POLL: Canon 350 Digital Rebel XT or Canon 20D?

[eflat]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: WayneTeK
I"m having the hardest time picking a camera.. I'm a noob to digital photography and i've read a lot of reviews out there regarding these cameras. I've would even consider the CAnon 5D but it's useless to me because i can't take full advantage of all the settings.

So i'm wondering, which camera would be a better pick? Any useful comments is greatly appreciated...

you are a nOOb and are getting a 20d? are you mad?

get the xt and spend some money on a decent lens.

you will need a wide angle (something that goes down to at least 20mm) and probably a telephoto zoom.

if you are going to buy cannon you HAVE to buy the 70-200mm f/4 zoom

i came close to selling $4000 worth of Nikon gear just to get that $500 gem. Don't insult me by not buying it 😉

You're kidding right? I shot with a 70-200/4 and while it's nice for the price it doesn't compare to the 2.8 zooms. There's no way I'd trade in my Nikon gear for mid-level glass.

For Canon's normal zooms I like the 17-40/4 and 24-70/2.8. Not really a fan of the zooms with more range because I'd take constant speed over extended focal length any day. The 50/1.8 is a good buy too especially if you pair it with the 17-40.

If you're insisting on going Canon then buying the 20D now should be safe, haven't heard much about an update to it coming anytime soon. If you're open to going Nikon though, give it another 2 weeks to see if the D200 will be here in time for xmas. Supposedly Nikon's update to their image management software has D200 support and marketing is making moves with the photo magazines.

and the 70-200 is not "mid-grade"

it's their L series and every bit as sharp as the 2.8.

a good f/4 zoom is a huge flaw inthe nikon lineup imho.

Got to try a 70-200/4 at a fashion show and it felt klunky. Maybe its image quality is on par but I wasn't impressed at all with the build quality.

You can put all the L glass you want in it but it's still ultimately an f/4 lens so it's mid-grade.

oh, so the Nikkor 600mm f/4D AF-I ED-IF is "mid-grade"?

Tamron and Tokina make lots of 2.8 lenses that are crap. 2.8 is just an aperture buddy.


Photographers these days are way too caught up in their gear.

If good gear made for good pictures then pictures today would look 10x better than they did 25 years ago. And they do not, they look the same. Because ultimately a good artist knows how to use any lens to his advantage.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
If good gear made for good pictures then pictures today would look 10x better than they did 25 years ago. And they do not, they look the same. Because ultimately a good artist knows how to use any lens to his advantage.

bingo. heh. unfortunately for me, i'm not a very good artist

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: WayneTeK
I"m having the hardest time picking a camera.. I'm a noob to digital photography and i've read a lot of reviews out there regarding these cameras. I've would even consider the CAnon 5D but it's useless to me because i can't take full advantage of all the settings.

So i'm wondering, which camera would be a better pick? Any useful comments is greatly appreciated...

you are a nOOb and are getting a 20d? are you mad?

get the xt and spend some money on a decent lens.

you will need a wide angle (something that goes down to at least 20mm) and probably a telephoto zoom.

if you are going to buy cannon you HAVE to buy the 70-200mm f/4 zoom

i came close to selling $4000 worth of Nikon gear just to get that $500 gem. Don't insult me by not buying it 😉

You're kidding right? I shot with a 70-200/4 and while it's nice for the price it doesn't compare to the 2.8 zooms. There's no way I'd trade in my Nikon gear for mid-level glass.

For Canon's normal zooms I like the 17-40/4 and 24-70/2.8. Not really a fan of the zooms with more range because I'd take constant speed over extended focal length any day. The 50/1.8 is a good buy too especially if you pair it with the 17-40.

If you're insisting on going Canon then buying the 20D now should be safe, haven't heard much about an update to it coming anytime soon. If you're open to going Nikon though, give it another 2 weeks to see if the D200 will be here in time for xmas. Supposedly Nikon's update to their image management software has D200 support and marketing is making moves with the photo magazines.

and the 70-200 is not "mid-grade"

it's their L series and every bit as sharp as the 2.8.

a good f/4 zoom is a huge flaw inthe nikon lineup imho.

Got to try a 70-200/4 at a fashion show and it felt klunky. Maybe its image quality is on par but I wasn't impressed at all with the build quality.

You can put all the L glass you want in it but it's still ultimately an f/4 lens so it's mid-grade.

oh, so the Nikkor 600mm f/4D AF-I ED-IF is "mid-grade"?

Tamron and Tokina make lots of 2.8 lenses that are crap. 2.8 is just an aperture buddy.


Photographers these days are way too caught up in their gear.

If good gear made for good pictures then pictures today would look 10x better than they did 25 years ago. And they do not, they look the same. Because ultimately a good artist knows how to use any lens to his advantage.

Apples and oranges. You're talking about a monster tele lenses. Can you imagine how big a 600/2.8 would be?

Bah, I'm only in this discussion because the OP asked a gear question.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: WayneTeK
I"m having the hardest time picking a camera.. I'm a noob to digital photography and i've read a lot of reviews out there regarding these cameras. I've would even consider the CAnon 5D but it's useless to me because i can't take full advantage of all the settings.

So i'm wondering, which camera would be a better pick? Any useful comments is greatly appreciated...

you are a nOOb and are getting a 20d? are you mad?

get the xt and spend some money on a decent lens.

you will need a wide angle (something that goes down to at least 20mm) and probably a telephoto zoom.

if you are going to buy cannon you HAVE to buy the 70-200mm f/4 zoom

i came close to selling $4000 worth of Nikon gear just to get that $500 gem. Don't insult me by not buying it 😉

and seriously do not listen to everyone that tells you to get a "standard" lens.

all you need is a wide angle and a telephoto.

i take 90% of my pictures with a 20 year old nikkor 24mm and 100mm (manual focus - no zoom) and they always seem to turn out a lot better than all the idiots out there with there $2000 lenses 😉

I use a 17-55/2.8 most of the time but if I were stuck with only 1 lens for the entire day, I'd go with my 50/1.4. I love my "standard" lens.

what do you take pictures of? i have a copy of national geographic sitting in front of me and i do not see a single picture in that whole magazine that was taken with a standard lens.

I don't shoot for National Geographic

well now, you are kind of lying.

is that with a digital camera? if so, you have a 1.5 or 1.6x crop factor.

so that 50mm lens, unless you were really using like a 31 or 32mm lens, is acting more like a 75mm lens -- which fits in the "telephoto" class not the "standard" class.

50mm = 75mm on digital

Yes, all digital. Does that make them bad?

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: WayneTeK
I"m having the hardest time picking a camera.. I'm a noob to digital photography and i've read a lot of reviews out there regarding these cameras. I've would even consider the CAnon 5D but it's useless to me because i can't take full advantage of all the settings.

So i'm wondering, which camera would be a better pick? Any useful comments is greatly appreciated...

you are a nOOb and are getting a 20d? are you mad?

get the xt and spend some money on a decent lens.

you will need a wide angle (something that goes down to at least 20mm) and probably a telephoto zoom.

if you are going to buy cannon you HAVE to buy the 70-200mm f/4 zoom

i came close to selling $4000 worth of Nikon gear just to get that $500 gem. Don't insult me by not buying it 😉

You're kidding right? I shot with a 70-200/4 and while it's nice for the price it doesn't compare to the 2.8 zooms. There's no way I'd trade in my Nikon gear for mid-level glass.

For Canon's normal zooms I like the 17-40/4 and 24-70/2.8. Not really a fan of the zooms with more range because I'd take constant speed over extended focal length any day. The 50/1.8 is a good buy too especially if you pair it with the 17-40.

If you're insisting on going Canon then buying the 20D now should be safe, haven't heard much about an update to it coming anytime soon. If you're open to going Nikon though, give it another 2 weeks to see if the D200 will be here in time for xmas. Supposedly Nikon's update to their image management software has D200 support and marketing is making moves with the photo magazines.

and the 70-200 is not "mid-grade"

it's their L series and every bit as sharp as the 2.8.

a good f/4 zoom is a huge flaw inthe nikon lineup imho.

Got to try a 70-200/4 at a fashion show and it felt klunky. Maybe its image quality is on par but I wasn't impressed at all with the build quality.

You can put all the L glass you want in it but it's still ultimately an f/4 lens so it's mid-grade.

oh, so the Nikkor 600mm f/4D AF-I ED-IF is "mid-grade"?

Tamron and Tokina make lots of 2.8 lenses that are crap. 2.8 is just an aperture buddy.


Photographers these days are way too caught up in their gear.

If good gear made for good pictures then pictures today would look 10x better than they did 25 years ago. And they do not, they look the same. Because ultimately a good artist knows how to use any lens to his advantage.

How so? Lens design has hardly improved in the last 40 years. The only thing that has been added mostly are useless frills such as autofocusing, ultrasilent mirrors, and superzooms. Compare a 1965 prime lens with a brand new one of today, and you'll often find that the 1965 one is just as good if not HIGHER quality. Camera companies has often made a step back today with their cheap plastic autofocus builds with wobbly focusing rings and what not.

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: WayneTeK
I"m having the hardest time picking a camera.. I'm a noob to digital photography and i've read a lot of reviews out there regarding these cameras. I've would even consider the CAnon 5D but it's useless to me because i can't take full advantage of all the settings.

So i'm wondering, which camera would be a better pick? Any useful comments is greatly appreciated...

you are a nOOb and are getting a 20d? are you mad?

get the xt and spend some money on a decent lens.

you will need a wide angle (something that goes down to at least 20mm) and probably a telephoto zoom.

if you are going to buy cannon you HAVE to buy the 70-200mm f/4 zoom

i came close to selling $4000 worth of Nikon gear just to get that $500 gem. Don't insult me by not buying it 😉

You're kidding right? I shot with a 70-200/4 and while it's nice for the price it doesn't compare to the 2.8 zooms. There's no way I'd trade in my Nikon gear for mid-level glass.

For Canon's normal zooms I like the 17-40/4 and 24-70/2.8. Not really a fan of the zooms with more range because I'd take constant speed over extended focal length any day. The 50/1.8 is a good buy too especially if you pair it with the 17-40.

If you're insisting on going Canon then buying the 20D now should be safe, haven't heard much about an update to it coming anytime soon. If you're open to going Nikon though, give it another 2 weeks to see if the D200 will be here in time for xmas. Supposedly Nikon's update to their image management software has D200 support and marketing is making moves with the photo magazines.

and the 70-200 is not "mid-grade"

it's their L series and every bit as sharp as the 2.8.

a good f/4 zoom is a huge flaw inthe nikon lineup imho.

Got to try a 70-200/4 at a fashion show and it felt klunky. Maybe its image quality is on par but I wasn't impressed at all with the build quality.

You can put all the L glass you want in it but it's still ultimately an f/4 lens so it's mid-grade.

oh, so the Nikkor 600mm f/4D AF-I ED-IF is "mid-grade"?

Tamron and Tokina make lots of 2.8 lenses that are crap. 2.8 is just an aperture buddy.


Photographers these days are way too caught up in their gear.

If good gear made for good pictures then pictures today would look 10x better than they did 25 years ago. And they do not, they look the same. Because ultimately a good artist knows how to use any lens to his advantage.

How so? Lens design has hardly improved in the last 40 years. The only thing that has been added mostly are useless frills such as autofocusing, ultrasilent mirrors, and superzooms. Compare a 1965 prime lens with a brand new one of today, and you'll often find that the 1965 one is just as good if not HIGHER quality. Camera companies has often made a step back today with their cheap plastic autofocus builds with wobbly focusing rings and what not.

Today's high quality professionalglass is leaps and bounds better than the stuff from the 60's.

High quality plastic is better than metal because it is lighter and can be just as tough. Unless you do all your shooting in a studio you probably want your gear to be as light as possible 😉


And yes of course the variable aparture consumer zoom lenses are crap. We're talking about professional glass here, not that toy glass that came with your camera kit.

 

[jpeyton]

After adding the 8MP sensor to the Rebel XT, you really have less of an incentive to purchase the 20D for almost twice as much. Invest that cash into some good lenses instead; you'll get better results with a good lense/Rebel XT vs. mediocre lense/20D.

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: WayneTeK
I"m having the hardest time picking a camera.. I'm a noob to digital photography and i've read a lot of reviews out there regarding these cameras. I've would even consider the CAnon 5D but it's useless to me because i can't take full advantage of all the settings.

So i'm wondering, which camera would be a better pick? Any useful comments is greatly appreciated...

you are a nOOb and are getting a 20d? are you mad?

get the xt and spend some money on a decent lens.

you will need a wide angle (something that goes down to at least 20mm) and probably a telephoto zoom.

if you are going to buy cannon you HAVE to buy the 70-200mm f/4 zoom

i came close to selling $4000 worth of Nikon gear just to get that $500 gem. Don't insult me by not buying it 😉

and seriously do not listen to everyone that tells you to get a "standard" lens.

all you need is a wide angle and a telephoto.

i take 90% of my pictures with a 20 year old nikkor 24mm and 100mm (manual focus - no zoom) and they always seem to turn out a lot better than all the idiots out there with there $2000 lenses 😉

I use a 17-55/2.8 most of the time but if I were stuck with only 1 lens for the entire day, I'd go with my 50/1.4. I love my "standard" lens.

what do you take pictures of? i have a copy of national geographic sitting in front of me and i do not see a single picture in that whole magazine that was taken with a standard lens.

I don't shoot for National Geographic

well now, you are kind of lying.

is that with a digital camera? if so, you have a 1.5 or 1.6x crop factor.

so that 50mm lens, unless you were really using like a 31 or 32mm lens, is acting more like a 75mm lens -- which fits in the "telephoto" class not the "standard" class.

50mm = 75mm on digital

Yes, all digital. Does that make them bad?

No I actually saw potential in a few of them 😉

It does, however, mean they were taken with a telephoto lens. Not a "standard" 50mm lens as you implied. There is a big difference in perspective there.