File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Figured this would better be asked in /p/: I have an old Canon EOS 650 with three lenses (50mm, 35-105mm, 100-300mm) lying around. I am looking into getting a digital SLR, esp. the Canon EOS 1000D.
Can I use the old lenses with the 1000D? I know there will be some magnification effect due to the 1000D's chip being only APS-size, but will the lenses work at all (autofocus etc.) ?
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
Yeah it'll all work, mounting, autofocus, etc. Multiply the focal length by 1.6 to get the "effective" focal length caused by the smaller sensor.
>> Anonymous
>>234345

A thousand internets and my thanks to you. Off to the shop I go...
>> Anonymous
Before you run off to the store, I'd like to ask why you're going to get the 1000d instead of the 450d?

The only advantage that the 1000d has is that it uses SDHC instead of CF cards.
>> Anonymous
>>234380
Uhh then it has no advantages then because the 450D uses SDHC too.
>> Anonymous
>>234381
You're right, I misread something. Now I see no advantages except the 1000d should cost less.
>> Anonymous
>>234390
It costs 200 dollars less.
>> Anonymous
>>234343
im just sick of all the entry ranged cameras. i mean...assuming you're paying a few hundred dollars less then a mid-range, we can assume its not going to be used for professional purposes. so whats the point in playing the whole megapixel race? i mean....sure the xsi might be better then the xti, but will anyone using it notice? idk. it just means more crappy images by people who arent serious enough about photography. (which wouldnt be bad, im not an art elitist or anything, i just hate the way people flaunt around their crappy pictures like they're hot shit because they payed 500 dollars for a dslr. get real.)
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>234444
Marketing sense. This makes none.
>> Anonymous
>>234444
lrn2target audience. Those people piss me off too, though. Especially the ones with 40Ds or D300s or whatever that just want the best for their green box P&S shots of little Johnny.
"hay guyz I just bought a CANON EOS 1Ds Mk III how does I make that blurry background?"
Guh. n00bs with money.
This has been my ADD rant.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
i'm going to equip my Sony alpha 350

with FOURTEEN POINT 2 MEGAPIXELS OF FURY
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>234553

maximum pixels = MAXIMUM AWESOMO PHOTOS.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
the megapixel race is the only thing they know how to pound into consumers thick skulls. Plus, have you SEEN the sales staff of most electronics stores? They're the most braindead stoners I've ever seen in my life. It's all they can do to point to the one with more megapixels and grunt.

But you're totally right. 6 megapixels will suit 95% of people. There ARE those hobbyists out there that love making obnoxiously large prints of their seagull photos and flower macros, so they'll shit themselves for a few more MP.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>234554

a winner appears, 14.6

take that sony
>> Anonymous
>>234555They're the most braindead stoners I've ever seen in my life.

IRONY
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>234558
Ah, I'm a Carl Sagan stoner. They're Beavis and Butthead stoners. Know your stoners.
>> Anonymous
>>234555It's all they can do to point to the one with more megapixels and grunt.

nope

they push sony because you get the most sales points

it's just a coincidence they also have the most megapixels
>> Anonymous
>>234557
I just ordered the previous version at half the price of this one, 10 megapixels..6 is pretty 35mm quality anyways, so I dont' see a point in paying $600 more for 4 more megapixels
>> Anonymous
>>234585

superior CMOS sensor

SIXTY FOUR HUNDRED MOTHERFUCKING ISO

TWENTY ONE MOTHERFUCKING frames per second at 1.6 mp

PC port

live view (but useless compared to other companies)
>> Anonymous
>>234585
I believe 35mm film is around 22 megapixels equivalent. Or that's what /p/ has said in the past.
>> Anonymous
>>234665

have fun scanning everything at 22 mp

you CAN do it, but have fun, really
>> Anonymous
>>234669
I was talking about print quality.
>> Anonymous
what

photos, that's like 2 mp
>> Anonymous
>>234665
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography

It varies enormously from film to film and decreases enormously over ASA 400. B&W slow speed film can be up to 20ish megapixels, but most color film is around 10MP.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
megapixels means nothing.

protip: get a fucking 3.1mp Canon D30!
>> Anonymous
The XS makes the D30 so archaic
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>234697

or a kodak dcs-100

1.3 megapixels! fuck yeah!