I have a couple of questions.

I always wondered the difference between EOS 30 and EOS 300. After going through many forums, especially this one, I find that the camera body is just a black box carrying the film. I came to know that EOS 30 is much more superior than EOS 300. It is ofcourse but I have no idea about how much. Well, what I want to ask is that with the SAME LENS, SAME EXPOSURE SETTINGS (aperture and shutter speed values) and SAME SCENE in SAME LIGHTENING CONDITIONS which one would give better picture quality, EOS 30 or 300. One can even comment on any other EOS cameras. Also in addition, the SAME type of FILM is used (either NEGATIVE or SLIDE film).

The second question is related to lenses. What is the difference between a cheap lens and an expensive lens like USM/L/IS lenses. I mean in term of final picture quality and NOT regarding AF speed and sound. IS gives additional stability for the camera shakes. Apart from that what is the difference. For instance, WHICH one should I go for EF28-90mm f/4-5.6 USM or EF28-90mm f/4-5.6 and WHY.

These question would be useful to amateur photographer like me who needs a new SLR in low budget.

Thanks

-- sajeev (chack74@yahoo.co.in), December 31, 2001

Answers

Difference in the eos 30 and the eos 300 are a few things. The eos 30 has a faster shutter speed (1/4000) and a faster film advance (4 fps) compared to the Eos 30 which has a shutter speed of 1/2000 and a film advance speed of 1.5 fps. The EOS 30 also has more customizable features like leaving the film leader out, locking the mirror, selectable rewind speed, and many other settings. The elan 7 is very quiet, good for shooting babies or at weddings were noise isn't appreciated. The basic modes of shooting are basically the same. I've shot just as good photos with my Rebel 2000 (same as EOS 300) as with my Elan 7 (EOS 30). Both camera can use the same lens and most of the same accessories (ex. rs-60e3 remote, any speedlite flash). Another difference is that the EOS 300 is made out of plastic and the EOS 30 is made from metal. If money is an issue, try the EOS 300, if you can afford the difference, I think you would be a little happier with the EOS 30. I shoot with kodak or fuji professional negative film because you can get better results with this film than you would with the regular consumer type (kodak max). Also, find a good lab to process your photos. Sometimes you may think you took a bad photo when in fact it is a good photo, but the lab did a bad job of the print. Try a few labs out with the same set of photos and decide for yourself. When looking at lenses, the super cheap ones are going to made from plastic and be generally slow with the autofocus and have a smaller apeture. The USM lenses are faster and more quiter focusing that the lenses that doen't have USM. I started photography using the Canon 28-135mm IS lens and the 75-300mm IS lens. The IS is great because it reduces the number of photos you take that are blurred. I have a 50mm f/1.4 to carry with me at all times. It is a rather quick lens that works great with low light. The "L" lens are usually more expensive but they usually incorporate a big apeture (f/4 up to a f/1) and faster autofocusing system. The glass on these lenses are are optically better than those non "L" lenses. Starting out, I would recommend getting possible a 28-105mm or a 28-135mm lens for you close ups, and a 75-300mm for ones that you can't get real close to. If you can afford it, the IS lens would work good. Once you can afford to get better lens, you can sell those old lenses on EBAY or something and upgrade to the faster lens. Basically on lenses, the more you spend, the better the lens. You can get good pictures with cheap lens, but with the faster autofocusing, you might not MISS as many good pictures. If you buy one of the lenses you listed, I would spend the extra money and get the USM. I hope this helps.

-- Carlos Marrero (los@door.net), December 31, 2001.

to address one of your questions:

with the "SAME LENS, SAME EXPOSURE SETTINGS (aperture and shutter speed values) and SAME SCENE in SAME LIGHTING CONDITIONS and SAME FILM" these cameras will yield exactly the same image. The difference in bodies is features and noise and speed and convenience.

-- peter bg (pbartzgallag@macalester.edu), December 31, 2001.

The only time I can think of that image quality would differ would be when the mirror lock up feature is needed to prevent camera shake. Even with a tripod, mirror slap can cause vibration in the camera/lens, and is generally most noticable at shutter speeds between 1/15 and 2 seconds (someone please correct me if I am wrong about the speeds). Of course this will be most noticable with long telephoto lenses. Under the right (or wrong) circumstances, the EOS 30 would then be capable of producing a better quality image with the use of mirror lock up, all else being equal. This point alone will likely never matter to most photographers, but I had to mention it as it addresses the quesiton.

-- Derrick Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), December 31, 2001.

I'll add that the 30 is easier/faster to operate with the addition of the Control Dial on back. It also allows Flash Exposure Compensation (FEC) with external flash units. And it has a metal lens mount, and is generally better built.

The difference between the 28-80mm USM or 28-80mm non-USM is very little. The cheap micro motor USM in it quieter but only slightly faster. This is the same for the 75-300's as well, and should be the same for the 28-90's, although I've not compared them. Optically they are the same.

But if you step up to the 24-85, 28-105 or 28-135, the build quality goes up, the optical quality goes up (sharper, less distortion, less flare), the focus speed goes up, and you get Full Time Manual focusing (FTM).

If you opt for an L lens like the 28-70 f/2.8L, the build quality goes up more, the optical quality goes up more (sharper less distortion, less flare), the focus speed goes up more, and you still get Full Time Manual focusing (FTM).

Cheap lenses work fine if you expectations aren't too high and you stop the lens down a bit. However that will do nothing for distortion problems and not much for flare. Better lenses shine when you open them up, and they usually open up farther, giving you more options with depth of field and more options in dim light.

As the others have said, better camera bodies do very little for image quality, but they make the operation faster and easier. They also often have better meters, but that is not the case with the 30/300 debate.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), December 31, 2001.

Hi Sajeev,

You posed an interesting question about the role of the camera body in picture making. With the same light, same scene (perspective), same lens, and same exposure, the only differences remain in timing, focus, and film transport.

The camera body does make a difference: from the frame rate (fps) to the autofocus speed and accuracy to the way the shutter is released.

The more you pay, the better camera and lens you get. If your budget is the limiting factor, choose the best lens and camera you can afford. For some, that might mean a used body and good manual focus lenses. It is entirely your choice (and budget).

-- Julian Loke (elan7e-owner@yahoogroups.com), December 31, 2001.

Often photography isn't just about the settings but how you get them. Fancier bodies can make finding the optimum settings for the effect you want easier and more accurate.

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), January 01, 2002.

The EOS 30 (Elan 7) is a bit heavier than the EOS 300 (Rebel 2000), which is good when you are shooting with longer lenses, like 100 mm or longer or zooms. The added weight means more balance and comfort. Something to consider.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), January 02, 2002.

thanks all of you for your important discussion. it just means that EOS 30 is better built with more control than EOS 300. these extra factors are very important when you are thinking quite seriously about photography but still want to keep it as a hobby. i suspect whether from a more professional point of view either of these bodies are not that great. i mean in comparison with EOS 3 and other professional cameras.

-- sajeev (chack74@yahoo.co.in), January 03, 2002.

Don't sell these two cameras short. They have plenty of advanced functions and will hold up well for most assignments. As it goes, the EOS 30 is more durable than the 300, but both represent good value. There's not much difference between the 30 and the 3, even less perhaps when you consider that the 3 is twice as expensive. You can be a serious photographer with any camera.

As these posts have pointed out, the 300 and 30 will probably do what you want. Just make sure you get a good lens!

Good luck!

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), January 03, 2002.

I have the 3 and the Elan 7E(30), and I have to agree with Preston: For the difference in price, they are not that different. But I do think the 30 far out performs the 300 (I've used that one as well), and would choose the 30 over it any day at double the cost.

-- Derrick Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), January 03, 2002.