 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Canon 20D after three weeks
I, being a totally newbie to digital slrs, bought the 20D a few weeks back. Admittedly, it is too much camera for me at first! However, after reading all the helpful posts here and trying different things, I have come a long way! I find myself overcoming the kit lens (I will buy better as soon as I can afford it!) by taking it out of the basic zones. also, I needed to realize that in the full auto zone, it will focus on whatever is closest, as indicated by the red focus point (such an idiot at first... I just wanted to point and shoot!). I like the unit a lot. I guess what I am saying here is that if you were like me, and bought a 20D or whatever, that it takes some time to understand these things. Just read and re-read the manuals. Being impatient is not going to help! Try to get out of the point and shoot mentality. These cameras can do that, but they are designed to do so much more. I find that in the creative zones is where I get my best results with the kit lens. Lastly, thanks for all the great tips and advice everyone here offers on a daily basis. I read this newsgroup daily and learn much. -Robbie > I, being a totally newbie to digital slrs, bought the 20D a few weeks > back. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > daily basis. I read this newsgroup daily and learn much. > -Robbie Would that more "newbies" were like you... Of course, then there would be fewer posts to this and many other newsgroups!  SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >I, being a totally newbie to digital slrs, bought the 20D a few weeks back. >Admittedly, it is too much camera for me at first! However, after reading [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >are designed to do so much more. I find that in the creative zones is where >I get my best results with the kit lens. You'll soon want to dump that kit lens and put some "L" glass on it to get to what it can really do. When you start looking for serious glass here's a good resource: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php?cat=45 To see the potential of these lenses, get a copy of "The Eyes of EOS III" http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=details_accessories&A=details& Q=&sku=12218&is=REG I hope you will also learn to work with RAW. ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >>I, being a totally newbie to digital slrs, bought the 20D a few weeks back. >>Admittedly, it is too much camera for me at first! However, after reading [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >You'll soon want to dump that kit lens and put some "L" glass on it to >get to what it can really do. It would have been a better idea to buy a Nikon D70 and start out with a decent lens - the 18-70mm Nikkor is a very fine performer. >>You'll soon want to dump that kit lens and put some "L" glass on it to >>get to what it can really do. > > It would have been a better idea to buy a Nikon D70 and start out with > a decent lens - the 18-70mm Nikkor is a very fine performer. The great thing about D-SLRs is that you can put on different lenses. Buying a less capable body, that happens to come with a better lens, doesn't make much sense unless you never intend to use anything but the kit lens. In that sense the D70s could be a better choice than the EOS-350D, if you're never going to go beyond the kit lens. And of course you can buy a 20D in different kits, including one with the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS lens, which is better than the 18-70mm Nikkor (and priced much higher as well). Or you can buy it as body-only, and buy any lens/lenses you want. The 18-55 USM lens on the less expensive Canon kit is actually okay. It's the cheaper version of this lens that is included in the EOS-350D kit that is less desirable, due to the lack of a USM motor. As Bob Atkin's wrote: "this is the most important point of all - it's a $100 lens. You don't need to agonize over whether or not to buy it...The 18-55/3.5-5.6 is a very good lens for $100." The original poster was looking at the "prosumer" models, not the lower models, so the actual competing Nikon model is the D100. In terms of what's available in the prosumer segment, the 20D was the best choice, since the D100 replecement isn't out yet. >>>I, being a totally newbie to digital slrs, bought the 20D a few weeks back. >>>Admittedly, it is too much camera for me at first! However, after reading [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >It would have been a better idea to buy a Nikon D70 and start out with >a decent lens - the 18-70mm Nikkor is a very fine performer. And get noise at high ISO's, no pentaprism, and a plastic body. I fail to understand why anyone buy an SLR of any kind of kit lens. ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ Hi John. In my case, and as in others that get a kit lens, it is probably just because I/we did not know any better at the time. I am still trying to decide what lens to get next. I saw the other kit lenses trhat were oh higher grade, but I just could not afford it at the time. In the meantime, use the kit lens to learn what I can, and how to get the most out of the camera despite a low end lens (still not a bad lens for 100 bucks-- gets the user started at least). BTW. Thanks for the links above. I think I am going to go for a "L" as you suggested. > I fail to understand why anyone buy an SLR of any kind of kit lens. > ********************************************************* > Hi John. > In my case, and as in others that get a kit lens, it is probably just [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>I fail to understand why anyone buy an SLR of any kind of kit lens. >>********************************************************* I would suggest 70-200/4L for about $580. >> Hi John. >> In my case, and as in others that get a kit lens, it is probably just [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >I would suggest 70-200/4L for about $580. The 17-40L is another good choice for a first "L". ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ > Hi John. > In my case, and as in others that get a kit lens, it is probably just [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > BTW. Thanks for the links above. I think I am going to go for a "L" as you > suggested. Robbie, Take from another new... well sophomore, L glass is amazing. I have the 100-400 which I bought for sports and racing and the image quality over my other lenses is amazing. Almost worth saving all you pennies and buying only L glass. That said however, when you are looking at lenses look at the 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM. I have this lens and use it all the time. It gets good reviews and is, for the most part, highly recommended in this News Group. It's not L but the IS can be a great help in low light and the range is great for a walk around lens. My other advice is the same that John gave you SHOOT RAW!!! I was very hesitant to do this at first 1) because I get so few pics on my mem card compared to Jpeg, and 2) because I just didn't understand the advantage. However, I downloaded an eval copy of Capture One and shot some things in RAW and started playing around with the images in C1 and very quickly understood that RAW was the way to go. Now I shoot exclusively in RAW and do all my post processing in C1. Once you get the hang if it you can clean up an image in no time. For a free RAW editor look into RawShooter. It is also very good and easy to use. -- Rob >I fail to understand why anyone buy an SLR of any kind of kit lens. Almost all beginners do. It's a beginner thing. It was different when manual focus SLRs were sold with a 50mm f/1.8, or similar. That was usually the best resolution lens in the whole range, so even beginners got the best glass. >>I fail to understand why anyone buy an SLR of any kind of kit lens. > > Almost all beginners do. It's a beginner thing. I might not have, but everyone went on about Canon's 18-55 being a good value. Well, it *was* cheap, but I overwhelmingly don't like the photos I've made with it, even stopped down in good light. Eventually I bought a better lens in the same range, and I'm much happier. I wish I'd skipped the kit lens and bought the 50mm f/1.8 instead. Others' mileage may, of course, vary. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall > And get noise at high ISO's, no pentaprism, and a plastic body. > > I fail to understand why anyone buy an SLR of any kind of kit lens. The 18-55USM that comes in the 20D kit is a decent lens, certainly worth $100. However the 20D is available as body only, or with a better lens, the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS. It is ludicrous to buy a less capable body, just because the kit lens is better than the kit lens that comes with another body. It is especially ludicrous when you're considering the prosumer models, as opposed to consumer models. >It is ludicrous to buy a less capable body, just because the kit lens is >better than the kit lens that comes with another body. But the body is *not* less capable. ;-) >>>>I, being a totally newbie to digital slrs, bought the 20D a few weeks back. >>>>Admittedly, it is too much camera for me at first! However, after reading [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >I fail to understand why anyone buy an SLR of any kind of kit lens. It's embarassing for people who want a decent entry-level lens to have to slap a Sigma on their Canon body. Or, they go thinking they are getting a nice, sub $1000 Rebel XT only to find out they need to spend another $700+ to get a good lens. -Rich >>I fail to understand why anyone buy an SLR of any kind of kit lens. > > It's embarassing for people who want a decent entry-level lens > to have to slap a Sigma on their Canon body. There are a lot of other Canon lenses between $70 and $200. The 28mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8 primes have got to be pretty good. I have the 50mm and it's perfectly serviceable. I don't know about the zooms in this price range though. I can't imagine any of them are much better or worse than equivalent products from Sigma. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall >>>I, being a totally newbie to digital slrs, bought the 20D a few weeks back. >>>Admittedly, it is too much camera for me at first! However, after reading [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > It would have been a better idea to buy a Nikon D70 and start out with > a decent lens - the 18-70mm Nikkor is a very fine performer. the amazing thing is when you are looking at many sites, including this one: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ There are a lote more people writing about the Canon. Even Sigma trumps Nikon. Canon: 2042 Nikon: 322 Sigma: 598 Something must be very wrong here. > There are a lote more people writing about the Canon. Even Sigma trumps > Nikon. I wouldn't say *that*. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.