entry-level cameras

I currently own a Canon Powershot A720 IS, with which I took my first steps into photography. I am planning to take a workshop and I am required to have a reflex camera, but I can't decide what to buy. I am considering the following Canon cameras:

1000D + 18-55mm + 75-300mm: 500eur (682 usd)

500D + 18-55mm: 599eur (817 usd)

550D + 18-55mm: 739eur (1008 usd)

I reckon that 550D is the best, but I really don't know if it 1000D w/ 2 lenses isn't a better entry-level deal. Still, it is a 2008 camera, which may be completely outdated. A sales-person also told me that 500D was a disastrous model for Canon, which is the reason for the launch of the 550D soon after the launch of the 500D. Is this really true?

I would really appreciate an expert's opinion given that these cameras appear to be at sale prices in Portugal. Thanks in advance.

Hi,
not an expert, but:
Avoid 75-300mm , it 's an old garbage. Buy 55-250IS instead, if you like tele.
Be sure, that the 18-55mm kit lens is the new one , IS = stabilized.
Further it's up to money :
1. 550D
2. 500D
3. 1000D if lack of money.

jspatrone said:

I currently own a Canon Powershot A720 IS, with which I took my first steps into photography. I am planning to take a workshop and I am required to have a reflex camera, but I can't decide what to buy. I am considering the following Canon cameras:

1000D + 18-55mm + 75-300mm: 500eur (682 usd)

500D + 18-55mm: 599eur (817 usd)

550D + 18-55mm: 739eur (1008 usd)

I reckon that 550D is the best, but I really don't know if it 1000D w/ 2 lenses isn't a better entry-level deal. Still, it is a 2008 camera, which may be completely outdated.

Click to expand...

Not bad, but liitle cut off IMHO. Still perfectly usable.

A sales-person also told me that 500D was a disastrous model for Canon, which is the reason for the launch of the 550D soon after the launch of the 500D. Is this really true?
I've never heard this, he's bull$hitting you

jspatrone said:

I would really appreciate an expert's opinion given that these cameras appear to be at sale prices in Portugal. Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

Member said:

jspatrone wrote:

A sales-person also told me that 500D was a disastrous model for Canon, which is the reason for the launch of the 550D soon after the launch of the 500D. Is this really true?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not, I've never heard this, he's bull$hitting you

If I remember properly there was huge race between competitors that time and Canon needed to include video or what.

Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

Look http://www.guenstiger.de , prices are lower than those you searched. Maybe they deliver in Portugal.

A Canon EOS 550D + EF-S 18-55mm IS + EF-S 55-250mm IS costs 840.00 eur. I recommended this setup to begginers like me.

Any of these cameras will perform well. Certainly, even at entry level, avoid non-IS lenses. I have 500D + the 18-55 and 55-250 IS (also Sigma 10-20mm).

I got 500D just before Christmas because, with 18-55 IS the net cost was £429 due to a £30 cashback offer and an already low/special price - I suspect Canon are trying to clear back stock of 500Ds. The differential compared to 1000D was less than £50 and upto the the 550D was over £100 - no brainer. So, availbaility of a special deal might make one camera a better choice than the rest.

500D video is pretty clunky to use focus-wise but I didn't buy for video use, otherwise it is a fine camera IMO. 1000D is basic and lower resolution will limit ability to crop. If you can get the 550D and the IS lenses at a good price - then go for it but its abilities probably exceed the basic Canon IS lenses. If you are in for the long term, then consider buying a single better quality evreyday zoom e.g. 18-135 or 18-200 or 17-85. After using compacts, it can be a real pain having to change lenses all the time. 18-200 would be ideal, effectivel 29-320 with these cameras (x1.6 crop factor) but watch quality, a Canon lens may not be best at the budget end. Tamron, have a new 18-270, which might be worth a look.

windmillgolfer said:

Any of these cameras will perform well. Certainly, even at entry level, avoid non-IS lenses. I have 500D + the 18-55 and 55-250 IS (also Sigma 10-20mm).

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't get why people dislike non-IS lenses so much. They've served masters of photography for ages and now suddenly they are no good? All my best lenses are non-IS. NONE of my IS lenses can get near the quality and sharpness of my non-IS lenses and that includes the very desired 24-105mm f/4 L IS before you say I don't use good quality IS lenses.

Indoor:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49646915@N07/5067310415/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49646915@N07/5340094188/lightbox/

Outdoor:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49646915@N07/5262114772/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49646915@N07/5210202734/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49646915@N07/5182581264/lightbox/

All hand-held with non-IS lenses. IS had a slight edge but not as great as everyone is led to believe.

Sorry for ranting out, you personally don't deserve it, but new starters shouldn't be led down the wrong path, i.e. non-IS lenses should be avoided at all costs.

Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

I bought a Canon 550D+18-55mm IS from kamera-express.nl shipped to Portugal and it was 625€ if I recall. I also found the 500D for 575€ at a local staples, so you can definitely buy cheaper, even locally. My girlfriend has a 1000D and although not bad, I think it's overpriced at the moment, I mean they can't afford to drop the prices any lower but a 550D is a better buy IMO. I wasn't sure which to buy, 500D or 500D, but after playing with both for a while I decided on the 550D, it's a much better camera (and the videos are gorgeous!). Go to staples, mediamarkt, vobis, radiopopular, pixmania and find the lowest price on the 550D!

Not an expert, but my upgrade path was similar.

jspatrone said:

I currently own a Canon Powershot A720 IS, with which I took my first steps into photography.

Click to expand...

I bought 1000D coming from PowerShot A570 IS.

jspatrone said:

1000D + 18-55mm + 75-300mm: 500eur (682 usd)

Click to expand...

Better to have 1000D + 18-55 IS + 55-250 IS kit.

jspatrone said:

500D + 18-55mm: 599eur (817 usd)

550D + 18-55mm: 739eur (1008 usd)

Click to expand...

If you pay a little more money (as your 550D + 18-55 kit) you can buy 500D + 18-55 IS + 55-250 IS.

jspatrone said:

I reckon that 550D is the best, but I really don't know if it 1000D w/ 2 lenses isn't a better entry-level deal. Still, it is a 2008 camera, which may be completely outdated.

Click to expand...

Outdated by specifications, not in ability to deliver stunning images.

jspatrone said:

A sales-person also told me that 500D was a disastrous model for Canon, which is the reason for the launch of the 550D soon after the launch of the 500D. Is this really true?

I would really appreciate an expert's opinion given that these cameras appear to be at sale prices in Portugal. Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

--
http://picasaweb.google.com/sesh19

No need to rant

My reason is not IS itself , but there is big image quality difference between 18-55 non-IS an IS version (in other words: old and new kit lens). I know it for sure, I had both.
On the other side, I wouldn't recommend to buy tele without IS, right ?

Christakis said:

windmillgolfer said:

Any of these cameras will perform well. Certainly, even at entry level, avoid non-IS lenses. I have 500D + the 18-55 and 55-250 IS (also Sigma 10-20mm).

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't get why people dislike non-IS lenses so much. They've served masters of photography for ages and now suddenly they are no good? All my best lenses are non-IS. NONE of my IS lenses can get near the quality and sharpness of my non-IS lenses and that includes the very desired 24-105mm f/4 L IS before you say I don't use good quality IS lenses.

Indoor:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49646915@N07/5067310415/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49646915@N07/5340094188/lightbox/

Outdoor:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49646915@N07/5262114772/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49646915@N07/5210202734/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49646915@N07/5182581264/lightbox/

All hand-held with non-IS lenses. IS had a slight edge but not as great as everyone is led to believe.

Sorry for ranting out, you personally don't deserve it, but new starters shouldn't be led down the wrong path, i.e. non-IS lenses should be avoided at all costs.

Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

Click to expand...

guinness2 said:

No need to rant

My reason is not IS itself , but there is big image quality difference between 18-55 non-IS an IS version (in other words: old and new kit lens). I know it for sure, I had both.

Click to expand...

Well now we agree

Member said:

On the other side, I wouldn't recommend to buy tele without IS, right ?

Click to expand...

I must admit IS on tele is more useful but again depends what and how you use it for. For example macro work using the 100mm f/2.8 macro doesn't need IS but the 55-250mm IS is useful to shoot animals.

--
Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

The 550D has huge improvements in the area of video, so if you intend to shoot video it's a no-brainer.

The 1000D is pretty old, and the kit with the 75-300mm lens is not a good deal at all. Eliminate.

This leaves the decision between the 550D and the 500D. If price is no barrier, get the newer camera. If budget is important and video will not be used, you could do well with the 500D.

Christakis said:

windmillgolfer said:

...Certainly, even at entry level, avoid non-IS lenses.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Agree 100%. Btw. having IS is of benefit at any focal length.

Christakis said:

Honestly, I don't get why people dislike non-IS lenses so much. They've served masters of photography for ages and now suddenly they are no good?

Click to expand...

-ages ago, IS lenses didn't exist, so master photographers didn't have a choice.

Today, almost all recent lenses have IS built in -so, if budget allows, why not getting one? I would go even further: today, photographer must have a special reason to get non-IS lens (tripod used most of the time, TS lens needed, etc.).

Christakis said:

All my best lenses are non-IS. NONE of my IS lenses can get near the quality and sharpness of my non-IS lenses...

Click to expand...

I believe you -assuming your non-IS lenses are not the cheapest

But speaking for me, I can't imagine taking sharp photo with non-IS lens and without tripod, at (let's say) 1/10s or less -no matter how good/sharp lens optically is.

My opinion is: especially amateur/hobby photographers should get IS lens. If/when they specialize on particular type of photography (being portrait, sports, etc.), then they will know what they can manage and what they need.

Bogdan

That 75-300 is about the worst lens Canon makes. It can be found on ebay for well under $100 so I wouldn't let it influence your decision too much.

hbx2004 said:

Christakis said:

windmillgolfer said:

...Certainly, even at entry level, avoid non-IS lenses.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Agree 100%. Btw. having IS is of benefit at any focal length.

hbx2004 said:

Honestly, I don't get why people dislike non-IS lenses so much. They've served masters of photography for ages and now suddenly they are no good?

Click to expand...

-ages ago, IS lenses didn't exist, so master photographers didn't have a choice.

Today, almost all recent lenses have IS built in -so, if budget allows, why not getting one? I would go even further: today, photographer must have a special reason to get non-IS lens (tripod used most of the time, TS lens needed, etc.).

hbx2004 said:

All my best lenses are non-IS. NONE of my IS lenses can get near the quality and sharpness of my non-IS lenses...

Click to expand...

I believe you -assuming your non-IS lenses are not the cheapest

But speaking for me, I can't imagine taking sharp photo with non-IS lens and without tripod, at (let's say) 1/10s or less -no matter how good/sharp lens optically is.

My opinion is: especially amateur/hobby photographers should get IS lens. If/when they specialize on particular type of photography (being portrait, sports, etc.), then they will know what they can manage and what they need.

Bogdan

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against IS. I'm just pointing out what everyone else miss. non-IS lenses are not useless and IS lenses are not magical. Each to their own I say. Buy the IS lenses and let the non-IS to drop in value. Even better for people who appreciate them

As for mine, excluding the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, no, my other non-IS lenses are not cheap. Nor they come in an IS version, nor they have auto-focus. Rubbish lenses? Some say yes, others say no. But there's a reason why they're so expensive.

Each to their own, arguing is not constructive.

Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

Christakis said:

... non-IS lenses are not useless and IS lenses are not magical.

Click to expand...

You've nailed it! -and of course I agree on that

Greetings,
Bogdan

Please keep in view, IS was in context of the budget end of Canon lenses, consistent with price range in question. L lenses - well now, that's another world and price range. This is the 1000D / 550D - 300D forum and, I did say that the 550D was, probably (being diplomatic), capable of better lenses than the budget Canon lenses.

Actually, I regret bringing L lenses in the conversation. It wasn't my intention to start an expensive lens discussion here. Take for example the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF lens. Nice, cheap, can be used as kit lens, very nice quality and yes it's quality is better than it's equivalent image stabilised (VC) version.

--
Christakis

http://blog.christakisphoto.com/
(Updated every Monday and Friday)

Christakis said:

guinness2 said:

On the other side, I wouldn't recommend to buy tele without IS, right ?

Click to expand...

I must admit IS on tele is more useful but again depends what and how you use it for. For example macro work using the 100mm f/2.8 macro doesn't need IS but the 55-250mm IS is useful to shoot animals.

Click to expand...

I'm just getting started with a Canon DSLR and at first was going to limit myself to the 55-250 IS lens but realized that for the kind of photography I want the tele for, IS is not going to be an issue because I'll be shooting at high shutter speeds. I can see how most people might be shooting stationary things and especially at tele lengths, IS is really important.

And nice to have in the lens and NOT in the body- so the viewfinder, autofocus and metering are working with a stabilized image.

Midwest said:

I can see how most people might be shooting stationary things and especially at tele lengths, IS is really important.

Click to expand...

Exactly, not all wildlife is running. It's shot with IS at 1/50 ss ! on 300mm and believe, it was me running uphill. He was just kidding me and did few steps, every time I came closer.

Midwest said:

And nice to have in the lens and NOT in the body- so the viewfinder, autofocus and metering are working with a stabilized image.

Click to expand...

I consider this as a big advantage too, as it extremely helps to aim.