Canon 30D Announced
Discussion
simpo two said:The most expensive part of the buying proceedure too, weighing up the hours spent googling vs my productivity whilst working
You and Matt are right. As fantastic as it looks, Im sure its not the best decision I could make. Theres nothing wrong with a bit of googling and oogling though, especially with the price match wars going on.
I know, it's half the fun isn't it
[quote]
I prefer shooting colour and emotion, and have convinced myself that the 70-200 will be the best walk about lens for me, enabling me to zoom into scenes and capture everything that grabs my attention. Im sure the 70-200 will get more use than a 'landscape lense' I know I'll want some wider angle lenses eventually, but if I could afford one lens no day 1, then that would be it. I think
[/quote]
The decision is of course yours, and I'm sure you'll be happy with the lens, but I can't help but feel the same way I do when I can foresee somebody about to have a 'jackass' moment (trip over/bang head etc).
With the 70-200 I think you're massively limiting your possibilities, as opposed to extending them. It's a great lens, as the countless reviews have stated, but a starter 'all-round' lens it is not.
It's physically large, heavy, extremely expensive, of limited use indoors and not that long for outside use.
"Shooting colour and emotion" can be achieved using pretty much any lens - I'll end by saying that I hope you reconsider
I prefer shooting colour and emotion, and have convinced myself that the 70-200 will be the best walk about lens for me, enabling me to zoom into scenes and capture everything that grabs my attention. Im sure the 70-200 will get more use than a 'landscape lense' I know I'll want some wider angle lenses eventually, but if I could afford one lens no day 1, then that would be it. I think
[/quote]
The decision is of course yours, and I'm sure you'll be happy with the lens, but I can't help but feel the same way I do when I can foresee somebody about to have a 'jackass' moment (trip over/bang head etc).
With the 70-200 I think you're massively limiting your possibilities, as opposed to extending them. It's a great lens, as the countless reviews have stated, but a starter 'all-round' lens it is not.
It's physically large, heavy, extremely expensive, of limited use indoors and not that long for outside use.
"Shooting colour and emotion" can be achieved using pretty much any lens - I'll end by saying that I hope you reconsider
IM) a 70-200 on a 1.6 crop camera is a bad walk around lens choice. not wide enough for people/city/landscape, 200(320mm) is ok for tele end tho you'll want longer for wildlife probably. Even the F4L is a heavy bit of kit. Why not a cheap 28-105 f3.5 or something?
As for the announcment(s) from canon, well done, best thing for D200 sales since its over-hyped launch. 30D not enough, it may be a fine camera and better than the D200 in some situations but wont make people want to buy it, it'll be a cheap 20d or D200. And still leaves the 5D out in the cold.
£500 or so for the 17-55 F2.8 IS, pricey and is the IS nessasary on that?
As for the announcment(s) from canon, well done, best thing for D200 sales since its over-hyped launch. 30D not enough, it may be a fine camera and better than the D200 in some situations but wont make people want to buy it, it'll be a cheap 20d or D200. And still leaves the 5D out in the cold.
£500 or so for the 17-55 F2.8 IS, pricey and is the IS nessasary on that?
70-200 2.8L IS comes in at around £1200 (cheapest UK price) or a shade over a Grand from the Hong Kong dealers...
How about <£600 for a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and £300 for a Sigma 24-70f2.8 EX Macro. Both with 3 year warranties if you buy UK stock.
A couple of fine lenses at decent prices and as nice a Starter Kit as you'll find without breaking the bank.
How about <£600 for a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and £300 for a Sigma 24-70f2.8 EX Macro. Both with 3 year warranties if you buy UK stock.
A couple of fine lenses at decent prices and as nice a Starter Kit as you'll find without breaking the bank.
Andy M said:You do realise though, that if I bought it and then wished I didnt, I could never admit as much on pistonheads after all these comments
I'll end by saying that I hope you reconsider
Hmmmm
I think its time for... (no no, not that. Oh yes...) Its time for...
yet another lens thread
(course I'll probably still end up buying the 70-200 you understand)
Andy M said:
There were times initially when I was intimidated by my 20D, and what it took to get even and 'average' image. To buy a 1ds mkII (or even a 5D) as your first foray into the world of (D)SLR would be unwise IMO. These aren't point-and-shoot cameras - I reckon you'd actually get worse results from a £4k DSLR than you would a £70 point-and-shoot if you weren't familiar with workings etc.
One thing to also consider is how much of a pain in the ar$e DSLR's can be in regard to file sizes etc. Their files eat up space on your computer, you lose whole rooms to storage of DVD-r's and you spend a lifetime at your computer deciding whether or not to crop/if there's too much colour saturation/if image 002345.cr2 is better than image 002346.cr2 etc etc. I find this with my 8mp 20D, let alone a 16mp 1ds!
Do yourself a favour; go out and buy a 20D/30D, buy a couple of good lenses (I still think the 70-200 IS is an unwise initial purchase - I recommend a £70 50mm 1.8 prime, and if you really want to go OTT buy a 24-70L), take thousands of photo's, and post your best results on here
I don;t think thats true. if you can afford a 1Dsmk2 and gubings then why not buy one. they offer no more than a 350 in terms of setting the aperture or shutter speed. I started off with a 20D from not using a camera and while my first pics are not as good as they are now thats down to practice and learning.
70-200 IS is a great first buy along with 50mm and 24-70.
robdickinson said:Just reading 1Ds and 5d specs... the 1d series really would be overkill.
Alternativly I thnk it takes quite a photographer to produce a better image with a 1Dxxx than a 30D.
Mostly its not the camera that makes the great image, the 1D gives you only a fraction more technology than a 350d for an amature.
Not everyone will agree, but 16mp would be
UKBob said:
Not everyone will agree, but 16mp would be
16mp means huge file sizes and a little extra detail, unless your croping significantly or printing A3+ you wont notice the difference over 8mp.
DSLR's arnt like little point and shoots, image quality comes from the sensor & glass as much as the number of pixels.
poah said:
I don;t think thats true. if you can afford a 1Dsmk2 and gubings then why not buy one. they offer no more than a 350 in terms of setting the aperture or shutter speed. I started off with a 20D from not using a camera and while my first pics are not as good as they are now thats down to practice and learning.
70-200 IS is a great first buy along with 50mm and 24-70.
I don't know about you, but speaking personally there have been a number of occasions (especially initially) when I've been under pressure to get a shot, and have caught the colly-wobbles - "sh!t!! which setting should I use?! Erm...erm...billocks to it, I may as well stick it in one of the auto modes".
With the 300D/350D/20D/30D it's easy to do this, and to learn from the settings chosen by the camera which you can adopt the next time you're in a similar position. I feel that with one of the cameras listed the learning curve would be much steeper than if you chose to buy a 1ds mkII. There are hundreds of people who have been too intimidated by their 20D's/D70's etc and have shied away from photography because they find it too technical (you only need check eBay for examples of this). I think there's even more of a chance of doing this if you choose to buy a camera like Canon's flagship.
In the same way I wouldn't recommend somebody looking to go for a nice walk to climb Everest, so too would I not recommend a 1ds mkII to somebody looking at their first DSLR (unless they were a Nachtwey/Bailey/Watkinson (
)). What's more, I also believe the learning curve would be a lot steeper with a £70 50mm 1.8 prime than a >£1,200 70-200 IS.
Andy M said:
What's more, I also believe the learning curve would be a lot steeper with a £70 50mm 1.8 prime than a >£1,200 70-200 IS.
I think the exact opposite. I believe something like a 50mm prime is an excelent starter/learner lens.
Allows you to get on with thinking about framing the subject correctly rather than going mad with zoom and not moving, fixes one element of a photo and allows you to focus more on correct settings etc.
You can often get more out of something that is limited in some way than something with wide open & full of features.
Ofcourse if your into taking sports or wildlife etc a 50mm wont be much use.
robdickinson said:
What's more, I also believe the learning curve would be a lot steeper with a £70 50mm 1.8 prime than a >£1,200 70-200 IS.
I think the exact opposite. I believe something like a 50mm prime is an excelent starter/learner lens.
You may wish to read what I wrote again
EDIT: I realise what I said may not have been so clear. What I meant is that a lot more may be learnt in a briefer period of time with a 50mm prime than a 70-200. In other words, a higher level will be attained faster
>> Edited by Andy M on Tuesday 21st February 22:39
Andy M said:
What's more, I also believe the learning curve would be a lot steeper with a £70 50mm 1.8 prime than a >£1,200 70-200 IS.
I think the exact opposite. I believe something like a 50mm prime is an excelent starter/learner lens.
You may wish to read what I wrote again
Basically what you're both saying then, is that the zoom will suit me best I have always thought that one of the main differentiators between Nikon and Canon philosophy was that Canon always had an eye on top spot in the sports photographer market whereas Nikon saw their breadn and butter in the still life end. Hence the D200's in camera multiple flash controls perhaps.
This partial quote from page 2 of the heads-up article on the Rob Galbraith site sort of sums up the Canon target market.
"More importantly, we've shot the D200 and 20D side-by-side for available light basketball over several weekends this winter, and the 20D is by far the better camera for this purpose. Not only were the ISO 800 through ISO 3200 frames massively cleaner and more usable, the percentage of in-focus frames was signficantly higher. In fact, we've ruled out using the D200 for this sort of assigment again. So, we don't think Nikon has in the D200 a camera that's a clear winner over the upcoming 30D by any means."
However elsewhere in that section of the article the writer points out that there are very many attractive features that could persuade a non-sports oriented user select the D200 over the Canons.
But what this really tells us is that functional requirements are far more important, in reality, than general tech. specs. It's all down to horses for courses. If someone decides they want ultitimate sports capability (especially with top rate pro support availability it seems from reading blogs of the Winter Olympic photographers) Canon may be the right choice. If you want a slick remote controlled multiple flash capability (to overcome the high ISO noise issues?) then Nikon may be the neater solution.
Why not run both systems one asks - other than lens costs of course. But then even that may not be a clear a no-no as people might think.
When I bought my first 35mm SLR back in the 70's (mine as opposed to using my father's ld kit) the criteria I had was for track action shots as the main consideration and everything pointed to Canon at the time. So I bought an AE1 which I still use.
Going to digital right now I suspect I would make the same decision for the much the same reasons. The ability to control 5 remote flashes would be fantastic if I needed it but my flash guns get little use as it is and 5 guns would cost as much as a good body or lens. I would love to play with such a set up but really can't see the need to own it.
Or can I ..... ?
This partial quote from page 2 of the heads-up article on the Rob Galbraith site sort of sums up the Canon target market.
"More importantly, we've shot the D200 and 20D side-by-side for available light basketball over several weekends this winter, and the 20D is by far the better camera for this purpose. Not only were the ISO 800 through ISO 3200 frames massively cleaner and more usable, the percentage of in-focus frames was signficantly higher. In fact, we've ruled out using the D200 for this sort of assigment again. So, we don't think Nikon has in the D200 a camera that's a clear winner over the upcoming 30D by any means."
However elsewhere in that section of the article the writer points out that there are very many attractive features that could persuade a non-sports oriented user select the D200 over the Canons.
But what this really tells us is that functional requirements are far more important, in reality, than general tech. specs. It's all down to horses for courses. If someone decides they want ultitimate sports capability (especially with top rate pro support availability it seems from reading blogs of the Winter Olympic photographers) Canon may be the right choice. If you want a slick remote controlled multiple flash capability (to overcome the high ISO noise issues?) then Nikon may be the neater solution.
Why not run both systems one asks - other than lens costs of course. But then even that may not be a clear a no-no as people might think.
When I bought my first 35mm SLR back in the 70's (mine as opposed to using my father's ld kit) the criteria I had was for track action shots as the main consideration and everything pointed to Canon at the time. So I bought an AE1 which I still use.
Going to digital right now I suspect I would make the same decision for the much the same reasons. The ability to control 5 remote flashes would be fantastic if I needed it but my flash guns get little use as it is and 5 guns would cost as much as a good body or lens. I would love to play with such a set up but really can't see the need to own it.
Or can I ..... ?
Andy M said:
stuff
You've lost me! Are you saying it's easier to use an entry-level DSLR or a pro one?
If the latter, I find something troubling in the fact that a newbie can just buy a £5K professional camera, get perfect results every time and have absolutely no idea how they do it, or what 'f' means. That does not a professional make.
Simpo Two said:
stuff
You've lost me! Are you saying it's easier to use an entry-level DSLR or a pro one?
I'm not doing too well tonight am I?
I'm definitely in the camp of 'buy an entry level DSLR first'.
More plainly, in this case:
20D/D70 - good choice (read: FOR GODS SAKE GO THIS ROUTE!!)
1ds mkII - bad choice (read: YOU'RE ASKING FOR TROUBLE!!)
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff