Eos 400d + 10-22 OR EOS 30d with 18-55

[robert]

Well i am going to take the plunge into digital- I know its later than almost everyone but having had our first child I no longer get out to the darkroom and find myself reaching for the P&S (S80) more than the Eos 3 and bunch of primes (24,28,50,100).

I also do a little bit of Photoshop while at work and print them out-
I am even contemplating selling all my LF cameras (including 8x10) to finance the move.

My question is should i go for the cheaper body 400d and get the 10-22 or should i get the 30d and cheapo standard lens.
I am even thinking of putting it off and waiting for the 40d when it arrives.

(I have a tokina 19-35 as well)

would love some thoughts on this dilemma.

thanks
Robert

[phillipb]

Hi Robert, welcome to the forum.
Bodies come and go but good glass is always there. Go for the lens you want and the best body you can afford after that.

[gstark]

Hi Robert, and welcome.

It's the eternal question, but as Phillip has suggested, it's the glass that's the most important part of this relationship.

FWIW, look at the 17-85 in preference to the 18-55, which is generally regarded as .... well, it's not genereally well regarded at all.

But if you already have some primes that will fit an EOS, why not press those into service? Specifically, which primes do you have?

And ... as a matter of interest, what LF (and other) stuff do you have sitting around?

Although the value of this sort of gear has fallen through the floor (and pretty well all the way through to the other side of the world) I can think of a couple of people here who just might have a minor interest in providing it a good home.

[robert]

thanks guys,
In the past I would have definately gone with the better lens as the medium (film) was the same regardless of which camera you put it in. The camera was just the light proof box, and the more you payed the better the box was with little effect other than AF and metering (and robustness?).

I'm not sure if this is the same now that the medium is contained inside that box (the sensor). Outside of the user interface and build quality, is the sensor in the 400d inferior to the 30d?
My lenses for EOS are
24mm 2.8
28mm 2,8
50mm 1.8
100mm 2.8 macro
28-80 non L
75-300 non L

also
sigma 28 1.8
tokina 19-35 3.5-4.5?


my LF gear is a calumet C1 8x10 plus 4x5 back, plus a 305, 270, 210 and 127 (doesnt cover 4x5) see (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ ... c8x10.html)
plus a few graflex speed graphics 4x5
as well as a bunch of old folders including Agfa 6x9 and 6x6 (both with solinars)

the folders were basically my favourite cameras and capable of producing absolutely stunning images.

I only used 35mm for infra-red or quasi infra-red (ilford sfx200)

I will probably sell the EOS 3 and EOS 5 and keep my old 600. its built like a tank and i just love using it.

While i still love landscape the chances to get away for a weekend are getting fewer and the most of the photos i take now days are of our 10mth old,

Robert

[DaveB]

Outside of the user interface and build quality, is the sensor in the 400d inferior to the 30d?

The 400D's sensor has 10 Mp: the 30D has 8. That's not a significant difference.

The 400D's sensor goes from ISO 100-1600 in 1-stop increments.
The 30D goes from 100-1600 in 1/3rd-stop increments, plus ISO 3200.

The noise levels between them are very similar.

The 400D has a filter over the sensor that's ultrasonically vibrated in order to shake off most dust. You may have to clean your 30D more often.

As far as the sensor goes, that's about it.

My lenses for EOS are
24mm 2.8 ~38 mme - a reasonable slightly-wide lens
28mm 2,8 ~45 mme - your perfect "normal" lens
50mm 1.8 Mk.I or II: is it built like the 28mm/2.8?
100mm 2.8 macro
28-80 non L ***
75-300 non L ***

also
sigma 28 1.8 Why Sigma AND Canon 28mm?
tokina 19-35 3.5-4.5?***

*** I think you'll notice the flaws in these quickly.

[Yi-P]

While im not entirely familiar with Canon lenses, but about the body, a 400D is pretty small. I had a chance to use one of my friend's, and it doesnt really fit into my hands. I have a feeling that I might drop it as the grip is bit narrow for my taste.

The 30D will be tougher body on its own and honestly speaking, starting with digital, all those nifty extra features in the 30D/400D will not really mean anything. It took me years to just learn how to use my Nikon D70 properly, after a year or two, the model you have today will be discontinued and replaced by another new one.

My suggestion is, go into a shop and try out both bodies. See how they feel on your hands. Go with whichever you feel the best and most comfortable using.

[Big V]

Robert, you have answered your own question by saying you might wait for the 40D..The 30D is so much more than the 400D!!! I would not hesistate to buy this camera again, the 400D is a much smaller, plastic feeling although it does take nice images.

[robert]

Well i ended up with a 400D and Tokina 12-24. The tokina was a recommendation from Discount Digital, he said as good as the Nikon 12-24.
I did a bit of testing shooting a page from the phone book and the Tokina 12-24 was not great. The AF kept adjusting (even though on a tripod) and the contrast was very low. In fact the older Tokina 19-35 was better!! This is not consistent with the reviews so maybe i got a bad sample.

I ended up swapping it (+$ diff) for the Canon 10-22 and am much happier.

Special thanks to discount digital who not only had the best price ($900 for the body and $900 for 10-22) but also swapped the tokina after i had it longer than a week.

Robert

Also interesting is how good by far the 50 1.8 is (mk II). It is just so noticeably better in terms of colour, resolution, and contrast- i was amazed.

[robw25]

i met a "canon" user at the footy ( looked around to make sure no one saw me talking to him first ) and he showed me his 50mm 1.8 and i was amazed that it felt so cheap and plasticy !!! i would love to have a feel of a high end canon mk III with a good zoom lens, but i've invested too much in nikon
( 10.5 fisheye, 85/1.4, 50/1.4, 70/200vr, 12/24, 200/400vr) that if i saw a superior photo with a canon i would go to the "darkside" i'm sure bigv uses a nikon but says it's a canon just to fool us ?

cheers rob

[!~DeViNe~DaRkNeSs~!]

hey wat are u saying bout the canon 50mm 1.8??
hehe yes plasticy but they are the cheapest lens out! i use mine soo much its not funny, and it takes spot on images, spesh compared to the crappy kit lenses!

[seeto.centric]

the 18-55mm canon lens disappoints me. we've had to trim the strand of silver foil/ribbon around the lens every time we sell one (in a kit) and the customer is like wtf?

nevertheless, its better than most p&s lenses out there and its better than nothing!
the tokina 12-24mm is indeed very similar to the nikon 12-24 and im glad ddp have been great service

-j

[robert]

I figured the 18-55 was pretty average, thats why i "upgraded" to an ultra wide. I contemplated the 17-85 IS but for another $125, thought i might enjoy the wider angle of the 10-22. I can cover the other focal lengths with my existing gear.

I have read good things about the 17-55 2.8, but it seems overpriced.