N243NW From United States, joined Jul 2003, 999 posts, RR: 29 Posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1254 times:
Hi all,
I recently had the chance to use a brand new Canon 350D for a couple days at an airshow and was absolutely thrilled with it. I've been an avid enthusiast and am looking to step it up when it comes to equipment, moving from a point-and-shoot into the DSLR world. I have been looking around at various cameras & lenses and have decided that this spring/summer would be a good time to finally make the plunge and drop some cash for a new camera. I'm a college student with a pretty limited budget, so I'm looking to spend less than $900 or $1000 US in total, including the camera body and all lenses.
The first decision I need to make is between the 350D, which has recently come down a lot in price, and the 400D, which also looks appealing. I've been figuring that if I buy the 350D, I'll still have an excellent body to work with and have more money left over for lenses, which may be even more important than the camera itself.
Second, should I buy the body alone and therefore give myself an opportunity to select a better quality lens than the kit 18-55 that Canon includes?
I will be using this camera for both general purpose photography and aviation shots, so I'd like to have both a normal lens (like an 18-55 or similar) and a telephoto lens. Canon apparently offers another 18-55 that is of higher quality than the kit lens, but I'm totally lost when it comes to selecting a telephoto model. I like the macro capabilities that some lenses (like the Sigma 70-300) have, but I don't think I have the money available for any of the L or IS model lenses.
In my situation, what would you all do? The most helpful advice would be a complete list of:
a) a camera body (which model, 350D or 400D? and with or without lens?),
b) a normal, general purpose lens, and
c) a telephoto lens
that you would recommend within the price range mentioned.
Keep in mind that my budget may be pretty tight for the equipment that I have mentioned, but I am willing to start out with decent quality gear to get the hang of everything until I have the means to afford better stuff.
Thanks in advance!
-N243NW
[Edited 2007-03-26 03:55:42]
On the 7th day, God went on vacation. He flew in a DC-9.
YYZflyer From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3495 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1243 times:
a) a camera body - You should choose which ever you feel most comfortable with/ can afford
b) a normal, general purpose lens- the 18-55mm is good lens. I've also heard nice things about the 50mm f1.8 (I think that's the right F)
c) a telephoto lens- the Canon 75-300mm is a good budget lens. There are tons of photos in the database that have been taken by it.
These are just some lenses your could choose from.
Md11fan From United States, joined Jul 2006, 111 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1236 times:
A) Camera-To me the 350D is the better of the 2 in the case so you can save more money and buy a good lens, I own the 350D and love it there ain't much of a difference from 8 to 10mp unless your blowing pics up to 30x30.
B)Normal Lens-The 18-55 is an OK lens not a great spotting lens tho, for your price range i think its best to just stick with the 18-55, but then look to upgrade to the 28-135 or even bigger
C)Telephoto Lens-Basically about ever begginer spotter should start out with a 70-300 because it gives the best focal length for the money, The 2 choices that are ok are the sigma 70-300 or the Canon 70-300, Sigma is ok but when you get passed that phase other lenses are good, if you like the focal length then look for the Canon 70-300 With IS or do like me and pick up the Canon 70-200 F/4L and absolutely love it but it might not be the right focal length so keep that in mind.
it seems that you like to go to Airshows and the thing about airshows is that you need a fast focusing lens and to me the best lens to fit that need is the 70-200 F4L and the great thing is that you can slap on a 1.4x or 2.0x and get even farther range without sacrificing to much quialty
Now i dunno if you want to have a bag or anything else? but the best place to buy from is B and H photo (if you don't already have a place in mind) ill give you the link to each thing i posed up there, oh and the camera comes in a bundle with a 2gb memory card
Now that leaves some money for other things Bags, Cleaning, monopod, etc...
So its a tough decision and i know i went threw the same thing at age 15 and started off with a 350D, 18-55, and Sigma 70-300 at summer time, Learned allot about spotting then invested in a great new lens and man does it pay off!
Silver1SWA From United States, joined Mar 2004, 2884 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1218 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 3): Get a better job, and quit dreaming about 'getting it all' for $1k.
Jeff, I think that depends on how serious he is about photography. It's hard for many photographers to justify spending thousands on equipment if they are not shooting for money. While that kind of budget wont get you a very big collection of lenses, it is entirely possible to get a Canon Rebel XT, or XTi (including the kit lense) plus a basic lense up to the 300mm range for a total of around $1K.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
N243NW From United States, joined Jul 2003, 999 posts, RR: 29 Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1215 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 3): Get a better job, and quit dreaming about 'getting it all' for $1k.
Seriously.
Nowhere did I ever mention 'getting it all.' I am simply looking to make the most of my money, so I decided to ask the opinion of the seasoned photographers on this board for their constructive advice. I know that some decent equipment can be had for $1000, including a camera body and two budget lenses, as I and the other two posters have mentioned. It's no 30D with L-series IS lenses, but it's a hell of a lot better than the point-and-shoot I have been using for a couple of years now (and have gotten A.net-quality pictures out of!).
Just so happens I don't absolutely need a $1500 professional lens to create results that I will be adequately pleased with. I'll get back to you when I 'get a better job;' until then, kindly keep these remarks to yourself.
My sincere thanks to those who have helped point me in the right direction. I look forward to making the decision when the time comes!
-N243NW
On the 7th day, God went on vacation. He flew in a DC-9.
Monteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2095 posts, RR: 40 Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1175 times:
Surely they sell a Canon 400D kit in the states... that will come with the body, an EF-S 18-55mm and an EF 75-300mm for less than $1000. I got my kit for $1500 AUD with a 5 year warranty and that was pre-christmas when everybody under the sun was buying entry-level dSLR's.
Seriously, best bet is to try get all that, a CF card and a good bag. Then save cash for new glass and by the time you get good with your shots you might be able to get another good camera.
Also, don't forget other brands. I use Canon, but try a few others. You might be surprised. I must say though, $1000 isn't enough to spend...
B777-700 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1146 times:
Quoting N243NW (Reply 5): Nowhere did I ever mention 'getting it all.'
It's a shame you'll have to learn this the hard way, but you'll be a lot better off once you realize just to disregard everything Jeff has to say. You CAN "have it all" for under $1000. The 350D kit goes for around $550-600 and that'll give you the kit lens, which kinda sucks, but at least it's something. I'd also look at getting one of the Canon 75-300mm. I believe the non Image Stabilization is around $200 and one with IS is $400. That should give you enough left over for the odds and ends.
JeffM From United States, joined May 2005, 3252 posts, RR: 58 Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1131 times:
Quoting B777-700 (Reply 9): It's a shame you'll have to learn this the hard way,
The shame is this....so many people go cheap intitially on their gear, then regret it, and have to spend much more to get what they should have got at the start.
Quoting B777-700 (Reply 9): you'll be a lot better off once you realize just to disregard everything Jeff has to say.
..... No need for the personal attack....he asked for advice, I gave it.
ANITIX87 From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 2556 posts, RR: 16 Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1124 times:
If money and focal length are an issue for you, as they were for me, look at the Olympus Evolt E-500 with the two lens kit (14-45 and 40-150, but it has a 2x crop so it's 28-90 and 80-300 equivalent). I'm more that thrilled with my purchase, and I've got quite a few shots in the DB. With the Olympus, my acceptance ratio is on the order of 72% or something like that, and only one quality rejection. I looked at the Canon 350D, the Nikon D50, the Pentax *ist, and the Olympus E500. The Canon only came with one kit lens, so I was reluctant to buy it, even though the quality was great. Same with the Pentax, and they have even fewer lens options. I finally decided against the Canon and Nikon because they didn't feel comfortable in my hands. I just didn't like the way they were shaped and built. The Olympus, on the other hand, is nice and solid, and I can hold it for hours and not have my hands cramp up like they did on the day I rented the 350D.
I know, Olympus isn't one of those crazy known companies, but the quality is definitely there, and once you get more money they have great lenses like the 55-200 f2.8-3.5, and the 90-250 f2.8. Sigma is also constantly introducing new lenses for Olympus mount, like the Sigma 50-500 and the Sigma 135-400. I'll be the first to admit there aren't a TON of lens options for Olympus, but it's getting much better, and the glass is of a very high quality. It's pretty much on par with anything Canon makes when you get up to their highest quality lenses.
On B&H Photo, the Olympus two-lens kit is $679.95 plus shipping.
Another option is the Sony Alpha A100. I know KaiGywer uses it and is very happy with it, so you can message him and ask his advice too.
B777-700 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1117 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 10): so many people go cheap intitially on their gear, then regret it, and have to spend much more to get what they should have got at the start.
Let him get some good starter equipment and learn with it. There's been plenty of good suggestions given.
Quoting JeffM (Reply 10): ..... No need for the personal attack....he asked for advice, I gave it
It's how you gave it. Not only that, but he can get some good gear for under $1000, so you've been proven wrong.
Another option is the Sony Alpha A100. I know KaiGywer uses it and is very happy with it, so you can message him and ask his advice too.
I use a Maxxum 5D which the Alpha 100 is descended from and it's a fabulous camera. It's not a 7D in terms of usability, but it's "just right" in my book. The Sony 70-300 lens pales in comparison to the old metal Minolta 75-300, though.
There is the option of getting the camera and the Sigma 70-300 APO, which is a step above the Canon/Nikon kit 70-300s. It's no 70-200 f/2.8 as far as IQ goes but if you spend most of your time between 70-200 and occasionally go to 300 I think you'd probably be okay with it.
New England Airports! Sony Alpha a700, Sigma 50-500, Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, Tamron 17-50, Minolta 100-200 f/4.5.
AC773 From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 1730 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1091 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 10): The shame is this....so many people go cheap intitially on their gear, then regret it, and have to spend much more to get what they should have got at the start.
It's much better (and cheaper overall) to build your collection slowly with quality gear. And don't forget the used option! I wanted a good DSLR system about a year ago, and here's what I did:
Canon 10D - You can probably get a used 20D these days at the price I paid (550), but it's really worth it to get an entry-level pro camera used over a new consumer DSLR. My 10D is a big tough lump of magnesium-alloy, and it's a hell of a lot more comfortable to hold than the 350D or 400D. I got mine used from FredMiranda.com, and it was in really good shape when I got it. The seller even threw in an extra battery and a CF reader.
28-135 IS - As long as you're sure to get a sharp copy, this is a great budget lens. The zoom range is really useful, and the IS helps a lot. If you're not that interested in regular photography and you just want to do aviation, you may want to pick up the 70-200 f/4 L or the 70-300 IS as they're all in the same price range. I got mine used from KEH Camera, and it arrived in pristine condition - a sharp copy too!
50 f/1.8 II - This is a sharp, fast little lens that everyone should have in their bag. And at seventy bucks new, how can you say no?
Extras:
- Get a hood for whatever lens you buy. Regardless of its photographic benefits, I can't tell you how many times my hood has saved the front element of my 28-135 from scratching or breakage. It's cheap insurance.
- Get a good strap. The included Canon strap is cheap, uncomfortable, and was too short for my taste. Treat yourself to something from Op/Tech USA.
- Don't be tempted to cheap out on the CF card. I got the Sandisk Ultra II 2.0 GB card, and I thank myself every day for spending the money.
And if you were wondering, I bagged all this for under $1000!
Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
N243NW From United States, joined Jul 2003, 999 posts, RR: 29 Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1084 times:
Quoting AC773 (Reply 15): And if you were wondering, I bagged all this for under $1000!
Wow, I guess it pays to consider used equipment! Never considered getting a 10D or 20D for the price of a new Rebel! I have heard great things indeed about the 50mm lens as well...seems to be an excellent choice.
Thanks again everyone for the advice!
-N243NW
On the 7th day, God went on vacation. He flew in a DC-9.
Alternative: Get the D40 and a second hand Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 and spend some money on a backpack, spare batteries and memory cards. But Royal is very right. When you do not have the money to get it all: buy the cheapest body you can get and the best lens you can afford, even if it is second hand.
JeffM From United States, joined May 2005, 3252 posts, RR: 58 Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1062 times:
Quoting B777-700 (Reply 18): Um, I dont think you'll hear anyone say the XT sucks. The 75-300 Canon is a good starter lens for the price.
Never said anything about the XT sucking did I? But as you have, compared to some other offerings available, it just might. Why you would waste your money on just a starter lens that 90% of the people who use it grow past it's limitations seems like false economy to me.
Last from me on this...
....go ahead, buy a cheap body and lens, you'll be glad you did.
B777-700 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1046 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 20): Never said anything about the XT sucking did I?
You implied it...
Quoting JeffM (Reply 16): Yea, great gear for a grand........wonderful advice.
My sarcasm detector is working properly.
Quoting JeffM (Reply 20): But as you have, compared to some other offerings available, it just might. Why you would waste your money on just a starter lens that 90% of the people who use it grow past it's limitations seems like false economy to me.
Quoting JeffM (Reply 20): ....go ahead, buy a cheap body and lens, you'll be glad you did.
Don't listen to him N243NW. All the suggestions here are quality, and can produce some outstanding images. Of course, like with any camera, you have to know what you're doing with it first. That's why it doesn't make any sense to me to suggest you "get a better job" and splurge on the most expensive camera and L glass you can find...
N243NW From United States, joined Jul 2003, 999 posts, RR: 29 Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1033 times:
I'm liking a lot of the suggestions you guys have offered! I don't think I came across the Canon 100-300 lens you mentioned, B777-700, but I'm going to look into that as well; it appears to be a contender.
I think much of the confusion/misunderstanding so far has been due to the fact that quality is often viewed objectively/subjectively by different people. It's a matter of perspective. Whereas a kit lens on a DSLR or a $200 telephoto may be viewed by some as poor quality or a waste of money, for me it's all that I need at this point. As I mentioned, going from a 4-megapixel point-and-shoot to a pro-sumer single-lens-reflex is a huge jump for me by itself, so I'm sure the quality of shots I will be getting with my next camera will appear quite high quality as opposed to the photos I am used to getting from my current equipment.
I'm not purchasing with the sole intent of uploading to A.net; I feel that there is so much more to photography than trying to tailor all of one's shots to a certain set of rules such as the composition requirements of this site. I'm just looking for a setup which will allow me to be versatile in what I photograph as I take my hobby to the next level. Thanks a lot guys; I have a big decision ahead of me and look forward to researching your suggestions!
-N243NW
On the 7th day, God went on vacation. He flew in a DC-9.
B777-700 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1023 times:
Quoting N243NW (Reply 22): I don't think I came across the Canon 100-300 lens you mentioned, B777-700, but I'm going to look into that as well; it appears to be a contender.
I think Dazed meant the Canon 75-300 non IS. I have the IS myself so I'm not 100% sure of the non IS quality first hand. Reading up on it, for your budget, it's not a bad lens at all and will get you the zoom you want / need. With some photoshop skilz, you can compensate for any softness or color / contrast issues on your aviation photos.
I have the 100-400, but I'm quite happy w/ the 75-300 IS too. It's in the $400 range.
Quoting N243NW (Reply 22): I'm not purchasing with the sole intent of uploading to A.net; I feel that there is so much more to photography than trying to tailor all of one's shots to a certain set of rules such as the composition requirements of this site.
And that is the perfect way to look at it! Never forget that, and you'll be fine!
Damien846 From United Kingdom (England), joined Dec 2006, 310 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1014 times:
26 Tristarfreak: I am a Nikon guy myself so I would recommend either the D40 or the D50 both are great cameras I am in the process of getting one of those two and and
27 AC773: Why on earth would you use that when you can get a real Nikon lens for $139?? Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6G - B&H
28 Silver1SWA: You do make a good point, and I think it can apply to all hobbies. It was the same way when I learned to play guitar. I started on a cheap guitar, an
29 Willo: I haven't been on board for a while due to ill health. I'm glad to see Jeff is still giving out good practical advise!
30 Monteycarlos: For what its worth, I wish I never bought the kit lenses with my 400D. I recently got an EF 24-105mm L IS which I am hopeful will last through to my n
31 Tristarfreak: it was a x-mas gift so it was free for me
32 Jwenting: good reason. Will keep you shooting until you have saved up enough for a Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX DG
33 MaidensGator: Don't let it bother you... I have a "better job" and I'm thinking of buying in your price range. Photography is fun, but for me it's more of a divers
34 DeltaAVL: Hi guys, I'm also looking into cameras as I shoot with a P&S currently. So what is the difference between the 6.1 mp of the D40 and the 8 of the 350D?
35 Monteycarlos: The megapixels don't really matter unless you're getting large prints done. The quality comes from you, the photographer. The only thing that is goin
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jul 2003, 999 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3495 posts, 
From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2095 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 2629 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
..... No need for the personal attack....he asked for advice, I gave it.
From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 2556 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 623 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Dec 2006, 310 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
