DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> couldnt decide between glass or body
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 15 of 15, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/31/2007 11:46:47 PM · #1
today, i rented a canon 300mm f/4 (and i have a 70-200), and i cant believe the difference in just 100mm. ive been thinking bout saving up a lil more cash and getting a mark II rather than getting the glass, but boy, has the lens really changed my mind. i might end up trading up to a 20d or 30d sooner or later and up to a mark II but i cant explain how big of an impact bigger glass can have. should i continue with my course or purchases or should i go strait to my mark II and just work with my 70-200 and like a 24mm?

choice 1: keep xti, get 300mmf/4, or 400f/5.6, 17-40mm, 70-200.
choice 2: Mark II, 70-200, 24
choice 3: 30d, or 20d, 300mm f/4, 400f/5.6, 24mm

downside of keeping xti, is i shoot mainly sports and 3fps sucks.
 08/31/2007 11:53:00 PM · #2
Hmmm. I'd probably say Mark 11 and a 1.4 teleconverter. Which 70-200, 2.8 or f4?

Remember the mark I series is 1.3x. If you need the reach for sports, then the 30D and 70-200 2.8 or 2.8 IS and tc.

You need a better body, IMHO.
 08/31/2007 11:57:05 PM · #3
Given the choice, choose glass :)

A basic camera with an excellent lens will take much better photos than a top-of-the-line camera with basic lens. Upgrading a body might make certain shots easier, but it's rare that this will turn impossible into possible. Changing glass can turn an impossible situation into a possible situation.
09/01/2007 12:00:40 AM · #4
the f/4, i was really thinking bout the 2.8 +tc, but shyd away from it cause some other bulliten. but thought, for 1200 inc tc, for 2 lens including a fing 70-200 f/2.8 and a 400 f/5.6 why not? id save like 300$ and i could easy get a couple 100 more and get the 17-40, but i just wanted a really good fast af, off of the 400. but i really hate the xti for the 3fps. what bout the 40d? its 6 which is good enough but i could just pick up a 20d at 5fps and have a sick rig. i dont need no fancy live preview n shit, although it would be sick. but i really wanted to take a look at the mark II and hold it n really feel it. do you think the mark II is that great of a camera over the Id? i mean twice the money? is it worth it?
 09/01/2007 12:02:03 AM · #5
true, i like ur look on the situation. so are you siding with keep the xti and go up from there, or selling it and spending like 200$ more on the 20, or 30d? or do you say put it all in on glass? screw the body?
 09/01/2007 12:02:06 AM · #6
Just asking a question like that (what should I buy?) is very difficult to answer. It all depends on what your goals are. What are your photography goals?

Are you just a hobbyist? A hobbyist looking to go professional? What do you do with your photographs? Do you print and frame them? Do you only post them on the web? Do you sell them (or plan to)? Are you for hire? Other than sports photography (which you mentioned), what other types of photographs to you prefer--landscapes, portraits, candids, night/low-light?

.

09/01/2007 12:02:27 AM · #7
If you shoot mostly sports, you need better fps for sure. And the focusing on the Mk II is MUCH faster and more precise. So you'll get images you can crop in on, since it's a better sensor too. If you have the f/2.8 70-200 you can run Canon's 2x extender on it and get very decent results and full automation. If you have the f/4.0, you're limited to the 1.4x extender.

But I'd get the body, or at least a better body. I think you can get the new 40D and a longer lens for the same price as the Mk II, and that's something to consider.

R.
 09/01/2007 12:09:09 AM · #8
yeah fore sure, i like what you guys are bringing up, well, first off, i shoot almost 90% sports, and bout 2% of everything else, i like landscape shots alot but dont got a 17mm to take the nice shots, but id give it up for a nicer sports body. and yes, i plan on setting up a buiss selling and printing prints. starting from the ground up. i am what id call an extreme hobbyst cause i really want to start traveling bfore college and getting some exposure, as such, i have a freind whos going to submit a couple prints of mine to a local bodyboard mag and hopefully get some coverage. if you know him, eddy sulivan. well anyways, i wasnt really thinking bout getting hired, more of, advertising my prints for ppl to buy as they please. more i take the pics of random ppl playing sports rather than focusing on a specific person for a time period. my goal in photo is to have my own photo buis shooting for a mag such as surfer or surfer journal.
 09/01/2007 12:11:37 AM · #9
i know that we cant really compare the 40d and the mark II yet, but would u say the mark II is a huge jump up from the 30d? to the point that its worth wating another 2-3 months of cash to get it? nm thats a stupid question. but over all, i want to get the mark II really badly due to its rep and overall ability.
 09/01/2007 01:06:45 AM · #10
Originally posted by paddles:
Given the choice, choose glass :)

A basic camera with an excellent lens will take much better photos than a top-of-the-line camera with basic lens.


Exactly my thoughts and experience.

Today I am also in a fix, I could buy canon XTi body and I really have this much of spare change in my pocket. But I again and again think could I buy better lense than what I already have on my R1. The answer is no, and I again and again drop the idea of buying it.
But probably I will end up with XTi with prime lense (preferably f1.4 or cheap option f1.8).
 09/01/2007 01:14:03 AM · #11
Originally posted by jaimeDp:
i know that we cant really compare the 40d and the mark II yet, but would u say the mark II is a huge jump up from the 30d? to the point that its worth wating another 2-3 months of cash to get it? nm thats a stupid question. but over all, i want to get the mark II really badly due to its rep and overall ability.


If you're serious about sports, it's worth the money for the faster burst rate and the weatherproofing, which allows to shoot in inclement conditions assuming you have sealed, L glass also. For tripod-based image quality, I don't think it's gonna be noticeably better than the 30D, and possibly no better than the 40D... And supposedly the 40D is sealed to some degree... But that MkII is a bulletproof camera, that's worth a lot in rough & tumble conditions.

R.
 09/01/2007 01:15:40 AM · #12
Since we are doing I am in the same dilema storys :)

I have a 20D coming up on 60,000 clicks.

Do I get the 40D or do I get the 100-400mm L glass (Airshow next month) that I want and hope the 20D has another 60K in it?
 09/01/2007 01:18:51 AM · #13
Originally posted by awpollard:
Since we are doing I am in the same dilema storys :)

I have a 20D coming up on 60,000 clicks.

Do I get the 40D or do I get the 100-400mm L glass (Airshow next month) that I want and hope the 20D has another 60K in it?
\

The glass; you'll find a way to replace the body when you have to.

R.
 09/01/2007 11:30:09 PM · #14
Originally posted by awpollard:
Since we are doing I am in the same dilema storys :)

I have a 20D coming up on 60,000 clicks.

Do I get the 40D or do I get the 100-400mm L glass (Airshow next month) that I want and hope the 20D has another 60K in it?


id say for sure, get the 100-400 cause youve got a decent body. bears right, youll have another 40,000 to get another body if you can stand the wait.
 09/01/2007 11:56:55 PM · #15
I shot a lot of fast action events with a 10D. Most of the time I used a 70-200 2.8L IS or my 24-70 2.8L. But I also had an issue with fps and focus speed on the 10d, not to mention I really couldn't go higher than 800 ISO if I wanted decent images for 8x10. It was ok for web or 5x7 size, but it seemed every time I had to shoot a higher ISO people would want bigger prints. So I bit the bullet and got the 1D MKII. The difference was like night and day in the added fps (20 shots in raw at 8fps and the buffer cleaned out quick or a whole CF card in jpg at 8fps). I was finally able to use AI servo focusing and they all came out sharp (I never used it on the 10D because it was hit and miss). I once again had a FULL view finder and a lot brighter. Real Spot metering, 2 memory cards (although I only use the SD card as a overflow when I don't have time to change the CF card, I just yank out the CF and it switches to the SD). Although not as big of a deal, I can notice the 1.3 vrs 1.6 crop factor. And 1600 ISO is still useable for enlargements.

For the fast action stuff I shoot, I have not regretted going to the 1D MKII. There are some things I wish were different though... changing the battery and CF card now takes two hands vrs. the one needed on the 10D. I guess it's a safety feature so they don't acidently come undone, but I like being able to pop open the battery or CF compartemtn with one hand. The battery though takes 1400 raw pictures before I need to swap it.

Yes, getting the glass is nice but I was glad I upgraded. Just shoot a sports game or other fast action benifit with it one time and you won't want to go back.

Mike
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 05:55:55 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 05:55:55 PM EDT.