close
more_vert

It makes me mildly depressed to admit it, but CML is pretty much on the head of the nail there.

Having seen a direct comparison between his D70, and my 350D, my nagging suspicion that I should have opted for the former has been confirmed. Mr McL, I was amazed at the clarity of your Old Hartley pics
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/post/42286
(I can guarantee CML's assertions about photoshoppery folks, I saw the images as they were taken, and they have all that colour and clarity of the one in the link above, straight out of the camera).

Your rockarty-Wolfness, as I'm assuming you're gonna be wanting some pretty low-light shots (I'm thinking Cairnholy for instance) for the RA, I'd go for the D70 if it comes down to a choice twixt it and the Canon, despite price differences.
In defence of the Canon DSLRs, the 350D is the bottom end of the bracket, and I am still using the kit lens, so that might be contributing to the lower quality. Praps a better EOS with a better lens would see a marked improvement.

It might be worth thinking about what kind of lens is best for the RA, and then deciding on availability/cost of the lenses?

It's a headtwister of a job, but it must be worth doing the thinking *before* purchasing, not after ;)

The other thing worth investing on, even more importantly than pro lenses (I think so..), is a good, sturdy and easy to use tripod. It needs to be near enough the weight of the camera on it (unless its carbon fibre) and not wobble easily.
If its not easy to set up quickly you'll end up not bothering with it and if its way too heavy you wont bother carrying it at all. The best thing to do is buy an expensive carbon fibre one now with a good head or you'll end up buying a slightly improved one every year or two like me and pay more. I have three or four at home from the cheap and nasty to the fairly solid and for the price of all of them I could have had a top spec one to last a lifetime.
The ones with the brace bar between the legs and the centre shaft are best avoided IME.

Just about any DSLR gives above average results, they also give way below average results if something is set out of its optimum. I've seen some superb stuff from 350D users so stick with it and just try everything that can be fiddled with, especially RAW mode (if you can get the converter!). When I got the D70 first it was a bit of a shock after being used to a fuji that did everything for me (but the way <i>it</i> wanted!) to see dull, washed out, lifeless photos come out of my new gadget. Took about two months of constant use to find out what works and what doesn't before I was in anyway confident of getting useable results.

( BTW some of the rest of the Newcastle photos are here: http://cianmcliam.smugmug.com/gallery/1008980 ). Thanks again for braving the cold and wind and the public transport malfunctions so I could see at least one stone on my trip! It was great to have a bit of company on a stone hunt for a change, I owe you one :)

That's a good way of disclosing the surface of the surface of a stone but just highlights the plight of the individual rock - almost toppled over. Have you had any contact with the county archaeology unit over it ? The colour of the sky has shifted, in the digital pic. The glow from city light is orange and has shifted to red, perhaps because of the long exposure time. 'Therefore' this image should be placed in the genre 'Magic Realism'.

As a Canon EOS300D user, I'd agree. The Canon certainly struggles to cope with a wide range of contrast, to the extent that I actually regret getting rid of my old Oly E10 at times...

What's the main problem with the Canon, Hob? I use an older model and get superb clarity, haven't cleaned the sensor in 3 years neever!