icephoto

I've had my 10D now for about 2 1/2 years and about 6100 exposures and it has

been a faithful performer. I'm noticing no issues with exposure and just the

normal dust issues that can be done with a quick swipe with the Visible Dust

brushes. When (if ever) does it make sense to let Canon get their hands on my

baby for regular maintenance?

Concur w/James Ng. I have owned the 75-300, 75-300 USM, and now the 70-300 IS USM. The USM lens was considerably better than the non-USM and the IS (even with the issues in vertical/portrait orientation) was lightyears ahead of either of the lenses. The 75-300 USM is a good budget compromise, but the IS lens is incredible in comparison.

There is one specific reason why I'm looking forward to the 40D coming out... So the price on the 30D will drop and I can justify it to my spouse...

It must be a Jim or James thing. I own both the 24 and 17-40. The 17-40 stays on the 10D pretty much all the time. It's been months since I used the 24mm but am loath to sell it because the extra stop is often worth the price of admission. Both are fine lenses. As far as quality goes, I'd never hesitate to pop on the 17-40 in place of the 28 or vice versa.

 

Warm regards-

Pouria -

 

Be very careful when it comes to deals on high-end cameras that seem too good to be true. A reasonable and respectable price on a 5D body is around $2900. 25% less sounds like an invitation to separate you from your money without getting the camera.

 

I would strongly recommend a reputable dealer (B&H, KEH, Adorama, and Cameraworld of Oregon come immediately to mind) when spending that much money.

 

Warm regards

-j

Sure, but you answered your own question. Many (but not all) photographers will say that 28mm was the classic wide angle lens (smack dab between 24mm and 35mm). 27mm is awful close plus with the 17-40 you move securely into the "normal" range of lenses at 64mm effective focal length.

A couple quick thoughts before I go to bed... living on GMT can be a bear sometimes.

 

As much as anything, I was hoping for a camera that I could with good conscience call an upgrade. Perhaps Canon has spoiled us in the past with being on the leading (though not bleeding) edge when it came to dSLR's. As such, an increase in the ballpark of 10Mp would have put things back up on the par of Nikon. I didn't expect a break from the APS-C sensor. Afterall, they still have to recover all that R&D that they did during the APS/Advantix era (laughs).

 

But for me as a 10D owner who bought when the 20D was coming out, I couldn't see how 2 extra megapixel between the 10D and 20D would help my photography. Still can't. Some prints would likely be clearer or it could hide more sins in cropping with a respectable dpi. But I could justify a 4 Mp increase from my 10D. Too bad it didn't show up. For the point made that what I wanted was a bigger sensor. By bigger sensor I meant more megapixels. I guess the upside is that we all ready know the quirks in this one.

 

For the record, I was amongst the choir of folks in the last few weeks that told people to just shut up and wait for the annoucement.

 

As to overhype, I point to Exhibit A: The White Paper. From the tone of this thing you'd think that this thing was everything and a box of moon pies. But it's really just the same thing with a new number on it and a couple added features. Pretty much it's Canon's version of Windows Me.

 

For an annoucement to be made at PMA, this one was pretty flat. Admittedly, Canon has to do it's best to keep definite lines between it's models so they can convince people to buy a 5D or a 1-series. But I really think they got this one wrong and/or they're just not listening.

Thomas Sullivan posted this elsewhere on photo.net<br>

<i> I think a lot of 10D owners are going to look good and hard at

this cam...and eventually buy it...IMHO</i><br><br>

 

I can't speak for all 10D users, but for this 10D user, the reason I

had put off buying the 20D was that I was hoping beyond hope that

the camera now known as the 30D would give me an excuse to upgrade.

But this camera wasn't it.<br><br>

 

What we wanted was a bigger sensor. Sadly, it looks like they

repeated past history with the D60 to 10D transition as far as size

goes. And, it's not even a good comparison because the step up in

technology between the D60 and the 10D was lightyears ahead of the

difference between 20D and 30D.<br><br>

 

Spot metering is nice and welcome, though it's hardly ground

breaking. The added burst buffer is a welcome upgrade, especially

when shooting RAW and doing something silly like fireworks or

sports. Bigger LCD is great, but that was a matter of figuring out

the logistics of the body rather than anything truly

innovative.<br><br>

Instead, it's a revamped 20D missing the features that most of us

wanted. Bigger sensor was first. Dust elimination was up there,

too. Brighter/bigger viewfinder would have been nice (though

admittedly the laws of physics has a good deal to do with this.)

<br><br>

20Dn is what I've seen this camera called. I'm just going to call

it the FORD. Fully Overhyped Recycled Digital (though I'm sure

those of you who are creative can come up with other words...)

<br><br>

I am more likely to buy the 20D's before the last ones leave the

shelves than I am pay a premium for something that is just not that

impressive. Congratulations, Canon. I am officially underwhelmed.

Me and my 10D will be good friends for at least another 18 months.

<i>It is apparently not in Canons interest to give you everything, as it will help cannibalize future sales.</i><br><br>

 

In one sentence you speak great wisdom. Canon has to keep a revenue stream going. Stockholders to keep happy and whatnot. And if they can make incremental enhancements to features instead of selling the whole farm up front, then they have a good chance of making those new enhancements out to be the best thing since sliced bread. Nevermind that it was in a film camera 20 years ago, it's the best thing now.<br><br>

From what I've read (as I have not yet picked up/shot a 5D), you will be very satisfied with the purchase when you get there. I would, however, wait until after Canon gets done showing us what's behind curtain #2 at the end of this month before sinking $'s into the 5D when the 20D's successor may be everything that you need at a fraction of the price.

<div></div>

What Yakim said, and...

 

Have you held either of these two in your hands? A good deal of getting comfortable with a camera and learning how to use it as a tool is how it feels in your hands. It is certainly not a one size fits all sort of thing (as seen with some of the 20D vs Rebel XT arguments).

 

Take the time to hold these cameras in your hands. This absolutely needs to be part of your decision making process.

 

The crowd in here will be very pro-Canon and the crowd over in the Nikon forums will be very pro-Nikon. We have a lot of financial (and dare I say, emotional) investment in our camera gear. With all honesty, until you get into the expensive bodies and pieces of glass (over $500 for lenses) the differences between the systems are going to be relatively small. But there comes a point where you have 2 or 3 lenses and you contemplate moving over to the "other side" and the biggest argument against is that you don't want to buy the same lenses again.

 

I love my Canons. I had the opportunity to switch to Nikon in 2000 when I finally parted with my manual focus Canon and moved to auto-focus. But I've been very pleased overall with the form, fit, and function of Canon cameras and lenses. I've never had a camera hardware failure in thousands of exposures, and I've never had a lens failure that I did not create through my own stupidity (gravity... it's not only a good idea--it's also the law). But my friends with Nikons speak glorious things about their rigs and can't understand how I could shoot with such crippled equipment.

 

YMWV.

The non-IS version isn't as crisp, but the IS version will leave your wallet lighter.

Christmas presents will be unwrapped in about 4 weeks. Rumors are wonderful--but for every true one there's a few hundred not so true ones. I can wait...

Run... <b>Run now!</b> And avoid bridge salespeople.<br><br>Look in the section on this site dealing with <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/where-to-buy#screwed">how not to buy a camera</a> to illustrate why this is a probably a scam.

ECF w/glasses: My glasses are about a -1.5 diopter, simple UV coating, and once calibrated the ECF was a joy to use on the 7e <i>after</i> I added the optional eye-cup. Before then it was hit and miss for me. Most swore by it, some swore at it. For $40 difference between having ECF and not, it would probably be money well spent.<br><br>

 

Answer on the CF 4--yep, the 7/7e had it and I can only assume that the 7N/7Ne has it as well.<br><br>

Good on you for going back and looking at speed/aperture to learn from your previous work. Sadly storing that data was not something that was typical of the EOS film cameras as there was no handy place to store the info.<br><br>

I don't think either camera will be a mistake--both will serve you well but I'm partial to saving money for glass as opposed to a more expensive body. Regardless, I think you're on the right track.

Concur that the Elan 7 body is going to be almost a direct transition. It is what I used before I moved to the 10D. The learning curve was nearly flat.

 

I don't know know whether or not it will move AF to the * button--will have to go looking through the manual. It will not meet your needs for recording f-stop and aperture, but I can't think of a single film-based Canon outside of the 1- series that does (if any of those do).

 

And the good news... a new body will run about $340 with the added feature of eye control, $300 without.

My baseline: A camera is a box that we let light into to expose a media with (glass, film, CCD/CMOS/etc) that will create an image. The <b>photographer</b> makes the picture--the camera is the middleman. <br><br>

Everyone who has made the switch is unhappy? Heck no. Wish we had a feature or two more--of course. Do we wish we had a bigger sensor size--sure. That's why people upgraded from 35mm to Medium Format? Bigger media size.<br><br>

I'm gonna complain about this or that, but my yearlong love affair has been without regrets. A whine here or there, but my choice was absolutely the right one.

Will also echo the thumbs up on Sabino Canyon in Tucson. Spent some time there in May a couple of years ago and it was a worthwhile visit.

Concur that the 75-300 USM (non IS) is likely a good bet. Mine went through hell and back through the Icelandic countryside and never missed a beat. It is a little soft past 200mm at wide open, but it's acceptable and not a huge loss if it dies.

Should have mentioned as well above, 35mm f2.0 lens from Canon 10D CRW file, PS recommended values, no other corrections.

My experience seems to be significantly different than many of the other posters here. Before the weather went to hell here (Iceland), I shot an evening with relatively bright auroras at ISO 400, f2.8, 4 second exposures with my 10D. I rarely shoot longer than 8 seconds because you lose sharpness in the dancing of the lights (my humble opinion).

 

Would strongly recommend the 50mm f1.8 for it's speed, sharpness, and overall coverage. And plenty of spare batteries, fully charged because the temps will zap them in a short amount of time.<div></div>

<i>I just need to know is it worth it to buy a Canon lens in the $150 range. If not, then maybe I bought the wrong camera?

</i><br><br>

Based on my experience shooting all of the sports that you have mentioned, it is not likely that you're going to find anything that is going to meet all of your requirements in that price range, used or new. Nor are you going to find any camera that is capable of this with any degree of sharpness at the price of a digital Rebel and a $150 lens. It is difficult to make chicken soup from chicken feathers.<br><br>

Speaking from experience, even indoor basketball at the speed at which it moves is going to be difficult for any lens in that price range. The 75-300mm USM is a possibility (mounted on a tripod or monopod), but it is going to be soft at the long end and it is a slow lens, meaning faster ISO's and more noise. Remember, photography is often about compromises and doing the best you can with what you have.

I own the lens and I am very satisfied with it. Image Stabilization is a nice feature and sharpness is very acceptable for a zoom of that range and price.

 

But... before you go out and buy any lens, you have to contemplate why you want it in the first place. When I have purchased lenses in the past, it has always been because my current equipment no longer met my needs in terms of range, sharpness, and/or speed. I purchased the 70-300 IS USM as a replacement for my 75-300 USM that had taken a serious beating over three years of use and was not very sharp. The IS was a nice add-on and I'm very pleased with the sharpness of the 70-300 IS USM over the 75-300 USM. There are a number of other IS lenses out there that may do the job as well if not better than the 70-300 depending on what you shoot and how you shoot it. Read, research, and then make an informed decision.

There was a classic post back a week or so ago from somebody who said that s/he didn't own an IS lens, but didn't see what the big deal was. Chances are high that this person hadn't given one a solid test.

 

I will concur with Greg to a point. You do need good glass in the lens. But static is not a requirement. In my case, if I'm shooting my 300mm f4L, I will utilize the IS hand-held to get slow moving subjects (slow moving horses, sheep, etc) at a range of 1/125 to 1/350. I'm happy with the results.

But IS is overrated. And don't slip in the sarcasm...