Expert Advice on Gear Requested (long post)

Richard · August 15, 2005

I am yet another newbie photographer looking for some tips before buying new gear. I have done my homework (including following many threads like this on Dgrin) but nothing beats direct feedback from the people on this forum.:thumb

Background: I have a Canon PowerShot A75 that I have used for the past 10 months and have shot over 20000 pics with it. I live in Madrid and mostly shoot cityscapes, though I have also done some landscapes, candids, a few panoramas and some quasi-macros of flowers. I haven’t really found a niche yet—I just shoot whatever catches my eye, mostly outdoors and handheld. I use the flash only rarely. The A75 lens is the 35mm equivalent of a 35 to 105mm f2.8 – 4.8. I use it long more often than wide. The A75 is a wonderful little camera for its price, but I think I am ready to make the leap to a DSLR. I am planning to visit the US in the fall and want to do a major purchase there to take advantage of the large price difference compared to Spain (33 to 50 percent). My budget is (wince) around 3000 USD. In particular, I am looking for:

Better performance in low light
Sharper images
More flexible control of focus
Better control of DOF
Reduced shutter lag
Longer reach
Richer color

I really dislike shopping and want to buy things that will last a long time (so I don’t have to go shopping again:D). Here’s what I am considering and my rationale. Please pick it apart and tell me where I may be wrong or what I am overlooking.

My limited experience with Canon has been wholly positive so I think I will stick with them. I considered the Digital Rebel XT for a while but have pretty much settled on a 20D because it looks more durable. It also has a 3200 ISO in case of dire need, which the XT lacks. Since it seems that half the people on Dgrin are using the 20D, I am guessing that it is a good choice.

For my walk-around lens, my choice is the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. I thought long and hard about the Canon 28-70 2.8L but the price and weight ultimately scared me off. This lens will give me less coverage than I have now at the wide end. It is also a lot brighter at the long end and hopefully, much sharper all around.

I am planning to get a Canon 70-200 f4L for telephoto. I don’t do sports or see many birds, and this will give me three times the reach I have now. So I am hoping that this lens will last me for a while. It is not much brighter than my digicam at the long end (which is quite a bit longer, of course), but I am counting on the higher ISO of the camera to compensate. My greatest frustration with the A75 has been not enough light when fully zoomed.

I am afraid that to stay within my budget, I may have to forego a wide-angle lens for now. :tough I had been looking at both the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 and the Canon EF-S 10-22 f3.5-4.5. Then it occurred to me that I am going to have other expenses as well. I am now thinking of getting the Canon 18-55 kit lens and just using that when I need the width. Perhaps this is a waste of money, as it will not be nearly as good as the other lenses. Am I really going to hate myself when I am in San Francisco and don’t have a suitable lens for the Golden Gate Bridge? What do you think? Just buy a postcard?:dunno

OK, I realize that there’s more to digital photography than cameras and lenses. I already have a cheap tripod, a copy of Photoshop 7, a 1 GB CF card and a portable hard disk/photo vault. I hope to avoid upgrading any of it for a while. I know that I will want a spare battery for the 20D (two spares?), some UV filters to protect the lenses and a new bag to carry stuff around. I don’t plan to buy an external flash for now. I am hoping that the software that comes with the 20D is good enough to handle the RAW to JPG conversion. Is that true, or will I need to spend money on additional software? Is there a compelling reason to upgrade from PS7 to CS2? I guess I will also need to get something for sensor cleaning, but I haven’t figured out what yet. The Tamron 28-75 and the Canon 70-200 both come with hoods. What else am I overlooking?

Thanks so much for reading this far. I know I have asked quite a few questions. Please feel free to answer only one of them if you like. All comments will be appreciated.

[font=&quot]Cheers,[/font]

Andy · August 15, 2005

i think you're making a fine choice. i would get the kit lens with the 20d, at least you'll have something on the wide end

another consideration: the canon 17-85 i.s. efs - i've seen some really fine images from this combination - so you might want to look at that, too. the tammy is good- and more than a few folks here on dgrin use it.

good luck in your decision!

gluwater · August 15, 2005

andy wrote:

i think you're making a fine choice. i would get the kit lens with the 20d, at least you'll have something on the wide end

another consideration: the canon 17-85 i.s. efs - i've seen some really fine images from this combination - so you might want to look at that, too. the tammy is good- and more than a few folks here on dgrin use it.

good luck in your decision!

I would agree with Andy. I have also heard good things about the 17-85 so that would give you the width you are looking for. I have the 10-22 and love it, try to stretch your budget if you can and pick one up, you will not regret it.

Good Luck
Nick

pathfinder · August 15, 2005

You really may want to upgrade PS 7 to PS CS2. You will not be able to use the RAW converter in Photoshop and I really like the improvements in PS CS2 compared to PS 7. Shadow/highlights, better Healing brushes, lots of neat, USEFUL stuff. I think you will agree that it is money well spent over PS 7.

There is a very good article about the Tamron 28-75f2.8 Di at photo.net
If you have followed this board you probably know that I have used this lens for several years and have been very pleased with it and that I also own a Canon 24-70 L for comparison. Tamron's 16-35 Di also gets high marks. Canon's 17-85 IS also gets favorable comments. Canon's 70-200 f4 L is a great optic.

The 20D will focus dramatically faster than most point and shoots, and its low noise high ISO will open new photographic possibilities for you. Welcome to dgrin.
Don't ignore the dramatic improvements possible with a good flash that works with ETTL ll also, like the 580ex that I really like a lot. Fill flash can be a great tool.

Rohirrim · August 15, 2005

I recently bought the 20D after using the Canon Rebel for the last year. I think you are making the right choice by just going to the 20D it seems to be much more durable and the added features are well worth it IMHO.

As Andy said the kit lens that comes with the 20D is well worth it. Yes, its not the greatest lens but well worth the price.

I also agree that the upgrade to CS2 is worth the cost. Not only will you have the added features of CS2, you will also have Canons New Camera Raw which is a tremendous improvement from Canons previous Raw converter. I used to use Capture One until the CS2 ACR.

It sounds like your lens choices will fit your needs. Do you have Macro needs? The Canon 100mm Macro lens is a great lens and can serve as a short range telephoto as well.

Have fun with your purchase,

monky · August 15, 2005

food for thought...
not sure what you plan on doing that the durability of the 20D is important, but consider this:

the 20D:
has a more accurate AF (only with fast lenses mind you)
has a nicer viewfinder
is more ergonomic
is more durable
has a better burst mode (3FPS versus 5FPS)

now, i understand that for some people some of those features can be important. i was sold on the 20D and ended up with the XT only becuase i killed my sony 828 before i had the cash saved up for the 20D and i had no choice. but in retrospect, i am glad that i ended up with the XT. of all of those features, i can honestly say that i only miss the AF of the 20D. the 3FPS versus 5 isn't a practical difference to me, nor is 30ms less shutter lag (that pushes the boundary of human perception anyway and only matters when the 5FPS design criteria needed to be met). and the AF certainly isn't worth the 500 dollars i was able to put towards my 17-40/4L instead.

the XT:
is smaller and lighter
is 500 cheaper (street)

keep in mind that while most people say that the XT lacks ISO 3200, you can still set to AV and underexpose 1 stop... that gives you ISO3200. 2 stops gives you 6400. it should also be noted that this is precisely how the 20D attains the ISO3200 - not by upping the CMOS's gain but instead by pushing the histogram of the image.

now, all that said, if you save 500 on the camera, you end up with 500 more that you can put into glass (and other items).

as for lenses, first let me say that the 70-200/4L is a MUST HAVE. period. this lens is as big a bargain as they come. second, if you chose to stick with the kit lens on the wide end, that is a perfectly acceptable route. this lens is nowhere near as inferior in optics as it is in build. most of the reason mine got replaced was due to the build quality and focusing. third, the tamron 28-75 is suppsed to be a wonderful lens. you wont regret that one, i am sure.

that setup there (XT, kit lens, 28-75, 70-200/4L) will run around 2 grand. and the XT will produce, pixel for pixel, the same image that the 20D will make. its now the glass that matters, just like in the ancient film days

.

if you dont shoot wide angle very often, then i'd start with just the kit lens. no sense in buying the 10-22 if that lens at its LONGEST point is still only as long as your P&S is at its WIDEST point... and you dont even use that!

i also reccomend that you throw in the 28/1.8, 35/2 or 50/1.8 (in order of my preference). IMO anyone that has a DSLR should have at least one fast prime. the 35/2 is pretty fast and works out to a nice, 'normal' FOV on a 1.6x crop body. the 50/1.8 is dirt cheap but IMO too long on a 1.6x body. the 28/1.8 has USM and a 45mm FOV, but its pricey.

dont forget there are always the 18-200 all in one lenses (340 from sigma4less.com, for example). most people say these are compromises, but coming from your A70 you still stand to gain alot. having 28-300 in one single lens can be very useful. i would NOT however tell anyone serious about photography to get this as their ONLY lens. but if you can only carry one lens... they wouldn't be bad to have for use in a sticky situation.

lastly, ill throw out the idea of the canon 24-105/4L IS that recently cropped up on the rumor block. i have been wishing for this lens for a while now, and when it is released i will be first in line, price be damned. L quality over 38-170mm on a 1.6x body, and 24-105mm on FF... either with f/4 constant and IS to back it up. doesn't get much better as a walkaround folks. you can bet itll be pricey:cry. but i bet it'll be more useful than the 28-75...

this is a fun hobby... unless you happen to be a wallet

pathfinder · August 16, 2005

monky wrote:

lastly, ill throw out the idea of the canon 24-105/4L IS that recently cropped up on the rumor block. i have been wishing for this lens for a while now, and when it is released i will be first in line, price be damned. L quality over 38-170mm on a 1.6x body, and 24-105mm on FF... either with f/4 constant and IS to back it up. doesn't get much better as a walkaround folks. you can bet itll be pricey:cry. but i bet it'll be more useful than the 28-75...

this is a fun hobby... unless you happen to be a wallet[/color][/color]

Can you give us a reference on the web to the Canon 24-105 f4 L IS. I can only find two links for this when I google and neither seems to be available on the server.

monky · August 16, 2005

sure
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=14630213

thats the one that started the rumorfest on dpr. im not saying either way whether or not i think its real, but if it IS, i will be one happy boy. it will fit in between my 17-40/4L and 70-200/4L very nicely.

*crosses fingers*

edit: i should add that the 1DMKII-N has already cropped up elsewhere, and obviously the 5D has too. so it may not be a stretch that the lens could be real.

pathfinder wrote:

Can you give us a reference on the web to the Canon 24-105 f4 L IS. I can only find two links for this when I google and neither seems to be available on the server.

Richard · August 16, 2005

monky wrote:

keep in mind that while most people say that the XT lacks ISO 3200, you can still set to AV and underexpose 1 stop... that gives you ISO3200. 2 stops gives you 6400. it should also be noted that this is precisely how the 20D attains the ISO3200 - not by upping the CMOS's gain but instead by pushing the histogram of the image.

now, all that said, if you save 500 on the camera, you end up with 500 more that you can put into glass (and other items).

Well, damn, just when I thought I had it all figured out…

Regarding the 3200 ISO, I am a little unclear why underexposing one stop at 1600 would give the desired result. Did you mean to say overexpose? My understanding of theory is tenuous at best. Perhaps I am missing something, but I would expect underexposing in low light to darken an already dark image.

In any event, the real question for me is whether the 3200 on the 20D (or 1600 on the XT with exposure compensation) will be useable. The A75 goes up to 400 ISO, but it is so noisy at that speed that most of the shots are just junk. Is there, then, no practical difference in light sensitivity between the XT and 20D?

Your point about getting an XT and putting the cost savings towards a wide-angle lens is astute. A body only XT seems to be about $550 cheaper than the 20D with the kit lens. That would pay for the Tamron 17-38 outright or put me close enough to the Canon 17-40.

OK, guys, so would you forego a high quality wide-angle lens for, say, a year in order to get the 20D over the XT? I am finding it hard to decide.

Rohirrim · August 16, 2005

rsinmadrid wrote:

OK, guys, so would you forego a high quality wide-angle lens for, say, a year in order to get the 20D over the XT? I am finding it hard to decide.

After buying the Rebel and then buying the 20D 1 1/2 yrs later, I wish I would have just bought the 20D the first time around (of course it wasn't available then, but the 10D was.) I thought I was saving money but I actually ended up spending more.

monky · August 16, 2005

original rebel is completely different..
lets not compare the original rebel to the XT. the XT is functionally much closer to the 20D than the 300D was to the 10D.

the XT, for example, natively supports most of the features that the 300D was hacked to unlock.

Rohirrim wrote:

After buying the Rebel and then buying the 20D 1 1/2 yrs later, I wish I would have just bought the 20D the first time around (of course it wasn't available then, but the 10D was.) I thought I was saving money but I actually ended up spending more.

Richard · August 17, 2005

Thanks
Many thanks to all for your observations.

clap I have much to think about still, but I am now leaning towards the 20D body only and trying to see whether I can forego the upgrade to CS II and stretch my budget to cover a good wide-angle lens. Every morning, the answer comes out different, but I suppose that's par for the course.

Cheers.

Matthew Saville · August 17, 2005

rsinmadrid wrote:

Many thanks to all for your observations. clap I have much to think about still, but I am now leaning towards the 20D body only and trying to see whether I can forego the upgrade to CS II and stretch my budget to cover a good wide-angle lens. Every morning, the answer comes out different, but I suppose that's par for the course.

Cheers.

What they mean by under-expose at ISO 1600 is that if you "under" expose by increasing your shutter speed at ISO 1600, you'll be shooting at the same shutter speed you would if you had ISO 3200 and a "proper" exposure. Then, AFTER this, on the computer you compensate, over expose it again to get the correct exposure. It increases noise a little, but it's how some of us get acceptable shutter speeds from our 1600 ISO cameras.

But in the end, YES the 20D will work wonders for you at 1600 and 3200 ISO. Trust me, with that VERY bright f/2.8 lens, you'll often get pretty far up into "acceptable shutter speed land"

-Matt-

photobug · August 18, 2005

ISO 1600 on 20D

rsinmadrid wrote:

In any event, the real question for me is whether the 3200 on the 20D (or 1600 on the XT with exposure compensation) will be useable. The A75 goes up to 400 ISO, but it is so noisy at that speed that most of the shots are just junk. Is there, then, no practical difference in light sensitivity between the XT and 20D?

First, there is no comparison between ISO 400 on a point-and-shoot (even the nice A75) and ISO 400 on the 20D.

The 20D's sensor is much larger, therefore less prone to noise, plus Canon put a lot of effort into further reducing color noise through a combination of hardware and software. I had a 10D before the 20D, and one of the big reasons I put out the cash to upgrade was because of the 20D's better high-ISO performance.

The result is amazingly good performance at ISO 1600. Yes, there is some noise at 1600, but it's noticeably better than my 10D was at 1600. (Reviews have claimed that the 20D is as good at 1600 as the 10D was at ISO 400, which seems about right). If you use ISO 1600 and want a really good result, I further recommend using a good noise-reduction plug-in for Photoshop. (The best I've seen so far is NeatImage) I've taken some available-light shots at ISO 1600, added a little NeatImage magic, and came out with some surprisingly good photos. I don't know if the XT does as well, or not, at high ISO settings (it might, but the 20D has other advantages)

Re buying, if you want to buy "once", I'd recommend getting the 20D over the Rebel XT. It has a much larger, "normal" size body, which is much easier to hold and balance than the XT. I would imagine that's esp true with long lenses. The XT has a surprisingly tiny body (much smaller than the original Rebel or the 20D). Have you ever *seen* an XT in person? It's really, really small. (Did I mention that it's little??)

I make use of the 20D's custom functions, at least some of which are missing on the XT.

The XT uses a smaller, lower-capacity battery pack than the 20D. The 20D uses BP-511's or higher-capacity BP-511A's (like the 10D, Rebel, and some other Canons). The 20D can run something like 400-500 shots on a full charge (and about double that with two batteries in a BG-E2 battery grip). One hint on the battery: you can buy aftermarket BP-511A type batteries that seem to perform as well as Canon OEM batteries, at 1/4 of the cost (about $15 vs $60). [I buy several at a time and offer the extras to other Canon owners, and everyone comes out happy ... ref http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=10151 .]

Whether you get an XT or 20D, you'll surely also appreciate the immediacy of using a dSLR, with its short shutter-lag compared to point-and-shoot digicams.

Big decisions! Good luck, and enjoy "the hunt"!

Richard · August 18, 2005

Matthew Saville wrote:

What they mean by under-expose at ISO 1600 is that if you "under" expose by increasing your shutter speed at ISO 1600, you'll be shooting at the same shutter speed you would if you had ISO 3200 and a "proper" exposure. Then, AFTER this, on the computer you compensate, over expose it again to get the correct exposure. It increases noise a little, but it's how some of us get acceptable shutter speeds from our 1600 ISO cameras.

But in the end, YES the 20D will work wonders for you at 1600 and 3200 ISO. Trust me, with that VERY bright f/2.8 lens, you'll often get pretty far up into "acceptable shutter speed land"

-Matt-

Thanks, Matt. I think I almost get it. By using the faster shutter speed you reduce motion blur. But wouldn't you lose shadow detail? You can't compensate in post if it's not there to start with. Guess you can't always have it all. I suppose like all tricks, this one has its place. In any event, just being able to get above ISO 200 sounds like heaven to me.

Cheers.

gus · August 18, 2005

rsinmadrid wrote:

Thanks, Matt. I think I almost get it. By using the faster shutter speed you reduce motion blur. But wouldn't you lose shadow detail? You can't compensate in post if it's not there to start with. Guess you can't always have it all. I suppose like all tricks, this one has its place. In any event, just being able to get above ISO 200 sounds like heaven to me.

Cheers.

I do it all the time with bands richard but i just cant explain it that easily. I set my lens on say f/2...hit the button & then wind the big dial on the back anticlockwise. This then speeds up the already fast shutter speed to really catch the dark shot. As andy says..chimp the shot & if you can see it in the LCD screen then its fine. Take it home & open it in PS & simply lift the exposure in the RAW file to what you you would like..ie from dark to light.

Sorry if that confusing but i have trouble explaining stuff.

Oh...buy the 20D & the lenses you mentioned & for the loose change in your pocket you should also get the kit lens...its a lot better than most will have you think.

Richard · August 19, 2005

Humungus wrote:

I do it all the time with bands richard but i just cant explain it that easily. I set my lens on say f/2...hit the button & then wind the big dial on the back anticlockwise. This then speeds up the already fast shutter speed to really catch the dark shot. As andy says..chimp the shot & if you can see it in the LCD screen then its fine. Take it home & open it in PS & simply lift the exposure in the RAW file to what you you would like..ie from dark to light.

Sorry if that confusing but i have trouble explaining stuff.

Oh...buy the 20D & the lenses you mentioned & for the loose change in your pocket you should also get the kit lens...its a lot better than most will have you think.

Thanks, Gus. Just for fun I tried to apply the method on my digicam, but even in full manual mode it increases the exposure compensation when I increase the shutter speed. I suppose it thinks it is smarter than I am about such things. It probably is

. I did manage to get an interesting study of gray on black in one frame, though that was not my intent. My digicam does not produce RAW files, only JPG, so I couldn't exactly follow your technique. All I can do is raise the levels in PS.

In any event, I think I understand the principle now. When I get my 20D, everything will be much better...perfect exposures every time, commissions from National Geographic, peace in the Middle East, etc.

rofl

Cheers,

wxwax · August 19, 2005

Humungus wrote:

I do it all the time with bands richard but i just cant explain it that easily. I set my lens on say f/2...hit the button & then wind the big dial on the back anticlockwise. This then speeds up the already fast shutter speed to really catch the dark shot. As andy says..chimp the shot & if you can see it in the LCD screen then its fine. Take it home & open it in PS & simply lift the exposure in the RAW file to what you you would like..ie from dark to light.

Sorry if that confusing but i have trouble explaining stuff.

Oh...buy the 20D & the lenses you mentioned & for the loose change in your pocket you should also get the kit lens...its a lot better than most will have you think.

That's what I do, Gus. Anything to get a decent shutter speed in the low light of clubs/bars. Hold your breath and hope the noise isn't too bad when you increase the exposure of the RAW file.

ziggy53 · August 19, 2005

rsinmadrid wrote:

…

Regarding the 3200 ISO, I am a little unclear why underexposing one stop at 1600 would give the desired result. Did you mean to say overexpose? My understanding of theory is tenuous at best. Perhaps I am missing something, but I would expect underexposing in low light to darken an already dark image.

I haven't done it yet, but I believe the procedure is:

1) Shooting in RAW (very important) at ISO 1600, underexpose by one stop. This prevents blowing out the highlights in the next step.

2) In whatever your RAW workflow is, compensate by increasing 1 stop. This is similar to "push-processing" in film terms. The net result is a reasonably proper exposure, effectively equivalent to ISO 3200.

rsinmadrid wrote:

In any event, the real question for me is whether the 3200 on the 20D (or 1600 on the XT with exposure compensation) will be useable. The A75 goes up to 400 ISO, but it is so noisy at that speed that most of the shots are just junk. Is there, then, no practical difference in light sensitivity between the XT and 20D?

Only you can say for sure if the results are desirable. My own opinion is that for BW work it can be very effective, but I used to love TriX, shooting in film. I do think that for simple subjects, noise reduction is effective at ISO 1600 and should be OK for ISO 3200 as well. There are other's examples posted around the Internet.

rsinmadrid wrote:

Your point about getting an XT and putting the cost savings towards a wide-angle lens is astute. A body only XT seems to be about $550 cheaper than the 20D with the kit lens. That would pay for the Tamron 17-38 outright or put me close enough to the Canon 17-40.

OK, guys, so would you forego a high quality wide-angle lens for, say, a year in order to get the 20D over the XT? I am finding it hard to decide.

I would put it this way, you will get some service out of the Rebel XT and you may get enough service that by the time it wears out, something much better might be available than the 20D. In the mean time, you will have saved the money up front to afford better glass now, which should still be viable on the next camera.

On the other hand, you shoot a lot of images, it would seem, so durability may be more important. There is nothing worse than getting nothing because the camera fails.

Ultimately, even the 20D may not prove durable enough. It's partly how you use the equipment, what environment it's exposed to, and partly the "luck of the draw". Ultimately the descision has to be yours, which set of criteria is more important.

Best,

ziggy53

Red Bull · August 19, 2005

I had the same decision you have right now when it was time for me to purchase. I could either buy the original digital Rebel, the Rebel XT, or the 20D. Sure, I could have bought the digital Rebel and gotten an extra lens, but it had quite a few features missing that I would probably just want a few months later. I ended up getting the 20D and I don't regret getting it over the XT or digital Rebel. The XT was just way too small to fit comfortably in my hands.

I would say go with the 20D. You will not regret it. I still only have the 18-55 kit lens, but it works and it gives me time to learn more about photography techniques to get great photos. (I've seen some very good photos taken with the 18-55) It also has a pretty good macro focusing range.

The battery for the 20D also seems like it never dies. I bought an extra one from Photobug for a VERY good price and it works exactly the same as the one included with the 20D.

yuhhsupan · August 20, 2005

Photo Gears
Hi ! I think you made very good choices with your budget. But if I were you, I would go for the XT instead of the 20D and use the money saved to buy a decent wide angle lens (17-40L or 10-22 if you want ultra wide) and skip the kit lens. I used to own a 20D, I never need to use iso 3200 and hardly use 1600 even I had shoot 3 weddings with existing light. If you don't shoot sport, I don't see why you will need 5fps instead of 3fpls. Like many people have said, good lenses last for long time and keep the values well but cameras don't. This is my humble suggestions. Welcome to the US and wish you the best.

Yuh-Hsu

Expert Advice on Gear Requested (long post)

Comments