Compared to Sony F707 (Canon EOS 300D)

Member Name: toka

Product:	Canon EOS 300D
Date:	24/02/04 (788 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: price performance, accurate photographs, lightweight yet sturdy

Disadvantages: It's SLR not feature rich digital, flash is not brilliant, no e-mail sizes

Summary: The EOS is a SLR camera that happens to use digital media. It is not a mainstream digital camera which has all sorts of wizzo features. As an SLR is it an outstanding new product that opens new worlds because of the instant feedback and no cost per photo that film SLRs incur.

This is my 3rd digital camera. The first was rubbish. My second, a Sony F707 flash failed just after the wnty expired, and its fixed lense limited wide-angle room an architecture shots. So on a trip to the US, I bought the Canon 300D (there called the Rebel). Even though it had only been out 2 months, DELL mailorder was willing to match the price of a shonky NYC internet vendor who had horrible customer reviews, so I got the kit (with lense) for a US$125 discount. I then bought a Canon lense and aftermarket flash unit at a local camera store in LA which also agreed to match mailorder prices (it pays to know your internet prices before shopping)

Unlike the Sony, the SLR 300D really tries to be a standard SLR camera without the video clips, sound and other features of the mainstream digital cameras. Also, the video display only shows the picture after you have taken the picture. Most frustrating about the 300D after the Sony is low light shots. In the same place at the same time, the 300D must use a flash, whilst the Sony is fine without.

On the plus side, the images are far closer to real life. I have to photograph abstract works of art for a web site, and find I spend much time adjusting the Sony shots (to the point we gave up and went back to an old Nikon with 35mm film, scanning in the photo). With the 300D I use the Photoshop Elements (which came free with the camera) to resize, but hardly any touch-up. While the camera has a dial to allow one to invoke manual controls, except for shutting off the flash, I find the automatic point and shoot mode to produce excellent shots.

Buying the ultra fast compact flash card (the digital equivalent

of flim... only reusable) only seems to make a difference when I am shooting lots of times in rapid succession. The ultra speed CF card costs more, so don't bother unless you really need the speed. Also, I bought three 256MB cards instead of one larger card. This enables me to separate different shots, because photo management can become a nightmare. If I am doing a festival I use one card, then another card to do artwork. Also, I bought a generic card reader plugged into the USB port of my laptop. This enables me to instantly view the work while having another card in the camera. When I am doing a show, I can dump all the photographs into Powerpoint, and have an instant 1 shot per second running kiosk while I am still shooting pictures. This tends to warm up the crowd (seeing themselves in the show on the laptop), and helps me see what shots are winners.

The camera is light compared to the Nikon D100 (which I considered and rejected on price and bulk), and the 300D performs great, except that it takes a while to warm up if I have not pressed the button in a while but left the camera switched on. The controls are easy. The built in flash unit is OK but not brilliant, and the aftermarket flash unit is a worthwhile investment (but make sure you test it... at the camera store in LA, we tried six supposedly compatible ones before one actually worked... and it turned out to be the least expensive). The wide angle lense that comes with it is good (equivalent to a 28-50 +/-), but well worth buying the Canon brand zoom EF 700-300 1:4-5.6 lense as well.

An odd complaint is the lack of small megapixel sizes. Sony offers an e-mail size which is useful because it already resizes the quick-shots, and also useful when you are running low on CF card room, and want to squeeze a few extra shots in. On the other hand, the big megapixels are awesome. For A4 prints it rivals film. Anything larger and you are out of the target pro-sumer market and
shoul
d get a professional camera.

Bottom line: When I go out, I now carry both the Sony and the Canon. If I am trying to take a great photo, out comes the Canon. If I am in low light, I use the Sony. And I found a very useful role for the Sony that I wish the Canon offered... Sony's low quality video captures sound excellently. We recorded music that went straight onto a Powerpoint CD. We even used the camera in a hearing and gave it to the hearing panel burned onto a laptop CD as official evidence because we were able to offer it before the hearing ended... really powerful. The Canon as a SLR does not offer this sort of features... thus my camera bag is bigger. Buy it? Yes. Price/performance is the best (until the competition does it one better).

Summary: