Triumphrat

fivehundo · 09-25-2007

Okay, here's the deal: I've gone to Maui, Italy and Kauai armed only with my point and shoot Canon SD600. Every time I go on one of these trips, I curse myself for not having a better camera.

I have an underwater case for my SD600 and it's great for that but I hate the fact that I shoot good pictures with my point and shoot that would be phenominal pictures if I had an SLR. The SD600 I will still use for my dives but for the trip itself, I want an SLR.

I'm a canon man, so I've narrowed it down to two options and this is where I need your help. I had been holding out for a Canon 5d (mainly because of the full-frame 35mm sight picture) but the $2k price tag (body only) is killing me. So, I think I've decided to get either a 30d or the new 40d.

Here is what one website had to say: http://www.pixalo.com/community/phot...pec-17202.html

Can anyone else offer some input? Would I be better off waiting for the 5d? Would I be okay with a 20d? All opinions are welcome (and appreciated).

AceT100 · 09-25-2007

I just upgraded to the canon Rebel XTi, I love it....

Sample galleries HERE HERE & HERE

And a lot less than $2k...Check out www.digicombos.com

Tbirdnz · 09-25-2007

I've got a Canon 5 which I have had for a few years, it can do anything but make coffee but it's too big, I borrow my g/f's Sony CyberShot, small compact and pocketable and takes equally good pics.

--------------
Ride on !

peter_s · 09-25-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by fivehundo

Can anyone else offer some input? Would I be better off waiting for the 5d? Would I be okay with a 20d? All opinions are welcome (and appreciated).

Fivehundo, you might have already made your descision but have a look at dpreview. A really good camera site with quite in depth and unbiased reviews.

brolane · 09-25-2007

Yours, Fivehundo, is a problem that has faced every photographer, professional or amateur. I come from the other side of the Canon-Nikon question, having shot Nikons for more than 30 years. I never had a failure. Before I retired, I considered a personal camera, and I had a fairly decent arsenal of Nikkor lens. I decided on a Fuji. It's made by Nikon (even has the logo on the body) and accepts most Nikkor lens and dedicated flashes. I saved about $1,000 and the fuji has never let me down. Some might say that you will never be happy if you don't spend the extra money and buy the best. I say that's not so. Most modern digital or film SLRs will do more than anyone needs to do, regardless of price.

My recommendation is to buy the camera that best suits your needs AND your budget.

fivehundo · 09-25-2007

I've sort of decided on at least a Canon. I've used my Brother's 20d and feel comfortable with the interface, for one thing. Another thing is that I like multiple center points that are eye-sensing. That's pretty friggin' cool!

The Nikon D40 doesn't have that...

I know the Canon auto focus has its critics and I think they have a legitimate gripe but I can always adjust manually. The more I think about it, I think I'm sold on the 30d. They will be blowing them out now that the 40d is out but I just wasn't sure what experts had to say. They look similar in the comparison but there are a few advantages to the 40d so I was just wondering if it's worth spending the extra cash.

Wombat · 09-25-2007

I have been looking at the 40d and IMHO it is well worth the extra over the 30d.
Even though the 5d is a nice bit of gear, I dont know if I could justify spending the extra $$.

fivehundo · 09-25-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wombat

I have been looking at the 40d and IMHO it is well worth the extra over the 30d.
Even though the 5d is a nice bit of gear, I dont know if I could justify spending the extra $$.

Yeah, I'd really like to have the 5d but $2,000 is a bit rich for my blood. Maybe in a few years I'll snag one.

What features on the 40d make it worth a few hundred dollars more to you? Just curious...

Wombat · 09-25-2007

Higher resolution, Bigger LCD view finder, more compatible lenses available among other things.
Also the 30d has been around for a while now and the 40d is more updated in features generally.

markbvt · 09-25-2007

Don't bother with the 30D.

Personally, I don't even think there's any point in bothering with the 40D. The Rebel XTi is terrific, especially for its price -- same image sensor as in the 40D, and due to the lower price, you'll be able to afford to spend more money on quality glass, which is where you'll see a much bigger difference in the quality of your images. Keep in mind that the Canon kit lenses (ie, the ones available as a set with the camera body) are pretty low-quality. For $350-$500 or so, you can get lenses from some of the third-party manufacturers that approach the quality of some of Canon's L-series lenses (the high-priced, high-end series). Tamron in particular makes some really good lenses. So my advice would be to buy the body only and add a good third-party lens (or a higher-end Canon lens, if you want the brand name).

The Rebel XTi fitted with a quality lens will produce outstanding images, and it's a lot lighter and more compact than a 40D and especially a 5D (the real advantage of the 5D, of course, is its full-frame sensor, ie, the sensor is the same size as a frame of 35mm film, as opposed to the smaller APS-sized sensor in the 30D, 40D, and XTi -- but this is really only a significant factor for people who have a lot of money invested in Canon lenses and don't want to deal with the 1.6x conversion factor).

--mark