So I've narrowed down my camera choices to Canon's 30d or 40d. This will be my first DSLR and I want something that I can be happy with for awhile. I did consider a Rebel and some other entry level camera's, but it seems as if ppl are always replacing or upgrading those camera's. I would rather get something that I can grow with and something that isn't overkill. With that said, I'm considering the 30d and 40d as they both seem to fit my requirements, if there are other camera's I should also look at, please post.

Purposes of Camera:

1. Family photos/parties/events/etc.
2. Car shoots (night shots, day, rolling, stationary, etc).

After reading the reviews on both camera's, I noticed that the 40d has some extra features which the 30d does not have:

-dust control
-image stabilization
-live view LCD

Are these features REALLY necessary? I suppose I can get a lens with image stabilization, but wondering what this is about in the 40d.

Finally, any good lens I should pick up, based on my purposes stated? thanks

 

Neither the 30D or 40D, will be overkill. I suggest getting a 30D, though right now Amazon is still selling the 40D for $937, I thought the instant rebate ended yesterday. The Image Stabilization isn't in the camera but the lenses for Canon.

As for a lens, for a great walk around one, the Canon 24-105 4.0 IS, it's about $1000, but would be the only lens you need for awhile, it'll cover 38mm-168mm for a 1.6 cropped body. wndrlst just order one for her 40D.

 

^ ah, thanks... I think I misread that. I believe the IS on the lens that comes with the camera has IS, vs. the 30d does not have it? So why do you suggest the 30d vs. the 40d? live view LCD and dust control sounds very appealing...

 

Great post for a few reasons:

1. I'll look into that lens
2. I now know that wndrlst is female.

heh

 

I haven't really found a use for the LiveView yet, I guess it's just the way I shoot. The sensor shake is a good feature, not sure if it has really worked for me yet. I had to send my 5D in for cleaning, I bought it used, seems like the guy I bought it from just left the covers off. Eighteen months with my 30D and no problems with dust.

 

Would I be correct in assuming the Nikon D300 is simply outside the budget?

 

 

^ don't know, I've only been looking @ Canon.

 

I really like the Nikon D80 in Auto mode for the 2 uses you describe. Of course, there is a D90 coming down the pipe... probably early 2009. The D80 easily makes some really nice high-quality images in Auto mode.

 

I was just asking because the D300 is a great camera. There really isn't a whole lot of reason for someone to not consider it unless it's simply too expensive or they're vested in other Canon gear.

 

Currently $800 more than the 40D, that's a pretty good lens.

 

wow.... ummm.. $800 more then the canon is pretty aggressive.

 

I will certainly look into it. I have heard that Nikon is somewhat limited in lens compatibility, that's the main reason I havent looked too much into Nikon...

 

You are backwards on that.

Nikon can use ANY Nikkor lens from 1967-ish til today. The only caveat is that if it isnt a AF lens, then you have to use it in full manual mode and physically make your aperture changes on the lens itself...old school

With Nikons current lineup you have DX and non-DX (FX) lenses. DX lenses are made specifically for DSLR that dont have a full chip (D700/D3) But ALLLLL the lenses will work on ALLLL the bodies. Non-DX lenses on a D300 will have a bit of enhancement much like the lens juppy pointed you towards for the 40D.

I believe it's Canon where certain lenses wont work on certain bodies.

 

Canon has TWENTY years of lenses that will work with any camera that is EF mount. Go take a look at Canon site and then Nikon sites for current lens that are being sold. You will see just about the same amount being sold, with Canon's prices no where near some of what Nikon are. ie 24-70 Canon $1200 vs Nikon $1700

 

Thats why i said I believe. I was'nt sure and there plenty Canon shooters here to chime in. Isnt there some discrepancy with the EF-S vs EF. etc?

Glass costs what glass costs based the system you want to use. I made rant about all that after that one chucklehead made a stupid statement in another thread last night.

 

EF-S = xt, xti, xsi, si, 30D and 40D.

EF= All bodies

Cost, I just see Nikon doing a little screw job, they lower the prices of their bodies and then jack up the prices of the lens

 

^ good point fellas.

 

anything us twits can say to help.

 

Synth,. I have the 40D and absolutely love it. I have had no Nikon experience to compare it to, but I have used the LiveView and it is useful.

Also, the 40D has a .5" larger LCD, which is nice when reviewing pics and seeing the histograms.

I have the 28-135IS kit lens, and find it to be a good lens, although there are certainly better. My 70-200 f4 is much sharper, but all in all the kit lens has been a good beginning lens for me. I will probably replace it with the 17-55 f2.8.

Also, 40D has the advantage over 30D in ISO and FPS as well.

 

^ If you could do it again, would you have just purchased the body picked & up your 70-200 f4?

 

MOre FPS please! I would go 40D simply because in a year I would probably want it if I bought the 30D now. Also live view would probably be pretty cool.

 

I would want a lens shorter than 70 mm. in the end you'll probably want the 70-200 though, I know I'm saving for one, but my 18-55 is doing fine for now. Also get the 50mm f1.8 II lens, it's a killer deal.

 

Live View is an OK feature. not worth much unless you have specific uses for it.

synth...for what you want to shoot...you dont want to just own a 70-200. Its too long for an single lens owner.

Top that off...you want some night stuff....I recommend going with the fastest lenses you can get like a 70-200 2.8

 

I love my 70-200 2.8 IS! Great lens. And yes, you'll want something wider as well.

 

I think the most useful upgrade would be the upgraded ISO capabilities. Did they also upgrade the focus system between the two? for some reason I heard the difference between the 30 and 40d was pretty big, but I don't remember the specs off the top of my head.

If you are a little tight on cash, the 30d is a great camera for the price you can get it these days. I still think it is probably one of the best buys on the market for the price. You can also get great deals on the 28-135 IS that comes w/ the 40 cause people part out their kits, and there seems to be a lot of them on the used/private party market, if that's the lens you want. But the 40d is only a few hundred dollars more, not really enough for a great lens, and I think probably worth the price, not only for the extra features, but knowing you have the latest thing on the market (at least for a few months )

 

If i were doing it again, I would get the body alone and either the 17-40 or the 17-55 or the 24-105. Not sure which, but probably the 17-55 since it is f2.8 and the others are f4.

Also, you can buy the body alone, and then rent each lens for a week or two and see which you like best before dropping another $1k on the lens...

 

Man, I am such a noob.. lots of information here that I need to look up/research/etc. Thanks guys.

 

Comments from a 30D owner:

The 30D is a great camera and I don't really have any complaints. It had done everything I have needed it to do - within it's limits and the limits of my lenses. I am very happy with it.

That said, there was no 40D available when I git the 30D and the LCD on the 40D looks huge compared to the one on the 30D (even if it is only a 0.5" difference). The extra 1.5 FPS isn't a big difference, but is nice. However, add these to the reported better high ISO quality and Live View and I would definitely go for the 40D if I were buying today.

As for a lens, check the for Clasifieds: Sell forum on POTN for "used" 24-105 f4 that are really new and just being parted out from new 5D kits - ~$950 shipped.

 

following along .

hmm. New camera or mods for the 335??

 

Better make up your mind, doing one is bad enough, two will effing break yeah. Hell just one will break you. I gave up doing more things to my TL after getting back into photography.

 

synth, I decided you should get a Nikon D700. It'll be better value for the long-term, you'll pretty much never have to do any upgrading at any time down the road. Thanks,

 

Rubin's callin' the shots now.

 

LOL Rubin. Are you recommending the Nikon D700 body only?

 

Yeah, no lenses are needed. You'll be lucky if you're able to get one before Christmas. Every Noink in the world will be going for this body. It'll be worst than when ever tool was waiting for Windows 95.

 

 

s o r r y

Seems like you had a good trip, nice shots.

 

I just did a quick google search on the Nikon D700..... 3k????? WTF?!?!

 

yeap, 3k, I thought I put that in my post. Until they really hit the stores expect a 1k premium for it.

 

come on dude... you sneeze that... in your sleep....