suggestions for upgrade from 300D

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

03/14/2007 08:17:37 PM · #51

okay.... now you're just being silly :oP

neophyte

Nikon D810

03/14/2007 08:40:58 PM · #52

I don't know if it'll be a factor in your selection, but Nikon sponsors the NY Mets! That's what swayed me. I'm saving for the D200. I really like what I know about the D50 I use now.

Seriously though, As I've heard here so many times, you by a system not a body. You've got some nice lenses that would cause you some cost to switch to another system. Buy the best Canon you can afford. I think every camera mentioned here in the right hands has the potential to produce ribbon photos. The challenge results prove that anyway.

03/14/2007 09:05:39 PM · #53

I guess it would be fair to say it's not just down to the camera you use but more the way in which you use it.
I reckon all camera's are capable of producing ribbon class photographs, so I guess it really comes down more to the fact of what your needs are and how comfortable you are using the camera.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/14/2007 09:12:53 PM · #54

hmmm.....I'm not sure why i just copied what neophyte said :S

UNCLEBRO

Canon EOS-30D

03/14/2007 09:13:50 PM · #55

Everybody is talking about the 30D, is the 20D defunct?
I was thinking of upgrading to the 20D instead of the 30D just so the price difference could cover a battery grip, new bag, filters etc.
Do you not think it's worth it?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/14/2007 09:24:53 PM · #56

from what i've read the 20D is not too dissimilar to the 30D but i'm certainly no expert

Elvis_L

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/14/2007 09:31:10 PM · #57

the 20d has a smaller screen. there are a few other differences as well but not much. I love having the bigger screen.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/14/2007 09:35:18 PM · #58

20D/30D side-by-side

valkner

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

03/14/2007 09:56:31 PM · #59

Hmmmmm... That's a tough one. Definitely difficult. Wait... No, no it's really not! Go Nikon! Scarlet is right. I had the 300D and I was facing the same decision as yourself. I had a few lenses and I didn't want to fully convert, but the 400D wasn't worth it. It's just not an incredible camera, not a big improvement ove the 350D. The 30D was interesting, but not as incredible as the 20D at its release. The D80 has a great weight, a great feel, and takes some incredible pictures.

If you want to be an incredible photographer, keep your 300D. It has higher rated photographs than almost any other camera on this website. What it comes down to is that the camera doesn't make the photograph, the photographer does. And I suck. I know it. But I like my D80 a hell of a lot more than my 300D, enough so that I've really been into photography since the switch. Go to a store, play with the cameras, borrow them from a friend if you can, browse the menus, compare photographs, and see what you like. The camera doesn't really matter. But Nikon rocks.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

03/14/2007 10:32:56 PM · #60

eugh, I can feel myself succumbing to the dark side with every new message that is added to this post.....

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

03/15/2007 12:25:36 AM · #61

Originally posted by valkner:

Challenge results are not straight forward. And this thought is also invalidated by say the fact that the photographs from the 300D are not by the same photographers that shot with say a 350D 400D 20D or 40D. Let say the same photographers picked up those other camera's and produced just the same scores. Well it goes to prove photographer not camera.

But i think i get where your coming from just realize if your a photographer not camera thinking person then your statements messed up. But if you don't believe in it or are undecided then well thats your opinion. In that case just remember the score results on this site don't exactly carry 100% of their weight. Unless its my scores then yeah i deserved them all!

Message edited by author 2007-03-15 00:34:47.

sir_bazz

Pentax K-5

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

03/15/2007 12:32:31 AM · #62

Furthermore, the average vote received for the 300D is actually quite low and makes it one of the poorest performing DSLR's on this site.

bazz.

hankk

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

03/16/2007 01:07:59 AM · #63

Originally posted by kirbic:

If money isn't an object, and you're prepared to deal with the different world that a full 35mm frame sensor implies, the image quality of the 5D is in a different league. I moved from the 10D, which outputs similar image quality to the 300D. The 5D is light-years from that, both in noise performance and in acuity (much less need for sharpening, out-of-camera files are highly detailed).
Choosing lenses for a 5D is a different sort of decision process. While the 5D is no more demanding than the 300D (or 10D) in the center of the frame, it requires that the lens perform well across the entire image circle. This is something that few wide-angle lenses do really well, and it makes choosing WA lenses for the 5D a little tough. This is especially true if your uses demand any kind of corner sharpness at wide aperture. On the positive side, 24mm is quite wide on a 5D. I find that I really don't need any wider rectilinear lens, just my 15mm fisheye.
Bottom line, you need to define whether the additional expense for the body is worth it, or if you would be better served with a 30D and a lens or two.

Can't say how the 5D compares to the 400D because I haven't tried a 400D. But the pixel pitch of the 400D is 5.7um, while the pixel pitch of the 5D is 8.2um. So (at least in theory) the 5D is less critical of the sharpness of the center of the lens than the 400D (think CoC and "Nyquist").

Prof_Fate

03/16/2007 01:30:07 AM · #64

Originally posted by sir_bazz:

Furthermore, the average vote received for the 300D is actually quite low and makes it one of the poorest performing DSLR's on this site.

bazz.

Umm, what happened to the classic line "It's not the equipment, it's the photographer"?

Prof_Fate

03/16/2007 01:37:17 AM · #65

Originally posted by dewdodesign:

I'm looking to upgrade my Canon 300D in the very near future and the obvious candidates appear to be the 30D, 400D and the 5D.
The 400D and 30D appear to be very similar in terms of pricing with the 5D quite a bit more expensive. From what i understand the main difference of the 5D is the fact it has a full frame sensor and additional focus points on the viewfinder.
The 30D/400D seem very similar in terms of the image quality, it seems to be more down to functionality and practicality i.e the placement of buttons, size, build quality.
With all this to bear in mind I am confused about which one would be a decent upgrade from the 300D. Is the 5D really worth the extra money considering I am not likely to print large images and therefor the full frame sensor is not a priority?

400 has the dust sensor and 10Mp, both 'better' than the 30D. Image quality, ISO noise are about the same.
The 30D will have more custom functions, better focus, better build, better ergonomics for use (the back wheel and joystick are two prime examples). These little bits matter. (I upgraded a year ago from a 300 to a 30D - HUGE difference).

The 5D is twice the price of the 30D - for basically a FF sensor and better high ISO performance (useable 3200 - 1 stop more than the 30D/400). Possible better DR and color, but that's somewhat debatable and you have to shoot RAW to even begin to get the benefit. Larger files add up over time too., but compared to the 400 not much larger I suppose. 3FPS - a big deal if you shoot any sports/action (compared to the 30D).

The new 1D Mk 3 ( i got to use one yesterday and today!!) is killer - WOW! I want one (wanna by a kidney? LOL). Awesome. And that's not even talking about 10 fps! But at $4300 ish I don't suppose you'll be buying one anytime soon?

sir_bazz

Pentax K-5

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

03/16/2007 03:36:09 AM · #66

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Umm, what happened to the classic line "It's not the equipment, it's the photographer"?

I guess it proves that more bad photographers tend to choose Canon than any other brand :)

bazz.

Message edited by author 2007-03-16 03:36:46.

drewbixcube

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

03/16/2007 10:50:49 AM · #67

Originally posted by sir_bazz:

Originally posted by drewbixcube:
I am in a similar boat. I have had my 350D for 5, almost 6, years now.

Wow....it was only announced 2 years ago. :P

bazz.

Whoops! I bought my 35mm Rebel 5-6 years ago...you're right! Brain fart. Two years this September I went digital. They both were graduation gifts...one high school, one college. My bad.

Edit: Spelling

Message edited by author 2007-03-16 16:06:07.

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/16/2007 03:01:44 PM · #68

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

The 30D and 400D actually have the same focus sensor, so that part is identical. The build quality of the 30D is for sure better, just whether or not you want to spend the extra money to get it is up to you.

eschelar

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

03/18/2007 10:30:37 PM · #69

Sorry, been away from the computer...

Originally posted by hankk:

IMO, the 5D is significantly better than the 300D above ISO 400, the 400D and 30D may be better at high ISO settings (don't have them, so I can't say). Focus is better than the 300D on all the other cameras, and you get more AF modes. Any of those cameras give you more control, better status (ie better histogram, etc) and a bigger LCD.

I went from the 300D to the 5D. Still use the 300D occasionally (with an 18-200mm lens, its better than a P&S for when I want to travel light).

Remember that your ef-s lens will not work and the 5D does not have an on-board flash. On the other hand, the Tamron 28-75 is a very nice, fairly inexpensive lens, and the on-board flash is rather limiting anyway.

There is no good answer to which camera is best. But look at this from a different viewpoint--What will the price of a 5D, zoom that replaces your 18-55mm lens and external flash (if you don't have one)? You could get the 400D or 30D (if you look hard, you can find new 20Ds cheap) and a 24-70L or 24-105L, and maybe a prime or two.

Hankk, just wanted to say that I agree with you although by your post it appears that you did not agree with me. If you look closer, you will find that I was speaking of 'image quality' which has only a minor increase from the 300D to newer bodies. I often shoot with a friend who uses a 300D and slower glass than I. I CAN shoot in slightly more challenging circumstances than he, and I CAN shoot faster than he, but when the images come to post processing and printing, the difference in image quality is usually fairly minor.

When going to a body like the 1D series or 5D, there will be a very significant jump in image quality largely effected by the much larger pixels.

Of course, as I stated in my post, if the OP is generally pretty happy with the performance of the 300D but just wants an update, the 400D will probably make an excellent choice and keep costs down.

Originally posted by valkner:

This is amusing. So you are suggesting that a camera can only be good if it is a major improvement over previous incarnations? Yeah, the D80 takes incredible pictures. So does the D70. Same with the 300D. Same with just about any camera.

The fact is that the 30D didn't get a lot of changes because at the time of its release, there simply wasn't much competition for it. All this discussion about the 5D, 1D, pixel pitch, full frame glass etc... none of it even applies to the Nikon field right now.

You WILL be able to get good pictures from the camera shooting Nikon. But as it currently stands, there is becoming less and less fundamental difference between image quality of their D80, D200 and their top end 'pro' body.

If you are considering a larger sensor because it actually applies to your needs, Nikon isn't even on the radar. Between the 5D and the new 1D Mk III, even the mighty D2X (yes, I actually do think it's a good cam), simply cannot come close. Nikon didn't release a major update at PMA2007, so if they go FF, that probably won't be announced until Photokina in September, 6 months away. It will probably take them a few months to put those bodies on shelves, so Canon has PLENTY of room to breathe. The 5D would be around 2.5 to 3 years old by the time Nikon got their first FF cam on the shelves. The upgrade path for Canon is a major reason that people choose that brand (was the deciding factor for me).

Am I surprised that you see a major improvement from the 300D to the D80? Hardly. It's what like 3.5 years newer? It's a whole class of camera above the 300D (or half a class depending on how you look at it). The instant on feature alone would make me happy, as would the wireless flash. Fact is though that Canon's cams are not making huge jumps because they don't need to. They are already extremely capable cameras.

The bottom line: the 400D IS a good camera, regardless of how many more features the D80 offers. The only thing I can think of that the D80 can actually DO that can't be done with the 400D is on board wireless flash control (a major point in my books). The rest can be done in post pro quite easily. The 30D is also a good camera. It IS better than the 400D. Both cameras have areas where they outperform the D80. More particularly the 30D of course.

Nikon also offers some excellent bodies as does Pentax. Any of these cameras will make you happy.

If you follow Gordon's advice and determine your needs before laying out the cash, you will likely be a lot happier with your final choice though.

hankk

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

03/19/2007 02:48:02 PM · #70

Originally posted by eschelar:

Sorry, been away from the computer...
Originally posted by hankk:
IMO, the 5D is significantly better than the 300D above ISO 400, the 400D and 30D may be better at high ISO settings (don't have them, so I can't say). Focus is better than the 300D on all the other cameras, and you get more AF modes. Any of those cameras give you more control, better status (ie better histogram, etc) and a bigger LCD.

I went from the 300D to the 5D. Still use the 300D occasionally (with an 18-200mm lens, its better than a P&S for when I want to travel light).

Remember that your ef-s lens will not work and the 5D does not have an on-board flash. On the other hand, the Tamron 28-75 is a very nice, fairly inexpensive lens, and the on-board flash is rather limiting anyway.

There is no good answer to which camera is best. But look at this from a different viewpoint--What will the price of a 5D, zoom that replaces your 18-55mm lens and external flash (if you don't have one)? You could get the 400D or 30D (if you look hard, you can find new 20Ds cheap) and a 24-70L or 24-105L, and maybe a prime or two.

Hankk, just wanted to say that I agree with you although by your post it appears that you did not agree with me. If you look closer, you will find that I was speaking of 'image quality' which has only a minor increase from the 300D to newer bodies. I often shoot with a friend who uses a 300D and slower glass than I. I CAN shoot in slightly more challenging circumstances than he, and I CAN shoot faster than he, but when the images come to post processing and printing, the difference in image quality is usually fairly minor.

When going to a body like the 1D series or 5D, there will be a very significant jump in image quality largely effected by the much larger pixels.

Of course, as I stated in my post, if the OP is generally pretty happy with the performance of the 300D but just wants an update, the 400D will probably make an excellent choice and keep costs down.

I guess the point I disagree with is that IQ is resolution. I look at this as a system problem and think good IQ results from additional factors, like the lens, focus system, noise and low light performance, etc. (And yes, a good photography class will improve the system, at least for me :-)

One example is in shooting still life, the only advantage the focus of the 5D has over the 300D is the cross-point sensor, and this is only if you use a lens that's f/2.8 or better. But if you're shooting macros, you probably use manual focus and a focusing rail. Which camera will give the higher IQ, assuming you ignore the resolution of the sensor?

On a bright day, with iso 100, all the cameras will take nice pictures. But there is a range of resolution from 6MP to 12MP. IIRC, the 300D can print 8x10s at 300dpi, so does the resolution matter?

Your needs will vary depending on the type of photography you do, and the cash you can spend on equipment. Viewing this as a system, I think each of the cameras has its own advantage -- if you assume the OP has a fixed amount of money to spend, he has more money to spend on L glass if he doesn't buy a body at all. The 400D has 10MP and about $500 more to spend on glass than the 30D, which gives better focusing, higher ISO, and 5FPS. The 5D is better in most regards except that it is 3FPS and costs more (ie you can't buy that 24-70 or 70-200 f/2.8)

Message edited by author 2007-03-19 14:51:04.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

03/19/2007 03:17:57 PM · #71

Originally posted by sir_bazz:

I guess it proves that more bad photographers tend to choose Canon than any other brand :)

Well, it's certainly true in my case.

tcmartin

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/19/2007 03:30:02 PM · #72

Very interesting ideas here: Needed At All?

Ben

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/19/2007 03:38:23 PM · #73

I started out with a 350D, then managed to buy a 30D.

I absolutely love my 30D.

If that helps at all.

eschelar