Help Choosing Canon 20D Setup (Body, lenses, flash, etc)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by A, Nov 9, 2004.

  1. A

    A Guest

    Hello group. I am after advise on buying a Canon 20D setup, for a non
    professional enthusiast.

    Situation:
    I am considering upgrading from 35mm to digital because I hate changing film
    at crucial points, and also feel very restricted from experimenting with
    film as much as digital. Another thing I hate is that sometimes there is a
    film in my camera half used, when I want it developed. Also, I am PC
    literate and am pretty familiar with Photoshop, so it would make sense to go
    digital. Until now I have fought the need because I didn't think DSLR's
    were capable of competing with 35mm SLR's on the functions they provide,
    especially lock up, and start-up times.

    So, what do I go for?

    Body:
    I am considering either a Canon 20D, or Minolta 7D, but the Canon seems to
    have more spec. for the price, is available now, and has been tested by
    users already. Nikon D70 is cheaper, but accessories are more expensive.
    Also, the specs still don't match the 20D. Therefore, I think I will be
    going for a 20D if anything.

    20D 'Normal' Lens Choices:
    I am torn between the 17-55mm lens, and the 17-85 Image Stabiliser lens.
    The main reason is NOT because one is a image stabiliser lens, but because
    for the greater focal length which will allow for more flexibility in
    'normal' use without changing lenses. Any recommendations?

    20D Telephoto Lens Choices:
    Again, I am torn between two lenses. The choices are between the 75-300mm
    USM, and the 75-300 Image Stabiliser lenses. The thing is, I have never had
    a problem with blur when shooting at 300mm on non image stabiliser lenses in
    the past. But, with a digital 35mm equivalent of 480mm, maybe the Image
    Stabiliser lens would be the better choice. Or, would it be better to just
    a tripod and not hand hold? Any recommendations?

    20D Flash Choice:
    I am also torn between two choices. The choices are between the 420EX, and
    the 550EX. The 550EX has more manual controls, etc, but is big, heavy, and
    needs a lot of understanding to get the most from it. It also works better
    with 45 point autofocus, but the 20D only has 9 AF points, so it would be a
    bit wasted. Power wise, the 550EX is only about 1/2 a stop behind the
    420EX. (BTW, 580EX is another choice, but is the same as the 550EX, except
    minor alterations to make it more efficient for digital users). Any
    recommendations?

    Media Storage Choices:
    I have decided to go for 2GB (Approx. 220 RAW photos). The choices are
    between the IBM/Hitachi 2GB Microdrive, and an equivalent fast CF card. The
    Microdrive seems to be better value for money in this respect. Any
    recommendations?

    Conclusion:
    Bear in mind that money is hard to come by, so I do not want spend it
    unnecessarily, as I am not a pro making money from the photos. Also,
    another alternative would be to stick with my 35mm setup until prices come
    down and DSLR's become better value for money. After all, spending this
    amount will not really compensate for the processing and developing costs.
    Although will have more benefits.

    Cheers for your help.
     
    A, Nov 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "A" <> wrote in message
    news:cmrbgj$v75$...
    > Hello group. I am after advise on buying a Canon 20D setup, for a non
    > professional enthusiast.
    >
    > Situation:
    > I am considering upgrading from 35mm to digital because I hate changing
    > film
    > at crucial points, and also feel very restricted from experimenting with
    > film as much as digital. Another thing I hate is that sometimes there is
    > a
    > film in my camera half used, when I want it developed. Also, I am PC
    > literate and am pretty familiar with Photoshop, so it would make sense to
    > go
    > digital. Until now I have fought the need because I didn't think DSLR's
    > were capable of competing with 35mm SLR's on the functions they provide,
    > especially lock up, and start-up times.


    You are definitely ready to go digital!

    > So, what do I go for?
    >
    > Body:
    > I am considering either a Canon 20D, or Minolta 7D, but the Canon seems to
    > have more spec. for the price, is available now, and has been tested by
    > users already. Nikon D70 is cheaper, but accessories are more expensive.
    > Also, the specs still don't match the 20D. Therefore, I think I will be
    > going for a 20D if anything.


    I have a 300D and it's a great camera. The 20D is a lot better. The
    Minolta might be just fine, too.

    > 20D 'Normal' Lens Choices:
    > I am torn between the 17-55mm lens, and the 17-85 Image Stabiliser lens.
    > The main reason is NOT because one is a image stabiliser lens, but because
    > for the greater focal length which will allow for more flexibility in
    > 'normal' use without changing lenses. Any recommendations?


    If you can afford the 17-85, go for it.

    > 20D Telephoto Lens Choices:
    > Again, I am torn between two lenses. The choices are between the 75-300mm
    > USM, and the 75-300 Image Stabiliser lenses. The thing is, I have never
    > had
    > a problem with blur when shooting at 300mm on non image stabiliser lenses
    > in
    > the past. But, with a digital 35mm equivalent of 480mm, maybe the Image
    > Stabiliser lens would be the better choice. Or, would it be better to
    > just
    > a tripod and not hand hold? Any recommendations?


    I have the IS version and get shots without a tripod that would be
    impossible (for me) to get otherwise.

    > 20D Flash Choice:
    > I am also torn between two choices. The choices are between the 420EX,
    > and
    > the 550EX. The 550EX has more manual controls, etc, but is big, heavy,
    > and
    > needs a lot of understanding to get the most from it. It also works
    > better
    > with 45 point autofocus, but the 20D only has 9 AF points, so it would be
    > a
    > bit wasted. Power wise, the 550EX is only about 1/2 a stop behind the
    > 420EX. (BTW, 580EX is another choice, but is the same as the 550EX,
    > except
    > minor alterations to make it more efficient for digital users). Any
    > recommendations?


    The 420EX should be fine unless you need some of the exotic features and the
    higher output of the 550EX. Also, you might want to look at the Sigma 500
    DG super.

    > Media Storage Choices:
    > I have decided to go for 2GB (Approx. 220 RAW photos). The choices are
    > between the IBM/Hitachi 2GB Microdrive, and an equivalent fast CF card.
    > The
    > Microdrive seems to be better value for money in this respect. Any
    > recommendations?


    Personally, I'd never buy a Microdrive. 1GB CF cards give a fair bang for
    the buck.

    > Conclusion:
    > Bear in mind that money is hard to come by, so I do not want spend it
    > unnecessarily, as I am not a pro making money from the photos. Also,
    > another alternative would be to stick with my 35mm setup until prices come
    > down and DSLR's become better value for money. After all, spending this
    > amount will not really compensate for the processing and developing costs.
    > Although will have more benefits.


    Only you can decide.
     
    Charles Schuler, Nov 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. A

    Aerticus Guest

    Hi A

    You only live once

    What's a couple of bucks on a system like that?

    Personally I'd run with the Canon and apply a serious bit of chinese wrist
    burn to your retail outlet

    Ask to see the manager - lay down the spec then negotiate

    If you get fed up with it in a few months time - just ship it over to me :)

    Aerticus

    ps - you will not thank me for this now b-u-t in the long run you'd be
    better of with Photoshop CS (enrol at a night school - anything at all that
    will allow you to qualify for the academic version of the full CS suite from
    Adobe. Your free time for the next few years has now evaporated)

    A
    "A" <> wrote in message
    news:cmrbgj$v75$...
    > Hello group. I am after advise on buying a Canon 20D setup, for a non
    > professional enthusiast.
    >
    > Situation:
    > I am considering upgrading from 35mm to digital because I hate changing
    > film
    > at crucial points, and also feel very restricted from experimenting with
    > film as much as digital. Another thing I hate is that sometimes there is
    > a
    > film in my camera half used, when I want it developed. Also, I am PC
    > literate and am pretty familiar with Photoshop, so it would make sense to
    > go
    > digital. Until now I have fought the need because I didn't think DSLR's
    > were capable of competing with 35mm SLR's on the functions they provide,
    > especially lock up, and start-up times.
    >
    > So, what do I go for?
    >
    > Body:
    > I am considering either a Canon 20D, or Minolta 7D, but the Canon seems to
    > have more spec. for the price, is available now, and has been tested by
    > users already. Nikon D70 is cheaper, but accessories are more expensive.
    > Also, the specs still don't match the 20D. Therefore, I think I will be
    > going for a 20D if anything.
    >
    > 20D 'Normal' Lens Choices:
    > I am torn between the 17-55mm lens, and the 17-85 Image Stabiliser lens.
    > The main reason is NOT because one is a image stabiliser lens, but because
    > for the greater focal length which will allow for more flexibility in
    > 'normal' use without changing lenses. Any recommendations?
    >
    > 20D Telephoto Lens Choices:
    > Again, I am torn between two lenses. The choices are between the 75-300mm
    > USM, and the 75-300 Image Stabiliser lenses. The thing is, I have never
    > had
    > a problem with blur when shooting at 300mm on non image stabiliser lenses
    > in
    > the past. But, with a digital 35mm equivalent of 480mm, maybe the Image
    > Stabiliser lens would be the better choice. Or, would it be better to
    > just
    > a tripod and not hand hold? Any recommendations?
    >
    > 20D Flash Choice:
    > I am also torn between two choices. The choices are between the 420EX,
    > and
    > the 550EX. The 550EX has more manual controls, etc, but is big, heavy,
    > and
    > needs a lot of understanding to get the most from it. It also works
    > better
    > with 45 point autofocus, but the 20D only has 9 AF points, so it would be
    > a
    > bit wasted. Power wise, the 550EX is only about 1/2 a stop behind the
    > 420EX. (BTW, 580EX is another choice, but is the same as the 550EX,
    > except
    > minor alterations to make it more efficient for digital users). Any
    > recommendations?
    >
    > Media Storage Choices:
    > I have decided to go for 2GB (Approx. 220 RAW photos). The choices are
    > between the IBM/Hitachi 2GB Microdrive, and an equivalent fast CF card.
    > The
    > Microdrive seems to be better value for money in this respect. Any
    > recommendations?
    >
    > Conclusion:
    > Bear in mind that money is hard to come by, so I do not want spend it
    > unnecessarily, as I am not a pro making money from the photos. Also,
    > another alternative would be to stick with my 35mm setup until prices come
    > down and DSLR's become better value for money. After all, spending this
    > amount will not really compensate for the processing and developing costs.
    > Although will have more benefits.
    >
    > Cheers for your help.
    >
    >
    >
     
    Aerticus, Nov 9, 2004
    #3
  4. A wrote:
    > Hello group. I am after advise on buying a Canon 20D setup, for a non
    > professional enthusiast.
    >
    > Situation:
    > I am considering upgrading from 35mm to digital because I hate changing
    > film
    > at crucial points, and also feel very restricted from experimenting with
    > film as much as digital. Another thing I hate is that sometimes there is
    > a
    > film in my camera half used, when I want it developed.


    I am not sure you have really great reasons to changing, but that is
    your choice.

    > Also, I am PC
    > literate and am pretty familiar with Photoshop, so it would make sense to
    > go
    > digital. Until now I have fought the need because I didn't think DSLR's
    > were capable of competing with 35mm SLR's on the functions they provide,
    > especially lock up, and start-up times.


    I agree. I now own a 20D


    >
    > So, what do I go for?
    >
    > Body:
    > I am considering either a Canon 20D, or Minolta 7D, but the Canon seems to
    > have more spec. for the price, is available now, and has been tested by
    > users already. Nikon D70 is cheaper, but accessories are more expensive.
    > Also, the specs still don't match the 20D. Therefore, I think I will be
    > going for a 20D if anything.


    I chose the 20D in part due to the specs, but also due to the fact that
    much of my Canon equipment would carry over. I did not really research the
    Nikon line, although I have nothing bad to say about them.

    >
    > 20D 'Normal' Lens Choices:
    > I am torn between the 17-55mm lens, and the 17-85 Image Stabiliser lens.
    > The main reason is NOT because one is a image stabiliser lens, but because
    > for the greater focal length which will allow for more flexibility in
    > 'normal' use without changing lenses. Any recommendations?


    The 17-55 is a very versatile lens. Remember than that 55mm is equal to
    about 88mm. For me that works very well. Of course I already had the
    24-85mm lens so I have a good coverage for other situations that the 17-55
    might not cover. It all depends on your personal usage. That 24-85 does
    well for most of my sports work. The 17-55 is a good general use lens. BTW
    the 17-55 is not quite as sharp as the 24-85, but is well wroth the cost.
    Maybe you will want to get it to start with, based on the cost alone.

    >
    > 20D Telephoto Lens Choices:
    > Again, I am torn between two lenses. The choices are between the 75-300mm
    > USM, and the 75-300 Image Stabiliser lenses. The thing is, I have never
    > had
    > a problem with blur when shooting at 300mm on non image stabiliser lenses
    > in
    > the past. But, with a digital 35mm equivalent of 480mm, maybe the Image
    > Stabiliser lens would be the better choice. Or, would it be better to
    > just
    > a tripod and not hand hold? Any recommendations?


    I have not had any problems with my 75-300 USM, but if I did not own
    it, I would likely go for the IS lens.

    >
    > 20D Flash Choice:
    > I am also torn between two choices. The choices are between the 420EX,
    > and
    > the 550EX. The 550EX has more manual controls, etc, but is big, heavy,
    > and
    > needs a lot of understanding to get the most from it. It also works
    > better
    > with 45 point autofocus, but the 20D only has 9 AF points, so it would be
    > a
    > bit wasted. Power wise, the 550EX is only about 1/2 a stop behind the
    > 420EX. (BTW, 580EX is another choice, but is the same as the 550EX,
    > except
    > minor alterations to make it more efficient for digital users). Any
    > recommendations?


    Not from me. I have not used flash much in recent years, so I have
    limited my flash to the built in flash so far. I will be reading replies to
    this question however.

    >
    > Media Storage Choices:
    > I have decided to go for 2GB (Approx. 220 RAW photos). The choices are
    > between the IBM/Hitachi 2GB Microdrive, and an equivalent fast CF card.
    > The
    > Microdrive seems to be better value for money in this respect. Any
    > recommendations?


    I chose two 1 GB cards. About the same cost and with two cards if one
    goes bad, you are not dead. I some situations, it means you can continue to
    shoot while your assistant downloads the other card.

    >
    > Conclusion:
    > Bear in mind that money is hard to come by, so I do not want spend it
    > unnecessarily, as I am not a pro making money from the photos. Also,
    > another alternative would be to stick with my 35mm setup until prices come
    > down and DSLR's become better value for money. After all, spending this
    > amount will not really compensate for the processing and developing costs.
    > Although will have more benefits.
    >
    > Cheers for your help.


    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
     
    Joseph Meehan, Nov 9, 2004
    #4
  5. A

    Mike Kohary Guest

    A wrote:
    >
    > Body:
    > I am considering either a Canon 20D, or Minolta 7D, but the Canon
    > seems to have more spec. for the price, is available now, and has
    > been tested by users already. Nikon D70 is cheaper, but accessories
    > are more expensive. Also, the specs still don't match the 20D.
    > Therefore, I think I will be going for a 20D if anything.


    This is an excellent choice.

    > 20D 'Normal' Lens Choices:
    > I am torn between the 17-55mm lens, and the 17-85 Image Stabiliser
    > lens. The main reason is NOT because one is a image stabiliser lens,
    > but because for the greater focal length which will allow for more
    > flexibility in 'normal' use without changing lenses. Any
    > recommendations?


    If you have the money, go for the 17-85mm. It's a great lens and will give
    you more flexibility.

    > 20D Telephoto Lens Choices:
    > Again, I am torn between two lenses. The choices are between the
    > 75-300mm USM, and the 75-300 Image Stabiliser lenses. The thing is,
    > I have never had a problem with blur when shooting at 300mm on non
    > image stabiliser lenses in the past. But, with a digital 35mm
    > equivalent of 480mm, maybe the Image Stabiliser lens would be the
    > better choice. Or, would it be better to just a tripod and not hand
    > hold? Any recommendations?


    It all depends on your shooting preferences and practices. What do you
    shoot most often? If landscapes, you can afford to cart that tripod around
    and set it up for shots. People shots? Then a tripod would be a bad idea.
    Ditto for sports or any kind of action (which may be why you want the
    telephoto in the first place?).

    The farther in your zoom, the more your hand motion becomes a factor. At
    300mm, it definitely helps to have IS, but at 75mm, it's not really
    necessary. Again, I'd go with what you can afford here.

    > Media Storage Choices:
    > I have decided to go for 2GB (Approx. 220 RAW photos). The choices
    > are between the IBM/Hitachi 2GB Microdrive, and an equivalent fast CF
    > card. The Microdrive seems to be better value for money in this
    > respect. Any recommendations?


    You want the fastest card available; right now that's the Sandisk Ultra II
    cards. I buy the 1GB models - same price per GB as the 2GB models, but more
    protection against "accidents" (i.e. not keeping all your eggs in one
    basket, should something bad happen to a card).

    > Conclusion:
    > Bear in mind that money is hard to come by, so I do not want spend it
    > unnecessarily, as I am not a pro making money from the photos. Also,
    > another alternative would be to stick with my 35mm setup until prices
    > come down and DSLR's become better value for money. After all,
    > spending this amount will not really compensate for the processing
    > and developing costs. Although will have more benefits.


    It sounds like you've done your research; I think you're on the right track.
    Buy what you can afford, and I think all your choices above are good ones.
    You're going to be very happy with your setup.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Mike Kohary, Nov 9, 2004
    #5
  6. A

    Eric Miller Guest

    "> > Media Storage Choices:
    > > I have decided to go for 2GB (Approx. 220 RAW photos). The choices
    > > are between the IBM/Hitachi 2GB Microdrive, and an equivalent fast CF
    > > card. The Microdrive seems to be better value for money in this
    > > respect. Any recommendations?

    >
    > You want the fastest card available; right now that's the Sandisk Ultra II
    > cards. I buy the 1GB models - same price per GB as the 2GB models, but

    more
    > protection against "accidents" (i.e. not keeping all your eggs in one
    > basket, should something bad happen to a card).


    You do not necessarily want the fastest card available. But you should give
    the above advice serious consideration. I use a 4gb Hitachi Microdrive in my
    10D when on vacation. However, when I am shooting local sporting events like
    triathlons, I need speed. If you are shooting landscapes, you don't really
    need a superfast write speed. If you are shooting events where you will
    actually fill your buffer, then get a fast card [or if you will be shooting
    at high elevations where you can't use a Type II card]. I haven't noticed
    much difference in READ speeds of the various cards that I use. The write
    speed of the microdrive is much slower than than the Type I cards. I assume
    the larger file sizes of the 20D will take a little longer to write on any
    give card than the 10D.

    Another consideration is that microdrives and IS use battery power. I cannot
    say how much effect this has, but when I use a microdrive in conjunction
    with an IS lens, it seems that the batteries do not last very long. If you
    choose the microdrive and the IS lens, you might want to also consider the
    battery grip and some extra batteries.

    Eric Miller
     
    Eric Miller, Nov 9, 2004
    #6
  7. A

    Robert Barr Guest

    Also,
    > another alternative would be to stick with my 35mm setup


    until prices come
    > down and DSLR's become better value for money.


    You pointed out your best alternative.

    Right now, there is no better value in digital than a slightly used
    version of yesterday's news. The 10D is going for less than $950, and I
    recently paid $612 for a very nice D60.

    Let someone else take the brunt of the initial cost, and make yourself
    the beneficiary of their dire need for the latest & greatest.

    For folks who can afford the newest, great. For the rest of us, keep in
    mind that just a few years ago, the D30 was THE hot item. You can have
    one today for a fraction of the cost.
     
    Robert Barr, Nov 9, 2004
    #7
  8. A

    Bruce Chang Guest

    "Eric Miller" <> wrote in message
    news:Hrbkd.326$...
    >
    > "> > Media Storage Choices:
    >> > I have decided to go for 2GB (Approx. 220 RAW photos). The choices
    >> > are between the IBM/Hitachi 2GB Microdrive, and an equivalent fast CF
    >> > card. The Microdrive seems to be better value for money in this
    >> > respect. Any recommendations?

    >>
    >> You want the fastest card available; right now that's the Sandisk Ultra
    >> II
    >> cards. I buy the 1GB models - same price per GB as the 2GB models, but

    > more
    >> protection against "accidents" (i.e. not keeping all your eggs in one
    >> basket, should something bad happen to a card).

    >
    > You do not necessarily want the fastest card available. But you should
    > give
    > the above advice serious consideration. I use a 4gb Hitachi Microdrive in
    > my
    > 10D when on vacation. However, when I am shooting local sporting events
    > like
    > triathlons, I need speed. If you are shooting landscapes, you don't really
    > need a superfast write speed. If you are shooting events where you will
    > actually fill your buffer, then get a fast card [or if you will be
    > shooting
    > at high elevations where you can't use a Type II card]. I haven't noticed
    > much difference in READ speeds of the various cards that I use. The write
    > speed of the microdrive is much slower than than the Type I cards. I
    > assume
    > the larger file sizes of the 20D will take a little longer to write on any
    > give card than the 10D.
    >
    > Another consideration is that microdrives and IS use battery power. I
    > cannot
    > say how much effect this has, but when I use a microdrive in conjunction
    > with an IS lens, it seems that the batteries do not last very long. If you
    > choose the microdrive and the IS lens, you might want to also consider the
    > battery grip and some extra batteries.
    >
    > Eric Miller
    >
    >


    I asked the salesperson when I was looking for my 28-135 IS lens if he knew
    how much more power the lens would consume and he said he had no idea and no
    one had ever asked.

    I first started off with a Canon A2e and a 35-135 USM lens and moved to the
    28-135 IS and didn't find an appreciable difference. Of course a battery
    for me lasted me a year as I'm not a professional photographer.

    As to the microdrive, I could see it draining power much faster and easier
    than the IS lens. Remember, the IS lens just has a gyro in it. The
    microdrive has platters (more likely heavier than the gyro) and a head and
    it doesn't typically shut off until the camera shuts off. The IS function
    is only on when you press the shutter button to compose a picture and stays
    on for only seconds after you've taken your finger off.

    -Bruce
     
    Bruce Chang, Nov 9, 2004
    #8
  9. "A" <> writes:
    > 20D Flash Choice:
    > I am also torn between two choices. The choices are between the
    > 420EX, and the 550EX. The 550EX has more manual controls, etc, but
    > is big, heavy, and needs a lot of understanding to get the most from
    > it. It also works better with 45 point autofocus, but the 20D only
    > has 9 AF points, so it would be a bit wasted. Power wise, the 550EX
    > is only about 1/2 a stop behind the 420EX. (BTW, 580EX is another
    > choice, but is the same as the 550EX, except minor alterations to
    > make it more efficient for digital users). Any recommendations?


    I bought the 420EX, because I felt it provided the right amount of
    power for the right price. But there is now a lot of flashes that
    work with the E-TTL of the 20D. Below is those I know about:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Model GN Notes
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    1. Canon 220 EX (22) No tilt/swivel
    2. Canon 380 EX (33) No swivel (discontinued 2001)
    3 Sunpak PZ40X (40) Rev. eng E-TTL. Also power ratio.
    4. Promaster 7500DX (42) Rev. eng E-TTL. Also auto.
    5. Canon 420 EX (42) W/l slave.
    6. Metz 44 AF-4C (44) Rev. eng E-TTL. Also auto.
    7. Quantum Qflash T4d (49) Rev. eng E-TTL. Also power ratio.
    8. Sigma 500 DG Super (50) W/l master + slave. Rev. eng.
    9. Metz 54 MZ-4C (54) Rev. eng E-TTL. Also auto.
    10. Canon 550 EX (55) W/l master + slave
    11. Canon 580 EX (58) W/l master + slave
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Models are sorted by maximum guide number (in meters, for ISO 100).
    For technical details, see the manufacturers' specification sheets.

    > Media Storage Choices:
    > I have decided to go for 2GB (Approx. 220 RAW photos). The choices
    > are between the IBM/Hitachi 2GB Microdrive, and an equivalent fast
    > CF card. The Microdrive seems to be better value for money in this
    > respect. Any recommendations?


    Go for CF (from Lexar, Sandisk or other quality brands) - not the
    microdrive. The microdrive is less reliable than CF.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Nov 9, 2004
    #9
  10. A

    gerry Guest

    With all respects, if you are bothered having film half used in your camera,
    then spending four figures on new equipment you may not use that much may be
    a mistake at the moment. Prices are coming down all the time. I'd stay put
    until you couldn't afford NOT to buy one.

    By the way, the Nikon D70 has a 1/500th sync speed against Canons 1/250th.
     
    gerry, Nov 9, 2004
    #10
  11. A

    ED UNDERWOOD Guest

    "A" <> wrote in message
    news:cmrbgj$v75$...
    > Situation:
    > I am considering upgrading from 35mm to digital because I hate changing
    > film
    > at crucial points, and also feel very restricted from experimenting with
    > film as much as digital. Another thing I hate is that sometimes there is
    > a
    > film in my camera half used, when I want it developed. Also, I am PC
    > literate and am pretty familiar with Photoshop, so it would make sense to
    > go
    > digital. Until now I have fought the need because I didn't think DSLR's
    > were capable of competing with 35mm SLR's on the functions they provide,
    > especially lock up, and start-up times.


    Go Digital. Just my opinion but film and processing cost help make the
    digital
    solution much more affordable.

    > Body:
    > I am considering either a Canon 20D, or Minolta 7D, but the Canon seems to
    > have more spec. for the price, is available now, and has been tested by
    > users already. Nikon D70 is cheaper, but accessories are more expensive.
    > Also, the specs still don't match the 20D. Therefore, I think I will be
    > going for a 20D if anything.


    I happen to agree with you choice... Canon. I shoot with a 10D and feel it
    is
    a great system so of course I'm biased.

    > 20D 'Normal' Lens Choices:
    > I am torn between the 17-55mm lens, and the 17-85 Image Stabiliser lens.
    > The main reason is NOT because one is a image stabiliser lens, but because
    > for the greater focal length which will allow for more flexibility in
    > 'normal' use without changing lenses. Any recommendations?


    I have a 28-300 Sigma for all around vacation shooting and goofing around.
    Not
    an EX but its ok. For pro work (sports) I shoot with a 50-500 EX Sigma. I
    would love
    to own the Canon glass but.... just can not afford it right now.

    > 20D Telephoto Lens Choices:
    > Again, I am torn between two lenses. The choices are between the 75-300mm
    > USM, and the 75-300 Image Stabiliser lenses. The thing is, I have never
    > had
    > a problem with blur when shooting at 300mm on non image stabiliser lenses
    > in
    > the past. But, with a digital 35mm equivalent of 480mm, maybe the Image
    > Stabiliser lens would be the better choice. Or, would it be better to
    > just
    > a tripod and not hand hold? Any recommendations?


    Again Sigma EX lens are less expensive and good image quality. 70-200 f2.8,
    100-300 f4, 80-400 f4.5-5.6, 50-500 f4.5-5.6 all in $800-1000 range.

    > 20D Flash Choice:
    > I am also torn between two choices. The choices are between the 420EX,
    > and
    > the 550EX. The 550EX has more manual controls, etc, but is big, heavy,
    > and
    > needs a lot of understanding to get the most from it. It also works
    > better
    > with 45 point autofocus, but the 20D only has 9 AF points, so it would be
    > a
    > bit wasted. Power wise, the 550EX is only about 1/2 a stop behind the
    > 420EX. (BTW, 580EX is another choice, but is the same as the 550EX,
    > except
    > minor alterations to make it more efficient for digital users). Any
    > recommendations?


    Being a frugal type of guy I have a Sigma 550 DG Super. Full e-ttl.

    > Media Storage Choices:
    > I have decided to go for 2GB (Approx. 220 RAW photos). The choices are
    > between the IBM/Hitachi 2GB Microdrive, and an equivalent fast CF card.
    > The
    > Microdrive seems to be better value for money in this respect. Any
    > recommendations?


    I use 2 1gig CF cards, I'm told the microdrive uses more battery. Each card
    hold
    about 300 pics at the highest jpg setting about 4 megs per pic.

    > Conclusion:
    > Bear in mind that money is hard to come by, so I do not want spend it
    > unnecessarily, as I am not a pro making money from the photos. Also,
    > another alternative would be to stick with my 35mm setup until prices come
    > down and DSLR's become better value for money. After all, spending this
    > amount will not really compensate for the processing and developing costs.
    > Although will have more benefits.


    You might want to consider the 10D... prices are comming down now that the
    20D is out.
    Since you can preview all your pictures before paying for prints and you
    have no film cost
    and no processing cost... you might save more than you think.

    Good luck in your upgrade.

    Ed
     
    ED UNDERWOOD, Nov 10, 2004
    #11
  12. "A" <> writes:

    > Hello group. I am after advise on buying a Canon 20D setup, for a non
    > professional enthusiast.
    >
    > Situation:
    > I am considering upgrading from 35mm to digital because I hate changing film
    > at crucial points, and also feel very restricted from experimenting with
    > film as much as digital. Another thing I hate is that sometimes there is a
    > film in my camera half used, when I want it developed. Also, I am PC
    > literate and am pretty familiar with Photoshop, so it would make sense to go
    > digital. Until now I have fought the need because I didn't think DSLR's
    > were capable of competing with 35mm SLR's on the functions they provide,
    > especially lock up, and start-up times.


    Note, there is the flip side about needing to change a memory card at crucial
    points. One of the prosumer cameras (Panasonic FZ20) I give negative marks to
    because the memory card slot is on the bottom, and I would have to disassemble
    the camera from the flash bracket to change memory (and this summer, I was
    photographing an event and did have to change memory cards fast).

    > So, what do I go for?
    >
    > Body:
    > I am considering either a Canon 20D, or Minolta 7D, but the Canon seems to
    > have more spec. for the price, is available now, and has been tested by
    > users already. Nikon D70 is cheaper, but accessories are more expensive.
    > Also, the specs still don't match the 20D. Therefore, I think I will be
    > going for a 20D if anything.
    >
    > 20D 'Normal' Lens Choices:
    > I am torn between the 17-55mm lens, and the 17-85 Image Stabiliser lens.
    > The main reason is NOT because one is a image stabiliser lens, but because
    > for the greater focal length which will allow for more flexibility in
    > 'normal' use without changing lenses. Any recommendations?
    >
    > 20D Telephoto Lens Choices:
    > Again, I am torn between two lenses. The choices are between the 75-300mm
    > USM, and the 75-300 Image Stabiliser lenses. The thing is, I have never had
    > a problem with blur when shooting at 300mm on non image stabiliser lenses in
    > the past. But, with a digital 35mm equivalent of 480mm, maybe the Image
    > Stabiliser lens would be the better choice. Or, would it be better to just
    > a tripod and not hand hold? Any recommendations?


    The chepaer 75-300IS has a reputation for being soft at 300mm.

    > 20D Flash Choice:
    > I am also torn between two choices. The choices are between the 420EX, and
    > the 550EX. The 550EX has more manual controls, etc, but is big, heavy, and
    > needs a lot of understanding to get the most from it. It also works better
    > with 45 point autofocus, but the 20D only has 9 AF points, so it would be a
    > bit wasted. Power wise, the 550EX is only about 1/2 a stop behind the
    > 420EX. (BTW, 580EX is another choice, but is the same as the 550EX, except
    > minor alterations to make it more efficient for digital users). Any
    > recommendations?
    >
    > Media Storage Choices:
    > I have decided to go for 2GB (Approx. 220 RAW photos). The choices are
    > between the IBM/Hitachi 2GB Microdrive, and an equivalent fast CF card. The
    > Microdrive seems to be better value for money in this respect. Any
    > recommendations?


    The one concern is the microdrive is a miniature disk drive, and is somewhat
    more fragile than the fast CF card. Depending on your needs, you might either
    consider multiple cards and/or a portable storage device (battery operated disk
    drive that has media slots and can copy media cards in the field, though most
    devices are limited in terms of copying speed and battery power).

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
     
    Michael Meissner, Nov 10, 2004
    #12
  13. In Message-ID:<-meissners.org> posted on 09 Nov
    2004 20:16:02 -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:

    >Note, there is the flip side about needing to change a memory card at crucial
    >points. One of the prosumer cameras (Panasonic FZ20) I give negative marks to
    >because the memory card slot is on the bottom, and I would have to disassemble
    >the camera from the flash bracket to change memory (and this summer, I was
    >photographing an event and did have to change memory cards fast).


    I mentioned a technique called "tactical reload" in another thread about
    digital versus film. When you get to a lull in your event, go ahead and
    change memcards instead of waiting until they fill up, which usually
    coincides with peak subject activity. <g>

    --

    JK
     
    Justín Käse, Nov 10, 2004
    #13
  14. A

    Ken Tough Guest

    gerry <> wrote:

    >With all respects, if you are bothered having film half used in your camera,
    >then spending four figures on new equipment you may not use that much may be
    >a mistake at the moment. Prices are coming down all the time. I'd stay put
    >until you couldn't afford NOT to buy one.
    >
    >By the way, the Nikon D70 has a 1/500th sync speed against Canons 1/250th.


    But I've had half-used film in my FE2 for probably years now, and
    have used the digital all the time. (It's easy to 'process' a
    'half used' memory card..) I really ought to shoot off that film,
    but just automatically pick up the digital, especially since I'd
    have to get down to a shop to drop it off and pick it up etc.

    I'm not sure I agree on the OP's comment that accessories are more
    expensive for Nikon than Canon. The lenses are likely to be more
    than the body for either camera, and the Canon lenses seem to cost
    more across the board. If she makes her choice and buys good Canon
    or Nikon gear, then she could upgrade the body later and still use
    the lenses. If he avoids the EF-S/DX, he could even use them on a
    film 35mm. The only money she'll be wasting would be the difference
    between the body now and the body later. So maybe a cheaper D70
    [waiting for the next generation] or a 10D could be an idea.

    --
    Ken Tough
     
    Ken Tough, Nov 10, 2004
    #14
  15. A

    DALLAS Guest

    On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:10:01 +0000, A wrote:

    > Hello group. I am after advise on buying a Canon 20D setup, for a non
    > professional enthusiast.


    Non-professional? Buy a 300D. I hear it is an excellent camera, as good as
    anything else made by Canon.

    > Situation:
    > I am considering upgrading from 35mm to digital because I hate changing film
    > at crucial points, and also feel very restricted from experimenting with
    > film as much as digital. Another thing I hate is that sometimes there is a
    > film in my camera half used, when I want it developed. Also, I am PC
    > literate and am pretty familiar with Photoshop, so it would make sense to go
    > digital. Until now I have fought the need because I didn't think DSLR's
    > were capable of competing with 35mm SLR's on the functions they provide,
    > especially lock up, and start-up times.
    >
    > So, what do I go for?


    A head exam...

    > Body:
    > I am considering either a Canon 20D, or Minolta 7D, but the Canon seems to
    > have more spec. for the price, is available now, and has been tested by
    > users already. Nikon D70 is cheaper, but accessories are more expensive.
    > Also, the specs still don't match the 20D. Therefore, I think I will be
    > going for a 20D if anything.


    What accessories are more expensive? That's a total fallacy. If anything
    Canon accessories are way more expensive than Nikon's. There are also many
    more Nikon accessories on the used market than there are Canon. Tubes,
    bellows, lenses, converters, etc.

    > 20D 'Normal' Lens Choices:
    > I am torn between the 17-55mm lens, and the 17-85 Image Stabiliser lens.
    > The main reason is NOT because one is a image stabiliser lens, but because
    > for the greater focal length which will allow for more flexibility in
    > 'normal' use without changing lenses. Any recommendations?


    Haven't used those lenses but if it is focal length you want then look at
    the 28-135mm. USe the stiching function in the Canon software to do wide
    angle stuff.

    > 20D Telephoto Lens Choices:
    > Again, I am torn between two lenses. The choices are between the 75-300mm
    > USM, and the 75-300 Image Stabiliser lenses. The thing is, I have never had
    > a problem with blur when shooting at 300mm on non image stabiliser lenses in
    > the past. But, with a digital 35mm equivalent of 480mm, maybe the Image
    > Stabiliser lens would be the better choice. Or, would it be better to just
    > a tripod and not hand hold? Any recommendations?


    IS works well.

    > 20D Flash Choice:
    > I am also torn between two choices. The choices are between the 420EX, and
    > the 550EX. The 550EX has more manual controls, etc, but is big, heavy, and
    > needs a lot of understanding to get the most from it. It also works better
    > with 45 point autofocus, but the 20D only has 9 AF points, so it would be a
    > bit wasted. Power wise, the 550EX is only about 1/2 a stop behind the
    > 420EX. (BTW, 580EX is another choice, but is the same as the 550EX, except
    > minor alterations to make it more efficient for digital users). Any
    > recommendations?


    The 420EX is a waste of money. It has only one mode so you can't use it
    manually. You would be better off with a Vivitar 283 if it's power and
    price you want.

    > Media Storage Choices:
    > I have decided to go for 2GB (Approx. 220 RAW photos). The choices are
    > between the IBM/Hitachi 2GB Microdrive, and an equivalent fast CF card. The
    > Microdrive seems to be better value for money in this respect. Any
    > recommendations?


    Don't put all your eggs in one basket. It is better to buy more smaller
    cards than one bigger one. If your one big card fails (and they do) then
    you are poked. Get 4x512MB's or 2x1GB's.

    > Conclusion:
    > Bear in mind that money is hard to come by, so I do not want spend it
    > unnecessarily, as I am not a pro making money from the photos. Also,
    > another alternative would be to stick with my 35mm setup until prices come
    > down and DSLR's become better value for money. After all, spending this
    > amount will not really compensate for the processing and developing costs.
    > Although will have more benefits.


    Money is hard to come by? Why?

    Stick with your 35mm if money is a problem.
     
    DALLAS, Nov 10, 2004
    #15
  16. A

    Skip M Guest

    "Justín Käse" <> wrote in message
    news:4193c31b.3744638@chupacabra...
    > In Message-ID:<-meissners.org> posted on 09 Nov
    > 2004 20:16:02 -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
    >
    >>Note, there is the flip side about needing to change a memory card at
    >>crucial
    >>points. One of the prosumer cameras (Panasonic FZ20) I give negative
    >>marks to
    >>because the memory card slot is on the bottom, and I would have to
    >>disassemble
    >>the camera from the flash bracket to change memory (and this summer, I was
    >>photographing an event and did have to change memory cards fast).

    >
    > I mentioned a technique called "tactical reload" in another thread about
    > digital versus film. When you get to a lull in your event, go ahead and
    > change memcards instead of waiting until they fill up, which usually
    > coincides with peak subject activity. <g>
    >
    > --
    >
    > JK


    I do the same thing. I think I've actually filled a card twice in the last
    six months, otherwise I usually have about 5-10 shots left when I change.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Nov 10, 2004
    #16
  17. Justín Käse <> writes:

    > In Message-ID:<-meissners.org> posted on 09 Nov
    > 2004 20:16:02 -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
    >
    > >Note, there is the flip side about needing to change a memory card at
    > >crucial points. One of the prosumer cameras (Panasonic FZ20) I give
    > >negative marks to because the memory card slot is on the bottom, and I would
    > >have to disassemble the camera from the flash bracket to change memory (and
    > >this summer, I was photographing an event and did have to change memory
    > >cards fast).

    >
    > I mentioned a technique called "tactical reload" in another thread about
    > digital versus film. When you get to a lull in your event, go ahead and
    > change memcards instead of waiting until they fill up, which usually
    > coincides with peak subject activity. <g>


    Yep, though that really only works if you have plenty of memory cards or a
    reasonably fast portable storage drive that you can offload the cards. In the
    past I have had barely enough memory cards for the day. Fortunately, I just
    got a CompactDrive which is fairly fast (unlike the glacial x-drive II that it
    replaced -- however in my last shoot, I had some problems offloading the
    cards so I don't trust it as much as I used to).

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
     
    Michael Meissner, Nov 10, 2004
    #17
  18. A

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Nov 10, 2004
    #18
  19. Bruce Chang wrote:
    > As to the microdrive, I could see it draining power much faster and easier
    > than the IS lens. Remember, the IS lens just has a gyro in it. The
    > microdrive has platters (more likely heavier than the gyro) and a head and
    > it doesn't typically shut off until the camera shuts off. The IS function
    > is only on when you press the shutter button to compose a picture and stays
    > on for only seconds after you've taken your finger off.
    >
    > -Bruce


    My microdrive spins down shortly after the files are written to it.

    -Dave
     
    Dave Herzstein, Nov 10, 2004
    #19
  20. A

    Graham Cluer Guest

    In message <cmrbgj$v75$>, A <>
    writes
    >Hello group. I am after advise on buying a Canon 20D setup, for a non
    >professional enthusiast.
    >
    >Situation:
    >I am considering upgrading from 35mm to digital because I hate changing film
    >at crucial points, and also feel very restricted from experimenting with
    >film as much as digital. Another thing I hate is that sometimes there is a
    >film in my camera half used, when I want it developed. Also, I am PC
    >literate and am pretty familiar with Photoshop, so it would make sense to go
    >digital. Until now I have fought the need because I didn't think DSLR's
    >were capable of competing with 35mm SLR's on the functions they provide,
    >especially lock up, and start-up times.
    >
    >So, what do I go for?
    >
    >Body:
    >I am considering either a Canon 20D, or Minolta 7D, but the Canon seems to
    >have more spec. for the price, is available now, and has been tested by
    >users already. Nikon D70 is cheaper, but accessories are more expensive.
    >Also, the specs still don't match the 20D. Therefore, I think I will be
    >going for a 20D if anything.


    Good choice. I had a 10D and loved it. Now upgraded to a 20D (mainly
    so I can use the new lenses)
    >
    >20D 'Normal' Lens Choices:
    >I am torn between the 17-55mm lens, and the 17-85 Image Stabiliser lens.
    >The main reason is NOT because one is a image stabiliser lens, but because
    >for the greater focal length which will allow for more flexibility in
    >'normal' use without changing lenses. Any recommendations?


    No personal experience, but I believe the IS lens is a good lens, even
    leaving aside the IS part of it.
    >
    >20D Telephoto Lens Choices:
    >Again, I am torn between two lenses. The choices are between the 75-300mm
    >USM, and the 75-300 Image Stabiliser lenses. The thing is, I have never had
    >a problem with blur when shooting at 300mm on non image stabiliser lenses in
    >the past. But, with a digital 35mm equivalent of 480mm, maybe the Image
    >Stabiliser lens would be the better choice. Or, would it be better to just
    >a tripod and not hand hold? Any recommendations?


    Go IS. I have one. It is great. Most useful.

    >
    >20D Flash Choice:
    >I am also torn between two choices. The choices are between the 420EX, and
    >the 550EX. The 550EX has more manual controls, etc, but is big, heavy, and
    >needs a lot of understanding to get the most from it. It also works better
    >with 45 point autofocus, but the 20D only has 9 AF points, so it would be a
    >bit wasted. Power wise, the 550EX is only about 1/2 a stop behind the
    >420EX. (BTW, 580EX is another choice, but is the same as the 550EX, except
    >minor alterations to make it more efficient for digital users). Any
    >recommendations?
    >
    >Media Storage Choices:
    >I have decided to go for 2GB (Approx. 220 RAW photos). The choices are
    >between the IBM/Hitachi 2GB Microdrive, and an equivalent fast CF card. The
    >Microdrive seems to be better value for money in this respect. Any
    >recommendations?


    Personally I would go for two 1GM CF cards. I don't like the fact that
    microdrives are more susceptible to shock. Personally I don't bother
    with RAW images. I suspect you may find yourself shooting many shots in
    JPEG only. In this case you can get lots on 1GB. Two 1GB is cheaper
    than 1 2GB and you don't lose so much if the card fails.
    >
    >Conclusion:
    >Bear in mind that money is hard to come by, so I do not want spend it
    >unnecessarily, as I am not a pro making money from the photos. Also,
    >another alternative would be to stick with my 35mm setup until prices come
    >down and DSLR's become better value for money. After all, spending this
    >amount will not really compensate for the processing and developing costs.
    >Although will have more benefits.
    >


    You will find digital so much better because you can take hundreds of
    photos rather than just half a dozen to make sure you get one good one
    (is this good technique? It certainly works for me)

    --

    -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- --
    Graham Cluer | Email: news1 <at> cluer <dot> com

    (If replying by e-mail please make the above into a legal email address)
    ==========================================================================
     
    Graham Cluer, Nov 10, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Wapenga

    Canon EOS300D - just get body and use film lenses?

    Wapenga, Oct 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    631
  2. Robert

    Lenses for 20D. I have older ef lenses

    Robert, Nov 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    396
    JohnR
    Nov 19, 2004
  3. rugbyphoto

    Tokina lenses for Canon body?

    rugbyphoto, Feb 17, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    467
    Skip M
    Feb 19, 2006
  4. David J Taylor
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    427
    Bruce
    Jul 15, 2010
  5. eatmorepies
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    273
    John McWilliams
    Jul 17, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page