Advice for a newbie?

RT2020 · Jan 23, 2008

Hello everyone,

I have no experience with SLR photography (aside from having tried one once). I'm hoping you guys can give me some good advice.

Here is my situation:

1) I plan on primarily using the camera for daytime photos of architecture, streetscapes & cities, but also some landscape shots.

2) I am VERY intimidated by the prices right now, but I also don't want to cheap-out and buy something that I could too quickly grow out of.

3) In terms of a starter lens, it obviously has to be affordable as well. A decent (but not amazing) range of zoom is fine as long as the quality is as good as possible. I am not sure if i need an auto-focus or manual lens, so any advice on that would be appreciated as well.

So....any suggestions for good camera and lens(es) for my situation?

Right now I am considering the Canon EOS 30D body. Seems like a very high quality product. Being an older model, I can pick one up for $100's cheaper than the 40D.

I appreciate the help!

Cheers,

Nandor

Mav · Jan 24, 2008

For what you're intending on shooting, the body really doesn't matter but the lens will a lot more. You'd probably want an ultra-wide angle lens for sure, like the Canon EF-S 10-22mm, which I think is around $600. There's also the Sigma 10-20mm which is a bit cheaper, but I've heard a lot of great things about the Canon lens and it's not that much more. A fisheye lens might be pretty useful too, along with some conversion software. Sigma makes a fisheye for Canon 1.6x bodies now (like the 30D/40D, and XT/XTi, etc) which will give you almost a 180 degree diagonal view. The 10mm on a Canon will give you just short of a 100 degree horizontal view. If you're planning on doing night photos without a tripod, the cheap 18-55IS might be good with its image stabilization. Or a high speed prime of some sort like the 50mm f/1.8. Lots of options, all depending on what and how you shoot. If you have to tradeoff between lenses and the body, I'd stick with a cheaper body in favor of more money into lenses.

probe1957 · Jan 24, 2008

$100 really isn't much if you amortize it over the life of the camera. If you can afford the 40d, I don't think you will be disappointed. This is an expensive hobby. Might as well accept that then dive in.

mstephens · Jan 25, 2008

i am shooting with a 40D and could not love it more. the only thing i could want different about it is a full frame CMOS. but it is an amazing, camera. if your just going to be shooting architecture plan on shooting more. you have to plan on shooting portraits, weddings, animals etc. because chances if you get a camera you really love then you will be shooting everything. i promise.

Mystwalker · Jan 25, 2008

I bought 30D about July of 2007.
Wish I had waited for the 40D.

I would gladly pay additional $100 for the 40D.

If price of 40D is only $100 above that of 30D - go 40D. I've never used the 40D, but based on specs, I would gladly pay $400 more for it - that is price diff. that I'm seeing.

Not sure if you want a used 30D because you can get one from auction sites for $300-$400 less.

imo - if you are just starting out, the lense is more important then the body itself ... I did not know this when I was shopping for cameras. If you are on limited budget, you can go for something like a new XTi (I think that is model before the 30D) or a used 30D, then use the remainder of budget on a nice lense.