Not Good enough for a 30D? [Archive] - Digital Camera Resource Page

aparmley

06-21-2006, 10:36 AM

Ya - you read that right. I was very set on picking up a 30D here shortly but as I'm nearing the purchase date I've taken a moment to pause and evaluate things in a different Manor -

Here is how I'm looking at it now - Am I good enough to warrant an upgrade to the 30D? Or would that money be better spent on two lenses [Considering the Tamy 17-50/Canon 17-40 F4L + 70-200 F4L]? Why two lenses? Because I need something wide and I need a strong telephoto. Whats that gonna do - give me a solid 17-200mm coverage and the convenience of a zoom. Take these two lens and my XT and learn to become a better photographer. The 30D isn't going to make me better. . .

Thoughts?

The only thing is that I want a second body for my wedding this fall. I could always charge a second XT a week or two before the wedding, no problem.

I don't know, I'm having a tough time with this decision. . . One XT with either 17-40/50 and one with the 85 1.8 wouldn't be terrible. . . :rolleyes:

cdifoto

06-21-2006, 11:17 AM

You're definitely "good enough" for a 30D. No issue there. You just have to decide whether your primes will be good for a wedding or if zooms are more in order due to the fast pace...

I believe in buy glass first, obviously. The only thing is, you do have nice glass. It's just in the form of fixed FLs.

Rhys

06-21-2006, 11:20 AM

If you don't mind the XT's quirks then perhaps it's lenses that will be better for you. I see no megapixel advantage with the 30D nor do I see any other advantages other than marginally better focussing.

Canon XT
35 F2 | 50 1.4 | 50 F1.8 | 85 1.8 | 28-105 3.5-3.5 USM II |550 EX
RS60-E3 | RC-5 | BG-E3 | ET-65 III | EW-65 II | EW-63 II
Sigma 70-300mm APO II | B.M. 3021BPRO + 486 CR2 Head

you already have some reasonable lenses. Rather than the 17-40L and 70-200L, I'd suggest:
1. Sell the 50 f1.8
2. Get something cheaper such as a Tamron 17-35 f3.5 as at that width there's little to choose from in quality between Tamron and Canon but Tamron's a lot less expensive.
3. Wait a while because Tamron's coming out with a 70-200 f2.8 soon. You might want to compare the 70-200 f4L against that.
4. If you get a 70-200 then you could sell your 28-105.
5. As always, I recommend primes over zooms and don't recommend zooms over 200mm.

pagnamenta

06-21-2006, 11:33 AM

I'm with Rhys here. You have a 50 1.4 and 1.8. Sell the 1.8 and get some Tamron glass. Wait for the Tamron 70-200 and compare it to the Canon glass. Even though primes are the best, you might definately need some zooms for the wedding. As for the extra camera body, I've shot with both the 30D and the XT. Both have the sama quality, the 30D isn't really worth the upgrade. Better off buying the lenses.

_______________
Canon 30D, BG-E2
Canon 24-70 f2.8, Canon 70-200 f2.8, Sigma 70-300 APO
Canon Speedlite 580 EX

aparmley

06-21-2006, 11:42 AM

Interesting posts - Thanks for giving me more to think about guys. . .

Don - to answer your question. I thought a 35 and 50 on two different bodies would suffice. I am perfectly comfortable with that. If I got better results from my 28-105 outside 5 feet with the "New" camera I would be fine with that on one body and a fast prime on the other too. . . :cool:

50 1.8 - $50
28-105 - $150
70-300 - $150
---------------
total $350 ???

I suppose I'm wondering now if two solid zooms would cause me to be more active in my shooting. I suppose in a way I'm in a funk much like you Don - I feel stuck re: my primes - I was more or less thinking zooms might be better for me to kinda get the juices flowing again vs the 30D.

Maybe it would help me and maybe you guys out if I listed why I want the 30D

Better focusing
5 FPS
spot metering
larger RAW buffer
larger LCD would be nice
RGB histo
ISO 1/3 increments
Bigger body vs XT
more solid feel - self esteem =)
1/8000 max shutter a little extra SS to shoot more wide open is nice.
I think general camera operation is going to be an improvement over the XT - meaning changing camera settings.
Finally know if its my XT or if its me - nearly a big enough reason a lone. . . :confused:

You see what I mean - after this post I think the upgrade to a 30D is in order - especially at $1284 at newegg. . .

Side note: The 50 1.8 might get me $50 - that doesn't get me any closer to an answer.

Deep down I know I really want a better camera than the XT. . . But just as my OP stated - I can't help but wonder, for my photographic growth, would two solid L zooms be better for me?

cdifoto

06-21-2006, 11:46 AM

Ahh the agonizing to be done when finances < desires....

aparmley

06-21-2006, 11:50 AM

Ahh the agonizing to be done when finances < desires....

Its always gonna be the case. . .

Finances a side; I think this thread is more focused on differentiating between desires and a smart decision.

pagnamenta

06-21-2006, 12:11 PM

If you have the funds and are happy with your zooms and primes, then go for the new camera body. I agree with your reasons, #1 being a bigger body. Get your two favorite lenses and your two bodies and shoot the wedding.

Clyde

06-21-2006, 01:18 PM

This has already been hashed over, here, and with some of these same posters posting these same opinions. So, out of respect for tradition, and an interest in consistency, here goes my take...

I suppose I'm wondering now if two solid zooms would cause me to be more active in my shooting.

Maybe it would help me and maybe you guys out if I listed why I want the 30D

Better focusing
5 FPS
spot metering
larger RAW buffer
larger LCD would be nice
RGB histo
ISO 1/3 increments
Bigger body vs XT
more solid feel - self esteem =)
1/8000 max shutter a little extra SS to shoot more wide open is nice.
I think general camera operation is going to be an improvement over the XT - meaning changing camera settings.

The XT should be expected to have a limited useful lifespan, much shorter than a film camera. Given that you have to upgrade eventuallly, the question becomes, what qualifies as a compelling upgrade?

Some thoughts on your noted improvements.

5fps?? How often do you fill your buffer? Personally, I have yet to do that. If you are regularly handicaped by buffer size, sell your 50 1.8 and get another flash card, man, you need it!

Larger LCD? This sounds like an expensive luxury to me. While I would like to be able to check my focus a little more accurately on the spot, mostly I look at histograms on the LCD. Often, after a first check of the histogram, and maybe a quick evaluation of white balance, I don't use the LCD at all while shooting.

RGB histogram. Sure, that would be nice, but damn, that is pretty close to too much information. You should be shooting, not pixel peeping, and if you shoot RAW, you don't even need to check white balance. What would you really use three histograms for?

ISO in 1/3 increments... I pretty much just use 100, 400, 800, and 1600. 1600 is reserved for emergencies. Do you really find yourself wishing you had an 683 ISO very often? Thats some pretty finicky shooting.

You see what I mean - after this post I think the upgrade to a 30D is in order - especially at $1284 at newegg. . .

Does the 30D have a different sensor than the XT?

You have low light situations pretty well licked with your primes. The f/4 Ls would give you flexibility now and would continue to serve you well two body upgrades from now. If you go for the body first, you will be $1300 farther from the L glass you know you (we) lust after.

Personally, I won't be tempted away from my XT until I read this line in a review:

Takes better pictures than the XT.

So the XTs (canon) competition is the 5D, the 1Ds Mk IIs, and maybe nothing else.

It sounds like the meat on the horns of your dilemma (cliche mangling a speciality of the house) is:

Finally know if its my XT or if its me - nearly a big enough reason a lone. . .

Many people out there take great pictures with the XT. You are one of them. Your dilemma is really a variation on something Woody Allen must have made a movie or two out of, and his movies are more likely to feature Dyan Cannon (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001007/) than some acronym encumbered mix of plastic and metal (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000216/). Still, if you have the cash, this would answer your question. Personally, I'd take the glass, and wait a year before giving up on the XT.

Toodles,

Clyde

some guy

06-21-2006, 01:26 PM

It's the North American disease. See, we north americans love to accumulate. Gotta have the next newest thing mentality. That's why US citizens has a very high debt ratio vs other country's citizens. :)
What's next after the 30D? In a year's time when 40D comes along. Or the 5D's prices took a tumble? Hmm....
It's your money or <insert favourite CreditCard>, get what you want.

aparmley

06-21-2006, 01:51 PM

This has already been hashed over, here, and with some of these same posters posting these same opinions. So, out of respect for tradition, and an interest in consistency, here goes my take...

The XT should be expected to have a limited useful lifespan, much shorter than a film camera. Given that you have to upgrade eventuallly, the question becomes, what qualifies as a compelling upgrade?

Some thoughts on your noted improvements.

5fps?? How often do you fill your buffer? Personally, I have yet to do that. If you are regularly handicaped by buffer size, sell your 50 1.8 and get another flash card, man, you need it!

I fill my buffer quite regularily on the XT shooting RAW - I have 6GB in 80X Cards - you get 6 frames with the XT and then it slows wayyyy down - Thats what I meant by filling my buffer - Once I no longer get the 3fps I consider my buffer filled. . . as I have to wait on the write to card speed. . . I don't think 133x CF cards are going to make that big of difference. I do a lot of burst shooting kids, dogs, cars, I'd love 5 fps - or 11 frames at 5 frames per second. . . . RAW. Like I said I usually only fire off about 5 to 10 frames during a sequence I know I want to freeze as much action as possible but I find the half second between exposures too long on the XT.

Larger LCD? This sounds like an expensive luxury to me. While I would like to be able to check my focus a little more accurately on the spot, mostly I look at histograms on the LCD. Often, after a first check of the histogram, and maybe a quick evaluation of white balance, I don't use the LCD at all while shooting.

Quite right you are - luxury - but it would be nice for general review. . . not really a selling point for me, but I did make mention of it only be it would be nice. For menu functions as well. . .

RGB histogram. Sure, that would be nice, but damn, that is pretty close to too much information. You should be shooting, not pixel peeping, and if you shoot RAW, you don't even need to check white balance. What would you really use three histograms for?

Hard to pixel peep on a camera - but I see your point here.

ISO in 1/3 increments... I pretty much just use 100, 400, 800, and 1600. 1600 is reserved for emergencies. Do you really find yourself wishing you had an 683 ISO very often? Thats some pretty finicky shooting.

Well I know there have been plenty of times I would like to shoot at just a wee bit higher ISO than 800 maybe 1250? I don't know how useful this would be until I've used it. . . I think shooting at 1250 vs 1600 might prove to be useful - But now that you mention it I'd like 3200 ISO too. . .

Does the 30D have a different sensor than the XT?

No but its AF is faster, more accurate, and more consistent - one big reason I want to upgrade.

You have low light situations pretty well licked with your primes. The f/4 Ls would give you flexibility now and would continue to serve you well two body upgrades from now. If you go for the body first, you will be $1300 farther from the L glass you know you (we) lust after.

I see the wisdom in this statement regarding the two F4Ls hence my pause.

So the XTs (canon) competition is the 5D, the 1Ds Mk IIs, and maybe nothing else.

For you, not for me.

Many people out there take great pictures with the XT. You are one of them.

Well thank you for that comment. If anything you've leaned me more towards the two lenses - but I know deep down that those two lenses will be replaced by the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 2.8 [maybe IS] - But that will come later if my photography pays for it. I have to admit, I've forgotten to be very thankful for this delima I have - Its easy to get caught up in all of this and loose perspective - I could be facing buy shoes or pay for food or something a long those lines - So its nice to have my delima. . . .

Clyde

Many thanks for chiming in here Clyde - a very detailed response - I'll try the exercise of answering some points perhaps learning a thing or two about myself along the way - I've responded in blue were appropriate.

DonSchap

06-21-2006, 02:00 PM

by good, diligent work. That's the magic in America.

While Europeans have a tendancy to stay light and on the move, the American Dream is to plant the flag and stay there. With that being said... all debt to be erased (eventually)...

Andy... mount the glass at the store... shoot a few rounds with the XT. Then.. tryout the 30D... same series of shots. Make the call! YOU... make the call! Not the DCRP. You know what you are looking for... and how to acheive it.

Glass or Can?

Glass or Can?

'Glass" is a photo-buster... and not the 'can' the picture is in. You know that. The decision seems, at first blush... as well as second blush... rather easy.

Once you have the glass... you can saddle up another 'can(on)' to use it. I don't know what the story is behind this upcoming wedding, Andy, but unless they are paying for the new "can'... I'd be saying, "No way, Jose! I've got a good dSLR!"

Look, as much as I bust on the XT... it's more of a size issue... and... well, whatever. You have all the talent you need to make the XT work... so let it. Just give it some dynamite-glass to do it with. :D

aparmley

06-21-2006, 02:20 PM

noyjimi

06-21-2006, 03:27 PM

Andy,

How about selling the XT (and whichever lenses that will be redundant) and funding a 30D+lens purchase? Or better yet, a 20D+lens+maybe another lens purchase?

For your backup body, I say rent or borrow it for the wedding. It's not cheap to have two $$$ bodies around, unless of course it is your main livelihood.

You'll be happy with the 30D (or 20D) so go for it. I'd say the feature list ordered in terms of importance to me would be:

1. Improved AF
2. Ergonomics & feel
3. Bigger LCD & RGB histogram (30D)
4. ISO display in viewfinder (30D)
5. The rest...

-noyjimi

Rhys

06-21-2006, 03:42 PM

I'm in pretty much the same boat. I have a Canon 18-55 and a Canon 50 f1.8 as well as a Tamron 70-300, all of which I'd love to offload.

coldrain

06-21-2006, 04:37 PM

Thinking about a Tamron 70-200? You must be kidding. Or maybe you do enjoy noisy motors and slower, less accurate AF (again due to the motor).

Not with a telezoom!
Thats the joy of Canon's 70-200's... you can be silently looking around without anyone noticing that lovely plastic fantastic Tamron WHIRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

The only real consideration could be the Sigma 70-200. It really is a VERY good lens too, and its HSM motor does its work quite well. So... if money is a factor and you think you need the extra aperture (and weight), go for that Sigma.

And that 17-50 Tamron? Did you notice in the review at photozone.de... two very important things to consider. NOT accurate all the time focussing in lower light. Just what you need in weddings I bet. Oh, and again, that noisy motor. That will be a hit too I am sure :p.

Sure... that Tamron and my Sigma 18-50 f2.8 are ok outdoor snapshot and vacation lenses. But for real work among people? No, not in my opinion. WHIRRRRRR...... YAY slightly off focus again, happy happy joy joy! Get your XT serviced/calibrated first like cdi did (and I should), btw.

aparmley

06-21-2006, 05:43 PM

Gentlemen. . . I think I've reached a decision. . . Thank you all very much! ;)

Bluedog

06-21-2006, 05:48 PM

Andy _ you are by far good enough for a 30D. A lot of people, the 1D type simply say its a glorified amateurs camera > :rolleyes: . Trust me on this that if you do purchase one the XT will soon be growing cob webs.

DonSchap

06-21-2006, 06:05 PM

I think Andy has had it... he's going for the Fujifilm Finepix S3 and all the Nikon-glass he can handle. ;)

Decisions decisions... LOL.

Good Luck, St. Louis! :D

aparmley

06-21-2006, 06:29 PM

Thanks Don. ;)

DonSchap

06-21-2006, 06:47 PM

You think you have issues... I going to try and shoot a well-focused image through a 77mm CPL filter mounted on an 86mm lens... at 500mm and f/6.3 indicated. Try doing that with your new S3, buddy!

13140

On this lens, the lens hood rotation device allows you to rotate the polarizer and also holds the lens hood. There's going to be some serious stress on that polarizer filter's ring, thats for sure.

13141

C'mon autofocus... you have to work. LOL Ye-haa! :eek:

I figure... if this works... I will have saved $120 in polarizing costs... if not... there goes another $20 in ring adapters. You go, ReF. :rolleyes:

Vich

06-21-2006, 08:08 PM

Like CW said, you are definately "good enough".

The 70-200 f4.0 is sure sweet, and poor lenses (even anything less than fabulous lenses) can surely drag you down. However, you have the 85 f1.8 and 50 f1.4. Two great lenses! The 28-105 rates high for the price, from what I've heard here, it would be just fine for a wedding.

As CW says, at a fast paced wedding you probably want a nice zoom (and probably a tele for the wedding itself if it's outdoors), but you would also cover the wedding VERY NICELY with the lens collection you have. Your photos may lack those you could have gotten with something a lot longer than your 85. However you absolutely cannot show up with just one body. So, you'll probably wind up with a 30D anyhow. Better to get it now and have lots of time to get used to it between now and then.

At the very least, get the 20D instead of XT since it has a about half of what's on your list. Down side is having 2 different controls, but if you start making money at this, you'll get a 5D or 30D and then your low-end camera (this 20D) will match. If you can swing the 30D though, somehow that just sounds much more satisfactory.

Vich

06-21-2006, 08:35 PM

Gentlemen. . . I think I've reached a decision. . . Thank you all very much! ;)
And the answer is???

JMWallace

06-21-2006, 09:07 PM

Your a HELLUVA lot better than me!!! and WAY further along. Go get it...you deserve it!

aparmley

06-21-2006, 09:18 PM

Like CW said, you are definately "good enough"

C-Dubya chimed in here and I missed it, where? ? ? LOL Oh I forgot - I'm blocking that bloke!

Like CW said, you are definately "good enough".

The 70-200 f4.0 is sure sweet, and poor lenses (even anything less than fabulous lenses) can surely drag you down. However, you have the 85 f1.8 and 50 f1.4. Two great lenses! The 28-105 rates high for the price, from what I've heard here, it would be just fine for a wedding.

As CW says, at a fast paced wedding you probably want a nice zoom (and probably a tele for the wedding itself if it's outdoors), but you would also cover the wedding VERY NICELY with the lens collection you have. Your photos may lack those you could have gotten with something a lot longer than your 85. However you absolutely cannot show up with just one body. So, you'll probably wind up with a 30D anyhow. Better to get it now and have lots of time to get used to it between now and then.

At the very least, get the 20D instead of XT since it has a about half of what's on your list. Down side is having 2 different controls, but if you start making money at this, you'll get a 5D or 30D and then your low-end camera (this 20D) will match. If you can swing the 30D though, somehow that just sounds much more satisfactory.

Thanks for stopping by Vich - I think my problem here, as our esteemed colleague put it, is that finance < desire. . . although I might replace desire with a different word. But what I am faced with is two very nice options. In the future I should make it easier on myself and give my self one crappy option . :D

As I stated I've made up my mind - but as a true DCRPer I reserve the right to change it and blame all of you for misleading me - Which is why I created this thread after-all - CYA people, if Jamie and Christian taught me one thing, always give yourself and out.

I think my plan of attack is a wise one - I won't reveal it until its too late to change my mind because in my mentally exhausted state I'm vulnerable to corruption and one of you could take the wheel . . . Not a word DonSchap. ;)

It's the North American disease. See, we north americans love to accumulate. Gotta have the next newest thing mentality. That's why US citizens has a very high debt ratio vs other country's citizens. :)
What's next after the 30D? In a year's time when 40D comes along. Or the 5D's prices took a tumble? Hmm....
It's your money or <insert favourite CreditCard>, get what you want.

:confused:

Thats why I drive a '96 Turd-cel . . . love me some new shinny crap! Gotta have the latest and greatest! What? :cool: They stopped making cars in '96 right? :rolleyes:

Whats next after the 30D you ask? Well, I never thought When I bought the XT that it was going to hold me over for a few years. I bought the XT because I wanted a cheap DSLR that I could test the waters with. Now, that I'm sure that I really enjoy the DSLR world I'm considering a nice upgrade in lenses or a nice upgrade in a new body - which I believe the 30D will hold me over for a number of years, unless of course my photography pays for a better body or demands it.

This specific thread is focused on whether or not I'm good enough with respect to photography to warrant a body upgrade or would it be more wise to get a lens upgrade while I continue to learn how to become a better photographer before making a body upgrade -I'll continue to learn either way, but I feel a body upgrade is significant and I want to make sure I don't get the carriage in front of the horse here - but thanks for the info on American debt - good effort! :D

24Peter

06-21-2006, 09:49 PM

This specific thread is focused on whether or not I'm good enough with respect to photography to warrant a body upgrade or would it be more wise to get a lens upgrade while I continue to learn how to become a better photographer before making a body upgrade -I'll continue to learn either way, but I feel a body upgrade is significant and I want to make sure I don't get the carriage in front of the horse here - but thanks for the info on American debt - good effort! :D
Hmmm... you are good enough to go with a better camera, but now I'm just confused. :confused: Since when did horses become important? :(

aparmley

06-22-2006, 01:07 AM

Since when did horses become important? :(

I thought they were an integral part of courting? ;)

ReF

06-22-2006, 03:22 AM

you said you made up your mind, but not knowing which direction you took here's my thoughts for what it's worth:

if the FPS and buffer are constantly holding you back from getting the shot you want that's a big problem IMO. and for a person who regularly uses the higher ISO range i think being able to adjust ISO in 1/3 increments in very import in minimizing noise or detail loss through noise reduction. to me, that is an improvement in picture quality over the XT.

lenses: you said you had some issues with the 28-105's IQ wide open. if the images you are getting don't meet your personal standards, as in this lens is holding you back from the images you want to make and it's got you down, that's another serious problem.

i really think you're gonna need a wide to medium range zoom for the wedding which one that will be is not for me to say.

for what and how you SEEM to shoot i really don't think the f4 tele will cut it. you seem like a 70-200 IS person.

i'm thinking get a 30d and a 17-40 (used if you're sure to replace it with the 17-55 IS). i think you should be good with the 17-40 on one body and 85 f1.8 on the other. then save up for the 70-200 IS. are ya gonna need another flash?

as for being in a "funk" i'm sure you'll grow out of that soon enough. i think you're pretty creative and i'm sure you'll figure something out. to me it's kind of a cycle. you can't be shooting new and inspiring stuff all the time unless you constantly have new things to shoot or just have an incredibly active and creative mind to see the same things in new ways day after day. i went through the "funk" thing early this year; i ran completely dry on scenery images that i most often shoot and found new photographic "life" (ya, corny sounding, i know) in still life, macros, and black and white. in a way i think these photographic/inspirational/creativity slumps are a good thing because in getting out of it you may just find new ways of seeing, composing, and shooting - discovering a new style you like, learn a few new skills, and diversify your photography overall.

cwphoto

06-22-2006, 07:17 AM

C-Dubya chimed in here and I missed it, where? ? ? LOL Oh I forgot - I'm blocking that bloke!

Bite ya Bum Mate!:p

30D all the way - wooooohoooooo!!

You know you want it Baby!!!

I predict we'll get all these gushing comments over how awesome it is and how you don't know why you waited this long!

You're gonna love the screen...

cwphoto

06-22-2006, 07:20 AM

Does the 30D have a different sensor than the XT?

I think so. Isn't the XT at 8MP and the 30D at 8.2?

24Peter

06-22-2006, 07:53 AM

I think so. Isn't the XT at 8MP and the 30D at 8.2?
They are different sensors - but I don't think anyone can tell the difference in IQ, not based on the sensor alone anyway.

Getting back to Andy's original dilema, horse carts notwithstanding, I'd say go with a couple of new lenses before investing in the new body. The exception would be if you've already shot with a 30D and are convinced it will take you to the next level. The only thing worse than being disappointed with your current setup is to buy new gear and find it didn't really do anything to improve your pics. :(

Clyde

06-22-2006, 08:21 AM

If anything you've leaned me more towards the two lenses - but I know deep down that those two lenses will be replaced by the 17-55 2.8 IS and the 70-200 2.8 [maybe IS] - But that will come later if my photography pays for it.

If you buy the f/4 Ls used, say on FM, they will keep almost all of their value when you decide to upgrade. That makes the money invested in them a down payment on the more expensive lenses, after there is a definitive verdict on the 17-55.

One way to pose your dilemma is:

Are you less likely to miss a shot with the 30D and 85 prime, or the XT and 70-200 L? The XT and 17-40 or the 30D and swapping primes? It sounds like it comes down to buffer size, ISO versatility (1600 under exposed 1 stop is 3200, to my unsophisticated eyes), and focus reliability versus high quality zoom.

I'd still take the glass, but can easily see an educated, skilled photographer opting for the body.

However you go, I hope to see enthusiastic posts about the transformative power of either the glass or the body... I'm betting you will end up with the body.

Clyde

aparmley

06-22-2006, 10:11 AM

Thanks for all the posts guys. . . .

What the really interesting and potentially dangerous thing about this forum is that people can nearly sell you on anything. . . .and at the same time echo your own considerations and wonder. . .

You read one post and think - "Thats exactly what I as thinking". . . then you read the next post that takes an opposing side to the previous post and again you think, "Thats exactly what I was thinking. . ."

Fun stuff.

REF - thanks for you post and thanks for reminding me about the viewfinder - it is nicer than the XTs. . . I forgot about that.

Guys I really do appreciate the opinions here - infact they did help me decide what I have decided - I coudln't have done it without all of you. . . And if you are thinking you posted after I made my mind up what good could that have done - it really reinforces my decision.

Thanks million! As for the decision I'm withholding on purpose - not fun I know, but I have a plan and I hope its worth the wait. . . that probably doesn't make sense yet - but trust me I think it does. :D

JTL

06-22-2006, 10:36 AM

As for the decision I'm withholding on purpose - not fun I know, but I have a plan and I hope its worth the wait. . . that probably doesn't make sense yet - but trust me I think it does. :DAfter all that build up, it had better be a 5D with a 16-35 2.8 L, a 24-70 2.8 L and a 70-200 2.8 L IS! :D

ReF

06-22-2006, 10:56 AM

REF - thanks for you post and thanks for reminding me about the viewfinder - it is nicer than the XTs. . . I forgot about that.

:confused: i didn't mention it but yeah, the viewfinder is a helluva lot nicer than the XT's that you have to strain your eye with

Rhys

06-22-2006, 10:59 AM

I know what you mean about being swayed by opinions. Some are good and others are bad.

People all said how good the Tamron 28-75 is. I concur it is a good lens as is my Tamron 17-35.

People all said how good the XT is. I find it a pain in the rear.

People all said how good the 50mm f1.8 is - I find it's not that great and with my 28-75 is redundant.

The 18-55 has been critiscised royally yet I've had some sharp photos from it.

People condemned my Tamron 70-300. Sure - it's a slow lens but it's sharp.

People can offer very biassed opinions here and they can do so openly and honestly and without realising or intending any bias. Many get swayed by internet group think too. Generally the sheep can be identified as they're usually the first to attack somebody instead of debating their ideas. I had to block several obnoxious sheep for doing just that.

There are things to like and dislike about all cameras. Now that Nikon has the D200 and seeing as I'd kinda sorta like to sell my 70-300, 18-55, 50f1.8 I'm kindasorta wondering whether to sell the XT, BGE3 battery, Tamrons 17-35 & 28-75 also in order to get the D200 and be able to use my existing Nikkon AIS lenses then maybe get some more AIS lenses.

Equally, I'm impressed by the Pentax cameras with their AA battery support and built-in anti-shake. After all, most flashes use AA batteries so why not have a camera that does and use just one battery type? That way if you ran out of batteries you could cannibalise the flash in order to get that once-in-a-lifetime photo of Elvis riding side-saddle with Julian Clary!

Lots of people like AF. To be quite honest I prefer to remain in control and have not thus far been impressed by the AF on any AF camera that I've seen. I'm not impressed by Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax or any other AF gizmos. They just seem to be completely wacky in terms of when they'll focus and when they'll screw up.

DonSchap

06-22-2006, 11:42 AM

Look, the last four months have been a rather intense experience for yours truly... bombarded by this and that, being told good lenses aren't... good enough. Believe me when I say, it all comes down to intent.

I do intend to "get the shot", but like anything else, there are plenty of ways to skin that cat. Great glass, great camera, great composition... etc.

The idea of grabbing a 5D and tromping off into the woods for pictures doesn't seem to be such a great idea... environmentally. Especially when there are plenty of pros out there that will tell you that a 20D would do just as nice a job and a lot cheaper, too. SO... dumping $3000 into just a body... unless you have funds paying for it, just doesn't seem prudent. Full sensor or not, you bust that puppy and you are out seriously BIG bucks! And, considering that you could have three 20Ds for the same amount... drop one, who cares? Send it off to repair... you've got two more in the box and can still turn a buck.

On the other hand... throwing great glass at your sensor... as most of us have reached a consensus on this point... argumentatively, seems the best way to go. Many Rebel owners hang on to their camera because they are dying to squeeze every last dime's worth of firepower it has, claiming, "they don't need no stinkin' 20D"... and then sit back breathlessly and muttering under their breath, wondering... "What if I did have a 20D/30D?"

Admittedly, it is a quandary. I say invest a bit more cash.. get the 30D and the lenses you truly feel that you need to be secure in your shooting... then, get a lot more business and darn quick. Keep the Rebel as a 'back-up' (break glass in case of fire) or second ready-camera and go get some pictures.

Reaching out for the EOS 5D, or even more so the EOS 1 Ds MKII, seems a little overly ambitious. While these two cameras are regarded as the cream of the cream, would your client truly appreciate what it provides? More over, are you ready to handle the expectations that come along with such a tool?

Personally, I'd be a little nervous holding $8000 worth of equipment with a $2100 85mm f/1.2L lens on it. Using it regulary would probably give me an ulcer.

You know what you are doing with your Rebel... and would most likely quickly learn the additional nuances of the 20D/30D... but, then it gets serious on the next jump. If you happen to drop one of these high-end beauties... or have it stolen by some "guest" at a wedding... it won't be crying you hear... it'll be more likely bankruptcy. Of course, the only real answer is insurance... and that will be charged at a professional/commercial rate. Are you ready to lay out that kind of coin after you've already spent nearly twelve grand in glass and body?

So... do the math for the EOS 30D plus necessary glass... and it'll all reveal itself in cold, hard facts. Then, go out there and...

GET THE SHOT! :eek:

Rhys

06-22-2006, 11:54 AM

Many people complain X lens isn't sharp. Having had cracking shots from my 28-75 as well as lousy shots my thought is that it's not that the lenses aren't sharp. It's more likely that the AF that everybody seems to rely upon is not as good as desired. I would much rather take slower photos using manual focus and be able to blame the blurry out-of-focus shots on myself rather than be forced to rely upon somebody else (the person that wrote the AF software) to decide where the camera will focus.

jamison55

06-22-2006, 12:05 PM

The XT never let me down at a wedding. I like the controls, slightly better IQ @ high ISO's, and respectability that the 20/30D command, but wouldn't hesitate to shoot a wedding with nothing but my XT (and a BU body, of course).

I would, however, hesitate to shoot a wedding with a 70-200 f4 :eek:. It's a really nice lens in bright sunlight, but in my part of the world bright sunlight is the exception at weddings. Just think about needing a 1/250-320 SS to handhold it at f4 - you need a lot of light to handle that. I found that I could only use my 80-200L outdoors, and that was f2.8. The 85 f1.8 is a great low light lens.

I would feel completely confident shooting a wedding with:

XT + 17-40L + 550/580ex
XT + 85 f1.8 + 550/580ex

I would NOT trust a wedding to the iffy good light / poor low light focusing of a Tamron or Sigma lens.

Having said that, you'll never regret an upgrade to a 20D/30D - just for sheer usability.

AND

The mother of all wedding lenses is the 70-200IS. That lens is quickly becoming glued to one of my bodies!

Can't wait to hear your decision, Andy!

Vich

06-22-2006, 12:47 PM

The mother of all wedding lenses is the 70-200IS. That lens is quickly becoming glued to one of my bodies!

Can't wait to hear your decision, Andy!
After only a few outings with the 70-200 F4.0, I can certianly understand that!

[MENTAL IMAGE "myself as doing weddings"] I can be certain that a shot from the 70-200 f2.8 with IS would always be a welcome friend. The other camera would get the lens changes. [/MENTAL IMAGE]

Yip! great length, great IQ, IS is a wonderful thing. Now for the chest harness to carry the darn thing around in.

Rhys

06-22-2006, 01:01 PM

The XT never let me down at a wedding. I like the controls, slightly better IQ @ high ISO's, and respectability that the 20/30D command, but wouldn't hesitate to shoot a wedding with nothing but my XT (and a BU body, of course).

I would NOT trust a wedding to the iffy good light / poor low light focusing of a Tamron or Sigma lens.

I find Canon lenses to be just as iffy with an XT. It's not only the lens - it's the camera too.

Vich

06-22-2006, 01:19 PM

I find Canon lenses to be just as iffy with an XT. It's not only the lens - it's the camera too.
There are a lot of people who get consistant good results with XT. Your earlier post suggested you want to manual focus. For that, you should probably move right up to 5D where the viewfinder will be much bigger and brighter (isn't it?).

Might I gently suggest that the problem may lie in your XT, or (forgive me) technique? I look at my AF results and re-prefocus if it looks off. However; I don't have a split screen installed so that's all guesswork (and my poor failing eyesight).

CDI had his frustrations quailed with a visit to Canon.

No arguement that XT + L will be < 30D + L in terms of number of keepers (or rather, number of junkers due to mis-focus). However the 30D and 5D (or even 1D) will be just as subject to bad copies and less than perfect technique.

Rhys

06-22-2006, 01:38 PM

Might I gently suggest that the problem may lie in your XT, or (forgive me) technique? I look at my AF results and re-prefocus if it looks off. However; I don't have a split screen installed so that's all guesswork (and my poor failing eyesight).

No arguement that XT + L will be < 30D + L in terms of number of keepers (or rather, number of junkers due to mis-focus). However the 30D and 5D (or even 1D) will be just as subject to bad copies and less than perfect technique.

I haven't yet really come to any conclusion about the XT yet. There are things I don't like about it. The one thing I do like is the image quality when I get a decent image. I'm still largely playing with the settings since I'm only 1,500 exposures into it.

Indeed, the 5D does look like a good purchase. I do miss full frame. If Nikon comes out with a full frame camera that works well with AIS lenses then I might just buy a Nikon and use that instead.

aparmley

06-22-2006, 02:00 PM

jamison55

06-22-2006, 02:45 PM

No arguement that XT + L will be < 30D + L in terms of number of keepers (or rather, number of junkers due to mis-focus). However the 30D and 5D (or even 1D) will be just as subject to bad copies and less than perfect technique.

A bunch of 1500+ shot weddings and I don't see this to be true. My XT gave me just as many keepers/non-keepers as my 20D.

In my defense I never expected to shoot a wedding with the 70-200 F4 more so for general use. . .

Honestly, for general use, for the same $$$ I'd probably choose the 70-300IS above the 70-200 f4 (provided I could get a copy without all of the reported problems). I've used my associates' 75-300IS to snipe candids at weddings (1/30 w/flash) and have really liked the results. At those long FL's the IS is darned handy, and is more useful IMHO than an f4 aperture. The IS gets you 3 stops so 280mm equiv = 1/250SS at f5.6. But the IS gives you back 3 stops: 1/125, 1/60, 1/30. 1/30 isn't enough to freeze action, but 1/60 will stop your average slowly-walking grizzly bear. 1/60 at f5.6 is still 1 stop more light than you'll get from your f4 lens. So not a church lens, ut when used with a flash at the reception, you can get some really nice resutls with the 70-300IS.

24Peter

06-22-2006, 03:14 PM

...you can get some really nice resutls with the 70-300IS.
I gotta tell you guys who haven't tried this lens: if and when Canon gets it right (the portrait orientation issue) this will be a killer lens. I like my 70-200 F4L but useability-wise the 70-300 IS is hard to beat and the IQ is not far behind the L.

some guy

06-22-2006, 03:33 PM

coldrain

06-22-2006, 03:54 PM

Canon promises something revolutionary in 2007. So I'd wait for another year to see what the 30D's replacement will be. I find the 30d is just a mere 20D MkII. So wait it out.

Rhys, don't get it the wrong way, but I came across your photo postings in FM and indeed the pictures were unimpressive. Perhaps it's the camera or technique. Perhaps the XT just doesn't suit you and amplified the less than desireable picture results. I don't know. So far the pix I've seen taken by newbie XTs have been quite good (in dpreview and FM). So you're one unique fella.
Unimpressive is the term. Rhys has a 50mm f1.8 which he doesn't like and a kitlens he always said he didn't like until he tested it and found it was not so unsharp as he always thought, and that is his experience with Canon lenses.
It may well be that a calibration of his focus screen will improve focus reliability like with cdi.
But just a little softness due to inaccurate focus does not make for unimpressive results.

I am sure Rhys will be happy with a Pentax (with more iffy controls than his XT), and with a top pro level Nikon full frame like the 1Ds mkII, which will weigh 3 times what his XT weighs so he can leave it more at home, and which again will not have his beloved AA's, the only battery he will not forget to charge ;).

It is and always will be the same story. Life is good.

DonSchap

06-22-2006, 04:19 PM

Andy, looks like some heavy weather movin' your way. (6pm - Thursday)

Anyway... decided to visit the Field Museum & Grant Park, tomorrow. (no rain, they say, finally)

I'll take the 17~50mm and the Canon 70~200 along, this time (the TAmROn 70~210mm f/2.8 isn't out yet...snicker). I was considering the 11-18mm, too (it's light enough)... for some weird close-ups.

I will post the good stuff.

Stay tuned... and duck the falling neighborhood trees, will ya? :eek:

Vich

06-22-2006, 04:44 PM

Unimpressive is the term. Rhys has a 50mm f1.8 which he doesn't like and a kitlens he always said he didn't like until he tested it and found it was not so unsharp as he always thought, and that is his experience with Canon lenses.
It may well be that a calibration of his focus screen will improve focus reliability like with cdi.
But just a little softness due to inaccurate focus does not make for unimpressive results.

I am sure Rhys will be happy with a Pentax (with more iffy controls than his XT), and with a top pro level Nikon full frame like the 1Ds mkII, which will weigh 3 times what his XT weighs so he can leave it more at home, and which again will not have his beloved AA's, the only battery he will not forget to charge ;).

It is and always will be the same story. Life is good.
Hold on. He's moaning about XT AF and how the better lenses don't perform but he's only got these notoriously inconsistant lenses?

Rhys, I thought you had an upgraded lens?

Really, if you haven't had the opportunity to really try an L, a good working one, then don't knock it.

These suckers snap into focus far faster than you could probably turn the dial manually, much less assess if you're in focus or not. And I'd bet they'll almost always beat your guesswork for "in focus", unless you're just an expert at manual focus. And if not, then something's not working properly or the operator doesn't know about seeking contrast points when focusing (and widely avoiding background contrast lines).

A bucketload of OOF shots is always a disappointment, but there are photographers who manage to overcome that nicely with the same equipment you're claiming is so falable. (finger taps temple ) Really. Hmmm.

aparmley

06-22-2006, 05:40 PM

Honestly, for general use, for the same $$$ I'd probably choose the 70-300IS above the 70-200 f4 (provided I could get a copy without all of the reported problems). I've used my associates' 75-300IS to snipe candids at weddings (1/30 w/flash) and have really liked the results. At those long FL's the IS is darned handy, and is more useful IMHO than an f4 aperture. The IS gets you 3 stops so 280mm equiv = 1/250SS at f5.6. But the IS gives you back 3 stops: 1/125, 1/60, 1/30. 1/30 isn't enough to freeze action, but 1/60 will stop your average slowly-walking grizzly bear. 1/60 at f5.6 is still 1 stop more light than you'll get from your f4 lens. So not a church lens, ut when used with a flash at the reception, you can get some really nice resutls with the 70-300IS.

I gotta tell you guys who haven't tried this lens: if and when Canon gets it right (the portrait orientation issue) this will be a killer lens. I like my 70-200 F4L but useability-wise the 70-300 IS is hard to beat and the IQ is not far behind the L.

Nah - I hear ya guys. . .Don't think I haven't thought it about it either - I know Canon has admitted there is a portrait issue with this lens - I'd love to hear they've found a fix or have fixed it. . . I do agree - IQ with this lenses seems right on and with the IS it makes that more useful. . . I just don't know about that gosh darned portrait issue. . .

JMWallace

06-22-2006, 07:33 PM

Are you talking about the regular 70-300 IS or the DO version?? The DO version is intriguing...but have never really heard anyone talk about it.

cwphoto

06-22-2006, 09:06 PM

Are you talking about the regular 70-300 IS or the DO version?? The DO version is intriguing...but have never really heard anyone talk about it.

It's about double the price, and not as sharp from what I've read - it's no wonder you never hear about it.

Awesome travelling lens though.

JMWallace

06-22-2006, 09:29 PM

compactness...yes, but from some of the tests I just read, for half the price I'd be more enticed by the standard one. Although, for that price I can have the 70-200 f/4. OR even better, for the price of the DO, I can have the 2.8. www.pricegrabber.com (http://www.pricegrabber.com) - LOWEST I have found anywhere!! GOD, I hope I get my promotion!!!! Just think what I could do with $25K - $45K more/year!!!

cwphoto

06-22-2006, 09:31 PM

compactness...yes, but from some of the tests I just read, for half the price I'd be more enticed by the standard one. Although, for that price I can have the 70-200 f/4. OR even better, for the price of the DO, I can have the 2.8. GOD, I hope I get my promotion!!!!

Yeah I know what you mean, compactness has never really been my thing anyway...:p

ReF

06-23-2006, 05:13 AM

Vich

06-23-2006, 10:54 AM

rhys, it could be that your xt is in need of calibration, better lenses, or you need to get more familiar with the characteristics of the XT's AF. honestly i'm perfectly satisfied with the AF when using L's to shoot moving subjects and shallow DOF. can't say much about the AF on the only non-L USM lens i have until i get it calibrated though (50mm f1.4).
I'm super happy with my 50 f1.4 after getting it calibrated.

Took about 50 photos of a running kid at dusk and probably 45 of them are acceptably or very sharp. Don't know if you've ever tried photoing running kids before, but thats a true test of AF under harsh conditions, esp in lower light. Nearly as tough as sports, lol, except in sports the subject isn't actively trying to trip you up.

600 x 800 example here. (http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/76579648-L.jpg)
4MB original here. (http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/76579648-O.jpg)

100% crop here. (http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/76579674-L.jpg)
(sorry, EXIF is corrupted). It was at f4.0.

Rhys

06-23-2006, 12:53 PM

coldrain

06-23-2006, 01:04 PM

If it's a case of needing to replace the lenses and get the body worked on, I'd rather sell the lot and get a D200 that'll work with my existing AIS lenses or even a D70 and use a hand-held light meter.
The AIS lenses do NOT need a AF... and so, you do not need a D70, your 350D/XT with mount convertor will do, and guess what... It will do metering! So not handheld light meter necessary!

Can someone quote me so Rhys can read it? ;)

Vich

06-23-2006, 01:07 PM

The AIS lenses do NOT need a AF... and so, you do not need a D70, your 350D/XT with mount convertor will do, and guess what... It will do metering! So not handheld light meter necessary!

Can someone quote me so Rhys can read it? ;)OK, you stand quoted.:rolleyes:

some guy

06-23-2006, 01:20 PM

Rhys

06-23-2006, 01:32 PM

The Nikons have split-screen focussing screens available. The Canon does not. There are 3rd party Canon screens but as the camera meters through the focussing screen, changing to a 3rd party screen can adversely affect exposure!

aparmley

06-23-2006, 01:32 PM

If it's a case of needing to replace the lenses and get the body worked on, I'd rather sell the lot and get a D200 that'll work with my existing AIS lenses or even a D70 and use a hand-held light meter.

No offense or anything buddy, but why in the world did you canon in the first place? I keep hearing, "... so I can use my AIS lenses. . ." Makes me wonder, did you have these AIS lenses before you bought the XT? Why don't you just sell the Canong gear and buy the D200 - if thats what you really want - why mess around with it. The Nikon group is friendly. . . ;)

The Nikons have split-screen focussing screens available. The Canon does not.

Ok theres another reason for you it sounds like. . .

coldrain

06-23-2006, 01:39 PM

The nikons have a split focussing screens from nikon available? What nikons?
The Canon EOS 5D has one available though. And will allow metering with AIS lenses. And is full format. And no AA. Just like the D200.

And I know why Rhys is not getting a D200... He found the 70D too heavy already, that is why he chose the XT... And so he leaves his XT already at home because of weight and its non AA battery when he goes on a trip.
And the D200 also does not have AA's. And he wants a 6mp camera because also the XT's file size is a reason to grumble for Rhys... and the D200 makes even larger files.

Oh yes... and Rhys finds the XT too complex to operate. Imagine how he will like a D200... oooh... or he might like complex unlogical menus and weird options everywhere. Could be.

Vich

06-23-2006, 02:12 PM

I just love how this has gone from Andy's delima on the 30D vs. lens upgrades, that has some relevance to Andy's skill level, to ganging up on Rhys for his expressing dissatisfaction with the modern world of AF cameras, in particular Canon's version of it.

I guess he made some sluring comment and we all jumped up to say "don't think so".

Nothing to add. Just looking.

Oh, while we're on the subject of Andy's equipment, what's all this?

"RS60-E3 | RC-5 | BG-E3 | ET-65 III | EW-65 II | EW-63 II"

DonSchap

06-23-2006, 02:38 PM

The Tower still stands...

13160
Sears Tower

I shot this from the truck, as I was tooling down Lake Shore Drive, today. It was a real quick snap, from the driver's seat, of the upper 2/3s of the "Monument to Capitalism" and the "in your face" to third world and cult-following weirdos. I have to tell you, the Chicago Museums are in full operation, as hundreds of people were darting to and fro. Instead of running for cover, like they do in the Middle East, these people were running to have fun and ice cream! Unfortunately, parking was rediculously far... and it was getting late. I aborted.

I spent a good part of the morning discussing the Fujifilm Finepix S3, down at Calumet Photographic. Larry Franco gave some serious insights into what this camera can do, on the fly, that other dSLRs are still thinking about. It really is quite impressive. Unfortunately, it is all-Nikon glass.

Anyway, perhaps later, next week. Early on... Tuesday, maybe. :cool: Perhaps I should go on a crappier day... less people. Sunday is supposed to be really bad. LOL :D

With some serious gear, you really need a driver to not only drive, but quickly park... and the photographer in quick action, when visting downtown... either that or one of those Segway Human Transporters. Walking three or four miles to "get the shot" really takes the wind out of your sails. The Segway would allow you to enter buildings, ride elevators... force people to dart out of your way... as you threaten to run over their toes. It's kind of like a short bicycle with the wheels on the outside.

13161
"Look out, will ya, ya Segway-driver!"

Aside from that, looking at this thread... I suggest "Rhys" be left alone, also. Andy needs to make a solid decision... he's asked for assistance, gotten the best we had and is currently arranging financing. :rolleyes: Carrying on about this & that is proving to be rather "unproductive", leaving one to ask: "To what end?" Picking on opinions offers no real value... offer up a differing one... and let the choices begin.

Here's Andy's Equipment List, near as I can figure it:
EOS 30D/ BG-E2 / EF 70~200mm f/2.8L IS USM / SP AF17~50mm f/2.8 Di II LD / SP AF28~75mm f/2.8 Di LD / 580EX / 430EX(slave) / proper filters

Yes... the all-wedding/all-the-time issue. LOL :D GO ANDY!

aparmley

06-23-2006, 03:00 PM

I guess he made some sluring comment and we all jumped up to say "don't think so".

I thought I was supporting Rhys. if he thinks Nikon would suit him better - go for it. . . why waste time.

what's all this?

"RS60-E3 | RC-5 | BG-E3 | ET-65 III | EW-65 II | EW-63 II"

In order
Remote switch
Wireless remote
Battery grip
hood for the 85 1.8
hood for the 35 f2.0
hood for the 28-105
Do I not have my 50 1.4's hood listed? ? hrmmmm ES-71-II

some guy

06-23-2006, 03:23 PM

I'm sorry I'm new and I do not know Rhys problem. All I read is that he is complaining on the XT about AF, no AA batteries and wanting to use AIS lens. So being the good Samaritan tried to provide suggestive helps. :rolleyes:

Vich

06-23-2006, 03:33 PM

I thought I was supporting Rhys. if he thinks Nikon would suit him better - go for it. . . why waste time. "We" was a generality. I could only imagine he was feeling that way.

In order
Remote switch
Wireless remote
Battery grip
hood for the 85 1.8
hood for the 35 f2.0
hood for the 28-105
Do I not have my 50 1.4's hood listed? ? hrmmmm ES-71-II
Ummm, you forgot your $5 dust blower (and lens tissue brand):D :D ;)

Rhys

06-23-2006, 04:42 PM

Vich

06-23-2006, 05:13 PM

The Tower still stands...

13160
Sears Tower
Some day DonSchap, the Off Topic police are gonna pound your door down. :D :D

Sears Tower? Your truck drive and conversation about Fuji S3 and a Segway machine? I confess I didn't read the long post. Guess I missed something in the "why" column.

DonSchap

06-23-2006, 05:23 PM

Is there really any harm in lightening things up a bit?

I mean, poor "Rhys" was taking a beatin' by a few DCRP thugs and I was feeling upbeat about Andy's soon-to-be-in-the-bag decision.

But, before I segway into anything else... ;) , I'll close by askin'... "Hey Andrew... just when are we going see some action on this change, pal?"

aparmley

06-23-2006, 06:04 PM

Don -

I let you guys now what my decision was once I receive shipment. Give it about a month. I'm working on a little side project for fun and hope to get that going by the time I recieve whatever it was I decide on. . .

Some guy - that was mighty kind of you re: Rhys - its easy to jump on the bandwagon online.

Rhys - good to hear - get the paperwork in order and get your D200 and forget about it!

Vich

06-23-2006, 06:46 PM

I will freely admit I regret buying the XT.

I would have been better to stick with Nikon.

But since I now have my Permanant Residence card and a Social Security Number on the way, all I have to do is to convert my driving licence and the world of money (err work) awaits. Then I can afford to get a D200 :DCongrads on the imigration stuff. I can only imagine the pressure, and now the relief!

As Andrew says, that (your purchase) is a regret easily rectified.

DonSchap

06-23-2006, 07:24 PM

SONY A100 due out next month???

An-DY! :eek: What's goin' on, pal? Switching to... Minolta? ( ;) ;) nudge nudge)

Rhys

06-23-2006, 07:54 PM

Congrads on the imigration stuff. I can only imagine the pressure, and now the relief!

As Andrew says, that's a regret easily rectified.

It's not been terrific pressure. I found a wonderful woman and married her. It turned out that she lives in the US and runs a business so I came over to the US. Then I had to wait a year to get a permanant residence card, during which I had very little information about working and we couldn't find very much so I ended up as a "housewife". It's not so bad - I quite enjoyed it. Now I've got permanant residence and my SSN is on the way, I can get a local drivers licence etc. The only fly in the ointment is that I must do the whole permanant residence thing again in 2 years. Then I get a 10 year card. I can't even go for naturalisation until I've been here at least 3 years!

I probably will get a D200 (or whatever's around when I have the cash available) later. I miss the feel of a Nikon. I hear they're designed by Gigaru.