Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Canon 30D or Rebel XT long sorry!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ami - 03 Jul 2006 19:52 GMT
Hey there,

I am deciding between these two cameras.  I have to say that price
isn't the most important thing here, but value is- and utility.

I have already checked out the pro's and cons that have been discussed
about these two models.  I am still debating between the two.  I
thought I might describe my needs, and maybe you can help me figure
this thing out.

Though I am mostly a beginner (having used p&s a long time), I am
familiar with basic photography concepts. I know I will have to play
around with the camera to learn its ins and outs, but I am not getting
this to be an amateur photographer- I just want to get the shots I
want- and I want good shots.

Here is what I want-

I need to get good *clear* shots of the bears, eagles, baby racoons,
and fawns in my yard in the early morning, dusk, and in the rain
without a tripod (This has been impossible with my p&s). Mostly I'd
like to get good clear shots of anything in early morning, dusk and in
the rain.  Seems everytime there's a good photo op- it's in that kind
of light.

I need to be able to take clear arena shots- relatively low light-
action shots.

Would also like to take pictures of people surrounded by pyrotechnics.
As well as people in settings like a bowling alley with lasers.

Like many people- I take pictures of gardens, landscapes, and sunsets,
cats and kids.

I am happy with my point and shoot's 4x zoom.

I would prefer the lightness of the Rebel, and having small hands, I
doubt the smallness will be an issue. I would like to be able to put
the camera in a backpack- not have a separate bag to carry. This is a
camera that will go on walks, trips (motorcycle saddlebag), and will
need to be grabbed at a moments notice.

Since I'm really not that concerned about frames per second, it seems
the light metering is the biggest difference between the two right?
>From what you can gather from my needs- and taking into consideration I
won't know what I'm missing, Do I need this?

* If I get the camera body alone, can you recommend a lens that might
fit the bill- and be the most versatile in this case -mostly for the
low light and zoom together - which will be on the camera most of the
time. I am willing to spend serious money on a good lens, but can I
have fast and 4x zoom together?

And now for something completely different- should I be looking at a
camera with image stabilization instead?  I'm usually chasing my
subjects (no tripod), so will the high mps/ iso/ noise qualities/ f/1.4
avail. of the Canons be enough to do the trick in my lighting
situations?

Thanks so much for any advice you can give me!

Ami
C J Southern - 03 Jul 2006 23:11 GMT
In terms of image quality there's not a lot to choose between them - what
will make a 1000 times more difference though is the lens you choose.

If you want to work in low light - hand held - and still produce quality
shots then you're going to need fast quality glass - IS is almost a
pre-requisite in this kind of situation.

My favourite lens for what you want to do is the 70-200 F2.8L IS USM (with
teleconverter if required) - but you'll probably find that this lens alone
will cost you twice what a 350D / Rebel XT will. Also, it's not a lens that
you fit on a 350D or a 30D per sec - it's not a case of holding the lens,
and the camera on the end is just there for the ride.

Having said that though, once you have the lens you have it for a long
time - so it's a good investment.
Roger - 04 Jul 2006 05:48 GMT
> In terms of image quality there's not a lot to choose between them - what
> will make a 1000 times more difference though is the lens you choose.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Having said that though, once you have the lens you have it for a long
> time - so it's a good investment.

I went through the very same decision process. I went to my trusted camera
shop & the owner recommended the XT because the 30D has some expensive
features that only a very advanced amateur/pro would use.

He also talked me out of the Canon zoom with IS because if your subject is
moving, it'll be blurred in spite of the IS. He recommended a fast lense
instead, like the 50mm f1.8, though that doesn't give you zoom. I got the
Sigma 18mm - 200mm 1:3.5 for general use which is a pretty good lens and
is VERY versatile. I'll get the 50mm f1.8 (or perhaps even the f1.4) when
I'm ready to go to a fixed lens.
C J Southern - 04 Jul 2006 07:26 GMT
> He also talked me out of the Canon zoom with IS because if your subject is
> moving, it'll be blurred in spite of the IS.

Good theory - but Canon thought of that first - and put in a mode switch
that allows you to disable either horizontal stabilization or all
stabilization if required.
Stan Birch - 04 Jul 2006 22:50 GMT
>My favourite lens for what you want to do is the 70-200 F2.8L IS USM (with
>teleconverter if required) - but you'll probably find that this lens alone
>will cost you twice what a 350D / Rebel XT will.

That's basically the way to go. But also get the kit lens. It's a
great general purpose lens.

I do the same kind of photography you do, and the 70-200 F2.8L IS USM
is as good as they get. The 1.4X converter also works great with the
aforementioned lens.

The XT works just fine for me.  
fishfry - 05 Jul 2006 03:08 GMT
> Hey there,
>
> I am deciding between these two cameras.  I have to say that price
> isn't the most important thing here, but value is- and utility.

You have to go to the camera store and handle them. The 30D is much
larger than the 350.
Pat - 08 Jul 2006 18:55 GMT
> Since I'm really not that concerned about frames per second, it seems
> the light metering is the biggest difference between the two right?

Frames per second is something I have learned to appreciate.  Its the main
difference between the two cameras.
AaronW - 10 Jul 2006 00:02 GMT
> I am deciding between these two cameras.  I have to say that price
> isn't the most important thing here, but value is- and utility.

350D
5D
1D

> Though I am mostly a beginner (having used p&s a long time), I am
> familiar with basic photography concepts. I know I will have to play
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> I need to be able to take clear arena shots- relatively low light-
> action shots.

300/2.8 IS
200/2.8
85/1.8

> Would also like to take pictures of people surrounded by pyrotechnics.
> As well as people in settings like a bowling alley with lasers.
>
> Like many people- I take pictures of gardens, landscapes, and sunsets,
> cats and kids.

50/1.8
20/2.8

> I would prefer the lightness of the Rebel, and having small hands, I
> doubt the smallness will be an issue. I would like to be able to put
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> time. I am willing to spend serious money on a good lens, but can I
> have fast and 4x zoom together?

17-55/2.8 IS
70-200/2.8 IS
70-300/4-5.6 IS

> And now for something completely different- should I be looking at a
> camera with image stabilization instead?  I'm usually chasing my
> subjects (no tripod), so will the high mps/ iso/ noise qualities/ f/1.4
> avail. of the Canons be enough to do the trick in my lighting
> situations?

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr
 
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.