# Advice sought regarding camera purchase please!



## oliverweagle (Jul 8, 2006)

I'm looking to get into digital photography and have played with a digital "poiint and shoot" - but nothing more complex. I am currently looking at a Canon EOS 5D and wonder whether you would be so kind as to offer some opinions. I want the ability to shoot in a variety of situations and have the latitude to get as close as possible (limited by my own skills of course) to professional quality.

Thank you,

Ollie.


----------



## fishphoto (Mar 3, 2005)

The 5D may be a little much for your first slr. You may want to look at the Rebel XTI or 40D as a starting point. Also, the 5D has been around for a couple of years and is due for an update sometime soon I would imagine. If you decide to go with the 5D, I would wait a little while for the new version to come out. Then you can either get the new one or get a 5D for about half the price they are selling for now.


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

The 5D is a great camera for pro photographers who need great studio and low light capability, along with 1:1 full frame crop factor. It is not a great camera for sports or shooting moving objects. For that, there is the Canon 1D series for the pros, or the Rebel XTi or EOS40D for the amateur or advanced amateur. The 1D pro series body is completely weather sealed, extremely durable, had 5X times the number of autofocus sensors, and is priced accordingly. The 40D and XTi are more consumer priced with a great balance of features and performance. They both take good quality pictures in low light, though not quite as good as the 5D, but about as good as the 1Ds. The 40D is a bit bigger than the XTi, has more features and customizable functions, and does have gasketed battery and memory card doors for some weatherproofing, though it is not waterproof. The 40D does very well shooting sports in low light. All the rollerderby stuff here on my flickr site was shot with a 40D.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/smopho/sets/

If you think you'll be doing a lot of studio or portrait work, you'll be happier with a 5D over the 40D/XTi. go to www.dpreview.com for some good reviews of the cameras capabilities.


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

Ollie, both replies are right on the money. I would suggest the 40D. It is the same size as the 20D and 30d with some improvements that would make it ideal for sports. A bigger LCD, more megapickles, and more frames per second. Hopefully, this will be my next upgrade soon. If you search this form for my name, all of the pics shot in the last 6 months have been with the 20D. I love it but really need a bigger LCD to aid my krummy eyesight.

Since the first of the year I have shot approx 8000 sports pics - soccer and baseball tournaments with no problems.

If you buy online, I would suggest B&H Photo, Adorama, Beach Camera, or Amazon. I bough a Rebel XT from Beach and saved a few dollars and had a pleasant transaction.
Hope this helps.
Mike


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

The 5D is a fantastic camera. The nice thing about a camera that's been out for awhile is that after 2.5 years it's been pretty much tweaked out. Because it's full frame, the camera itself won't have the reach many of us are used to for sports or wildlife photography. For low light landscapes however it would be tough to beat.


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Rusty, who'd ever have thought that "crop factor" would be viewed so favorably for general photography??? And the lack of it limiting the full-frames as "special use" cameras.....

Ha ha .... I certainly agree with you..... Rich


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Hmmmm I posted this message without fully finishing it..so here it is again..
**********************

Rusty, who'd ever have thought that "crop factor" would be viewed so favorably for general photography??? And the lack of it limiting the full-frames as "special use" cameras.....

Ha ha .... I certainly agree with you..... Rich

added now....

p.s. It could also be that a full-frame camera would allow one to shoot with less "zoom"...but one could then crop out a portion of the picture to produce an even better result. It reminds me of my old 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 Speed Graphic . It was a baby sized 4x5 SG... You could crop out a corner of that film and still have a beautiful in-focus shot. RG


----------



## oliverweagle (Jul 8, 2006)

Thanks for all of the replies! This is really a great site with a host of information available. My first "real" camera back in the dat was a Canon AE1 - so I have lots to learn!


Cheers,

Ollie.


----------



## oliverweagle (Jul 8, 2006)

*More Questions!*

Well, off I went to Amazon in search of the highly respected 40D and found that I have some options - camera body only, camera with lens and camera body with lenses purchased seperately.
Body Only:
*Canon EOS 40D 10.1MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)*
listed for $1,149

Body with lens:
*Canon EOS 40D 10.1MP Digital SLR Camera with EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens - $1,356*

Seperate Lens
*Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras - $1,059*

Seperate Lens
*Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras*

So, if I would be inclined to go with the "kit" it would cretainly appear to be the least expensive option, however I would certainly appreciate your opinions as to the versatility of the lens that "comes with" the camera. How much of a limitation would the f/3.5-5.6 be? And ... are there other lenses which should be considered?

Thank you so much - I sincerely appreciate you patience and feedback. I am currently working in a remote location in Yemen - so the options of getting some "hands on" experience is ... zero!

Ollie.


----------



## Saltwater Servitude (Mar 18, 2006)

Try also Abe's of Maine. I love them folks up there. B&H is good as well, but if they ship you the wrong equipment it will take an act of Congress to get it fixed and I speak from experience.

If the price is too good to be true on anything you're looking at, it probably is. Always look at any internet retailer at Resellerratings.com. There are a few huge stinkpots out there that thrive on taking advantage of the unsuspecting consumer and resellerratings will help you sniff them out.

Agreed with everything posted so far. The 5D is a bit overkill for a first DSLR. 

Rich, studio shooters love those full frame bodies. Unless your studio is the size of an airplane hanger, you'll always be limited with what glass you can use with a 1.3x or 1.5x. That has been helped a little for the Nikonians with the new 14-24 and 24-70.


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

S.S. Ahhh ha...another vote for the full-frame. Everyday I learn something else here. Some of it I have no present use for..but who knows when ...??

Thanks and regards, Rich

p.s. I do have an aircraft hanger for my workshop..









http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3183/2300506357_2e11fe5641_m.jpg


----------



## MoonShadow (Jun 3, 2007)

Look at the Nikon 40DX. You can get a kit for about $700.


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

I have both the 28-135IS and the 24-70. Since getting the 24-70L, the only time the 28-135 has ever been back on the camera is when I go into the not so nice parts of town to shoot, or when I'm travelling and want only one lense that is light. There is a huge difference in picture quality, and the 24-70 wins hands down. It also autofocuses faster and more accurately in low light. You can get good pictures with the 28-135, but you just need to be aware of it's limitations once it gets cloudy, or on towards dusk or dawn.



oliverweagle said:


> Well, off I went to Amazon in search of the highly respected 40D and found that I have some options - camera body only, camera with lens and camera body with lenses purchased seperately.
> Body Only:
> *Canon EOS 40D 10.1MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)*
> listed for $1,149
> ...


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

Also,
The 24-70 is a pro quality lens that is built like a tank compared to the plastic body 28-135 and it is weather sealed to. The 24-70 will take a lot more abuse and keep working in lousy conditions.


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

$1149 for the 40D "body only" seems to be the going price these days at reputable on-line dealers. I think Beach Camera may be 40-50 dollars cheaper.

I like the idea of the 24-70 for the f/2.8. Fast glass always makes it easier to focus and see y our image in general.

Remember, to get a feeling of what your lens would be like on a 40D, multiply the focal length by 1.6. That's why you might want to consider a lens like the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (pretty highly rated). I think the tamron lens is about $400 vs $1000 for the Canon 17-55 f/2.8

If it was me, I would buy the body only. Do some more research and buy a lens that would suit you and not pay for a kit lens. Another alternative is the Canon 17-85mm lens but it varies the maximum aperature as you change the zoom. I've seen Capt. Ray (Dorado Mahi) post some good pics taken with a 20D and the 17-85.

Good luck.
Mike


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

Well, I don't know what just happened. I can edit my post anymore. When did that change? A msg said I could only edit the post for 1 minute after it is posted. Well, I got sidetracked.

So, "faries" should be varies. 

Mike


----------



## RustyBrown (May 29, 2004)

MT Stringer said:


> Well, I don't know what just happened. I can edit my post anymore. When did that change? A msg said I could only edit the post for 1 minute after it is posted. Well, I got sidetracked.
> 
> So, "faries" should be varies.
> 
> Mike


I gotcha big guy...


----------



## richg99 (Aug 21, 2004)

Yea, same thing happened to me today. I need hours, not minutes.... to get my thoughts and writing on the same page... ha ha Rich


----------



## BPitcher (Aug 23, 2004)

check KEH.com

I've bought several used cameras from there as well as other photo gear. Always the cheapest prices and quality equipment.


----------



## MT Stringer (May 21, 2004)

> I gotcha big guy...


Thanks Rusty


----------



## oliverweagle (Jul 8, 2006)

Great - looks like the body is taken care of, now for the lens. Do you think that I should be considering any of the Image Stabelizer lenses? I


----------



## oliverweagle (Jul 8, 2006)

I forgot to add that my interests in photography will probably revolve around nature, fishing and my sons grade-school sports activities - I imagine that would make a difference to choice of lens. I don't see anything in the realm of portrait/studio type pictures. I'd also appreciate any tips in filters that would be handy - we are going to New Mexico to show our son snow for the first time, and he desperately wants to build a snowman! Is there a particular filter that I should consider for that bright lanscape? I'm sorry to burden you with this flurry of questions - I can only add how much I appreciate all of your responses.

Sincerely,

Ollie.


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

If you want to shoot sports or wildlife, the Canon 70-200mm L zooms with IS are ideal. With the longer focal lengths, IS really becomes useful for shooting handheld. There's two different lenses, one an F4, the other an F2.8. Both are known for very good image quality. There is also a non-L lens, the 75-300mm with IS that is less expensive, but still has good image quality if you stop it down a bit. It is significantly cheaper than the L series lenses. You can add either a 1/4x or 2x teleconvertor to the lenses for even more reach shooting wildlife. But, the convertors cut down on light a bit, and you may loose autofocus ability with the F4 version of the 70-200 zoom. But you can still focus manually and get good pictures. I'm not certain if the teleconvertors are compatible with the cheaper 75-300mmIS zoom, but the Canon website will tell you that.

I'd recommend two filters, a UV filter to leave on the lens mainly for protection, and a circular polarizer. The polarizer works just like polarized sunglasses cutting down on reflection from shiny surfaces like snow or water, and increasing color saturation. It will also make the sky a nice deep blue color as it cuts down on scattered light. Polarizers are expensive for larger lenses, but you can use the same filter on multiple lenses if you buy a large one, and then use step down adapter rings to fit it to smaller lenses.


----------

