DSLRUsers.com

The time has come where I need to seriously start looking at buying a dslr. I've been learning as much as I can from various sources and I've reached a point where I need to actually get out there and practice, but I'm having a dilemna about which one to buy. My heart says go the 400D because it's the newest flashiest option for me, but I've been looking at 2nd hand prices for the 300D and they are a fraction of the cost. Bearing in mind that I'm after a camera to learn on and not take professional level photographs, is there really any reason I shouldn't go the 300D and put the savings towards better lenses? I know the 300d has a lower megapixle count, but I'm not looking to print huge pictures.. Basically what I want out of the camera is good quality pictures (assuming reasonable lenses) with plenty of settings for me to fiddle with and learn.

Am I likely to be disappointed in the 300d or is it just cheap because it's the older model?

Josh

Personally I always like to have the latest and greatest and it really annoys me when it gets superceded. However, the 300D is a good camera and it's possible that, even if you buy the 400D, you will want to upgrade your camera in a year or two. This will be much more comfortable to do if you haven't paid much in the first place. You could learn a lot on the 300D. There are a lot of people here who still use cameras like the 300D and the D70. It's the lenses that you will keep, the camera will go, probably a lot sooner than you think!

Hi Josh
My first camera was the 300D and I was very impress with it and learn lot with it went from jpeg in auto to raw in manual mode.
I printed some good photos at A3 very clear. My daughter has it now and she loves its
My current camera is a 5D which will be a 5DM2 soon this will be my third camera in 5 years
I have 2 L series lens which cost more than the 5D new and my others 4 lens about 2/3's
As mavin said you will always keep good glass but not the bodies.the 300D is a good camera but it will not be the last.
Tony

The 300D takes fine photographs. Buy the best lenses you can.

Thanks for the advice! I thought this might be the case, as they say, the camera is only as good as the operator, and as i'm very new, that makes the camera most likely better than me... I will get the camera as a reward for myself when I get my new job, so hopefully in the next month or two I'll have some pictures to show off!

Josh

I am not sure of the price difference but you may want to consider a 350D as it starts up instantly. I think that should be an attribute that's compulsory to all DSLRs..

Hmm good and valid point. It is very frustrating to have a kodak moment only to miss it because the camera is still starting. I will look into it! Thanks!

Edit: A quick look on ebay makes them $200-$300 more expensive... Is there any other reason to go the 350D? And does anyone know how long the 300D takes to start? Surely can't be that long...

Not sure, but it can't take too long to start up. I have used my brother's and a friend's 300D and I didn't notice anything really annoying about the start up time. If I am taking photos I leave my camera on anyway, it doesn't take much more battery power, unlike a p&s.

sully wrote:Hmm good and valid point. It is very frustrating to have a kodak moment only to miss it because the camera is still starting. I will look into it! Thanks!

Edit: A quick look on ebay makes them $200-$300 more expensive... Is there any other reason to go the 350D? And does anyone know how long the 300D takes to start? Surely can't be that long...

Compared with your typical PHD, no.

My primary concern would be that both the 300D and 350D are now very old in terms of technology and thus features etc. That will not affect their usability, but it may affect you due to their inability to meet your perhaps more modern expectations. This would piss me off no end: we all want faster, bigger, better, etc, and the older models (count the D70 and D50 in this group) might have a tendency to frustrate a user who has been exposed to the newer technology.

This is perhaps a concept that requires some consideration on your part; nothing more.

sully wrote:And does anyone know how long the 300D takes to start?

Fscking ages. About 3 seconds from memory, it was one of the things that drove me nuts about that camera. edven coming out of power-save mode was very slow.

But I have to admit that I'm one of the people who finds the power-save delay on the 1D somewhat irritating at times (I occasionally have the camera on a tripod and remote release in my hand, and when I push the button there's a few tenths of a second delay before I get my photo). But with the 300D I'd have time to go completely insane (so I often completely disabled power saving mode and just accepted that batteries only last a few hours).

Compared to current (or even recent) cameras, the 300D is not nice to use. It can take nice pictures, but it's quite primitive in operation. I'd recommend starting with at least a 350D. It has custom functions, etc. It got improved a bit in the 400D (bigger LCD, some more pixels, etc) but it's not a bad camera, and if you can get one cheap would not be a bad choice.

All good points, but I think I will still stick with the 300D or 350D for these reasons:

1) A lot cheaper. I'm saving for a house and so I'm quite happy not to spend money I don't have to
2) By the time I'm sick of it, the newer cameras will have come down in price anyway
3) Fact is I'm only just starting out, and have barely even been allowed to look at a DSLR in the past, let alone have something to compare it to and be jealous of
4) The best camera i've owned is the one on my n95, so this is a decent step up anyway

Thanks for the advice people, the fact that someone can come onto a forum, ask a question, and get such good helpful answers is what makes a forum great

Josh

moz wrote: But with the 300D I'd have time to go completely insane

Is that what did it?