Need advice on SLR's

3 questions:

1.) Should I buy the new Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT or the Canon EOS 20D?

2.) Can you reccomend a site that is reputable and will give me a great deal?

3.) What kind of lenses should I start with?


A little bit about me:

This will be my first SLR. I am an amatuer photographer with no professional experience. The most important thing to me is image quality. Next would be ease of use and functionality. The price difference is of no concern, and I am afraid that if I went for the Rebel XT, I will always wish I had bought the camera with more functionality, especially when I get some real experience. I have also held both in my hand ( I am 6.4 250 lbs) and the XT seemed a little small. Please advise. I appreciate the help.

Where should you buy? B&H have a very good reputation. If you use the link on this site, PR is rewarded.

Lenses? Start with Canon's 18-55 EFS lens. Find out what you can't acheive with that lens and buy accordingly. If you want to take sports or wild life, a longer lens say 100-400 might be what you need.

Camera? If you've doubts over the Rebel XT go for the 20D. At B&H the 20D is approx USD400 more expesnive. If you buy the Rebel XT and don't like it, the depreciation on it will mean that it will cost you a lot more than USD400 to trade up.

If price is not a concern, then go for the 20D. The price difference is negligible for the extra features and speed that you get. On the same note, if you have no real budgetary constraints, then spend on some really good glass. The 17-40mm "L" zoom from Canon makes for a good starter lens, albeit a little pricey starter lens, but it's worth the extra dollars to get the best starting images you can get. Later you can add some other longer lenses, but a short zoom is always a good starter lens.
As far as where to buy online, B&H gets my vote all the way. There are cheaper places, but I've always had good service with B&H.

I don't know much about Canon, so this is kind of an outsider's opinion. I've seen nice work from both of these cameras so image quality shouldn't be a concern. Two things to think about though - if the 20D has better autofocus or has features you need and the XT doesn't (I don't know this) then the 20D would be a better choice if you need those things to get the shots that you're hoping to get (for example if you shoot sports).

Also, skill in post processing plays a huge part in the quality of digital images. These cameras may come with Adobe Photoshop Elements which is a good start but at some point you may want to move up to Photoshop CS2. Monitor calibration is very important too IMO and it won't break the bank compared to a camera. I use Monaco Optix XR and it's often under $200 after rebate. It's not just owning these tools, it's the skill and experience in using them that counts. Scott Kelby's Photoshop books are a big help. I don't know how much you know about this (forgive me if it's old news) but there is a learning curve. Practice makes perfect! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENxDO

3 questions:

1.) Should I buy the new Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT or the Canon EOS 20D?

2.) Can you reccomend a site that is reputable and will give me a great deal?

3.) What kind of lenses should I start with?

---

First, no one can tell you what to buy. We all have different needs and agendas that govern our opinions. Only you can make the choice.

IMHO, if you are not an experienced photographer you willl not miss any of the advanced features of the 20D. It will take years to get good enough to understand what you really need. By that time, the 20D will be obsolete. I have over 30 years of experience amd many advanced film cameras and find that the original Rebel does an excellent job.

Quality images, from the equipment point of view, are almost all in the lenses. An XT with a top quality L lens will beat a 20D with a cheaper lens. Get the XT and put the money saved into pro L lenses. Also remember that most of the work getting quality images is independent of the equipment. Good photographs come from good photographers. Give Ketchum or Muench a supermarket disposable camera and they will still come back with images magnitudes above the rest of us.

Camera body? Well, a Nikon D-70 or Canon Rebel XT or a Pentax 1*st (sp?) would all be fine.

Lenses are the key. Want the best (affordable)? Get a prime 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8, or (Cheap!) a 28mm 2.8. You'll be swapping out lenses for different angles of view, but the images will be luminous, glowing, startlingly good. I love me some primes! :)

I know it's politically correct to say you have to decide for yourself, but I'm not going to say that. Assuming you can afford it, get the 20D. I faced the same decision last month.

You already mentioned one of the deciding factors, the size. The Rebel XT is too small for me and I'm guessing it's too small for you. What you didn't mention was the viewfinder. The 20D has a bigger viewfinder and the XT has a tiny viewfinder. Consider this, there are plenty of people who claim that even the 20D's viewfinder is too small. Finally, controls: that wheel on the back of the 20D that is missing from the XT is very handy for anybody but the point and shooter. The XT just doesn't have it. Also, to change the ISO and other settings on the XT you are forced to use an awkward button sequence plus the LCD monitor. On the 20D you use that handy wheel and a button. If you shoot inside and out you'll be changing ISO all the time. The wheel also make AE compensation trivial.

Skip the XT.

1.) Whichever one you want, need, and.or can afford.

2.) B&H

3.) The one it comes with until you begin to feel limited by it.


If you do not know that you need those extra features, then you don't.

Buy what ever feels good in your hands. But, if money is not an issue, I would go with the 1DMKII and some "L" glass. I started with the 20D, which I still have, and found the 1.6x crop factor very annoying in the wide angle department. So I bought the 1DMKII, and find this is my camera of choice. The 1DMKII just feels better in my hands, more meat then the 20D. Image wise, I really can not tell the difference. But the 1.3x crop of the 1DMKII, is much closer to the old full frame 35mm Nikon gear I shot for many years. If the 1DMKII is not in the budget, try a Rebel or 20D with a battery grip, it does make a difference.

And plan on spending some money on lenses, you will get what you pay for. I try to stick with Canon "L" glass, as I have not had any luck with anything less.

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mohawk

if money is not an issue, I would go with the 1DMKII and some "L" glass

Mike

---

1D Mk II? dude, are you serious? This is a lot of camera at any price for someone just starting out. Heck, it's a lot of camera for anyone at any level. Just my opinion of course. Even the 20D is a lot of camera for a starter DSLR. I've shot EOS cameras for 16 years, so I'm familiar with the layout and controls, but it was 11 years before I moved up to an EOS-1 series camera, and even now I still find it has more features than I'll probably ever use. (fyi-I shoot with 10D and 1D Mk II on a daily basis, and I've owned the EOS-1V HS and 1D before). Not to mention that the controls aren't user friendly to someone who is not familiar with Canon's 2 button push scheme on their pro cameras.
Even now, I'm finding myself downsizing (Lumix FZ-5), as I am weary of the weight and inconvenience of carrying several lenses on an already overweight camera body.

Lionheart,

Yea I am serious.;) Shoot the wad, and never look back!

I reread the original post, I must have been tired with a few beers under my belt when I posted. The 20D would be my choice, just for the extra features and build quality. And you are right about all of the wiz bang in these cameras. I know I will never use all of the features as an amatuer. I don't have the camera in my hands 24/7 as some people are able to do, and make a living doing it.

How do you like the Lumix? I was looking at one a few weeks ago, I think it was the fz20. It felt kinda cheap to me, which really surprised me. I have read so many glowing reviews about these cameras, the darn thing felt like it would fall apart in my hand. What are your thoughts? I need to look at it again, as a smaller p&s would be nice to have, versus lugging around my gear. Olympus has a nice one too, the 800 or 8000 series, I forget. I played with one at the local Sam's Club, real solid camera.

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mohawk

Lionheart,
How do you like the Lumix? I was looking at one a few weeks ago, I think it was the fz20. It felt kinda cheap to me, which really surprised me. I have read so many glowing reviews about these cameras, the darn thing felt like it would fall apart in my hand. What are your thoughts? I need to look at it again, as a smaller p&s would be nice to have, versus lugging around my gear.

Mike

---

Mixed feelings on the Lumix FZ5. It feels really cheap and light, especially compared to the 1D Mk II. But it is seriously light. The photos look weak initially out of the camera, but they post process with a great deal more latitude than Canon jpg's from all my EOS DSLR's with the exception of the 1DMkII. I love the range (36mm to 432mm equivalent) and portability (weighs less than a package of AA batteries) and focus is quite nimble for a point and shoot. The image stabilization works quite well too. I'm finding I like the camera more now than when I first started using it on my recent Maui vacation, mostly because as I'm getting around to editing my vacation pics, I'm finding that the images are actually quite excellent after a bit of tweaking in photoshop.
Now for the big negatives. No ability to attach an external flash unit, and the onboard flash is really weak, even for flash fill during daylight photos. The included lens hood obstructs the onboard flash. The Leica optics on this camera are seriously overrated and in my opinion a pure marketing ploy by Panasonic to sell their cameras. I'm sure Leica makes galaxy class optics, but this camera doesn't quite measure up to that standard. Don't get me wrong-the optics are sharp-just not as great as I had anticipated given the mystique of the Leica name. Expensive!!!! for a 5 mp point and shoot. The movie mode records in (uggh) quicktime movie format-mpeg would have been nicer

I really like the FZ20B, I bought it as a backup camera and gave it to my wife :)
That way she can get decent photos of drivers, and I have a spare 400mm !
Now, for Silverstone she wants my 20D !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmartWombat

I really like the FZ20B, I bought it as a backup camera and gave it to my wife :)
That way she can get decent photos of drivers, and I have a spare 400mm !
Now, for Silverstone she wants my 20D !!

---

Nice shots :) Is that Takuma Sato? Way cool. I'm still kind of a BAR fan, even if Jacques Villneuve is no longer driving for them.