I have an EOS 300D now, getting a bit old.
The 5D is probably a bit expensive for someone of my questionable ability. I'm might be better off putting that extra money into photography lessons, yes / no? I'll probably stick with Camera House classes and have to wear a damn surgical mask, my last private tutor was a ..... problem. No more private lessons! Maybe I can get online tutorage, are there sites that do that?
Anyway, back to the camera. I've got a science (biology) background and love macro, gotta love those plasmodium slime moulds! I'll also want to use it later for some of our karate tournaments, so I need speed. Then there's landscape and portrait as reference for my work. Not to mention my really stupid idea of maybe getting good at this. So you can see that I need an all-rounder. All advice gratefully received. I kind of align with perki88 on this one. You will want a dedicated macro lens anyhow, so buy that FIRST and see how your 300D stands up. I have the Nikon 60 mm macro lens and find it to be a very sharp lens with utility other than macro, but I can get about an inch from the subject if need be. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstei... for some examples. Canon makes a comparable lens.
As far as choosing a camera, while I'd LOVE to become a playboy swinger myself and get a 5D, I think it's a lot of money to spend for your purposes. If you didn't say "macro," I'd even say that you would do well to pick up a 30D once you see the prices start to drop, which I expect they will. The 30D or 40D are built more solidly than a 400D and - most important - they have actual spot meters, which I could not live without. The live view on the 40D might make compostion easier for macro shots on a tripod, so that's enticing. I think I read somewhere that you can zoom in about 10X on the live view, so it would even be okay for critical focus.
In the US, the 30D is dropping below US$1,000 now. The 40D is around US$1,300. The 400D is around US$600-650. The 60 mm macro lens is below US$400. A 30D and 60 mm macro lens would be a real pro set-up, but getting the 40D instead would be a nice upgrade if you can write it all off anyway. :-)
Start with just the lens, though, in my opinion. Thanks, Lady Lizzie! Report It
I like your new photo better, by the way. Report It
Most tests are showing that the image quality between the 40D and 5D are nearly identical.
The 400D is gives you alot for fewer dollars (spend more on lenses). Outside of a studio setting, the 40D will give you a metal (heavier) body and faster frames per second. Keep in mind the 400D is leaps and bounds faster than the 300D.
FYI, there's a Russian firmware hack for the 300D which gives it many features found in the 10D; the 300D is basically a "crippled" 10D. Gets you flash exposure compensation, ISO 3200, etc. Works fine for me. A Google search will call it up.
My recommendation is the 400D if it fits your hand well. If it seems small, go for the 40D. Unless you are earning an income from it, spend the least amount possible for a body and invest in good optics. This will free up your money to buy a better camera and lenses have higher resale value than used bodies. Would you like to see what Canon 5D can produce?
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?ac...
(The very first photo was taken with a Canon Digital Rebel).
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?ac...
The one above is a JPG converted from RAW. I used Canon 24-70 mm f 2.8 L zoom for this one.
Hope it helps a bit. my playboy contact shoots D5,
what subjects do you shoot most?
if its to record your art, do it justice and go D5, otherwise the crop is neat and the 40d would be the one
a OH my dear Lizzie,
every photojournalist here in the states still use the canaon ae-1 or the minolta srt-101 or srt-102s becasue the film is cheap, the artform is almost acrchaic and easy to manipulate and you can mae extra long exposures that you cannot do with digital camaeras,.......plus, all the development equip- is cheap now and chemicals stil available,.......I know and feel in my heart you wanna continue on this track of newer stuff and so do it but it still sint the same as herdin cattle the same ol way, branding them all, hardin them to the feedloy and foregtting about them until you get that paycheck in your hand. I beg you not to go the way of the dinosaur, sure, dabble a bit in digital but never forget where your roots are and never foregt that those roots allow you to do things that digital wont let you do............not that I aint got a digital too but mine is just for emergency, I keep mine in the car in case I see a wreck or a ufo or a bear crossing the road or whatever. If it is not imperative that you purchase a new camera, why not just go for a better lens at this point and a few betterphoto.com classes? I have the 300d which I use as a back up and hobby camera and it is quite fine and the light weight comes in handy sometimes.
As far as sticking with film, like a gentleman once said "your old road is rapidly fadin', get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand...", bet you know the next line! LOL! |
