Carrying on my Canon love affair

  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8742
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I've decided to splash the cash on a Canon EOS 40d and i'm currently sitting here eagerly waiting for the battery to charge.

I actually went to the city expecting to use my old Canon EOS 350d's battery but the 40D battery is a tiny bit bigger. Man...i so can't wait to take this camera out tonight and take some photos.

While i was at it i bought a new more stirdy and rather expensive tri-pod plus a 5 meter remote for the camera. This should allow me to expand on the types of photos i already have.

What can i say? i like Canons.
  • neksus
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2194
  • Loc: Canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

I want one :(
On the plus side I have a wireless shutter release :D

Congrats on the purchase. What lenses are on the to-buy list?
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8742
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I've actually just realised whilst the 5 Meter remote is a good idea in theory, it's not really. I'd dread to have my camera that far away from me in public. I hate opportunists :lol:
  • SpooF
  • ٩๏̯͡๏۶
  • Bronze Member
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3422
  • Loc: Richland, WA

Post 3+ Months Ago

It's an amazing camera. I was juggling the 40d or an XTi, what really pushed me over to the 40d was the menu system and the grip. The XTi just didn't feel as conferable to me.

Can't wait to see some picture!
  • Ishii
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • Ishii
  • Posts: 355
  • Loc: Gilbert, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

SpooF wrote:
It's an amazing camera. I was juggling the 40d or an XTi, what really pushed me over to the 40d was the menu system and the grip. The XTi just didn't feel as conferable to me.

Can't wait to see some picture!


The xti is a consumer grade body, when you jump to the 20D/30D/40D you're in the prosumer line which shares the same controls as the Pro line 5D and 1D bodies.

Bodies aren't everything though. If you're going to stay with the crop sensor body I'd recommend picking up the 17-55 F2.8L lens - ultra sharp and great for low light. If you want to upgrade to a 5D or 1D eventually go with the 24-70 F2.8L. The 70-200 F2.8L IS for low light range or the 100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS for extended range when you have more light are both fantastic lenses.

Congrats on the new body - I shoot with the 30D and I'm quite pleased with it except in low light - the 40D is much better in that regard.
  • righteous_trespasser
  • Scuffle
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6230
  • Loc: South-Africa

Post 3+ Months Ago

wow ... SB ... nice ... I must congratulate you on making me really jealous ...
  • neksus
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2194
  • Loc: Canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

Nice post Ishii. I still plan on picking up the 5D some day, but the I'm still juggling the 17-55 and the 24-70 - that extra depth at the wide end would be lovely, but I'm not sure I'd want to have to pick up new lenses as I'm trying to keep it all L...
  • SpooF
  • ٩๏̯͡๏۶
  • Bronze Member
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3422
  • Loc: Richland, WA

Post 3+ Months Ago

SB, did you happen to pick up the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Zoom Lens?
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8742
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

I picked up the EFS 17-85mm macro 0.35m/1.2ft lens.
  • neksus
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2194
  • Loc: Canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

I like SB's choice better between the two presented - any chance you favor that one SpooF?
  • SpooF
  • ٩๏̯͡๏۶
  • Bronze Member
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3422
  • Loc: Richland, WA

Post 3+ Months Ago

I quite like it. The only down side to it is it has a strange range, being right in the middle. So when I'm looking at other lens, it feels waste full. The gained zoom of a 200mm lens doesn't quite seem worth it unless I'm going to be getting something with a f/2.8, same with a wider angle lens.
  • neksus
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2194
  • Loc: Canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

The 28-135 seems a bit too long for me, especially on a cropped sensor (I guess it would have to be as it's EF-S :P). 17-85 provides the standard 28-135mm walk-around range with the 1.6x, and more often than not I find myself wanting wider instead of closer. Although that 70-200 f/2.8L is mighty tempting :P
  • musik
  • Legend
  • Super Moderator
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6893
  • Loc: up a tree

Post 3+ Months Ago

Tell me are Canon's cheaper than Nikon's?

I'm shopping for a digital SLR but not sure which to go with. The Nikon D80 is about $500 out of my range with two lenses.

Have you had Canons before SB? (subject suggests it but not sure)
  • SB
  • Moderator
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 8742
  • Loc: Aberdeen, Scotland

Post 3+ Months Ago

Yeah, my film camera is a Canon EOS 300. My first DSLR camera was a Canon EOS 350d. So it's quite a step coming from the 350 and going straight to the 40D.

I initially went in to buy a 450D but saw the 40D was just a couple of hundred more, so it made sense to get it as i would have done so eventually.

It really is an amazing camera. I love Canons.
  • neksus
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2194
  • Loc: Canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

musik wrote:
Tell me are Canon's cheaper than Nikon's?

I'm shopping for a digital SLR but not sure which to go with. The Nikon D80 is about $500 out of my range with two lenses.

Have you had Canons before SB? (subject suggests it but not sure)


Dollar for dollar Nikon's going to put less of a strain on your bank account. That's not to say that anybody who uses Canon regrets it, it's just that it might take a bit of extra time to get your next lens.
  • Ishii
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • Ishii
  • Posts: 355
  • Loc: Gilbert, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

neksus wrote:
Nice post Ishii. I still plan on picking up the 5D some day, but the I'm still juggling the 17-55 and the 24-70 - that extra depth at the wide end would be lovely, but I'm not sure I'd want to have to pick up new lenses as I'm trying to keep it all L...


If you're planning on getting the 5D eventually I would not waste money on the 17-55. If you primarily shoot landscapes, go with the 16-35 F2.8 as it will work on a 5D and be W I D E. The 24-70 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8 fall nicely into that lens lineup.

musik wrote:
Tell me are Canon's cheaper than Nikon's?

I'm shopping for a digital SLR but not sure which to go with. The Nikon D80 is about $500 out of my range with two lenses.

Have you had Canons before SB? (subject suggests it but not sure)


Nikon's body lineup is fairly frustrating right now. They just released the D60 which finally brings their consumer DSLR up to par with the high end pro bodies in terms of imaging capability, the problem is, it doesn't really work right with the high end pro lenses. Then you have the entry level prosumer D80 that has old tech, and the D200 as a step up from that with old tech. Finally you get to the D300, which is new tech and can fully use all the Nikon lenses.

I love Nikon and plan to switch over to a D300 or D3 within the next year, but I have a really hard time recommending Nikon to anybody unless their budget is in line for the D300. If you buy in lower than that you're getting old technology that is way less bang for the buck than what Canon offers.

neksus wrote:
Dollar for dollar Nikon's going to put less of a strain on your bank account. That's not to say that anybody who uses Canon regrets it, it's just that it might take a bit of extra time to get your next lens.


I've actually found the opposite to be true. Canon is about 10% cheaper all around.
  • neksus
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2194
  • Loc: Canada

Post 3+ Months Ago

Ishii wrote:
If you're planning on getting the 5D eventually I would not waste money on the 17-55. If you primarily shoot landscapes, go with the 16-35 F2.8 as it will work on a 5D and be W I D E. The 24-70 F2.8 and the 70-200 F2.8 fall nicely into that lens lineup.p


It's actually for wedding purposes :)
The 24-70 is obviously the better choice almost all around, but I simply can not afford to lose the extra wide end. The 16-35 simply doesn't offer enough at the other end to compensate; my current line up right now is a 17-55 and a 70-200 on two bodies. I'd also take the 17-40 over the 16-35; sure it's a stop down, but the focusing range is only like 18mm on the 17-40, and I've seen some great baby portraiture with it.

Ishii wrote:
I've actually found the opposite to be true. Canon is about 10% cheaper all around.


I suppose it depends on what you'll be shooting. Try throwing together a photojournalism bag - the Nikon will be far cheaper. Then again, most of us aren't photojournalists, and require a bit more than a lens that can get the shot (in which case the Nikon 18-200 VR is still pretty versatile).

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 17 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.