#250812 - 02/03/2005 19:04
Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
|
old hand
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 931
Loc: Minnetonka, MN
|
I can't afford it yet, but this is the camera i want to buy when i can....i was mostly wondering how fast it was compared to other cameras....Especially how fast it is in low light situations since most other cameras take forever to focus....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250813 - 02/03/2005 19:14
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: burdell1]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
I was going to get one this week, but noticed that Canon just announced the SD400, due out March 25th. Same camera, but 5 megapixels. I'm gonna wait a couple weeks and get that one. You can preorder them at Amazon and view the specs on DPReview.com.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250814 - 02/03/2005 19:14
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: burdell1]
|
veteran
Registered: 08/05/2000
Posts: 1429
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
The SD300 is VERY fast. Both in startup time and in focusing time, etc. the review on dpreview.com will give all those specs.
I HAD an SD300 until I read about the SD400 and SD500 which are coming out this month. I returned it to Dell within the 21 day return policy...
To me, the new features that is present in these 2 cameras are worth the wait. USB 2.0, better LCD screen, ability to zoom (digitally) when in movie mode, 5 megapixels in the SD400, some enhanced coloration toys, customized settings for remote picture mode, and a few others. Oh yeah, for the same retail price - although I doubt the street price for the SD400 will be as low as the SD300...
I loved the pictures that the SD300 took, although it is generally thought to have "soft edges"...
It's a great point and click kinda camera, and the form factor is amazing.
The SD500 is bigger, but I gotta see by how much before I decide between the SD400 and SD500...
- Jon
Edited by jbauer (02/03/2005 19:15)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250815 - 02/03/2005 19:21
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: jbauer]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
I'm extremely interested in how well these cameras do in low light situations.
It looks like the form factor is the same as the other models in the ixus line, but if these new ones do better in low light, I might just have to get one. That's been the bane of my current ixus-line camera.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250816 - 02/03/2005 19:26
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: tfabris]
|
veteran
Registered: 08/05/2000
Posts: 1429
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
Quote:
I'm extremely interested in how well these cameras do in low light situations.
It looks like the form factor is the same as the other models in the ixus line, but if these new ones do better in low light, I might just have to get one. That's been the bane of my current ixus-line camera.
Not as good as a larger camera. It has a tiny lens (it's a tiny camera)... The indoor shots I took were pretty grainy. The more light, the better. The SD500 would be much improved, but is larger than the SD300/SD400...
Here are some samples of shots I took with it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonbauer/
- Jon
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250817 - 02/03/2005 19:33
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: jbauer]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
I don't care much about grain, what I want is a camera that can take an indoor shot (standard indoor lighting, incandescent or fluorescent) without a flash... and not need a hold-your-breath-and-don't-move-the-camera exposure to do it.
I don't need to take pictures in candle light. I just want to be able to take indoor shots at office-lighting levels and not have them come out blurry because my heart was beating during the exposure.
My current camera (ixus 300) can't do that.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250818 - 02/03/2005 19:35
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: tfabris]
|
veteran
Registered: 08/05/2000
Posts: 1429
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
Quote:
I don't care much about grain, what I want is a camera that can take an indoor shot (standard indoor lighting, incandescent or fluorescent) without a flash... and not need a hold-your-breath-and-don't-move-the-camera exposure to do it.
I don't need to take pictures in candle light. I just want to be able to take indoor shots at office-lighting levels and not have them come out blurry because my heart was beating during the exposure.
My current camera (ixus 300) can't do that.
The camera takes pretty impressive pictures, but because it's so small, it IS subject to blur as holding it perfectly still in your hand is difficult. I've read that a lot of people use the multi shot mode to alleviate this issue as the 3rd of 4th shot is usually a lot less blurry than the first one...
I recommend that you go get a demo of the camera somewhere. The pictures it takes are pretty impressive, in my opinion.
- Jon
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250820 - 02/03/2005 20:55
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 23/08/2000
Posts: 3826
Loc: SLC, UT, USA
|
Quote:
I was going to get one this week, but noticed that Canon just announced the SD400, due out March 25th. Same camera, but 5 megapixels. I'm gonna wait a couple weeks and get that one. You can preorder them at Amazon and view the specs on DPReview.com.
I'm in the EXACT same situation. I was going to order one the DAY they announced the new ones. Now I'm holding off. I just have to decide it I want to wait so the SD300 comes down in price due to the new ones or if I want to go with the SD400. =]
Oh, and Tony, I'm not sure if you've seen one in person, but the form factor is actually smaller. The SD line is ridiculously small, even compared with the S series.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250821 - 02/03/2005 21:27
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: andy]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't need to take pictures in candle light. I just want to be able to take indoor shots at office-lighting levels and not have them come out blurry because my heart was beating during the exposure.
My current camera (ixus 300) can't do that.
<DSLR snob mode>You need a DSLR</DSLR snob mode>
...and a nice F1.8 50mm lens...
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250822 - 02/03/2005 21:37
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
<DSLR snob mode>You need a DSLR</DSLR snob mode>
Can't get one in that form factor.
For me, the form factor is very important.
And Loren: Yeah, I noticed that as I was reading the review on DPReview. Pretty damn sweet. 3x zoom in something that small is amazing. Definitely drooling for one now.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250823 - 02/03/2005 22:35
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 23/08/2000
Posts: 3826
Loc: SLC, UT, USA
|
You should run by a Best Buy or something and "fondle" one. I kept going back and forth between a Sony T1 and an SD300 for literally half an hour, just getting the feel of each one. The T1's speed is just phenomenal and it feels amazing, but the SD300 won me over. The SD20 is also pretty damn amazing... it's smaller than the SD300! It's getting to be the size that makes you scared you'll loose it it's so small. I just sold my S200 and am chomping at the bit for a new camera. It sucks that the SD400 isn't out until the end of the month... on the DAY i'll be headed to the desert for the annual kite event I attend. Argh. I guess I'll have to get an SD300 to hold me over... but I bet the prices won't drop until after then.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250824 - 02/03/2005 22:38
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Don't be snowed by the zoom factor. I always look first at the widest wide-angle the lens can do. This is one of the places that the Canon S60/S70 line has traditionally beaten its rivals, although the brand-new Ricoh Caplio R2 looks nice as well. You can always get closer to your subject. You can't always get further away.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250825 - 02/03/2005 22:43
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
You can always get closer to your subject. You can't always get further away.
True. But in practice, in the situations I'm using my current camera, I've found that I lament the lack of a good zoom more than I lament the lack of a wider angle.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250826 - 03/03/2005 11:59
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: jbauer]
|
addict
Registered: 09/06/1999
Posts: 559
Loc: Newfoundland, Canada
|
I'm on the waiting list for a new SD500 as soon as they are available. I currently have an S330 thanks to the recommendations I have gotten here. I was in the market for a bigger camera such as the Digital Rebel or the PowerShot Pro1 but the form factor is what got me sold on the smaller camera. I had 10,000 pictures/videos taken with my S330 in the first year of ownership because it was always in my pocket. It's been dropped on rocks, cement, and asphalt. Landed in the mud. Lost in the snow during a snowmobile ride (a kind soul found it, turned it on and saw a picture of my CR-V and returned it to me (small town bonus!)) I had it in my pocket during another snowmobile ride that had a snow fall that turned into a rainstorm and the camera would only work in one mode until I took her apart and let her dry out for a couple days by the oil stove. I even have the waterproof case and I have taken it out on my WaveRunner and with me being towed on a tube behind the WaveRunner and behind a friends boat. I have also taken it with me during the birthday parties of my nephews and neices when they are at the pool. Nobody else has a camera so it really lights up the kids eyes to see the pictures and videos of them diving for the first time or finally swimming without anyone holding onto them. My S330 has really proven to me the sturdiness of the Canon cameras. I only hope I have the same joy with the SD500. 7 megapixels, zoom in video mode, unlimited length (up to 1 gigabyte) of video clips. It was pretty much a nobrainer once I started reading about this camera. The price I have been given on it as of now is $629 Canadian. I hope to do a little better then that once it is released but I know the accessories are gonna bring my cost up a bit.  Rene
_________________________
12 gig empeg Mark II, SN: 080000101 30 gig RioCar SN: 30103114 My blog
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250827 - 03/03/2005 14:05
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: loren]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Sounds like you got a new job, there, Loren.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250828 - 03/03/2005 18:02
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 23/08/2000
Posts: 3826
Loc: SLC, UT, USA
|
Nope. I'm just good at selling stuff to make up for the cost of new toys. =]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250829 - 03/03/2005 21:53
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: loren]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
Quote:
Nope. I'm just good at selling stuff to make up for the cost of new toys. =]
Just remember that you need to keep at least one kidney
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250830 - 03/03/2005 21:58
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: mcomb]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
My vote for one of the best all-time replies on this BBS.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250831 - 03/03/2005 21:59
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 23/08/2000
Posts: 3826
Loc: SLC, UT, USA
|
LMAO.  Seconded.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250832 - 04/03/2005 02:41
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: tfabris]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
|
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250833 - 06/03/2005 15:06
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: mcomb]
|
old hand
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 931
Loc: Minnetonka, MN
|
We actually have the the 7 mp camera (I believe it is called the SD500) where I work....it is really nice...smaller than I thought it would be...Although I am not sure if 7 megapixels are really necessary....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250834 - 06/03/2005 18:37
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: burdell1]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
I was taking a bunch of pictures today around sunset (mmm... long shadows), which meant I didn't have full daylight to illuminate things. However, I foolishly insisted on using my long zoom lens (300mm on my camera == 450mm on a full-frame camera). In practice, I only got really sharp photos if I braced the camera against something (e.g., a light pole) or cranked up the sensor speed such that I could do a 1/1000 sec exposure. This is with my six megapixel Nikon D70.
Pseudo-moral of the story: unless (or perhaps, even if) you've got some kind of optical image stabilization, once you get to six megapixels or up, you're in a world where even minute jitters of your hands directly translate into not-quite-sharp photos. Left unchecked, this may create tendencies to blow money on over-built tripods or a wide variety of other senseless camera accessories.
Buyer beware.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250835 - 06/03/2005 20:51
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Should have bought a Canon  Then you could have had an affordable 70-300mm image stabilised lens... I'm surprised you had to go to 1/1000 to get sharp shots, I would have thought you would have got some at least at 1/500 or 1/750.
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250836 - 07/03/2005 10:34
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
1/1000 seemed to do the job, regardless of my jittery hands. Below that, it seems like I needed to brace the camera against something like a light pole. Otherwise, I was nailing some and blurring other shots, even at 1/500.
In terms of "affordable" image stabilization, B&H wants $1150 for the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens. That's pretty painful, compared to my $250 Nikon AF 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 ED lens. Of course, it doesn't have any of the whizzy features of the Canon lens, but that's reflected in the price. (The Tamron lens with the same specs costs $150, apparently rolls off the same assembly line as the Nikon lens, and is effectively identical, modulo cosmetic differences.)
Somebody needs to built a lens with specs comparable to Canon's IS lens for under $500. That will be a best seller!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250837 - 07/03/2005 12:52
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Quote:
In terms of "affordable" image stabilization, B&H wants $1150 for the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens. That's pretty painful, compared to my $250 Nikon AF 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 ED lens.
Ah, that wasn't the affordable 300mm IS Canon lens I was referring to. I was talking about the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM, which B&H have for only $390...
Quote:
Somebody needs to built a lens with specs comparable to Canon's IS lens for under $500. That will be a best seller!
Canon do, it just doesn't match all the specs of the Canon IS lens you were talking about (optical quality, focusing speed and size are the big differences).
For the record, I have the EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS and want the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
With the IS I manage to get fairly reliable sharp shoots with 1/350 at 300mm, with some shots at 1/250 and below being sharp as well. I've just noticed that one of my favourite shots of Eryl my wife was 1/180 at 300mm and is sharp (for the bit of the shot that is in focus):
http://www.norman.cx/photos/showphotonew.asp_Q_path_E_20030705%20Washington%202003/IMG_2900.JPG
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250838 - 07/03/2005 16:20
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Quote:
For the record, I have the EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS and want the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
For the cost of the latter lens, I'd imagine you'd just want to go it a step further and get the 70-200mm f/2.8 ($1500, more or less, from both Canon and Nikon, with a similar feature set of bells and whistles) plus maybe a 1.4x teleconverter. Either lens would look quite pretty on your shelf when you leave it behind because it's too heavy to lug around.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250839 - 07/03/2005 18:34
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Quote:
Quote:
For the record, I have the EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS and want the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM
For the cost of the latter lens, I'd imagine you'd just want to go it a step further and get the 70-200mm f/2.8 ($1500, more or less, from both Canon and Nikon, with a similar feature set of bells and whistles) plus maybe a 1.4x teleconverter. Either lens would look quite pretty on your shelf when you leave it behind because it's too heavy to lug around.
In the UK the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM cost £849 and it weighs 720g.
The EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM and EF 1.4x II Converter combined cost £1,608 and weigh 1790g.
So the combination weighs 2.5 times the weight of the single lens and costs twice the price.
The 1.4x converter loses you one stop, which turns it into and f/4.0 lens. That would make it the same at the short end as the single lens and only one stop faster at the long end.
The deal breaker of course though is that the lens and converter are white
No doubt the 70-200 has measurably better optical quality, but I'm never likely to own one because of the size, weight, price and whiteness.
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250840 - 07/03/2005 19:51
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: andy]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
I'm with you on the L-Series vs. DO. The lens length, color and extra 100mm are what put me into the 70-300 DO IS instead of the L series. The 70-300 DO is much less conspicuous when shooting city candids or local sports events than the L-series.
My other lenses are the 24-70 f2.8 L and the 16-37 f2.8 L. I don't feel the need to get anything else (except maybe a fisheye) for some time.
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250841 - 08/03/2005 09:21
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Quote:
In the UK the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM cost £849 and it weighs 720g.
The EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM and EF 1.4x II Converter combined cost £1,608 and weigh 1790g.
Wow, that's a good deal more money than we pay in the U.S. At that point, it's cheaper for you to book a flight to New York, buy your gear (even paying sales tax), and fly back home again.
In terms of mass, there's definitely a big difference between 720g and 1790g. Interestingly, your Canon 75-300 (with IS and USM, but without the fancy DO optics), weighs only 666g. The Nikon lens (similar optics, but no IS or USM) is 517g. I suppose it makes sense that adding the ultrasonic motors and image stability systems could cost 140g. I'm actually somewhat surprised that the DO version is heavier. I would have thought that with more expensive optics, they could get that weight down. Maybe they're putting in heavier AF motors or a more robust outer shell.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index