Is the 30d worth $300 more than the XTi?

[jodi_harvatin]

I'm new to this forum and newish to photography. I've been saving for awhile

to get a nice digital camera, but am confused as to what to buy.

 

I've read good things about the 30d and the XTi. I really want to get the

best one now because I don't want to have to upgrade in the near future.

 

I take most of my pictures of my kids and like natural light and b/w photos

best. The problem I have with my cheapie digital (Minolta S404) is that when

I turn the flash off, I have to keep completely still in order to get a blur

free picture, which never happens. Will I be able to take pictures with the

30d or XTi with no flash and have them come out clear?

 

I found the 30d at Camera City (online) for only $300 less than the 30d.

Would I be better off spending a little extra money for a 30d?

 

Thank you for any help. I've been wanting a decent digital camera for too

long. I'm tired of having to get my film developed or getting bad pics with

my digital.

 

Jodi

[phule]

<<Is the 30d worth $300 more than the XTi?>>

 

No one can answer that but you. You can look at the specs all day but really, what it comes down to is which one you think fits better in your hand and would feel best after holding it for a couple hours.

 

The XTi offers one very nice advantage to the new SLR photographer that the 30D doesn't: Anti-dust. This alone is enough for me to recommend it, barring ergonomic preferences, over the 30D to new photographers.

 

Money is best spent on lenses. That 300 clams could go a long way towards the 17-40 f/4 lens over the kit 18-55.

[trothwell]

Can you get blur-free photos, sans flash, with a 30D or an XTi?

 

<p>

Sure. But the most important factor here isn't the camera, but what lens you use with it. If you go with the 18-55mm "kit lens" that often comes with one of these cameras, then, especially indoors, the odds are good that you will find the pictures blurring without flash. This is because the lens aperture doesn't open up wide enough to let light in fast enough.

 

<p>

If you're wanting to shoot pictures indoors without flash, then you will need to have a reasonably fast lens. Without spending a lot of money, you might try buying the Canon 35mm/f2.0 lens or the 50mm/f1.8 lens. Either of those should let you take some good photos indoors (though the 50mm lens may be too long in some cases).

 

<p>

As far as the price difference, the new XTi actually has some good technical features that make it BETTER than the 30D (e.g., more megapixels). The differences are arguably useful, but they are certainly not without merit.

 

<p>

However, the 30D is larger, and feels more solid in your hands. I personally find that VERY important (I'm not particularly small), and I would prefer the 30D over the XTi just for these "ergonomic" reasons.

 

<p>

Either way, there is (yet another) camera show up this week, and there are rumors that Canon may announce a successor to the 30D, to include the newer technology from the XTi. Might happen, might not. Wouldn't hurt to wait a couple of days to find out though.

[etan_lightstone]

I just had the same decision to make, and in the end it simply came down to saving the extra money and getting the 400d for me.

 

I tried them both, and the 30D obviously is bulkier, heavier, more durable, has a pro body feel to it, and is a bit faster.

 

Technically speaking it doesn't have any features that I need over the 400D, so I chose to save the extra cash. If somebody simply picked the 30D because of its "better build" I suppose I wouldn't hold it against them.

[PuppyDigs]

The XTi has about 10% more pixels than the 30D, so don't expect to be overwhelmed with

the diff. To some the anti-dust feature may prove useful, although the true usefulness

remains to be seen. I personally have had few dust problems with my 10D, 20D or 5D.

 

I like the heft and hand-feel of the 30D over the Rebel series. I can hold the rig more

steady, the grip is more comfy and the controls, espeically the QCD, make operation a

little quicker and intutitive. Nevertheless, as a woman you may prefer the smaller size of

the XTi. The Rebels series is called the Kiss in Japan and was originally marketed to

women, hence the cute name and petite stature. However the small size is less endearing

to guys with big mitts.

 

Finally, the 30D viewfinder is a whole level bigger 'n brighter than the Rebel. Some don't

mind but only you can decide. Either camera has excellent ISO performance so you can

crank ISO to 800 or 1600 and expect good shots in dim light. The 30D does one better

with ISO 3200, albeit rather grainy.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>"Is the 30d worth $300 more than the XTi? "

 

<p>Maybe. Probably not. And a comparison to the new 400D (replacing and upgrading

the 350D) is more apropo.

 

<p>I've used a 350D for "serious" photography for about 18 months and I have no

complaints - it is a fine camera that can do almost anything you would want to do.

I've

<a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2006/05/26#a515">written elsewhere</a>

about my experience and why I still feel that the 350D (or the 400D) is an excellent

choice for many photographers.

 

<p>They are all (20D/30D/350D/400D) fine cameras. The quality of pictures taken (and

prints made) with the 20D/30D/350D is indistinguishable - they use essentially the very

same sensor. The 400D has a 10MP sensor instead of the 8MP in the other cameras. All

else being equal, there is little reason not to go with the larger sensor, though the

difference will not be huge. (If you ever make a big print, it <i>may</i> be slightly

sharper.)

 

<p>It sounds like you take a lot of photos of your kids - perhaps this is your primary use?

The

factors that would lead to a sharp flash-free low-light photo are essentially the same on

the 350D/

30D - in other words, one will not really give you any advantage over the other in this

regard. (The 30D

has a pseudo ISO 3200 setting, but it really just pushes an underexposed image at ISO

1600, which you can do manually on the 350D. But, frankly, you won't be happy with the

results at

those ISO settings anyway; too much noise.)

 

<p>If you want sharp, low-light photos of your kids, your lens choice would likely make a

larger difference. In addition to whatever zoom lens you get for normal use, you might

want to pick up a nice prime (non-zoom) lens with a larger aperture for low light use -

depending upon your preferences, candidates might include one of the 50mm Canon

lenses which perform like portrait (slightly telephoto) lenses on these cameras.

 

<p>In my view, you will do more to address the low-light sharpness issue by investing the

$300 in such a lens than by investing $300 in a 30D. (I use the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 lens

in

this situation - and its cost is about the same as the price difference between the two

cameras.

 

<p>Two more things...

 

<p>1. Some of the online merchants that advertise the lowest prices are also the sleaziest

people you can imagine. There are tons of posts here about their scams and the terrible

stuff that has happened to people. It is generally much better to go with a reliable retailer

who sells at a reasonable price. There are quite a few: I've had good luck with B&H,

Adorama, Amazon, Dell (!) when things are on special, and a few others.

 

<p>2. While you will likely be happy with a 400D for some time (and with the quality

lenses you may purchase for it even longer), understand that the rate of improvement in

dSLRs is pretty

rapid. My approach is to purchase somewhat less expensive cameras (but not lenses!) and

update more frequently. My schedule is about once every two years; you'll probably go

longer than that - but don't be surprised if this isn't the last camera you buy... ;-)

 

<p>Dan

[m_barbu1]

For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to coin an acroymn: LALP (Low Available Light Photography). If LALP is a concern, you'll likely be shooting at f/2.8 or faster (less than 2.8). If that's the case, you likely won't notice any dust that accumulates. I only notice the dust on my sensor when I'm using f/5.6 and up. So, you might consider saving even more money and getting just the XT.

 

IMO, the first thing you should decide is how much money you have to spend, total. I would recommend that you don't get any lenses that are slower than f/2.8 (I also have LALP concerns). That requirement, however, will take a significant chunk out of your budget. Once you look at the lens(es) you'll be getting (that fit the maximum aperture criteria), you'll see how much money you have available for the body.

 

Having gone through a number of lenses that haven't worked well for LALP, I've finally settled on the 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM for my needs. New, those two will set you back approximately $2600. However, I don't think you'll find better zooms for LALP, in that focal length range.

 

If your budget is considerably tighter, I would suggest you consider a couple of prime lenses. For a standard lens, I'd go with the 35mm f/2.0. For telephoto, I'd choose the 50mm f/1.8. With your lenses, you need to remember the 1.6x FoV crop factor. The 35mm will actually feel like a 50mm and the 50mm will feel like an 80mm lens. Those two lenses will only set you back about $300. You won't have the flexibility of the zooms (nor the range), but you'll have LALP capability for about $2300 less.

 

If you'd like to go wider (and still have LALP capability), you might consider the 24mm f/2.8 for $290. Though, 24mm on a 1.6x body will translate to about 38mm, so it's not as wide as it could be, but there isn't really anything available that is both a) wider and b) inexpensive, that is also good for LALP.

 

To answer the specific question you asked in the subject of your post, I believe the 30D is worth $300 more. Though, not for image quality reasons. As nice as the anti-dust features of the XTi are, I wouldn't want to forsake the thumb wheel on the back of the camera for them. It's the second most used control on my 20D, second only to the shutter button. I also would want the larger buffer, which affects how many photos you can take before you have to wait for the camera to write the photos to the card.

[._._z]

Is the 30D worth it for someone beginning newish to photography? Probably not, when you'll get the same quality from a used 20D, and the same or better picture quality from the XTi.

 

Forget Camera City -- they're an infamous ripoff joint. Consult resellerratings.com to see what consumers have experienced with various stores.

 

Generally speaking, you'll get the best new prices from bhphoto.com , adorama.com , keh.com , samys.com , beachcamera.com and jr.com (maybe a few others). If ANY online store lists items more than 5% less than bhphoto then it's probably a scam of some kind.

[papasan]

I own a 30D and I love it. I love it's sturdiness and weight in my hand. But when you say "I really want to get the best one now because I don't want to have to upgrade in the near future" I think you are fooling yourself. Whatever camera you buy today will be obsolete in 3 to 5 years TOPS, whether its the XTi or the 30D there will be something much better then. Since you are new to photography, I would go with the advice to invest your money on good glass and go with the XTi for now. As long as you buy higher quality lenses that will fit the next generation of camera you will always be able to use them in the future, but the camera will be replaced.

[mark u]

One factor to bear in mind, given your interest in low light photography, is that the Xti/400D gives slightly noisier pictures than the previous generation XT/350D or 30D sensors when used at 800ISO or above. Canon themselves have stated that so far as noise is concerned, pixels smaller than those in the 8MP sensors will be noisier.

 

BTW, if you are tired of getting your film developed, have you thought about how long and at what cost it will take to print your digital pictures at home or commercially?

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

Put the 300usd saving towards the 17-55 2.8IS, nothing will help with low light shooting better than that lens.

[m_barbu1]

Really? Not even an f/1.4 lens?

[charles_van_sistine]

YES!

[jodi_harvatin]

Wow, thank you all for the great in informative responses. I'm even more confused now...LOL! No, it really does sound like it'd be best for me to invest my money in good lenses and then use what I have left to get the best body I can afford. Then, I can save up for the camera that replaces the 30d (because I highly doubt I could afford it as soon as it comes out).

 

So many people have suggested different lenses and I'll have to look into those suggested more because I'm not quite sure which to get. I had thought the 50mm f1.4 would work, but then I got lots of other great ideas. I read on another forum, that the EF 1.8 85mm gives "awesome portraits." Would that work in low lighting?

 

I don't ONLY want something good for low light. Many of my pictures are indoors with low light of my kids, but many are outdoors as well. My kids are in sports (baseball and football), so I want a good zoom lens for that and am thinking about the EF 70-300mm.

 

To start, I think I'll buy one lens and the body and then a zoom lens in a few months. So, if I can only buy one lens right now (maybe two if they aren't too outrageous), which do you think would be the best one for what I'm using it for? Also, would I benefit from having a 3rd lens of some kind? If so, which one?

 

I really appreciate everyone's help! Thank you!

 

Jodi

[m_barbu1]

It sounds like you need to get a better understanding of the relationship between shutter speed and aperture. The larger the aperture (which means the lower the f/ number), the faster a shutter speed you can have at the same available light. The larger the aperture, the more available light you can let into the lens (and therefore camera) at the same shutter speed.

 

A lens that is good for low light will inherently be the sort of lens you want for sports, because of the faster shutter speed you are going to want to use when photographing fast moving action.

[m_barbu1]

Oh, as for the lens question, you really need to indicate how much money you will have to spend. Undoubtedly, that will make the decision for you.

[jodi_harvatin]

Thank you for the lesson. :) I do suppose it would help to know what I want to spend. I was hoping to spend no more than $1500 to start with (for the body and one lens). Hope that helps.

 

Thank you!

[m_barbu1]

Do you already have a memory card?

[jodi_harvatin]

No, I don't have a memory card and I realize that will cost extra, but I wanted to give you an idea of what I'm looking to spend on the body and first lens. Thanks.

[m_barbu1]

<p>OK, in that case, here's something you might consider:</p>

 

<a href="http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=162542">Digital Rebel XT (not XTi) for $619</a><br/>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=129190&is=USA&addedTroughType=search">Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM for $660</a><br />

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12096&is=USA&addedTroughType=search">Canon EF 28mm f/2.8 for $170</a>

 

<p>That would leave about $50 for shipping for the lenses (free shipping on the body). You won't have the flexibility of a zoom lens, but you'll have better LALP capability than you would with a new lens that costs $881 or less.</p>

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>...a new lens that costs $881 or less.</i></p>

 

That should be <i>new <b>zoom</b> lens</i>...

[m_barbu1]

One more thing. You may already know this, but "zoom" refers to a lens being able to handle more than one focal length. Telephoto refers to a lens having a "long" focal length, and is considered the opposite of "wide-angle", with "standard" lenses filling the gap inbetween. You can have a wide-angle zoom lens.

[jodi_harvatin]

Hmmm...I'm wondering if it'd be better for me to get the EF 50mm f1.4 lens for $321 at Amazon to start with and then buy a good zoom lens in a few months. The sports pictures can wait awhile. The most important pics right now are the close ups (indoors in natural light and outdoors). I'm due to have a baby in March and will definitely be taking lots of baby pictures!

 

I hesitate at the thought of getting a 200mm lens because I don't want to change lenses when I'm up close (for ex., when they're up to bat) and then again when they're way in the outfield. Am I right in assuming that I'd have to do that if I only had the 200mm? I've read lots of good things about the EF 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 (around $1200 at Amazon) and wonder if it'd be better to wait and get a better zoom lens in a few months.

 

I'm clueless, as you can tell, so I really appreciate your help.

[acedigital]

I would just get the Canon 50mm 1.8 (under $100) and use the extra money from the 1.4 for a better zoom. I have the 70-200 2.8 (bought used on EBAY for under $1000) and it is awesome.

The 85mm gets great reviews also for a portrait lens and my vote for best all around that I use is the Canon 17-40mm. Start shooting!

BTW, I have had a 20D for a year and love it, consider a used 20D perhaps too.

[m_barbu1]

The 50mm lens would be the equivalent of 80mm on all the cameras you are considering, thereby making it a telephoto lens. It would be on the short end of the telephoto scale, but telephoto nontheless. You can pretty much forget about photographing any significant number of people (or a wide scene), unless you are positioned quite a distance from said scene. This is why I suggested the 28mm lens. It'll be much closer to a "standard" lens for you than the 50mm lens will (28mm x 1.6 FoV factor = 44.8mm).

 

You are correct that if you have prime lenses, you would need to switch lenses in order to go from near to far. If you get the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6, when you are using it at the long end (200-300mm), you'll have a maximum aperture of f/5.6 (I would consider that too slow for sports, unless it's really bright out). The prime lens I suggested is about two stops faster.

 

For each stop, cut the shutter speed (or available light) in half. So, if you wanted to take a photo at f/5.6, you would have 1/4 the shutter speed available to you as you would if you used f/2.8, all other things being equal. For a photo where 1/250 second (the slowest exposure time you'll want to use at the long end of that zoom) would give you a proper exposure at f/5.6, opening your aperture to f/2.8 would allow you to take that photo at 1/1000 second, all other things being equal. The EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 cannot shoot at f/2.8 at any part of it's focal range.

 

I suggested the prime lenses, because you stated a concern with blur-free LALP, and indicated a constraint in how much you want to spend. If blur-free LALP is truly a concern, you don't want to get a lens slower than f/2.8. So, that being a constant, the only other thing you have to work with, in order to keep the cost down, is the complexity of the lens. A 200mm prime at f/2.8 is going to be less expensive than a 70-200mm zoom at f/2.8, simply because there are less parts.