DSLR Camera Decision

[BillK]

Calling all DSLR Gurus! I've finally made the decision to purchase a DSLR camera. After an extensive amount of research, I had decided up the Canon XTi Rebel, along with the 17-85mm IS lens. (Package deal ~ $1175) However, I just stumbled upon a Canon 30d package that includes a 28-135mm IS lens for around $1296. The 30d package is about $270 cheaper than purchasing the items separately, whereas the XTi package is only discounted about $35. Considering that the 30d package is only $121 more, would I be an idiot not to purchase that instead?

XTi package:
http://www.butterflyphoto.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=REBELXTIKIT1785

30d package:
http://www.butterflyphoto.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=EOS30DKIT28135


Please advise on the pros/cons of these two packages, and help me make a decision. Which package would you go with?

Thanks!

- Bill

 

[Grumpy]

Without passing judgment as to the cameras and particular lenses themselves ...

I best like the range of focal lengths with the 17-85mm lens. This should cover the ground for virtually all your "regular" stuff. You will find it wanting only when you need something significantly longer for wildlife or sports, or for extreme closeups.

Irrespective of what you finally choose, I recommend that you get a second battery pack and extra memory cards (media).

G.

 

[David Metsky]

I think you can probably get better lenses then the two mentioned as part of the kits.

Here's a good thread to take a look at on another board: http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8089

 

[BillK]

I think you can probably get better lenses then the two mentioned as part of the kits.

Here's a good thread to take a look at on another board: http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8089

Yes, I realize there are much better lenses, but I'm trying to keep the price within reason. I don't really want to go over $1500 total for both camera and lense. I guess a more accurate question would be what Canon camera/lense combination is the best value for around $1500 or less. Between the two packages I've listed, it appears that the 30d/28-135mm is, but what do I know. Thanks for the link however.

Thanks,
- Bill

 

[MichaelJ]

The Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS lens is a wonderful all-purpose lens. Don't be fooled by its "cheaper" $500-$600 standalone price tag, it's crisp with minimal distortion and aberration, and I would much rather have it with me than try to carry L glass on a hike.

Some sample shots taken with this lens are in this album and this album.

I found 28mm with a 1.6x crop sensor to be frustratingly narrow.

 

[DougPaul]

If you are planning to take the camera hiking, you may also wish to consider the weights. The XTi is very light for a DSLR body at 18oz. The 30D is 24.5. Also, the IS lenses, while more useful in lower light, tend to be significantly heavier than the non-IS lenses.

FWIW, I have the XTi with the EF-S 17-85mm IS lens mentioned by MJ. If I want to save weight (at the sacrifice of quality and versatility), I can carry the original kit lens.

Since I have researched the numbers and have them at hand:
EF-S 18-55mm (kit) 6.7oz
EF-S 17-85mm IS 16.1 oz

I also concur with MJ--for outdoor scene photography, I want at least a 28mm (35mm equiv) FL lens, or 17-18mm with a 1.6 crop factor.

Doug

 

[nartreb]

If you're actually going to hike, as opposed to casual strolling, weight and bulk are major factors. I bought the Rebel xT about a year ago, nowadays I'd get the xTi. I more often wish for more reach than for scene width, just my style I guess. I got a used Tamron 28-300 zoom (incredibly compact) and use that as my only lens. It fits in a standard dropnose case, but it still gets in the way sometimes on scrambly routes - I wouldn't want to try carrying a bigger lens unless I was willing to stow it separately in my pack and haul it out when needed. For vertical climbing or particularly long hikes I'll take a compact point-and-shoot instead. Results available (quality reduced for Web) by clicking the link below. (Most of the albums on the first page was taken with the Rebel and the Tamron, but not Cannon, 'Gunks, Marcy, Twin Range, or Monadnock, all taken with my A620.)

 

[BillK]

Thanks everyone. I do plan on using it primarily for hiking and I did consider the weight difference. Right now I'm leaning towards the Rebel XTi, but I'm not certain if I want to go with a Canon lens. After looking at the link that Dave had sent me (Thanks Dave!), and doing some further research, the Tamron 17-50mm lens seems like it may be a better value when compared to the Canon lens I was considering.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423714-REG/Tamron_AF016C700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html

Doug, have you been happy with the XTi? It looks like a great camera, and I'm not yet convinced that paying the extra money for the 30d would be worth it, and I could do without the additional 6 ounces on my back.

- Bill

 

[BillK]

If you're actually going to hike, as opposed to casual strolling, weight and bulk are major factors. I bought the Rebel xT about a year ago, nowadays I'd get the xTi. I more often wish for more reach than for scene width, just my style I guess. I got a used Tamron 28-300 zoom (incredibly compact) and use that as my only lens. It fits in a standard dropnose case, but it still gets in the way sometimes on scrambly routes - I wouldn't want to try carrying a bigger lens unless I was willing to stow it separately in my pack and haul it out when needed. For vertical climbing or particularly long hikes I'll take a compact point-and-shoot instead. Results available (quality reduced for Web) by clicking the link below. (Most of the albums on the first page was taken with the Rebel and the Tamron, but not Cannon, 'Gunks, Marcy, Twin Range, or Monadnock, all taken with my A620.)

Nice photos Natreb. I'm actually thinking about a lens in that focal length range for my 2nd lens down the road.

- Bill

 

[DougPaul]

Doug, have you been happy with the XTi? It looks like a great camera, and I'm not yet convinced that paying the extra money for the 30d would be worth it, and I could do without the additional 6 ounces on my back.

I've only had the XTi for a few days now, so it is a bit hard to have any conclusions. (My test images have been fine.) However, I have had an XT for a while and am happy with it. One of the big advantages of the XTi over the XT is the built-in sensor cleaner. (FWIW, there is dust on my XT sensor--I bought a cleaning kit and now have to try cleaning it. You will get dust on any DSLR sensor... The pros are likely to clean every day in dusty conditions.) I also like having the ISO on the displays.

There are some (IMO) useful reviews over on luminous landscape: read the XT review first, then the XTi review talks about the differences.
XT: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/xt-350d.shtml

XTi: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/rebel xti.shtml

There is also a review of the 30D at the same site if you wish to compare them (note: the review was written in 2001 so you will have to factor in the time shift): http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30.shtml.

There are also nice "nuts and bolts" reviews available at http://www.imaging-resource.com/MFR1.HTM?view=Canon_reviews

Here are a couple of full-scale excerpts from my test images (shot in my back yard*): both shot at a range of about 20 ft with an EF 70-300mm IS lens. Both are handheld with the IS on.

dragonfly-13.jpg
1/400s F7.1 ISO100 266mm (35mm equiv FL)

flower-16.jpg
1/250s F5.6 ISO100 469mm (35mm equiv FL)

* Yes, Darren has been taking pics of birds, I've been shooting bugs...

Doug

 

[nartreb]

I'm actually thinking about a lens in that focal length range for my 2nd lens down the road.

If it's to be a second lens, do consider something a little faster and/or with IS. (Genrally, you can also expect more quality from a lens that doesn't have such a wide range, but only covers what your first lens doesn't.) The interesting wildlife always seems to be fifty feet away in a shady spot at sunset when your tripod is literally miles away...

 

[darren]

A couple of thoughts if it is not too late...

If you can, go to a store and try out both cameras. I was trying to decide between an XTi and a 20D and when I tried them out in a store I went with the 20D. My initial concern going to the store was "is the 20D worth the extra money". After trying them both out, there was no way I could get the XTi. I have big hands and the XTi was just too small for me. I had the same thinking as evryone else - it would be nice to have a smaller camera in my pack, but when i tried it out, I just couldn't hang on to it. I almost dropped it twice in the store. When I tried the 20D it just fit my hands and I could hold on tight and get a nice steady shot. Even with the size of the body, the first thing I did was buy a vertical grip for it to make it even easier to hold onto.

Function wise after getting the 20D I am glad I did. I used to be a landscape shooter only but now I use the speed of the 20D (the 30D is even faster) to get nice action shots - skiing, surfing, even birding. 5 fps of RAW shooting is amazing.

As for the Tamron 17-50 lens, I have heard good things about it IF you get a sharp one. It is a big IF. They have some serious quality control problems and I have read a lot of reports of bad lenses. I stick with Canon glass on a Canon body.

28mm on a 1.6x body is very restrictive for landscape photography - it is the equivalent of 45mm on a full frame 35mm camera which is close to 50mm which is what your eyes see. You really want to start around 17mm (28mm equiv) and get wider if you can. You need 15mm on a 1.6x body to get you to 24mm which is just great for landscapes.

If you are going to be just shooting landscapes while hiking, then one lens to think of is the Canon 10-22mm EF-S. It is an "L quality" lens and goes super wide. This buddha is 18' tall and I was only about 6' away from it (indoor, very low light, handheld, 1/8 sec! - yes, a good grip on the camera is important):

http://www.vftt.org/HI/070611-byodo-in/pages/1348-buddha-v-600.htm

Tim Seaver uses an XTi with the Canon 10-22mm on his long distance hikes. Small, light, powerful. Check out his posts to see some examples.


My advice in this situation is to not let the lens drive the camera selection though. You are better off picking the body you want and then getting the lenses you want. Even if you have to buy the body only and then the lens seperately and pay a little more.

So figure out what you want to shoot, how you want to use the camera, and see how they fit in your hands. Pick the body you want and then find the lenses. Be aware that you are not going to find one lens that does everything. That is why you are buying an SLR - so you can change lenses.

One other thing, I have never used butterfly photo. There are a LOT of shady camera dealers out there. You need to be very careful buying cameras online. I only do mail order with B&H Photo and Adorama. They are the hands down best. B&H has the XTi with the 17-85 IS for $1179 or the body alone for $662.

- darren

ps: 5 frames per second of RAW....AI servo, hold down the trigger and then go home and pick the best shot

http://www.vftt.org/HI/bodysurf/1714-800.jpg

http://www.vftt.org/HI/070526-POTN/images/IMG_1216-800-crop-v2.jpg

 

[nartreb]

Another difference worth noting is that the controls are different. In pure manual mode, you have two separate dials on the 20D to adjust aperture and exposure simultaneously. On the xTi you have only one dial and you change its function by holding down a tiny button with your thumb. There are similar differences for changing other settings (like white balance mode). Generally I have to admit the controls on the 20D are faster and more intuitive, and easier to use without looking at the buttons on the camera (especially if you're accustomed to the controls on an SLR film camera). Darren is also right that the xTi _feels_ small, but I'm used to it.

 

[ROCKYSUMMIT]

I couldn't agree more, especially with B&H and Adorama. Also check out the Tokina 12-24 f4 lens. I have it on my Digital Rebel and just love it.

 

[BillK]

Thanks everyone. I ended up going through B&H and purchased the XTi along with a Canon 50mm F/1.4 lens. Although the lens is much too narrow for landscape shots, it's very fast and works extremely well for around the house and in low-light situations. The images are extremely sharp.

Darren, thanks for all your suggestions. I was actually considering the 10-22mm for my 2nd lens, especially after seeing how tight the field of view is with the 50mm. (I couldn't even fit my house in the frame standing ~75ft away) My only concern is that lens would leave me with a focal length gap between the two lens. (22mm-50mm), whereas the 17-40mm would fill that gap much better. (Maybe not a big deal) My third lens would probably be a telephoto, something in the range of 70-200/300.

- Bill

 

[Grumpy]

Lens Choice For Landscapes - A Dissent

Mine will be the voice of dissent regarding lens focal length (FL) for landscape photography. I think wider angle lenses can produce very dramatic landscapes when used skillfully, but more often than not produce disappointing scenic pictures.

My own landscape preference is for lenses that are about 2X the so-called “normal” lens FL for a given film or digital sensor format.
----------------------------

The concept of a “normal” lens is useful because it gives us a starting point for selecting lenses in a range of FLs that suit our own needs and purposes.

A “normal” lens is one that roughly duplicates the ordinary field of view within which we see the world with our eyes. (This is something less than the full scope -- think of it as what we see, less a bunch of our peripheral vision.)

Traditionally, a “normal” lens FL is equal to the length of the diagonal of the film (or image sensor) format. Thus, in a 35mm film format, in which the image is roughly 24mm X 36mm, a “normal” lens is about 43mm.

Most “normal” lenses supplied by 35mm camera manufacturers over the years, though, have run slightly longer – in the 50mm FL range. This reflects some minor “editing” or cropping of an image seen by our eyes that is accomplished in our brains. The “perspective” in most pictures made by that 50mm lens on 35mm film looks “normal” to us, with neither wide angle nor long FL (“telephoto”) distortion evident.

The digital age complicates this somewhat, since the overwhelming majority of digital SLR sensors are smaller than the 35mm film image. The usual rule these days is to multiply the FL of a lens by 1.4 to 1.6 to get the “35mm equivalent” FL on digital.

Thus, in today’s general run of digital SLR (DSLR) cameras a FL in the 30mm – 35mm FL range would be regarded as “normal.”

The key point to remember is that any lens shorter than “normal” FL may be considered as a “wide angle” lens, and anything longer in FL would be a “telephoto.”
-----------------------

The lens focal length controls what we call “perspective,” which in simplified terms is (a) field of view, or the breadth of what is “taken in” by the lens at any given lens-to-subject distance, and (b) the image size relationship between near and far objects in the scene.

The shorter the focal length, the wider the field of view. (You’ll say “doh” to that statement, but it is worth keeping in mind.) The ramification of this is that short focal length (FL) lenses – “wide angle” lenses – are very useful in close quarters where you wish to take in a lot of subject but can’t back up.

More important is that the shorter the FL of the lens, the more marked the difference in image size of foreground and background objects or subjects: with wide angle lenses, close objects appear disproportionately larger than distant objects – and the shorter the FL, the greater the disproportionality. We’ve all been amused by distorted human or animal portraits made with wide angle lenses, in which the nose or head is disproportionately huge in relationship to a oddly small body.

Think about what that might do to landscape photos, if you’re not careful.

Conversely, the longer the FL, the narrower the field of view AND the less pronounced this difference in image size between foreground and background objects becomes. The exaggerated version comes with extremely long FL lenses, in which the depth of the scene seems very “compressed” or “stacked up.”
--------------------------

Now, remember that bit about the full scope of human vision being “edited” by the brain.

We look at the VFtT, in which the neighboring ridgeline appears most prominent to us. That is what we “see” with our eyes and brain working in concert: just the ridgeline. So we put on a short FL lens to capture the broad scope of the vista.

And when we view the picture later what we see is less than imposing – lots of foreground or sky, but that impressively rugged ridgeline has been reduced to only a somewhat undistinguished ragged edge. Cropping sky and foreground help, but the result still fails to awe us in the way the original scene did.

On another day, we resist the temptation to “go wide,” and now choose a longer lens – say something in the 1.5X to 2X normal FL range. Composition becomes much less all-inclusive and much more selective. We look for characteristic, or especially dramatic details. This requires more consideration, and we shoot more frames. But the results, when we view them later, come much closer to what we were “seeing” in real life.

FWIW, my most favorite FL when shooting 35mm film for landscapes over the years has been an 85mm lens. In the digital age using my Nikon SLRs this works out to about 55mm. I also find this FL is great for “on the trail” and “portrait” type photos of my outdoor companions.

I don’t advise “forget it” in respect to wide angle lenses, by any means. They are useful tools, indeed. But I do think they are vastly overrated in terms of their usefulness in landscape photography. Or, maybe it’s actually a matter of the 2X-normal FL range being under-recognized as the powerful tool it can be in the landscape photog’s kit.

G.

 

[darren]

Bill,

Congrats on the purchase. Welcome to the world of "wow, now I want that lens". I'm thinking you should just go get the 10-22 EF-S and the 24-105 L IS right now and be done with it. Well until you want to get the 100-400 L IS.

Speaking of lenses, a few weeks ago I got to try out the Canon 600mm f4 lens. Yes, the $7200 one. It also had a 1.4x converter on it. I slapped on my 20D so I was shooting at 600x1.4x1.6 = 1344mm.

That lens is amazing. The autofocus was super fast. Unreal. Even with the 1.4x on it the picture quality was stunning.

Here is a shot I took o fit with my 50mm f1.8 (yes, I took a picture of a $7200 lens with my $75 "nifty fifty" lens):

http://www.vftt.org/HI/070526-POTN/pages/IMG_1258-800.htm

If you go up to the gallery I took the shots of the surfer in the green jersey and the one of the spectators with it.

Anyone have $7200 they want to give me?

Seriously, if you are thinking of either the 10-22 or the 17-40 for the next purchase, there are probably people on here with them. Try both out first if you can. You might find that the 10-22 doesn't have enough rach or you might find that the 17-40 isn't wide enough etc. Try before you buy if you can. Oh and if you get the itch for fixed lenses...I love Canon's 24mm f2.8. Fixed lenses can be a great teaching aid. They force you to think rather than just "zoom".


- darren

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Conversely, the longer the FL, the narrower the field of view AND the less pronounced this difference in image size between foreground and background objects becomes. The exaggerated version comes with extremely long FL lenses, in which the depth of the scene seems very “compressed” or “stacked up.”

This is the "center field camera" view of the pitcher facing a hitter in a baseball game. Where it is even more obvious, although few ever see, is in the sprint finish of a bicycle race. It literally looks like 20 guys are tied for the win, until you look at the overhead shot.

An excellent description, Grumpy. Thank you!

Tim

 

[DougPaul]

Speaking of lenses, a few weeks ago I got to try out the Canon 600mm f4 lens. Yes, the $7200 one. It also had a 1.4x converter on it. I slapped on my 20D so I was shooting at 600x1.4x1.6 = 1344mm.

I once fooled around with a 1000mm lens. (A refracting telescope with a home-made Minolta lens mount where the eyepiece would have been.) Shot a solar eclipse with it. Stick a 2x teleconverter on it and you had a 2000mm lens (~1deg FoV). Shoot portraits at 100yds...

Oh and if you get the itch for fixed lenses...I love Canon's 24mm f2.8. Fixed lenses can be a great teaching aid. They force you to think rather than just "zoom".

Yep. I had 28, 55, and 135mm fixed lenses for my film SLR (plus a 2x teleconverter). I learned to see the picture with the appropriate lens before I even reached for the camera. This zoom stuff on my DSLR is making me sloppy...

Doug