Which Canon EOS Model?

Hi all. I have made photography a vital part of my life for the last one year

and want to alleviate it to the next level. 4 years ago I owned a Canon IXUS 40

and for the last 1 year I have been using a Canon PowerShot SD400 which is an

amazing camera too. Now I want to buy a DSLR camera which would allow me to take

great day & night photos, sports, nature photos, etc. I also want to ensure that

the camera has good pixel quality, amazing burst/continuous shooting mode,

maximum aperture and shutter speed. What other important feature on the camera

that I should look into before deciding.

 

I am willing to invest in a wide angle and also a zoom lens. Should I rule out

the Nikons because I have been using a Canon for a few years? Your advise will

put my struggle to make the decision to rest. :)

EoS xti 17-55 f2.8 and 70-200 f4 L is. About $3000

Don't rule out Nikon, though I think Canon is a better choice.

 

I second Ross's suggestion for the the Rebel Xti (400D), though it doesn't have "amazing burst/continuous shooting" speed (at least not in modern DSLR terms). For that, you'd have to spend quite a bit more money. Coming from P&S cameras, I bet you'd be happy.

 

Aperture and shutter speed are a function of the lens, not the camera. And, speaking of lenses, you can (and eventually should) spend quite a bit more money on them than on your camera.

Thanks Ross and Aaron. sorry for my ignorance Aaron on aperture and shutter speed. What I need is a camera body that would take me a long way so that I can build upon it with lenses and other accessories. How are the Canon EOS 5, EOS 30? Which Nikon models would you recommend?

It depends on what you want to shoot and what you want to spend.

 

Entry: 400D + kit lens EF-S 18-55

 

The lens is cheap, but stopped down OK

 

Mid range: 400D + EF-S 17-85 IS

 

This is probably a single lens all purpose solution.

 

Landscape: 400D + EF-S 10-22 + EF 24-105 f/4 IS

 

This will provide you with an extreme wide angle, which is amazing for landscape and for indoor shots in tight locations. The EF 24-105 is a professional lens that provides high image quality even wide open.

 

---

 

If you have got enough money make sure that you start with good lenses, as these are the limiting factor nowadays.

<p>The EOS 5 and EOS 30 are both film bodies (and date back to the early and late 1990s, respectively). Do you mean 5D and 30D? Be very careful with the names, as Canon has used similar-sounding names for rather different bodies over the years (with the D30 being another example; the name looks a lot like 30D but these two DSLRs are four generations apart and therefore very different).</p>

 

<p>If you were coming from an EOS film body and had an existing collection of lenses and flash units, plus an understanding of some of the operational concepts of the entire EOS system, then I'd say you should stick with Canon unless there's a darn good reason not to. But in your case, I agree with Aaron; you really don't have any investment (of money or learning) in Canon which you would lose by switching to another brand. I also think Canon is likely to be a better choice, but then again, I've been happy with my Canon equipment and know the Canon range of equipment better than I know the competitors so my opinion isn't necessarily unbiased. Do put some time into checking out Canon's competitors, as it's possible that one of them may have a better fit for your needs.</p>

 

<p>I mean no offense, but it sounds like you only sort of know what you're looking for. Given that, I wouldn't suggest putting a big pile of money into this up front unless you happen to have a big pile of money sitting around that you can afford to invest in equipment even if it turns out to be the wrong equipment. Between the 5D and 30D which I think you meant to cite, I'd suggest the 30D, at least for now. Not that the 5D isn't a fine camera - it is, and for some tasks it's clearly superior to the 30D - but it's much more expensive, and in one of the areas you mention (sports) it's held back by its slower shooting rate. The 30D is a very capable advanced-amateur body, and would give you the opportunity to learn both what you're doing and what your needs are without spending a huge amount of money.</p>

 

<p>The 400D is a step down in sophistication but is also a capable body, and being newer, it's in some ways better than the 30D. It's well worth considering. Make sure you get your hands on whatever models you're considering before purchasing them; there are significant differences in the size of these bodies (the 400D is quite a bit smaller and lighter than the 30D) and depending on the size of your hands, you may find one to be quite a bit more or less comfortable than another.</p>

 

<p>What's your budget, BTW? Ross recommended a couple of very fine lenses, but if they're vastly beyond your budget, or if your budget is vastly beyond them, there might be other choices that would suit you.</p>

 

<p>Can you nail down the focal length ranges a bit for us? Your IXUS 40 and SD400 both have lenses which are equivalent to a 35-105 zoom in the old familiar 35mm terms; to get the same range on a 400D or 30D, you'd want roughly 21-66. But how well did the range of your other two cameras suit you? What parts of the range did you use a lot? Were there parts you almost never used? Did you keep bumping up against one end or the other and wishing it went further? Knowing these sorts of things would help us tailor our recommendations better.</p>

<p>Don't forget good AF performance!</p>

 

<p>What's your budget for "amazing burst/continuous shooting"?</p>

<p>Some possibilities:

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.adorama.com/Refby.tpl?refby=rflAID062012&sku=ICADRXTB">Rebel XT</a> $500, so-so on everything, but very functional</li>

<li><a href="http://www.adorama.com/Refby.tpl?refby=rflAID062012&sku=ICADRXTIB">Rebel XTi</a> $665, 3 fps burst, nice AF</li>

<li><a href="http://www.adorama.com/Refby.tpl?refby=rflAID062012&sku=ICA30D">30D</a> $1080, 5 fps max., bigger buffer, same AF as XTi</li>

<li><a href="http://www.adorama.com/Refby.tpl?refby=rflAID062012&sku=ICA1DM3">1DmIII</a> $4500, 10 fps, huge buffer, awesome AF (and it better at that price!)</li>

</ul></p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Geoff S.</p>

Thanks Matthias, Steve and Geoff for your valuable insights.

 

Steve you are absolutely right. For a newbie like me, the canon model types can be tricky. Yes, I was referring to the Canon 30D and 5D which are not 35mm cameras. I have never used a 35m before. I used P&S canons previously and it was frustrating that I could not zoom-in far. Apart from this, I enjoy taking shots such as plants and flowers too.

 

My budget is $3000 (including lenses). thanks for the suggested possibilities for AF performance cameras.

<p>With a $3000 budget, I'd suggest getting a <a href="http://www.adorama.com/Refby.tpl?refby=rflAID062012&sku=ICA30D">30D</a> body. That would give you a very capable camera and leave you with almost $2000 for lenses (and memory cards, spare batteries, etc.) - GSS</p>

I'd say get a 30d or XTI (a 5d is great but will leave you with little cash for a decent lens) with a 70-200mm zoom for all that zooming you like to do. Then, try out a 17-40mm for when you want a more typical view.

 

Those 3 things should keep you in budget and leave you room for CF cards , extra batteries and an external hard drive/dvd's for archiving all the shots you'll take.

 

Oh, and try to find people in your area that shoot as well to get advice from. Learning how to process Raw files and about color spaces can be read, but will be easier to learn if you can see someone doing the actions.

Geoff and Caleb, thanks a million for the suggestions. I already have a 200Gig external HDD. So I would probably safe the extras on future investment for assessories. Possibly a good tripod.

I, like you, started out about a year ago wanting to move to DSLR. I thought I might buy the 350D (now 400D) but it felt a bit plasticky/lightweight so I bought the EOS 30D (I considered the Nikon D200 also - and that has excellent reviews and user feedback). The 30D is an excellent camera and this body has never been my main limitation (limits lie with the photographer). To cover the range I bought the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS, EF-S 10-22mm and EF 70-200mm L f/4. This means I am set up to do wide angle/landscapes, portraits/general and sports. Now, one year later I find that it is the lenses that constrain me and not the body (unless you count noise). First off, I wish I had bought one 'fast' lens in the general range (i.e. one that goes down to f/2.8 at least) - this is for portraits where you want the background to be out of focus and also for use in low light/indoors situations. I am looking at the Canon 24-105L but also at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 prime. At the 'long' end price is the limiter - I wish I had bought IS (image stabilisation) and then that I could afford f/2.8 IS for those hand held sports shot at maximimum zoom in lower light. Others can give you better advice than me. Look at the Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses also if you'd like to save money.

 

One thing I did right was save money to take some courses - be prepared to pay some money to learn from experts in your area as it will accelerate your progress.

 

As with everything, the 30D or 5D may be superceded, even this year. I would now buy a 5D if I could but I certainly was not constrained by not having it my first year of DSLR - the 30D does a great deal - be aware also that the APS-C lenses would not be suitable for the 5D if you ever upgraded. For that matter, the 400D is also excellent camera but I have no personal experience using it - other than some two button operations (to set aperture) that seem fiddly compared with my 30D.

<p><i>I wish I had bought one 'fast' lens in the general range</i></p>

 

<p>Excellent observation. The most common suggestion to fill that gap is the high-value <a href="http://www.adorama.com/Refby.tpl?refby=rflAID062012&sku=CA5018AF">50mm f/1.8</a>; at $70 it's hard to beat. The build-quality is a bit "plasticy", and the focus is slow, but the optical quality is quite good. On a 1.6 crop body (i.e. anything but the 5D), it's a slight telephoto, nearly perfect for portraiture and similar subjects.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Geoff S.</p>

Congratulations on the decision to move to a DSLR- no matter which one you buy, I think you'll be happy. I moved from a point and shoot to a 350D a little less than two years ago and I was immediately blown away by the difference. Compared to a point and shoot, ALL DSLRs have good pixel quality, amazing burst/continuous shooting, etc.

 

Although I've been shooting with a DSLR for almost two years, my pictures didn't really get good until about three months ago when I read a little article that changed my perspective. I'd recommend you read it- it's the article on this site about building a digital SLR system. In it, Philip Greenspun suggests that you start with a prime (i.e., fixed focal length) lens. I'd agree- if you're going to spend $3000, allocate $300-400 of it for a fast prime- f/1.8 or better. The article recommends a "normal" 30mm Sigma, but for what I shoot the most (closeups of my kids), I prefer the 50mm, which is a short telephoto (on a crop body). I'm not saying that you shouldn't buy the zooms, just that fast primes are really fun. I could only have one lens, this would be it. I got mine for Christmas this year, but I now wish that I'd bought it when I bought the camera.

 

One other thought- when you're buying lenses, think about the weight of the lens, too. My camera comes along anytime my family goes somewhere, so it's really nice to have the light, compact 350D combined with the 50mm. If your photography will be your primary activity, then the size and weight of the lens/body combo probably doesn't matter much, but if you combine it with other activities, you might prefer the smaller gear, even if it is technically inferior.

Glen - Thank you for sharing your experience. It definitely has impacted me on making the right choices with lenses. I have started checking out on a course for photography and photoshop too. Really excited!

 

Geoff - you know way too much about cameras and lenses that it is scary! (just kidding) Thanks mate.

 

Mark Hamburg - I read that article by Philip Greenspun. The problem only started when I started reading other similar articles which promoted other cameras, lenses etc. Too much for a newbie to handle I guess. Thanks for the advise on the weight of lenses. I was also concern about a "Heavy Nose" situation. For example, if I were to use the canon's 70-200mm lens with the Canon 400D body.

You've been given a lot of good advice here, most of which I agree with - don't forget to think carefully about Steve's point - you're not invested in the Canon system at the moment, but once you are it will be harder to change, so be sure that it's right for you. On that assumption ...

 

You're clearly progressing as a photographer, and you have a significant budget for your next step. Don't feel obliged to spend it all immediately.

 

If the Rebel XTi (400D) body suits you, that's fine, and you'll probably be happy sticking with it for a while. If you like the feel of the 30D, it's now probably worth waiting a few months to see whether Canon's late-summer announcements include a successor. Canon's roadmap is a closely guarded secret, and you should assume that any rumours are just that, but on the basis of past evidence it's likely that EOS-series announcements follow approximately a March and August pattern, and that the 30D is now near the top of the list for a successor to be announced. The 30D is only an incremental improvement over the 20D, and Canon will need to come up with something that is a significant step forward if they are not to disappoint their users. Mostly (not always), new Canon kit reaches the shops less than two months after annoucement. This may be a consideration for you.

 

Another issue you need to think about is future FF ambitions versus EF-S lenses. Camera bodies have been and gone with alarming frequency as DSLRs have been maturing (that may well slow down now), but lens development is a much more long-term business. I'm still using occasionally my 50/2.5 that was introduced in the 1980s and AFAIK is still current - and in optical terms can still hold its own. So in general lenses are a purchase for the long term. But what about buying EF-S lenses and then finding that you want to move on from a 1.6-factor body? The answer is that it seems very unlikely indeed that the 1.6-factor format will go away, and pretty unlikely that it will be limited to the Rebel/xxxD series (that's all a matter of opinion, of course), and that means there will continue to be a market for EF-S lenses s/h, and the current EF-S 'gems' - the 10~22, 17~55/2.8, and macro 60/2.8 - are likely to hold their value well enough that the cost of ownership for the period during which you have a 1.6-factor body will be at an acceptable level. These three lenses are so good, and combine so well with the 1.6-factor bodies, that it would not in my view be sensible to refuse to consider them simply because at some unspecified time in the future you might consider moving away from 1.6-factor. If you were already planning to move on to a 5D or its successor within months, then of course that would be a different matter.

 

Another issue to think about is size and weight. Even if you were to start with a 400D and the 18~55 kit lens, that's considerably larger and heavier than any camera you have used so far. A 30D (or its successor) with a 17~55/2.8 is another major step up - and if you were ever to consider the current 1-series cameras, and the kind of lenses that typically are used with them, you'd be working regularly with two to three kilograms round your neck. Don't underestimate the deterrent effect that can have on taking your camera with you. So it pays to take it step by step, and learn what kit you are comfortable with and what your priorities are for extending your outfit.

Robin, thank you for educating me about choosing the right body and taking into consideration of Canon's possible successor of the 30D model. I have to read up on the FF lenses which I have no knowledge about. It was indeed a different light that you threw in for me to consider before making the right choices on lenses. Thank you for imparting such valuable knowledge.

Gopinath - just "for the avoidance of doubt", as the lawyers say, I was just using "FF" as an abbreviation for "full frame". The EF lenses (those not designated EF-S) will work on all Canon DSLRs; the EF-S lenses will work only on the Digital Rebel series (300D, 350D, 400D) and on the 20D and 30D (but not the earlier D30, D60 and 10D) and, it is safe to assume, on any future 1.6-factor camera bodies.

LOL. That would explain why i couldn't find "ff" on any of my searches. Enlightened once again! Thanks for clearing that up sooner before I start losing hair.

 

Green and naive ~ Gopi

<p><i>I am willing to invest in a wide angle and also a zoom lens.</i></p><p>Those are not mutually exclusive. You probably mean telephoto, not zoom.</p>

 

<p><i>Yes, I was referring to the Canon 30D and 5D which are not 35mm cameras.</i></p><p>More precisely, they are not <b>film</b> cameras. They do accept the same lenses as the EOS 35mm film bodies, however. Also, the 5D is a 35mm camera.</p>

 

<p>Finally, if you're looking for a high "burst" rate, you're going to want to skip the 300D, 350D, and 400D (AKA Digital Rebel, etc.) and go for the 20D or 30D. Until you get a better idea of what you are doing, I would sooner recommend the EF 35mm f/2 than the EF 50mm f/1.8 II.</p>

Hi M Barbu. Thank you for your advise. And yes, I meant telephoto lenses. I didnt quite understand the distinction between the film camera and 35mm.

 

You agreed with me that the 5D is a film camera but also said that it is a 35mm camera. Could you please explain or give me a brief understanding. Thank you.

No. The Canon EOS 5D is <b>not</b> a film camera. It's sensor, however, is considered full-frame (where frame is generally accepted to be the dimensions of 35mm film). Therefore, the 30D would be considered to be a digital SLR that has a sensor that is a size similar to the APS-C film format, whereas the sensor in the 5D is a size that is similar to the 35mm film format. I say similar to be precise, because there exist very slight variations in the specifications.

Hi M Barbu. Sorry about my typo earlier. I agreed with you that the 5D is NOT a film camera. I didn't quite understand the distinction between film cameras and 35mm. Thanks again for clarifying my doubt mate!