Confused...

Bretagnez

Bretagnez

Messages
314
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Okay, so here's the story..

I have two options in my head right now,

1. Buy a Canon 40D and use lenses which are available to me.
2. Buy a 1000D/450D and use the lenses which are available to me while also having around £350-£400 to spare - to possibly spend on a good quality lens.

The lenses that I have available to me at the moment are

Canon EF 90-300mm f/4-5.6 USM
Canon IS 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 DC HSM
Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Optical Stabilize
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8
and Canon 18-55mm IS kit lens.

The cameras both feel equally comfortable in my hands, although I'm not sure whether I'd end up growing out of the 1000d fairly quickly. I shoot a little bit of everything - well intend to. Mainly landscapes and a bit of sport at the moment. I'd be at university in a year and a bits time - so I'm wondering whether to go for the more expensive option while the finances are still there..

Sorry for the essay :thumbsdown:, but I'm totally confused!
Any help would be much appreciated!


Edit: Right now I'm using a borrowed 300D
 
what camera have you got already? and which lens do you use the most?
 
I've read a few times on here that people would suggest spending the money on better lenses than better bodies. I dont know and im not in the position to do either haha
 
Unless you need the faster frames per second of the 40D, I'd be tempted to say get a cheaper body, and spend the rest on glass. Then when you upgrade in the future, you'll already have good lenses to make best use of the better body. What I'm trying to say is that good lenses on a 1000D/450D will most likely give you better results that cheap lenses on a 40D!

What body do you have at the moment? What do you find is the limiting factor with your equipment at the moment? Is it small apertures on the lenses? Is it range, or are you lacking a specialised lens, like a macro? Thinking about WHY you want to upgrade will probably help you out in your decision!

Chris
 
chris321 said:
Unless you need the faster frames per second of the 40D, I'd be tempted to say get a cheaper body, and spend the rest on glass. Then when you upgrade in the future, you'll already have good lenses to make best use of the better body. What I'm trying to say is that good lenses on a 1000D/450D will most likely give you better results that cheap lenses on a 40D!

What body do you have at the moment? What do you find is the limiting factor with your equipment at the moment? Is it small apertures on the lenses? Is it range, or are you lacking a specialised lens, like a macro? Thinking about WHY you want to upgrade will probably help you out in your decision!

Chris
Click to expand...

That's what I'm unsure about, I like the sound of the 6.5fps on the 40D which is what is mainly drawing me towards it, since I'm going to be doing a fair bit of photo taking for school sports teams and athletics and things - but I don't know if I need such a fast fps for that sort of thing and whether an fps of 3.5 would do just fine!

Some good things for me to think about there - thank you!
 
I'd ignore image quality entirely when it comes to the 40d or the 1000d/450d.
There aren't enough big differences to worry about simply IQ.
The differences are in performance.

The 40d is bigger, faster, and functions in a much more ergonomic way in comparison to the XXXXd/XXXd series.

I'd go for the 40d simply because of the reasons stated above, but if you had that £300/£400 spare, you could sell the Canon IS 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM, Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS, and the Canon 18-55mm IS kit lens for around another £500 and get a second hand or even a brand new 24-70 L.

Bit of a hard decision. 450d with a 24-70 or a 40d with lenses as above.

If you don't want to sell any lenses, there's not really a lot you could get that would really do the 40d much justice (I'm perfectly happy with my Sigma 24-60, but I lust for a 24-70 L), but then that £300/£400 you'd have spare from not getting the 40d wouldn't go towards much, either. Possibly a Sigma 24-70 (still a banging lens).

Your call :)
 
3.5fps is fine. I rarely use the 6.5fps on my 40d and I shoot 5-a-side football every sunday. Occasionally it's useful since theres a moment where you need to get the best photo out of say, 14, and blasting the camera for a few seconds can help with that, but if you practise timing, you can usually just fire off 2-3 shots and it's fine.
 
foodpoison said:
3.5fps is fine. I rarely use the 6.5fps on my 40d and I shoot 5-a-side football every sunday. Occasionally it's useful since theres a moment where you need to get the best photo out of say, 14, and blasting the camera for a few seconds can help with that, but if you practise timing, you can usually just fire off 2-3 shots and it's fine.
Click to expand...

its fun for irritating people who dont like there photos taken, especially when they dont realise how quick you can take them:lol:(but im a big kid at heart)

so if you sold the three lenses listed by foodpoison, you could get a 450d with a 24-70L or a 40d with a sigma 24-70...

id go with the 40d and sigma or save a little longer for the 40d with 24-70L
 
Thanks very much both of you. I've got some decision making to do, it seems! It was the fps of the 40D that was taking me more towards it I think. But yes - decisions, decisions!

Many thanks! :thumbs:
 
The 40D is a great camera and def worth a purchase. I upgraded from a 300D and have been over the moon with it. I believe the 1000D is a starter camera (but good) and the 450D gets very good reveiws - would probably buy the 450 over the 1000 if you're not wanting to spend the extra on a 40.

Unfortunately, I think it comes down to money :razz:

Good luck :thumbs:
 
Thanks everyone!
One FINAL question, if I decided to go with the 40D - would the lenses that I have stated up the top be decent enough while I'm saving for better quality lenses?

Thank you all very much for the help.
 
They'll be decent enough, but don't expect blow-your-mind image quality just because of a new body! The 10-20, nifty fifty, and kit lens will all work really well, I'm not too sure about the other 3.

You won't get any worse results that you're getting at the moment, that's for sure! But better lenses will maximise the 40Ds potential, if that makes sense!

Chris
 
chris321 said:
They'll be decent enough, but don't expect blow-your-mind image quality just because of a new body! The 10-20, nifty fifty, and kit lens will all work really well, I'm not too sure about the other 3.

You won't get any worse results that you're getting at the moment, that's for sure! But better lenses will maximise the 40Ds potential, if that makes sense!

Chris
Click to expand...

No, no. I wasn't expecting that - so that's alright! Okay - fair enough.
Yeah, I fully understand that!

Thank you very much:thumbs:
 
Just to chip in as a 450D owner. I've had mine 8 months and will be upgrading to a 40D in June.
Reasons are ISO performance and frame rate. It's not really the 3.5 FPS thats the problem, its the burst of only getting 6 RAW's before the buffer fills. I think the 40D can burst upto 16/17 RAWS with NR turned off.
I'm still grumbling about dropping 2 megapixels but hey ho :lol:
 
Another option - get the cheaper body and ditch the 90-300 and get a 70-200F4L from Kerso :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top