I know Zane is into cameras, but anyone else with some thoughts please tip in...

I have always liked and bought Canon products, so I am debating between the digital Rebel and 30D primarily. There is also the rumored 40D on the horizon. The Rebel has its limitations so I am thinking the 30D would be worth it. Is the 40D worth waiting for, or should I wait for it just to enjoy the inevitable price drop in the 30D?

Thoughts on must have lenses?

I have a point and shoot Canon digital now but it just doesn't do justice to the endless picture perfect moments I encounter flying.

Vick - I use a Canon 400D (Rebel XTi) with a Sigma 28-300 macro lens. I like it. Biggest issue though is image blur as it is with all digital camera's without image stabilized lenses. Depending on the environment it's sometimes a 50/50 deal whether you're going to get the shot (I've got to spring for one!).

I have access to a 1D MK II occasionaly with good image stabilized Canon lenses and WOW what a difference! The overall image quality is of course better with the high end Canon but I borrowed an IS lens for the XTi and it also performed fantastic. I don't know that you really need a 30D.

That said, I'm hearing great things about the new Olympus E-510 with internal camera body image stablization. The difference with this feature on and off is amazing. Here's a link to the unit. It's a about $100 more than an XTi.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030 ... use510.asp

Brad

I bought my girlfriend a 30D, and I occasionally get to use it. At times I have considered picking up a Rebel Xti body since we can pool our lenses.

As I understand it, here are the main differences between the 400D(Rebel Xti) and the 30D:

- The 30D body is way beefier and feels like a real pro body when you grip it. It's much more stout and durable.
- The thumbwheel on the back of the 30D makes blind F-stop changes really easy.
- 5 frames per second in burst mode. You can shoot a sequence of action faster.
- Optical viewfinder in the 30D is slightly brighter...it uses a different mirror system.
- Small backlit LCD window on top of 30D shows exposure settings and meter so you don't have to always run the LCD viewer.
- The 30D is 8 megapixels while the Xti is 10 megapixels. I think this metric should be the least important, as 2 MP is not a big difference and you won't see much difference in the quality of the shots based on resolution.
- No wireless remote system on 30D. The 40D is supposed to have it.

As with any SLR system, the most important thing is glass. Higher quality lenses make ALL THE DIFFERENCE. Like Brad was saying above, the Canon IS lenses are awesome, especially for low light.

A more expensive lens coupled with the Xti will take much better photos that the 30D/40D with the kit lens. So, where do you want to spend your money? If the things I mentioned above are important to you, go 30D/40D, otherwise just pick up an Xti body (you can find them pretty cheap now) and spring for a good lens.

On my list of must haves is a 14mm super wide angle...$$$$$

Also, since we already have the DSLR, I want to replace my Powershot A80 with the new Powershot G9 that is coming out. It has a IS lens, ISO 3200, and flash hotshoe.

The new Canons coming out (40D and G9) will feature the 3" LCD. That is huge! Also the 40D will have built in wireless receiver for remotes. The 30D does not.

BRD wrote: Biggest issue though is image blur as it is with all digital camera's without image stabilized lenses.

Brad, the IS lenses are great for lower light situations because they will assist a little bit if you are hand holding the camera with a slower shutter speed, but with plenty of light available, it's no substitute for high shutter speed!

I was a professional photographer for 11 years, and I pretty much quit taking pictures right about when digital photography started to become viable. Needless to say my digital experience is limited, but photography is photography, regardless of the method.

That said, most camera bodies will do far more than the photographer is willing/able/wanting to do. It's really just a box full of film, or a box full of ones and zeroes as the case may be. People get carried away with all the bells and whistles which they will rarely (never) use and which make no tangible impact on image quality. Manufactures make a big deal about them because it's an easy sell to the gadget-geek world of photographers.

I'd buy the least amount of camera body you need, then spend more money on the lense(s). All lenses are NOT created equally, regardless of which name is on them. Lower end lenses (especially zoom lenses) from ANY manufacture are basically crap. If the lense came with the camera, it's probably crap. There's a very good reason why the professional lenses cost what they do...they are that much better.

After that, if you're serious about photography then spend your money on a good tripod and ball head. A decent set up with quick release plates will run around $1000 to $1500. People hate using tripods because they never used a good one...once you get use to using a truly professional tripod you'll feel like a geek every time you shoot off hand.

Simply put, an expensive camera body will do nothing to improve the technical quality of your images. A proper lense and using a tripod will. After that it's that whole artistic voodoo...

If you're not willing to use a tripod and don't want to spend $1500 per lense, but want something a bit more than a point-n-shoot, I'd buy the lightest SLR that seems to fit your needs. There's nothing more worthless than a camera that doesn't get carried with you.

ravi wrote:There's nothing more worthless than a camera that doesn't get carried with you.

That is the truth!

DLSR's sure are nice if you really feel that you're going to buy multiple lenses that are higher quality than what you can get stock on a P&S. Or, you want to use really long telephotos, or really wide angles, or a special portrait lens or something.

There is a misconception that SLR's are better for action photography because there is no shutter lag. This is not true. Most people who suck at action photography with a P&S will suck with a Canon 1D MkII. It's knowing how to use the autofocus and half-depression of the shutter release to make the autofocus "active" that allows you snap off a photo quickly. Or..not using autofocus at all. Most of the Canon P&S's allow you to manually set all exposure settings, even manual focus, so there's no squelching of the arts.

I don't plan on abandoning my P&S for a DSLR (well it's nice to have both!) in fact my P&S goes with me more than our DLSR does. As a result, I take more photos more often. In fact that will be the camera that gets upgraded next.

I'd vote for the Canon 30 D. I have a 20D, and there's not much, as ravi says, that would lure me to the 30D.

That said, those camera bodies are ROBUST. Buy cheap bodies, and drop them once......

I have dropped a camera. DOn't know about any of hte rest of you...

Lenses are in fact, what makes a SYSTEM work.

I use two lenses almost exclusively: Canon 28 to 90 zoom lens, F 2.8 and Canon IS 70 to 200 zoom, F2.8. These are not inexpensive lenses, but they really do the job.

If you are considering publishing any photos, these are the lenses you need to consider. If you just want to post stuff to sites like this, etc, a point and shoot works fine.

Talk to folks who photograph aircraft for a living. They shoot at VERY SLOW shutter speeds (ever see a prop stopped on a magazine cover?) and VERY low ASA. You need serious lenses to work that corner.

MTV

Thanks for the feedback all. I was leaning toward the common theme here, namely going in for a functional but not fancy body (Rebel) and then putting more toward the lenses. After playing with a Rebel for a bit though my takeaway was that it just doesn't feel that great in the hands. As MTV pointed out, the 30D feels substantial. Its technical advantages may be more marketing than legitimate, but having a slightly more rugged body alone might justify the cost.

Keep this thread going. I'm interested in buying one too.

Bub

Forgot to mention, just recently dropped my Canon P&S so a new SD1000 is on the way right now. It has no manual capabilities but I love always having it in my pocket. Even if I end up deleting a majority of the photos, I have caught a few that make it worth it.

mtv wrote: They shoot at VERY SLOW shutter speeds (ever see a prop stopped on a magazine cover?) and VERY low ASA.

Show me where the "ASA" button is on your 20D, you old fart.

All the kids call it ISO now, but it's the same thing.

I don't know if I'd call the shutter speed required to make a spinning prop a disc VERY slow, even at ISO 100.

The Image Stabilization is really nice though for the longer zooms because of the amplified movement over the longer focal length.

Zane,

As an example, Mike Fizer of AOPA shoots at the equivalent of about 25 "ISO".

THAT is slow. Normally, these guys are shooting in soft light as well, so the 2.8 lenses are almost mandatory to get really good images.

MTV

mtv wrote:As an example, Mike Fizer of AOPA shoots at the equivalent of about 25 "ISO".

Yeah, that IS slow. What body will do 25 ISO? 30D only goes to ISO 100. My Powershot goes to ISO 50. Canon 1D Mk II goes to ISO 50.

What achieves the "equivalent?" 25 ISO is 25 ISO. How else can you slow the sensor response/"film speed"?

Ok, as a general rule, if you want to get the full circle prop blur, use the following shutter settings: for a 2 blade prop - 1/60th, for a three blade prop - 1/125th. Obviously these are starting points depending on cruise rpm. Adjust Aperture accordingly to get these settings - accasionally you will have to adjust the ISO lower or higher depending on the ambient light. Most air-to-air that I've shot is done either in the morning during sunrise or in the evening during sunset (give or take and hour or so) and the ISO generally stays around 100 on my 1ds MII. You'll lose about 40% of these due to camera movement even with an IS lens and a gyro. Just my experience.

As far as camera's go - I generally agree with the advise given so far, ie get a good body (the 30D, 40D canons are far superior to the xti and rebels because of the rugedness of the body design, however not even close to the 1ds lines) because if you're carrying it around in the airplane, it's going to get bumped, dropped, dusty etc. But spend your money on good glass. Nikon, Canon - whatever you like. My favorite lens is the EF 70-200 f2.8L IS USM - sharp as a tack but kinda pricey. The new 24-70 f2.8L USM is pretty sweet too. No IS but don't miss it. And remember, polarizers are your friend.

Good stuff Alan...

The lens I really want is the Canon EF 14mm F 2.8 USM, but I rarely see them for less than $1400.

What's everyone's experience with the 3rd party lenses like Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc?

Zane, they just updated it to the new Canon EF 14 mm F2.8 L II USM
Available October -ish for a bargain at $2199! I think I'll get two!

What's everyone's experience with the 3rd party lenses like Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc?

Zane, you get what you pay for. You'll never see a professional photographer (as in someone who actually feeds themselves by selling images) using off brand lenses. That doesn't mean that some of them aren't every bit as good as the lower end Nikon and Cannon lenses, but there is simply no way to make a good lense at a cheap price.

As a side, there is no way to make a zoom lens as good as a fixed focal length lens. People use zoom's because they are handy, but they are simply not as sharp. In addition, some lenses are just inherently better than anything else the company makes, for reasons I don't know and they won't say.

I have two lenses that are so much sharper than the others that I can throw a hundred slides on a light table (check out an online encyclopedia to see what those are) and tell you at a glance which ones were taken by either of those two lenses (Nikon 180mm f2.8 ED and 105mm f 1.. None of my f2.8 zooms comes close to the sharpness, light transfer or clarity, and none of my other fixed lenses make the grade, though they are all sharper than the zooms.

While wide angle lenses have gotten much less expensive lately, they are difficult to manufacture and command a premium price. They are also surprisingly difficult to use. Once the novelty of wide angel distortion wears off, getting a photograph you want to put on your fridge is somewhat challenging.

I have an extremely expensive 15mm flat field (no fisheye distortion), and I think that a 20mm lens is a whole lot more useful. Past 20mm the cost skyrockets and the usefulness declines, in my opinion.

Ravi-

I believe all of the current DSLR's perform a crop, given the fact that the sensor is smaller in size than a full 35mm frame. The result in effectively a zooming effect, and you lose some of the edges of the wide angle capture. This means that with these DSLR's you have to run an even wider angle shorter focal length lens to get the same capture.

I think the effect is something like 1.6x.

Zane, bummer.
I thought Cannon had an actual 35mm sensor out...or is that an option on one of those wazoo bodies I recommended you not buy?

I'm telling you, digital photography is a passing fad. Film will come back strong real soon, so don't squander your money on the digital crap.

The full frame (35mm) sensor models are the Canon 1ds, 1ds mII, the upcoming (October?) 1ds mIII (21MP!) and the 5D. The new Nikon D3 (due in November) is Nikons first and only full frame sensor so far. Pretty much everything else is cropped at either 1.6x or 1.3x - I think the Sigma is 1.5x? I don't know, I only own the full frame sensor models and don't really pay attention to the others. There is some discussion about the usefullness of going much beyond 12 - 16mp in a 35mm type slr because the current crop of glass can't resolve much detail beyond that anyway. Long discussion for another place I guess.

I have had my Nikon D70 for 2.5 yrs now and love it. It has been all over the world. I just got the new 18-200 lense for it with stabilization. I believe I can pretty much live with one lense now.

Nikon vs. the other - I don't know. I went with the Nikon and can not explain it. Canon seems to have more market share (especially on the high end), but oh well - I always wanted a Nikon. I think it was in the movie Air America when the guy lost his Nikon that I decided I had to have one when I could afford it. You know the guy - the guy talking about the golden bee bee.

Ok, here are a couple good websites:

http://www.dpreview.com/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm

Here is his recommendation list:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2007-05-what-camera.htm

Your milege may vary,
D.