PDA

View Full Version : 350d


Jason Anderson
May 21st, 2006, 10:02 PM
May as well admit it - I only own this entry level Canon SLR. It's not that bad though. Sharp, and easy on the weight. Hopefully my problem will eventually become one where this does not meet my needs anymore. For now though since I am still low on the image learning curve, the 350D suits me fine. I have yet to explore beyond the manual setting to aperture and shutter priority. I also hear there's a diopter in there too somewhere! :D

Asher Kelman
May 21st, 2006, 11:28 PM
Jason,

The 300D is far better than cameras many of the finest photographers built their careers on. I cannot imagine that there is anything that this camera lacks that will hold you back for the next several years. This is perfect for people photography in the streets and nightclubs. It is fine for event receptions for candids. You can always rent a MF digital/film camera for large groups or special projects.

Don't worry about all the menus except perhaps mirror lockup, (if indeed the 300D has that), to take landscape pictures or other detail rich pictures. Otherwise use defaults and start using Large jpg and auto WB and you will do great!

It more depends on your eye and spirit than anything else.

Being professional is about being responsible to your self, reality and being able to really deliver an image as requested without excuses.

It has, more often than not, little to do with your camera.

No one, who is likely to hire you would ever be disappointed by seeing you turn up with a 300D. After all they didn't hire you because of your last Vogue, Motorsports or Time magazine front page pictures.

So good luck and when you need feedback, feel free to send us a link.

Asher :)

Jason Anderson
May 22nd, 2006, 04:47 AM
Not sure if the 300D has the mirror lockup, but the 350D does. I use the feature any time I am on a tripod and that is most of the time My remote release is helpful too to that end. Press once for mirror lock up, second to end exposure.

Michael Tapes
May 22nd, 2006, 06:00 AM
I would only disagree with Asher on one point. Start shooting RAW today, and you will not regret it. Unless the buffer size restricts your shooting style, the 350D in RAW will serve you well. The advantage of starting to shoot RAW today is that you will be able to go back into your archives as your post production (raw processing) skills improve, and you will have the benefit of better pictures from the day you begin to shoot raw forward. Also shooting RAW is a great teaching tool because since you develop the photos, you will see what you do wrong, and what has to be done to correct it, which will guide you to shooting better in the first place.

You can use the free canon converter that comes with the camera, or the free RawShooter | essentials from Pixmantec, So there is no money involved to get a good converter. I prefer RSE, but use whatever is comfortable for you.

Welcome to OPF!

Jason Anderson
May 22nd, 2006, 06:30 AM
Um, already do shoot Raw, guess I should have specified that in my post. Debated briefly shooting Raw + jpg, but figured the DPP batch process was easy enough to do mass conversions for web edits if need be. Thanks for the welcome though. Nice to be here and I like the layout (for the most part)

Asher Kelman
May 22nd, 2006, 07:57 AM
Um, already do shoot Raw, guess I should have specified that in my post. Debated briefly shooting Raw + jpg, but figured the DPP batch process was easy enough to do mass conversions for web edits if need be. Thanks for the welcome though. Nice to be here and I like the layout (for the most part)

Well!

I don't want to start a big contest on jpg v. RAW, that battle has been won for the reason Michael gave.

However, for some work, where the lighting is really well ocntrolled one can just shoot RAW for speed. I did accidentally and realized it saved me a lot of time for an event shoot of 250 people.

I have heard some very good wedding photographers report that they also shoot just jpg for events with rapid turnaround.

Normally, I shoot only RAW.

Actually, one should really shoot RAW plus jpg since in case of card cooruption and loss of images, sometimes only the jpg can be recovered.

Repair of RAW is just nor reliable as yet.

Asher :)

Jason Anderson
May 22nd, 2006, 09:04 AM
Really? Now that's interesting. Makes sense though given the file structure of raw versus jpg. Given me some food for thought there Asher, thanks! (Like I didn't have enough on my brain already today! LOL)

Michael Tapes
May 23rd, 2006, 07:21 AM
Rapid turnaround:

BreezeBrowser, or Canon SW, or RSP can all extract the embedded JPEG from the RAW very quickly, and RSP can actually convert the RAW files with adjustments in .8 to 3 seconds per image depending on quality and file size and PC used. So I disagree with those that shoot JPEG for fast turnaround, unless they are PJ who must upload Immediately. For an event, a laptop where you should be archiving anyway is there, and you can get the JPEGs almost instantly when shooting RAW. it is all about Workflow IMHO.

Jason Anderson
May 23rd, 2006, 09:08 AM
Rapid turnaround:

BreezeBrowser, or Canon SW, or RSP can all extract the embedded JPEG from the RAW very quickly, and RSP can actually convert the RAW files with adjustments in .8 to 3 seconds per image depending on quality and file size and PC used. So I disagree with those that shoot JPEG for fast turnaround, unless they are PJ who must upload Immediately. For an event, a laptop where you should be archiving anyway is there, and you can get the JPEGs almost instantly when shooting RAW. it is all about Workflow IMHO.

heh - that opens a can of worms that I won't dive into except to say I never produce jpgs via batch processing or in camera as a matter of course. The ->one<- time I did was because my wife wanted to see all the shots from our Mexico trip the day after we got back and I hadn't even downloaded all 5 days of shots into the computer yet. Never again because I am still trying to re-sort and straighten out all those images. LOL

Tim Rogers
May 30th, 2006, 08:17 AM
I would only disagree with Asher on one point. Start shooting RAW today, and you will not regret it. Unless the buffer size restricts your shooting style, the 350D in RAW will serve you well. The advantage of starting to shoot RAW today is that you will be able to go back into your archives as your post production (raw processing) skills improve, and you will have the benefit of better pictures from the day you begin to shoot raw forward. Also shooting RAW is a great teaching tool because since you develop the photos, you will see what you do wrong, and what has to be done to correct it, which will guide you to shooting better in the first place.

.........I understand your advice well enough but.......When I'm shooting a high school athletic event like football or lacrosse with my 5D, how can I handle 150+ shots....many with AI servo mode....without filling up my buffer too quickly? Also, I sometimes need to create a game gallery that same day or the next morning and batch processing has been problematic for me the few times that I've tried it. Constant changes in focal length and sometimes lighting seems to trip me up somehow. File size can cause me problems sometimes. Both when shooting in rapid sequence during a game and also on my outdated desktop that I'm going to have to live with for the next several months. My shots are primarily for web posting and with jpeg files I can often use them with some resizing/cropping and little if any PP beyond that. Is there something that I need to learn about shooting RAW that has escaped me so far?

Best Regards.....Tim Rogers

Jason Anderson
May 30th, 2006, 08:56 AM
It sounds like you subscribe to the "spray and pray" school of thought. While there is nothing wrong with that, if you find your buffer fills up to quickly, there are ways to adjust for that namely the following:

1. spray less - be more selective about the squences you "spray", and just use a short burst - in raw you can get on average 8 fps, for a few seconds which should be enough to catch a specific moment

2. Get a faster CF card. Often the limiting factor is not the camera, rather the flash memory. New lexar cards now out write at up to 133x speeds (http://www.lexar.com/digfilm/cf_pro.html). Granted these are more expensive but you generally get what you pay for.

3. Switch to jpg mode. If you find you are not making many adjustments and are simply resizing for web and such, then no need to use raw. Raw (to me anway) simply means more control in the post-process phase. If you are not doing much post processing other than re-size and save for web, then by all means, shoot jpg.

Tim Rogers
May 30th, 2006, 09:22 AM
It sounds like you subscribe to the "spray and pray" school of thought. While there is nothing wrong with that, if you find your buffer fills up to quickly, there are ways to adjust for that namely the following:

1. spray less - be more selective about the squences you "spray", and just use a short burst - in raw you can get on average 8 fps, for a few seconds which should be enough to catch a specific moment

2. Get a faster CF card. Often the limiting factor is not the camera, rather the flash memory. New lexar cards now out write at up to 133x speeds (http://www.lexar.com/digfilm/cf_pro.html). Granted these are more expensive but you generally get what you pay for.

3. Switch to jpg mode. If you find you are not making many adjustments and are simply resizing for web and such, then no need to use raw. Raw (to me anway) simply means more control in the post-process phase. If you are not doing much post processing other than re-size and save for web, then by all means, shoot jpg.


1)..........I sometimes hold the button down for maybe four or five shots at the most, usually though for only about three. In football, it can be very difficult to catch the exact instant when you want to shoot. An example: You want to capture a play while it's still in the backfield on a team that runs a triple option style attack like maybe the double-wing T. Unless you're on the team, it's not likely that you'll know what the QB is going to do with the ball during that first second after the ball is snapped. AI servo has opened up new possibilities for me in a situation like that. Without a 1 series camera with it's negligible shutter lag, I think that there's not much else that can be done in a situation like that.

2).......CF card? You might be on to something there. I'm using a 1 GB Delkin and it may be slower than the Lexar.........I'll look into borrowing one from a friend to see.

3).........I'm using jpg mode now but would like to know whether RAW is better for what I'm doing. I've tried shooting RAW a few times but feel like I'm lost and bogged down with the PP and limited a little while shooting because of the file size dilemma. This has been a question for me since long before I bought a 5D. The 300D has a much smaller buffer and slower writing speed which gave me fits when I tried RAW almost a year ago at one of my son's football games.

Jason Anderson
May 30th, 2006, 07:52 PM
Well...if you are holding the shutter release down for 4-5 shots, I would hardly call that spraying...4-5 seconds is what I'd call spraying. Perhaps look into the faster CF cards, that may improve your write speeds.

If you find yourself bogged down in the PP by moving to raw, it could be either a)the adjustmnet/learning curve effect, or b)you just don't edit much in PP and it takes more steps from raw to get where you want to go.

If it,s (a), give it a while and you will get there. As your PP changes, your speed to end product slows from time to time. As you get better (even if you already know how to do it), the time frame for PPing decreases. Case in point is my time frame to add borders to shots. Before I knew all the steps natively I had to think about each one and methodically work my way through each to get where I wanted to go. Now it's like "I want a border THAT color to frame this shot" and ten seconds later it's done. If I want to change border colors, another 2 seconds.

If it's (b0 and you find you are just going throught he motions of getting it from raw to acr to jp where you ultimately want to be, then raw may not be for you. Yes, you will lose some of the "control" that raw shooters sing the praises of, but since you never really utilize that measure of control, it's not needed. A friend of mine from college grew up without a father, and I said to him once "Wow, that must have been rough." His response: "Not really, you never miss what you never had."

In his case, he did sometimes yearn for the relationship a father and son have with each other, but since he never had it, he couldn't "miss" it. If you yearned for more control over your pics, once you tried raw you would have been hooked. Since you tried raw and only find it to slow your PP time, then switch back to jpg, you don't use raw because you don't need to use raw. If you (and your clients) are happy with your results form jpg shooting, then so be it and don't worry about the shoulder tappers that say "Psst...you could get better shots if..." Enjoy your shots and workflow if they work and don't worry about tools you don't use or need.

Daniel Harrison
June 3rd, 2006, 05:41 AM
I find that RAW is actually faster for my wedding jobs as I can adjust the basic things faster than a .jpg in photoshop. I just go through and choose the ones I like -correct exposure and WB and batch convert. saves alot of time. I don't like the canon software though S...L...O...W.... :-)

Don Cohen
June 3rd, 2006, 05:55 AM
Regarding Raw, Speed, Workflow, etc.:

I shoot Raw virtually 100% for all the reasons mentioned above. I use Capture One Pro, and find the Workflow extremely efficient. If I have a fair number of images that I need quick processing for, I can go from image to image, use keyboard shortcuts to quickly adjust exposure and white balance, crop as needed, select all and then batch convert to whatever size and quality Jpeg I might need. Much faster than trying to work all of those in Photoshop.

For those interested, I have further information on Raw Workflow at my website here:

Raw Format Workflow (http://www.dlcphoto.com/RawFormatWorkflow/RawFormatWorkflow.htm)

Hope this helps!

Michael Tapes
June 4th, 2006, 06:33 AM
Only the ability to have process JPEGs even on a slow machine by using RawShooter Premium's FastProof mode. If the 5D buffer cannot handle your shooting load, it could be that your CF card is not fast enough, or you just need a faster camera, or to shoot JPEG. I have the same issue, but I also have a 1DMkIIN for the times I need fast shooting. JPEG is just too much of a risk in once in a real time shooting like sports. Too easy to make a mistake, where RAW could save you.

JMHO YMMV

Jason Anderson
June 4th, 2006, 10:28 AM
I use the 350D and have no problem shooting in burst mode when needed. I really think it's a function of your card if it's not writing fast enough. My two main cards are a Kingston Elite Pro that writes at 50x, and a Transcend that writes at 45x (both @ 1 GB), and have never had a problem in the past year with filling the buffer too quickly.

The only time I filled the buffer and was unable to shoot was when I was testing the limits of both the camera and the card to see how long it took to the fill the buffer.

ETA: I have noticed that the buffer fills up quicker or slower depending on the color range of the subject matter I am shooting...which is interesting.

Ger Bee
June 5th, 2006, 01:39 AM
I have a pair of 1D machines and on certain subjects the little 350D will match or surpass those.

I often carry the 350D as it is very light, recently I was called to an RTA and I had my 1DMKIIn with 16~35mm and the 350D with 70~200mm and rather than waste time switching the lenses I shot initially from a distance and then moved in on the wreckage with the wide angle.

The 350Dís shots were double trucked across two pages of tabloid the following morning, excellent stuff.

I bought the 350D for concert photography, not the rock n roll stuff but classical, formal stiff shirt types and the quietness, tungsten colour balance and low light AF all surpass my 1 series machines.

Jason Anderson
June 6th, 2006, 04:51 AM
I have a pair of 1D machines and on certain subjects the little 350D will match or surpass those.

I often carry the 350D as it is very light, recently I was called to an RTA and I had my 1DMKIIn with 16~35mm and the 350D with 70~200mm and rather than waste time switching the lenses I shot initially from a distance and then moved in on the wreckage with the wide angle.

The 350Dís shots were double trucked across two pages of tabloid the following morning, excellent stuff.

I bought the 350D for concert photography, not the rock n roll stuff but classical, formal stiff shirt types and the quietness, tungsten colour balance and low light AF all surpass my 1 series machines.

The 350D is definitely a fine entry level DSLR, and I am still learning to use all the bells and whistles of it. Thus, from my perspective, I am hard pressed to find subjects where the 350D would surpass a 1D. Now granted, I've not shot under the conditions you describe, but it would seem that the sensor for the 1D would handle this lighting with aplomb. Am I guilty of the "bigger is better" mentality, because it would seem the sensor of the 1D in allowing for higher quality images would also allow for at least an equally wide color gamut? I guess I am confused...anyone care to help enlighten a lessor in the photography arena? :)

Nill Toulme
June 6th, 2006, 06:30 AM
Tim, I often come home from a soccer match or basketball game with as many as 1500 RAW frames. Using a combination of BreezeBrowser Pro and Capture One, I can have them selected down to a hundred or so keepers, cropped, processed and posted on the web in about an hour and a half if I keep my attention focused. A summary of my workflow can be found here (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/296484#2489575). The latitude afforded by RAW is especially valuable shooting night games at my typical exposures of ISO 3200, 1/400 at f/2.8 (outdoor) or f/2 (indoor).

Back on topic, I had the opportunity to shoot with a friend's 350D in church the other day. I was particularly impressed with how quiet its shutter was compared to my 20D and 1D Mark II's. I'm tempted to pick one up just for very quiet venues like that. I wish it had ISO 3200, but really I'm not convinced that you don't get equivalent results to ISO 3200 by pushing an ISO 1600 image in the RAW conversion anyway. From my Mark II's I can get "saleable" images even down to an equivalent of ISO 12800 ó i.e., underexposing two stops (to maintain shutter speed) at ISO 3200 and pushing in the conversion.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Nill Toulme
June 6th, 2006, 06:36 AM
p.s. Corrected links for the two BreezeBrowser forum links in that FM message:

http://www.breezesys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=109

http://www.breezesys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=491

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Dennis Lathem
June 6th, 2006, 08:24 AM
I would only disagree with Asher on one point. Start shooting RAW today, and you will not regret it. Unless the buffer size restricts your shooting style, the 350D in RAW will serve you well. The advantage of starting to shoot RAW today is that you will be able to go back into your archives as your post production (raw processing) skills improve, and you will have the benefit of better pictures from the day you begin to shoot raw forward. Also shooting RAW is a great teaching tool because since you develop the photos, you will see what you do wrong, and what has to be done to correct it, which will guide you to shooting better in the first place.

Welcome to OPF!

Michael...you are spot on. I have learned from almost every RAW image I have processed...as a result I have less post processing to do and many times I can make a few simple corrections in my RAW converter (C1 Pro 3.7.3) and process directly to the correct size jpg and profile for upload to my printing service. I don't know how many times I have gone back to square one, so to speak, and re-edited and corrected from RAW.

http://i.pbase.com/o4/41/28041/1/61394953.Avatar01.jpg

Tim Rogers
June 6th, 2006, 02:52 PM
Tim, I often come home from a soccer match or basketball game with as many as 1500 RAW frames. Using a combination of BreezeBrowser Pro and Capture One, I can have them selected down to a hundred or so keepers, cropped, processed and posted on the web in about an hour and a half if I keep my attention focused. A summary of my workflow can be found here (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/296484#2489575). The latitude afforded by RAW is especially valuable shooting night games at my typical exposures of ISO 3200, 1/400 at f/2.8 (outdoor) or f/2 (indoor).


........I'm convinced that I need to try your workflow! That link to FM is bookmarked.

....And.......Jason is right about my Delkin CF being slow. I confirmed it yesterday by letting a friend who uses Lexar borrow it. he said that it noticeably slower.

Jason Anderson
June 6th, 2006, 08:19 PM
After our whole discussion on burst shooting, I conducted a test with my 45x card, my 50x card, and a standard CF card from a few years ago. Here are the results:

Standard Card (Burst mode): 5 fps
45x Card 6 fps
50x Card 8 fps

Here's the wierd thing...with a fresh battery and a newly formatted CF card, the numbers are a tick higher in each category. That is the part I don't quite get - sure formatting cleans up remnant exif data and in essence defragments your flash card, but I would not have thought it could make that much of a difference in burst speed rates. Any other thoughts on this?

Nill Toulme
June 6th, 2006, 08:23 PM
8fps on a 350D? Supercharger? Nitrous kit? What?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Tom Yi
June 6th, 2006, 11:31 PM
Back to the original topic, the XT's IQ is about the same as the 30D. It has enough features to satisfy most shooters. Just go out and practice, practice, practice.

Most of the time, it's the shooter that's the limiting factor, not the gear.

Jason Anderson
June 13th, 2006, 02:51 AM
8fps on a 350D? Supercharger? Nitrous kit? What?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net (http://www.toulme.net)

Heh...nope,just a fast CF card is my theory...

Ger Bee
June 13th, 2006, 06:12 AM
Whilst I am impressed with the 350D's capabilities, one area of disappointment for me is with people pics and especially with flash.

It makes me wonder how some photographers use them for weddings.


Back to the original topic, the XT's IQ is about the same as the 30D. It has enough features to satisfy most shooters. Just go out and practice, practice, practice.

Most of the time, it's the shooter that's the limiting factor, not the gear.

Mark Colston
June 13th, 2006, 11:50 AM
I have the 350D - and yes the camera is mostly limited by the body behind the eye piece - however, I did have problems focusing at the weekend when shooting runners coming towards me. I was using AI focus and didn't reliably get focus lock or tracking - should have tried AI servo. I got quite a few that were really sharp when I/the camera got it right, but also quite a few that were just off - and it wasn't movement as I was shooting around 1/500 through my 70-200f/4.

Jason Anderson
June 13th, 2006, 06:08 PM
For me shooting at 1/500 on a 200 zoom would still not be stable enough given my coffee intake! :D I like your tag line Mike - reminds me of a great Thoreau joke (or is it Descartes...?). I've actually had some fair success shooting in AI servo. The few times I've panned like that were at baseball games and once or twice trying to catch somebirds in flight (is it me and my cold meds or does that sound like a Jeopardy category: "I'll take Birds in Flight for $200 please Alex")