Decision between Canon 350D or 30D

JJP · Jul 15, 2006

Ok, I will soon be upgrading cameras, and I had my eyes set on the Canon 30D. Which is about £750-£800 for the body alone, whereas the Canon 350D is around £450-£500 for the body. The thing I can't decide is... should I get the 30D for the sheer quality, or should I get the 350D and put the rest of my money towards lenses for it? I know lenses make the shots more-so that the camera itself, but i'm thinking about long term with this camera, as I will be using it for many years to come. I will be using it for a very wide variety of things, and at the moment, I am slightly edging more towards the 30D. Any help would be appreciated, thank you.

darin3200 · Jul 15, 2006

Why not the 20D? But between the two options I would with the XT and get nice lenses.

Big Mike · Jul 15, 2006

Go into a store and hold the two. There is quite a difference in the way they feel and the way you control them. I opted for the 20D over the XT because I didn't like the way the XT felt. The 20D just fit my hands better and it was quite similar to the film EOS I have.

Some people have gone with the XT and added the battery grip to make it easier to handle.

Image quality is pretty similar so going with the cheaper camera and a better lens is certainly a good idea.

bitteraspects · Jul 15, 2006

i personally love the feel of the xt, great for a backup shooter

JJP · Jul 16, 2006

I have heard that the XT feels cheap, and for me that would be a major putoff, but of course before choosing not to buy it because of this I will go into a shop and decide for myself.
So now i'm stumped with the 20D and 30D, the bigger LCD on the 30D would be nice, and from what i've seen the price isn't that much of a leap, are there any other worthwhile features for the 30D that would make you choose it over the 20D? Thanks again hehe.

JJP · Jul 16, 2006

After looking around a bit more and asking some opinions of people I know, i'm still edging towards the 30D. I'm still open to opinions and suggestions, but if anybody knows where to find any particularly good deals/bundles (preferably with a decent zoom lens) then it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

thebeginning · Jul 16, 2006

checking out the 20d is a good idea. it's in between the 350d and the 30d (closer to the 30d obviously) but for a couple hundred bucks cheaper. if you know the extra features of the 30d will be important to you though, go for the 30d. you'll be very happy with it im sure.

about good deals...it might be a better choice to buy from a reliable vendor than to buy from someplace like ebay to get a bundle. IMO it is best to buy the camera from a reliable dealer or vendor by itself, then buying a seperate lens. pretty much every lens that gets paired with a camera for the first sale is crappy.

JJP · Jul 16, 2006

Sounds like a plan to me, thanks.

Ok, here we go with decision #3!
I shall obviously need some Canon lenses, can anybody recommend any specific ones? I will definitely need a big badass zoom lens that is quite good in dark lighting and needs to be quick.
(I'm mainly a music photographer, but also do some weddings, so this would need to be reasonably big, but not a rediculous price)
Also, any lenses other than that for basic use that you think are essential or just plain handy to have! I'm on a fairly tight budget here, so nothing too expensive please.

Thanks for all your help so far, i'm nearly done hehe. ;-)

Peanuts · Jul 16, 2006

JJP said:
I will definitely need a big badass zoom lens that is quite good in dark lighting and needs to be quick. But not a rediculous price

That just might be a tough order to match. Probably the ideal lens is the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, but the price tag is, well, big. The only other zoom taht I have tried is the Canon EF 70-210 f/4, which in all honesty, isn't that bad of a lens, especially seeing as one can pick it up for $75, but the autofocus is somewhat slow, and I doubt f/4 would be fast enough for your needs.

The only lens that I personally believe all (or close to all) people interested in photography should have is the 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4

Good luck making your decisions

JJP · Jul 16, 2006

Thanks for your response. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS does look great, but I could do with a wider aperture, but I suppose that doesn't come with a huge zoom... Hmm, i'm quite stumped here hehe. Anyone that knows of good quick large zoom lenses please say, as i'm not sure f2.8 will be wide enough. :x

Someone invent a new lens. :lol:

Maybe the Canon 700-200 f/2.8 will be good enough for wedding and such things, and I could get a smaller lens with a wider aperture for gigs and such.

It would have to have a reasonable zoom though... lol i'm just going round in circles here. If anyone has any suggestions i'm definitely open to them.

thebeginning · Jul 16, 2006

as far as I know there aren't any zooms by any manufacturer that are faster than 2.8. 2.8 is pretty fast, especially for a big zoom. it's just the 2.0 and below are really fast

if you do alot of low light work with quick moving subjects, you need a fast prime like the 85mm f1.8 or the 135 f2. if your subjects don't move much, then the 70-200 would be great. the 70-200 is known to be the best long zoom for weddings, period. I know many band/performance shooters also use it.

also don't forget about Depth of field. you don't want to get an expensive fast prime to realize that you'll have to stop it down to f4 or else the DoF is just too shallow to get good focus.

how much are you willing to spend, and what exactly do you shoot? if you don't need the zoom range or the IS, then get a few primes instead. the 70-200 is about $1600-1800, depending on where you go (i'm not sure how much in england).

JJP · Jul 16, 2006

Thankyou for your response.
I'm willing to spend about £800-£1000ish, depending on how much overtime I have to work this month... *sigh*

I do a lot of low light work with moving subjects, as nearly all of my music photography is at live gigs... (and due to the genre of music I mainly shoot for, the subject are moving around a lot)

My current camera goes as low as 2.8, and it just doesn't quite cut it.
I will also be doing some weddings and portrait photography, and a big zoom would be nice for that, so basically... *sigh*

I'm looking for a lens with a big zoom, and a very wide aperture.
Eeeek, I don't think it's gonna happen hehe, maybe I could get two lenses to compensate, as for my portrait and wedding work I don't think I would need that much of a wide aperture... but I would still need a decent zoom on the lens which I need a wide aperture on for my music photography...
Aaaah my head hurts haha.
Thanks for your response again.

thebeginning · Jul 16, 2006

well keep in mind that aperture isn't everything. what ISO where you shooting at? be prepared to shoot at at least ISO 800-1600 for most concerts. if you bump it up to that, you shouldn't have any problems making 2.8 work great, IF you expose correctly, which is very important.

honestly, if you want good glass, don't look for lenses with 'big zooms'. the bigger the zoom range, the more the lens manufacturer has to compensate for distortions of the different focal lengths, making the image quality lower. that's why pro's don't all use those 18-200mm monster range zooms (aside from the fact that they have small apertures).

for weddings: IS is really good, but not necessary. a fairly long focal length (135 or 200mm) is good also, as well as a large (f/2.8 or faster) aperture.

for portraits: there really isn't a specific requirement for portraits. if you like shallow depth of focus/field, get a fast prime.

for concerts/gigs: it really depends on your shooting style. if you like to get up close with a wide angle, get a wide angle zoom like the 17-40 f4L (i know f4 sounds large, but it's a wide angle so you can shoot at lower shutter speeds) or the 16-35 2.8L. if you like staying in the back with a longer lens, get a fast longer prime like the 135 f2.

IMO the only thing (according to what you've said) that you would really 'need' the 70-200IS for is the weddings...and even then it's not necessary. so at this point i think getting a couple primes would be a wiser choice. you could grab the 30mm 1.4 from sigma for $400 or so, the canon 50mm 1.8 for $80, and the canon 85mm 1.8 (or 100 f2 if you want a slightly longer range) for $350. altogether that's a nice little prime kit for half of what the 70-200 would cost.

most of this stuff is self explanatory...