Buying Choice Advice

[david_brown13]

I am a very enthuasiastic relative beginner and currently have an

EOS3000 I want to upgrade my camera (birthday coming up!)Should I go

for the EOS 30 or the EOS 3? I take mainly landscape shots, but also

enjoy playing around with macro shots. Would I be better off

spending the extra £££££'s on the EOS 3 now or go for the EOS 30 and

spend the extra on a decent lens.... or is there a better option?

[dylan_geraets]

I had an eos 3000 as well, and I bought a EOS33 with a 24-85mm usm lens. As I was using an awful 38-76 that seemed more logical to me then having a great camera like the EOS 3 and some dreadful lens.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>What problem are you trying to solve? I mean, other than what to ask for for your birthday :-)</p>

 

<p>There are lots of areas where the 30 and 3 are better than the 3000, but the question is whether this upgrade would actually be any better <em>for you</em>. For example, the 30 and the 3 both offer faster motor drives, which is a nice feature, but you're unlikely to need that for landscape and macro photography, so that particular feature isn't one that should influence your decision.</p>

 

<p>If you can come up with a list of actual problems (not just "Gee, wouldn't it be awesomely cool if ..." but "When I'm out in the field, I find it frustrating that my camera doesn't do ..." or "I often find myself unable to get a picture because my camera lacks ..."), then compare your laundry list of problems to the feature lists of these two cameras. If only the 3 will solve your problems, then get the 3; if either one will, then get the 30, and invest the remaining money in glass.</p>

 

<p>Also, try them both out in a store. You'll find the 30 to be a bit bigger and heavier than the 3000, generally similar in operation, and quiet; the 3 is much bigger and heavier, uses a different control layout, and while it probably won't wake the neighbours, it isn't as quiet.</p>

 

<p>If you can't nail down any problems with the body, then don't replace it; replace your current lens (which I'm guessing is a cheapie that came as part of a kit with the body), or if you find that you wish your current lens went wider or longer, add a wider or longer lens. Or add the inexpensive 50/1.8 - it's about three stops faster than a typical crappy zoom and much sharper. The world's best camera, combined with a crappy lens, will take crappy pictures; your inexpensive little 3000, combined with a good lens, can take wonderful pictures.</p>

 

<p>If you don't already have a tripod, get one; they're useful for landscape and macro photography.</p>

[citizensmith1664875108]

If you don't really know why you need a new body you probably don't need it. As has been said, a new lens gives a much bigger improvement than a new body. If the EOS3 is in the range of spending then you can afford the 70-200 f/4. Pick up that, and the very cheap 28 f/2.8. Or, another alternative, ask for the 24 f/2.8 and 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. Again, great lenses and a huge improvement over the kits lenses.

[yakim_peled1]

I hate to be a conformist but: "Get better lenses".

 

28/2.8, 50/1.8 and 135/2.8 SF is a nice and inexpensive kit. Very good optical quality, light and use cheap 52mm filters. A possibly better kit (focal length wise) albeit a more expensive one, is 24/2.8, 35/2 and 85/1.8.

 

Please note that I'm only suggesting primes. This is purposeful. As a novice, fix-focal lenses have an edge for you. They will force you to think more about composition and will force you to think more in general. Thus, you will learn more. In addition, they are generally cheaper (not always), faster and have far better optical quality than consumer zooms.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[pierre_bize]

Get better lens... I can only second Yakim.

If you want to upgrade your EOS 3000, get the 300v, almost as good as the 30 but cheaper and lighter made .

If you are begining I would advise to get the 28-135IS. Together they make the ideal starter combo. For macro you could use a diopter (500D or else...I'm not sure)and take advantage of the IS feature.

Enjoy!

[david_brown13]

Thank-you!

 

Having read your responseslens route does seem the better option.

 

Regards

 

David

[melissa_eiselein]

One more vote for the lenses. You didn't say what lens you already own or what you like to shoot.

<P>I'd second the advice to go with the 28-135 IS as a great general purpose lens. Also get the 50 f/1.8 for those low light situations. The two make a great starter combo. From there, you'll be able to determine if your next lens should be wider, longer, faster, etc.

<p>To better compare the bodies, check out NK Guy's site:

<br><a href= http://photonotes.org/reviews/5-50-30> EOS 5 vs 50 vs 30 </a>

<br><a href= http://photonotes.org/reviews/1-1N-3-1V> EOS 1 vs 1N vs 3 vs 1V </a>

<p>BTW...I have an Elan 50e (IIe) and upgrading it has never crossed my mind--at least not until the 10D came out. Even then I decided to keep my 50e AND the 10D.

[jim_larson1]

I had a 1989 vintage 630. I considered upgrading it 5 years ago: and ended up holding out for the 10D

 

(although, I must admit I considered the D60, but evveryone sold out before I made up my mind. . .)

[david_brown13]

THe lenses I currently have are the ones that came as part of the kit: 35-80 and 80-200mm zoom. I purchased a Canon 50mm f1.8 yesterday and will add more lenses as per your help.

 

I think my main reasons for upgrading were:

1. It is my birthday and I wanted to spend some pennies!

2. I assumed that as it was an entry level camera I could take better pics with a higher spec camera.

 

One last question! With the 35 zone metering system on the EOS 30 improve the overall % of "good" shots? (I appreciate that this is slightly naive question!)

[vandit]

Hi David -

 

If you are shooting prints, dont bother. The latitude of print films combined with the accuracy of Canon's eval meter built into their EOS bodies means that you should be able to get properly-exposed prints pretty much all the time (barring the very obviously difficult metering scenes). So upgrading just for the evaluative mode isnt worth it.

 

With slides, there may be a marginal difference. I cannot speak for the EOS 3000, but I see very little difference in the 9-point eval of my IIe and the 35-point eval of my 30. I can say that for slide film, the evaluative meters on both give very accurate results for almost all non-tricky situations. With tricky lighting, I switch to partial metering + exposure compensation. While this is often quite close to what eval metering suggested, there are enough variances for me to stick with partial metering.

 

Oh, and in response to your original question - there are plenty of reasons to upgrade to an EOS 30 or EOS 3. The 30 will give you a host of new features, quite a few of which are (IMO) essential: ability to use any metering mode in single/continuous shooting mode with one-short/servo AF, for one. MLU for another. Does your EOS3000 have DoF? That is essential for macro. The EOS 3 adds a spot meter as a very useful function.

 

Regards,

Vandit

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Your 3000 has basically the same 6-zone (not 9, as another poster said) meter of my old Elan II (EOS 50 to you). My new Elan 7e (EOS 30) has a 35-zone meter. I don't see any difference in how accurately they meter. With print film, which has plenty of exposure latitude, most shots are as close to right on as matters, and it's rare to get an unprintable shot. With slide film, which is much picker, I see that both meters underexpose backlit subjects and get just about everything else right.</p>