| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/18/2005 10:28:25 AM · #1 |
I had heard that the 2x teleconverter is a waste of time. I have heard that most people who are happy with the TC use the 1.4x.
For whatever that's worth.
PS. This is the sort of thing that can go in your own thread alixmiles. In fact, I think I made a thread about this before. |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 10:14:45 PM · #2 |
| Thanks riot....guess i will have to spend more money.. |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 10:09:53 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by alixmiles:
How many of you who shoot action shots use a teleconverter? I am also making my shopping list right now. Was just wondering if getting the 70-200 and a converter makes more sense than say the 100-400? Any thoughts? |
I have a teleconvertor and regret the purchase now. When I shot sports I don't use it at all, I was so dissapointed with the results.
You live and learn, at least I didn't buy it new. Now I will try and sell it and get some money back. |
texttext
This shot was taken with a 2x converter on 70-200 sigma. Severe back focus, hunts to lock on, and this was great lighting. I never used it again. Waste of money.....
 |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 08:41:18 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by alixmiles:
How many of you who shoot action shots use a teleconverter? I am also making my shopping list right now. Was just wondering if getting the 70-200 and a converter makes more sense than say the 100-400? Any thoughts? |
Ha, you're joking. There's no comparison in quality. |
That pretty much squares with my experience with the 70-200IS + 2.0xII combination. Gotta stop down two stops to get max sharpness, and that makes it a solution for very good light only.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 07:31:40 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by alixmiles:
How many of you who shoot action shots use a teleconverter? I am also making my shopping list right now. Was just wondering if getting the 70-200 and a converter makes more sense than say the 100-400? Any thoughts? |
Ha, you're joking. There's no comparison in quality.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 05:05:56 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by ttreit:
...I can borrow both and I think then I'll just know what I want to do. |
Good path. Using the cams is definitely going to provide you with a lot more confidence in the decision than all the reading you could ever do.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 04:55:22 PM · #7 |
I found a good condition 1D Mark II with a decent tripod and mediocre lens for $3400, but alas it had already sold. The tripod, head, and lens were probably worth $300-$400 dollars altogether in their used state.
I got beat on a 10D body on ebay that ended up going for $620.
In the mean time I think I've decided to buy the lens I want w/o any body. My brother owns a 10d and my best friend has a 20d. I can borrow both and I think then I'll just know what I want to do.
I most likely will give the Tamron a try too since it's so reasonable priced. Can't really go wrong there...if nothing else it makes for a lens I'm willing to take to the beach or on the boat. :) Another reason to get a 10d or 20d before going into 1d territory. Nice to have a setup you can lose and have a minor tragedy as oppossed to a major one.
Message edited by author 2005-09-17 16:57:02. |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 11:25:33 AM · #8 |
Here's why I up graded from 300D to 20D. Shot taken at 3200iso, sigma 70-200zoom. This shot is straight out of the camera, no processing, very little noise.
edit; this guy looks like he's a little upset at me.
Message edited by author 2005-09-17 12:12:06. |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 11:12:05 AM · #9 |
My advice:
Get the 20D, Tamron 28-75mm, 50mm 1.8 70-200 2.8 IS. You don't need "all L" to get the best pictures - that Tamron is fantastic. I have two!
The 20D is a LOT better at ISO 1600 than the 10D. It's a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT better at 3200. ;) It's faster. If it's a $650 question (600 10D vs 1250 20D) get the Tamron instead of the 24-70L and you'll have it all.
M
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 11:03:35 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Philos31:
Originally posted by deapee:
This person obviously wants a pro grade camera body so why are we all still recommending the plastic 350/300? |
:(
All of a sudden I feel like such an amateur :( |
You shouldn't. I have you listed as a favorite photographer. You have some of the best portraiture I've ever seen, and with one of the "plastics."
:) |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 10:18:28 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by leaf:
If it is a choice betwen 10D and L glass or 20D and not as good glass... i think you would get the best images from the 10D with L glass and be happier in the long run. you can get a 10D pretty reasonable and i think buying used is quite safe and you save a bundle. In a few years or a year, it wouldn't be so expensive to upgrade to a 20D...
The 20D or 5D WILL come down in price considerably in the next 2 years. The 70-200L won't... therefore buying the L glass now and a 10D would be the way to go. |
Yep, that's the way I would go as well. As a current 10D owner, I can tell you that it can do stunning work. Sure, it's not the latest thing, but I agree that a newer/better body with lesser glass is a less desirable direction. I will prolly not part with my 10D after my 5D comes in, at least in the near term. That says something about just what a nice job it does, and how well it's built.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 07:21:33 AM · #12 |
If it is a choice betwen 10D and L glass or 20D and not as good glass... i think you would get the best images from the 10D with L glass and be happier in the long run. you can get a 10D pretty reasonable and i think buying used is quite safe and you save a bundle. In a few years or a year, it wouldn't be so expensive to upgrade to a 20D...
The 20D or 5D WILL come down in price considerably in the next 2 years. The 70-200L won't... therefore buying the L glass now and a 10D would be the way to go.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 04:52:43 AM · #13 |
Hi-ho...
I've got both, a 20D I got new, and a well worn 10D I use as my 'backup' body. The 10D is borrowed from a friend, he got a 2nd 1DII for his backup. (He's a real pro, I just pretend. :-) ).
For general shooting in OK light the only thing that I find annoying about the 10D is the startup time and layout of the focus points. (7 vs 9 in the 20D). The focusing system is also better with the same lens on the 20D, but not a big deal. I only notice it for poor light or fast action.
In low light / fast action the 20D frame rate, low noise and focus system is far better. (And the 1DII I used a while ago is 10x better than the 20d, you gets what you pays for!)
Handling wise, the two cameras are very similar, although I prefer the 20D as I have the BG-E2 grip for it, and I've got big hands. :-). Also with larger glass both cameras feel 'front heavy' without a grip. (larger=70-200 F/2.8 or 24-70/2.8 in my case)
As for the resolution. The difference in 8.2 vs 6.3Mp isn't as big as it sounds, it only gives you 14% more 'size' to play with when cropping etc, which is where it counts. If I shoot an event with both cameras I don't notice the difference in image quality or size all that much if the light is good. If I've had to go up to 1600 I tend to put the 10D away and swap lenses on the 20.
I also notice that the auto white balance is sometimes different. It's not bad on either camera, just subtly different. I'll typically have the 70-200 on the 20, and the 24-70 on the 10, and I'll notice that similar scenes at the same event are slightly different colours, although I know when shooting those two lenses on the same body you get identical colour. Some of the reviews on both cameras said the whitebalance was not that good on either, so I dunno...
As for robustness. The 10 I've got has been through the ropes, it's got nicks and chips out of it, a major ding in the screen, and quite a few fine scratches. It's up over 80k shutter clicks.. Still going fine. My 20 has been through a bit, but not as much.. I've been hit with rugby balls a couple of times, run into by a referee, dropped the camera on grass once, and ashpalt after the strap broke when I was hit with a ball. I also scratched the screen changing lenses when I didn't realise the camera had turned, and shoved my 70-200 mount into the screen. 19,000 clicks so far, and going strong.
The only gear carnage I've had since using EOS gear was badly scratching the rear element of my 24-70 (Which sits sightly proud of the mount) when I forgot it was like that and stuffed it in my gear bag without the caps like I do with the other lenses. Cost $300 to replace the element, and get the lens re-calibrated. Ouchy. This is what lead me to borrowing the 10D for events when I want two bodies! To aviod lens-swap carnage.
So..
To answer your question. If you're not into sports photography, and don't envisage shooting lots of low light stuff without a flash (Get an external one, both the 10 and 20d internals suck..) the 10D second hand is a great option. If you wanna do sports or low light, the 20D.
As always, just my 2c worth. :-).
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 04:18:11 AM · #14 |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 03:57:21 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Why can't people answer the question? This person obviously wants a pro grade camera body so why are we all still recommending the plastic 350/300? |
Hey! I like my plastic toy...
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 03:46:47 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by alixmiles:
How many of you who shoot action shots use a teleconverter? I am also making my shopping list right now. Was just wondering if getting the 70-200 and a converter makes more sense than say the 100-400? Any thoughts? |
I have a teleconvertor and regret the purchase now. When I shot sports I don't use it at all, I was so dissapointed with the results.
You live and learn, at least I didn't buy it new. Now I will try and sell it and get some money back.
Message edited by author 2005-09-17 03:47:54. |
|
|
|
09/17/2005 03:16:11 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Probably wants something more durable and in the pro-line. Something that can take a beating.
|
The 10D and 20D are hardly pro-line cameras, for that, you need something in the 1 series. Yes, there are pros who use a 20D, but the 20D is not even close to the 1D in terms of ruggedness.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2005 01:42:22 AM · #18 |
| How many of you who shoot action shots use a teleconverter? I am also making my shopping list right now. Was just wondering if getting the 70-200 and a converter makes more sense than say the 100-400? Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:40:40 PM · #19 |
The 1d Mk II is a helluva camera. It is a totally natural choice for moving up after using 20d type cams. 8.5FPS ZING!
Keep an eye out that you stay away from EF-S lenses (which are compatible with the 20D, but not with higher bodies) and plan for the future! The biggest pull there might be something like the 60mm f2.8 macro EF-S.
Regarding the Tamron, I haven't any hands on experience with this, but people who have have informed me that it is one of their very favorite lenses.
Keep it simple though. There wouldn't be anything wrong with picking up a 10D for the aforementioned 600 dollars and selling it later at a minor loss when you were ready for something bigger.
I still recommend the 20D package. To drop the IS from your telephoto zoom lens is much less of an issue when you can shoot really good pictures at ISO 800 and very decent pictures at 1600. Doing this with a 10D is walking the short road to disappointment.
Also, I forgot to mention that if you go that route, you will have extra money for a 1.4x Teleconverter which will make your 70-200 even more exciting.
Any 70-200L lens can be resold for very near original value if it is in good condition. Upgrading this after the fact is not going to hurt too much in all likelyhood. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:33:54 PM · #20 |
Yeah if it's an issue of 25-30% I'd prolly go with the 20d. But I think I can get one for half the price of a 20 and that's what's giving me pause.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:31:25 PM · #21 |
Well for a start let me say i wouldn't waste your time with the rebels if i were you. Anyway, i faced the same dilemma as you at the beginning this year - but after reading the full 20D review on dpreview.com i just couldn't justify the saving i'd make for the 10D, especially considering the improvements in the sensor. If you're going to spend that sort of money anyway, may as well spend 30% more and have a sensor worthy of your L lenses.
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:22:02 PM · #22 |
I did read up on the Tamron lens and got mixed messages. Some people swore by them, but then I read some negatives as well. But for a $400ish lens you almost can't go wrong if it's good enough to be compared to the Canon.
Someone (I'm going to kill you) mentioned moving to a used 1d Mark II in the future so of course I started looking at those too. lol
Well I'll keep weighing my options and going over my bank account and we'll see what happens. I'll probably have more questions though. All the input is really helpful. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:12:47 PM · #23 |
Get the 20D. Any thing else we can help you with:)
|
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:07:39 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by ttreit:
In case anyone is wondering, my theory on starting with the L series is that they are great, sturdy, long lasting lenses and I keep asking myself why I should spend hundreds of dollars on mid-grade lenses that I'll want to replace someday anyhow. Seems more economical in the long run to get the nice ones and skip the middle. Plus, who wouldn't rather get to shoot with them in the mean time? :) |
Well, you got that right! I've still got a 300d but I've got some beeeaautiful lenses on the end that are making it well worth the wait to upgrade my camera!
Message edited by author 2005-09-16 13:08:04. |
|
|
|
09/16/2005 01:05:51 PM · #25 |
I have also been playing around with these same decisions (and will continue to do so until feb or march 2006 when the market will likely shift for new 20d type releases).
Your decision on the other hand is based on the now.
Considering that the 300D is being offered in many places for around 500 dollars second hand, if you COULD get a 10D in good condition for around 600 dollars, I'd say you would be in a pretty happy place for a while. In six months, your body will probably lose around 100 dollars US in resale value. (this is a totally loose and arbitrary number based on my gut feeling and that is based on market trends in Taiwan, which is VERY not second-hand oriented) A new 20D will lose a fair bit more than that, but will be much more of a camera for the next year (note that ISO and FPS are not that important to everyone)
Have you considered going for the 20D and grabbing a 70-200L f2.8 without the IS? IS is kinda nice, but is really only effective on the user side of the camera. It is useless in shots of moving targets. A little ISO change can bring your shutter speed up a good stop or two and in many cases to correct a lot of motion blur on BOTH sides of the lens. There is around 600 dollars difference from the Non IS to the IS. That right there is a big chunk of the 20D price. Additionally, there is the 28-75 F2.8 by tamron that is widely praised as an excellent alternative to the Canon 24-70. It is 800 dollars less (359 compared to 1159 at B+H). Here is your price breakdown:
10D (at the assumed 600 dollars) + 70-200 f2.8L IS + 24-70 f2.8L = 3460
20D (B+H 1300 body only) + 70-200 f2.8L + Tam 28-75 f2.8 = 2800
That allows you to get the 20D and save 660 dollars. That is enough to get you either a decent tripod, BG, wireless remote, some filters, data cards and a bag OR a 580EX Speedlite plus some cheap goodies, OR a 10-22mm Canon OR 12-24 f4 Tokina OR a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro OR.......
Hope this is useful information. DO read up on that Tamron lens.
Edit: Changed some strange "posting too late at night" grammar.
Message edited by author 2005-09-16 13:08:29. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 04:12:34 PM EDT.
