens that would take normal pics. Is that a good call?


How do you mean normal? It's not normal in the way the term is usually used. "Normal" means the camera sees the scene the way your eye would, with no distance compression (like a telephoto) or stretching (like a wide angle).

For a 35mm (film size, not lens size) film camera, normal would be a 50mm lens. I still don't have my head wrapped around the whole conversion thing, but going just by crop, a 35mm lens would be normal on a 10D. A 75-300mm on a 10D would be way into the telephoto range.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 27, 2004)

What do you mean by telephoto?


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 27, 2004)

markc, is this a 50/1.4?

http://www.photogs.net/gallery/Landscapes/BlackCreek1


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 27, 2004)

And what about this??

http://www.photogs.net/gallery/Landscapes/AtTheCorner


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 27, 2004)

Which lens did you use for this?

http://www.photogs.net/gallery/Landscapes/MovingOn


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 27, 2004)

This is a kind of picture, when I meant 'normal' picture!
http://www.photogs.net/gallery/Practice/TheAllPurposeRoom

Which lens did you use for this picture?


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 27, 2004)

Is this 50/1.4 as well?

http://www.photogs.net/gallery/AnimalFriends/M_M1


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 27, 2004)

Feel much better now.....instead of having an active dialogue (since we are poles apart in this field), I thought it would be better if I could show you the works that you have done and _then_ raising the queries.

Thanks,
danalec99


----------



## markc (Mar 27, 2004)

Rather than answering all those, which I think would be misleading as there is more going on than just different focal lengths, I think it would be good to take a look at this page and study it real well. It shows you what changing the focal length does and what a change in aperture does.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 28, 2004)

Thanks!


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 28, 2004)

Thanks for the link. But Mark, since I'm a beginner, I would need time to grasp the content of it. At the moment, I'm in the process of buying the lens. The basic, yet necessary range. I have bought 50/1.4, and now I'm looking for a lens that would help me take a picture like 

http://www.photogs.net/gallery/Practice/TheAllPurposeRoom 

and

http://www.photogs.net/gallery/Landscapes/AtTheCorner

Look forward to hearing from you.

thanks


----------



## markc (Mar 28, 2004)

My recommendation would be to get used to the 50mm lens you ordered while you are reading and learning from Peterson's book. Once you understand focal length and aperture, you can decide if you want to get a zoom of a wide range but limited aperture, or primes with only one focal length and a wide aperture range, or a mix of each. I can give you a simple pat answer as to what lens I used where, but without knowing _why_ I used it, that information is going to be very misleading.

You have time. It's not like you are going to be able to go out and shoot images like I have on my site tomorrow just because you are buying the same equipment as I am. Maybe you will be a faster learner than I am, but there is still a time investment to be made. Those images are the result of knowledge garnered from a lot of study and experience mixed with my own personal vision.

If you want to make images of a similar quality, then you need to spend the time to gain the experience needed to do so and then mix that with your own personal vision.

If you ask an experienced photographer what lens you should start off with, many of them will tell you a 50mm prime. Beginners hate it because they feel that it limits them, but just remember that you are starting out with a lens that many later wish they had decided to start with. They realize they would have learned faster if they had done so. If you can be patient, it will put you ahead of the game.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 28, 2004)

> If you ask an experienced photographer what lens you should start off with, many of them will tell you a 50mm prime. Beginners hate it because they feel that it limits them, but just remember that you are starting out with a lens that many later wish they had decided to start with.



Which is exactly why I've ordered the 50mm/1.4. 

I understand your views about investing in time, a combine my personal taste and all. You are talking about the art of photography. I understand that, and I intend to spend time on it. And I clearly am aware that I will NOT be able to shoot pictures like you have one day one . 

I'm not at all impatient, *But* I'm talking about a simple scenario, lets say a family get-together, (which I always have) or a long trip with my wife. On those occasions there will be a need to take a pictures like : 
http://www.photogs.net/gallery/Practice/TheAllPurposeRoom 
>a family room.

http://www.photogs.net/gallery/Landscapes/AtTheCorner
>city pictures


----------



## markc (Mar 28, 2004)

If you are looking for a lens that will let the 10D act like a point-and-shoot at times, the Canon 24-85mm looks like a good choice. That translates to 38-168mm on the 10D, which is a nice range. That isn't very wide on the low side, but that's hard to get on the 10D.

If you don't want to spend another $300, the 28-90 is under $100 right now at Adorama, but that translates into 45-144mm. That isn't very far into the wide-angle side of things, so doing indoor group shots and landscapes would be more limited, but not impossible.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 28, 2004)

Will the Tamron 28-800 do the same job?


----------



## markc (Mar 28, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> Will the Tamron 28-800 do the same job?


Do you mean the 28-300? I've never used a Tamron lens, so I can't say anything about the company. That equals 45-480 on the 10D.

I don't know. That's why I was suggesting learning more about what lenses do before laying out that kind of cash. That lens goes further into the telephoto than the 24-85 and has a wider range in it's focal length, but the 24-85 has more of a wide-angle, even if it's only a little bit. The Tamron also has an aperture of only 6.3 when it's fullly out to 300. You won't be able to shorten the DOF as much.

Another option is to get both the 22-55 and the 75-300. They aren't the greatest quality, but they are cheap, and together they cover quite a range. Or you could get the wide angle first and wait and see if you really need the telephoto.

The picture of the kitchen is taken with my 22-55 on my 10D. The one of the city building is with my 85mm, but on my film camera. The 50mm on the 10D is equal to an 80mm, so that will be comparable. I've sold off my other two zooms (35-135 and 100-300). Right now all I own is the 22-55, which I use rarely, and the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8. Those two are my babies.


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 28, 2004)

Thanks for the valuable info.

This is what I was talking about. A utility/travel lens was what I wanted, and this one looks like it!



> http://www.tamron.com/special_xr/xr2.htm


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 28, 2004)

That was not a quote...sorry:

http://www.tamron.com/special_xr/xr2.htm


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 31, 2004)

I was initially hesitant to post the pics online, since I'm aware of the amazing control that most of you weave here in the field of photography. I'm actually an infant in the field. But due to markc's request (which he had mentioned in our private messaging) let me post the link here.

www.fotki.com/zestfulpuma

album names are:

1. *first day with the 10D*
2. *experiments with the 10D* 

Your honest comments/suggestions/constructive critisisms are sough for.

Thanks,
Daniel


----------



## mrsid99 (Mar 31, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> Will the Tamron 28-800 do the same job?



 For reference, here's two of the first shots I took using my 10D with the 28-300 Tamron lens, min and max zoom, full auto and lots of smog that day.


----------



## markc (Mar 31, 2004)

A lot of the images you have in there are neat and along the lines of what I expected to see. You are experimenting with DOF and different compositions and getting some interesting results. But this is the one I wanted to comment on:






This is _not_ a shot I would have expected from a beginner. The mix on composition, DOF, etc., is all outstanding. On the left, her head is turned just enough to catch a glimps of her eyelashes, which are just barely in the frame; her eyes are perfectly placed in the mirror; her reflection, the fruit, and her hands are all in focus, but the background and her body in the foreground are nicely blurred. My eye travels from her reflection, to her hand, to her profile, and back to her face again, so I tend to linger on the image, rather than get bored and move on.

This is exactly the kind of image that shows why I like to recommend prime lenses. You would not have been able to get this shallow of a DOF with a zoom lens. You don't always need it, but here it worked perfectly and you wouldn't have been able to get this shot without it.

I may have to eat my words regarding tech growing faster than peoples' skills. Getting the 10D over the 300D could turn out to be a very wise choice.

This is really well done, D. Congrats!


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 31, 2004)

*mrsid99 wrote:*



> For reference, here's two of the first shots I took using my 10D with the 28-300 Tamron lens, min and max zoom, full auto and lots of smog that day.



Thats some power zoom!! Its good, but I would be more interested in capturing a particular object/person among the crowd. Got to try out the Tamron 28-300 that I got today!


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 31, 2004)

I'm sorry Mark, but you have to let me know what *DOF* is.



> This is not a shot I would have expected from a beginner. The mix on composition, DOF, etc., is all outstanding.



Its truly an honor to hear a comment of this sort from you. I had a long tiring day, but this defenitely did make my day!!

Thanks!


----------



## danalec99 (Mar 31, 2004)

50mm is not a lens.... Its a phenomenon!!!


----------



## markc (Mar 31, 2004)

DOF is depth of field. It's the amount of the image that's in focus, based on distance from the camera.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 1, 2004)

Okay..thanks!


----------



## drlynn (Apr 1, 2004)

I have to agree with Mark. That is an outstanding pic, Danalec.
I think the more you use that 50mm lens, the more glad you'll be that you decided as you did.  On your 10D, the 50mm is just about the perfect focal length for a portrait lens.

In 35mm, portrait lenses are usually 80-130mm, with 80-85 the accepted standard.  The 50mm lens on your 10D works out to around 80-85mm equivalent.

Keep practicing.  That shot shows a great natural eye, and a good bit of talented potential.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 1, 2004)

Thanks drlynn


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 1, 2004)

drlynn, did you shoot your 'avatar'?


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 1, 2004)

Can we do B&W on a 10D? 

Its an area that I would love to explore!


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 1, 2004)

> Can we do B&W on a 10D?



Not right in the camera but it is very simple to do once it's off the camera and on the computer.  In essence, every shot you take can be color or b&w.  

The same is true with film as well.  A lot of places will print color film in b&w if you ask them...of course true b&w film has it's own uniqueness.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 1, 2004)

> Not right in the camera but it is very simple to do once it's off the camera and on the computer.



You mean PS?


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 1, 2004)

Sure, Photo shop will work, I think desaturated is the method people use.

Just about any decent image software will have a convert to b&w tool.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 1, 2004)

> I think *desaturated* is the method people use.



What do you mean?


----------



## Digital Matt (Apr 1, 2004)

Saturate = increase the color
Desaturate = decrease or remove the color

In photoshop it's in the image menu.  Adjust, Hue/Sat, and you bring the sat slider down to 0.

This is not the best method however.  The channel mixer gives you much more control.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Apr 1, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> > I think *desaturated* is the method people use.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?



Yeah, what do you mean, I usually saturate one of the hue before converting to B&W
You answered when I was posting


----------



## drlynn (Apr 1, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> drlynn, did you shoot your 'avatar'?



Yep. That's my oldest son, playing on a sliding board. Shot on Ilford XP2 400 in my Canon Rebel Ti.

And as for B7W conversion in Photoshop, Vonnagy did a great tutorial on that in the Graphics Program forum.  Here's the link:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4760

His method is very similar to mine.  I have found that it will be VERY rare that you want to raise the level of blue in your adjustments.  It almost always makes the pic too dark and fuzzy.


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 1, 2004)

Thanks drlynn, thats a beautiful shot of your son's. 

And thanks, Jeff Cains, Digital Matt.

Its kind of sad to learn that one cannot take a b&w straight from a DSLR!!


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 1, 2004)

Could someone suggest a neat photo printer?


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 2, 2004)

> Could someone suggest a neat photo printer?



And a decent tripod!


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 2, 2004)

Kindly go to 

http://public.fotki.com/zestfulpuma/experiments_with_the_10d/

and check out images *1* and *2*. Let me know what you feel!


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 2, 2004)

And how do I post a pic here? Just the pic?


----------

