You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Some of you will know im still relatively new to photography and i have been using my current camera - Sony Cybershot DSC F717 which i bought mainly because it looked pretty cool (at the time not, so much now ).
The reason im wanting a digital SLR is because i want to move to the next step and feel the limits of my current camera have been reached.
I mostly shoot recreationally and do not intend to use it for business purposes although i have sold a fair few pictures previously - one that springs to mind are the good people at www.lohen.co.uk - see picture here: http://www.lohen.co.uk/Pages/OurGallery.html
This was taken without knowing it would be wanted so to speak.
I am also wanting to "build" on the camera too - wide angle / fish eye lenses etc to get different shots. So the camera, i think will always stay with me or at least for a very long time.
I am also working on a rig set up too for motion pics like our god Mr Bunting - hence the need for an upgrade
Now both to me look pretty similar technically wise - can anyone give me some advice on these two cams based on what i require from them.
Im thinking the 20d might be a bit too professional for what i need altho i could be wrong
I was going to post on Automotive.com but jeez those guys can tell you the screw of Nikon compared to one of a Canon
ps. the reason why im looking at Canon over Nikon is simply that the canon offers more megapixels and is slightly smaller - from what i hear and have read they are basically very similar and is down to each others preference.
thanks in advance
Michael
ps EDIT:
1) also with the new Nikon coming out soon is it best to wait until its release to see if the prices fall on other cams?
2) is it best to wait till after Xmas before buying cams? In particular the two above? Canon only offer £100 cashback if you buy before the new year - so apart that can you see the 350d coming down in price and maybe even the 20d?
Personally the 350D is too small for my hands. Be sure to go to a store and try them out.
Excellent advice. Have to agree about the size thing with the 350. I have the original Rebel, My father recently traded his 300D for the 20D. The 350D addresses a number of the annoying technical issues with the original and is undoubtedly a superior product, but the original beat in a critical area for me. It had a much better feel and handling IMO due to its larger size. Needless to say the 20D does not suffer in this regard.
My attitude after checkingout the 350D was to upgrade to the semi-pro model in the next cycle of 20D when it arrives. My initial decision to buy the rebel was esstentially around lense choice. In the digital age, the bodies become outdated fairly rapidly, but a good lense never goes out of style. If the extra $$$ are not a problem go for a 20, if the size bothers you buy a 300D cheap and use the extra $$$ for lenses. When I made the switch from Nikon film to Canon digital, I bought the 70-200 and 17-40 F4s which cost a few hundred bucks more than the body itself with that in mind. Perhaps you already have some Canon lenses, but if not, I'd worry more around that topic personally. Hope this helps.
I can only say that we went through this decision and ended up with the 20D - no regrets. The ergonomics, materials and feel of the camera is better (subjective of course) and the bonus 5 frames per second vs 3 as I recall could be handy The $200-300 diff in the price for the body was worth it as we plan on keeping it forawhile.
ps EDIT:
1) also with the new Nikon coming out soon is it best to wait until its release to see if the prices fall on other cams?
I don't see the D200 having much of an impact on the Canon pricing.
If it were me, I would try to get my hands on both the XT and the 20D. If you're comfortable with the way the XT fits in your hand and the ergonomics of the control layout then I would get that (the XT) and take the money you save and put that towards a Canon wide angle like the 10-22 (the closest equivalent to my 12-24, which I like a lot for wide angle).
Not sure what you're planning for telephoto, but the Canon 70-200 F/4 is a very nice budget alternative to the 70-200 F/2.8 IS. That said, my (nikon) 70-200 F/2.8 is my favorite lens.
I have the 20D and I find it a very practical camera. Like others have mentioned before, hold the 20D and the Rebel XT in your hands and test out the ergonomics before making any decision.
From what I have personally learnt, after experimenting with your camera, you soon reach a stage where you think that you have overgrown your camera. It is therefore better to buy a slightly more feature-rich body than you think is necessary. Atleast that way, you won't be craving for a better body in 6 months or so.
Since you are looking at a SLR, remember, the lenses make the picture. The camera body is not as much of an investement as the lenses are. Whatever make (Canon or Nikon) you buy, always invest in reasonably good lenses (not the expensive pro line, in the beginning atleast).
I may be mistaken, but if you are planning to take movies with an SLR (as I read your post), it is not possible!!
2006 MCSa PH/S. Sports, Cold Weather and Premium. 17" S-Lites, Silver "Swoop" Stripes and OEM Boost Gauage and Voltmeter!!! M M C # 248 Motoring ID ZIP001
I wanted a small, light-weight, feature-rich digital SLR, so it was fairly easy for me (350D).
I got the body in black for like 700 bucks on Amazon, and I'm mailing-in the $75 rebate later this week. While I'll get an additonal lens or two later, I've come to learn that most of us use one lens like 95% of the time, so invested in 28-135mm Canon IS lens to serve this purpose. I've only taken a couple photos, but it seems to be exactly what I wanted! I just need to get a UV filter as I'm paranoid w/o one...
It certainly does not have the feel of my Nikon 8008 as far as solidness goes, but if one wants light and relatively small...
__________________
Weight ('03 IB MCS): 2,424 lbs (corner-balanced, 1/4 tank gas)
I picked up a Canon Rebel XT a couple months ago... the biggest difference I have see is that you can now start adding depth to your pictures through apreauture and shutter speed.. there's soo much the camera can do, so i'm still learning. Next step - some cool lenses! A point and shoot camera are more 2D.
I had the original Rebel (6.3 mp) and took about 10,000 photos with it. They are nice "starter" camera before you jump to something like the 20D. I used mine for about a year, but found that for wildlife and cars moving fast, somethings burst mode is really handy. The 20D operates much faster, is more responsive, and has better image handling than the Rebel or Rebel XT. Now all of this is relative too -- the Rebel XT does a great job. What I found for my needs was that working with a variety of lenses especially in very low light situations that the 20D was a much better option due to how it handles low light and the autofocus is better.
You can't go wrong either way - because with an SLR it's really the lenses that make the difference. I've spent a lot more on lenses than I did on either camera body (Rebel or 20D).
What I do like about the 20D is that it has slightly larger battery capacity as well. I can often get 800-1000 photos out of a single battery charge depending on how the camera is used and if I shoot with IS (image stabilization) enabled.
Also, get an external flash. I have the 420EX external flash and find that it makes a WORLD of difference for both indoor and outdoor photos. You'd be surprised how often outdoor photos benefit from flash in addition to sunlight.
As for image quality overall, both are very similar. I often can't immediately tell which of my photos are from my Rebel and which are from the 20D until I look at the data, look for noise (ISO noise) or see the file size.
Wow!!! $500 - $600 for a fisheye lense? For some reason, I thought they would be cheaper.... hmm...
Actually there ARE cheaper Fisheye lenses, just not from Canon. If you look at image samples on fish eye lesnes, you'll find that the good ones are pretty expensive. Cheap fish eye lenses tend to either be slow, focus poorly or have odd distortion.
).
- hence the need for an upgrade 
- from what i hear and have read they are basically very similar and is down to each others preference.
The $200-300 diff in the price for the body was worth it as we plan on keeping it forawhile.
