0
\$\begingroup\$

I'm planning to buy a new SLR camera for my next trip and I saw some pictures taken with a Canon EOS 30 that I really liked but they were all taken with a Canon EF USM lens. Do you think the camera would take nice pics with the cheaper version STM lens? Do you think the Canon EOS 30 is a good option? I couldn't find so much reviews on internet.

Thanks, I'm a bit lost as you can see :')

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
3

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1
\$\begingroup\$

It is an old camera. Only 8Mpx. Any modern entry camera has 24Mpx a number that I can actually live with.

Would I recommend an entry camera for a trip? No. Use a good phone.

Would I recommend an entry camera for learning manual and controlled photography? Yes, but probably not that one.

Take a look at a bunch of questions regarding "first camera" https://photo.stackexchange.com/search?q=first+camera

Would I use it if it was really a bargain, or is it a gift? I was planning to learn using different lenses, Yes.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Juliana did say “EOS 30” and “SLR”. There is a good chance she is asking the Film camera, not the digital camera. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mike Sowsun
    Commented Sep 24, 2023 at 22:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ 8 Megapixels is low, but 24 is definitely high above the minimum I could live with. \$\endgroup\$
    – osullic
    Commented Sep 29, 2023 at 11:33
0
\$\begingroup\$

It is mediocre, but not as bad as the other answer would suggest. It is certainly better than most, if not all mobile phone and smartphone cameras: the amount of megapixels is not the defining quality of photos. All it does is tell you the resolution. The other qualities, like image sharpness, degree of chromatic aberration, etc. depend on the quality of the camera's optics, like manufacturing precision of the camera's lens(es), which are all subpar in cameras included in smartphones.

Phone cameras have gone a long way since their inception, sure, but we're not quite in the point where they could beat standalone cameras.

This camera allows mounting custom lenses, which is important.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ Honestly, I think this isn't a great answer. Depending on use case, there are many, many scenarios where you'd be hard-pushed to tell the difference between a photo taken on a modern smartphone and one taken with a dedicated camera. \$\endgroup\$
    – osullic
    Commented Sep 29, 2023 at 11:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ @osullic you need to look closer then. Sure a phone pic inside a pocket and an SLR one with the lens cap on look the same, but most photos do not. I can spot the effects of a small sensor size and/or heavy-handed software "optimizing" in the DoF, barreling/pincushion, too-sharp bokeh (or muddy fake bokeh), higher noise, often artificially smoothed over, bad low-light shutter speeds, slow than expected shutter speeds even outside causing motion blur, thin details in yellow subjects, artifacts from moire removal, etc. Plus there's many photos phones can take: flash, macro, astro, etc. \$\endgroup\$
    – dandavis
    Commented Sep 29, 2023 at 21:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's a bit of a lame argument to talk about lens caps and accidental pocket photos. Sure dedicated cameras are better - certainly for some types of photography. What I said was, depending on use case, there are many, many scenarios where you'd be hard-pushed to tell the difference. For many casual shooters going on a trip, their results won't be improved by using a dedicated camera - maybe the opposite. You can have a read through this sensible article: Smartphones vs Cameras: Closing the gap on image quality \$\endgroup\$
    – osullic
    Commented Sep 30, 2023 at 10:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.