Which Canon DSLR to get?

[ian riches]

The time has come when I think I'm going to go digital...<p>

What I have now is:<p>

<ul>

<li>Canon ESO 50e (Elan IIe)</li>

<li>Canon EF 35-135mm f/4.0-5.6 USM</li>

<li>Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5</li>

</ul>

 

My budget is around UKP 1000-1200. For that I could get an EOS 300D

with the 17-40 f/4 L, maybe a used 10D with the 17-40, or a 20D with

the kit lens.<p>

I'm not sure I would be happy with the 300D after using the 50e. I

would miss the quick control dial, as well as the AI Servo.<p>

So, what would you get? Added into the mix is the forthcoming

350D...<p>

Thanks for any advice.<p>

Ian.

[silvercapture]

I think it would depend on your needs and the perception factor. I, just yesterday had to get another body to back up my 20D and decided that I really needed another 20D. The new rebel has eliminated the only useless features by letting you now choose metering modes, focus modes & exposure compensate with flash. The only reason I had to go with another 20D is because believe it or not, many of my customers actually know that the 20D is a "better" camera. Also, many serious amateurs are carrying these or D70's and I needed to at least appear to have better gear. It's funny, 6 years ago, I almost never saw anyone carrying even a $500US(not sure the pound) camera. Now you see them all spending a grand to have the latest digital. If you can live without the control dial and you don't have customers that ask a lot of questions, then the RebelXT or 350 might do the job.

[ian riches]

Thanks Aron. Perception isn't an issue, as my only client is me. I *do* quite fancy the 17-40mm, as I would appreciate the ability to use it on the 50e, which I couldn't do with the kit lens....I'm beginning to think that maybe a used 10D with the 17-40 would be the best bet for me, if I can find one that is definitely used, not abused.

[drfl]

I have the fortune of owning both the 20d and the 17-40 f/4l lens. While I can't speak to the 10D, I love my 20D. The 18-55 lens kit that comes with the 20d is ok, but I found it quite soft and not very contrasty. It wasn't until I purchased the 17-40 less than a month later that I realized what I was missing. I think if you could wait and get both that would be the way to go. Otherwise, think about what you do, because the 17-40 is a heck of lens and worth getting with a 10d or a rebel.

[neilb]

i wouldn't but a used 10D or any used digital camera body. Too many unknowns that

could cause problems. I say get the 20D and shoot with its kit lens for a bit. If you find it

lacking, save up for the 17-40. That's exactly what I did. And while I appreciate my 17-40

now, those pics I took with the kit lens aren't exactly garbage, infact some of them are

spectacular.

 

best,

Neil

[tom_burke3]

I've recently sold a D60 and a - wait for it - 17-40. The latter is a great lens, but too short,

esp. on 1.6CF digital bodies. And I think the D60 is handicapped in not being able to take

EF-S lenses. Which means I also think the 10D is handicapped in exactly the same way, of

course.

 

So your choices are the 20D + a lens/lenses, or the new 350D + lens/lenses. Of the lenses

my choice would have been the 17-85, except for the price.

 

So here's a radical alternative - a Nikon D70 with the 18-70 kit lens, which is better than

the Canon kit lenses. With the Nikon rebate you can get that for around 650 GBP. Then you

can buy a 75-300 for longer shots, and maybe a fast prime, all for about 1,000 GBP. I did

this just a few weeks ago, and I'm quite happy to run with two systems - an EOS 33V +

prime lenses for film work, principally b&w, and the D70 for digital.

 

Sorted.

[ian riches]

OOooh. Nikon. That <b>is</b> radical ;-)<p>

I hadn't thought of that. Trouble is, I know about this much -> <- about the Nikon system. It may be a great camera / lens, but I'll admit that the thought of switching to a new system (and learning again which are the good lenses, which are the clunkers) is not that appealling. But the price and spec look good. Aaarrggghhh!

[patricks]

Get the upcoming 350D and the Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di. And be there.

[silvercapture]

You guys are going to call me crazy, and that's fair because this sounds and is crazy, but my 18-55 produces consistently better pictures and sharper pictures than my 17-40L. I think the only explanation is that I got a lemon, but the images are always soft. I regret spending the money, but, the overwhelming results of the 17-40 are better than the 18-55 for most people so don't take my word. I was just wondering if anyone on this planet has had a similar experience.

[tom_burke3]

Aron said: "...but my 18-55 produces consistently better pictures and sharper pictures

than my 17-40L. .... I was just wondering if anyone on this planet has had a similar

experience."

 

I never had an 18-55, but I have to say that (with both film and digital) I was very hard

pressed to tell the difference between comparable shots with the 17-40 and a 24-85. I felt

the 17-40 was not so strong at its long end, whereas the 24-85 was very good at its wide

end.

[tom_burke3]

Nikon or Canon:

 

Here's my 2c Summary: The 20D is a better body than the D70, but not by much. The 20D

has the better resolution, of course, but the D70 can score points as well, particularly for

spot-metering and for fast flash-sync. Turning to lenses, the Nikon 18-70 is definitely

better than the Canon 18-55. Nikon haven't found it necessary to have a 'better

alternative' in the way that Canon have (the EF-S 17-85). A 20D + 17-85 may be better,

both as regards the camera and the lens, than a Nikon D70 + 18-70, but not by much,

and the Canon outfit will cost more than twice as much.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>That's a bit tough. As an Elan (originally II, now 7E) user, I have thought about what's missing on the 300D and I know I would not be happy with it; even with the hacked firmware which adds a number of useful features, it doesn't provide the features to which I'm accustomed and which I find useful. I thought about the 350D, which is much closer to an Elan feature level than the 300D is, but I also know I would not be happy with it. So for me, it would be a used 10D or a 20D, and I've decided the 20D is the one I'm going to get.</p>

 

<p>But that doesn't mean this would be the right choice for you. Only you can figure out what's right for you. Think about the features you find useful on your 50e, then look over the feature lists for the digital bodies and see which ones have/lack which features. If you find the QCD useful, for instance, you can pretty much rule out the 300D or 350D; while both can set exposure compensation, the QCD is a much easier and quicker way to do it.</p>

[witolda_maruszewska]

Ian,

 

Firstly, in order to maximize your budget, you wouldn't go far wrong talking to Park Cameras (www.parkcameras.com) as they have some nice deals going on both new and used DSLRs. They have two shops, one in Haywards Heath and one in Burgess Hill but do also trade over the 'net.

 

I was at their Burgess Hill shop on Tuesday to pick up some stuff I'd ordered and they had a reconditioned 10D in the window for around ?600 and sell new ones for ?700 though they don't have too many left. For this sort of money you can't go wrong - the 10D is a more flexible camera than a 300D and the difference in price alone makes it worth getting over the 20D as it will leave you more money to buy the glass that you want.

 

Hope this helps :-)

[jim_d1]

"The only reason I had to go with another 20D is because believe it or not, many of my customers actually know that the 20D is a "better" camera. Also, many serious amateurs are carrying these or D70's and I needed to at least appear to have better gear."

 

This statement really had to make me think..... I have seen many famous photographs and never really gave much thought to the equipment that was used to produce it, nor did I really care.I just love photographs and photography. It was, and still is, the photographers skill and creativeness that should impress us, not their equipment. Your customer should be paying for your talent, if your talent is lacking, then even the most expensive, highest tech, gazillion megapixels at 100fps won't matter. I personally would not work for a customer that was more impressed with my tools than my craftmanship.

I guess, based on your statement, if you and Ansel Adams showed up for the same customer, you would get the job because of your "Better Camera".

 

I think not.

 

Jim D.

[silvercapture]

"I guess, based on your statement, if you and Ansel Adams showed up for the same customer, you would get the job because of your "Better Camera".

 

I think not."

 

Jim, this is probably the craziest statement and most complete lack of comprehension skills I have ever seen. You say that it made you think, but it is obvious that you missed the point. So think a little harder next time

 

First you say that you would not work for a customer that was more impressed with your equipment than your skills, well I guess you don't have bills to pay becuase I don't turn down work when someone asks me what kind of equipment I have. And that is all that I was saying is that with the development and advertising of digital, more customer know exactly what you are using and how it compares.

 

2nd. We as digital photographers professionally are still occasionally having to fight the misconceptions about digital that some all film photographers are spreading. You may not have experienced this, but customers are savy and they want to know how the resolution relates to our film counterparts and other digital users. If you can refuse business on a proud whim than more power to you, but I happen to appreciate every customer I have and if my willingness to answer their questions about the specs of my cameras and if their research makes them feel better about my camera choice than so be it.

 

3. It doesn't always matter, but when their hobbyist uncle tells them that he is using a Rebel, their simple first thought is why would I pay you and usually all I have to do is show them the images, but perception is reality and I was simply illustrating the point that you and I may know that the tools don't make the photographer, but customers are interested.

 

4. In film, a 35mm camera will produce the same resolution and clarity as any other 35mm, but in digital , the tools have proved more effective because one camera can produce vastly different results than another based on resolution. Sure it may look the same at 4x6, but you can clearly see the difference as it gets larger.

 

Not all will agree with my points, but again, maybe you can pick and choose your customers based on your own proud screening process, but I am trying to make a living.

[jim_d1]

Aron:

I make quite a comfortable living at what I do, which is not photography. If it were photography I would probably starve. However, when a customer starts inquiring about the tools or methods of my trade, I steer them to examples of the end product I can produce. How I arrived there is irrelevant, and I tell them as such. More often than not, I get the job anyway and both the customer and I are happy. I dont tell them how to use my product, they dont tell me how to produce it. I stand by my original statement.

 

My apologies to Ian Riches since this has nothing to do with his original post.

[patricks]

Quick note on the D70 as I've owned/used one. It is a nice little gem, very good handling/interface, wonderful iTTL flash system, a very usable kit lens, however, unless you have a strategic reason, I don't see the advantage of changing system/brand. The Canon machines will deliver a better, albeit not very good, viewfinder, lower noise/cleaner images at ISO 100, at least as good or better AF performance, and then one can argue to death reagarding RAW file smoothness and color fidelity (to each his own).

[scott_milso]

You gotta go EOS, there's no question about that, Nikon's are junk - just kiddin' but really he already has some Canon lenses and knows the EOS controls, etc

I'd get the 20d and use the lenses I already have while saving for some better glass.

Me personally I may get the new Rebel XT, but I know I'll miss the dial, being an Elan 7 user.

[scott_milso]

Jim,

If I hired a wedding photog and he showed up with a Rebel I would be very uncomfortable, and so would alot of other people.

[ian riches]

Thanks to all for their help. I've just gone and bought a used (described as near mint, boxed) 10D for UKP 500.<p>

 

Haven't got any new glass yet. I think I'll play with it a bit before choosing what I want. Candidates, in order of cost are:<p>

 

1) Canon 24-85. Cheap, good "walk around" lens. Not very wide<br>

2) Canon 20-35. Cheap-ish. Still not really wide.<br>

3) Tamron 17-35. Looking good value.<br>

4) Canon 17-40. I guess what I really want! <p>

 

I already have a 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 and 35-135 f/4-5.6 USM.<p>

 

Thanks again for the help.<p>

 

Ian