[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by laxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Need faster lense to expose more ambient light!

Or more importantly, with a FF 5D, a faster lens is *generally* easier for less vignetting and diffusion. I will be holding on to my 5D for quite awhile.....the only time I might ever upgrade is if Canon comes out with a replacement

Since I was used to manual film cameras before....I just like the versatility that you get with a larger sensor. It's not a crux when it comes to telephoto or vignetting if you know how to compensate.

 

[agile_one]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedLeader /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey guys, I just grabbed a Canon 30D for super cheap with no lenses. I have a Canon A710IS already. Will it be significantly better in terms of PQ, given the much smaller sensor and age (3.3/7.1) and what should I look at in terms of a cheap starter lens or 2? I like people, macro nature and architecture photography and do a bunch with my A710IS.

With cheap as the operative word, my suggestions would be:

• Two primes - Canon EF 28mm 2.8 and Sigma 50mm 2.8 DG Macro. The 28 gives you slightly wide on the 30D crop for architecture, and the siggy is an extremely sharp macro that can double as portrait in the crop body. These will set you back about $450 - 500. For $100 more, go for the Canon EF 24mm 2.8 for wider view.
• One zoom - Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR for $349. Great starter lens that can focus to 13", so some macro-like ability, but nothing like a real macro. You can go far with this, then figure out what you like as you see what focal lengths you actually shoot.

Good luck, and have fun.

 

[laxx]

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 would sort of cover all 3 for you.

 

[agile_one]

Quote:

Originally Posted by laxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Tamron 17-50 f2.8 would sort of cover all 3 for you.

Yup ... another excellent choice with advantage on the wide end for those architectural shots.

 

[RedLeader]

Thanks guys! You seem to be echoing what I was leaning to from the reading I was doing. I've never had to worry about lenses before, so it's a bit of a new world for me. It seems like from what I've read and from what you guys are saying that if I wanted to do a 2-lens that a 50mm prime and a 17-84 (or thereabouts) would probably work well. If I wanted to perhaps make it easy on myself, something more like a 17-50. I've found a RebelXT kit lens to borrow for a bit while I decide on a lens, but I've noticed that lenses seem to be more of an investment, as they hold their value quite well. Bodies seem to be the upgradeable "as they're released" sort of thing, if yours has some limitation or the new one has some feature you really want. With that in mind, perhaps I'll look at borrowing another lens or two and try out some focal lengths and see what works best for me before I put in the money for better glass. And that way, I've got more time to research and find deals.

 

[laxx]

One thing is after all your research and actually buying a lense, if you end up not liking it, you'll only lose a little bit of money. Or if you buy used, sometimes you won't lose any money at all.

 

[ssplit]

Hello all.

I've never been into photography before, but after I saw some really cool pics a friend of mine had taken I found myself being very interested.

I do have some "free" money, but of course there's a lot more I could spend that money on. So my budget will be around 1000, 1200 euros. Depends also how much money I get when I graduate, or perhaps I could ask for an objective as a gift.

I'm strongly considering buying the EOS 40D body, because you know how it is. That's what I really want, and with 450D/Rebel XSi I'd only find myself thinking if the 40D would've been better. That's my impression now though, I'll have to try them both before I buy anything.

I'm not at all sure if used bodies can be found here.


The 40D can be had for 900euros (from Germany), so that leaves 300euros for lenses, probably for one lense. Maybe even 400e, but here we go again. Money->.

Suggestions for lenses and attempts for getting my mind right about the body are welcome.

edit: There's also Canon cash back campaign for Finland, 150e for the 40D body. But then I'd have to buy it here, so it'd be 1000e-150e=850e. You get some money back from Canon objectives, too.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssplit /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm strongly considering buying the EOS 40D body, because you know how it is. That's what I really want, and with 450D/Rebel XSi I'd only find myself thinking if the 40D would've been better. That's my impression now though, I'll have to try them both before I buy anything.

You should be worried about how to take a better photos as opposed to thinking if the 40D is better than 450D if you bought the 450D. They are about equivalent in functionality and image quality. See if you like how the 40D feels though.

Look for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for general purpose lens. That's pretty much about it for now until you have more money.



----------------


On another note. Finally the 200 2.0 came out. It's about $6000.

I wonder what makes it $2000 more than Nikon's lens. Usually it's the Nikon lenses which are more expensive....

 

[analogbox]

I just saw this yesterday from Gizmodo. Basically, from May 18 to July 19, you could get an instant rebate up to $300 on Canon DSLRs and lenses. Seems like a good deal if you're thinkin' about picking up a 5D.

 

[ssplit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif You should be worried about how to take a better photos as opposed to thinking if the 40D is better than 450D if you bought the 450D. They are about equivalent in functionality and image quality. See if you like how the 40D feels though. Look for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for general purpose lens. That's pretty much about it for now until you have more money.

Ok, I tried both cameras today. The 450D is a much more compact camera, and also considerably lighter. It'd be noticiably easier to carry around, which increases it's attractiveness. Can be had for 700e.

The 40D is sturdier, heavier camera. It fits better in my hand though: I have big hands for such a small guy. Can be had for 850e, with the cash-back.
I have not made the decision yet.


About the lenses: 40D with Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4.0-5.6 IS USM can be had for 1100e with cash-back, so the price for the objective would be 350e. Reviews say it's "ok" product, with better performance on the wide end.

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 would cost 400e, but it's getting better reviews.


On a totally different note, I must say I feel that there are less talented art photographers than there are talented poets, for example. It seems everyone with extra money is into photography, and so there's massive amounts of "ok" or even "great" photos with no real flair, no style.

Style is not the real word for it, but I mean photos that can make you stop and that change the way you look at world. It's a personal thing, but I feel finding a photographer who can do that are very hard to find.

 

[GTRacer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssplit /img/forum/go_quote.gif On a totally different note, I must say I feel that there are less talented art photographers than there are talented poets, for example. It seems everyone with extra money is into photography, and so there's massive amounts of "ok" or even "great" photos with no real flair, no style. Style is not the real word for it, but I mean photos that can make you stop and that change the way you look at world. It's a personal thing, but I feel finding a photographer who can do that are very hard to find.

The same can be said for any form of art to be honest. It's just that too many people spend too much time worrying about their gear instead of thinking of ways to use it creatively.

 

[ssplit]

I spend the night thinking about this, and have come to the conclusion that the 40D/450D is purely matter of preference. Price difference is 120e, so that doesn't actually matter.

If anyone has the 450D and has comments about it, they would be very welcome and helpful.

I'm also leaning away from the (40D) kit lens, the Canon 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM. It seem's there are similarly priced lenses that perform better, at least in the 17-55 range.

Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC MACRO
Tamron 17-50/2.8 SP XR LD Di-II

Both costing 400e, and the Sigma one seems actually better liked on the internet.

 

[archosman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssplit /img/forum/go_quote.gif I spend the night thinking about this, and have come to the conclusion that the 40D/450D is purely matter of preference. Price difference is 120e, so that doesn't actually matter. If anyone has the 450D and has comments about it, they would be very welcome and helpful. I'm also leaning away from the (40D) kit lens, the Canon 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM. It seem's there are similarly priced lenses that perform better, at least in the 17-55 range. Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC MACRO Tamron 17-50/2.8 SP XR LD Di-II Both costing 400e, and the Sigma one seems actually better liked on the internet.

Go with the 40D. The 450D is the same as the Rebel XTi... which I own the previous version. The 40D has a much larger viewfinder. Go to a store where you can put your hands on both and look through each viewfinder.

I'm pretty sure the 40D also handles higher isos with less noise.

 

[raptor84]

Man the prices of the bodies overseas really tempts me to get one as I can save a good SG$400+ :\ Canon over heere really jacks up the prices...

 

[RedLeader]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssplit /img/forum/go_quote.gif Style is not the real word for it, but I mean photos that can make you stop and that change the way you look at world. It's a personal thing, but I feel finding a photographer who can do that are very hard to find.

Change the way you look at the world? What do you want, 10,000 people that take pictures everyday that change your outlook on life? Especially since you say it's such a personal thing, expecting lots of people to have the same style and design sensibilities as you but just different enough to change the way you look at the world is an utterly absurd proposition