What Digital SLR would you buy?

[boneaddict]

Kinda why I buy new.  My lens crapped out on me within the first month of ownership.  That warranty was pretty nice.   Knowing what water does to circuitry etc.  It could look like you are buying a new camera and it be completely fried.  Someone could touch the inside with their thumb, who knows.  I am not trusting enough to buy used, so I hear your question, but don't have an answer for you.

[wapiti hunter2]

I buy used whenever I can.  But from reputable dealers or trusted people.  I would love to pull the triger on this body.

 www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800673109-USE/Canon_7082A010_EOS_1D_Digital_Camera.html#features

I have used B&H for 15 years and I trust them completely.

[elksnout]

Thanks guys. I would think unless you got a smokin deal a guy would be better off paying that extra cash for a new one with a warrenty. The few I've priced so far on Craigslist seem to be not much less than buying new.

[huntnphool]

The few I've priced so far on Craigslist seem to be not much less than buying new.

Are you kidding me? My 20D was almost $1500 new when I bought it. You can pick them up for $300 all day now. 30D and 40D were the same but since they are newer they have not come down in price quite as far yet but even the 40D can be picked up for $600.

[elksnout]

Well, no. I'll be the first to admit I'm a rookie and most likely do not know where to get " deals ". But I thought this post was about cameras under 1000.00. On Portlands Craigslist I saw a used D60 with the basic lens for 500.00. On Amazon.com I saw the same set up for 699.00 new. My mind { crazy as it is } doesn't think 200.00 is enough of a savings for my piece of mind. But, hey that's just me. To each his own, huh ??

[jrebel]

are either of the cameras that I posted on my earlier post worth buying.  Seems like they are decent deals if the cameras are worth a darn.  Both come with two lenses, the largest being 75-300 and both are under 1000 dollars.

[huntnphool]

 I understand what you are saying elksnout and you are correct, why buy a 3 year old Porsche when for a little more money you can buy a new 350Z.

[CastleRocker]

So what are the differences (besides the price) between the 20D, 40D, 50D etc?  Is it worth the couple hundred extra for the next one up?

[whacker1]

20d is a lower megapixel camera than 30d which is lower than 40d which is lower than 50D. 

50d can take picks at 6.3 frames per second where the others are slower. 

these were the two main reasons I was looking at buying new.  the 50d does have more features than the others, but these were the main reasons I was considering buying up.

With that said, I still haven't bought one, because I figure that I can buy a used camera body and put the extra $1000 toward a lens. 


Should the used camera fail - well then you buy another used one for $300.  $300 to put at risk for a 20d is not much in comparison to 4 times that for a 50d new ($1200).

When I do buy a camera body, I am going to buy a used body to save some coin for a lens.  Several of the guys on this site have been extremely helpful in molding my opinions, based on the intended use of my camera.  I picked up my father-in-laws 35 mm camera this year to see if I truly would use a $2000 camera at its full potential.  I have taken about 6 or 7 roles of film, and decided that clarity is desired via the L series lenses, but I won't be using it to the extent that Bone or Huntnphool or Tom Reicher use their cameras.  I don't have enough time to use them that much, which is another reason I will be starting with a 20d or 30d.   If I use it to the extent I hope to.....then maybe 5 years down the road I upgrade to a newer camera. Ultimately I would keep the $300 camera as a backup or in teaching my son about nature.

[huntnphool]

A lot of good point whacker but some are not quite correct. The 20D and 30D both have 8.2 mp, there are some subtle differences though, the screen is a little larger on the 30D for viewing images etc.

40D has 10.1mp and the 50D has 15.1mp. Don't get all hung up on the pixels though, unless you are enlarging images up to poster size, or shooting pics from exteme distance and cropping way down to increase subject size, you won't see the difference. Even making images poster size, my images taken with a 20D have turned out very well.

The 40D shoots the same frames per second as the 50D, 6.5 The 20D and 30D can shoot continuously at 5 fps for up to 23 frames.

I still haven't bought one, because I figure that I can buy a used camera body and put the extra $1000 toward a lens.

Sound advice right there, I would start with a 20D and put the rest of the money into quality glass.

[halflife65]

Whacker - good thoughts.  I just did the same thing that you are thinking of doing.  Right before Christmas, I purchased a used 30d with a kit 18-55mm lens so that I could start using the thing immediately and am saving the rest for better lenses.  I did this mostly on the advice of people like Huntinphool and others (experienced photographers) and I'm convinced that I did the right thing by saving my money.

By the way, my lens choices are going to be 70 - 200mm L f4 IS and 300mm L f5.6 with a 1.4x teleconverter.  I'm saving for them now.  I'd be interested in seeing what you decide to buy for your lens(es).

There is a TON of stuff to learn to be able to take a good photo.  I mean, you can take pictures within a couple of minutes, but to do it right takes a little bit of practice.  Not to mention post-processing with PhotoShop.  You'll have a big learning curve with a 20d or a 30d and the rest of the options you get with newer cameras aren't very critical at this point, anyway. 

I do have to say that taking a bunch of frames/second is pretty funny, though.  I have a couple of of things that look hilarious when you just go frame by frame.  Wife running circles around the kitchen table, caught my dog puking, etc.

[boneaddict]

THen there is the Mark. LOL   Phool, has Pope picked one up yet?

[whacker1]

I was considering the 70-200 L f2.8 or the 300 L f 4 with a 1.4 teleconverter.

assuming less funds (which there are none at present, because I bought a 22-250 instead) then the 70-200 f4 IS or the 300 l f5.6 with a 1.4 leleconverter would be a lot more likely.

I was leaning on the 70-200 side vs. the 300 because it would be more versatile on the front end of learning and everday uses vs the strict telephoto uses. plus with the 1.4 teleconverter would buy me some time. and then the second lens would be the 300 direction

The majority of photography folks talked me out of using the 100-400 based on the other lenses being of higher quality glass.

[boneaddict]

The 70-200 is an awesome lens.  More for everyday stuff with a touch of wildlife, shooting basketball games etc.   The 300 would be a better wildlife lens

[whacker1]

I have shot a little with a friends 20d - 70-200 f2.8 and been very impressed, but I can see how it would be short for wildlife. But I assume that I would use it every day and never get rid of it. 

Where with the 300 - eventually I would hope to upgrade to the 400