i'm torn between the two. they're both in the same price range (20d used). dell has a deal for the body only that turns out to be about 700 shipped+tax. locally, i found a 20d with 8000 actuations, canon grip, 2 batteries, and body only. i'm not a total noob b/c i used to be into 35mm and this is my first dslr.

i shoot primarily landscape, urban, motorsport, and sports.

i held both and the 400d size really bothered me, but i think buying a grip would solve that. and the 20d is used so idk which one to buy!!!

and resale on the 20d will probably take a hit in spring when the 40d comes out, and 400d won't be "old" until next year.

 

I voted for 20D, but there are also rebates on the 30D now that might make it a better alternative.

 

By your reasoning the 20d is already considered "old". Still, if you have any way to verify that it's in good condition, that's probably what I would get.

 

he's a semi pro who uses his camera strictly for photoshoots, mainly models and glamour. photog is a side job, he also has a career.

http://www.moodymelon.com/

he told me his work on his site was done entirely with the 20d and he mentions he takes very good care of his gear b/c he cannot afford to have mess ups during shoots. he just upgraded to a 5d.

 

i also considered the 30d, but the cheapest i found was around 1050 after rebates, body only. i've read the upgrade from the 20d->40d is much like the 350d->400d meaning the screen got bigger and the upgrades were not worth the price difference.

i would love to have a 30d, but budget wise, i can't. and i need a lens and lenses also play a significant roll in photog so i have to save up for lenses too.

 

Then the 20D sounds like the body for you.

What lens are you going to get to start?

 

my friend is going to get me the 20d kit lens. i'm going to pick up the 50mm 1.8 and in the near future, possibly the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM Lens.

any suggestions?

 

Sounds good.

Since you say you shoot motorsports and sports, you'll probably want something longer than 105mm though.

 

quick question - once a shutter gets past its limit, whatever it is, like 50,000 or whatever. on a DSLR - can it be replaced? or does the whole camera just become a paperweight..

I could look it up but I kinda would like to hear your input on it Dan

 

When they say "tested to 100,000 activations" it doesn't mean it will last that long. Some will last longer and some not quite as long. It's kind of like the 1,000,000 hour MTBF spec on hard drives. In any event, it's not a big deal to have it replaced. It's $250 for P&L on an APS-C body and $300-$400 for APS-H and full-frame bodies to have the shutter replaced.

 

well thats good to know. thx

 

I vote 20D.

5Fps, better viewfinder.
I like the double dials on the 20D, not sure how it works on the 400D.

400D has some neat things, but they're mostly 'style' and not really substance things that will allow you to take better pictures. Like bigger LCD, 2 more MP (whatever), etc.

 

Dan probably knows this off the top of his head, but I would check if there are any notable differences in the autofocus systems of the two. That could be a key deciding factor if you truly are going to shoot a fair amount of (motor)sports.

 

I dunno about that, maybe its just that I have a medicre 300mm zoom but when I was shooting at F1 I had it on manual focus the whole time because the AF on the zoom sucked!! It would like zoom in all the way, then zoom out, then come to focus, maybe. Not to mention the toll it would take on the battery.

 

To me that sounds like an issue with that particular model lens on your particular model camera. For any given glass though, the autofucus systems on some SLR models will do a better job tracking a moving subject than others.

 

so, it will depend on the lens he gets.

 

The 400D just got the same AF sensors as the 20D/30D, so that shouldn't be an issue. The 400D has a pentamirror though, so the viewfinder isn't as bright or large.

 

Good, bright glass ,makes a huge difference,
there is a center cross sensor for even better autofocus with a 2.8 lens

 

thanks for the advice everyone! i'll be checking out the camera tomorrow.

quick question: i know this hobby is expensive, possibly more than modding cars, so has anyone regretted getting into this hobby?

 

The only regret I have is - not really getting into it sooner!

I have always been interested in photography, but had not *really* started to focus on it until just this year, basically at the time I got the SD550 and started taking club pics.

"Been there, done that" in regard to the whole car modding thing. My heyday was pretty much '98-'00, pretty much right up until F&F came out and the whole scene turned to crap.. lol. And, looking back, while that was fun and all and I don't regret it at all, if I was in the same position right now, I would have wayyyyyy much rather put that money into photography. Taking pictures seems a hell of a lot more productive to me than modding cars, racing, etc. But hindsight is 20/20. And again, I have no regrets for getting into either hobby.

and, modding cars can be WAY more expensive than photography... shit breaks so often, maintenance, etc. etc.

 

The great thing about the hobby is it's only as expensive as you want it to be. There are people that have made their careers shooting with very limited and cheap equipment. Then there are others who get their kicks from collecting the latest and greatest on the market and never go out shooting.

There are a lot of things that I would like to own, but really, I'm quite happy with my current setup of only a handful of lenses. Anything I don't have right now would only be used a few times a year, so I'd probably be better off renting than buying them.

 

so i now own a 20d but no lens

 

So are you still thinking of picking up a kit lens, or are you looking for alternatives?

 

The 28-105 F3.5 lens is a nice cheap walk around. I've got it sitting on my original 1D right now.

I think I paid 200 bucks for mine. It isn't a very "solid" feeling lens, but again it isn't an L lens.

If you are looking to do this as a hobby/fun/semi-work, then it would be fine.

The 50mm 1.8 is no brainer. If it breaks throw it away and buy a new one. It has saved me a few times where I really needed a super fast lens in very low light. (1D MKI isn't the greatest in low light high ISO)

 

I know two people who bought DSLRs, were not prepared to make that sort of committment, and sold them for a loss. I've been less eager to recommend a SLR since.

There is a lot to be said about point and shoots these days.
In the area of photos which can be taken with both a point and shoot and a DSLR,
I'd say most of the time it is overall more enjoyable to use the point and shoot.
They are smaller, lighter, and cheaper.

If you want to go past that circle, then a DSLR is a no brainer.
I would say, if you are your typical person who doesn't post process your pics at ALL, then you won't like an SLR.

Post processing including simple things like sorting your pics, deleting bad ones,
trying to fix good ones a bit, etc, tighting up cropping etc.

- Frank

 

got a kit lens for free, cept it doesn't control the aperature correctly so i'm guessing my friend gave me the wrong lens, oh well. the 50mm 1.8 is on its way. and i'm still researching a lens ranging from 17-70 or anything in between. i heard a tamron and a sigma may be a good choice for that range. i'm really looking for a walk around lens that's wide like that and fast (2.8).

 

actually, i do a little post processing with my p&s, mainly changing contrast and saturation, leveling the picture, and cropping. basic stuff.

i still don't have the eye yet for all those subtle mishaps like white balance, proper saturation, etc. i haven't read up enough to learn what is "correct"

i thorougly enjoyed 35mm when i took a class in highschool, and hoping that the dslr will provide me with the same pleasure. and this will probably provide more results than paintballing which costs about 80 bucks a week if i go regularly.

hmmm i'll look into that, thanks for the suggestion. and i'm too poor for L lenses at the moment

and the reason why i'm really liking the 50mm is how fast it is. i think it'll help me learn bokeh (sp?), proper exposure, etc b/c it's so fast.

 

i'm considering the sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 as my workhorse lens. i'm also looking at the 24-70mm f/2.8 b/c of its constant 2.8. considering i have no wide angle lens, should i just get the 17-70mm?

anyone have comments about these lenses?

 

If you're looking for a walk-around lens, check out the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's a little shorter than the Sigma 17-70, but it has a constant f/2.8 aperture and it's sharper than the sigma in the overlapping range.

I have the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG and I'm not really wild about it. It's good indoors, but it flares too easily outside, which limits it's usefulness to me. It is sharp when used in ideal conditions though. It will soon be replaced by the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 for my main walk around.

 

^ A photographer I ran into advised me if I do end up with a 20D (if I can get one at a good price ...) told me to invest in a Tamron ... he uses it and I've seen his results.

 

hmmmm. still undecided. i like the 70mm range b/c i only have the 50mm right now, but 17mm looks oh so sweet too. is the tamron good at macro like shots? the sigma is macro too i believe.

and here are some pics at different f stops. exif should still be intact (pics are of my gf's magnetic penguin, took a picture closest to me). shots taken in raw with no post-processing. still experimenting. so far, i've realized the lens is cheaply built but has good lens dynamics and 50mm is quite long indoors (tamron ought to be sweet indoors, but i have no long lens for outdoors). i can't even capture an entire person sitting down in a shot when i'm ~4ft. away

1.

2. 100% crop

3.

4. 100% crop

 

Neither the sigma or the tamron are true macro lenses (i.e. 1:1 magnification), but they will focus closer than most lenses.

You just need a bigger room.

As for the photos, the first one looks like camera shake causing the blur. The exif shows 1/50s which is a little on the low side. You might get a few keepers at that speed, but I'd try to stay over 1/80th to be safe.

The second photo just looks like the image is front focused. It looks like the tip of the nose might be in focus. Assuming the subject is ~3 feet away, you'll only have 15-20mm of DOF with your 50mm lens at f/1.8. The slightest movement of the camera forward or backward can throw the entire subject out of focus. Shooting wide open with a fast lens is tricky for just that reason. It will take practice to get used to it, and you'll likely want to stop down a bit for most shots.

 

4 feet isn't very far at all.

Yeah, I had a 50mm 1.8 and really disliked it due to the 1.6 multiplier.
It's not nearly wide enough for my liking. For indoor shots I lived off my 20mm F1.8 Sigma
lens instead.