Is it better to spend Mony on...

[Joe Buster]

Read reviews on both camers,then go to a camers store and play with both of them ,it was easy for me to decide,I got the 20D

 

[Gary Coombs]

Hello Gary,

first of all the pictures are really great, I'm sure there is a lot
of talent behind the camera. I like the first a lot.

All the credit goes to the Canon 10D and 24-70 2.8L. I'm only the middleman that presses the buttons.

second may I ask why an 10D would be better than a Rebel? I'm
interested in the "used body - outstanding lens" combination for
the same price as "new body - okay lens"

You've answered your own question. What's most important? A shiny new camera body or the best images possible for the money spent.

Third was there a lot of post-processing in these pictures?

Photoshop CS2 and Smart Sharpen. Remember, you can't make something out of an image that doesn't already exist.

Sorry if these questions are newbish, I'm learning

Aren't we all? Never stopped learning.

Canon 10D and Canon 24-70 2.8L.



--
Gary Coombs, W9VJ
http://GaryCoombs.com
My Profile contains my Equipment List

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams

 

[amtberg]

It's a personal decision and it will depend in part on what you're physically comfortable with. Personally the XT is just too small for my hands--very uncomfortable to hold. Thus it could come down to a choice not between the 20D and the XT, but between the 20D and an entry level Nikon/Minolta/Olympus/Pentax.

 

[amtberg]

Another way to look at it: once you assemble a colleciton of lenses you will use each lens x% of the time. You will use your body 100% of the time. I'd rather have a body I'm comfortable with and add lenses over time.

 

[mushy]

I still think that there is no difference in quality between a 300D and a 10D. Maybe a 20D yes, due to the higher ISO selection and faster shot rate helps to capture some types of shots you might miss with the 300D. But if you use a 1d series then you will see a big difference. And this is mainly a film like quality which you just don't get with all the other models. I can't really explain it, but it's there.

300D + Bigma =



300D + shitty kit lens =

 

[Gary Coombs]

I still think that there is no difference in quality between a 300D
and a 10D. Maybe a 20D yes, due to the higher ISO selection and
faster shot rate helps to capture some types of shots you might
miss with the 300D.

The biggest difference between the 300D and the 10D as I understand it is that the 300D has aggressive sharpening added to the built-in software.

But if you use a 1d series then you will see a
big difference. And this is mainly a film like quality which you
just don't get with all the other models. I can't really explain
it, but it's there.

That is the first time I've heard the "film" comment made. Is your comment made from experience with using the cameras?

Having used film (mostly Kodachrome with some color negative film) for the past several decades, my only reaction would be that my 10D digital images have been superior to what I had been able to do with film in years past. My wife, who by the way is my most vocal critic, voiced the same opinion.

--
Gary Coombs, W9VJ
http://GaryCoombs.com
My Profile contains my Equipment List

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams

 

[mushy]

I still think that there is no difference in quality between a 300D
and a 10D. Maybe a 20D yes, due to the higher ISO selection and
faster shot rate helps to capture some types of shots you might
miss with the 300D.

The biggest difference between the 300D and the 10D as I understand
it is that the 300D has aggressive sharpening added to the built-in
software.

Yes, but with RAW that doesn't matter at all and with JPG, you can turn that off and post process in photoshop.

But if you use a 1d series then you will see a
big difference. And this is mainly a film like quality which you
just don't get with all the other models. I can't really explain
it, but it's there.

That is the first time I've heard the "film" comment made. Is your
comment made from experience with using the cameras?

I've used the 1ds MK II extensivley , and I have to say it has something that I can't quite put my finger on, but the images (and I'm not talking about resolution) have a different feel and do not look digital. IMO, the quality is better then film (but this is open to many discussions). I don't know if this effect is caused by the resolution, but there is certainly a big difference.

Having used film (mostly Kodachrome with some color negative film)
for the past several decades, my only reaction would be that my 10D
digital images have been superior to what I had been able to do
with film in years past. My wife, who by the way is my most vocal
critic, voiced the same opinion.

I agree, however the 10D, 300D and even the 20D don't have that realistic feel. (I know that I will get a lot of criticism for saying that and I don't want to upset anyone, but I also use the 300D a lot too). Your pictures are very good by the way.

--
Gary Coombs, W9VJ
http://GaryCoombs.com
My Profile contains my Equipment List

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams

 

[misha]

I still think that there is no difference in quality between a 300D
and a 10D. Maybe a 20D yes, due to the higher ISO selection and
faster shot rate helps to capture some types of shots you might
miss with the 300D.

The biggest difference between the 300D and the 10D as I understand
it is that the 300D has aggressive sharpening added to the built-in
software.

The dafault parameter indeed has higher sharpening, but you can turn it down, and if you shoot RAW, this is moot anyway.

--
Misha

 

[mushy]

Some examples of images you will not find with the 300d. (Although there are some good ones out there.)

It does help if youre a good photographer though.

http://www.pbase.com/regwood/inbox
http://www.pbase.com/regwood/image/31697991

 

[Gary Coombs]

Some examples of images you will not find with the 300d. (Although
there are some good ones out there.)

It does help if youre a good photographer though.

http://www.pbase.com/regwood/inbox
http://www.pbase.com/regwood/image/31697991

And, of course, the exceptional lighting in the fireboat by the bridge and that much water spraying into the golden glow of reflected sunset/sunrise lighting helps just a smidgeon. And the rest of the examples with such breathtaking scenery? Does that help a wee bit to make the images exceptional? Of course.

Everything I've done so far with digital has been within 20 miles of Loganville, Georgia. Not too much in the way of breathtaking scenery around here. Hehehe

Well, we do have Stone Mountain nearby and that huge carving the size of a football field.... 10D and 24-70 2.8L of course.



--
Gary Coombs, W9VJ
http://GaryCoombs.com
My Profile contains my Equipment List

A good photograph is knowing where to stand. -Ansel Adams

 

[pfehlauer]

--

Pedro

'The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary'

 

[RCDinsmore]

First of all, I think the 350D would probably meet the needs of the vast majority of amature photographers. So to me, the issue is not so much the camera, as how the camera feels in your hands. Only you can make that determination. I held both, and found that the 350D felt too small in my hands. (which was good, because I had bought the 20D two months or so before it came out )

If either one feels OK to you ( I bet you will find that one feels better than the other) Then think about what features does the 20D have that you might need? 5 fps, better low light capabilities, + - better focussing, more durable build quality?

Lastly, I would recommend that you not buy the kit lens or the 17-40. Get the camera body only, and buy the 50mm f1.8 mkII. It only costs about $75, and its a fantastic lens for parties and indoor use etc. Plus after shooting a week or two with the 50mm, you will know if you need a different lens, and more importantly what type of lens it is that you really need. You will find yourself either wanting to be closer to your subjects, or wanting to be farther away so that you can fit more in the field of view.

If you want to be farther away, the 17-40 should do nicely. If you want to be closer, look at the 70-200 f4. If you find yourself wanting both at different times, take a look at the new 24-105 f4 that canon just came out with.

Best of luck

Bob

 

[ziwi]

Thanks again everyone - alot to digest - one week away from the rebates and pending purchase...

 

[amtberg]

after shooting a week or two with the 50mm,
you will know if you need a different lens, and more importantly
what type of lens it is that you really need. You will find
yourself either wanting to be closer to your subjects, or wanting
to be farther away so that you can fit more in the field of view.

I predict he will want to be both closer and farther away.

 

[mushy]

Mostly good advice, but I'd be careful with the 50mm 1.8. Although a stellar lens and also very cheap, it is difficult for an amateur to use if they are not comfortable with a very shallow DOF at 1.8.

Regards,

First of all, I think the 350D would probably meet the needs of the
vast majority of amature photographers. So to me, the issue is not
so much the camera, as how the camera feels in your hands. Only
you can make that determination. I held both, and found that the
350D felt too small in my hands. (which was good, because I had
bought the 20D two months or so before it came out )

If either one feels OK to you ( I bet you will find that one feels
better than the other) Then think about what features does the 20D
have that you might need? 5 fps, better low light capabilities,
+ - better focussing, more durable build quality?

Lastly, I would recommend that you not buy the kit lens or the
17-40. Get the camera body only, and buy the 50mm f1.8 mkII. It
only costs about $75, and its a fantastic lens for parties and
indoor use etc. Plus after shooting a week or two with the 50mm,
you will know if you need a different lens, and more importantly
what type of lens it is that you really need. You will find
yourself either wanting to be closer to your subjects, or wanting
to be farther away so that you can fit more in the field of view.

If you want to be farther away, the 17-40 should do nicely. If you
want to be closer, look at the 70-200 f4. If you find yourself
wanting both at different times, take a look at the new 24-105 f4
that canon just came out with.

Best of luck

Bob