Help! Canon 400D XTi/30D or Nikon D80? Lenses?

[WesternWilson]

I am hopelessly confoozed.

Moving up from our venerable Canon Powershot A80, I have a budget of roughly $1500 tops. I would consider the Nikon D200 but it is too pricey.

I am looking for:
better images, especially indoors/low light portraits
good plant shots, closeups
the chance to grow as a photographer
no frickin' shadow cast by wide angle lens + flash (shame on Canon)

I am willing to learn more: the family will be strictly pointers and shooters. I do most of the photography either way.

Which of these three cameras are my smartest buy, why should I choose one over another, and given that I plan to buy body only and get a better lens, which lenses should I consider?

Thanks all for your help!
Janet

[timmciglobal]

Well...

Your probably best off dollar wise with an XTI, 430 EX flash and a 60 mm macro.

As far as lenses go otherwise, Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 18-50 2.8 Macro.

Tim

[DonSchap]

Consider a "ring-flash" for your camera ... which immediately elimates shadows cast by your lens and the pop-up flash. A third-party device, it probably will not cost more than the Canon 430EX ... and do precisely what you want.

26569


It works great for close-up work.

(This particular ring flash is designed for use on 54mm filter-ring lens or less. Larger filter-ring sizes will require some ... adaptation or a different unit entirely. I have found to work well on the EF 50mm f/1.8 II and the EF 28mm f/2.8 lens (both have a 52mm filter-ring). Also most of the Minolta prime lenses are set to 49mm filter-ring. Also, those Minolta lenses work quite nicely on the SONY A100.)

[WesternWilson]

I should add the Canon 30D is the only one that get uniformly glowing customer reviews. That makes me lean heavily toward that model.

Thoughts?

[DonSchap]

The Canon EOS 30D is a great camera ... but, like its brethren ... it lacks internal stabilization (IS).

You mentioned you were looking to do low light photography ... and that usually requires slower Shutter Speeds. Speeds such as 1/30th and 1/15 sec ... and as such, IS is truly a benefit not to be overlooked, unless you plan on using a tripod routinely (not a bad practice, just a bit clumsy).

The SONY A100 provides internal stabilization at no extra cost and for every lens you mount. The Canon will require stabilization be provided by the lens itself ... and there are only a few select and expensive zoom lenses that can do that.

That is where you make your choice:

SONY A100 - ALL lenses get "stabilized" by camera body's "Super SteadyShot"
Canon EOS 30D - only select and expensive ZOOM lenses and long focal length primes (300mm +) have IS in them.

Earlier Minolta A-mount lenses are also significantly cheaper than today's versions and offer the same quality shot. They mount conveniently on the SONY A100.

The Canon EOS 30D only accepts Canon-mount glass.

Ah, the choices ... :D

[JTL]

IS is truly a benefit not to be overlooked

Don,

Hmmmmmmmm. I seem to remember an extremely long winded argument that you had with me where you were poo-pooing IS. You went so far as to criticize photographers for using it, I believe. Well, what an amazing turn-around!

So, I guess you're saying that I was right all along in my statements that as IS became more affordable it would become just another feature...even a desirable feature...so much so that people like Don Schap would be recommending it, heck, even promoting it. Yes, an amazing turn-around indeed.

I knew I was right all along, there was never any doubt about that...I'm just glad you know it now as well! Any time I can help you come to a rational conclusion, as I did in this case, please don't be afraid to ask for help! :p:p:p

[WesternWilson]

Ok guys, so what am I looking at $$ wise for a Canon IS lens? I can choke down $500 or so, no more.

I am disturbed by the general lack of enthusiasm for the Sony in every review I have read. I can wait for a great lens, I can't rework the Sony body.

Is a workable solution to go for the D30 body and lens package, then just save up for a nice IS lens while I learn?

[DonSchap]

Ok guys, so what am I looking at $$ wise for a Canon IS lens? I can choke down $500 or so, no more.

I am disturbed by the general lack of enthusiasm for the Sony in every review I have read. I can wait for a great lens, I can't rework the Sony body.

Is a workable solution to go for the D30 body and lens package, then just save up for a nice IS lens while I learn?


Learn to use a tripod and the IS question becomes moot.

IS is a creation of the post-2003 development in digital. What do you think people were using prior to that? Yep, mini-prop sandbags and mono/tripod stands. It still is a viable solution, except where banned by the museum or facility/venue you are shooting in.

Common-sense says a $70 tripod can save you $$$ is IS-equipped lensing and/or camera body. Plus, you can take long-exposure images that even with an IS-equipped lens would be practically impossible.

If IS went away, today, I would still be able to shoot one hell of an image! So, I ask that time-honored question: Who cares? :D


Marry a Canon EOS 30D to a TAMRON SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) lens and start your engines! But, if you can get a manufacturer to throw in IS in a 10.2 MP DSLR camera ... for effectively free (SONY) ... it just might ramp up your low-light "keepers" from those bound for the "mega-pixel bit-bucket."

[WesternWilson]

I have pretty much decided to go for the 30D...just can't ignore the incredibly high ratings the camera garners from every source.

I'll purchase it body only and get this lens:
Canon EF-S 17mm - 85mm f/4.0-5.6 USM IS

It goes for roughly CAN$800, but I suspect I will get it while travelling in the USA, where the lens goes for almost half that price. It depends on what the duty is, bringing it back into Canada.

That lens is a relatively light, highly rated, entry level IS that does not give up too much in terms of performance.

[coldrain]

Who rates that lens so highly?
3 things I do not really like about it:
- f4-5.6.
- I do not like the contrast/colour it reproduces.
- Too heavy barrel distortion at the wide end.

I'd much rather get the less expensive Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DG Macro and not care about losing IS, or save up and go for the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM.
But, that is personal... to others the IS and USM may weigh up to the lesser colour/contrast reproduction and barrel distortion.

[WesternWilson]

Anywhere you look for a review, that lens is highly admired. I think there is a general consensus that you do give up some quality over a) dedicated lenses and b) lenses twice the price. But for the "pro-sumer" it is a fine lens to carry around (small, light, widely capable in tourist mode), a much better choice than the package lens, and an all around good bang for the buck.

In my own situation, which I imagine is pretty typical, the desire to improve my photography results is in direct opposition to my ability to justify investing so much in a camera setup...and my budget is fairly elastic, in spite of having a spouse who can't see why we don't just have a $200 point and shoot. Not only that, but as a family, this is our only camera, and I have to weigh the impact of having such a nice instrument when it is probable the kids will get their hands on it.

In short, it's a pushme/pullyou kind of decision.

[Rooz]

the issue though is you specifically asked for a setup that would work well indoors/ low light...yet you have gone for a lens that is a poor performer in those conditions. you also specificied low light portraits. this lens can;t give you the blurry background you are after in a lower aperture lens. IS is useless for any indoor shots of moving objects like kids and family get togethers, you are much better off getting a better low light perofmring lens with an fstop of 2.8 througout the whole focal range. i mean at 50mm you are gaining something like 3-5 stops by using f2.8 lens'. btw thats stops in higher shutter speed not gaining stops by avoiding camera shake. imo you are making a mistake with that setup you suggested.

imo for your needs you are better off getting an xti over a 30d and spending the money you save on the body on the 17-55 f2.8 IS lens. that is a lens that will be in your kit for the next 10years. alternately the 30D with the sigma that coldy suggested is a better option for your requirements

what you gain in focal length with the 85mm you will more than make up for in optical performance from either of the f2.8 lens'. besides which, both cams are highly capable tools where you always crop your image to "simulate" a longer focal length anwway.

here is a review of the 17-85. if it was an18-200mm lens i get the versatility comprimise of IS and slightly lower optical performance but just to gain 30mm ? not exactly hugely more versatile. if it wasnt for IS i doubt this would be a lens you would be looking at.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm

[WesternWilson]

Fair enough! And I appreciate that information as that was getting lost in the IS debate!

I will go back a reappraise. As you say, I will have this lens for a long time!

Thanks for putting it so clearly for me.

Regards,
Janet

[nutsnbolts]

Who rates that lens so highly?
3 things I do not really like about it:
- f4-5.6.
- I do not like the contrast/colour it reproduces.
- Too heavy barrel distortion at the wide end.

I'd much rather get the less expensive Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DG Macro and not care about losing IS, or save up and go for the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM.
But, that is personal... to others the IS and USM may weigh up to the lesser colour/contrast reproduction and barrel distortion.

I agree with Coldrain. I initially was looking at the 17-85 but the reviews on it was pretty much what Coldrain stated. I went with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM due to the f-stop and I won't really miss much between the 55-70. Although I did purchase the 85mmL f/1.8 which pretty much does it for me. I do also have a 10-22mmL and 70-200mmL so it was a no brainer.

Don't get me wrong, I prefer contrast and color better than 'focusing' on that range and with f/4.0-5.6 isn't really all that.

I think, either way, you'd be happy with it. I think Coldrain has a finer eye/experience that we won't notice.

[WesternWilson]

I agree that the CAN$1350 Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS USM is the way to go.

However, I cannot afford an expensive lens right now.

Since that kind of leaves me with kit lenses for now, here are my total kit choices, all $Canadian:


Canon 28-135 mm IS ($1450)
EFS 18-55 lens ($1350)
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Zoom Lens (at $1700 a bit out of my range)

Thoughts anyone? For the most part until I can save for that good lens, I will be shooting touristy landscape photos.

[coldrain]

Then why not look at an XTi over a 30D, if you feel the need to have IS. Then you all of a sudden afford the 17-55 IS.

Of course, you still can consider the Sigma 18-50 f2.8. I would rather get the 18-55 kitlens than the 17-85 IS.