henrik.ploug

I'm about to buy a 400D or a 30D for the place where I work. I will also buy a

17-55mm f2,8 IS lens and maybe a 50mm f1,4. The 50mm f1,4 should be used for

product photos. But is the 50mm necessary, or will the 17-55mm be sufficient?

The camera I will suggest doesn't meet any of your criterias. It's not a filmcamera. It's neither Canon nor Nikon. And it is not a SLR. But I think that it will fit your needs.

My suggestion is the Fujifilm FinePix F30 Zoom. You will find an in-depth review of the camera here (where it gets excellent rating):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/fuji_finepixf30.asp

The camera fits your needs because it's:

- cheap (less than ?200 + xD Picture Card).

- free to use - no charge for development of pictures.

- easy to use.

- takes very good pictures in low light.

- small and lightweight.

Alternatives to the F30 is the F20 and the just announced F40fd.

I used to have the 50mm f1,4, and it was very sharp at f1,4, when focused properly. But often it wasn't focused properly, because either the lens or the camera (350D) backfocused with soft images as a result.

(I know some people here at Photo.net will tell me, that it was user-error, but I several test under controlled conditions, and the result was still out-of-focus-pictures.)

So I sold the lens and the camera and bought the 30D (with better AF) and the 17-55mm f2,8 IS. Now I get sharp photos all the time.

Thanks a lot for all your answers!

Apparently it is rather difficult to meassure the effectiveness of IS. I was looking for something in the line of Lesters test.

And even though there could be a problem with the test - which Mark point out - I think my brother will find the results convincing.

I also think, that he will agree, that the Canon 400D is better for indoor photography without flash than the Sony A100.

The reason why I asked this question is because I want to buy a new DSLR for my brothers birthday.

He wants the Sony A100 because of the built in IS. But I think he would be better of with the new Canon 400D, because of its ISO-performance.

See these (large) pictures for comparison:

Sony A100 - ISO 400:

http://gallery.photographyreview.com/showphoto.php?photo=40291&size=big&cat=518

Canon 400D - ISO 1600:

http://gallery.photographyreview.com/showphoto.php?photo=52779&size=big&cat=518

Sony A100 - ISO 1600:

http://gallery.photographyreview.com/showphoto.php?photo=40290&size=big&cat =518

As you can see, the 400D's performance at ISO 1600 is almost identical to the A100's performance at ISO 400.

My conclusion is, that this alone will make up for the two stops he would gain with the A100's built in IS.

But to be sure to convince him, I would like to be able to show him a reliable IS-test, which document, that IS in the lens really is better than IS in the camera.

Digital Photography Review has added a new IS-test to their already extensive

tests. Here they have tested the Sony A100:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra100/page14.asp

The test is good, because you get a more precise indication of how many stops

the image stabilization will give you.

Do anybody know, where I can find a reliable IS-test of the new Canon 70-200mm

f4 IS - or other new Canon IS-lenses?

Both are great cameras. So you should look at the lenses, you can get for them. In particular I would look at IS/VR-lenses, since this feature is very helpful.

As stated above Nikon has the 105/2.8 macro VR lens. So if macro shooting is important, that could be an argument for choosing the D80.

On the other hand if indoor portraits are important, Canon offers the 17-55mm f2,8 IS, which you won't find in Nikons lineup.

You will find reviews of Canon and Nikon lenses here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

http://www.photographyreview.com/sf-6/mapid-32/befid-96323/nm-20/pgnum-1/dnatrs-zoom_lens/productlistcrx.aspx

If you don't mind carrying 1670g plus camera weight, the 28-300 mm should be a fine lens.

Personally I would choose two or three lenses, for examle the 24-105mm f4 IS (670g) and the 70-200mm f4 IS (760g).

Another vote for the Canon Ef-S 17-55mm/f2.8 USM IS. People keep talking about full frame and that you have to buy lenses that will work on the 5D.

But the fact is that fastest and sharpest zoom with IS in the normal range is the 17-55mm. You can't get a f2,8 zoom with IS for full frame. So enjoy the advantage your new 30D has over the 5D.

I have the 17-55mm and it is a wonderfull lens. IS combined with f2,8 can't be beat in low light. And the imagequality is better than the primes, I used to have.

24-105mm f4 is to slow and and not wide enough for indoor pictures of family gatherings without flash. Of course you could get a flash, but bright light in peoples eyes are obtrusive and make people feel uneasy.

If I should choose between these two options:

1. Expensive camera + cheap lens

2. Cheap camera + expensive lens

I would choose the latter. Good lenses are more important to imagequality than the good cameras. So my suggestion will be the 400D and the 17-55mm f2,8 IS.

"The 1DsMkII is the 16.7mp pixel camera, and not the 8.5fps, 8.2mp 1DMkIIn camera. Some of the comments misstated it."

I think you misread my comment: "EOS-1D Mark II N: 8,5 fps" - there is no "s" in the name. I know it is confusing that Canon names some of their cameras almost identical, even when the specifications of the cameras are very different.

"The OP did not ask for your subjective opinion of his photography. He asked whether the difference in price between these two cameras is worth it. The appropriate place to offer your feedback on his photographs would be in a critique message."

I'm sorry! My intention was not to criticize Brads photos, but to save him from a bad career move. I'm glad to hear, that you (Brad) has a more professional body of work. Good luck with your new career!

Apart from that I just looked at your homepage:

http://photoshow.net/bjbiker

Some of the photos are fine, but most of them doesn't have pro-quality. So I think you need more practise and education before you turn pro.

For weddings, reunions, portfolios and portraits I think the 5D will be the better choice because of high ISO-performance, which means in a lot of cases, you don't need flash. But it doesn't have weather sealing like the EOS 1Ds MK II.

For sports 30D or Canon EOS-1D Mark II N will be the better choice besause of more frames per second with continuous drive (30D: 5fps ; EOS-1D Mark II N: 8,5 fps ).

EOS-1D Mark II N also have weather sealing, and a 1,3 crop sensor. 30D has a 1,6 crop sensor, which will save you a lot of money for tele-lenses at the stadion.

If you want one camera for all puposes, I would get the 5D or the 30D.

Will this lens work okay on an EOS400D?

Yes - any EF-lens will do.

What does 28-90mm equate to?

45-144mm - multiply with 1,6.

Is the lens (EF-S 18-55mm)offered as a bundle with the 400D any good?

If you stop it down to f8 yes. But if you want to take pictures at f4 or f2,8 you need to spend more cash.

I agree with Keith and Franklin: EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

It's expensive, but worth every penny.

http://www.planetneil.com/faq/flash-techniques.html

http://www.danheller.com/tech-fillflash.html

http://www.moosepeterson.com/techtips/flash.html

This is the ultimate all-around lens for 20D:

<a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=303&sort=7&cat=27&page=2">Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM</a><br>

Later you can get the Canon 10-22 and 70-200mm f2,8(or f4) L IS, and you will have the perfect setup.

"I can prefocus by aiming, focusing on a spot, and then recomposing. When I am NOT using a tripod that is exactly how I focus - always! It's just that the tripod makes this impractical."

Then loose the tripod and use the technique you are comfortable with. As long as you stay above f4, the DOF will be large enough to recompose. I would choose f5,6 and 1/250 sec.

I used to have the Sigma 30mm f1,4 and now have the Canon 17-55mm f/2,8. Both are very sharp lenses and good for low light photography.

The reason why I sold the 30mm and bought the 17-55mm is because my 350D's autofocus wasn't very accurate, which was a problem with the very shallow DOF @ f1,4.

Now I have the 30D (more accurate AF) and the 17-55mm (more DOF), and together they give me sharp pictures with rich colors under almost any conditions.

So if you can afford it, get the 17-55mm.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=303&sort=7&cat=27&page=2

The shot is neither frontfocused or backfocused. It's right on the money.

So Juha is right - the closer the distance to the subject, the more sensitive the focus is.

If you want really strong background - and foreground - blur, you should get very close to your subject.