switching to digital

hi everyone! i've been using a canon eos 3 for the last few years and

other canons before that. i'm seriously thinking about switching to

digital now. i've done some paid work with the eos3 (band photography,

weddings, also documentary photography) and i plan to continue doing

so, but i consider myself a hobby photographer mostly. i've been eying

the 20D as a companion and eventually maybe substitute for my eos3.

would it fit the bill? or would you recommend something else? i don't

really want to go over the $ 1000 (approx.) price tag if i can avoid it.

thanks for any suggestions

<I> i don't really want to go over the $ 1000 (approx.) price tag if i can avoid it. </i><P>

 

I think the 20D is substantially more than $1000 -- and don't forget that you'll have to

spend another couple of hundred on CF cards and card readers. You'll probably want to

use Photoshop, so if you don't have that (and enough memory to run it), there's some

more expense. Also, you'll find that digital images eat up hard drive space faster than you

could imagine. Finally, you'll want some backup storage (CDs, DVDs, etc.).<P>

 

I don't mean to discourage you from going digital -- I'm very glad I did -- but there are

more expenses than just the camera. I don't do much of the kind of photography you are

interested in, but I'll bet the 20D will be just fine as a replacement for the EOS3.

Before mine was out the door it was $1600 from B&H. Two 1 gig cards, reader and extra battery.

Sounds like the way to go because you've got lenses. Have you considered a 10D? Still a fine camera, and available in your price range.

If you need to stay <$1,000 I would highly recommend the 10D. Excellent camera. If memory serves mine came with Photoshop Elements, and you don't need more than that to do most post processing tasks. Assuming you already have a decent computer, a 10D, a 1 GB CF card, and possibly a new battery will get you going within your budget.

Not that much now.

 

N&H has it listed at under $1300 ($1265?) for the body only. Plus Canon's new rebate takes of $100. Total $1165, pre-shipping.

 

The $1000 can't count CF cards, as no dSLRs come with them (do they?)

By the 20D. YOu'll recoup the cost from film savings in no time.

 

You only have to buy CF cards ONCE. So, it's a moot point, since film, processing, etc... are continous expenses.

<i>i don't really want to go over the $ 1000 (approx.) price tag if i can avoid it.</i> <p> A 20D will cost you about $1300. Plus, you'll need to invest in at least one 512mb compact flash card, which will cost about $40-50. Most likely, you'll want a few compact flash cards if you plan on shooting a lot. And you'll want to get at least one extra battery, which is another $20 or so. So you're looking at spending around $1500 to start. Otherwise, take a look at a Digital Rebel XT, which is going to be a lot smaller (a lot like the film Rebels) and less expensive than a 20D, but will deliver similar image quality. A Digital Rebel XT is about $900. All in the compact flash cards, etc, and you're going to still be over $1000. Now, all this might sound like a lot of money to invest in, but you're cutting out the cost of film and processing. If you shoot a lot (like a few hundred dollars a month in film and processing), you can easily recoup the cost of your digital equipment with the money you save on film and processing. On the other hand, if you only shoot one roll of film a week, it'll take a lot longer to recoup your costs. Chances are, when you go digital, you're not going to be using your film camera much anymore. Most people who make the switch to digital find that their film bodies just end up collecting dust.

wow, i'm overwhelmed by the number of responses, how quickly they came, and how useful for me. thanks a lot to everyone!!!

one reason for thinking of this camera has been being able to use my lenses. and yes, when i mentioned the $ 1000 price tag i was thinking of the camera only, knowing there are additional expenses like storage media, flash etc. photoshop and a somewhat decent computer i already have. one of the other reasons for thinking of the 20D was speed. in my documentary shooting i take pics of people in action. i know it would get frustrating to have to wait to be able to take the next shot. in those situations it has to go click-click; and the focusing has to be very quick too. i don't want the focusing system to be too slow or get confused too often. will the 10D or RebelXT do that for me as well. and, i'm also thinking of getting some nice prints done for exhibits. i suppose there the pixel count will make a difference. how much of a difference though?

thanks again to all of you!

and - oh yes - another factor is ruggedness. i'm in india at this point and the camera will get banged around a bit, be exposed to dust, during the monsoon to humidity also. i know digitals are more sensitive in general, but i need a camera that is likely to perform reliably under these conditions also.

John:

<p>

If you like the speed of your EOS 3, pay the extra for the 20D. I have the EOS 3, the 10D, and the 20D. The 10D is fine for landscapes, closeups and other photos where speed is not an issue. For action, sports, and low light work where autofocus is an issue, the 20D is clearly better. More <a href="http://jimdoty.com/Digital/10d_20d/10d_20d.html">here</a>.

<p>

If speed and autofocus in low light are not issues (or less noise at high ISOs), get the 10D.

<p>

I think either Digital Rebel is out of the question if you like the rear quick control dial on the EOS 3. If you don't use the rear control dial on your EOS 3, the Rebel or Rebel XT are both options.

<p>

The 20D has slowly come down in price and the current $100 rebate makes it an even better deal.

<p>

Happy Shooting!

<p>

Jim

<I> i know digitals are more sensitive in general,</i><P>

 

I'm not sure that's true -- they lack many of the moving parts (in the film drive train) that

can cause problems for film cameras. Compact flash cards are <B>far</b> more tolerant

of many environmental insults (dust, heat, X-rays, moisture....) than film. In terms of

ruggedness, the 20D will stand up to SOME dust, moisture, etc., but it's not as

weathersealed as the high-end and much more expensive 1D and 1Ds. Not sure where it

stands compared to the EOS 3 in that respect. DSLRs do have a dust-on-the-sensor

problem at times, but this can be minimized with good sense (e.g., don't stand out in a

dusty wind when changing lenses, if you can possibly help it).

<i>The 10D is fine for landscapes, closeups and other photos where speed is not an issue.</i><p>

 

I shoot, get published, and get paid for shooting professional sports, using a 10D.<p>

 

<center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/brianschwartz/images/b08.jpg"><br><i>K1 Championship Match, Copyright 2004 Jeff Spirer</I></center>

Hi, I went digital about 6 months ago thinking it would save money. LOL. In the long run it might. But to start off you need cards, card readers, batteries etc. Also a laptop with Photoshop comes in handy. It is a lot more convenient and no more scanning.

If the camera is going to get some degree of rough treatment, I would expect the 20D is a better choice over the 350D or 300D. But keeping in mind your $1000.00 budget, there again the 10D might be your best bet. If anything, it's construction is even more robust than the 20D. Neither one is weather sealed. No doubt the additional speed of the 20D would benefit in sports and action situations, but it's not like the 10D is a dog. As evidenced by Jeff Spirer's photo above. The 10D image quality is excellent, and is so at high ISO's also, albeit from most accounts not as noise free as the 20D. But I really question just how important the differences are for most applications. I don't recall if it's been mentioned that the 20D is also reported to be MORE noisy than the 10D at lower ISO, and if that's true, that doesn't sound to good to me. There again, how important is it in real world usage? As a 10D owner, for the shooting I do, the 20D offers only some "nice to haves" and is not worth the upgrade..for me. Which is all moot if your $1000.00 is a real budget limit. That leaves the 10D IMO.

thanks so much everyone. i do like and use the rear control dial on the eos 3. i suppose a part of me is also looking for a camera that's like the eos in some ways. i imagine that the weather sealing is not as sophisticated as on the high end models, but they are way out of my price range anyway. from what i'm reading here i will give serious consideration to the 10D. the kick-box shot is great. the activities i shoot don't get any faster than that. i am thinking about a laptop too since i'm away from home and on the road a lot. so that's another big item i have to figure in - sometime in the fall probably.

my eos has performed well in relatively extreme environments (freezing temps in the himalayas, dusty conditions at 45?C in cyprus, monsoon rains in northern india etc.) should anyone still consider going the film route i can definitely recommend the eos 3. before that i used the canon A1 for many years. Unfortunately it got stolen. it was a great camera for me. I've really had luck using canons.

I just got a Panasonic DMC LC1 and really like it. It is the same camera as the Leica Digilux 2 for all practical purposes. It's no perfect but the controls are very intuitive and it handles like a film camera. It won't be my last digital camera. Have a look at the Digilux 2 review on this site by Andy Piper. It may just be a great compliment to your EOS. I got it for $999.

 

My 2 Rupees.

thanks Les Lammers, i checked out the Panasonic DMC LC1, but i thinks it's not quite what i'm looking for. the relative simplicity of it sounds appealing though. one issue is that i can't use the lenses i already have. i didn't notice mention of the autofocus feature in the reports i read. does it not have one? i think i'm leaning pretty heavily towards the 20D from canon now.

Don't forget to buy at least 2 external hard drives for backup of your images.

i didn't notice mention of the autofocus feature in the reports i read. does it not have one?

 

Yes, it does. BTW, the lens on the LC1 is top notch. How much would f2.0-f2.4 cost for the Canon?

 

Here is a link to some snaps: http://www.overgaard.com/leica/leica_digilux2.html

 

I'm sure you will enjoy digital regardless of which camera you choose.

 

I still like film too...for the time being.

i checked the pics. very nice! when you look at Aarhus by Night - "Aaboulevarden", February 2004 from the camera file and enlarge it i see these swirls in the moon. what is that due to? i'm also wondering if the 5 mps vs. 8 mps make much of a difference when making a larger print and when cropping.

please can some one tell me how a cf card works? does it last indefinately how many times can i reuse the same card?

hello to all again!

i've been delaying again and again to buy the 20D. some may call it indecisive. instead i have been saving up some money. well, and now the EOS 5D comes into the picture. i've been comparing it to the nikon 200D. Maybe it's too early to tell, but the canon still sounds like the better choice. i like the weather sealing feature on the nikon though. the canon 5D reviews are pretty positive. has anyone used it for documentary photography/travel photography in sometimes dusty, sometime humid environments? (i'm in india for the next 2 or three years).

i'm not one who likes to carry around several cameras for reasons of weight. so i'm looking for the ONE camera that will do it all for the next few years. would be cool to hear of your experiences with the 5D.