Among the three only. No other choices: 300D, 20D or D70?

Dear ALL,

I have PS and really want to upgrade to DSLR. I'm Choosing between

this 3 cameras, 300D, 20D and D70. I don't have any of their lenses

as well, neither any flash except for a Sunpack Thyristor 2400.

 

My budget is only $1800. I only shoot indoor/outdoor portraits and

weddings. Very seldom landscapes. What is the best deal to go. I

prefer the 20D since I'm used to Canon settings (I have A70 which can

be adjusted manually). But then its the most expensive of the 3. If I

go with 300D I can buy decent lens but lacks some of the features

like large buffer transfer, exp/wb bracketing and focus.

 

If I go Nikon will I be spending fortune on Nikon's auto focus zoom

lens and primes. I don't know their price range, are they cheaper or

expensive compared to EF lenses of Canon.

 

Lastly how about picture quality. I'm dealing with prints up to

16x20, mostly 8x10 and 5x7.

 

Need all your professional input.

 

Regards

 

Vhic

I have owned all three of those. Bought a 300D last Marrch, then D70 in July, and now the 20D. I missed control on the 300D, so the D70 was GREAT as an upgrade. But the controls were, well, Nikon and I too prefer Canon controls. The 20D did it for me. Your mileage may vary of course but my 20D enables me to most easily shoot great pics (eg my car, shot yesterday, on www.mvw.net/ML500/ )

 

Cheers,

Michael

Oh come on, why disparage the 7D? It deserves some respect too...

AFAIK both the wb and exp. bracketing available in the 300D too. It is slow indeed.

I you have used canon before probably you feel more comfortable an other canon modell.

I vote for the 300D. It is cheap but a great body. Buying cheap body you can spend more on the lenses!

All of the 3 produce great images. Some nikon fans thinks the nikon is better, some canon fans thinks the canon is better :) Borrow or rent these cameras firts and make your own opinion :)

Someone disparaged the 7D? I must have missed it.

I only have direct experience with the 20D. Both labs I use require 300 dpi files (one will adjust up to 10%, the other is strict). That means I get 8x10 prints without having to interpolate and they look as good as the medium format digital I use in the studio. Upsizing to 16x20 looks fine at arm's length, but at less distance you can see the advantage of native resolution.

Yes, you need to think about lenses.

 

Many would consider $1800 a tight budget for LENSES.

 

So on a budget, here is a thought:

 

1) 18-55/EF-S (kit lens: $100), 24-85 ($330), 70-200/4L ($570), 550EX flash ($320) Total about $1200

 

2) 18-55/EF-S ($100), 50/1.8 ($70), 70-200/4L ($570), 550EX flash ($320) Total about $1020

 

The weak link in the above choices is the 18-55/EF-S. The 24-85 is a mid range lens, with the 50/1.8 and 70-200/4L being of premium quality.

 

Another good choice is:

 

3) 17-40/4L ($650), 50/1.8 ($70), 550EX ($320) total about $1000.

 

OR

 

4) 18-55 ($100), 28-135/IS ($425) and 550EX ($320) => $850

 

With these choices, the 17-40/4L is of premium quality and the 28-135/IS is a good mid-range choice (With Image Stabilization!)

 

Hmmmm. Clearly, you can't afford a 20D with a $1800 total budget. The 300D is the way to go.

 

Note: If you get a 20D, you can use a 420EX flash which is only $175. (The 550EX give you flash exposure compensation which comes on the 20D body, but not the 300D body)

 

Note: Do not be tempted by the 17-85/EF-S kit. The combination of 18-55/EF-S kit and 28-135/IS is a better value.

Yes, you need to think about lenses.

 

Many would consider $1800 a tight budget for LENSES.

 

So on a budget, here is a thought:

 

1) 18-55/EF-S (kit lens: $100), 24-85 ($330), 70-200/4L ($570), 550EX flash ($320) Total about $1200

 

2) 18-55/EF-S ($100), 50/1.8 ($70), 70-200/4L ($570), 550EX flash ($320) Total about $1020

 

The weak link in the above choices is the 18-55/EF-S. The 24-85 is a mid range lens, with the 50/1.8 and 70-200/4L being of premium quality.

 

Another good choice is:

 

3) 17-40/4L ($650), 50/1.8 ($70), 550EX ($320) total about $1000.

 

OR

 

4) 18-55 ($100), 28-135/IS ($425) and 550EX ($320) => $850

 

With these choices, the 17-40/4L is of premium quality and the 28-135/IS is a good mid-range choice (With Image Stabilization!)

 

Hmmmm. Clearly, you can't afford a 20D with a $1800 total budget. The 300D is the way to go.

 

Note: If you get a 20D, you can use a 420EX flash which is only $175. (The 550EX give you flash exposure compensation which comes on the 20D body, but not the 300D body)

 

Note: Do not be tempted by the 17-85/EF-S kit. The combination of 18-55/EF-S kit and 28-135/IS is a better value.

For 1800 dlls, you're not going to get any great lenses to go with a 20d. So if you want great lenses the choice is the 300d or the d70. The D70 has features that are missing from the 300d, although some of these are available by using the Russian firmware hack. If you really are serious about shooting weddings(professionally?) you'll need quality glass. I'd suggest the 17-40 f4, a 50mm 1.8 (or one of the more expensive ones) and a 70-200 2.8. On your budget, possibly the kit lens, a 50mm 1.8 and an 85mm 1.8, together with a 550ex flash, would point to you definitely only being able to afford the 300d or a 10d. With a 20d you'd be stuck with a couple of kit lenses or a kit lens and a 50mm 1.8 but no off camera flash.

 

Someone else on the Nikon forum may well be able to advise on a D70 kit for your budget.

Your portrait shots will profit from the lenses, not the body primarily. No experience with weddings, but with some other events, and I think it can be done with the 300D (and of course the 10D). You need some manual controls, especially flash exposure compensation for your wedding shots with flash, so the hacked firmware for the 300D is indespensible. But if you get that, I think it's a good tool. As others said before, you need not only lenses, but also a new flash and maybe some other accessories like CF cards etc. That can't fit in your budget if you get a 20D, unless you get just the kit lens, which is not bad optical, but 'feels' cheap, plus a Canon 420EX or a Sigma 500 Super flash. If you get a 300D, you'll have room for those other investments in higher quality lenses etc.

 

Maybe a 20D with something like Tamron's 28-75/2.8 could be a possibility.

 

Difficult decision. We all want the last generation of this stuff! But good lenses will last. If you get a 300D, you can do the things you want to do and relax and wait a bit. The development will go on. You can still upgrade the body later. Just my thought.

My vote is for the 20D and a Sigma 18-50/2.8

 

That combination should be an absolute killer for landscapes, street shooting, weddings, portraits (although I'd prefer something a bit longer for that) and all-around snapshots.

 

I've handled the 20D and used the Sigma so I'm not talking from reviews.

Do you shoot portraits for free or do you get paid? I can't imagine you were getting paid to do it with your P&S. It doesn't seem that you have a film SLR, or you would have mentioned your current lenses. So, here's what I recommend:

 

Get the 20D with the kit lens ($1400), a 420EX flash ($180), and a 50mm f/1.8 lens ($70). With shipping, that should be about $1800, and will get you started in portraits and weddings.

 

I used the Canon 18-55mm kit lens for 3 months, and it really isn't that bad. It's absoluetly the best kit lens I have used. And, when you are done with it, you can sell it for $50 on Ebay.

 

With that equipment, you can do a few jobs for friends and family for cheap, and use your camera to make some more money. Then, buy lenses as you can afford them. The first lens I would buy (especially for weddings and portraits) is a good standard wide to telephoto - like the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. Then, go for a GOOD wide angle - Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 or Canon 17-35mm f/4.0.

For that budget I would almost recommend ebay - sometimes used can be risky but I've had ok luck with ebay - I did get a sigma 170-500mm for $450 and its in great shape. You won't find a 20D on ebay but there are several lenses. Also a lot of these boards have ads for stuff people are selling. I know after upgrading to the 20D I am sitting here with a 300D, 18-55, 75-300, and some accessories that I'm no longer using. I should post it.

 

One note about ebay is that quality glass sometimes goes for or above retail. I was in the market for the 70/200 2.8 IS and ebay used were going for above retail so I bought mine at B&H. Quality glass just doesn't depreciate.

I second these ideas:

 

Christof Spitz

"20D with something like Tamron's 28-75/2.8"

 

Aaron Beddes

"Get the 20D with the kit lens ($1400), a 420EX flash ($180), and a 50mm f/1.8 lens ($70)"

 

I really like my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and 20D combo.

In another month or so there'll another camera to choose - the Olympus E300, for

somewhere between DRebel & D70 money.

I would go for the 20D if I were in your shoes, however any of the three should work well for what you want. If money is tight go for the 300D and buy some nice glass (lenses). You can always upgrade later to a 20D or later a 3D? and still keep your investment in the lenses.

If you can get the 20D and the kit lens from a REPUTABLE dealer for $1400 total I would like to know who it is. The key word is reputable. Thats about $200 short of what it should be paying for that combo. The last time I checked B&H wanted $1499 for the 20D by itself with no lens. And the last time I checked was about two hours ago. Anybody undercutting them by $200 is to be viewed with great suspicion I would think.

 

Vhic the people that told you to get a 300D and spend the majority of your budget on quality optics are doing you a favor and giving you sound advice. In two years any digital camera you buy will be worth very little. A 17-40 f4L on the other hand will retain much of its value for many years to come. More importantly if you want quality results quality optics are a necessity not an option. The 300D is a great camera especially with the Russian hack. This decision should absolutely be a no brainer.

I just double checked 20D prices at B&H. As of 2PM Eastern time today a 20D with an EF-S 18-55mm runs $1599.95. Add $99 for 1 Gigabyte CF card and you are essentially looking at $1700.

 

I seriously doubt $1400 for this combo is legit.

Larry - www.shopdigitalonline.com. $1426.00 for the kit. I have purchased from this company before with no problems. They also have a customer feedback rating of 5/5 stars on pricegragger.com.

 

Of course, at that price, they're probably not making any money on the sale and they're hoping you also buy your CF cards, bag, ect from them so that they can make some money. But, you don't have to. They never tried to pressure me into it.

 

The argument that your lenses are WAY more important than your camera is not as true in the digital world. With film, you can buy a $100 SLR, put a great lens on it, and get excellent pictures. With Digital SLRs, 6MP is always 6MP, and regardless of how good your lenses are, you will never have any more resolution.

 

Now, don't think I don't understand the importance of optics. And I don't mean to put the DREB down. I currently own $1500 worth of lenses, and I would like to spend that much again. But, when you pick a digital camera, you are setting your upper limit on quality. I own the Digital Rebel, and I love it, but if I could have afforded the 20D, I would have purchased it. It's a lot easier to upgrade your set of lenses (a few hundred dollers at a time) than it is to upgrade your camera ($1500 at once). It's for that reason that I recommend getting the best digital camera you can afford.

I will take your word for your experiences with www.shopdigitalonline.com. Even so I don't trust anyone selling at that steep a discount from B&H. Buyer beware was, is, and always will be smart advice. I know I can trust B&H. I have been dealing with them for many years. This other outfit I have never heard of.

 

The arguement "that your lenses are WAY more important than your camera" is indeed just as true in the digital world as it is in the film world. Camera bodies are more capable and more important with digital its true. BUT there is NO substitute for good optics and there is no getting around the need for them. I don't care what kind of recording medium you are using, the lens is the single most important part of the equation. Always has been, always will be. (And there is more to good optics than just resolution and more to digital photography than just megapixels.)

 

Quality lenses should last a lifetime. Take care of them and they will retain their value. I recently sold a number of manual focus FD L series lenses I have owned for decades. I got much use and much joy out of them over the years. I sold a number of them at 2 to 3 times what I originally paid for them. I doubt you will ever make that claim for any digital camera body.

"I don't care what kind of recording medium you are using, the lens is the single most important part of the equation. Always has been, always will be."

 

This is absolutely and so obviously untrue.

 

When using a digital SLR, the recording medium (image sensor) is of equal importance to the lens you are using. The nicest lens in the world will never give you good pictures if your image sensor is a POS.

 

Even with film, you are limited by the quality of the film you use. Your film is just as important as your glass. It's just that this was never an issue when considering a film camera because you change your recording medium every 36 rolls, and you have countless options. With a digital camera, you decide on your medium once, and you live with it as long as you own the camera.

for portraits and the like...a 50mm 1.8 is perfect. It translates to an 85mm 1.8 on the 20D, which to me....is perfect for portraits. The lens is $70 brand new.

 

If you are really going to print 16x20....you really need as much resolution as you can afford.

 

I second the vote for the 20D, 20EX flash and 50mm 1.8 as a start.

 

I also own a Tamron 28-75 2.8 Di...and love it.

 

If you don't need the extra 2MegaPixels....than the 300D is the smart buy.

 

sean

"The nicest lens in the world will never give you good pictures if your image sensor is a POS."

 

1) The 300D and the 10D share the same sensor. Its anything but a POS.

 

2) The sensor can only record what it receives via the glass in front of it. You can have the best sensor ever made and if you've got a lousy piece of glass in front of it then you really do end up with crap. People who make there living taking photographs more often than not spend big bucks on hi quality and expensive glass for a good reason. There livelihood depends on it. If lousy optics would make the grade few would do so. You want to try and make a living as a wedding photographer with poor quality lenses good luck to you. You won't be in business long.

Larry. This is getting ridiculous. I'll just admit that you're a genius for caring only about glass, and I'm an idiot for caring about image sensors. Now, we can just walk away and you can be the winner. Congratulations.

Hmmm. This is an interesting topic. . .conceptually Aaron has a very valid point that the body and sensor ARE very important.

 

A core issue is where the balance lies between "sensor limited" and "glass limited" resides.

 

Right now, the 6mp sensor in the 300D/10D is very good. The 8mp sensor in the 20D by all accounts is an "improvement" but not a "step change leap". The 1Ds, with it's huge sensor, is better. :) From what I have read, as long as you are using quality glass. . .the body will be the defining limit.

 

BUT. . .when it comes to the Canon cheaper lenses the balance begins to switch and the lens become clearly limiting. There have been numberous complaints about the 18-55/EF-S edge performance at all apertures and also wide open performance in general on 300D bodies. These complaints are non-existant with the 17-40/4L.

 

I personally have seen the difference between the 75-300 and the 70-200/4L on my 10D. The 70-200/4L is markedly superior. Pairing a 75-300 with a 20D will not correct the fuzziness of the glass. The 10D has adequate resolution to show the lens flaws. The 20D's better sensor will highlight optical problems even further.

 

Another factor coming into play is equipment "Life". Good SLR lenses can last your needs for 10 years+. A dSLR goes obsolete in 12 months . . with a usable life of 3-4 years. (I mean. . how many people have upgraded from their 3 year old D30?)

 

This would actually drive you to the "cheapest" SLR. The 300D is the cheapest SLR. But people use terms like "firmware crippled" in describing this camera. The key question is if the user is willing to accept the functional shortcomings of this body.