Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

20D or 30D

  • 01-11-2006 11:44am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭


    Hey all,

    I am currently saving my pennies with a view to upgrading my 300D to either a 400D or a 30D (I like the specs of the 400D - 10 MP, anti-dust etc, but it seems so tiny). I was browsing on EBay and I see a few 20Ds knocking about for in and around 450, which is dirt cheap.
    My question - does anyone know if the larger screen and spot-metering of the 30D make a good enough argument not to pic up a cheap 20 and then wait til the 40D?

    Thanks


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,620 ✭✭✭Roen


    I'd go with the 20D as it's going so cheap. I'd go for the 30D if I wasn't planning on upgrading, but seeing as you are probably going for the 40D (like me) the 20D has to be the way.
    I'd actually go for the 20D above the 400D anyway, but thats just cos the 5fps.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,819 ✭✭✭rymus


    While the screen (and spot metering) on the 30D are nice to have (but especially the screen), it's nothing special over the 20D. If you can make a good saving, I'd say go with the 20D.

    Don't hold your breath waiting for the mythical 40D... If however you are going to wait for a camera that hasnt actually been announced, you best join the queue of people waiting for the 3D :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,368 ✭✭✭Covey


    Echo the above, 20D unless you really need the spot metering. Is that 450 Euros ?

    T.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    it's currently at 427 euros, auction ending tomorrow. I wouldn't bother if it goes over 500 probably, would prefer to hang on and buy a 30D (or 40D) new next year.
    Apparently Canon announce new products in September at Photokina or in March (at some other marketing fest) and the rumours are that the 40D is to be announced there. Who knows though? If it's not, I'll go for the 30.
    As for the 3D, well that takes you into the realms of professional photography, so I wouldn't be bothered with that at all...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,819 ✭✭✭rymus


    yeah but my point was... theyre both fictional cameras. I'd rather have a 20 or 30D now than wait for whatever booby prizes the "40D" will bring. Possibly 10mp, possibly some newfangled cleaning system, maybe an extra button or two. Bleh.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    yeah, I know, but I don't want to save for a 30D and buy it and then a week later the 40D is announced. That happened when I got the 300D, about 3 weeks later the 350D was announced...

    Do I detect that you are tiring of the constant upgrades of Canon? (and Nikon to a lesser extent)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,819 ✭✭✭rymus


    tiring of pointless upgrades... I would consider 2 extra mp from the 350 to the 400D pointless. That cleaning thing, unless it actually works well, pointless...

    If and when a new camera is announced, they'd want to pull something fairly substantial out of the hat. As for yourself, I know if I had the money to spend today I wouldnt be waiting around to see what may or may not be announced. Even if something else is released in 10 months time, that's still 10 months away and won't render any camera you buy today obsolete.

    Shur there are people still out there still merrily snapping away with their perfectly capable D30's and D60's.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23 utkik


    I was going through the same debate with myself - trying to choose between the 20D, 30D, 350D or 400D. Eventually I went for the 400D body and used the difference in spondies to get an L range lens.
    This forum had a pretty good debate on the comparisons between the various models.
    YMMV but for me, the differences to my photography would be zero.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    the 400D (and 350D for that matter) is soooo tiny. How does it even fit an L lense?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23 utkik


    yeah I know, I was reading this review of the lens and it did look a little distorted on the camera.
    Still, so long as it performs as it's supposed to I suppose....


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,355 ✭✭✭JMcL


    yeah, I know, but I don't want to save for a 30D and buy it and then a week later the 40D is announced. That happened when I got the 300D, about 3 weeks later the 350D was announced...

    Do I detect that you are tiring of the constant upgrades of Canon? (and Nikon to a lesser extent)

    Looking at the trends of releases, they usually have a life cycle of 18 months for a particular model (though the 1Ds Mk II is getting a bit long in the tooth by this measure), and they always announce in March/September as you said. So if you ignore the question of whether the 30D is a "new" model, you'd be waiting a year for the next in that line. If you want a new camera, and can pick up a 20d at that price, I'd say go for it. As rymus says 2 extra Mp won't make a noticable difference. You'll get perfect A4 and perfectly acceptable A3 prints at 8Mp


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    Ye gotta remember though, he's upgrading from a 6.3MP camera. So upgrading to the 350D is only 2 megapixels.

    I'd be going with the 400D tbh.

    Brand new camera, getting good reviews.

    Get a battery grip with it and you're sorted. Might mean spending an extra few quid, but you'll have the camera for another 2 years...pretty much like your 300D.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    couple of work colleagues have a 350 and 400 and I've had a go of both, with battery grip and without. The grip does add something alright, but the finger grip is still too narrow.
    Keeping me eye on ebay for a reasonable 20D, otherwise it's a 30D early next year...will be interesting to see if canon prices actually come down in the new year


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,620 ✭✭✭Roen


    Ducks for cover,
    I will be keeping my 20D no matter what, I like it and the 1.6x too much, but I will be in the market for an upgrade come next Spring/Summer. I'll be off to the States in Aug and I'll get it there, touch wood. I'll either be getting the 5D upgrade or the 30D upgrade, or maybe even a 1 series.....or I might just sod it all and get a 500mm $$$$ :eek:
    The PMA show this year is on from Mar 8 - 11th, so hopefully something will be announced then. If nothing is forthcoming then it's a matter of waiting for the Photokina in Oct.

    I'd personally be of the opinion that no upgrade is worthless. I thought the 20D-->30D was a waste of time and money, but I used one today and that settled that one, the screen alone is worth it, never mind the spot metering or any of the other features that were added. I'd love the sensor clean and extra pixies that the 400D has.

    I'd still go for the 20D and if you feel you need to upgrade further in the new year, then it's a wait until either March or October, plus at the price you'll be getting it for you can keep the 20D as a back up body. If you feel that the 30D will do you for a few years then the 30D it is. Up to you ultimately.

    Best of luck though whatever you choose to do!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    well the decision has been taken out of my hands! I was at a party with my wife a couple of months ago and she was talking to a mate of mine who owns a 30D. I found out yesterday (after I told her that I was thinking of getting a secondhand 20D off ebay) that she had been planning with my mate to get me a 30D for Christmas as a surprise.
    I inadvertantly forced her into telling me about it so I wouldn't go the 20d/ebay route. I feel kinda bad that I ruined her surprise (and mine) but it does mean that I'm getting a 30D :D:D and the money I've been saving in my trusty teddy bear bank is now going to go towards my first 'L'...
    Now just a matter of deciding which one...24-70 or 70-200....hmmmwho ever said life was easy :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,624 ✭✭✭✭Fajitas!


    Man...marriage sounds so good at times...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,620 ✭✭✭Roen


    Depends on the lenses you already have and what type of pics you like taking. I'd go for the 70-200 ƒ2.8 L with or without IS. But that's just me. :-)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,819 ✭✭✭rymus


    and me...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭B0rG


    both are heavy pieces of kit...
    24-70 is bloody rocket launcher - good for studio shooting only...
    70-200 2.8 is just a big white tube :)

    I went to botanic garden last monday with 24-70 - too boody heavy...

    There are alternatives:
    17-40 + ex580 flash (if you really like nite shooting, otherwise that +1 stop doesn't give you a lot) ~1000
    28-105 4L as an everyday lense ~ 1000
    or even
    28-135 is usm + flash ~ 1000 - though this one is big and heavy too


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,819 ✭✭✭rymus


    B0rG wrote:
    70-200 2.8 is just a big white tube :)

    A big white magic tube... Stuff of the Gods...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    well I currently have a sigma 10-20, a canon 28-105 and a nifty fifty. I suppose eventually I would like to be covered from 10 to 200mm, so that would mean maybe the canon 24-70 + canon 70-200 or a sigma 17/24-70.

    Roen, having had experience of both, can you see a big difference between the 2.8L IS and the 4.0 L 70-200s ? Is it twice the price worth of difference?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,819 ✭✭✭rymus


    And further still.... Is the extra price of the IS over the normal 70-200 f2.8 justifiable? Many seem to think it is, even if the reports are that the IS version is slightly softer than the non-IS.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭B0rG


    2.8 is gives you 2 more stops. 1 for 2.8 (paper thin DOF) and another stop for IS

    you decide where do you really need it or not...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,819 ✭✭✭rymus


    The IS gives you three stops...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭B0rG


    rymus wrote:
    The IS gives you three stops...

    yeah, providing you do regular pushups in the morning, don't drink and make buddhist exercises every day it may give you 3 stops. For us mere mortals - 1 stop.

    trust me :)

    well.. may be two if you twist my arm...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,735 ✭✭✭mikeanywhere


    The 70-200 L IS is worth every cent/penny.

    However, as already touched on, do a course of weights before hand as it will be very useful indeed. Failing that, get someone else to carry it for ya!! ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭B0rG


    The 70-200 L IS is worth every cent/penny.

    yeah yeah yeah,
    pays it's weight in gold pressed latinum...
    :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,620 ✭✭✭Roen


    Hi all,
    well as to the IS being better than the non IS I have no idea as I never used the non IS. I was debating the non IS version, but when I looked back at the pics from the f4 version I had some of them were shook so the IS became not an option but a necissity.
    As to it being sharper I have no idea, but I'd imagine the non IS version would be sharper as it has an awful lot less elements in it. The MTF tables on Canon's webbie seems to imply that the IS version is actually sharper (non IS beats it in some aperture/center/edge combos) but actual reviews point to the non IS being the better of the two.

    Anyway I do go to the gym a few times a week and I play squash twice a week as well so I'm happy to say I get the full three stop benefit of the IS. :D

    The real reason I got it was that I felt that the extra stop from 4-2.8 (not counting the 1/3 increments that everyone seems to think are actual stops) was totally necessary.

    I have IS on my 300mm and I simply wouldn't have got some of the bird shots I took without it. So that made my mind up, I needed the 2.8 for the increased background blur and the IS for the available light outdoors stuff.

    As to whether it's worth it.....from an Irish retailer; No, from Hong Kong; Yes

    Pick it up once and you won't regret buying it all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,819 ✭✭✭rymus


    bloody nightline... theyre as reliable and user friendly as a Nikon DSLR... Lens should have been delivered hours ago. Roen, who do UR Galaxy ship by? I'm sick of fecking nightline.

    *patiently waits*


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,819 ✭✭✭rymus


    B0rG wrote:
    yeah, providing you do regular pushups in the morning, don't drink and make buddhist exercises every day it may give you 3 stops..


    Cool, I should manage at least 5 stops out of it so...


Advertisement