more q's on the digital rebel

Hi all-

I'm looking at picking up the 300d for doing both astro and daylight
work. I've never owned a digital camera and am curious about the memory
situation. With the stock setup, how many pictures can you expect to get
before you need to suck them all out? Do you need anything other than a
USB cable to do it? Can you shoot with the camera directly plugged into
a laptop for storage? Do I need a flash memory card? And what exactly
*is* a flash memory card?

TIA - Chris

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 23:47:55 -0600, starburst
wrote:

I'm looking at picking up the 300d for doing both astro and daylight
work. I've never owned a digital camera and am curious about the memory
situation. With the stock setup, how many pictures can you expect to get
before you need to suck them all out? Do you need anything other than a
USB cable to do it? Can you shoot with the camera directly plugged into
a laptop for storage? Do I need a flash memory card? And what exactly
*is* a flash memory card?

IIRC, the 300D doesn't come with any memory, so it can only hold one image. For
normal use, you will usually shoot in high quality JPEG mode, so figure around
3MB per image. I suppose you could download images into a laptop as you go, but
it would not be very convenient.

I'd suggest at least a 256MB memory card; 512MB or 1GB would be better. These
are not very expensive anymore. Flash memory is memory that can be stored on a
chip without needing power (well, it needs power when it is being written, but
not afterwards). It comes in different formats- the 300D uses a format called
Compact Flash. You can also get mini hard disks in Compact Flash format, and
they can be used in the 300D to get several GB or more of storage.

You can read the memory out of the camera directly using a USB cable, although I
think a better solution is to get a dedicated flash card reader (also USB) and
leave it attached to your computer.

BTW, for very dynamic daylight images, and all astro images, you will want to
use RAW mode, which provides 12-bit data (as opposed to the 8-bit data and
information loss you get with JPEG). RAW images require about 5MB each.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"starburst" wrote in message
...
Hi all-

I'm looking at picking up the 300d for doing both astro and daylight work.
I've never owned a digital camera and am curious about the memory
situation. With the stock setup, how many pictures can you expect to get
before you need to suck them all out? Do you need anything other than a
USB cable to do it? Can you shoot with the camera directly plugged into a
laptop for storage? Do I need a flash memory card? And what exactly *is* a
flash memory card?

TIA - Chris

I own a 300D, and I recommend at least a 256MB card as an immediate upgrade
(or larger - bigger is better). The camera uses Compact Flash cards for
storage until you get it to a computer - if thats what you are refering to
as a flash memory card. I'm not sure about the # of pics out of the box - I
never used the original card, but it depends on the quality settings you
use. It comes with the software to control the camera with a computer,
provided you have a USB port. In this case the computers hard drive becomes
the cameras memory, so you can take lots and lots of pics (great for
astrophotography if you take your laptop out with you) and you get to see a
full resolution image right away. BTW, the compact flash card is a "like"
1.5" X 1.5" card that plugs into a slot in the side of the camera. As a
first time digital photographer, you'll love it - no more film! As far as
Astro work - I'm just getting started with this cam, so I can't say much,
but for daytime/nighttime terrestrial work, this cam is awesome for the
price. A capable digital SLR for $1000 - count me in.

Tommy

yes - outstanding for the price. But just to fan the "digital/film" flames
just a teeny bit more....which is better? neither. it ALL depends on what
you want your end product/result to be. If you don't want prints - or never
EVER want any prints bigger than maybe 5x7 - go digital, no question. But
if you ever, EVER want to print something with some actual size to it - say
a 16x20...or even bigger. Film. Film first, last and always. There is
simply more resolution & more information on film than on the chip. The
information available in a frame of 35mm film is the equivalent of about 25
megapixels. and if you want a really BIG print - you need to go medium, or
even large format film.

You will not be able to get the information-content equivalent of a sheet of
4x5inch Velvia out of a digital camera for decades. if ever.

You want a poster-sized print of your killer shot of M31 to hang on your
wall? leave the digital in the box & shoot it on film.

You just want that M31 for wallpaper on your monitor? Forget the film &
hook up the D-Rebel.

Ok, digital means you're not spending mega$$$ on film & processing. Just
spending it on getting a new, better, more megapixel several hundred (if not
thousand) $$$ digicam every couple/three years.

Me? I shoot film. 35mm - 120 - 4x5.....and a little pocket-sized phd
(push here, dummy) 1.3 meg digital. That little digital has results that
look great - as long as they stay on my monitor. Do NOT try to print 'em.
And I want a Canaon 20D so bad I can taste it. But NO WAY I ever give up
shooting Velvia. *grin*

-Kevin - who feels responisble for the clouds in central Indiana - got a new
8" dob. *wink*


--
Remove "nospam" from domain part of address
"MoFoYa" wrote in message
...

"starburst" wrote in message
...
Hi all-

I'm looking at picking up the 300d for doing both astro and daylight
work.
I've never owned a digital camera and am curious about the memory
situation. With the stock setup, how many pictures can you expect to get
before you need to suck them all out? Do you need anything other than a
USB cable to do it? Can you shoot with the camera directly plugged into
a
laptop for storage? Do I need a flash memory card? And what exactly *is*
a
flash memory card?

TIA - Chris

I own a 300D, and I recommend at least a 256MB card as an immediate
upgrade
(or larger - bigger is better). The camera uses Compact Flash cards for
storage until you get it to a computer - if thats what you are refering to
as a flash memory card. I'm not sure about the # of pics out of the box -
I
never used the original card, but it depends on the quality settings you
use. It comes with the software to control the camera with a computer,
provided you have a USB port. In this case the computers hard drive
becomes
the cameras memory, so you can take lots and lots of pics (great for
astrophotography if you take your laptop out with you) and you get to see
a
full resolution image right away. BTW, the compact flash card is a "like"
1.5" X 1.5" card that plugs into a slot in the side of the camera. As a
first time digital photographer, you'll love it - no more film! As far as
Astro work - I'm just getting started with this cam, so I can't say much,
but for daytime/nighttime terrestrial work, this cam is awesome for the
price. A capable digital SLR for $1000 - count me in.

Tommy

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:00:59 -0500, "Kevin M. Vernon"
wrote:

yes - outstanding for the price. But just to fan the "digital/film" flames
just a teeny bit more....which is better? neither...

Well, you wanted to fan the flames g


you want your end product/result to be. If you don't want prints - or never
EVER want any prints bigger than maybe 5x7 - go digital, no question. But
if you ever, EVER want to print something with some actual size to it - say
a 16x20...or even bigger. Film. Film first, last and always. There is
simply more resolution & more information on film than on the chip. The
information available in a frame of 35mm film is the equivalent of about 25
megapixels. and if you want a really BIG print - you need to go medium, or
even large format film.

I disagree entirely. The amount of information on most film is greatly
overstated. I've compared data quality of a 6MP 300D to drum scanned 35mm Provia
and Velvia negatives and Ektachrome slides, and the 300D comes out ahead every
time. The MTF of the digital camera, which provides high contrast over nearly
all image scales, simply blows away the film, which has really poor resolution
(just a few line pairs per mm) over parts of its range. And the linear 12-bit
response of the digital camera provides much more intensity information than the
film is capable of.

My advice would be just the opposite of yours- if you are limiting your
enlargements to perhaps 11x14, you can use either. But if you want to go larger,
go with a 6MP (or higher) digital camera. Edges in the prints will be sharper
and cleaner, and won't have the artifacts that you get with film (although some
people like those artifacts, and put them in deliberately by unsharp masking,
and similar processing).


You will not be able to get the information-content equivalent of a sheet of
4x5inch Velvia out of a digital camera for decades. if ever.

Well, just a few years ago I would have said the same about 35mm, so I think
I'll reserve judgment here...


You want a poster-sized print of your killer shot of M31 to hang on your
wall? leave the digital in the box & shoot it on film.

But make sure it is large format film. And make sure the digital isn't a DSLR,
using a color sensor, but a proper cooled astrocamera, and the images made
through quality filters. For that matter, if you want a really first rate film
image, use a high resolution B&W film and image through filters.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"John Steinberg" wrote

You need about a doubling of linear resolution or film size to make an
obvious improvement. Stated otherwise, that's a *quadrupling* of
megapixels.

You're right about film size. The 645 size is an obvious improvement over
35mm, though not by enough for my tastes; you have to go to at least 6x7cm
before prints made from it (6x7) begin to really come to life.

I still don't see how a 20x24" print from a minicam, even with, oh, 30 MP,
can match such a print made from 4x5" film, simply due to the too-small size
of the CCD. A sheet of 4x5" film takes in so much more information. All this
8MP vs. 4MP business... makes me think of the old days of Kodachrome 25 vs.
Hi-Speed Ektachrome. The film size is the same, but the grains in the
Kodachrome are much smaller, resulting in finer resolution and the
possibility of sharper enlargements.

Am I right or wrong about this assessment?

(Note: when I read people's writings that they get "tack-sharp" 16x20"
prints from their 35mm cameras, I roll my eyes. I'm a large-format snob.)

Howard Lester

"Howard Lester" wrote:
[snip]
You're right about film size. The 645 size is an obvious improvement over
35mm, though not by enough for my tastes; you have to go to at least 6x7cm
before prints made from it (6x7) begin to really come to life.

I still don't see how a 20x24" print from a minicam, even with, oh, 30 MP,
can match such a print made from 4x5" film, simply due to the too-small size
of the CCD. A sheet of 4x5" film takes in so much more information. All this
8MP vs. 4MP business... makes me think of the old days of Kodachrome 25 vs.
Hi-Speed Ektachrome. The film size is the same, but the grains in the
Kodachrome are much smaller, resulting in finer resolution and the
possibility of sharper enlargements.

Am I right or wrong about this assessment?

(Note: when I read people's writings that they get "tack-sharp" 16x20"
prints from their 35mm cameras, I roll my eyes. I'm a large-format snob.)

Medium or large format is obviously better once you get above "large
print" size and get towards "poster" sized, but most people don't blow
their shots up that large. I bet most people can't tell the difference
between a 6x7 print from 35mm, DSLR or medium/large format.

My dad got a poster-sized print (A2?) of one of his holiday pictures.
35mm film in a reasonable point & click. From a technical point of
view the print is not outstanding, but it's a nice picture and looks
nice on the wall, unless you get within a foot or so and look for
grain. DSLR performance would be broadly comparable.

I think you're right in your assessment that large and medium format
is unbeatable for quality. I expect that will be the case for quite
some time. However, modern DSLR performance is plenty for most people
and you can't beat the convenience and incremental cost.



Tim
--
Foo.

I have no disagreements with either Tim's or John's comments to my questions
about digital vs. film. I started using 4x5 after getting tired of
color landscape16x20's from 35mm that were too soft and too flat and just
plain lifeless. But as Tim says, it's all in what the user wants and to what
level he/she is satisfied with the results. That's fine with me. But a 16x20
from a 4x5 compared to the same shot taken with 35mm.... it's like
correcting for nearsighted with eyeglasses. Yes, John, I'm sure that tomato
looks good enough to eat right off the paper.

Already I "suffer" at the hands of the Photoshoppers who work at the local
lab I use. They scan my 4x5 transparency, adjust in Photoshop as necessary,
and send the image to a printing machine. It does a very nice job, though
sometimes I have to ask them to tone things down 'cause in a couple of cases
they juiced up the color too much, destroying the original feeling. They
didn't used to do that in the "old" days of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome.

So I still wonder if CCD's and associated electronics will one day give me
what I get now from a 4x5 camera. "Time" will tell.

I know, wrong newsgroup....

"Howard Lester" wrote:
[snip]
So I still wonder if CCD's and associated electronics will one day give me
what I get now from a 4x5 camera. "Time" will tell.

One day they will give you more, but it won't be quite the same,
nothing ever is. If 35mm-film-sized sensors can rival 35mm film it's
just a question of sticking lots of sensors together to rival
medium/large format film. That's an economics thing more than a
technology thing. At ISO 800 I'd put an array of the sensors in my
Canon 20D up against any ISO 800 film. But nobody makes arrays of
those sensors the size of large format film, so it's moot point.

As we constantly get closer to every photon being recorded with
excellent spatial resolution we can talk more about the optics. Which
is a significant proportion of what this newsgroup talks about anyway.
So we're back on-topic


Tim
--
Foo.

--
Remove "nospam" from domain part of address
"Tim Auton" wrote in message
...
"Howard Lester" wrote:
[snip]
So I still wonder if CCD's and associated electronics will one day give
me
what I get now from a 4x5 camera. "Time" will tell.

One day they will give you more, but it won't be quite the same,
nothing ever is. If 35mm-film-sized sensors can rival 35mm film it's
just a question of sticking lots of sensors together to rival
medium/large format film. That's an economics thing more than a
technology thing. At ISO 800 I'd put an array of the sensors in my
Canon 20D up against any ISO 800 film. But nobody makes arrays of
those sensors the size of large format film, so it's moot point.

As we constantly get closer to every photon being recorded with
excellent spatial resolution we can talk more about the optics. Which
is a significant proportion of what this newsgroup talks about anyway.
So we're back on-topic


Tim
--
Foo.

Close but no cigar, Tim - one of those "Full-Frame" 35mm sized digital chips
(Canon 1Ds comes to mind) is about 13 MP - and the inherent, native
information level available in a frame of high quality, low speed, high-res
film, like say FujiChrome Velvia (ISO 50) - is more on the order of about
25ish Megapixels.
You want film-quality results out of a Medium-format digital? Call me when
they're selling a 6x6cm half-gigapixel chip. Yup, 500(!!!) Megapixels.
Oh, and pawn the Bentley while you're at it. *wink* There will probably
NEVER be enough demand for such a thing for the price ever to come down out
of orbit.

But then if you're just going to shoot it through a no-name lens - why
bother? The glass means more than the recording media - always has, always
will. Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, Arsenal....that's some GOOD glass. *grin*
Sigma, Tokina? well, if you must. Anything else? Might as well shhot
through a Coke bottle.

All in all, BOTH formats have advantages - and disadvantages. Play to the
strengths of your chosen media's advantages and you can't miss.