Some photo equip. help

Although Nikon equip is quite attractrive I still am closer to the Canon. From what I can tell because of availability I might end up with the 350D and Bigma, possibly even the 170-500. I really appreciate the help, for someone like me, who is in high school still, it really is a huge help and motivator. Thanks for all the help.

Live Well,

Matt M.

i was a nikon user all my life (other then the oly OT from which i learned photography from..(pic provided for those who dont know what i’m talkin bout))…but the EOS 20d came to me as a big surprise..the darn thing is awsome and i love the L series lenses…my next camera in the digital scene is prob gonna be a 10mp or something like that when that comes out..in say a couple of years..the digital camera’s are gonna get cheaper in the next 2-3 years..however my biggest Craving is for the F-6(pic provided)…

I guess i’m still a film guy…that uses digital for convenience..infact i never take my eos-20 on vacations…its usually the Verve and the f100..i love shootiing landscapes (not as much as to go start buying large format if u know what i mean 😀 )….

Did not know that. I never tried that combination. But I still like the D70 body better, but I´m a Nikon user, so that should be the reason. 🙂

/SHOUT ON

BUY THE GOOD GLASS

BUY THE GOOD GLASS

/SHOUT OFF

and buy a canon 350 or similar nikon, or even a new sigma body

I have a canon eos350 and a sigma 50-500, which, the last couple of my picture posts, both being from bristol airport shows their quality.

the eos350 is more than adequate, the 20d having little in the way of advantage for allot more money.

slide/film/negative scanners can be good, but much depends on where the film is developed.

sea hawk…the 350 reacts well enough to the 50-500!

ahs anyone tried using film cameras and using 35mm scanners like the Konica-Minolta 5400-II ..one of my freind who uses that with his f5 says the results are better then digital…i am yet to use such a combo..

My suggestion would be a Nikon D70s (the body is better and apart from the missing 2MPs the camera performs better then the 350XT) and the following equipment.

Sigma 18-125mm DC Asp IF or the Tamaron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro. or Nikon AF-S DX 18-70mm/3.5-4.5G IF-ED or Nikon AF-S VR 24-120mm/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

and Sigma 100-300 4.0 HSM in addition a Kenko 1.4 converter.

A bit more expensive but a more flexible and better set-up imho. I´m not sure how a 350XT will react to the heavy 50-500mm.

The lense advice would be the same for a 350XT anyway.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

GOOD SITE FOR GLASS REVIEWS

have u tried the d50..kenrockwell did a review of it here..http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d50.htm

i would definately agree with the rest that the lense is a much more important hardware given the current budget/DSLR setup….an L series lense would still be top of the line 20 years from now..but u cant say that for the 20d,d70 or the DR…i would suggest u go out and use these cameras..and see for yourself..if u have lenses beforehand then i would suggest u go in for the one that fits on to them otherwise i would go in and try em out..i definately have a thing for nikon because all of my film slr’s were nikon (f100 and f5)..both nikon and canon are equally good but i fell in LOVE WITH THE EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM which i had used before….I WOULD SUGGEST THAT U GO AND CHRRCK EM OUT BEFORE U GO BUY…MY STRATEGY IS TO BUY SOME GOOD CANON PRIMES AND MY FAV 70-200 l AND RENT ANYTHING BIGGER

I am just blown away by the response everyone, it is incredible for me. I looked at the 20D and really like you all said it is a beefy 350D with only slightly more customization and slightly higher figures. I will research the 170-500 and look at the smaller lenses too. I am very thankful for all your help, especially from some great photographers. Thank you again gentlemen.

Matt M.

The 170-500 would be good to have, but only if you can afford something good (as Andy says) in the 28-135mm range along side it. 170mm could be quite restrictive at some airports, and I can think of many places (around UK airports) where it’d be far too much zoom to do what you want.

I agree with what bring_it_on says about looking for second hand cameras/lenses if it means you’ll be able to get a much better set-up, but if you couldn’t afford it then you shouldn’t be too convinced about getting the 20D for “u can get a much better photography” as opposed to the 350D.

The 350D is pretty much a stripped down version of the 20D, just as the 300D was of the 10D. There are certain draw-backs of both the 300D and 350D from the cameras they derive from, but the quality of photography is going to be very similar.

As for lenses, again it depends on your budget. If you can find a good second hand deal, then by all means go for the Sigma 50-500 (I’m considering this lense as an upgrade from mine). But if you’re on a tight budet and you just want a good quality set-up, then you can always look at something like the Canon 75-300 USM, or the IS version. Both would get you excellent results, and many peope (including me) use the lense as a good starting point.

Matt… An alternative view. Spend the money on the glass rather than the camera. Even a 20D will be to an extent obsolete in a couple of years time the way the digital market is going, and the 350D is nearly as good as the 20D anyway (especially for lite use – the 20D is more robust but doesn’t offer that much more in functionality or usability as the 350D was a big step forward from the 300D). Lenses however, particularly good lenses, will last a long time and there’s a strong argument for buying the best early rather than buying cheap and then replacing sooner.

As to your lens choice… Plenty of reviews kicking around the net, and whilst a number of aviation photographers use the 50-500 my feeling is that the 170-500 is a better lens as well as being somewhat cheaper. I also don’t think that the 50-500 is a practical proposition for general photography, as its far too heavy and bulky for just casual carrying around when you don’t need the length. My recommendation would be to take a serious look at the 170-500 if you need the length, and use the money you save in comparison to buying the 50-500 ($300) to buy a good short zoom in the 28-135 type range.

If the choice was between 20D and 50-500, or [say] 350D, 24-135 and 170-500 I think I personally would go with the latter (which would give you more flexibility and cost a few less dollars).

Andy

Thanks bring_it_on, I didn’t think of the used lens idea. By doing that I might be able to afford the 20D. I really appreciate the help.

Thanks,

Matt M.

are u sure u want to go with the digital rebel for this one..?? have u tried the d-70/100…what about the eos20D..I would rather go with the EOS 20D (a used one (nearly mint condition) can be had for around 950-1000$ ) and go for a used sigma 50-500 which can be had for around 600$ in ohio..Noticing that u are from florida i would recomend that u try going out renting a eos-20d and then compare it with the digital rebel..i seriously think that with the extra 200$ u can get a much better photography..(of course it would still be obsolete before u know it)..Dont really hesitate in buying used if u have a decent person to buy from..All my lenses (the zooms) are used bought from B and H when i used to go to new-york quite often..i would reccomend u go in for that combo as with a used 20D and 50-500 u would prob be spending the same ammount of money as with a 350D and 50-500 combo and would be getting a much better results…For me i own the(u guessed it) 20D..with a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM which i bought for dirt cheap(how bout under 1100$)..All the other super zoom lenses i rent here..(i have pretty much stopped doing aviation photography due to lack of time but have atleast 1000-1500 pictures of planes taking of and landing from Wright patt..