New entry-level 1000D DSLR from Canon [Archive]

koffiejunkie

10-06-2008, 08:19 AM

The rumors were true, the 1000D (http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_1000D/index.asp) has been announced! Looks like a 400D with a smaller screen :)

In short:

* 10.1 MP CMOS sensor
* Up to 3fps
* 7-point wide-area AF
* Self-Cleaning Image Sensor
* 2.5” LCD with Live View mode
* DIGIC III processor
* SD/SDHC card slot
* Picture Styles processing
* Compact and lightweight
* Compatible with EF/EF-S lenses and EX Speedlites

Goobie

10-06-2008, 08:24 AM

* Self-Cleaning Image Sensor

whats that? little windshield wiper inside?

koffiejunkie

10-06-2008, 09:17 AM

It can shake itself.

bwana

10-06-2008, 09:22 AM

While I do like the white on black display (a lot) the price is a pretty hefty €549 (r6800).

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0806/08061002Canon1000D.asp

koffiejunkie

10-06-2008, 09:38 AM

While I do like the white on black display (a lot) the price is a pretty hefty €549 (r6800).

It'll come down quick enough. The 450D has dropped about £100 in street price since it launched already.

koffiejunkie

10-06-2008, 09:39 AM

Wow, I just noticed it has Al-servo focus. Does the 400D/450D have that?

bwana

10-06-2008, 09:39 AM

Wow, I just noticed it has Al-servo focus. Does the 400D/450D have that?The 400D does - cant say for certain about the 450D but I would presume so.

xrapidx

10-06-2008, 03:21 PM

I was just reading this on dpreview and was getting pretty pissed off...then read its one level lower than my new baby :)

bwana

10-06-2008, 03:29 PM

I was just reading this on dpreview and was getting pretty pissed off...then read its one level lower than my new baby :)And at nearly half the price?

xrapidx

10-06-2008, 03:33 PM

And at nearly half the price?

Mine was only R8000 :) (with a verified Canon SA warranty, I phoned CanonTek or whoever it is and they said its covered)

koffiejunkie

10-06-2008, 03:58 PM

I think a better way to read this would to read it as a side by side comparison:

1000D vs 400D (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos1000D%2Ccanon_eos400d&show=all) shows the following differences:

7 focus points instead of 9
Slightly stronger flash: 12m instead of 12m
Continuous shooting: unlimited JPEG instead of 27, but only 4 RAW instead of 10 (I assume this is heavily card dependant)
No infrared
SD/SDHC/MMC instead of CF
Viewfinder magnification: 0.81x instead of 0.8x
Battery: 1050mAh instead of 720mAh
Weight: 502g instead of 556g

1000D vs 450D (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_eos1000D%2Ccanon_eos450d&show=all) shows the following differences:

10.1MP vs 12.2MP
7 Focus points instead of 9.
Continuous shooting: unlimited JPEG instead of 53, but only 4 RAW instead of 6
No infrared
Viewfinder magnification: 0.81x instead of 0.87x
LCD: 2.5" instead of 3"
Weight: 502g instead of 524g

bwana

10-06-2008, 04:02 PM

I wonder when they'll be updating the 5D . . . . time to start doing some overtime. . .

koffiejunkie

10-06-2008, 04:03 PM

I wonder when they'll be updating the 5D . . . . time to start doing some overtime. . .

Are you aiming for the 5D Mk II or the then reduced price 5D?

bwana

10-06-2008, 04:05 PM

Are you aiming for the 5D Mk II or the then reduced price 5D?Depends - do I want to work one day overtime or two :D

TBH even the original 5D would offer me more than enough in terms of growth room.

koffiejunkie

10-06-2008, 04:07 PM

Geez, just as I finished typing out that comparison, I see this (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Canon_1000D/page2.asp) comparison of the 400D, 450D and 1000D.

koffiejunkie

10-06-2008, 04:10 PM

Depends - do I want to work one day overtime or two :D

Geez, if one day makes that much of a difference, why don't you put in a week and get the 1Ds Mk III?

TBH even the original 5D would offer me more than enough in terms of growth room.

That's why I'm not looking at that. It's going to take a while for the 40D to become the limiting factor for me. Probably longer than the camera will last :)

bwana

10-06-2008, 04:10 PM

Geez, just as I finished typing out that comparison, I see this (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Canon_1000D/page2.asp) comparison of the 400D, 450D and 1000D.ok - I though the 1000D was an even smaller version of the 400/450 but seeing as it is the same size as the 450 I'd probably go for the 1000D myself as a first dSLR.
Geez, if one day makes that much of a difference, why don't you put in a week and get the 1Ds Mk III?To tell the truth I did a job the other week and could afford the 1Ds but I live with the certain knowledge my missus would kill me in my sleep and then return it for the cash.

koffiejunkie

10-06-2008, 04:16 PM

To tell the truth I did a job the other week and could afford the 1Ds but I live with the certain knowledge my missus would kill me in my sleep and then return it for the cash.

Not if you add a day or two overtime and buy her that diamond necklace/earrings/ring at the same time :D

koffiejunkie

10-06-2008, 04:19 PM

Hmm, I've got to be honest. If the 5D mk II is based on the 40D and is similar enough I might just consider that. I'm having so much fun with the Sigma 10-20mm lens, I can just imagine the 12-24mm on a FF camera.

Being used to the focal lengths on the crop sensor, I'm amazed every time I look into the K1000 with the 28mm f/2.8 lens on - feels like I'm barely not seeing the back of my head :) I wonder what's the widest lens I can get for it?

bwana

10-06-2008, 04:50 PM

Not if you add a day or two overtime and buy her that diamond necklace/earrings/ring at the same time :DNah - probably buy her a MB though (and keep her 12" iBook in my camera bag;))

koffiejunkie

10-06-2008, 04:53 PM

See, then you're both happy. And safe :)

mercurial

18-06-2008, 02:01 PM

Ok, so according to the official Canon site, the 1000D should be available next month. I'd like to know what the official difference is between this camera and the 400D. What real differences are there and how much difference would there be in terms of quality, cos AFAIK, it is both 10MP. The only thing I could notice was the increase in frames per second. I'm currently checking out reviews at this site (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Canon_1000D) but my knowledge in this area is rather limited, so I don't really know what I'm looking at. I am planning a major shopping spree in the coming weeks - I'm going to purchase a bigger telescope and I hope to get myself one of these SLRs. I can then attach the camera to the telescope and take some awesome pics of the universe. Advice appreciated. TIA.

fivelza

18-06-2008, 02:07 PM

Merc this may help http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=122230

mercurial

18-06-2008, 02:10 PM

Merc this may help http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=122230

Aah, I didn't see that :o
Thanks :)

mercurial

18-06-2008, 02:13 PM

bwana, koffiejunkie and Idmelsa, I'd appreciate any advice you guys may have for me. Should I wait for the 1000D?

fivelza

18-06-2008, 02:20 PM

bwana, koffiejunkie and Idmelsa, I'd appreciate any advice you guys may have for me. Should I wait for the 1000D?

Based on what they say I may also look at the 1000D...I'm off to New York later this year and will probably visit B&H.

bwana

18-06-2008, 02:23 PM

mercurial

18-06-2008, 02:24 PM

Based on what they say I may also look at the 1000D...I'm off to New York later this year and will probably visit B&H.

You're going to the Big Apple? Nice :D
I just want to make sure I invest in the best one available. How long are you going to be there? Are you going there on vacation or other?

mercurial

18-06-2008, 02:28 PM

I'd wait and see a) what the price point for the 1000D is like and b) what happens to 400D pricing.

Apart from that I'm wondering if the live view mode of the 1000D might not be of use to you if you're hooking it up to a telescope. I personally cant say for sure but I'm sure someone who has a 40D or 450D might have a useful comment?

Looking at a comparison the 400D has a higher fps and will take a burst of 10 RAWs compared to the 1000Ds 3 but if you're shooting jpg (why you would ever do that is beyond me anyway) then there is no limit on the 1000D.

Tough call

Thanks. I'm not gonna use it only for the telescope, but I would probably be using it a lot for astrophotography. What did you mean in your last paragraph? I plan to capture them as RAW images and then probably process them to JPEGs at a later stage. What does that frames per second actually mean?

bwana

18-06-2008, 02:34 PM

Thanks. I'm not gonna use it only for the telescope, but I would probably be using it a lot for astrophotography. What did you mean in your last paragraph? I plan to capture them as RAW images and then probably process them to JPEGs at a later stage. What does that frames per second actually mean?FPS just means how quickly the camera will take a continuous burst of photographs when you hold the button down

1000D:
JPGs - 3fps until the camera card is full
RAW - 1.5fps 5 in a row before it has to take a break and write to the card

400D
3 FPS and it will take 27 JPGs or 10 RAW and then write them to the card.

mercurial

18-06-2008, 02:39 PM

Oh ok, I see. If I understood correctly, it would seem that the 400D is better in that respect(FPS)? If the price is around R8000, which camera would you rather opt for? The 1000D has a few features that the 400D doesn't have, but the 400D does seem a bit better in other areas.

bwana

18-06-2008, 02:50 PM

If both were priced exactly the same I'd probably go for the newer 1000D if I didnt have any legacy peripherals (battery grip, CF cards, etc).

To tell the truth I'd definitely go for the 1000D over the 450D as a starter camera. If the 400D's price point decreases dramatically that would sway me in a different direction altogether though.

mercurial

18-06-2008, 02:53 PM

Cool, thanks.

koffiejunkie

18-06-2008, 06:00 PM

Ok, so according to the official Canon site, the 1000D should be available next month. I'd like to know what the official difference is between this camera and the 400D.

Scroll up, I posted the link (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Canon_1000D/page2.asp).

how much difference would there be in terms of quality

Probably none. See the various photography threads where the 400D and 40D have been discussed. The Digic-III processor is faster and more efficient, which will probably give you slightly improved battery life (I still haven't found a 400D owner who runs batteries until they're empty to do a comparison with the 40D) but from everything I've read, I doubt that there's any real difference in picture quality.

bwana, koffiejunkie and Idmelsa, I'd appreciate any advice you guys may have for me. Should I wait for the 1000D?

I'd wait to see the difference in price. If they're very close, I'll probably take the 1000D, for one reason only: bigger viewfinder. If the 400D is significantly cheaper, I'd get that and spend the rest on glass.

Apart from that I'm wondering if the live view mode of the 1000D might not be of use to you if you're hooking it up to a telescope. I personally cant say for sure but I'm sure someone who has a 40D or 450D might have a useful comment?

I haven't invested in a telescope yet (I might, one day) but I find Live View to be more of a gimmick than anything really useful. The only times I've actually used it was when I wanted to take a picture from an awkward angle, like from the ground aiming upwards, but even then, turning my head upside down still gives me a more satisfactory view.

If I knew I was going to take a lot of shots where I'd be viewing it at a weird angle, like on a telescope, I'd invest in an angle finder (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183200-REG/Canon_2882A002_Angle_Finder_C.html) instead.

bwana

18-06-2008, 06:33 PM

Scroll up, I posted the link (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Canon_1000D/page2.asp).I merged two threads ;)
I'd wait to see the difference in price. If they're very close, I'll probably take the 1000D, for one reason only: bigger viewfinder. If the 400D is significantly cheaper, I'd get that and spend the rest on glass.the 400D and 1000D both have a 2.5" LCD - the 450D has the 3".

koffiejunkie

18-06-2008, 06:46 PM

I merged two threads ;)

Aah, I wonder why I got unsubscribed to from the thread :)

the 400D and 1000D both have a 2.5" LCD - the 450D has the 3".

That only strenghens my argument.

mercurial

18-06-2008, 11:05 PM

Thanks koffiejunkie :)

mercurial

03-07-2008, 01:07 AM

1000D will be available in August at orms.co.za (http://www.orms.co.za/product.php?a=view&product=1574) for R7495. I see that the price for the 450D came down by R500.

greg_SA

03-07-2008, 09:47 AM

Hmmm... I'm look into either the Canon.. 1000D or the Nikon D40 as my first DSLR.

At the moment I'm favouring the D40. I like the on-board image processing (Vivid) of the D40, when I want to use it as a P&S.

mercurial

11-07-2008, 03:48 PM

Damn, I just had a look at some of the sample pics taken with the 1000D. It's flippin' awesome.

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eosdigital5/eosdigital5_sample-e.html

PS: The JPEGs are massive - around 5mb.

xrapidx

11-07-2008, 04:14 PM

Considering the +-R1500 difference between the 1000D and 450D... I'd go for the 450D.

mercurial

14-07-2008, 08:02 AM

Considering the +-R1500 difference between the 1000D and 450D... I'd go for the 450D.

Agreed, but I'm just a bit concerned about the focussing issues you told me about.

koffiejunkie

14-07-2008, 08:20 AM

Focus issues? Did I miss something? If it's the same focus issues as the 40D supposedly has, dude, don't worry about it.

mercurial

14-07-2008, 08:28 AM

Focus issues? Did I miss something? If it's the same focus issues as the 40D supposedly has, dude, don't worry about it.

Oh ok cool. As long as it's not a big problem.

bwana

14-07-2008, 11:35 AM

Considering the +-R1500 difference between the 1000D and 450D... I'd go for the 450D.I'd get the 1000D and spend the balance on a flash or lens. :o

mercurial

14-07-2008, 11:41 AM

I'd get the 1000D and spend the balance on a flash or lens. :o

In all honesty, you can't really get a lens for that price lol. Perhaps you could save it up for a lens. I don't know. I'm confused as to which cam to go for.

bwana

14-07-2008, 11:56 AM

In all honesty, you can't really get a lens for that price lol. Perhaps you could save it up for a lens. I don't know. I'm confused as to which cam to go for.Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 ±R1200 :)

mercurial

14-07-2008, 11:59 AM

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 ±R1200 :)

Lol but that lens comes with the cam: 18-55mm :)

bwana

14-07-2008, 12:07 PM

Lol but that lens comes with the cam: 18-55mm :)

Trust me - that lens does not come with the camera. ;)

The 50mm is f/1.8 - iow very fast. At 50mm the fastest you'll get out of the kit lens is f/5.6.

I doubt many would disagree if I said that bang for buck the f/1.8 50mm is one of the best lenses canon makes. :)

koffiejunkie

14-07-2008, 12:07 PM

Lol but that lens comes with the cam: 18-55mm :)

No, the lens that comes with the cam can do 50mm but nowhere near as wide open (or as sharp, in my mostly unpopular opinion).

bwana

14-07-2008, 12:08 PM

No, the lens that comes with the cam can do 50mm but nowhere near as wide open (or as sharp, in my mostly unpopular opinion).:confused:

BTW - did you ever get the 50mm f/1.8?

mercurial

14-07-2008, 12:14 PM

Oh ok. Surpised to find a Canon lens that cheap :eek:
Makro has a TAMRON 70-300mm Lens (http://www.makro.co.za/ProductDetail.aspx?cat=-1&prod=36308&SKU=000000000000099680|EA) for R1999.

koffiejunkie

14-07-2008, 12:40 PM

:confused:

BTW - did you ever get the 50mm f/1.8?

No, I got the 35mm f/2 instead. To be honest, I don't have much use for 50mm on a crop body, it's too narrow for the vast majority of situations I find myself in (I don't do much portraiture). I thought I'd get the 35mm to take the camera along for friends-at-the-pub type occasions, but given how many times I've seen a pint getting knocked over on someone's phone, I've given up on that idea and just use my Sony P&S as my "pub camera" - good thing too as just two weeks ago someone bumped into me and spilled wine all over it. The 40D has some weather sealing, but I'm just feeling less sorry for the Sony :)

That said, the 50mm is on my list, I'll probably pick it up in Honk Kong later this year (it's £40 there). I might actually go for the 1.4 while I'm at it, it's only a little more expensive there than the 1.8 is here.

koffiejunkie

14-07-2008, 12:43 PM

Oh ok. Surpised to find a Canon lens that cheap :eek:
Makro has a TAMRON 70-300mm Lens (http://www.makro.co.za/ProductDetail.aspx?cat=-1&prod=36308&SKU=000000000000099680|EA) for R1999.

That sounds about right. Don't expect wonders from this lens though, it's not in the same class as the Canon 70-300 IS

mercurial

14-07-2008, 12:49 PM

That sounds about right. Don't expect wonders from this lens though, it's not in the same class as the Canon 70-300 IS

True, but those Canon lenses are so bloody expensive.
On the issue of the 50mm - how much of an actual difference is noticeable when using this and using the 18-55mm?

koffiejunkie

14-07-2008, 01:30 PM

True, but those Canon lenses are so bloody expensive.
On the issue of the 50mm - how much of an actual difference is noticeable when using this and using the 18-55mm?

Do you know how the f-numbers work? Every next stop (from a higher number down to a lower number) is double the amount of available light. Have a look at this:

full f-stop1/4 stop1/2 stop3/4 stop1.01.11.21.31.41.51.71.82.02.22.32.62.83.13.43 .74.04.44.75.25.66.26.77.38.08.79.510.411.012.013. 014.616.017.019.020.722.024.627.029.032.035.038.04 1.0

As you can see, f/1.8 is 3 1/4 stops more light than f/5.6. That means n times 2 to the power of 3.25. It's a hell of a lot more light.

ldmelsa

14-07-2008, 01:32 PM

I agree with koffiejunkie about the Canon 70-300 IS. Rather get it later, if you can. That 70-300mm IS is sharp, even on a Canon 5D! Those other lenses are not that sharp at 300m. Even some of the cheap Canons I tested were a bit fuzzy at 300m, but not the "70-300 IS". Plus, IS (image stabilization) is a godsend for hand-held at those focal lengths. I found that the 70-200 L lenses had better corner sharpness, but the one with IS is $.

EDIT - Don't worry about corner sharpness. It means nothing. You won't even see the corners with your crop factor camera,

mercurial

14-07-2008, 01:42 PM

Do you know how the f-numbers work? Every next stop (from a higher number down to a lower number) is double the amount of available light. Have a look at this:

full f-stop1/4 stop1/2 stop3/4 stop1.01.11.21.31.41.51.71.82.02.22.32.62.83.13.43 .74.04.44.75.25.66.26.77.38.08.79.510.411.012.013. 014.616.017.019.020.722.024.627.029.032.035.038.04 1.0

As you can see, f/1.8 is 3 1/4 stops more light than f/5.6. That means n times 2 to the power of 3.25. It's a hell of a lot more light.

I see. I know it sounds a lot and that is theoretically a lot, but I just wonder how much of a real difference there will be in the quality of the pics. I have looked at pics and they don't seem much different ot the ordinary 18-55mm, although they probably perform much better in low-light?

koffiejunkie

14-07-2008, 01:47 PM

I see. I know it sounds a lot and that is theoretically a lot, but I just wonder how much of a real difference there will be in the quality of the pics. I have looked at pics and they don't seem much different ot the ordinary 18-55mm, although they probably perform much better in low-light?

The quality is debatable. I don't think the 18-55 is anything as sharp anything else I've tried, but I'm in a definite minority. Maybe I've just had bad luck with poor samples. Either ways, a prime will almost certainly give better quality (less glass needed for the same result, so less margin for error, if I can grossly oversimplify it.

But yeah, low light, if you get used to the kit lens and then try as fast prime, it'll blow your mind. With my f/2 and the cam at 1600 ISO, I can take good pictures in pretty dark places.

mercurial

14-07-2008, 01:51 PM

I see. I just can't make up my mind. On the one hand, I would go for the 400D, but then I might as well go for the 1000D as it is only slightly more. But then the 450D is dangling in my head cos it doesn't cost much more than the 1000D.

ldmelsa

14-07-2008, 04:30 PM

I used the 18-55mm IS on the 450D and it was very sharp. The only setting not quite as sharp is f3.5 at 18mm. (I'm nitpicking!) Other than that, it's sharp!

mercurial, don't worry so much. Just buy the Canon 450D, or Nikon D60 for that matter. Both come with excellent 18-55mm stabilized lenses. Both produce exactly the same results. The difference is in ergonomics and handling. That, we can't help you with. I tested both side by side. Personally, I found the 450D difficult the hold.

xrapidx

14-07-2008, 04:34 PM

While you're talking about the 450D - what can I do to improve overall focus on the camera - the pictures are quite often blurred using the 18-55mm lens.

ldmelsa

14-07-2008, 04:46 PM

blurred?
is it a dud?

xrapidx

14-07-2008, 04:55 PM

blurred?
is it a dud?

Nope... I think its me not knowing my way around. If I take my time to take the photo it comes out fine - but the photo's where you quickly need to turn the cam on and take a photo are often blurred.

bwana

14-07-2008, 05:01 PM

ldmelsa

14-07-2008, 05:01 PM

Nope... I think its me not knowing my way around. If I take my time to take the photo it comes out fine - but the photo's where you quickly need to turn the cam on and take a photo are often blurred.

your shutter speed is to low
you can't move and take a photo at a slow shutter speed (were you moving?)

18-55mm IS at shop:
http://www3.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/ad9932d02a386857bdea6ff451bad2a33g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=yqdmx4by5xb&thumb=4)

xrapidx

14-07-2008, 05:05 PM

Try setting the Manual AF to just the centre point.

Did that over the weekend - worked a lot better.

your shutter speed is to low
you can't move and take a photo at a slow shutter speed (were you moving?)

The camera was on P. One of the blurry pictures was of my girlfriend walking in fairly decent light outside in the shae, it was taken at F/7.1 1/200s, ISO400, 30mm.

Whats the best setting to leave the camera on when taking quick pictures where you don't really have time to set the proper settings.

ldmelsa

14-07-2008, 05:13 PM

sports mode?
the little running man

xrapidx

14-07-2008, 05:44 PM

Been using that as well - just didnt think it was best :)

koffiejunkie

14-07-2008, 06:11 PM

sports mode?
the little running man

You're teaching him to use the idiot modes? :eek::p

xrapidx

14-07-2008, 06:21 PM

You're teaching him to use the idiot modes? :eek::p

Nah... Thats why I was asking actually - wanted to know which mode was best (besides the idiot modes.

Most photo's I take are spur of the moment. Like the one below, and I'm scared I stuff them up.
http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data//500/medium/P1000764.JPG

koffiejunkie

14-07-2008, 06:25 PM

Nah... Thats why I was asking actually - wanted to know which mode was best (besides the idiot modes.

I know I know, I just couldn't resist the temptation to yank someone's chain.

Most photo's I take are spur of the moment. Like the one below, and I'm scared I stuff them up.
http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data//500/medium/P1000764.JPG

If I saw this stuffing up the picture would be the last worry on my mind...