Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?

I'm on the waiting list for a new SD500 as soon as they are available. I currently have an S330 thanks to the recommendations I have gotten here. I was in the market for a bigger camera such as the Digital Rebel or the PowerShot Pro1 but the form factor is what got me sold on the smaller camera.

I had 10,000 pictures/videos taken with my S330 in the first year of ownership because it was always in my pocket. It's been dropped on rocks, cement, and asphalt. Landed in the mud. Lost in the snow during a snowmobile ride (a kind soul found it, turned it on and saw a picture of my CR-V and returned it to me (small town bonus!)) I had it in my pocket during another snowmobile ride that had a snow fall that turned into a rainstorm and the camera would only work in one mode until I took her apart and let her dry out for a couple days by the oil stove. I even have the waterproof case and I have taken it out on my WaveRunner and with me being towed on a tube behind the WaveRunner and behind a friends boat. I have also taken it with me during the birthday parties of my nephews and neices when they are at the pool. Nobody else has a camera so it really lights up the kids eyes to see the pictures and videos of them diving for the first time or finally swimming without anyone holding onto them.

My S330 has really proven to me the sturdiness of the Canon cameras. I only hope I have the same joy with the SD500. 7 megapixels, zoom in video mode, unlimited length (up to 1 gigabyte) of video clips. It was pretty much a nobrainer once I started reading about this camera. The price I have been given on it as of now is $629 Canadian. I hope to do a little better then that once it is released but I know the accessories are gonna bring my cost up a bit.

Rene

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 03/03/2005 21:58

My vote for one of the best all-time replies on this BBS.

Posted by: loren

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 03/03/2005 21:59

LMAO.

Seconded.

Posted by: mcomb

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 04/03/2005 02:41

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

Posted by: burdell1

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 06/03/2005 15:06

We actually have the the 7 mp camera (I believe it is called the SD500) where I work....it is really nice...smaller than I thought it would be...Although I am not sure if 7 megapixels are really necessary....

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 06/03/2005 18:37

I was taking a bunch of pictures today around sunset (mmm... long shadows), which meant I didn't have full daylight to illuminate things. However, I foolishly insisted on using my long zoom lens (300mm on my camera == 450mm on a full-frame camera). In practice, I only got really sharp photos if I braced the camera against something (e.g., a light pole) or cranked up the sensor speed such that I could do a 1/1000 sec exposure. This is with my six megapixel Nikon D70.

Pseudo-moral of the story: unless (or perhaps, even if) you've got some kind of optical image stabilization, once you get to six megapixels or up, you're in a world where even minute jitters of your hands directly translate into not-quite-sharp photos. Left unchecked, this may create tendencies to blow money on over-built tripods or a wide variety of other senseless camera accessories.

Buyer beware.

Posted by: andy

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 06/03/2005 20:51

Should have bought a Canon

Then you could have had an affordable 70-300mm image stabilised lens...

I'm surprised you had to go to 1/1000 to get sharp shots, I would have thought you would have got some at least at 1/500 or 1/750.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 07/03/2005 10:34

1/1000 seemed to do the job, regardless of my jittery hands. Below that, it seems like I needed to brace the camera against something like a light pole. Otherwise, I was nailing some and blurring other shots, even at 1/500.

In terms of "affordable" image stabilization, B&H wants $1150 for the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens. That's pretty painful, compared to my $250 Nikon AF 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 ED lens. Of course, it doesn't have any of the whizzy features of the Canon lens, but that's reflected in the price. (The Tamron lens with the same specs costs $150, apparently rolls off the same assembly line as the Nikon lens, and is effectively identical, modulo cosmetic differences.)

Somebody needs to built a lens with specs comparable to Canon's IS lens for under $500. That will be a best seller!

Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 07/03/2005 19:51

I'm with you on the L-Series vs. DO. The lens length, color and extra 100mm are what put me into the 70-300 DO IS instead of the L series. The 70-300 DO is much less conspicuous when shooting city candids or local sports events than the L-series.

My other lenses are the 24-70 f2.8 L and the 16-37 f2.8 L. I don't feel the need to get anything else (except maybe a fisheye) for some time.

-Zeke

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 08/03/2005 09:21

Quote:
In the UK the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM cost £849 and it weighs 720g.

The EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM and EF 1.4x II Converter combined cost £1,608 and weigh 1790g.

Wow, that's a good deal more money than we pay in the U.S. At that point, it's cheaper for you to book a flight to New York, buy your gear (even paying sales tax), and fly back home again.

In terms of mass, there's definitely a big difference between 720g and 1790g. Interestingly, your Canon 75-300 (with IS and USM, but without the fancy DO optics), weighs only 666g. The Nikon lens (similar optics, but no IS or USM) is 517g. I suppose it makes sense that adding the ultrasonic motors and image stability systems could cost 140g. I'm actually somewhat surprised that the DO version is heavier. I would have thought that with more expensive optics, they could get that weight down. Maybe they're putting in heavier AF motors or a more robust outer shell.

Posted by: andy

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 08/03/2005 09:53

Quote:
Wow, that's a good deal more money than we pay in the U.S. At that point, it's cheaper for you to book a flight to New York, buy your gear (even paying sales tax), and fly back home again.

Indeed and those aren't list prices they are street prices. The list price for the DO is £1049.99

I bought both my 75-300 and 17-40 f/4.0 L in the States when on holiday. Thankfully Canon do an international waranty on the lenses, something that is sadly lacking on the bodies.

Mind you, you can only really save decent money if you "forget" to declare them coming through customs, otherwise you would get hit for at least 10% duty and 17.5% sales tax.

Quote:

I'm actually somewhat surprised that the DO version is heavier. I would have thought that with more expensive optics, they could get that weight down. Maybe they're putting in heavier AF motors or a more robust outer shell.

The DO version is much more solidly built than my 75-300 IS, which is almost entirely plastic. If it didn't go to 300mm, have IS and come in so "cheap" then I would never have bought it. It feels cheap and takes an age to focus (it frequently hunts through the entire range before settling). It also doesn't have full time auto focus, meaning you can't help it with its focus problems.

But it does do 300mm (480mm in 35mm terms) and I can take decent shots at 1/250, so I love it

Nearly as impressive in the "how did they do that" area, is my wife's new digicam. A 36mm-420mm stabilised lens on a camera that you can put in your pocket and weighs less than any one of my lenses...

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 08/03/2005 10:31

Quote:
Thankfully Canon do an international waranty on the lenses, something that is sadly lacking on the bodies.

If I buy an "import" lens from B&H Photo, generally that means that Nikon USA (or Canon USA, so far as I know) won't touch it. Instead, B&H offers you their own warranty for the same time period and whatnot.

Given how much cheaper it is to buy these things in the U.S., I'm surprised there isn't some sort of arbitrage going on. Is there not a U.K. version of B&H selling "import" gear for close to American prices? If they buy at wholesale (or even street) prices here and pay those duties, it looks like they still come out ahead of your street prices.

Posted by: mlord

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 08/03/2005 10:47

The DO lens has the "full version" of 3rd-generation IS; the others do not. This adds bulk and some weight, it seems. But the glass in the DO is just plain DENSE.. What DO saves, is length. But it feels very dense and solid (not bad, but a rather good feel).

Seems to work well enough too. But I find the pictures go soft when backlit, such as shooting birds in the sky, or dark objects against a bright background (exposed for the dark objects, that is).

Love it. Haven't touched my 70-200L-IS since I got the 70-300-DO.

Cheers

Posted by: andy

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 08/03/2005 11:30

Quote:

If I buy an "import" lens from B&H Photo, generally that means that Nikon USA (or Canon USA, so far as I know) won't touch it. Instead, B&H offers you their own warranty for the same time period and whatnot.

I think it depends on your local Canon people honouring the warranty. My understanding is that Canon US will not honour claims on grey kit imported into the US, whereas Canon UK will honour claims in lenses bought elsewhere in the world (but not bodies).

I have never had a problem with the lenses I bought in the US (they were US stock, rather than greys) so I've never found out whether my understanding is correct or not

It is of course in B&H's benefit to sell added warranty whatever the situation is...

Quote:

Given how much cheaper it is to buy these things in the U.S., I'm surprised there isn't some sort of arbitrage going on. Is there not a U.K. version of B&H selling "import" gear for close to American prices? If they buy at wholesale (or even street) prices here and pay those duties, it looks like they still come out ahead of your street prices.

I don't know of any UK based companies doing this. Various European companies have won court cases in the past against people under cutting the official European importers of various stuff, which probably explains it.

There are lots of Hong Kong based people who specialise in selling new camera gear to the UK on ebay though. Many of them advertise the fact that they will attempt to package the goods to avoid duty and sales tax.

Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 08/03/2005 11:55

Quote:
Nearly as impressive in the "how did they do that" area, is my wife's new digicam. A 36mm-420mm stabilised lens on a camera that you can put in your pocket and weighs less than any one of my lenses...

Well, if you only need to resolve 0.3 Megapixels (640x480), you can hide a lot of lens sins.

I do love the IS on the videocameras tho. I'd never buy one without.

-Zeke

Posted by: andy

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 08/03/2005 12:39

Ah, did I mislead you with the word "digicam" ?

I'm not talking about a video camera, this is a digital stills camera with 3 Megapixels. The lens is also f/2.8 for the entire zoom range.

All for 326 g (11.5 oz) including batteries.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz3/

Of course compared to my 10D the Panasonic isn't really a f/2.8 lens, because of the fact that its 100 ASA mode has more noise that the Canon's 400 ASA mode. So it loses two stops if you want comparable noise levels, making it more like an f/5.6 or worse. But very neat none the less.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 08/03/2005 13:35

Quote:
Of course compared to my 10D the Panasonic isn't really a f/2.8 lens

I agree with the noise issues, but the other place this gets interesting is when you compare depth of field. I've been playing with the online depth-of-field calculator. For a 300mm lens on my Nikon D-SLR at f/5.6 shooting a subject at 20ft, the depth of field will be about .7 feet. The calculator says that your Panasonic (55.2mm at the long end) gets about 2 feet of DOF at f/2.8 at the same distance. For a compact camera, that's pretty good compared to many smaller cameras that have huge DOF that you may not necessarily want.

(Random question: why should the depth of field change as a function of the sensor size? If I plug in a 55.2mm lens at f/2.8 on a 35mm film camera, I get 16 feet of DOF. Any idea what's going on here?)

Posted by: andy

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 08/03/2005 14:30

I'm afraid the finer details of DOF, hyperfocal distances et al are a mystery to me. What you say matches my experience with the two cameras concerned though.

I suspect that the answer is "it is due to the different sizes of the circle of confusion for the two sensors", which doesn't help much...

Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 08/03/2005 19:51

Aah, I did indeed mistake your meaning! Cool then! I'm still running my trusty old Canon S30 for my wee-rig (when I don't have the energy to move the 10D, or underwater). That looks like a very capable little unit, the Cons in the conclusion page @dpreview all look like pretty minor points. My S30 suffers from a slow lens, and focus is crap in low light, but it's respectable otherwise. Moving from the full size camera is always somewhat frustrating, so I can sympathize.

-Zeke

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 11/03/2005 15:57

DOF depends only on lens' focal lenght and apreture, not on the ratio of the focal length and size of your sensor. Smaller the sensor, 'shorte' the lens you use for the same purpose; hence, deeper DOF.

Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 11/03/2005 16:31

For the best article on Depth of Field I've come across go take a look at the DOF Article at Luminous Landscape. It explains things in a pretty straightforward way.

-Zeke

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 12/03/2005 20:55

Semi-random guess: when that DOF calculator web site said that my D70 had *less* DOF than a 35mm camera with the exact same lens, the difference could be related to the higher resolution of the sensor, rather than to the smaller sensor, itself. According to that Luminous Landscape article, sharpness, for film, is typically definied to be resolving 30 lines/mm (i.e., 60 pixels/mm). But, for the six megapixel sensor on my camera, there are 125 pixels/mm. That means you need a smaller circle of confusion, and thus get less DOF out of the same lens with the same settings.

Of course, high-end high-resolution film can easily top 100 lines/mm, and, following this logic, would have even less DOF because you were, in effect, demanding a much smaller circle of confusion.

Or, at least, that's my understanding now...

Posted by: mlord

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 13/03/2005 02:34

Something's funny there.. your D70 ought to have MORE depth of field than any full-frame 35mm camera at the (EDIT:) equivalent focal length and aperature.

Basic geometry there.

Posted by: bonzi

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 13/03/2005 06:21

Shouldn't DOF be exactly the same for the same actual (as opposed to 'equivalent') focal length and aperture (and 'circle of confusion' used, which is somewhat arbitrary)?

Posted by: mlord

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 13/03/2005 13:42

Quote:
Shouldn't DOF be exactly the same for the same actual (as opposed to 'equivalent') focal length and aperture (and 'circle of confusion' used, which is somewhat arbitrary)?

Ooops. Yes, of course it is!

Posted by: burdell1

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 13/03/2005 22:15

so has anyone bought the SD500 yet? the 7.1 megapixel Canon....

Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 14/03/2005 12:04

I don't think it's supposed to be out for another week or so.

My SD300 came in today. I decided to go ahead and get it since my total budget was $400 and I wanted a 512 meg SD card and card reader also. That ruled out the SD400. The battery isn't charged yet, so I haven't turned it on. My first impression is that it's...tiny. Definitely smaller than I imagined. I like it. It's actually pocketable.

More to come.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 14/03/2005 19:06

Quote:
Shouldn't DOF be exactly the same for the same actual (as opposed to 'equivalent') focal length and aperture (and 'circle of confusion' used, which is somewhat arbitrary)?

As I read that Luminous Landscape article, it's all about the circle of confusion. For yee olde 35mm film camera, the assumed circle of confusion is pretty big, corresponding to resolving 30 lines/mm. So, the DOF marks tell you how much DOF you'll get with a 30 line/mm resolution. If you're into using one of the high-end high-resolution low-speed films, as I now (vaguely) understand it, you'll have to trade off DOF for extra sharpness. That is, you'll get perfect sharpness for objects that are exactly at the focal distance, but by the time those objects are at the DOF markers, they'll be too fuzzy for your sharpness requirements.

Along those same lines, the assumption of the DOF calculator (for what it's worth), seems to be that the higher resolution (in lines/mm) of a modern D-SLR necessitates less DOF. Or, another way of of saying it, is that the higher-resolution sensor on a D-SLR is like using higher-resolution film, and necessitates a smaller circle of confusion.

I almost think I'm understanding this now...

Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 14/03/2005 19:36

I think technically you're spot on about the higher resolution, but really when you print things out, most of the time you don't take advantage of all those extra pixels in the high resolution shots unless you print really really large prints, so the argument gets a bit, well, fuzzy!

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 14/03/2005 20:34

Quote:
so the argument gets a bit, well, fuzzy!

Which, clearly, is why they call it the circle of confusion.

Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera? - 15/03/2005 12:29

Yeah, it took me a while to realize it wasn't the circle that was confused!

-Zeke

Anyone have the Canon SD300 camera?