So my current camera a Fuji S7000 just isn't cutting it anymore. Although it is a 6.3 megapixel, it is more like a 3 or 4 megapixel. Printing out 8.5 x 11s I can start to see distortion, and it isn't the printer. So I am looking at a Digital SLR, and am looking into the new Canon EOS 20D. I know there are plenty of amazing photographers on this site, and I would appreciate any feedback you could give on this camera, or any recommendations on other cameras. As well any users on this board who use Canon SLRs could you recommend me some lenses. I am pretty sure I will be purchasing the 20D but I would like to get some feedback. I know I am going to buy the 15mm fisheye lense, but if you guys could recommend some other lenses that aren't as expensive as my bike that would be great. Thanks.
Camera Equipment
- Thread starter DsDhBxracer13
- Start date
be warned that you're heading down a very expensive road 
this thread might be a good place to look: Which Camera for me?
i shoot canon (had a D30, now my 20D is on order). the 15mm fisheye is a good place to start. i'd get the sigma to save a few pennies. if you're really trying to get cheap lenses then i'd add the 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8 mk II and then look at what focal length you want next. other fun ways to expand your collection: 100mm f/2.8 USM macro, 135mm f/2 L lens (great for portraits), either of the 70-200mm zooms.
my collection, with a decided bias towards primes (click on each name to see a sample from my site shot with that lens, not that web resolution pics are a great test of lens sharpness):
sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 hsm
canon 28mm f/1.8 usm
50mm f/1.4 usm
135mm f/2 L usm
sigma 180 f/3.5 macro hsm (that's a chainring bolt and a rusty star fangled nut)
i also used to have the sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye (ditched it for the 12-24)
common themes: all ultrasonic/hypersonic focusing motors, all rated as reasonably sharp at least.
this thread might be a good place to look: Which Camera for me?i shoot canon (had a D30, now my 20D is on order). the 15mm fisheye is a good place to start. i'd get the sigma to save a few pennies. if you're really trying to get cheap lenses then i'd add the 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8 mk II and then look at what focal length you want next. other fun ways to expand your collection: 100mm f/2.8 USM macro, 135mm f/2 L lens (great for portraits), either of the 70-200mm zooms.
my collection, with a decided bias towards primes (click on each name to see a sample from my site shot with that lens, not that web resolution pics are a great test of lens sharpness):
sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 hsm
canon 28mm f/1.8 usm
50mm f/1.4 usm
135mm f/2 L usm
sigma 180 f/3.5 macro hsm (that's a chainring bolt and a rusty star fangled nut)
i also used to have the sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye (ditched it for the 12-24)
common themes: all ultrasonic/hypersonic focusing motors, all rated as reasonably sharp at least.
I would say the 20D will be an awesome camera. I know Toshi has one on order, but I don't know if anyone has one now to tell you about.
Take a look at my sig. You will definitely find some good info there!
Take a look at my sig. You will definitely find some good info there!
Mmmmmm, cookies.
Guys thanks for the info. We will see what I get. I have been looking at the Sigma lenses a lot to, and they seem relatively good. I am pretty sure I will be purchasing the 10D. Any ideas on file size for a Raw plus JPEG. All I have now is a 1gig and a 256mb, so it looks like I will need to buy another card or two. Atleast the prices are coming down on them. I saw a high speed 1gig SanDisk on Ebay for $105 as a buy now. Also anyone know of any sites that explain stuff about the features of cameras. Like I am still not completely sure what ISO settings do, and on my camera I can shoot to pictures one at the highest Fstop and one at the lowest and I see no difference as far as the near and far focus goes. Thanks for the help guys.
Your 6.3 MP may be interpolated...
you should be fine with a 1 gig + 256 MB. i ran my 3.2 (3.1? 3.3?) megapixel D30 with a 512 MB card and that was fine even tho i shoot raw 100% of the time. with a 10D, shooting jpegs with any level of restraint won't pose a problem.
make sure you ask around on the appropriate forums about sigma lenses. while the 15mm fisheye is a great lens the quality of the rest of their line runs from generally excellent (with the EX series) to coke-bottle quality (if you fish from the bottom of the barrel)...
as for what f-stop does at least you know what it's supposed to do. on your compact camera you noticed that it has little effect. on dSLRs it has much more of an effect. see the cookies pic that i posted above: that was at 135mm and f/2.0 so the resulting depth of field was very shallow. you can see _that_, no?
here's an article on iso: http://www.megapixel.net/cgi-bin/fs_loader.pl?p=http://www.megapixel.net/html/articles/article-iso.html . googling for "iso sensitivity explanation" should get you a few more hits if you're still not satiated.
make sure you ask around on the appropriate forums about sigma lenses. while the 15mm fisheye is a great lens the quality of the rest of their line runs from generally excellent (with the EX series) to coke-bottle quality (if you fish from the bottom of the barrel)...
as for what f-stop does at least you know what it's supposed to do. on your compact camera you noticed that it has little effect. on dSLRs it has much more of an effect. see the cookies pic that i posted above: that was at 135mm and f/2.0 so the resulting depth of field was very shallow. you can see _that_, no?
here's an article on iso: http://www.megapixel.net/cgi-bin/fs_loader.pl?p=http://www.megapixel.net/html/articles/article-iso.html . googling for "iso sensitivity explanation" should get you a few more hits if you're still not satiated.
Thanks again for the information, I will do a bit of research on the Sigma lenses before I buy any besides the fisheye. Are all of the Canon lenses relatively good quality. Fraser what do you mean by my camera might be interpolated. Also I will have a short vid that I am sending to Lee to get to you from when we went to Bromont. He figured you could use it for sponsorship purposes. Thanks Again.
Hey thanks for the vid! Could definetly be useful on the site.DsDhBxracer13 said:
Interpolated means that the actual input of the camera isn't (in this case) a 6.3mp capable ccd. They actually ADD pixels to it (sort of like a digital zoom). It is ugly and could be why it looks grainy.
I have the D70 with Nikon - Sigma and Tamron lenses.
The reason I bought the Nikon and not the Canon eos, is because I have Nikon F-mount lenses and some old Canon lenses that have a different lens-mounting than the newer Canons.
I used to work with Canon (F1, A1) but switched to Nikon because I found a super cheap F4 and a F90X with some lenses.
A friend has the Canon Eos 300D and we compared the two camera's.
There is not that much difference between the cameras.
I would probably be just as satisfied with the Eos 300 as I am with my D70.
compare camera's
did you know about this one ? new Tamron
The reason I bought the Nikon and not the Canon eos, is because I have Nikon F-mount lenses and some old Canon lenses that have a different lens-mounting than the newer Canons.
I used to work with Canon (F1, A1) but switched to Nikon because I found a super cheap F4 and a F90X with some lenses.
A friend has the Canon Eos 300D and we compared the two camera's.
There is not that much difference between the cameras.
I would probably be just as satisfied with the Eos 300 as I am with my D70.
compare camera's
did you know about this one ? new Tamron
Hey,
You are definately headed down an expensive road, but its worth every bit. So far this year I've owned a Canon 300D and 10D, and will soon be selling the 10D to upgrade to a 20D. It turns into an addiction. All three of those cameras are worth it. If you are going to be doing sports photography, the 20D will be the best for the price range, the 10D isn't bad either. If you get the 20D, make sure you get the kit lens, its NEARLY as good as the 17-40mm F4/L, which is a ~$650 lens, and the kit lens only adds about $100. Its a good way to get started.
I originally started with nature/wildlife photography, so I own a Canon 70-200mm F4/L lens, and a Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR DI lens. Remember that on these cameras there is a 1.6x focal multiplier/crop factor. So wideangle lenses, really don't get that wide. Get the fastest and best lenses you can afford. The 50mm 1.8 MKII as mentioned above, is one of the best lenses to have. Its fast, sharp, and super cheap ($80 or so).
The Tamron lens I mentioned above is also a pretty good deal at only $370. Its not quite as nice as the Canon 24-70 F2.8/L, but its not nearly as expensive either.
http://home.comcast.net/~jimbo_the_biker/bikin-9-23/ I've got some photos there from my last outing with my 10D and tamron lens, using the builtin flash a bit too. There are some nearly full resolution (cropped for 8x10 prints) at the bottom as well so you can get an idea of sharpness. They are by no means my best shots, but they are all that I've got online right now.
You are definately headed down an expensive road, but its worth every bit. So far this year I've owned a Canon 300D and 10D, and will soon be selling the 10D to upgrade to a 20D. It turns into an addiction. All three of those cameras are worth it. If you are going to be doing sports photography, the 20D will be the best for the price range, the 10D isn't bad either. If you get the 20D, make sure you get the kit lens, its NEARLY as good as the 17-40mm F4/L, which is a ~$650 lens, and the kit lens only adds about $100. Its a good way to get started.
I originally started with nature/wildlife photography, so I own a Canon 70-200mm F4/L lens, and a Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 XR DI lens. Remember that on these cameras there is a 1.6x focal multiplier/crop factor. So wideangle lenses, really don't get that wide. Get the fastest and best lenses you can afford. The 50mm 1.8 MKII as mentioned above, is one of the best lenses to have. Its fast, sharp, and super cheap ($80 or so).
The Tamron lens I mentioned above is also a pretty good deal at only $370. Its not quite as nice as the Canon 24-70 F2.8/L, but its not nearly as expensive either.
http://home.comcast.net/~jimbo_the_biker/bikin-9-23/ I've got some photos there from my last outing with my 10D and tamron lens, using the builtin flash a bit too. There are some nearly full resolution (cropped for 8x10 prints) at the bottom as well so you can get an idea of sharpness. They are by no means my best shots, but they are all that I've got online right now.
Guys thanks again for the info. Do the Image Stabilier lenses really make a difference. Should I look at investing into one or just getting a normal lens. Thanks.
Well, Image stabilization has its pros and cons. Its no replacement for a tripod, but it definately helps. It comes at a price though. I've heard good and bad things about the 28-135mm IS lens, but, if you are thinking about getting a 70-200mm F2.8, you might as well spend the extra bit for the IS. It just depends on what you are using it for. It will help you shoot in lower light situations though, as you won't get as many blurry photos.
-James.
-James.
The Canon IS works quite well. I have the 70-200mm F2.8L IS and I love it. Heres a shot from last weekends Vans Triple Crown in Huntington Beach. I used the 70-200mm IS and a Canon 10D. The black and white shot was with a Canon 15mm F2.8 Fisheye. I've really enjoyed shooting digital with the Canon 10D but the new 20D really looks sweet for the money!
Nice shots ratfink. How do you like that 15mm 2.8 for sports/action stuff? I'm starting to think about getting a new wide-angle lens, and a fisheye would make for some spiffy bikin' photos. That new 20D is starting to make my wallet itch. I've just gotta decide what comes first, new bike, or new camera.
-James.
-James.
I actually use my 15mm Fisheye quite a bit. With the 10D 1.6x multiplier its actually the equivalent of a 24mm with a slit bit of distortion. Thats the bummer with the small sensor you don't get a good fisheye affect. Here's one I shot up at Big Bear using my fisheye.jimbo_the_biker said:
Yeah, if they made nice F2.8 11-24mm, I'd be all over it. I'm not a super big fan of fisheye lenses, but I gotta get something wider than my 28-75mm, after the crop factor its not wide enough.
-James.
-James.
Quick question since the 20D as a really high lense conversion of 1.6x I think it is, will the 15mm fisheye lens actually give a fisheye effect. This would be one really dissapointing factor and might even change my decision on what camera I buy. What kind of lense conversion do similar cameras have 10D, D70, etc.
all nikons have 1.5x cropping factor. (there is a nikon mount dSLR with a 1.0x cropping factor made by kodak but it is not a good general purpose camera and is ~4k.)DsDhBxracer13 said:
on the canon side the digirebel, 10D and 20D have a 1.6x cropping factor, the 1D and 1D MkII slide in at 1.3x and the 1Ds and 1Ds MkII have 1.0x (ie no cropping factor). if you can pony up the 2.5k for a used 1D, 4.5k for a new 1D MkII or 7k for a 1Ds MkII, by all means go for it. they are excellent cameras even beyond their low cropping factors...
Nope, sorry don't have the cash for the big boys. I guess the 20D is gonna be it then. I just hop that I get some fisheye effect out of the lens. The other thing I was looking at is Sigma makes a fisheye that is 8mm. Now it gives a huge black circle around the photo, but would the cropping factor bring it in enough, so that you wouldn't see the black circle. Maybe it would work, maybe not. Thanks for the tips.
I haven't used that lens personally, but I bet somebody over on the dpreview.com forums has. They have a Canon digital SLR forum, and canon Lens forum, you could probably find some decent samples there. I've gotten tons of info from that site.
-james.
-james.
A couple questions. As I get closer to buying the camera a few questions about lenses. Should I get the kit, lense or save the $100 and put it towards another lens. Also I am pretty sure I want to have an IS lens but I don't have $1500 or whatever it cost to get one of the L series IS lenses. Have any of you used the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. For the price and range it seems like a great lens but I have been reading either really good things about it or really bad things about it. People saying it will be to soft. I am definitely going to buy a 50mm f/1.8 lens as for the money it doesn't seem like you can go wrong. The other two lenses I have looked at are the Canon 28-105mm USM f/3.5-4.5. Have any of you used this lens, it seems to be a relatively good lens. Would it make sense to ditch the kit lens and buy this one. Lastly the other IS lens I am looking at is the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Again with this lens it seems people have either really good or bad experiences with, and they say it is to soft. Also any of you guys have any quality lenses that you want to sell. Any other lens recommendations would be great.
get the new 17-85 IS over the 28-135 IS. 17-85 is a more useful range on 1.6x crop cameras, as 28 * 1.6 is not very wide at all...
in general stay away from the "cheap" lenses, 75-300 included. get primes (non-zooms) if you're pressed for cash. my 09-28-2004, 03:49 PM contribution to this thread has other lens recommendations. note that the 28-135 and 75-300 are not mentioned
in general stay away from the "cheap" lenses, 75-300 included. get primes (non-zooms) if you're pressed for cash. my 09-28-2004, 03:49 PM contribution to this thread has other lens recommendations. note that the 28-135 and 75-300 are not mentioned
yeah the 17-85 looks like a great lens, and I would take it over the 28-135, but it is like twice as much. I can get the 28-135 for under $400. Also what do you think of the kit lens, is it worth buying. Does Sigma have any Image Stabilization lenses or any of the other companies who make Canon mount lenses?
sigma has stabilized lenses, i think they call it OS (optical stabilization). they don't have stabilized lenses in the short focal lengths as far as i know. if you don't have any lenses so far then yes, get the kit lens. it's supposed to be quite decent.
I would highly suggest getting the kit lens. Its a steal at only $100. Its like a super cheap 17-40 F/4L, well... kinda anyways.
I'm gonna mention my recommendation for the 28-75mm F/2.8 Tamron XR DI lens again, its under $400, fast and pretty sharp. Its my walk around lens, and works quite well. When combined with the kit lens, and a telephoto, you'd have quite a good range. Even though the kit lens and tamron overlap a bit, I'd still suggest both. All of my bikin' photos have been done with the tamron, check em out at:
Http://home.comcast.net/~jimbo_the_biker/bikin-9-30/
Check out the first shot of jesse, its an excellent example of the sharpness. Thats not cropped at all, just resized.
I as well would suggest staying away from the 75-300, its dead slow, not sharp at all, and kinda rickety. If you don't want to spend too much, you can get a 70-200mm F2.8 from sigma for $800 or so I think.
-James.
I'm gonna mention my recommendation for the 28-75mm F/2.8 Tamron XR DI lens again, its under $400, fast and pretty sharp. Its my walk around lens, and works quite well. When combined with the kit lens, and a telephoto, you'd have quite a good range. Even though the kit lens and tamron overlap a bit, I'd still suggest both. All of my bikin' photos have been done with the tamron, check em out at:
Http://home.comcast.net/~jimbo_the_biker/bikin-9-30/
Check out the first shot of jesse, its an excellent example of the sharpness. Thats not cropped at all, just resized.
I as well would suggest staying away from the 75-300, its dead slow, not sharp at all, and kinda rickety. If you don't want to spend too much, you can get a 70-200mm F2.8 from sigma for $800 or so I think.
-James.