View Full Version : Canon EOS 300D
Yeah, just got my 300D last week, and has been playing the new toy for some days. Yes, "toy"!!! Its body is made by plastic, and it some how make me feel like it's a toy instead of a DSLR. [smilie=huh.gif] [smilie=fear2.gif] [smilie=oops2.gif] (I'm not saying it's not good.)
I am not fully familiar with its operation yet. The 1st thing that bothers me is it can't aim the target through the LCD window, instead it can only aim trough the view finder. Man.... I quite get used to the F707 which can aim the subject through LCD. This becomes a situation for taking photos for lower tier tank.
I will play more with it, and update my experience on it. Here's the spec. for it:
]http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/
ccplim
03-21-2004, 8:38 PM
Hehehe..... congrats for your new "toy" [smilie=lol.gif] You will get to discover more "fun" of using a DSLR along the way [smilie=lol.gif]
Yup more "fun" [smilie=doh.gif] [smilie=mf_tongue.gif] [smilie=oops2.gif] . Btw, I like its continuous shots. It can take 3~4 shots (max resolution) in one or two seconds. That's really fast!!!
ccplim
03-21-2004, 9:00 PM
Yup! That is one good thing about DSLR. What lens does it comes with?
It came with Canon EF-S 18-55mm lens. The max aperture size I can get so far is F5.6, which is not enough for aqua photography. I'm thinking get extra lens like a macro lens and a 75~300mm telelens, and a external flash for macro lens.
loupgarou
03-21-2004, 9:54 PM
you will need:
a) 550EX or equivalent
b) long lens: Suggestion sigma 50-500, otherwise you will forever have length envy
c) macro lens: the 100mm f/2.8 macro usm is great.
as for f/5.6 , actually its more than adequate unless you want very shallow depth of field.
you can start off with just the flash and some Hoya close up filters +4 or more.
I'm beginning to shoot at f/9 or more myself, cos fish side profiles are really difficult with shallow DOF at f/2.8
ccplim
03-21-2004, 10:06 PM
True, this kind of lens is definately not enough for aquatic shot. Furthermore, you will have problem trying to focus in the macro range. Macro lens usually comes in F2.8 but their price might be slightly on the high size. I am currently using a third party lens and it already cost me about SDG$500+ [smilie=doh.gif]
I am now looking at the telelens too but will be getting one with a longer range instead.
Hey loupgarou, thanks for the suggests. Any tips from your experience on 300D? I infact seldom use flash light on my fishes during taking pics for them. I agree that use large aperture size would get very shallow DOF, that surely restricts the composition arrangement. However, more than half of my fishes get unreal color while using flash light, that's why I always take shots without flash light. Think I'm really not good at using flash light. Btw, thought 550EX is for normal shot?? Should I get a 550EX and a flash for macro lens?
ccplim, yeah, the cost of playing camera is never cheap at all. Got some budget limit!!!
loupgarou
03-21-2004, 11:44 PM
550Ex + omnibounce will give you all you need. if you aren't getting enough light, then get a couple of 420EX and diffuse it over paper on top of your photo tank.
loupgarou
03-21-2004, 11:46 PM
However, more than half of my fishes get unreal color while using flash light
^ this really depends. as long as your white balance is correct you should get the right colors.
also make sure you photoshop/auto levels then do some manual levels to adjust for colour casts. esp through green tinted glass.
ccplim
03-22-2004, 2:08 AM
you will need:
a) 550EX or equivalent
b) long lens: Suggestion sigma 50-500, otherwise you will forever have length envy
c) macro lens: the 100mm f/2.8 macro usm is great.
as for f/5.6 , actually its more than adequate unless you want very shallow depth of field.
you can start off with just the flash and some Hoya close up filters +4 or more.
I'm beginning to shoot at f/9 or more myself, cos fish side profiles are really difficult with shallow DOF at f/2.8
How much does the 50-500 roughly cost? This lens is already on my list. Just a matter of when I am getting it. Might want to try out the 12-24 too.
ccplim
03-22-2004, 2:09 AM
ccplim, yeah, the cost of playing camera is never cheap at all. Got some budget limit!!!
You are right man! And I have been playing with SLR for so many years [smilie=fear2.gif]
550Ex + omnibounce will give you all you need. if you aren't getting enough light, then get a couple of 420EX and diffuse it over paper on top of your photo tank.
Copy that, and thanks!! Btw, did you experience using flash light on arowana? I got prob when take shots of arowana with flash light on.
I've been playing with the continuous shot, and make those serious shots into GIF animation. Check this out:
http://imageevent.com/codomo/polypterusendlichericongicus?p=36&b=-1&m=24&c=4&w=4&s=1&n=1&l=0&z=9
ccplim
03-22-2004, 5:17 AM
550Ex + omnibounce will give you all you need. if you aren't getting enough light, then get a couple of 420EX and diffuse it over paper on top of your photo tank.
Copy that, and thanks!! Btw, did you experience using flash light on arowana? I got prob when take shots of arowana with flash light on.
How come? You mean the results came out funny?
Gordeez
03-22-2004, 8:10 AM
I've been playing with the continuous shot, and make those serious shots into GIF animation. Check this out:
http://imageevent.com/codomo/polypterusendlichericongicus?p=36&b=-1&m=24&c=4&w=4&s=1&n=1&l=0&z=9
Thats a Sweet .GIF!
Do you got anymore samples you have taken with this
camera CDM?
Im REALLY interested in getting a DSLR myself, and would like to see some of your samples.
I still don't figure out what's the best parameters to take best shot by this 300D. Will update some pics once I fully know how to manipulate the camera.
No it came out sharp and clear, but, the color on the photo is total different with the real one. It's not the greenish glass that makes it so. The scales of arowana reflect differently with different light and different aiming angle. Take gold aro for example, it appears gold shine on the scales under normal tank light, but, it shows some blueish or greenish shine without gold shine under flash light.
ccplim
03-22-2004, 9:53 AM
No it came out sharp and clear, but, the color on the photo is total different with the real one. It's not the greenish glass that makes it so. The scales of arowana reflect differently with different light and different aiming angle. Take gold aro for example, it appears gold shine on the scales under normal tank light, but, it shows some blueish or greenish shine without gold shine under flash light.
Could it be something to do with the WB setting? I can't really comment as I don't keep aro and don't have one to experiment with.
loupgarou
03-23-2004, 10:45 PM
actually its true. for some fish, due to the nature of their scales, they are actually reflecting an interference pattern. ie: the colors are illusory in nature, just like the back of a CD which shows a rainbow effect but is actually silver in color.
you may need flash from a different direction, eg: with a wireless or slave flash system from the top, no direct flash from the front profile of the fish.
eg:
http://uo.tdsuo.com/gallery/albums/normal/CRW_7217.JPG
the fish is actually golden with blue green all over, when shot with direct flash, it appears bronze.
I havent' got round to setting up the slave flash for my main tank shots.. I figure I need to get some cheap tripods or something.
Yeah, you're rite about the scales of some fishes. I read from somewhere that there is a thin layer rite under the surface on the scales of the arowana, and together with the substrate of the scales, both act to reflect differently under different light source (types and angles). I'll get one or two slave flash later. Thanks.
Think I'm getting better knowing how to use this 300D. Some shots:
The parameters are: F5.6, shutter speed 1/20~1/40s, without flash, manual focus, auto white balance, 120W normal fluorescent light (30Wx4), tank height 2.2ft. The SR aro swims pretty close to the light (8"~12" from tank top), while cichlids swim at lower level (12"~24" from tank top).
http://photos.imageevent.com/codomo/severum/websize/IMG_0049.JPG
http://photos.imageevent.com/codomo/greentexascarpinte/websize/IMG_0805.JPG
http://photos.imageevent.com/codomo/superredarowana/websize/IMG_0173.JPG
loupgarou
03-24-2004, 11:13 AM
very nice. discus could use a smaller aperture
Thanks for the advice, I will try smaller aperture after I get my slave flash. Btw, the 1st one is a severum.
Gordeez
03-24-2004, 3:17 PM
Those are some good shots CDM.
I like the second one. Is it a Texas Cichlid?
Yeah, that's a carpinte which got HITH from psittacus (parrot cichlid)
CDM, it did not get it from the parrot, it got it from stress. Usually that happens to fish that are dominated in the tank. There have been lots of HITH studies and nothing has ever proven it being contageous. It's the break up of the sensor pores along the lateral line due to dirty water (unlikely in your case) or stress.
Sounds stress is the cause of mine, the psittacus is the dominate one and it got the most severe HITH.
Charizzi
04-08-2004, 1:21 AM
Hello! Very nice pictures! [smilie=c: I also have a Canon 300D... Its a nice and fun camera! I hope you like it very much [smilie=biggrin.gif]
Yeah, like it very much!!! The only thing to complain about is its heavy weight. I was too get used to the weight of F707.
Mekong
04-12-2004, 8:34 PM
Anyone here ever use a 70-200 Canon or Sigma Lens?
I was considering the Canon 70-200 f4L
or the
Sigma 70-200 f2.8
I was leaning towards the Sigma because of the 2.8 but have heard that it isnt as sharp. Anyone know anything about this?
It seems to me that the diffrence in sharpness wouldnt be that noticeable to an amature photographer who is useto lenses well under the 300$ range.
Would people here go Canon or Sigma?
ccplim
04-13-2004, 9:56 PM
Anyone here ever use a 70-200 Canon or Sigma Lens?
I was considering the Canon 70-200 f4L
or the
Sigma 70-200 f2.8
I was leaning towards the Sigma because of the 2.8 but have heard that it isnt as sharp. Anyone know anything about this?
It seems to me that the diffrence in sharpness wouldnt be that noticeable to an amature photographer who is useto lenses well under the 300$ range.
Would people here go Canon or Sigma?
I have not tried on the Canon lens so I can't comment much. On the other hand, I happened to have a few seconds of chance to try on a Sigma 70-200 on my Nikon and here is the result. The pic might not be very good as it just a simple point and shoot (I was actually trying out the focusing speed).
The settings for this shot are 1/180, f2.8. ISO 200, handheld while indoor.
http://photos.imageevent.com/ccplim/privite/picinquestion/websize/Sigma%2070-200%20test%20copy.jpg