#250842 - 08/03/2005 09:53
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Quote:
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.
Indeed and those aren't list prices they are street prices. The list price for the DO is £1049.99
I bought both my 75-300 and 17-40 f/4.0 L in the States when on holiday. Thankfully Canon do an international waranty on the lenses, something that is sadly lacking on the bodies.
Mind you, you can only really save decent money if you "forget" to declare them coming through customs, otherwise you would get hit for at least 10% duty and 17.5% sales tax.
Quote:
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.
The DO version is much more solidly built than my 75-300 IS, which is almost entirely plastic. If it didn't go to 300mm, have IS and come in so "cheap" then I would never have bought it. It feels cheap and takes an age to focus (it frequently hunts through the entire range before settling). It also doesn't have full time auto focus, meaning you can't help it with its focus problems.
But it does do 300mm (480mm in 35mm terms) and I can take decent shots at 1/250, so I love it 
Nearly as impressive in the "how did they do that" area, is my wife's new digicam. A 36mm-420mm stabilised lens on a camera that you can put in your pocket and weighs less than any one of my lenses...
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250843 - 08/03/2005 10:31
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Quote:
Thankfully Canon do an international waranty on the lenses, something that is sadly lacking on the bodies.
If I buy an "import" lens from B&H Photo, generally that means that Nikon USA (or Canon USA, so far as I know) won't touch it. Instead, B&H offers you their own warranty for the same time period and whatnot.
Given how much cheaper it is to buy these things in the U.S., I'm surprised there isn't some sort of arbitrage going on. Is there not a U.K. version of B&H selling "import" gear for close to American prices? If they buy at wholesale (or even street) prices here and pay those duties, it looks like they still come out ahead of your street prices.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250844 - 08/03/2005 10:47
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
The DO lens has the "full version" of 3rd-generation IS; the others do not. This adds bulk and some weight, it seems. But the glass in the DO is just plain DENSE.. What DO saves, is length. But it feels very dense and solid (not bad, but a rather good feel).
Seems to work well enough too. But I find the pictures go soft when backlit, such as shooting birds in the sky, or dark objects against a bright background (exposed for the dark objects, that is).
Love it. Haven't touched my 70-200L-IS since I got the 70-300-DO.
Cheers
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250845 - 08/03/2005 11:30
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Quote:
If I buy an "import" lens from B&H Photo, generally that means that Nikon USA (or Canon USA, so far as I know) won't touch it. Instead, B&H offers you their own warranty for the same time period and whatnot.
I think it depends on your local Canon people honouring the warranty. My understanding is that Canon US will not honour claims on grey kit imported into the US, whereas Canon UK will honour claims in lenses bought elsewhere in the world (but not bodies).
I have never had a problem with the lenses I bought in the US (they were US stock, rather than greys) so I've never found out whether my understanding is correct or not
It is of course in B&H's benefit to sell added warranty whatever the situation is...
Quote:
Given how much cheaper it is to buy these things in the U.S., I'm surprised there isn't some sort of arbitrage going on. Is there not a U.K. version of B&H selling "import" gear for close to American prices? If they buy at wholesale (or even street) prices here and pay those duties, it looks like they still come out ahead of your street prices.
I don't know of any UK based companies doing this. Various European companies have won court cases in the past against people under cutting the official European importers of various stuff, which probably explains it.
There are lots of Hong Kong based people who specialise in selling new camera gear to the UK on ebay though. Many of them advertise the fact that they will attempt to package the goods to avoid duty and sales tax.
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250847 - 08/03/2005 12:39
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
Ah, did I mislead you with the word "digicam" ? I'm not talking about a video camera, this is a digital stills camera with 3 Megapixels. The lens is also f/2.8 for the entire zoom range. All for 326 g (11.5 oz) including batteries. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz3/Of course compared to my 10D the Panasonic isn't really a f/2.8 lens, because of the fact that its 100 ASA mode has more noise that the Canon's 400 ASA mode. So it loses two stops if you want comparable noise levels, making it more like an f/5.6 or worse. But very neat none the less.
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250848 - 08/03/2005 13:35
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: andy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Quote:
Of course compared to my 10D the Panasonic isn't really a f/2.8 lens
I agree with the noise issues, but the other place this gets interesting is when you compare depth of field. I've been playing with the online depth-of-field calculator. For a 300mm lens on my Nikon D-SLR at f/5.6 shooting a subject at 20ft, the depth of field will be about .7 feet. The calculator says that your Panasonic (55.2mm at the long end) gets about 2 feet of DOF at f/2.8 at the same distance. For a compact camera, that's pretty good compared to many smaller cameras that have huge DOF that you may not necessarily want.
(Random question: why should the depth of field change as a function of the sensor size? If I plug in a 55.2mm lens at f/2.8 on a 35mm film camera, I get 16 feet of DOF. Any idea what's going on here?)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250849 - 08/03/2005 14:30
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 10/06/1999
Posts: 5916
Loc: Wivenhoe, Essex, UK
|
I'm afraid the finer details of DOF, hyperfocal distances et al are a mystery to me. What you say matches my experience with the two cameras concerned though.
I suspect that the answer is "it is due to the different sizes of the circle of confusion for the two sensors", which doesn't help much...
_________________________
Remind me to change my signature to something more interesting someday
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250850 - 08/03/2005 19:51
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: andy]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Aah, I did indeed mistake your meaning! Cool then! I'm still running my trusty old Canon S30 for my wee-rig (when I don't have the energy to move the 10D, or underwater). That looks like a very capable little unit, the Cons in the conclusion page @dpreview all look like pretty minor points. My S30 suffers from a slow lens, and focus is crap in low light, but it's respectable otherwise. Moving from the full size camera is always somewhat frustrating, so I can sympathize.
-Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250851 - 11/03/2005 15:57
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: DWallach]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
DOF depends only on lens' focal lenght and apreture, not on the ratio of the focal length and size of your sensor. Smaller the sensor, 'shorte' the lens you use for the same purpose; hence, deeper DOF.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250852 - 11/03/2005 16:31
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: andy]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
For the best article on Depth of Field I've come across go take a look at the DOF Article at Luminous Landscape. It explains things in a pretty straightforward way. -Zeke
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250853 - 12/03/2005 20:55
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Semi-random guess: when that DOF calculator web site said that my D70 had *less* DOF than a 35mm camera with the exact same lens, the difference could be related to the higher resolution of the sensor, rather than to the smaller sensor, itself. According to that Luminous Landscape article, sharpness, for film, is typically definied to be resolving 30 lines/mm (i.e., 60 pixels/mm). But, for the six megapixel sensor on my camera, there are 125 pixels/mm. That means you need a smaller circle of confusion, and thus get less DOF out of the same lens with the same settings.
Of course, high-end high-resolution film can easily top 100 lines/mm, and, following this logic, would have even less DOF because you were, in effect, demanding a much smaller circle of confusion.
Or, at least, that's my understanding now...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250854 - 13/03/2005 02:34
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: DWallach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
Something's funny there.. your D70 ought to have MORE depth of field than any full-frame 35mm camera at the (EDIT:) equivalent focal length and aperature.
Basic geometry there.
Edited by mlord (13/03/2005 13:42)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250855 - 13/03/2005 06:21
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: mlord]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Shouldn't DOF be exactly the same for the same actual (as opposed to 'equivalent') focal length and aperture (and 'circle of confusion' used, which is somewhat arbitrary)?
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250856 - 13/03/2005 13:42
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
Shouldn't DOF be exactly the same for the same actual (as opposed to 'equivalent') focal length and aperture (and 'circle of confusion' used, which is somewhat arbitrary)?
Ooops. Yes, of course it is!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250857 - 13/03/2005 22:15
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: andy]
|
old hand
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 931
Loc: Minnetonka, MN
|
so has anyone bought the SD500 yet? the 7.1 megapixel Canon....
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250858 - 14/03/2005 12:04
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: burdell1]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
I don't think it's supposed to be out for another week or so.
My SD300 came in today. I decided to go ahead and get it since my total budget was $400 and I wanted a 512 meg SD card and card reader also. That ruled out the SD400. The battery isn't charged yet, so I haven't turned it on. My first impression is that it's...tiny. Definitely smaller than I imagined. I like it. It's actually pocketable.
More to come.
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250859 - 14/03/2005 19:06
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Quote:
Shouldn't DOF be exactly the same for the same actual (as opposed to 'equivalent') focal length and aperture (and 'circle of confusion' used, which is somewhat arbitrary)?
As I read that Luminous Landscape article, it's all about the circle of confusion. For yee olde 35mm film camera, the assumed circle of confusion is pretty big, corresponding to resolving 30 lines/mm. So, the DOF marks tell you how much DOF you'll get with a 30 line/mm resolution. If you're into using one of the high-end high-resolution low-speed films, as I now (vaguely) understand it, you'll have to trade off DOF for extra sharpness. That is, you'll get perfect sharpness for objects that are exactly at the focal distance, but by the time those objects are at the DOF markers, they'll be too fuzzy for your sharpness requirements.
Along those same lines, the assumption of the DOF calculator (for what it's worth), seems to be that the higher resolution (in lines/mm) of a modern D-SLR necessitates less DOF. Or, another way of of saying it, is that the higher-resolution sensor on a D-SLR is like using higher-resolution film, and necessitates a smaller circle of confusion.
I almost think I'm understanding this now...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250860 - 14/03/2005 19:36
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: DWallach]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
I think technically you're spot on about the higher resolution, but really when you print things out, most of the time you don't take advantage of all those extra pixels in the high resolution shots unless you print really really large prints, so the argument gets a bit, well, fuzzy! 
_________________________
WWFSMD?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#250861 - 14/03/2005 20:34
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: Ezekiel]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
Quote:
so the argument gets a bit, well, fuzzy!
Which, clearly, is why they call it the circle of confusion.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#250862 - 15/03/2005 12:29
Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?
[Re: DWallach]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 25/08/2000
Posts: 2413
Loc: NH USA
|
Yeah, it took me a while to realize it wasn't the circle that was confused!  -Zeke
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index