I'm not too happy buying from ebay USA, as customs might be a pita here. PM'ed you for the link though, a 117-85 for 380 euro is very cheap (dutch distri price 625 euro ex VAT)
Something else; i have 2 friends working at Canon NL (no they don't get any proper employee discount anymore ), they say Canon does not offer worldwide warranty on their cameras, only regional. That's why i don't want to buy it it from Asia or USA. Also rumor has it that Canon will introduce a successor to the 350 this year, so perhaps best to wait a while on the body.
Yeah I know. But lenses do have world-wide-warranty. I didn't knew about that successor on the 350, might be worth waiting for (if I can wait!). Thanks, L PS: Pixmania is one of the cheapest web stores in europe. They have the 17/85 for 616Euro (I think that is including VAT/BTW). http://www.pixmania.be/dev/gui_web/...cle=56598&articleLibelle=EOS+350D &itag=6613 L
tbh.. if you really are thinking of splashing out for decent equipment from the get go, i'd err to the side of quality over massive focal range and go for a 350D paired with a 17-40mm L lens.
You mean that if I go and buy such an expensive lens, then I'd be better of with a 17/40 (like this ?) then the 17/85 ? Why? That has a much smaller range and costs another 250Euro more. I reckon I'd definalty need a second lens for long distance shots? Realistically. I'll buy a 350D body here and get a 18/55 kit lens (I found a few for sale for about 50Euro) just for now and then save up for a good all around lens.
It depends if you know whether you will be shooting long range all the time? I bought my 350D with the kit-lens, but the kit lens has been relegated to the kit bag, it hasn't been used at all since I got my new lenses. The lens I have are the 10-22mm and 50mm f1.4 and that's all I need. The missing range between 22mm and 50mm I don't really miss as I found out that I can recompose the shot my moving my feet . But the main reason I don't use the kit lens is because even though I haven't had it that long, as soon as I tried other 'why are they more expensive for less range' lenses such as the 17-40mm L, I could immediately see the immense difference in quality... it's like night and day, it's not 'meh! it's a little better'... it was 'woah! I have to get one of these!'.
the image quality of the 17-40L is a lot better, and you would be able to use it on a fullframe cam (the 17-85 is an EF-S mount, compatible only with the smaller sensors) but, i wouldn't use it as a walkaround lens. it's a nice lens, i'll give you that, but i wouldn't use it as a walkaround. 17-85mm and 10-22mm combo for the win, tbh.
How about a Hybred style dSLR? I got sick of my p&s camera and its lag etc ....... talking to a family member who is a pro photo chap and from that i found out that a dSLR wouldnt be for me ..... while i like to be able to play with the camer and its settings ... and would like to have the option of filters etc ....... a dSLR was just too manual for me. I settled on a Konica Monilta Z5 got it for £165 from fleabay with warranty etc ......... and i love it....... got some nice filters and a hood and im very happy. Also my hands are too shakey for dSLR where my Z5 has a stablizer I now use my N80 for snaps when i dont want to bring out my camera. Good luck find the right camera
Well with some luck I've just sold my PC (see sig) for 700Euro. So thats the budget for the body. Choices are - New Canon 350D body for 696Euro - New Nikon D70s body for 725Euro Leaving no starter budget for a proper lens. - New Nikon D50 + 18-55 for 588Euro - New Nikon D50 body for 485Euro - Used Nikon D70s body with 2x 1GB CF cards for 500Euro Leaving me with some starter budget for a proper lens. In either case I'd start with a kit (18/55) lens (plenty used available aswell) untill I've saved up alot for a proper lens. L
ARRGH!!! let's get one thing straight. HYBRID DSLRS DO NOT EXIST. what you are talking about is a point and shoot camera with more manual controls and a larger lens. THAT'S ALL THEY ARE. they never were SLRs, because THERES NO MIRROR. [/vent] (athough in the future i do see DSLRs becoming defunct. i would be all over an S3-style camera with an EF-mount. just think. it would rock.)
The problem with lenses that have a long focal length is that, generally speaking, they aren't nearly as sharp as prime lenses. I'd rather have better glass than a better camera, to be honest. L series lenses feature incredibly sharp and incredibly fast optics and continuous focusing, which explains the added cost. Photography is a serious monetary commitment. If you think it will be cheap, you'll find that you'll be wrong.
Well It looks like I'll have alore more time to figure out wich camera and wich lenses. The guy who was coming around today, to have a look at my computer and probably buy it, just emailed he won't be coming. So no budget atm.
I think you're being to quick anyway on decisions. Today the Nikon D80 will be introduced, let's what that'll do the the prices of D50/70 in the coming months. I'm also contemplating a D50 body with a good lens, i believe any budget dSLR will be more than enough for me.
SLRs will not become defunct, because the limitations of such a camera as you describe will be the optics. SLRs use big lenses not because they look better, but because fast, high quality lenses need to be that big, and all the elecronic interfacing, motors, and sensors need a fairly large lens mounting aperture. Plus.. you really think you can use such a small camera as the S3 with a 1000mm lens attached to it? And if so, what advantage does having such a small cam give you? There's no way around this... a 1000mm lens will be large. It's because there will always be people that require the professional functions of a camera like the D2x or EOS-1 DsMkII that they're made in the first place. Frankly, the day they stop making proper SLRs and we all have to use something like you describe will be a sad day indeed... assuming you mean the Nikon S3 here... very sad. As for the hybrid rant, well... I'm afraid the only debatable point is the term "reflex". I'm afraid most DO have a mirror, otherwise you'd not be able to look through the taking lens. Most have a fixed, or pellicle mirror, but you are looking through the taking lens, and therefore you can argue that it's a SLR. After all, no one argued that this was an SLR or not, but it's mirror didn't move either. Some have a digital viewfinder, but by far the majority allow you to look through the same lens that actually takes the image, and therefore it's a SLR, as that's the very characteristic that defines a SLR from a rangefinder, or any other camera.
