350D vs 30D... worth the upgrade? And some lens help!

Becky · Aug 29, 2006

Hey guys... I currently have a 350D which has served me very well... theres nothing wrong with it and its not that its not doing what I want it to perfectly well... I just fancy an upgrade as my photography gets a bit better....

I'd love the 5d but its just way out of budget and will be for a while since I'm a poor student.... the 30D seems like the logical step upwards? correct me if I'm wrong...

So is it worth the upgrade... any thoughts? :blushing:

While I'm posting... I currently am selling my 100-400mm L lens as I dont use it enough to justify what its worth. As an everyday lens I use a 28-105mm, which I feel I could maybe upgrade to a better every dayish lens... any suggestions around the £400 mark? I should get around £800 for my 100-400L, so aim to spend approx half on a 70-200mm which I'm likely to use a lot more, and the rest either on a 100mm macro, or on upgrading my everyday lens?... help!

Iron Flatline · Aug 29, 2006

I guess the question is what kind of photography you do. The next question is whether there is functionality that the 30D provides that you need. If these additional functions are minor, I would suggest spending your money on good lenses instead until you can afford a full-frame camera.

I stuck with my older D60 until 5D came out, and bought different lenses during that time. When I finally got the full-frame camera, it made all the difference in the world.

Becky · Aug 29, 2006

To be honest I shoot a bit of everything, from nature and wildlife to portrait and still life... really nothing in specific.

I won't be able to afford a full frame camera like the 5d for at least 3 years the way I see things at the minute unless I sell all my gear just to buy that, so it seemed smart to go for the next camera up from my own. If its not a wise decision maybe I should just stick with my 350D...? It just seems that it will be worthless soon as the prices are falling rapidly...

ksmattfish · Aug 31, 2006

Unless the 30D has features you need that the 350D doesn't, then save your money for the 5D. You won't see a difference in the image quality from a 350D to a 30D.

bitteraspects · Sep 1, 2006

dont waste your money on a 30D. get the 20D which has all the same functional features of the 30D. you dont get the spot meter, but other then that, it has all the useful functions of a 30D, without the aded price for the useless features.

964 · Sep 1, 2006

I would spend all the money on lenses. I like my 24-105L for an all-round lens - a bitmore than GBP400 but I would forget the 30D upgrade....

Iron Flatline · Sep 1, 2006

I really believe the only thing that matters is the actual size of the sensor in this particular decision. I don't see a big difference between the 350D and the 30D unless you need things like higher numbers of frames per second if you're doing sports action (for instance.) There's a myriad of differences between the cameras, but none of them are a quantum leap. I consistently see unbelievably good pictures where (as an owner of a 5D) I want to understand what kind of mega-equipment took a shot like that... and it turns out to be 300D or a 350D - but with a good lens on it. Lenses are forever, but digital bodies aren't. I wouldn't be surprised if you can buy a full-sensor camera for $2,000 in 2 years. Spend your money on EF lenses. (Not EF-S!)

ShutteredEye · Sep 1, 2006

Lenses!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!
!!!
!

thebeginning · Sep 1, 2006

bitteraspects said:
dont waste your money on a 30D. get the 20D which has all the same functional features of the 30D. you dont get the spot meter, but other then that, it has all the useful functions of a 30D, without the aded price for the useless features.

i'm sorry but that entire post was just a bunch of BS.

the 20d does not have all the same functional features of the 30d, and the features arent useless to people that know how to utilize the tools in their cameras.

however, you DO need to know the details of each camera before you choose. It depends on whether or not you know you'd use the features if you had them (the larger LCD is very important to some people, for instance). here's a side by side comparison that shows some differences (they forgot to add that the 30d can adjust ISO in 1/3 stop increments):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...e&cameras=canon_eos30d,canon_eos20da&show=all

sorry i couldnt find the 20d, just the 20da was listed. basically the same thing.

Becky · Sep 1, 2006

Hi everyone and thanks for the replies! I'm looking into cameras/lens combinations or simply just some lens combinations that I might buy but am still undecided... trying to see if I could scrape the cash for the 5d.

And thebeginning... thanks so much for the link, really really helpful! :hug::

If I could afford the 5d, but had to make to with just one "all-rounder" type lens for the meantime do you guys think it would be worth it? Or would spending the money on lenses for now and saving for the full frame body in the long run work out best?

thebeginning · Sep 1, 2006

lenses are a better investment IMO, unless you are at a point where your clients are not happy with your prints or you have clients that are asking you to do things that you know a nicer body would do much better. sorry, long sentence

. Lenses can give you different angles, moods, and feels while cameras give you different levels of ability to use those aspects, as well as different quality output from those lenses. does that make sense? it seems rather confusing