I "need" a new camera since my 300d died. Like I said before, I don't want a 350d, which basically leaves my choice between the 30D and a few 20D's that remain in various shops. From the cheapest prices I have found, the 30D is about £130 more expensive than the 20D. To me, money is of the essence, and obviously cheaper is better. From what I can see, the screen (2.5 vs 1.8) and spot metering are the only real advantages for the 30D. Now I can certainly live without these. Also, now that the 30d has been out a little while, there are a few people who have some small niggles/complaints with it. Namely that there are problems with dust on the sensor and a few quality control issues. So basically, would I be being stupid in getting the 20D rather than coughing up the extra for the 30D?
No. The 20D is a fine camera. Although, just to point out, the 30D is not more prone to sensor dust then the 20D. It will happen. If this is a major problem for you: 1. keep lens changes to a minimum. 2. look into a camera with weather seals, like a D200. 3. Learn to clean your sensor with the right tools yourself.
In that price range, I would regret not getting the newest model (30D), if it was just 130£ more. There probably aren't that many differences either, so you just have to decide if you think the 30D is worth the extra money for you. And I don't think the sensor dust can be much of an issue. Offtopic: Why don't you want the 350D? (I'm looking into getting one and I wonder why you don't want to get it) If I'm not mistaken, it has the same sensor and processor as the 20D and most of its functions aswell.
30D also has better 8-way controller for selecting AF point. 20D one bugs the crap outta me trying to reach the diagonals, but it's a fairly small niggle, really. Greater (smaller increments) ISO range on the 30D, too. And a few other bits like bigger buffer (11 raw over 6 IIRC), ISO in VF when changing. Longer shutter life. There's not that much in it. If you want to keep costs down, I don't suppose it'd be worth getting the 30D unless there's something specific that you want.
Well, I did it - I splashed out on the 30D and went and bought it last night. God Bless Jessops' price matching. I think having only had a 20 minute play (Why do I have to go to work today?) that the extra toys on the 30D are probably money well spent - especially spot metering and the ISO functions. To Lovah - I really dislike the 350D, mainly because of the shape. I know it's a very unoriginal thing to complain about, but I really think it is an issue. My Mum has one, and I used to have a 300D - Comparing them side by side there are plenty of things on the 300D that I prefer (grip, changing WB/ISO), despite the fact that the 350D is technically better in most ways (many, many times faster, more pixels etc). Also, coming from a 300D, there is nothing really to play with on a 350D. Whereas the 30D has lots of new toys for boys like me that like to play... In conclusion - The 350D is a great camera that I really don't get along with
Thanks Tomm for answering my question. I just sold my computer and some old magic-booster boxes for fairly good prices. So I'm slowly building up my budget for a dSLR! I went to store to feel the 350D since alot of people thought it was too small. Although it's not exactly big, I didn't thought it was uncomfortable. I'm not about to pay double for a 30D just because of that issue. If I do find it too small over time, then there is always the optional battery grip for long shooting days. Just got to save up a bit now for a decent lens. Thinking about the 17-85 IS USM, I know it's not the best out there, but for me it offers plenty. Nice range, USM and IS. Good luck with the 30D! L
I tried a 350D with the grip and I didn't really see the point. Yes, it helps lots for portrait shots, but for landscape shots the issue of the small grip is still there, and I didn't find that the grip helped at all. Part of my rationale for justifying the 30D was the fact that once you buy the battery grip for the 350D, it halves the price difference between that and 30D. Having said that, you can get 3rd party battery grips now for ~£70 which seems like a good idea. Lens-wise, I think I'm going to get (when my student loan comes through!) a Sigma 18-50 F2.8 EX DC. It's about £270 (cheapest price) and has got some very good reviews. It's either that or stretch to the Canon 17-40L which can be had for under £500 (plus I have a voucher that came with my 30D for £70 off that lens). Or the lens that you mentioned. Undecided. They would all be good walk around lenses. Then I want a Sigma 10-20 for landscapes, then I want a Bigma etc etc. So many lenses to buy, so little money to buy them with
you can get the official Canon grip for £89 from fotosense.co.uk I like the 350D precisely because it isn't big... I don't want a massive camera when i'm walking about or travelling. But then if I need the extra stability for composed shots i.e. portraits then I can stick the battery grip on. Anyone know of the new 350D replacement? I heard from my brother who has a collegue at work who says that next Thursday the replacement to the 350D is released/announced? My brother mentioned 3N? can't find any info about it on the net so i'm inclined to disbelieve him.
lol that was a funny article. Apparantly the 24th will be the official Canon launching. I'm saving up for a Nikon D80 body + 18-200 VR lens, but let's wait what Canon has to offer...
Official 350D grip is only 100Euro in the right shop (60£) although most shops ask 150 (90£). And yeah I'm awaiting to see the new model, maybe get that or a 350D when the price drops. A 350D is 599Euro (400£) in the cheapest shops here. While the 30D is around 1100Euro (750£). So even counting the extra 60£ for the grip, that's still a massive difference. For lenses I'm thinking EF-S 10-22 : super wide (I love wide shots) EF-S 17-85 IS USM : Walk around lens EF 70-300 IS : nice zoom Some people suggest getting the 17-55 instead of the 17-85, but it costs just under double and has a much smaller range. Then they suggest the 70-200 F4 L instead of the 70-300, wich does not only have a smaller range, it is a bit more expensive aswell, but worst of all: It's white! I hate white lenses.. they make you look so "pro" wich I don't like at all. Especially when you are taking pictures of other people around, the white attracts alot of attention and responses. Plus I bet it will catch the eye of thiefs. L
In the UK, they'll happily charge you £130-150 for it in almost all the stores, anywhere else but the UK is cheaper. White... camo it with those stickers you can buy... you can get green camo for snapping at birds... wonder if you can get urban camo for snapping away at other type of birds?? And personally, i don't see the point in getting long tele lenses. The longest I have is 50mm and even I don't use that as much as my 10-22mm. I just move in closer. Why would you really need a long tele for unless (in my eyes as exceptions) you are shooting at wildlife (on safari, bird watching) or sports where you can't get on the field? or if you are shy when taking shots of streetlife.
The Sigma 10-20 gets excellent reviews and is just over half the price of the Canon equivalent. I didn't think I would use a tele, but I got a cheap second hand Sigma 55-200 f/4-5.6 el cheapo lens and I love it. Certainly worth the money it cost, anyway.
Nothing wrong with a white lense. I find the white color very stylish. The only gripe I would have with the 70-200 L over the 70-300 IS is the lack of IS. I also believe the apertures are the 70-300 would be around F/3.5-4ish, if you were to use the lense at 70-200 to compare to the L. Of course, "L" is the epitome of all that's Canon lenses. Are you sure you want the EF-S series? I heard the image quality is great, but I'm always weary of the "S" series. Something about the fact that it's incompadible with full-frame dSLR/SLRs makes it seem like a niche item - meaning that if I ever did upgrade to something like a 5D (or whatever they make come up with next), all my EF-S lenses would be obsolete. Then again, all I have is the kit lense, and a brilliant little 50mm f/1.8, which I use almost ALL the time. I briefly had the 70-300, non IS version. If the IS optics is anything like the 70-300, I would recommend you AVOID it. There's massive amounts of purple fringing at higher zooms, but the IS will really help handheld shots, since the lense was almost unusable at 300mm unless it was super bright outdoors - which in turn, may cause fringing. But of course, 300mm is just so much fun!
*Hwu hugs his 70-200L IS F2.8 It's ok baby, don't listen to them. I love you and that's all that matters. I went L (and yes, white) for the max aperture. I knew I'd be shooting indoors in very poor light a lot (performing arts) and so the 2.8 is a god send, and coupled with IS you're dreaming. Admittedly it can draw some looks and perhaps unwanted attention, but it doesn't phase me. It is a very expensive lens for it's range, though. Fortunately I've got the 1.4x tele which makes it around 300mm at will but then I've got a £1,500 300mm over a £400 300mm both with IS. Bleh, mine's sharp wide open with minimal CA. That's my story and I'm sticking with it. As for 350D replacement; Canon bodies are replaced every 18 months. Look up when it was released (not 18 months IIRC) and work it out.
hrmm.. not bad. I've been thinking of grabbing one of those. along with the 70-300 IS though. Which should I go for? the 1.4x or the 2x? I'll be using it on a 1.6x crop camera (300d now, and may get the 30d in a year or so.)
