350D vs the 30D

[mmelgar]

I do mostly family photography, kids sport, landscapes and of course my macro work. I am thinking of upgrading to a DSLR. I have anumber of lenses from my canon EOS film camera so I plan to stick with a canon system. I am looking at the 350D and 30D but I'm not sure the 30D is worth paying nearly double the price of the 350D. Any comments or suggestions?

[timmciglobal]

Well...

Kids sports you gain the higher FPS and deeper buffer but in general the 30D isn't much of an upgrade over the XT in terms of image quality more in terms of specific "need" and build quality upgrades.

Tim

[Rex914]

The 20D is priced between the 350D ($650) and 30D ($1200) at just under $1000 right now if you think that paying double isn't worth it.

[dandcp]

The 20D is priced between the 350D ($650) and 30D ($1200) at just under $1000 right now if you think that paying double isn't worth it.
Where do you find the 20D for under $1000? I assume body only? I was thinking of getting the 18-55 kit with it.

[Rex914]

Body only. It's been hovering betweem $980 and $1020 at Buydig.com for the past month. Today, it's at $1020, but it should drop below $1000 again within a few days.

[aparmley]

I do mostly family photography, kids sport, landscapes and of course my macro work. I am thinking of upgrading to a DSLR. I have anumber of lenses from my canon EOS film camera so I plan to stick with a canon system. I am looking at the 350D and 30D but I'm not sure the 30D is worth paying nearly double the price of the 350D. Any comments or suggestions?

Comments -

I believe the 30D to be worth double the XT. No question about it. I own both.

Suggestions -

I suggest you answer the following so we can better assist you:
What kind of budget do you have and what lenses do you already own?

[Scott6]

Where do you find the 20D for under $1000? I assume body only? I was thinking of getting the 18-55 kit with it.

its all about the glass dude. Dosnt matter what camera you get, it you gimp it with cheap glass there all gonna suck. (or not be as good as they can be)

ie... spend the money you would on a 30d, but spend it on a XT and good peice of glass.

[Hughey]

I have both cameras and use a 100-400 4.5/5.6 L and 70-200 2.8 L. I find for sports the 30d is a far superior camera. The smallest advantage is the ability to set the ISO to 3200 (if you do any indoor or night youwill find this a great addition). I am not a professional so I don't know all of the specifics but from my view point the 30d is a better camera withfaster processing and better use of the focal points (I had too many soft pictures with the XT that I do not now have). I would not suggest the kit lens as a previous poster suggested the glass is critical.

[snap]

The 30D does have technical improvements over the XT. Are they important? It depends on the photographer.

For a technical discussion:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_vs_20d.html

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_30D_review.html

[mmelgar]

Thanks for all the help. As far as the indoor sports it is part of the reason I'm upgrading from a bridge camera so the extended ISO on the 30D might be worth it if the images are usable. Does anyone shoot at 3200? can you print anything larger than a 4X6 when using such a high ISO?

Thanks

[ReF]

tough call. for sports i'd say the 5fps is worth it as 3fps on the XT doesn't really cut it in some situations. for macro the bigger viewfinder would really help too (i shoot a lot of macro). but then again what are you gonna shoot without the glass? so it will come down to what you have to spend. maybe a 20d would be a good compromise if you don't have enough $$$

[timmciglobal]

I'd say it's a much better idea to buy a 70-200 f2.8 and a XT then a 30D and a consumer zoom if that's the choice.

ISO 3200 is grainy, I don't know if you'd want to go past 1600 on bigger prints. Keep in mind too exposure becomes much more important the higher ISO you go because underexposure will introduce more noise, especially @ 1600/3200.

Tim

[cdifoto]

Kids generally move pretty slow in their sports, so the XT would be ok there. I've even used it for high school athletics (field hockey, soccer, etc). Not perfect but not bad either. 3FPS isn't too bad. If anything it's a good reason to practice your timing rather than spray 'n' pray.

While I don't recommend the XT specifically, I can say it would be good enough if you added really good lenses to it, until you can afford to upgrade. It would be FAR better to have the good-->great lenses on an XT than crap on a 30D/20D. The kit lens can be used to get some nice photos but it'd be useless for those kids sports you want to capture.

[mmelgar]

tough call. for sports i'd say the 5fps is worth it as 3fps on the XT doesn't really cut it in some situations. for macro the bigger viewfinder would really help too (i shoot a lot of macro). but then again what are you gonna shoot without the glass? so it will come down to what you have to spend. maybe a 20d would be a good compromise if you don't have enough $$$

Actually the small screen on the 20D is the one reason I'm not considering that compromise. If I'm going to spend more to upgrade frm the XT then I would rather get the 30D since it has a larger LCD than the 20D.

As a side question, does anyone know if either the 350D,30D, or for that matter, the 20D can be hooked up to a laptop so the laptop can be used as a monitor when shooting?

[cdifoto]

Actually the small screen on the 20D is the one reason I'm not considering that compromise. If I'm going to spend more to upgrade frm the XT then I would rather get the 30D since it has a larger LCD than the 20D.

As a side question, does anyone know if either the 350D,30D, or for that matter, the 20D can be hooked up to a laptop so the laptop can be used as a monitor when shooting?

No, that would require live preview. Most dSLRS do not offer live preview.

[aparmley]

Actually the small screen on the 20D is the one reason I'm not considering that compromise. If I'm going to spend more to upgrade frm the XT then I would rather get the 30D since it has a larger LCD than the 20D.

As a side question, does anyone know if either the 350D,30D, or for that matter, the 20D can be hooked up to a laptop so the laptop can be used as a monitor when shooting?

In all honesty that feature would not be widely used. Think about it. Your camera would need to be on a tripod and your subject would have to be very still or an object. in which case why wouldn't you just take the image traditionally. What possible advantage would you gain by sitting at your computer? I can't think of one. If you wanted to change composition you'd have to get up and walk over to your camera and reposition, then return to your PC. . . ? I don't understand how that would be an attractive feature. . . Maybe its just me. . . I also think live preview on the LCD would be a dumb feature too though so take what I said with a grain of salt, I'm out there bad, crazy I tell you! ;)

[cdifoto]

In all honesty that feature would not be widely used. Think about it. Your camera would need to be on a tripod and your subject would have to be very still or an object. in which case why wouldn't you just take the image traditionally. What possible advantage would you gain by sitting at your computer? I can't think of one. If you wanted to change composition you'd have to get up and walk over to your camera and reposition, then return to your PC. . . ? I don't understand how that would be an attractive feature. . . Maybe its just me. . . I also think live preview on the LCD would be a dumb feature too though so take what I said with a grain of salt, I'm out there bad, crazy I tell you! ;)


Well this is sorta related to the remote capture feature. You cannot preview but you can sit at your computer and control most features (not zoom of course!) and snap shots.

I use it once just to see what it was like. I think that says a lot about how useful it is. Adding live preview wouldn't help since you can't remotely MOVE the camera. It's not even really good for shooting product shots in a studio since you have to get back up and move/switch out products anyway...

[aparmley]

Well this is sorta related to the remote capture feature. You cannot preview but you can sit at your computer and control most features (not zoom of course!) and snap shots.

I use it once just to see what it was like. I think that says a lot about how useful it is. Adding live preview wouldn't help since you can't remotely MOVE the camera. It's not even really good for shooting product shots in a studio since you have to get back up and move/switch out products anyway...

Ya that was kinda my point I used that feature with the XT for like 5 minutes and thought, what freakin idiot thought this up?

[cdifoto]

Ya that was kinda my point I used that feature with the XT for like 5 minutes and thought, what freakin idiot thought this up?

I guess time-lapse photography and/or maybe if you wanna keep an eye out on a bird feeder or some boring crap you could do it without disturbing/scaring way the birds. But then you risk getting poop on your kit lens.

[mmelgar]

In all honesty that feature would not be widely used. Think about it. Your camera would need to be on a tripod and your subject would have to be very still or an object. in which case why wouldn't you just take the image traditionally. What possible advantage would you gain by sitting at your computer? I can't think of one. If you wanted to change composition you'd have to get up and walk over to your camera and reposition, then return to your PC. . . ? I don't understand how that would be an attractive feature. . . Maybe its just me. . . I also think live preview on the LCD would be a dumb feature too though so take what I said with a grain of salt, I'm out there bad, crazy I tell you! ;)

Actually that is exactly what I do. The kind of macros I take are done in a basement lab. The camera is always on the tripod and the subject is shot at a constant distance from the lens. I would prefer to manually focus the camera. Looking throught the viewfinder is not easy given the angle and height of the camera and the LCD is not large enough to allow precise focusing. My reasoning for using a computer monitor was to get a large enough image to allow better manual focus for these shots, but I understand why most DSLR's are not capapble of this since only the Evolt has live preview. I thought I had heard that there was a way to raise the mirror prior to taking the photo, and I thought there might be a way to sned the image projected onto the chip to a monitor with the mirror up. Maybe a crazy idea, but I thought I would ask.

[coldrain]

You can raise the mirror prior to shooting, but the sensor is not sensing till the actual exposure for the photo is taking place. So there is no image to transmit.

[Clyde]

As a side question, does anyone know if either the 350D,30D, or for that matter, the 20D can be hooked up to a laptop so the laptop can be used as a monitor when shooting?

Check out the (discontinued) 20Da (http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=6982). While it is intended for astronomy stuff, it might fit your particular needs.

Good luck,

Clyde

[mmelgar]

Check out the (discontinued) 20Da (http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=6982). While it is intended for astronomy stuff, it might fit your particular needs.

Good luck,

Clyde

Thanks for the info, but it looks like the camera still doesn't allow output to a computer/monitor as far as I can tell. The camera I currently use ( Fuji S9000) already allows me to focus with the LCD screen and even allows magnification of the image, but the size and resolution of the screen limits its usefulness.