Looking for a digital still camera

[faulknerwn 38]

I've looked through some threads on here but have seen conflicting stuff. I'm looking to buy a decent digital still camera for freefall - most likely off of ebay - and I'm looking for cheap :-)

I was all set to bid on a Canon 300d when I searched on here for that exact camera - instead of just best camera which came up with Canons - and the 300d seemed to be panned..

I'm wanting to buy a decent used camera for less than $400 if possible...

Is the 300d that bad? The 350d? Any other suggestions?

W

[mnealtx 0]

Howdy, Wendy...

The Rebel XT (350) is a tidge smaller than the Rebel (300) ... not sure about weight.

I think you'd be well served by either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[PhreeZone 20]

Wendy, for Tandems the 300D will be just fine. If you were getting serious and wanted to do a studio and things like that you'd want better but for freefall there is nothing wrong with the rebel.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[dragon2 2]

I had a lot of problems with the 300D, as have others that used to jump it. Error99 in freefall, and not with sigma lenses either. I know one or 2 skydivers that had 300D's that didn't have any problems though. But with tailgate airplanes and/or altitudes of 16k+ we had nothing but trouble with them. Also some problems with 10D. I switched over to Nikon because of the $%^& 300D!

The 350D/400D (and 20D/30D) seem much better cameras.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[Fast 0]

Quote

Howdy, Wendy...

The Rebel XT (350) is a tidge smaller than the Rebel (300) ... not sure about weight.

I think you'd be well served by either.

The 350 is a decent amount lighter than the 300, takes bursts of pictures much faster, and has a better track record overall. The cost difference should be pretty slim.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[mr2mk1g 10]

Given the price difference there's no reason to buy a 300D over a 350D. The 350'll do everything you need it to do in freefall and it'll do it well. You can fill your card at 3 fps in one go if you really want with that camera (the 300 will have to stop and think after 4 shots). Otherwise they're pretty similar (350's slightly smaller and lighter).

Then again, there's now the 400D out too... which only costs a little more... and has another 2 mega pixels and a bigger screen...

Above that there's the prosumer models like the 20D... whilst that's a lot bigger and heavier it has some pay-offs. And there's also a couple of Nikon models which work but I only know Canons so won't comment.

I'd vote 350D or 400D if you find a nice price on one. (note the 350's probably no longer being sold new in most shops though will still be available if you dig).

[champu 1]

I'd highly recommend the 350D. It's smaller, lighter, has a higher resolution than the 300D, and just all around feels less "first-generationy" if you know what I mean. And with the release of the 400D, you should be able to find 350Ds for a very reasonable price.

I don't like the 400D. I think Canon failed to follow the K.I.S.S. rule when they designed the camera. I apologize in advance for the following rant.

They want to add a bigger screen and I guess I'm okay with that even though the screen is still useless for judging the quality of the photo. But in order to fit the bigger screen on the camera they had to take away the lcd readout that used to give you all the information you needed about the exposure. So to make up for that they changed the software to put that info on the screen, which now has to be on all the time wasting battery power. So to offset that they added a sensor to turn the screen off when you put the camera up to your face. Sigh... all that nonsense to fix something that wasn't broken...