I really should be more patient ....

[FoG]

but I REALLY want a DSLR now so I ahve bid for a couple on e-bay ...


and yes now I am going to ask if they are any good .. bear in mind it will be my first DSLR is the Canon 300D and 400D any good for a novice to cut their teeth on ? if I get it at the price of the biid bargain is an understatement .. so are they any good either way I know I can play about with them to get used to a DSLR I just wondered what you guys thought of them ?

Whoops sorry !!!! :-)

[dcclark]

Sorry... looks like the names of the cameras got mangled in your message -- can you edit or repost?

[FoG]

Originally Posted by dcclark

Sorry... looks like the names of the cameras got mangled in your message -- can you edit or repost?

edited thank you ... sorry shift got stuck down...DOH!

[candleman]

yup, nothing wrong with those two as beginners items.
400D is a pretty decent entry level body anyways.

[Japaslavian]

I almost don't know how to answer this.
The idea of good is all subjective. If by good you mean higher quality then what you have, then yes. The control you will have will allow you many new creative options, and the ability to change lenses, and all that is certainly good.
But just because the camera is nice, doesn't automatically mean your photography becomes "good." There is a bit of a learning curve to SLR's that will take some time so understand. ie setting your own shutter-speeds, aperture, etc to get a well-exposed image with the effect you want. Of course there is the full automatic settings, but that sort've defeats the purpose of an SLR.
The 30 and 40d are both great cameras to learn with. The bigger size compared to the XT/XS/T1 series cameras is often times more comfortable, and easier to hold still for longer exposures.
On the flip side, it's digital. Many will attest that digital will never equal the quality of a good old film camera. I think a grain in film is 6 times smaller than a digital pixel (not 100% sure though).

I personally love my SLR. It is a bit dated now, but it does nearly everything I could ask of it. Was a great tool to learn with, and has continually produced lovely results for me. I would be hard-pressed to think you would be disappointed with one.

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by FoG

is the Canon 300D and 400D any good for a novice to cut their teeth on ?

The Canon 300D (original Digital Rebel) is probably the only DSLR that I would not recommend.

The 300D still can take fine pictures, but this was Canon's first foray into affordable DSLRs and someone in Marketing thought that it would be a good idea to cripple the controls so that it wouldn't compete with the more expensive Canon DSLRs. You can find "hacks" to restore a few of the controls, but not all of the controls. And the camera is noticeably sluggish by today's standards. All in all, its usability suffers when compared to other DSLRs.

The 350D (XT) or later models are all fine, as are the DSLRs from the other manufacturers.

[waffles]

If you're looking old, the oldest I would go with is a 350 and not just because it's what I have. I've played with a 300, didn't like it too much.

[dcclark]

Agreed about the 300D -- the 350D and 400D are nice and very similar in many ways. I'd try them out -- hold them in your hand, see how they feel. Also try navigating the controls and menus, see if you can get to the basic adjustments without too much trouble or stretching. But overall, I'd recommend anything, 350D or above, quite happily.