Getting new eos 40d which lens should i get?

[scano13]

I am looking to get a new 40d camera. This will be my first SLR so I am new to all this. I was wondering if i should get the one with the lens kit EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM or should I get the one with a EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM? I am leaning toward getting the 17-85mm from reading about it, it seems like the same lens a little better and smaller.

I will be using the camera for normal family pics, mostly my kids and when they play sports. I need a lens that will do a little of everything. I cant afford to spend hundreds extra on lenses.


Can anyone recommend a good place to look online to buy cameras? I have found different sites but then I read reviews about them and it scares me away. Any info on all this would be appreciated.

[TheWengler]

I cant afford to spend hundreds extra on lenses.

Then buy a cheaper camera body. How much are you looking to spend total?

B&H Photo and BuyDig are good.

[scano13]

I am pretty set on get this camera body. I think I dont want to spend more than $1500 for now. I think in the future I am willing to try new lenses once I am more familiar with the camera.

[TenD]

I am pretty set on get this camera body. I think I dont want to spend more than $1500 for now. I think in the future I am willing to try new lenses once I am more familiar with the camera.

The 40D 17-85 kit is $1699 at B&H right now, Buydig doesn't carry that kit. The 40D 28-135 kit leaves you $150 for a CF card and a bag to protect your investment.

You might be able to find a bit of a better price at a reputable seller, but not much. You'll probably find a lot better price than that other places, but I wouldn't buy from most if you paid me to. If you find price you like always check the store at resellerratings.com (http://www.resellerratings.com/) and read about buyers experiences there.

I agree with Wengler, look at a lesser body, maybe a refurbished body, or a used body. The body is less important in the equation than the lens. A great lens on an older body will produce a better image than a lesser lens on a new body.

[TheWengler]

Are these indoor or outdoor sports? The lens you choose will be more important than the camera body.

[griptape]

The body can only see the glass that's in front of it. A sensor only captures what the lens takes in. If you're not willing to spend money on that, it doesn't really matter a whole lot what you get.

[scano13]

It will be used mostly for outdoor sports. which one of the two you would you recomend? If I decide to make the investment and not worry to much about the price. Is the 17-85 a more of a wide angle lens? I know a lot of questions. Thanks for the help

[TheWengler]

It will be used mostly for outdoor sports. which one of the two you would you recomend? If I decide to make the investment and not worry to much about the price. Is the 17-85 a more of a wide angle lens? I know a lot of questions. Thanks for the help

If I HAD to choose one of these I would take the 17-85. The lens does have wide covered while the other lens has more reach but no wide angle. However, I don't think you should get this set up. What's your reasoning for getting the 40D? With $1500 here's what I think you should get...The Canon XTi, Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and Canon 70-200mm f/4 L. You could add a flash and a 1.4x teleconverter when you have more funds.

[scano13]

I like the over all feel of the 40d better than the xti. The xti feels small and plasticy. I figure if I am going to invest in a camera spend extra and get the better over all camera. I have always wanted to take up photography as a hobby and I think this is a good start.

[TheWengler]

I like the over all feel of the 40d better than the xti. The xti feels small and plasticy. I figure if I am going to invest in a camera spend extra and get the better over all camera. I have always wanted to take up photography as a hobby and I think this is a good start.

Take a look at the 20D (used) and 30D then. You'll get a similar build and you'll have more money for lenses. The 40D is a great start but the lenses you buy will stay with you while the cameras will probably change.

[scano13]

So if I do decide to go with a different camera body 20d,30d what lenses do you suggest I get?

[drama]

Neither the 28 135 or the 17 85 are very good lenses, especially for outdoor sports
The 30D with a 70 200 f4L maybe your best option

[Squirt]

If I understand you correctly, you want the camera mostly for family photos with an emphasis on outdoor sports shots of your kids. Correct?

If this is the case, I would recommend the 28-135 on the 40D purchased in the kit. I own this lens and find it well mated to the 40D. For what you want to do it will serve you well. It will work good for most kid sports where you have full access to the playing field. It's not going to get you up close and personal with your kids if they are in the middle of the soccer field, but you will have acceptable results. For the close to the sidelines and other sports you should be pleased with the results. The 28-135 is maligned quite a bit, but since I've owned one( it came with my 40D ) it's been the lens that stays on the camera with the exception of my 10-22 or Macro I rarely use anything else. Most of the time unless I really want to get close I just use the macro focusing of the 28-135. It is Image Stabilized and I've used it for available light shots of my grand children down to 1/6 of a second and had results that were quite acceptable. Eventually you will want a wide angle and probably a longer tele lens, but starting off it should work good for you in your situation.

[SynterX]

I have to agree. I am having great luck with the 28-135 on my 2 week old 40D. If you have the bucks, get the 40D and forget the XTi. There is no comparison in my mind. I had the XTi since last March, and recently sold it. The 40D really is a much better camera in my opinion. The pictures, even when using plain old Program mode are so much more colorful, sharp, and just plain better looking than the same lens on the XTi in Program mode. I couldn't believe it really. I am now using a 17-40L lens too for in the house stuff, it's a notch higher yet in color and sharpness, but not by much.

I paid $1499 from Best Buy (plus tax of course), but I was able to walk out with it, and if I need to return or exchange anything, it's a 10 minute drive. Plus, for $139.00, I bought the 4 year replacement plan. I've had great luck with the Best Buy plans the few times I've used them. One dropping, one repair, and you are way ahead. Cameras are high-tech devices now for sure.

Anyway, there is no way you will be disappointed with the standard 28-135 Kit, I guarantee it. The nice thing about that lens, is it can be used on a full frame sensor someday down the road too.

[TheWengler]

The last two posts seem kind of silly to me. Portraits at 1/6 sec? IS doesn't keep kids still. I'm not doubting that you had success doing that but consistent results won't be achieved that way. Of course the 40D is better than the XTi. There's a reason it costs over twice as much. It would be a shame if you got a nice new FF camera then placed the 40D kit lens on it. Photographer>Lens>Body. The lens will give you more flexibility to shoot the shots you want and will have more impact on the image quality.

New 40D body only - $1200-1300
New 30D body only - $800
Used 20D body only - Maybe $500

Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - $180
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - $380
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 - $380
Canon 70-200 f/4 L - $550

Lens Reviews (http://photozone.de/Reviews/overview)

If you get the 20D then you should get the Tamron 17-50 (or the Sigma) and the Canon 70-200. If you get the 30D the same lenses will put you over budget by a couple of hundred dollars. So if you can't go over budget then replace the Tamron with the New Canon 18-55 IS kit lens and replace it with something else when you can afford it. The new kit is supposed to be pretty sharp. For indoors you're going to want at least f/2.8 or a faster prime. A flash would also help but it takes some time to learn that as it is more complicated than ambient light exposure (which also takes time to learn).

[Squirt]

Portraits? Where in my post did I say I had taken portraits of my grand children? I said that I had taken pictures of them at shutter speeds as low as 1/6 of a sec and because the lens had IS I got acceptable results. You read quite a bit into my statement that wasn't there.

If you had followed the link you provided and read the test on the 28-135, other than slight barrel distortion at 28 mm, the reviewer said that the lens performed well and the last statement was "Why not" IMHO they were referring to ownership of the lens.

Why would I recommend a camera that is two years old technology wise? The 40D has better noise reduction, a larger megapixel sensor, 14 bit image processing, and Digic III technology, along with several other new and improved features. The 30D is one generation older than the 40D and while it is less expensive, in digital photography the newer the equipment you purchase, especially camera bodies, the more refined and hopefully better it is. The OP had stated that he wanted to purchase a 40D, not a 30D . not an XTI, or a used 20D and wanted opinions on which lens to purchase with it. The 28-135 was one of the specific lenses that was asked about. I have personal experience with the lens and I was relaying that experience. Do you have personal experience with a 28 -135? Since you own Pentax equipment I doubt that you have ever taken a picture with a Canon 28 -135 lens and therefore don't have first hand knowledge of it. You can read what every pundit in the world says about something but until you've actually had hands on experience, you are not giving first hand advice and council, you are relaying information that could be flawed.

[TheWengler]

Portraits? Where in my post did I say I had taken portraits of my grand children? I said that I had taken pictures of them at shutter speeds as low as 1/6 of a sec and because the lens had IS I got acceptable results. You read quite a bit into my statement that wasn't there.

Ok, so it wasn't a portrait. Everything I said still applies.

If you had followed the link you provided and read the test on the 28-135, other than slight barrel distortion at 28 mm, the reviewer said that the lens performed well and the last statement was "Why not" IMHO they were referring to ownership of the lens.

"Why not"? That's way better than "highly recommended." Silly...:rolleyes:

Why would I recommend a camera that is two years old technology wise?

Because there's this thing called a budget. If the budget allowed for a 40D and a good lens, I'd recommend it. :rolleyes:

The OP had stated that he wanted to purchase a 40D, not a 30D . not an XTI, or a used 20D and wanted opinions on which lens to purchase with it. The 28-135 was one of the specific lenses that was asked about.

And I already answered their question regarding that.

I have personal experience with the lens and I was relaying that experience.

Oh, you want a gold star? I'll see what I can do.

Do you have personal experience with a 28 -135?

Nope. I would never buy the lens. :D

You can read what every pundit in the world says about something but until you've actually had hands on experience, you are not giving first hand advice and council, you are relaying information that could be flawed.

All arguments can be flawed. Even those made by people with first hand experience.

Sorry to agitate you. Smiley faces make everything better. Here you go...:):):):)

[Nickcanada]

I had the 28-135mm lens and I didn't like it. It doesn't do anything all that well but does a lot okay. Probably not enough reach for outdoor sports.

I had the option of buying the 40D or a used 20D and some good glass... I have no doubt in my mind that I made the right choice. Look at my sig to see which way I went. ;):D

[cdifoto]

I had the option of buying the 40D or a used 20D and some good glass... I have no doubt in my mind that I made the right choice. Look at my sig to see which way I went. ;):D

So Nick, when do you plan on getting the good glass? :eek: :p

[Nickcanada]

So Nick, when do you plan on getting the good glass? :eek: :p

hehehe, touché. :D

[downtrodden]

I would highly recommend going with an older body, the 30D takes just as good pictures as the 40D, the files sizes and hence print sizes will be smaller though. But with the 30D you still have lots of cropping room AND still get an 8x10 print. If you put decent glass on the 30D it will FAR outperform the 40D with that 28-135 lens.

In fact, i would avoid that lens, it's kinda a jack of all trades- like Nick said, it performs nothing admirably and it doesn't a couple things only barely acceptably.

I *really* like the idea of the 30D, 18-55 IS and the 70-200.... I think this will cover you in most situations you can find your children in. And again, as for the prior argument for more megapixels on the 40D, my, whatever did photographers do to get great photos before 10mp cameras came around? Answer: Put good glass on a good body and get great results.

also, that 70-200 is a solid investement that will likely follow you no matter what body you buy in the future.

if your budget allowed for the 40D and a good some good glass, then great- but it doesn't, i'd really go with a cheaper body and focus your money on some decent glass.

[photogreen]

Under $350 you can get a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Di. It's a very nice lens to start with. It is fast and sharp. Motor is quick for a non-USM lens. And they have 6 years warranty. After you play around with your SLR you'll will decide whether you need an upscale lens or not and what kind. Hope this helps.

[SynterX]

I still like the kit. I figured its a 200 premium over the body, and the lens sells for 400+ retail. So, use it and sell it for a small profit if you hate it. I get very nice photos with it. We are all not pro photographers, ultimate quality isn't critical, right?

[David Metsky]

We are all not pro photographers, ultimate quality isn't critical, right?
Then why spend $1500 on a camera?

[SynterX]

Why? Because we want to take nice pictures, just not get paid and try to earn a living. Just because we don't earn money from taking pics doesn't mean we don't care about the quality of those pictures. I outgrew my point and shoot, and then outgrew my XTi once I started learning what I wanted. And honestly, $1500, while not chump change, is not that much money anymore for a serious hobby. I spent 3 times that on my mountain bike to go racing 7 years ago. As a hobby, I'm finding photography pretty reasonable once you get a core group of gear in hand.

I am a professional graphic artist, and I needed to spend $12K on my computer and all software needed to do pro work. If someone asked me what gear and software to get to dabble in design as a hobby, I would steer them clear of that much dough, but I wouldn't tell them go spend $500 either.

From what I can tell, the 40D is about the upper limit for a hobbyist with little or no professional ambitions. Anything over that, and money just isn't an object anymore.

[downtrodden]

Syn, the arguement you're using is circlular logic and in all acutally, the very reason why you should invest more money in your lenses and not in the body. It is pure simple FACT- the lens you use impacts your photos quality more than the body does. There is very little difference in quality from the 30D to the 40D, the only REAL differences are in features that make taking said pictures easier. So, saving 500 bones and going for one generation lower 30D and reinvesting that money into the equipment which will allow ANY body you choose to take top notch images, is worthwhile. Not to mention, that worthwhile equipment will be with you as long as you own any Canon SLR. your SLR body, will likely NOT be with you anywhere near as long as your lenses. So... doesn't it make more sense to invest the better money in the items you'kll keep longest and which are universal?

[SynterX]

To each his own I guess. I bought and returned the $1000 17-55/2.8 lens a month ago. I read everyone gush about it, read the reviews, stuck it on my XTi, and was disappointed. Was it a tad sharper than my cheapo 18-55 kit lens? Sure it was - it was also waaay heavier and larger, and made my XTi feel very un-balanced and akward too. I did 2 dozen comparison shots with both lenses, and I honestly did not feel $800 dollars improvement. Now granted, I've not been buying lenses for years and years, I'm very new to this. Investing 1K in a lens did not work for me. The body was lacking too much. I missed live view for certain shots, I didn't like the smallish LCD, or the plasticky feel - among other things. I walked in to Best Buy, picked up the 40D with 28-135 kit lens, and immediately thought "now this is more like it". Felt much more substantial, I could hold it easier, the big screen rocked, live view rocked, and my in-store test shots blew me away at how sharp I could get them compared to anything I could do on the XTi no matter a $200 lens or a $1000 lens.

That showed me, not you, but me, that the 40D with a kit lens was a better investment by a long shot than the XTi with 17-55. The 40D/kit was actually $200 cheaper by the way. I put the $200 towards the 17-40/L lens and now for $roughly $500 above the XTi/17-55, I am very much thrilled with the quality, all without dumping tons into lenses.

The moral of my story is, I have read thousands of words in forums and online reviews about darn near every lens available from Canon for the XTi and 40D. And I concluded I feel the money spent on the body first is a better way to go for me. If you don't feel good about the body, in every way, you won't be excited about using it. I can't wait to grab my new camera, the 40D. I never felt that way about the XTi.

I think the original poster should by the kit with 28-135. It's very common and easy to find at many mailorder, and to me as important, local stores. The lens has a fair resale value on ebay, and you will lose zero dollars.

No one here is any more wrong than the other. My full respect goes to each one here who obviously is passionate and way more knowledgeable than I am.

I just want to be clear on why I spent the dough I did - all in respect to the original posters question.

Now get the credit card ready and have some fun!

[downtrodden]

I respect what you're saying about the XTi vs. 40D- erfonomics is very improtant in usage of a camera, just as important as in shooting rifles, something else i enjoy- and the OP already stated they wanted the 40D because it felt better than the XTi- which is fine- but the 30D and 40D are the same size and weight, so ergonomics should not be an issue- here i strongly believe one should spend more on your lens options vs body options. I also like the idea of the sigma or tamron lenses mentioned. And to me the only real dilemna between the two bodies 30D or 40D are whether Live View is worth 400 dolalrs or not- obviously for me the answer was yes, but extenuating circumstances (legal blindness) make it so. Were i capable of using a viewfinder accurately, I so would have bought the 30D and bought a nice lens right off the bat.

True. L lenses are much heavier and throw off the weight of a camera, so they aren't for everyone- but for the same amount of money, the user can get wider coverage and further coverage of lenses by going with a cheaper body which weighs and feels the same as the body they initially wanted, making it a better value.

But you are indeed correct, to each their own and ultimately only the OP can decide which is more important, more zoom or live view.

[cdifoto]

I still use a 10D. :D

[TenD]

I think the lightweight consumer lenses feel funny on any body and heavier lenses feel good. Also, it's weird, but I have never guaged my purchases on how the lens feels on a body, but on how I can get the best image to the sensor...or maybe it's not so weird. I also still use a 10D along with an XT and a 5D. I can feel the difference between the bodies but have never thought "this is more like it," or "this feels cheezy". My only thoughts were how to make the particular tool in my hand make the image I am trying to make.

With the OPs budget it makes more sense to step down in body and spend more on a lens. Live view is a carry over from the point and shoot crowd and except for a couple of specific uses. The large screen is also a carry over from the point and shoot crowd. The LCD is for reviewing a shot's histogram and maybe to look at basic composition. I have cameras with large and small LCDs and to me they all look the same and are worthless in the same manner. I can't tell what I have have for a photo until it's downloaded, except that it's exposed properly.

[downtrodden]

Exactly- and blurriness only shows on that tiny screen if the blur is especially bad. A shrunk down image will ALWAYS look sharper than the full size version.

TenD: for me the XTi was too small and holding it was uncomfortable and after a few minutes, my fingers started cramping- so ergonomics to some people can play a large role in why you should go with one camera vs the other- ESPecially when the bodies are so similar in quality of image that you'd be hard pressed to see a difference.

I like the heavier weight of the L lenses too- My only gripe is that the focus ring and zoom ring are vica versa.

[Turn]

Body means nothing if you have a crappy lens

you're taking family photos and such, I doubt a 40D will really make a difference over say the 400D or even the 20D which seems to be fine for your needs

[TenD]

I started in the early 80's shooting with a Canon AE-1 (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1976-1985/1976_ae1.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1976-1985) body. My dream body was an A-1 (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1976-1985/1978_a1.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1976-1985). If you look at the links, neither one has much of a grip to speak of. So the grip thing has never bothered me and the arguments about the grip size, etc. have never impressed me.

A camera body is to control the light getting to the film, that's it.

I have always hung it around my neck, and grabbed the lens in one hand to hold it while hiking, walking, etc. I have always used a 2 hand technique to shoot: one hand supporting the lens(focusing)and the other hand to trip the shutter. This technique also lets me handhold for a lot of shots at pretty slow shutter speed.

That technique has followed me to digital and therefore the body's grip means very little to me. I don't use it as support, I don't use it to pick up the camera(I pick it up by the lens or the strap), it's just a convenient place to put my hand while tripping the shutter.

So pardon me if I sound harsh, but this "body fits my hand perfectly", or "that grip is too small", or "the 40D is more like it", doesn't fly too well with me. I can get the same shot with whichever body I am shooting with at the time, and sure ergonomics makes it easier, but the ergonomics aren't imperative, simply convenient.

[cdifoto]

So pardon me if I sound harsh, but this "body fits my hand perfectly", or "that grip is too small", or "the 40D is more like it", doesn't fly too well with me. I can get the same shot with whichever body I am shooting with at the time, and sure ergonomics makes it easier, but the ergonomics aren't imperative, simply convenient.

Depends. If it's something you have to hold all day long, comfort means a lot.

[TenD]

Depends. If it's something you have to hold all day long, comfort means a lot.

I would agree that a pro shooting a wedding or an event would want comfort in his grip. That's why a lot of pros added grips to their little film cameras back in the day. Even then, the camera is hanging from your neck for part of that time.

For shooting the kids or vacation this argument just doesn't fly. And when people insinuate and downright berate(you know who you are)someone for their camera choice or possible camera choice based on this argument is ridiculous. I am carrying a flag from past posts here too, and I think it's funny how this argument crops up all of the time.

[Nickcanada]

I prefer to have a grip on my camera at all times when shooting. I use the neck strap as a safty thing. I don't like having a camera hanging off my neck for an extended time, it's uncomforatble. The camera is in my hands most of the time so I like a comfortable grip.

[cdifoto]

I would agree that a pro shooting a wedding or an event would want comfort in his grip. That's why a lot of pros added grips to their little film cameras back in the day. Even then, the camera is hanging from your neck for part of that time.

For shooting the kids or vacation this argument just doesn't fly. And when people insinuate and downright berate(you know who you are)someone for their camera choice or possible camera choice based on this argument is ridiculous. I am carrying a flag from past posts here too, and I think it's funny how this argument crops up all of the time.

I dunno. When I shoot a wedding it's extremely rare to let go of both cameras and when I took my cameras to Disney it wasn't often that I let go of the camera there either. I wish I had a point & shoot instead though. Live & learn. I think it's a matter of deciding what's more comfortable for you - regardless of how, why, when, and how long you shoot images.

[SynterX]

One last comment from me regarding image quality between XTi and 40D. I personally saw a big difference between the two. I used the same lens on both for a few days, and I can tell just looking at the photos which were shot with which. The color is more vibrant on the 40D. That's what sold me on it - that the quality of my shots actually improved with me doing nothing different except using the right body. Maybe it's just me, but the body made more of a difference than the lens. I never see anyone say that, but I must be honest and convey what I found. It's worth nothing of course, my opinion that is.

I hope he's thrilled with whatever he buys.

[cdifoto]

One last comment from me regarding image quality between XTi and 40D. I personally saw a big difference between the two. I used the same lens on both for a few days, and I can tell just looking at the photos which were shot with which. The color is more vibrant on the 40D. That's what sold me on it - that the quality of my shots actually improved with me doing nothing different except using the right body. Maybe it's just me, but the body made more of a difference than the lens. I never see anyone say that, but I must be honest and convey what I found. It's worth nothing of course, my opinion that is.

I hope he's thrilled with whatever he buys.

I take comments about vibrance, contrast, saturation and such with a grain of salt....those can all be adjusted either in-camera or in post. When all's said and done, you really can't tell my 10D files from my 1D II files.

[michaelb]

I take comments about vibrance, contrast, saturation and such with a grain of salt....those can all be adjusted either in-camera or in post. When all's said and done, you really can't tell my 10D files from my 1D II files.

I would have to concur with this.

I love my 40D, and I think its a huge upgrade over my 350D in terms of ergonmics, ease of use and simple enjoyment, but the files from my 350D were probably just as good.

And I agree "vibrance, contrast, saturation" are all PP items - I shoot RAW but I set picture styles with a little boost in saturation and contrast and I fine-tune these files in DPP prior to jpeg conversion.

In terms of lenses however, I would say that my 70-200 f/4 has a type of contrast that I don't think I've ever seen out of any of my other lenses, although this might be due to the FL and greater subject isolation, as in this image.....(those apples just seem to "pop" to me...)








70mm, f/4...
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/238155251_wvxfi-M.jpg

[spinfire]

I have a Digital Rebel XTi. The 40D would be an improvement, no question, in terms of features. However, I'd much rather spend my money on glass. While the JPEG results from a particular camera may indeed have a certain sharpness, contrast, or color treatment you'll rapidly find that you want to shoot in RAW and adjust all of these parameters in post anyway (no camera LCD gives you a reliable or solid look at a picture beyond the histogram and composition).

Echoing another poster's comment about the 70-200, I have the f/2.8L IS version and comparing a photo shot with that against a similar shot from my EF 85m f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 shows that the 70-200 gives absolutely incredible sharpness and quality straight out of the camera. And, unlike any treatment done by the camera JPEG processor this is in the original capture and not an effect caused by mucking with local contrast levels (sharpening). I was surprised what amazing results I got from that lens, especially since it is a zoom. Of course, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS costs about as much as your 40D kit :)

[scano13]

Thank you all for your opinions and advice. It is helping me figure out what to get.

Has anyone ever heard of these websites and are they reliable www.expecam.com and www.butterflyphoto.com. It's hard to figure out which site is reliable with all this money I am going to spend.

Any suggestions on where to go would be great.

[TenD]

Thank you all for your opinions and advice. It is helping me figure out what to get.

Has anyone ever heard of these websites and are they reliable www.expecam.com and www.butterflyphoto.com. It's hard to figure out which site is reliable with all this money I am going to spend.

Any suggestions on where to go would be great.
Try resellerratings.com (http://www.resellerratings.com/) to see what consumers think of a particular retailer. Butterfly has a 6 month rating of 5.25 and a lifetime rating of 6.41, not stellar. Expecam is part of USA Photonation and has a 6 month rating of 0. Expecam only has 5 reviews and they are all bad.

B+H, BuyDig, and Adorama are my preferred stores. The prices will be a little higher than you can find at the unscrupulous vendors, but the extra cost is worth it for the service.

[SynterX]

I've been having great luck with canogacamera.com. Bought several thou worth of stuff, they had it all in stock, and shipped overnight right on time. And, they were almost always a few bucks cheaper than bh and other big time legit places. Do not try to hard to save big bucks, it's just not worth it.

[michaelb]

Try resellerratings.com (http://www.resellerratings.com/) to see what consumers think of a particular retailer. Butterfly has a 6 month rating of 5.25 and a lifetime rating of 6.41, not stellar. Expecam is part of USA Photonation and has a 6 month rating of 0. Expecam only has 5 reviews and they are all bad.

B+H, BuyDig, and Adorama are my preferred stores. The prices will be a little higher than you can find at the unscrupulous vendors, but the extra cost is worth it for the service.

I would strongly recommend bestpricecameras - its difficult to beat their prices and amazing customer service - just check out the reviews....:D....
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Best_Price_Cameras_6

[SynterX]

no way would I trust bestpricecameras.com. No way, no how. $449 for a 40D body? That's almost 1/3 the cost. There just is no way. And if you google "bestpricecameras.com + review", you will see TONS of serious complaints and problems. Check the BBB too, there are many complaints.

I just can't believe the prices they advertise. It's not even close to being a realistic price.

[TenD]

I would strongly recommend bestpricecameras - its difficult to beat their prices and amazing customer service - just check out the reviews....:D....
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Best_Price_Cameras_6
It's amazing the amount of "very dissatisfied" comments they have. How do places like this stay in business?

[michaelb]

no way would I trust bestpricecameras.com. No way, no how. $449 for a 40D body? That's almost 1/3 the cost. There just is no way. And if you google "bestpricecameras.com + review", you will see TONS of serious complaints and problems. Check the BBB too, there are many complaints.

I just can't believe the prices they advertise. It's not even close to being a realistic price.
I was of course being facetious; sometimes when I'm bored I can't help but laugh as I read these reviews; they crack me up!
I do feel a little bad for these people, but who thinks that a 40D for $449 is legit?!!! Its Darwinian evolution in action!

Here is one of my favorites.....at least this person figured it out....




1/10/08 2:07 PM

AVOID AVOID AVOID -
We read all the complaints on this site about Best Price Cameras but saw on other sites where they were a "Trusted" seller and thought to ourselves, we only want a camera body and will avoid all the high pressure sales pitches to get the good price so we called them.
The conversation went somewhat like this:

US: Hello, we would like to buy the new Nikon D3 body only and have a few questions before purchasing.
Them: No Problem, How can we help?
US: Is this a grey market camera?
THEM: No, this is the American Version
US: and the price is $2649.00 ???
THEM: Yes Sir
US: Is the warranty a Factory Warranty?
THEM: Yes, it carries a 1 year factory warranty
US: Then we would like to order
THEM: Sure can I transfer you to our order department???
US: Sure, Thank you.
We were then transfered to a new gentleman with whom we asked all of the above questions a second time and received all the same answers. At this point, we felt comfortable ordering and gave them our credit card number for the order. This is where the conversation took a turn for the worse.
THEM: and would you like our extended warranty?
US: No Thank You
THEM: Do you need any Lens's with your purchase (trying hard to sell us a few but will omit that conversation)
US: No, We currently use a NIKON D200 and have all the lenses we need.
THEM: Would you like the battery or charger for the camera?
US: (having already researched battery and charger options and asked their price for a battery & Charger in an earlier phone call (WAY WAY Over Priced)) - No, all we need is the camera
THEM: Would you like the viewfinder for the camera?
US: Viewfinder??? What do you mean Viewfinder???
THEM: well, unless you have the viewfinder package, there is no way to look through the lens or see the photo you have just taken.
US: Isn't there a Screen on the back of the camera for viewing the photos???
THEM: NO - That screen is also part of the Viewfinder upgrade. You are just buying the body only.
At this point we canceled our order.
Now anyone that knows anything about cameras (Especially spending money in the $1000's) knows that a viewfinder? and a display LCD come standard on any camera purchase, body or otherwise.
He then proceeded to tell us that we were only buying the camera body, no viewfinder, no LCD, and it was a plastic body, not the magnesium body on the American D3 (Didn't we ask if it was an American model earlier - see above).
We Hung up the phone and called the credit card company who is issuing us new account numbers and new cards.
WOW - Avoid this company like the plague.

[Honest Gaza]

Thank you all for your opinions and advice. It is helping me figure out what to get.

Has anyone ever heard of these websites and are they reliable www.expecam.com and www.butterflyphoto.com. It's hard to figure out which site is reliable with all this money I am going to spend.

Any suggestions on where to go would be great.

Scano13....after having read this thread, I couldn't help but notice your "absence" for much of the conversation. I could be wrong, but I believe that you had probably already decided which camera body you wanted to buy and don't want to get caught up in the debate.

Rather than try to convince you which is a better body/lens combination, I'd prefer to draw your attention to the other elements of photography that may make the difference in whether or not you are happy with the final results.

Before making any lens purchase, get an understanding of how focal length and apperture affect the photo you are taking. In the case of sports shots of your children, are you wanting to "zoom" in on them, or merely have them as part of a team setting. Do you want to isolate them from the background ?

By all means, buy any of the lenses you have mentioned, but also realise that the very nature of SLR photography means that eventually, you will have to own a collection of various lenses to achieve the varying results you may be after.

[scano13]

I know that with purcahsing this type of camera I will have to invest in defferent lenses down the road. I don't have a problem with that, as a matter of fact I look forward to that. Right now I want to be able to start with something that will kind of be an all around lens. When I say sports photos I mean when they are in game playing. My son plays baseball, rides motocross and does other sports. My daughter will be playing tennis this summer and I want to be able to take better pictures than I have been with my point and shoot.

I have pretty much made up my mind and decided to go with the 40d, with the anticipation of someday buying better lenses. Once I get more familiar with the camera.

[scano13]

Well I did it, I got my 40d I went with the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens kit. I can't wait to take it out and snaps some shots. It's going to take me a while to get familiar with it, but that is something I am looking forward to. Thank you all for your advice and opinions. I know I have ventured into something that will take a lifetime to master, if that's possible.

I am planning on looking into taking some courses at the local college just so I can learn more on photography. For now does anyone have any recommendations on books that are good for beginners.

[DP Knewby]

I am planning on looking into taking some courses at the local college just so I can learn more on photography. For now does anyone have any recommendations on books that are good for beginners.

Understanding Exposure
By Bryan Peterson

[scano13]

What's a good indoor lens? What is a good flash to get?