Please help with desision.

Gerdrick

Hello, I am new to this wonderful board and to the SLR cameras. I am trying to pick between Canon 40D and 50D. Would you please help me? :bow

So far the decision is between these two cameras:

EOS 40D SLR Digital Camera with Canon 28-135mm Lens

EOS 50D SLR Digital Camera Kit with Canon 28-135mm Lens

Thank you so very much for all your help!

Moogle Pepper

Welcome to dgrin!

They are both excellent cameras, though the 40D should be slightly more affordable. Personally? Get the 40D and buy spiffy glass!

ziggy53

Gerdrick wrote:

Hello, I am new to this wonderful board and to the SLR cameras. I am trying to pick between Canon 40D and 50D. Would you please help me?

So far the decision is between these two cameras:

EOS 40D SLR Digital Camera with Canon 28-135mm Lens

EOS 50D SLR Digital Camera Kit with Canon 28-135mm Lens

Thank you so very much for all your help!

Gerdrick, welcome to the Digital Grin.

The Canon 50D has some extra resolution and features that might be valuable if you need them.

My honest opinion is that if you intend to keep the 28-135mm zoom, it will not resolve the extra resolution capabilities of the 50D. The 50D also has a visual improvement in high-ISO, but the exposure seems to be more critical in order to take advantage of that capability. (At least that seems to be a fairly plausible way to explain the diversity of different experiences people have with the 50D and noise at high-ISO.)

The Canon 40D is still a lot of camera, especially considering price. If you are new to dSLRs, it would probably serve you well for quite a while. Even with the 40D I would suggest some better lenses to realize all that it has to provide, but you could build into a system later.

swintonphoto

I agree. Save the money you would spend on the 50D and buy a nice new lens. The 40D will serve you well for a long time.

Gerdrick

Thank you everyone for your help, I do appreciate it! Now, what would be a "good" lens? Is this one better? EOS 40D SLR Digital Camera with Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS USM AF Lens I feel so stupid ...but I am willing to learn and "get better"!

swintonphoto

The Canon 17-55 2.8 is a fabulous lens. If you have the money, that would be the one to go for. If you want to spend a bit less, then get the Tamron 17-50 2.8. It is excellent optically as well for a much lower price.

ziggy53

swintonphoto wrote:

The Canon 17-55 2.8 is a fabulous lens. If you have the money, that would be the one to go for. If you want to spend a bit less, then get the Tamron 17-50 2.8. It is excellent optically as well for a much lower price.

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM is the lens I use most on the 40D.

I do feel that the 17-85mm zoom is a fairly good starter lens for the 40D and you do save a bit buying the kit. Understand that it is not nearly as good in available light as the 17-55mm, but used with a flash the 17-85mm works pretty well and has a decent range.

I do recommend purchase of an electronic flash for the camera and a couple of modifiers.

Flashes I would recommend are:

Sigma EF 530 DG Super flash (EOS mount)
Canon 430EX/430EX II
Canon 580EX II

Flash modifiers:

You can create your own light modifiers (DIY). A couple that I can recommend are:

http://www.fototime.com/inv/908195739C4C0D3

http://abetterbouncecard.com/

Joe Demb also makes an interesting device for sale (reasonable):

http://www.dembflashproducts.com/flipit/

I own a FlipIt product and it works well and is very well made.

Gerdrick

Wow, so much information! Thank you so much!!!!

Now, all this got me thinking....is Canon a right camera for what I am going to use it for? I would like to take pictures of flowers and action shots of dogs (like agility), also dog shows. So my pictures don't look like these:

LKN Dave

Gerdrick wrote:

Wow, so much information! Thank you so much!!!!

Now, all this got me thinking....is Canon a right camera for what I am going to use it for? I would like to take pictures of flowers and action shots of dogs (like agility), also dog shows. So my pictures don't look like these:

You need a flash and some fast glass (1.4 - 2.8)

ziggy53

Compared to the Fuji Z10fd that you used for these images, almost any dSLR is going to be an improvement. Lenses will very much factor into the success rate and I do think you need to choose "sports" lenses, which I will qualify as being large aperture, and fast (and accurate) to focus.

The Canon 40D/50D might be fine but not the best choice IMO. The best in the Canon line are the 1D/1Ds cameras. A Nikon D300 would also be a pretty good choice. What distinguishes a good sports camera is the ability to focus very quickly, which is partly also determined by the lenses used, and often the ability to shoot in low-light, high-ISO conditions.

Depending on your position relative to the subject, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM might still be a consideration (with the 40D), but the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM would also be a good choice when shooting farther away.

Nikon equivalents would be:

Nikkor ED 17-55mm, f/2.8G IF DX
Nikkor ED 70-200mm, f/2.8G IF VR

Of course, there are other manufacturers who produce cameras and lenses capable of action sports photography, depending on the conditions of the event and the image requirements.

Gerdrick

After looking on B&H at all the recommended (here) things that would help my photos I think I need to slow down or I would end up in a poor house. So, the two things to start with are: the camera (I think I'll stick with 40D, thanks everyone) and a decent lens... and then I'll bug all the relatives to give me one good lens for Christmas! What a plan!!! :ivar

Tee Why

The Canon 18-55mm IS is a decent starter lens. I think if you can spend a bit more the Sigma 17-70mm is another good option in my view. If you can swing about $400, the Tamroin 17-50mm f2.8 is a great option as well.

The Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS is a great lens but very expensive for most.

If it was me and cost was the major factor, I'd go with the 18-55mm IS for about $175 or so. If you can go just under $400, the Sigma 17-70mm for about $350 or so, if you can swing about $400, then the Tamron 17-50mm.

Before you buy though, look out for scam sites that offer too good to be true prices, you may want to check reselleratings.com for reviews of the sites before you buy online to make sure that the store is reputable.

Good luck.

Gerdrick

Tee Why wrote:

The Canon 18-55mm IS is a decent starter lens. I think if you can spend a bit more the Sigma 17-70mm is another good option in my view. If you can swing about $400, the Tamroin 17-50mm f2.8 is a great option as well.

The Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS is a great lens but very expensive for most.

If it was me and cost was the major factor, I'd go with the 18-55mm IS for about $175 or so. If you can go just under $400, the Sigma 17-70mm for about $350 or so, if you can swing about $400, then the Tamron 17-50mm.

Before you buy though, look out for scam sites that offer too good to be true prices, you may want to check reselleratings.com for reviews of the sites before you buy online to make sure that the store is reputable.

Good luck.

Thank you very much for your advice!

I was planning to get my camera on B&H or Amazon. I think these two sites are ok.

Gerdrick

I was wondering, how is it possible to tell just by looking at the posted picture what camera I used to take it? Someone did that after I posted my pictures a few posts back.

Can someone please tell me then what camera my friend used to take a picture of my dog?

ziggy53

Gerdrick wrote:

I was wondering, how is it possible to tell just by looking at the posted picture what camera I used to take it? Someone did that after I posted my pictures a few posts back.

Can someone please tell me then what camera my friend used to take a picture of my dog?

Cameras often record information about the image as part of the image in something called the "EXIF" (EXchangeable Image file Format). While your previous images had a readable EXIF, this image does not. The EXIF was probably stripped out by whatever software they used.

Gerdrick

ziggy53 wrote:

Cameras often record information about the image as part of the image in something called the "EXIF" (EXchangeable Image file Format). While your previous images had a readable EXIF, this image does not. The EXIF was probably stripped out by whatever software they used.

Thank you. That's to sad there's no info about this picture, I really like how it came out, but my friend won't share what camera she has Just said it was over 2K and too much for me anyway .....

ziggy53

Gerdrick wrote:

Thank you. That's to sad there's no info about this picture, I really like how it came out, but my friend won't share what camera she has Just said it was over 2K and too much for me anyway .....

That image is a combination of many things, and the lighting, exposure and composition are vastly more important that the model or brand of camera.

chrisjohnson

Lots of good advice already.
I have a 40D and don't intend to replace any time soon - in fact after 12 months I am still learning the full functionality.

If you have extra cash then look at your total system - pc, monitor, printer, sw, flash, tripod, indoor studio, and especially lenses. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM is fantastic and I personally have a 100mm macro to extend the range of my hobby. From what I read about 50D, it does not have anything extra that I need.

If I had loads of spare cash I would not be looking for a new body. We recently bought a G9 as a carry around (another great camera) - now it would be G10. Probably I would upgrade the flash, get Photoshop CS4, or get a new monitor.

Have fun!

captnemo

Why not save yourself some money and look at the rebel lineup- If you got the xsi you'll save yourself enough over the 40d to get a good lens. Remember in a couple of years whatever camera you buy now will be old tech and you'll be lusting after whatever the new camera is, but good glass will still be good glass. When it comes to slrs I think it's usually better to invest more in your lens then your camera, which is something we overlook when we start out and all the emphasis is on 'which camera?'

Gerdrick wrote:

After looking on B&H at all the recommended (here) things that would help my photos I think I need to slow down or I would end up in a poor house. So, the two things to start with are: the camera (I think I'll stick with 40D, thanks everyone) and a decent lens... and then I'll bug all the relatives to give me one good lens for Christmas! What a plan!!! :ivar

divamum

captnemo wrote:

Why not save yourself some money and look at the rebel lineup- If you got the xsi you'll save yourself enough over the 40d to get a good lens. Remember in a couple of years whatever camera you buy now will be old tech and you'll be lusting after whatever the new camera is, but good glass will still be good glass. When it comes to slrs I think it's usually better to invest more in your lens then your camera, which is something we overlook when we start out and all the emphasis is on 'which camera?'

I vacillated over upgrading to a 40D or Xsi. For a few reasons - including price - I wound up with the xsi.

I cannot say enough good things about this camera. As you'll see in many reviews, it compares favourably with the the "prosumer" grade models - it actually has many (not all, but a lot) of the same features as the 40d in a lighterweight, cheaper body.

So, it's definitely worth a look. Some find it too small - for me, that was one of the main selling points as it fit my hand better (and I prefer a lighterweight camera). The xsi, IMO, is light to carry, but NOT light on features or quality. A lot of people have said it - and I agree - that the xsi shouldn't really carry the Rebel label, as it's more camera than the others in the series.

Just fuel to throw on the fire...