Canon lenses

[RobStubbs]

Gillies,

Cheers for the comments. I suspect the 350D lens kit will suffice for now. I will probably get a single fixed lens for wildlife work - perhaps a 200 or 300mm. Given the ability to crop very well with digitals then that should suffice for my needs. My photography tends to be a mixture of landscape / sunset stuff and wildlife - predominantly birds, although my sights are also set on a large herd of fallow deer that I often spot on the way home from work.

 

Rob.

[Guest CJS2]

Gilles, you seem to have a good handle on theis subject,so can I put my 2 penneth in for you ideas? Camera at present Nikon 100D, ok in its day but 3 or 4 years down the line . . . ? So a change is in order, Canon seem to have the field at present, 350, 20D if you can find one or the new 30D (realy a 20D with a few extra knobs and whistles, hay ho, jack up the price!! Been offered £600 -£700 SH trade-in against a new Canon out fit, ie body + a couple of lenses? All well and good.

 

However, As a Nikon man with at least a couple of decent bits of Nikon fit glass, I was looking at the '70s', address the problems leveled at the 100, and get to keep my favourit couple of lenses. Not a pro, (used to do a lot of 'on location' 35mm mag work back in the late 80's and through the 90's) although I do do some work for fishing mags. My thinking is to keep up with the digital heard, the 70s not sure if that is going to cut the mustard.

 

Any views mate? CJS2

[Gillies]

Since you already have Nikon gear - why not upgrade to the D200 if your budget stretches to it, its a superb camera, it matches and beats the Canon 20D and 30D in all but noise levels at higher ISOs .... its more directly comparable to the Canon 5D. Its got a great body, excellent features, and all in all and fantastic camera.

 

There have been some grumbling about Banding issues on the D200 ............ but Ive heard the same grumbles are coming out regarding the 30D also.

 

At end of the day though a 350XT, 20D, 30D, D200, D70 will all give you great photos, its as you say ... do you pay a few exrta quid for extra knobs and whistles, or take the money saved by getting a 350 or 20D and get some more lenses.

 

If I were you, Id get the calculator out and see how much the lenses you'd like for Canon fit would be, read reviews on them ... and see if they are better than your current Nikon lenses, if not go for the Nikon D70 or D200.

 

Gillies

[Guest CJS2]

If I were you, Id get the calculator out and see how much the lenses you'd like for Canon fit would be, read reviews on them ... and see if they are better than your current Nikon lenses, if not go for the Nikon D70 or D200.

 

Gillies

 

Thanks 'Gillies', although I dont want to afford a D200 the financial logic is a driving one, I was actualy suprised how much I was offerd as trade-in on the D100 body? And of course I know the working of the Nikon menus, this and the price makes the revised D70s very atractive.

 

A tuff one, it was so easy in the 'old days', like the way camera 'A' handles, the way the auto systems made compensations etc., but at the end of the day, it was down to the film type and the glass, these days its all so diferent, we are relient so much on how a boffin sees a situaton and his interpritatin.

 

Go manual, yeh, but there is still that 'not quite in control' feeling? Very much the same as old fashoned vinal v CD. Whats on the CD is what you get! vinal, we had some contol in stylus type, weight, match the reply angle to the original master cutting angle, bias and so on. Yeh, I was an analog vinal freak! The digital recording industry has taken so much away , but thats another story and life!

 

Thanks again 'Gillies', now whers that calculator, CJS2

[Lid]

There are really no dramatic differences between the 350D and 30D, if I was buying one of those cameras just now, I would have to think very hard about it --- is it worth saving a few pennies and putting it to wards a decent lens instead!

 

Gillies. I'm afraid I disagree. I think the 20D/30D is significantly better than the 350D. Apart from the factors listed, the sensor in the 350D is not the same as in the other two.

[Gillies]

Lid, thats your opinion, it just depends on where you see it from .... in my opinion there is not that to many improvements other than a few stated to say that the camera is much much better, and unless you desire the obviously stated differences in the camera to suit your photography, you would be better saving a few pounds and putting it towards some better glass.

 

The sensors on 20D, 30D and 350D all use the same processor for the images, the Digic 2. The difference in the sensor equates to around 0.3 of a megapixel, as the sensor physical sizes are.

 

350D

 

22.2mm x 14.9 mm

 

30D & 20D

 

22.5mm x 15 mm

 

Under a millimeter in size difference.

 

If you are looking at the main changes in the cameras, then yes the cameras are different - but in my opinion, not overly different. Take the 5D and the 1D Mk2 N, and the 1Ds Mk2 ............ then you have massive differences! Ive used my uncles 350D, I didnt find it that much different to my 20D, I used my pal who is a pros, 1D Mk2 - that was a whole new ball game, as the difference in price shows (1.3 crop, 45 AF points, 8 fps and built like a tank) ... then you have the 5D and 1Ds, more megapixels, full 35mm frame.

 

Your right from your point of view, but I still stand by my guns and say I dont think there is that many changes when you look at broad picture, it depends on what you want from the camera I guess.

 

Gillies

[Lid]

I didn't realise the sensors were so similar, but yes I am sure it is a personal point of view as much as anything.

Edited April 13, 2006 by Lid

[Guest CJS2]

'Gillies', please shoot me down in flames? But again your advise and experiance I seek.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/page17.asp

 

The above WWW site, gives an extreem, in depth review on the Nikon D100, as well as equaly detailed reviews on the other cameras I have been considering. Some of the technical stuff is hard going for a 'common old numpty such as I'.

 

However, with my previous thoughts in mind, I wonder, after re reading the review, am I being a little hard on my D100. As the negative findings are under extreem laboritary scrutiny, my requirements are, on occasions, for publication but not to the level of 'Vouge Front Cover'. I do feature suport pictures mainly in sea angling magazines, well I actualy do the features and have to take my own pics! A4 is the biggest I have ever needed, which was the original idea of going to 6mil., pix.

 

There is of course my need on this site, you may have seen some of my offereings? Lots of them are taken on my lazey S50 Canon P&S. I have often wondere about puting pics into an agency, and let the money roll in Any ideas on that front by the way?

 

I'm wondering if a re think; 'Raw' converted to JPEG would be an answer, the review pics in RAW/JPEG look OK to my eye on sreen, although there is a statments, 'some detail has been lost at the RAW stage'? This all starts to get very 'Techi' to me and I wonder if its a bit like ownig a fancy sports car, 'cant use its potential but the owning impresses some people'? Am I being a lttle cynical?

 

Would, a re look at the lenses, be better, all are from my 35mm film days, the new breed of ' dedicated Digital lenses' could be a better more cost efective way to go? Have you any good sites for lens reviews, I'm strugling to know where to start?

 

Happy Easter, CJS2

Edited April 14, 2006 by CJS2

[Amin]

Hello friend

In fact I have no idea about this but i think you can find this on spam-attempt.co.uk

If you find any help pleae tell me.

 

{if you joined to contribute then welcome. If you joined to boost sales at an eCommerce site, then not welcome.

Newt}

[Alnath]

I moved from a 350D to a 20D and there is no way i could go back to a 350D. Although the end result are similar the 20D is better in every other department. Faster and more accurate AF, 100% better ergonomics, miles better build, bigger and brighter viewfinder. Although Gillies says there is only 1mm difference in size i can assure there is not, on the 350D the grip is way too small, i have only medium sized hands and i found i always ended up with 2 fingers under the 350D body and the rest cramped in to the space that was left, on the 20D my entire hand fits on to the grip making it all much more stable, 1mm cannot make that difference. The battery life is double on the 20D, my 350D was dead at 600 shots, my 20D is still showing full when my 4GB card is full (between 1200 and 1400 shots), faster top shutter speed, higher ISO, less blackout time when the shutter actuates, faster bust mode, longer shutter life, 200,000 more pixels (oh wow lol)

 

As for lenses the Canon EF 70-300mm IS is stunning for £369 the image stabilization is just amazing and the lens is sharp as a razor and gives good range.

 

For a walkabout lens the Tamron 24-135 SP at £319 is a great lens, its really well made and the image quality is spot on.