The second phase has begun...

Paul Saunders wrote

Quoted message said:

PHASE 2

Consumer digital cameras - moderate quality - getting cheaper. Professional digital cameras - good
to excellent quality - affordable to expensive.

Indeed. A friend has just bought the digital OM10, which at £1250 is still pricey but for what you
actually get represents a shift down in price. From a walking perspective I think you missed out one
factor Paul and that's bulk/weight. I don't know too many people who are willing to cart around an
SLR setup regardless that it gives them 7MP. I think sometime before Phase 3 we'll also see a
significant decrease in bulk for even the top spec cameras.

Chris

Great Paul .... but just splashed out a 'measly' sum investing (not quite an investment!) in the now
'defunct' Canon G3. A few months ago it was the top mid-range ..... now no more. Overtaken with the
G5 .... but for how long?

Impressed with the G3 quality though. Out on the South Downs on Thursday, murky conditions but the
images look good. Will be out again tomorrow in, as it looks at the moment, better weather.

--
Sandy Saunders @ www.thewalkzone.co.uk

'Mountains or Mole Hills ... summiting still brings
the same excitement'

Quoted message said:

PHASE 2

Consumer digital cameras - moderate quality - getting cheaper. Professional digital cameras - good
to excellent quality - affordable to expensive.

Quoted message said:

I'm glad to say that phase two has finally arrived with the appearance of the Canon EOS-300D.

It's the first digital SLR to cost less than £1000,

Interesting. I'm got a new camera on my shopping list for early next year to replace the one I've
had for 5 years. I was originally considering another 35mm SLR but I have a feeling that during the
course of the next 5 years, film and processing will become much more expensive due to obsolescence.

£1000 is still a bit much at the moment, how were digital SLR prices one year ago? I'd probably be
looking at digital SLR's when they get down to the £500 mark. I might be tempted to wait another
year with buying.

Where can I find more info on the 300D? I look at www.canon.co.uk and it's not there.

Anthony Dyer www.mountain-walking.org.uk

Stephen <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Hi Paul, have you worked out how much it costs to print a full colour A4 photo with the 2100, and
also a full colour A3 photo? Including ink and paper, but not the cost of the printer itself. Or do
you know of any useful websites with this information on?

I'm just trying to work out whether it's cheaper to get photos printed at Photobox.co.uk or to buy
a A3 printer myself.

Looking at the price of cartridges, and the price of a printer, I was not surprised to find (in a US
based newsgroup) that many of them either re-filled their own cartridges, or bought a new printer
when the cartridge ran out!

Mine is a very thirsty Epson C70 +, but I don't do a great deal of printing - no point when I can
view everything on-screen! When I do print, I'm happy with the quality.
--
Gordon

Following up to Paul Saunders

Quoted message said:

18-55mm lens (equivalent to 29-88mm), all for less than a grand.

I bet an equiv to my 17mm costs AAAAL or does not exist?
--
Mike Reid "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso UK walking "fellwalk.co.ukfellwalk.co.ukOpen ↗"
<-- you can email us@ this site Spain,cuisines and walking "fell-walker.co.ukfell-walker.co.ukOpen ↗" <--
dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Gordon said:

Looking at the price of cartridges, and the price of a printer, I was not surprised to find (in a
US based newsgroup) that many of them either re-filled their own cartridges,

But what do they refill them with? The 2100 uses special pigment inks, so refilling it with
conventional inks would rather miss the point of buying it in the first place, since that's the
main advantage of the printer.

There was no mention of a specific printer, so I assume they used ordinary inks.
--
Gordon

Tim Jackson <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I've got a copy of the relevant issue of Which? here.

It says that Epson cartridges contain a chip, which is what makes them refuse to print when the ink
starts to run low. They say this chip is "over-zealous" and that in actual fact there's usually
still plenty of ink left when it stops printing. This ink is wasted, increasing the running costs
of the printer.

Duh, my C70+ warns me that the cartridge is low, and tells me how many sheets I can print. I usually
get more than that, and keep going until the printer refuses. When I shake the empty cartridge there
is no sound of ink movement.....

Quoted message said:

They contacted Epson who said that customers are free to reset the chips, but that there's a risk
of damage to the print head if it runs dry. Which?'s experts' view was that this is unlikely as
long as you stop printing promptly when you see a drop in quality.

Yes indeed! My mate showed me a couple of prints he had produced which were pure magenta! He had the
printer two years by then, but had only just got around to printing in colour(!), so maybe the
cartridge had dried out somewhat. I told him firmly that after two years he should buy a new
cartridge. Instead, he took it to be re-filled, but found that it still wasn't printing at all. The
shop re-filled it again for him, but the same thing happened. This time they gave him a new
cartridge, by way of compensation, plus some free paper by way of getting rid of him off their
doorstep (IMHO). ;-)

What had happened is that he had carried on printing when the yellow and cyan jets had dried up, and
the jets had burned out. He was also given an information sheet explaining this.

Quoted message said:

Which? say you can find chip resetters by typing "chip resetter" into google.co.uk.

When mine stops printing they seem to be empty, BICBW.....
--
Gordon

Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Pat Bennett said:

You can get compatable non-epson cartridges at half the OEM price.

Really? Are they the proper pigment inks?

I got some from Staples (own brand) at half price. The colour seems the same to me, but the black
cartridge took quite a while to produce a steady flow, and the first few sheets were smudged and
unacceptable. It settled down eventually....

"Yer gets what yer pays for" in terms of quality is my belief...
--
Gordon

Phil Cook <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What had happened is that he had carried on printing when the yellow and cyan jets had dried up,
and the jets had burned out. He was also given an information sheet explaining this.

This must be a non Epson. Epson have the heads separate to the reservoir.

Correct, but I can't remember the make.

Quoted message said:

I run my Epson Stylus 660 (four colour, unchipped) until it says change the cartridge at which
point I replace the same cartridge and get lots more pages. When the ink actually runs out I have
to replace the cartridge by switching off in mid cleaning cycle to get at the cartridge then
running the cleaning cycle a few times to make sure the lines are all fully charged with ink again.
The downside of this policy is that I never actually know how much ink is in the cartridge.

I think I could fool mine in this way, but if I want to change the cartridge I run the utility which
guides me through the moves, which I know, but I have to click OK.

When the new cheapo black cartridge smudged up the first few sheets, I was ready to take it back,
but needed to print some text. So I put the old black one in, and it provided me with a few more
prints. When I later replaced the new one it worked properly.

I suppose I'd be in the same position with the graphic chart showing empty and not knowing how much
is left, but by then I'd have a spare in stock.
--
Gordon

In article <[email hidden]>, Tim Jackson
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

've just realised that Bill was asking about a "950" and didn't specify the manufacturer. I'd
assumed from the previous discussion that he meant some Epson model, but did you mean Canon, Bill?

Sorry Tim, I somehow "expect" people to be on my wavelength.:-(

Mine is an Epson 950, I hadn't even thought of the Canon !

BTW the Epson 950 is an excellent "photographic" printer. maybe a bit OT for Fran's use but there
are lesser models in the Epson range which do a great job.
--
Bill Grey billboy.co.ukbillboy.co.ukOpen ↗

sandy saunders said:

Great Paul .... but just splashed out a 'measly' sum investing (not quite an investment!) in the
now 'defunct' Canon G3. A few months ago it was the top mid-range ..... now no more. Overtaken with
the G5 .... but for how long?

The G3 and the G5 are merely jugernaut racing whilst the 1Ds whizzes past in lane three. OK the
analogy breaks down a bit when the size of the camea is taken into account but my point is that the
5 is not an order of magnitude better than the 3 it is only a tiny bit better, and most of that is
in the change of colour from silver to black IMO :-)

Quoted message said:

Impressed with the G3 quality though. Out on the South Downs on Thursday, murky conditions but the
images look good. Will be out again tomorrow in, as it looks at the moment, better weather.

I'm trying to avoid spending money on photo gear. I am very tempted by the G5 but there is also an
Epson 2100 printer calling somewhere.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Quoted message said:

Where can I find more info on the 300D? I look at www.canon.co.uk and

it's

Quoted message said:

not there.

dpreview.comcanoneos300dOpen ↗ photo.net300DOpen ↗

Must be going blind! Thanks for the info paul.

Anthony Dyer www.moutain-walking.org.uk

Chris Gilbert said:

Indeed. A friend has just bought the digital OM10, which at £1250 is still pricey but for what you
actually get represents a shift down in price.

Digital OM10? Have you got the right name? Do you mean the Canon 10D?

Quoted message said:

From a walking perspective I think you missed out one factor Paul and that's bulk/weight.

Actually I don't think I have, the 300D is only 2/3 of the weight of the 10D, since it has a plastic
body rather than a metallic one. At first I wasn't impressed by this fact, until I realised that
it's actually an advantage for travelling light.

To put this in perspective, when I chose my film SLR I researched all the different makes and models
available at the time and finally opted for Olympus, since they made the smallest, lightest SLR
bodies. My OM1n is just 600g. The 300D is even lighter at 560 grams, whereas the 10D is 790g.

If you don't consider any SLR light enough for walking, then I suppose walkers have to be divided up
into two groups, those who are serious about photography and those who aren't. Which is not to say
that walkers with compacts don't want to take good quality pictures, but by definition, anyone who's
truly serious about photography will prefer SLRs, because of the advantages of using interchangeable
lenses and filters, and will thus be prepared to carry that weight.

Walkers who want good quality pictures with minimal weight would be best advised to stick with
the high end compacts, like the G5. The 300D is for those who intend to use additional lenses
and filters.

Quoted message said:

I don't know too many people who are willing to cart around an SLR setup regardless that it gives
them 7MP.

But that's true for film too, isn't it? There are walkers who've always carried compacts and shunned
SLRs because of the weight. Admittedly most digital SLRs are a bit on the heavy side at the moment,
but not the 300D.

Quoted message said:

I think sometime before Phase 3 we'll also see a significant decrease in bulk for even the top
spec cameras.

Yes, I hadn't considered that. Decrease in weight and bulk is highly desirable.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

sandy saunders said:

Great Paul .... but just splashed out a 'measly' sum investing (not quite an investment!) in the
now 'defunct' Canon G3. A few months ago it was the top mid-range ..... now no more. Overtaken
with the
G5 .... but for how long?

Well that's the way with current technology. Whatever you buy there'll be something better along a
short while later, but either you wait forever and never buy anything or you commit yourself at
some point.

I could regret not having waited for the G5, but on the other hand I now have quite a large
collection of digital images that I'd never have taken if I didn't buy the G3, so that's one way of
looking at it.

I don't consider it defunct though, even when I upgrade to something better I'll probably keep the
G3 as a good quality "snapping" camera, which I'll use on occasions when I don't want to carry all
my other gear with me. By the time I don't need it anymore it won't be worth selling it.

Quoted message said:

Impressed with the G3 quality though.

Glad to hear it, it's a good camera.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Anthony Dyer said:

Interesting. I'm got a new camera on my shopping list for early next year to replace the one I've
had for 5 years. I was originally considering another 35mm SLR but I have a feeling that during
the course of the next 5 years, film and processing will become much more expensive due to
obsolescence.

I think digital will probably become dominant in that time period, but I don't expect film to become
obsolete that quickly, there are plenty of die-hard film photographers around who'll continue to
navigate with map and compass and insist the world is flat for some time to come. :-)

Quoted message said:

£1000 is still a bit much at the moment,

Well it doesn't cost that much, I think it's probably going to be around £900, but as the manager of
Jessops told me today, they'll probably drop £100 quid off that pretty quickly, so that's just £800
(with lens remember).

Quoted message said:

how were digital SLR prices one year ago?

Back in December the list price for the G3 was £700 but I shopped around the net and got Jessops to
price match it for just £550. I haven't checked the prices lately but you can probably pick up a G3
for £500 or so now, and probably much less if you shop around.

Quoted message said:

I'd probably be looking at digital SLR's when they get down to the £500 mark.

They'll do that quite soon by the looks of things.

Quoted message said:

I might be tempted to wait another year with buying.

To be honest I don't think you'll have to wait that long.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

The Reid said:

Following up to Paul Saunders

Quoted message said:

18-55mm lens (equivalent to 29-88mm), all for less than a grand.

I bet an equiv to my 17mm costs AAAAL or does not exist?

You have two choices. Get a 14mm which is equivalent to a 21mm or spend mucho moolah on a 1Ds :-(
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

The Reid said:

Quoted message said:

18-55mm lens (equivalent to 29-88mm), all for less than a grand.

I bet an equiv to my 17mm costs AAAAL or does not exist?

Nope, does not exist. Ultra-wide angle photography is still the exclusive preserve of 35mm, unless
you can afford a camera with a full frame sensor like the 1Ds of course!

My current plan is to get a cheap Canon film body plus possibly a Sigma 15-30mm lens. This will be
an incredible wide angle zoom on the film camera, but will also fit a Canon digital body when I get
one, whereupon it will magically turn into a 24-48mm, so will be a very useful lens on both cameras.
I'll continue using film for ultra-wides and panoramas.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Phil Cook wrote

Quoted message said:

I'm trying to avoid spending money on photo gear. I am very tempted by the

G5

Quoted message said:

but there is also an Epson 2100 printer calling somewhere.

1290S ? Still an excellent printer at nearly half the price of a new 2100.

Chris

Phil Cook said:

The G3 and the G5 are merely jugernaut racing whilst the 1Ds whizzes past in lane three.

True. Good as they are, the G models are merely very good quality compacts, they're not in the same
league as pro SLRs. Having said that the 1Ds is in another world price wise, so ordinary mortals
need something in between.

Quoted message said:

OK the analogy breaks down a bit when the size of the camea is taken into account but my point is
that the 5 is not an order of magnitude better than the 3 it is only a tiny bit better,

Again true, even though it's an extra megapixel, that doesn't actually translate into that much
extra width and height, and the same can be said for the jump to 6MP, however...

One of the big differences with digital SLRs is that the sensors are much larger, so a 6MP SLR gives
a better quality image than a 6MP compact will. Added to that is much lower noise. The G series have
very low noise compared to cheaper compacts, but they're not completely noise free. At first glance
there seems to be no noise at ISO 50, but a bit of contrast boosting on an interesting sky can
easily enhance the noise, and sharpening further magnifies it.

The 10D and 300D are supposed to have exceptionally low noise, virtually zero at ISO 100 - 400 and
even very low noise at 1600 amazingly.

Quoted message said:

I'm trying to avoid spending money on photo gear. I am very tempted by the G5

Don't be. Get the 300D, it only costs a little more. Don't forget that it comes with an 18-55mm lens
(most digital SLRs are body only). How much would it cost for a lens like that bought separately?
(It's been manufactured much more cheaply than normal 35mm lenses because it protrudes further back
into the camera, and has a special mount so that it only fits this camera body - although the body
will accept any Canon autofocus lens.)

Quoted message said:

but there is also an Epson 2100 printer calling somewhere.

Yes, and I highly recommend it.

(But be prepared to spend a lot of money on ink - £12.50 for one ink catridge. The light magenta
runs out three times faster than the others, while the light cyan runs out twice as fast, so I'm
now keeping a stock of one spare of every ink plus 3 LM and 2 LC at all times, that means £125
worth of ink in reserve - a new cartridge bought every time I load a new one - not when it starts
running low!)

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗