# lenses????



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

Ok so I don't know anything about lenses, I reaaaaly want a 40d, because it's fast and so great. the only problem is I can afford the body and about $300 on a lens and memory card and any other things I would need. What other stuff would I need? Mostly sports shooting. does this lens suck really bad or is it jus cheap and good for the money? any other good lenses for under 250?
Sigma 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 Aspherical Hyperzoom Macro Lens for Canon-AF Camera


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

I found it on another website for $159
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-28-200m...1_127?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1214441534&sr=1-127


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

Okay, first of all, glass before body. And you're not gonna find good sports glass for  under 250.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

reg said:


> Okay, first of all, glass before body. And you're not gonna find good sports glass for  under 250.



But any that would work, Ok?


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

Or anysuggestions for a fast body, 30d?


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

You're not gonna find sports glass that WILL WORK for under 250. At least, not in anything but midday sunlight.

The Rebel Xt is a fine body and should save you some money.

How far from "the action" are you gonna be most of the time?


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

would any of these produce ok images, or would the pictures be of unacceptable quality to sell?

http://www.adorama.com/TM2880EOS.html
http://www.adorama.com/CA2890AF3R.html
http://www.adorama.com/CA75300AFR.html
http://www.adorama.com/SG70300DGEOS.html
http://www.adorama.com/SG185035EOS.html
http://www.adorama.com/CA1855AFSU.html
http://www.adorama.com/SG55200EOS.html

How about both the sigma 18-55 and 55-200?


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

Let me repeat:

*YOU WILL NOT BE HAPPY WITH THE RESULTS FROM A FIFTY DOLLAR LENS


*


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

reg said:


> You're not gonna find sports glass that WILL WORK for under 250. At least, not in anything but midday sunlight.
> 
> The Rebel Xt is a fine body and should save you some money.
> 
> How far from "the action" are you gonna be most of the time?



Well I run track, so I will do alot of my shooting, there, at tracks, so not too far not more than a couple feet, I also shoot at race tracks, which is a bit further, but I can get up to about 20 or 30 feet from "the action". And I shoot other stuff like carshows and things where I am close as I want to be.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

reg said:


> Let me repeat:
> 
> *YOU WILL NOT BE HAPPY WITH THE RESULTS FROM A FIFTY DOLLAR LENS*



How about 2, $150 lenses?? lol


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

As close as a couple feet? That CERTAINLY opens up the options.

http://www.adorama.com/CA5018AF.html

should work.

What you're looking for is a lower aperture number, and a 50mm 1.8 will work in fairly low light.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

suppose I reaaallllly want the 40d, what's the cheapest lens that would be a good combo for sports and still? also is a lens hats good for sports going to be bad for stills?


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

reg said:


> As close as a couple feet? That CERTAINLY opens up the options.
> 
> http://www.adorama.com/CA5018AF.html
> 
> ...



Well I don't know if that would be enough zoom, because thats a THE closest. I am thinking maybe 100mm at the least and I would like a zoom lens, becuase I do oher close up stuff. Mayb say I was going to splurge $250  or 300 MAX


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

You are not going to find a *zoom* lens for sports cheaply. The 50mm 1.8 is really one of your few options here.

A lens good for sports only has to do with how much it "opens up" to let light in. A sports lens will be fine for still, and almost any of those zooms you listed will give OK results for still. But not fantastic.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

will thses be acceptable?

http://www.adorama.com/SG185055DTZE.html


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

is this any better?
http://www.adorama.com/SG28300DGEOS.html


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

For sports or general?


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

ehh!?!??

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...on_AF85C700_Zoom_Wide_Angle_Telephoto_AF.html


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

reg said:


> For sports or general?



for both


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

I'll refer to my previous post:



reg said:


> Let me repeat:
> 
> *YOU WILL NOT BE HAPPY WITH THE RESULTS FROM A FIFTY DOLLAR LENS
> *



You will not, at all, under any circumstances, find a good sports zoom lens under your budget. I know what's out there, and no amount of searching will find you one. Any of those will be fine for general shooting.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

reg said:


> I'll refer to my previous post:
> 
> 
> 
> You will not, at all, under any circumstances, find a good sports zoom lens under your budget. I know what's out there, and no amount of searching will find you one. Any of those will be fine for general shooting.



DDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, I think I will go with the sigmas and see what happens, lol, I think no matter what it will be better than my hp R817 is, that I have now, lol.


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

How do you feel about manual focus?

I can think of a couple non-zoom options with manual focus. And I think they'd fit the budget QUITE well...


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

reg said:


> How do you feel about manual focus?
> 
> I can think of a couple non-zoom options with manual focus. And I think they'd fit the budget QUITE well...



Never even owned an slr, but I am willing to try the manual focus, I think I could get the hang of it pretty quick


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

Try this on for size:

Vivitar 135mm 2.8 Lens - eBay

BUT, it's for M42 mount so you need one of these too:

M42 Mount to EOS body

Then you can use that adaptor on ANY m42 lens to mount it on your camera. It opens up a whole world of options, since M42 was *the *camera mount STANDARD (ie, damn near everyone used it) for film for many years.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

ya thats pretty good, I think I would get an 18-55 to go with it for still shots and stuff where I am closer to the action. but how bout a 200mm? I don't want to make you look but I don't know the search terms and stuff to find those


----------



## Overread (Jun 25, 2008)

Just one word of caution - as this is first SLR you are going to own brace yourself for a steep learning curve - first shots with an SLR (or DSLR) are often less than you hope for - give it a good month to familiarise yourself with the camera and the lens(es) you have to find its strengths and weaknesses - posting up a few (you don't need many at all as most times if you are making a mistake you will be repeating it with every shot) shots now and again on forums is a good way to get some advice and work out where to focus your attentions.
After that the older film kit is selling very cheap too at the moment and the only major downside is the lack of autofocusing. Look to getting a tripod for some additional support (starting out a cheap one from Walmart or Tescos will be fine to act as a rest) you will find it much easier to manually focus when you don't have to worry about holding the lens in your hands at the same time


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

You do know how zoomed in 200mm is, right?

On a digital camera, even 135mm is *quite* zoomed in.


----------



## AverageJoe (Jun 25, 2008)

The stock lens you get with the 40D is Canon IS glass, which is to say it's Image Stabalized and is suited well to sports. Ever since I bought a third party lens I've never gone away from anything but Canon lenses.

I agree with some of the comments up there, if you are trying to go cheap go with a rebel XT, XTi or whatever the new one is...?  And with the difference get a image stablized 90-300mm lens


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

AverageJoe said:


> The stock lens you get with the 40D is Canon IS glass, which is to say it's Image Stabalized and is suited well to sports.



Uh, no?

IS is for hand shake. You need bonafide speed to capture a moving subject and that comes from a high max aperture.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

AverageJoe said:


> The stock lens you get with the 40D is Canon IS glass, which is to say it's Image Stabalized and is suited well to sports. Ever since I bought a third party lens I've never gone away from anything but Canon lenses.
> 
> I agree with some of the comments up there, if you are trying to go cheap go with a rebel XT, XTi or whatever the new one is...?  And with the difference get a image stablized 90-300mm lens



well how do you like your 40d? Do you think its worth the money?


----------



## Overread (Jun 25, 2008)

IF you are after sports avoid the latest canon XT camera (XTs I think it is called - its the 450D over here)
As it has a large photosize, but the same capture technology as the previous camera models in the XT line - which means that its frames per second are halved (that is 1.5fps as opposed to the 3ish of the other cameras in the XT line)
and for sports you need that fps to be as high as you can get at many times

IS won't stop motion blurr from the subject, but it goes a very long way to stopping photo blur from your hands! 
However speed is also essential as well - if you shoot from a support (monopod, tripod) most of the time I would go for speed (low f number - which is a wide aperture) over IS -- whilst the opposite is true  - freeholding all the time calls for IS


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

FWIW, my camera (Olympus E-510) has IS built into the body, so even my M42 glass is IS.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

Ehh its not a cheap as I thought, when I added everything up. Whats the best camera and lens package for under $1100?


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

OH god, here we go again.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

reg said:


> OH god, here we go again.



haha, I really am spending waay more money than a 16 year old should on a camera but I want to pursue this and really want the most bang for the buck posible. I am open to all slr cameras btw. lol


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800586086-USE/Canon_0206B003_EOS_Digital_Rebel_XT.html

+

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/469653-REG/Tokina_ATXAF535DXC_50_135mm_f_2_8_AT_X_535.html

IMO.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

the rebel isn't fast enough... but thanks for trying, how about a 30d? rfurbed for $639, is that good price, and enough to get some good lenses with it?


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

How do you know the rebel isn't fast enough?

Have I not been doing good so far?


----------



## Overread (Jun 25, 2008)

3fps is about the best you are going to get in this price range. The only upgrade really is the 40D which (I think) has 5fps and after that its the 1Ds - which are very very expensive.

The body itself is plenty fast - its the lens you stick on it thats got to be fast (and good enough) to keep up


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

Overread said:


> 3fps is about the best you are going to get in this price range. The only upgrade really is the 40D which (I think) has 5fps and after that its the 1Ds - which are very very expensive.
> 
> The body itself is plenty fast - its the lens you stick on it thats got to be fast (and good enough) to keep up



the 40d has 6.5fps, the 30d has 5


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

Again, how do you know the rebel isn't fast enough?

A few seconds of forethought beats firing off 100 pics in those few seconds.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

reg said:


> How do you know the rebel isn't fast enough?
> 
> Have I not been doing good so far?



you hav been doing exellent, so far. But I talked to alot of people that said you  need more than 3fps for ca racing shots unless you have a really good hand for sports shooting, it's just a little compensation for lack of skill, lol


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

A lot of people have been wrong. 

I've not done it, but all it takes is pre-planning and anticipating the shot.

Ahem.


----------



## Overread (Jun 25, 2008)

well I was about right 
anyway a used 30D or 40D is going to cost you more than the XT and its better to spend more on lenses than on cameras. Besides 3fps is still plenty fast for many cases:
here take a look at these:
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/fauna-geese_and_ducks_of_racconigi.htm
the top shot (and several others) are taken with the XT (called 350D) and its standing up in quality next to the other more powerful camera bodies - because the glass on the camera is top end quality. Better glass is much more important


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

IDk, also for track and like triple jump you need FAAST, I don't, I just really wanted the 40d and now I'm realising its too much money,lol so that's why I'm pissed, and why I will shut everythng down, besides the 30d which is the next best thing (in my pissed off opinion) lol


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

Overread said:


> well I was about right
> anyway a used 30D or 40D is going to cost you more than the XT and its better to spend more on lenses than on cameras. Besides 3fps is still plenty fast for many cases:
> here take a look at these:
> http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/galleries/fauna-geese_and_ducks_of_racconigi.htm
> the top shot (and several others) are taken with the XT (called 350D) and its standing up in quality next to the other more powerful camera bodies - because the glass on the camera is top end quality. Better glass is much more important



right, but those are ducks not track or car racing.


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

You need a fast SHUTTER SPEED to stop motion. The digital rebel goes down to 1/4000 of a second, IIRC. It might be 1/2000. Either way, you're damn near NEVER gonna need something that fast. Maybe if you're shooting hummingbirds.


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

Ptyler22 said:


> right, but those are ducks not track or car racing.



See also:



reg said:


> Ahem.


----------



## tomhooper (Jun 25, 2008)

I shoot XT's (have 3)  I also shoot "L" series lenses.  Listen to the people that know.  Buy glass, not bodies.  All the bells and whistles won't take the picture.  Good optics are a must.

Tom Hooper
Gary, Texas


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

reg said:


> You aren't getting it!
> 
> You need a fast SHUTTER SPEED to stop motion. The digital rebel goes down to 1/4000 of a second, IIRC. It might be 1/2000. Either way, you're damn near NEVER gonna need something that fast. Maybe if you're shooting hummingbirds.



noooo I'm not talkng abut shutter speed, I'm talking about continous fps


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

*AND I AM TELLING YOU THAT CONTINUOUS FPS IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT, DAMN IT!!!*


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

Is an xti better than an xt or does it just have more mega pixels?


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

reg said:


> *AND I AM TELLING YOU THAT CONTINUOUS FPS IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT, DAMN IT!!!*



WOOOOOOWWWW DOWN BOY, DOWN lol.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

any lens suggestions with the rebel?


----------



## Dao (Jun 25, 2008)

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

lol


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

I'm done with this thread. If you want any more of my help, I charge by the hour. I'll include the one you already wasted in the bill if you're interested.

If you're this unwilling to do any of the legwork yourself, I shudder to think of what'll happen when you actually GET the camera and are trying to figure out how to use it.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

reg said:


> I'm done with this thread. If you want any more of my help, I charge by the hour. I'll include the one you already wasted in the bill if you're interested.



OK, sorry, I didnt force anybody to keep on talking. How does an xti with 18-55 for 639 sound?


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

Go ahead and get that. Then come back when you can't get sport shots because you didn't get good glass like I suggested.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

I am going to get good glass, for the rebel, but I said more suggestiong because now if I get the rebel I can spend alot more on lenses.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 25, 2008)

and I hope I can come back and show you the good shots your suggesions lead to (assuming I get some good shots...)


----------



## anderspj (Jun 25, 2008)

Look for aperture f/2.8 or wider.


----------



## Overread (Jun 26, 2008)

I can tell you have never tried to get a bird in flight 
I have and its not for lack of frames that I have poor results - partly its me and partly its the lens on the camera. If the lens does not have the reach or speed (f2.8 or less - which means wider) then unless its blinding sunlight ( which has its own problems) then its hard enough to fast focus and get the bird.

Follow the advice here - the lens is really where you need to be thinking with cameras. Really the only upgrade to get more fps is going to be the £3000+ top end canon cameras (also as you are not commited why not also consider nikon?) and those are way out of your budget.

Getting more frames means you can shoot more like a machine gun, but that is no garentee and remember each shot is eating up memory in the card - that will run out in the end and reviewing and deleting eats up battery power (through the LCD) and takes time - when action could be passing by. Part of the skill is learning to watch and wait and judge where a good action shot will be and be there with the camera ready before the action is there - with a race track it might be focusing on a bend or straight where you know the car will pass by. Manual focusing can help here as you can focus to be ready for the car - and not have to wait for autofocusing to catch it - which might be too late. 
A lot of the skills come after kit and come from months (yes months) to years of shooting and GB of wasted shots - to get those few ones that really stand out strong


----------



## rlcphotos (Jun 26, 2008)

Ptyler22 said:


> WOOOOOOWWWW DOWN BOY, DOWN lol.


 

lmao,,,this is one funni, and serious thread,,,:lmao:I started with a kodak p/s p850, then moved to the Canon XT,,like it have 2 now,,,but the story ends when it comes to the lens,,,even a dummi like me knows that,,,so Im looking will have to save I know so till then keep on a shootin and a lernin,,,

oh ya I really enjoyed the amusements of this thread:lmao:keepem comin:hail:


----------



## Dao (Jun 26, 2008)

I think you need a camera body.  I believe a low end DSLR should work.
As for the lens, look for a lens that has the F2.8 or lower.  Usually that means higher cost.  

A faster lens (lower F number) will allow you to take the photo with a faster shutter speed and still have enough light to have a proper expose photo.

A faster shutter speed will allow you to freeze the action of an object.  For example, to capture a photo of a kid that running around.  Or a moving car that pass by without motion blur.  Of course, if you are a experience photographer, you maybe able to take some shots with panning techniques and that do not require a very fast lens by a very good hands.  (or a very good IS system that can compensate vertical camera shaking) 


As far as the focal length goes, it really depends on what type of shots you are planning to have.   If you are far away from the object, then you need a fast telephoto lens or telephoto zoom lens.  And that equal to even more $.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 26, 2008)

How bout an A300k with kit lens for 599 and then get a sports lens with that? or is that camera cheap because they aren't so good. Right now I am thinking that or the refurbed 30d on adorama for $639, or an xti, are the xti's any better than an xt image quality wise?


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 26, 2008)

If I am on an $1100 budget which includes camera and everything I will need with it (I only have $1100, for now, but I have a job) is this lens worth it, to get and get another like 18-200mm or so? Because instead of spending 400 on a lens I would only be able to spend 300 on another one if I got this, but is it worth it to have one of these? http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1EN46MACTJE9MW23PFK2


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 26, 2008)

And I'm sorry reg, I was really tired and crabby last night, I just want you to know that I am listening to what you said and I am really sorry how I was being a dick yesterday, thats not like me, I am not known for beng an asshole, (as far as I know). No disrespect man, sorry.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 26, 2008)

Or how about this lens without the 50mm and just squeeze this into my budget?

http://www.warehousedeals.com/Sigma-50150mm-F2.8-APO-EX-DC/M/B000HPOQKS.htm


----------



## Dao (Jun 26, 2008)

Ptyler22 said:


> How bout an A300k with kit lens for 599 and then get a sports lens with that? or is that camera cheap because they aren't so good. Right now I am thinking that or the refurbed 30d on adorama for $639, or an xti, are the xti's any better than an xt image quality wise?




When you compare just the camera body, I do not think you see much different.  What I mean is using Sony Camera, with the appropriate lens, you can capture good action photos.  Same thing with XT or XTi or even with Pentax DSLR camera. 

For me, the A300k is not cheap (yes . I am cheap   )  Just get the camera that feel the best in your hand and within your budget.  

For what you like to do, I think all the camera you mentioned should work.  However, I found that ...  if you go with Canon or Nikon, there are more lens choices out there.  Third party lens maker will sure make lens for Canon and Nikon, but may not, or not yet make the same lens for Pentax, Sony camera.

But one thing though, Sony camera usually has the in-camera image stabilization.  And it helps.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 26, 2008)

Dao said:


> When you compare just the camera body, I do not think you see much different.  What I mean is using Sony Camera, with the appropriate lens, you can capture good action photos.  Same thing with XT or XTi or even with Pentax DSLR camera.
> 
> For me, the A300k is not cheap (yes . I am cheap   )  Just get the camera that feel the best in your hand and within your budget.
> 
> ...



Ya from what I have been told by people with the sony's that that helps. The thing I don't like about what the people with the sony's is that was the only selling point they said to me to try and convince me to buy it, there were yep do any others have in body IS nope. But I haven't eliminated anything  yet. I just need to buy one lol. I have been on a full time search for like 2 months now. IT'S TIME FOR ME TO GET OUT THERE AND SHOOT!!! haha. O btw I didn't mean to say "cheap" because it's by no means cheap to me either, but cheaper than the others. Thanks I am going to try to get out to a store and fell them today.


----------



## Dao (Jun 26, 2008)

Yes,  just try them and see if you like them.   For those who has a big hands will usually prefer a bigger camera.  And they don't  like the XT or XTi (I have the Xti, btw) and will go with the 30D or 40D.  Bigger and heavier.


----------



## im_trying11 (Jun 26, 2008)

since this will be your first slr why not not start off with a beginer camera then move your way up. possibly the d80. even the d40. the continuos is not neccisary. i get very good baseball/ skateboarding shots with the kit lens.
just my $0.02


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 26, 2008)

I belive the cameras I am going for now are beginner slrs no? the d80 would be nice but its juuust over my limit, thats why the 30d at 639 is nice because its just above the d80 but cheaper. I am just having trouble finding a 2.8 lens in my price range


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 26, 2008)

heres one, do you think 70mm is enough or will I want more like 100 or 200?

http://www.adorama.com/SG287028EOS.html


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 26, 2008)

or this and get a cheap kit lens for closer up stuff?
http://www.adorama.com/SG10528DEOS.html


----------



## im_trying11 (Jun 26, 2008)

the 105 is a great lens and you will not be disapointed


----------



## Dao (Jun 26, 2008)

Ptyler22 said:


> heres one, do you think 70mm is enough or will I want more like 100 or 200?
> 
> http://www.adorama.com/SG287028EOS.html




Found some sample photos of this lens.

The Actions type (sports) photos was took at F2.8 and the sample looks a little soft.  Not sure is it is because of the lens or the focus.


----------



## maddermaxx (Jun 26, 2008)

reg said:


> Go ahead and get that. Then come back when you can't get sport shots because you didn't get good glass like I suggested.



Aha, ook buddy.. :lmao: :hail:

Now, lets see here.. First you tell him he's not going to find any good glass for 50 (which he's not) but then you also suggest a F0mm f/1.8 II, which is a good lens, but not far off from your $50 mark.

Then, out of all of the lenses in-range of the one you suggested you suggest a TOKINA 50-135, out of ALL the lenses.. Sure, it has F/2.8.. But if you're using F/2.8 in auto racing chances are it's close to dark.. Especially with Panning, because freezing motion in auto racing looks like crap, where IS is useless (Panning)

MY suggestion, would be a 20/30/40D and a Canon 70-200F/4L. Now, if that lens is a little too rich for you, I'd suggest looking up the Sigma 70-300 F/4-5.6 APO DG Macro.


----------



## Dao (Jun 26, 2008)

Ptyler22 said:


> or this and get a cheap kit lens for closer up stuff?
> http://www.adorama.com/SG10528DEOS.html




This lens seems to have a pretty good review.   But it is not a HSM lens, so focusing is not as fast.   For action or sports type photos, I think a HSM (Sigma) or USM (Canon) lens will perform better.  That means less soft photos.   But according to Photozone, it is a very sharp lens even at f2.8


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 26, 2008)

maddermaxx said:


> Aha, ook buddy.. :lmao: :hail:
> 
> Now, lets see here.. First you tell him he's not going to find any good glass for 50 (which he's not) but then you also suggest a F0mm f/1.8 II, which is a good lens, but not far off from your $50 mark.
> 
> ...



So do you think with panning and stuff someting other than a 2.8 is ok, like for example, this is the only package I found with the whole 18-200 mm range I  like want. Do you think these would take fine pictures on a 30d for track events and car racing?
http://www.adorama.com/SG185055DTZE.html


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 26, 2008)

also do you think those come with a lens hood. and what do you use a lens hood for?


----------



## maddermaxx (Jun 26, 2008)

Well, here.. What's the total amount you're willing to spend on a lens/lenses?

And lens hoods are used to shade the front element from lights to keep lens flare from happening.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 26, 2008)

maddermaxx said:


> Well, here.. What's the total amount you're willing to spend on a lens/lenses?
> 
> And lens hoods are used to shade the front element from lights to keep lens flare from happening.



the most I am willing to spend depends, I am willing to spend 1000 total, so that includes camera body and lens/ lenses.

I found this lens, I could maybe do an xt or d40 with it and a 70-300.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-28-70mm...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1214508792&sr=8-1


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 26, 2008)

or wait well I think I could get an xti if I squeeze it in


----------



## penfold1 (Jun 26, 2008)

I have an xti and am currently only using the $90 50mm  f/1.8 lens and it works just fine for average sports shots. And I doubt at your level you will be needing anything more than average.

Just start with simple and then after you've "mastered" the camera and lens, upgrade.


----------



## maddermaxx (Jun 26, 2008)

Get the Sigma 70-300 F/4-5.6 APO DG Macro, and a Canon 50mm F/1.8 II

Then whichever body you choose after that.

seems most logical for your price range.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 26, 2008)

You should watch ebay for a used nikon d70 outfit... many would argue that it's a better camera then the d40, and since it's been around for a while you should be able to find a nice camera/lens/accessory bundle for $500 or so.  

For example:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-d70-camer...yZ107912QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


----------



## tomhooper (Jun 26, 2008)

The only real difference between an XT and XTi,  I have each, is the size of the bucket, ie megapixels.  I get good quality  shots with either camera.  Get good glass.  The best you can afford.  "L" if possible, but good quality if not.  Tamron seems to be pretty good, I have only used a cheap Phoenix macro, but get good shots with it.  Good luck.  

Tom Hooper
Gary, Texas


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 26, 2008)

Does this price seem too low to you? or should I buy it asap?

http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/pho/732057527.html


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

Do you think it's worth it to maybe get a 105mm lens with a kit 18-55 and get a tele converter. I just found out about those. Do any of you use them? Good? Bad? thanks. Also the question above, do you think thats a good price for a used xti, in "perfect shape" $400 with 2 batteries, 18-55 kit lens, and another strap. thanks


----------



## Mystwalker (Jun 27, 2008)

reg said:


> *AND I AM TELLING YOU THAT CONTINUOUS FPS IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT, DAMN IT!!!*


 

Listen to the man!!  He can't be any more obvious.

It's mostly about the glass, and lots of practice.

Sports require fast glass (lens with small f/xx number such as f/2.8).  Long lens that has small f/xx number (called fast glass) are EXPENSIVE.  Lens with constant f/xx number is even more expensive.

Lens pricing have pretty much remained the same.  Camera bodies drop in price.  That 40D you want today, you can buy in 3-4 years for 50%.  Lens will depreciate less.

Since you are just starting, AND you are on a budget, go for an XT/XTi, or used 20D/30D.  Spend the rest on lens.  I doubt 40D will be significantly better to justify the sacrifice for lesser lens.

If you can find one of those used cameras for around $500-600, I would recommend the 70-200 f/4L which costs a little under $600.  It's an "L" (Canon's top of line).


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

so how does this package look?
http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/pho/732057527.html
http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/sc/from-froogle.asp?id=964599880&rf=froogle&dfdate=6_25_2008
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3265&navigator=2 (found this on 47th street photo for $79)
(2 of these.) http://www.adorama.com/KGCF2GB.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000YA1DS4/ref=noref?ie=UTF8&s=photo.

the total will be about $740. Assuming that craigslist ad is still for sale.
I know the glass isn't the best but I don't think I want to spend that much for the 2.8 its just a little too much and I don't think my parents would let me spend that much, but is this ok?


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

Or how about this package, and I would just use the 28-70mm for now and then maybe for christmas I would get the 70-300mm

http://www.adorama.com/ICA30DR.html
(2 of these.) http://www.adorama.com/KGCF2GB.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...e=UTF8&s=photo.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...65&navigator=2 (found this on 47th street photo for $79)
the total would be $805


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

cause ideally I would like the 30d body, but it cuts into my lens budget a little too much.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

Or should I get this with the XTi and not get the 70-300mm
($289 on 47th street photo)
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3264&navigator=2


----------



## Mystwalker (Jun 27, 2008)

I've never used one myself, but have read positive things about this lens: Canon 55-250 f/4-5.6 ... URL below.

I still recommend the 70-200 f/4L, but that is almost twice as much as the 55-250.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2FRootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&shs=55-250&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2FRootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=26&Go.y=19


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

Is the 55-250 worth the extra $100 and the 50mm less on the open end?


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

and some 50mm 1.8 with any 1 lens? which seems like the best package? I will moostly be shooting track meets, since I am already at them. I used my friends E-500 at one of them and he had the 14-42mm on it and I wanted just a liitle more zoom for track so idk if that helps or whatnot but thanks a bunch guys.


----------



## Phazan (Jun 27, 2008)

Why shouldn't he get what he wants??

I wanted a 40d over an XTI, so I saved up for a 40d. He can get cheap glass now, and save for good glass later. :thumbup: My plan was to use a cheap crap lens for a couple months while I got used to the camera. Then by the time I had the camera all figured out, I would buy something nice...However at the store my dad offered to buy me a nice lens that day if I payed him back. (And I did pay him every penny back a month later)
If someone can save $1,500, I think they are pretty capable of saving more down the road.
We all know it's cheaper in the long run to buy the better stuff anyway..You won't have to upgrade with a 40d for a looong time


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

Ya, I wish I could But at the thought of it, I asked my dad what he thought and he flipped a **** and told me that I don't know anything about cameras and stuff like that (even thought I have been researching them for about 2 months now, and he hardly knows how to use a point and shoot). He also told he that it was ridiculous to spend $1000 on the most expensive camera in the world lol. I told him that it was not at aaalllll the most expensive. He also told me no one else unless THE top photographers in the world spend $1000 on a camera. Shows how much he knows. And he told me that he could have easily spent that much money and bought me that camera (which is true he could have spent like $20,000 on a camera for me if he wanted too. lol) but he said that it's not worth it to him to spend $1000 and for me a quote "poor" kid should never spend that much on a camera because it's a waste....

But thats just the short but not very short version. Basically he said no F#&$*(g way. But I wish I could get a 40d, it's definatley worth it since they compete with cameras 2x the cost. But ya I agree with a 40d but the rebel isn't all bad, especially after looking at shots people have taken with them.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

Phazan said:


> Why shouldn't he get what he wants??
> 
> I wanted a 40d over an XTI, so I saved up for a 40d. He can get cheap glass now, and save for good glass later. :thumbup: My plan was to use a cheap crap lens for a couple months while I got used to the camera. Then by the time I had the camera all figured out, I would buy something nice...However at the store my dad offered to buy me a nice lens that day if I payed him back. (And I did pay him every penny back a month later)
> If someone can save $1,500, I think they are pretty capable of saving more down the road.
> We all know it's cheaper in the long run to buy the better stuff anyway..You won't have to upgrade with a 40d for a looong time



Ya I wish my dad was like that. My mom would probably do that but she would never go against what my dad said, so its just up to what he says. I have $1200 cash on hand right now and $1500 in the bank so I could definatley afford it. Oh ya, my dad said a couple months ago that he really thinks I am good at photography and I should pursue it. So much for that when I am trying to pursue it and he just slams me down. :x


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

Buuut anyway. How bout them packages? lol


----------



## CloseToGermany (Jun 27, 2008)

Ptyler22 said:


> haha, I really am spending waay more money than a 16 year old should on a camera but I want to pursue this and really want the most bang for the buck posible. I am open to all slr cameras btw. lol



I disagree, I bought my Rebel XSi just a couple weeks ago with the 18-55 IS lens; I just got the 50mm F/1.8 today. Although I started out on a Rebel K2 with a kit lens, I think the XT is going to be a great camera for you to learn on. Ultimately, if I were you, I would save more money to get a lens that will perform the way you need it to; track doesnt start again for a while anyway, right?


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

CloseToGermany said:


> I disagree, I bought my Rebel XSi just a couple weeks ago with the 18-55 IS lens; I just got the 50mm F/1.8 today. Although I started out on a Rebel K2 with a kit lens, I think the XT is going to be a great camera for you to learn on. Ultimately, if I were you, I would save more money to get a lens that will perform the way you need it to; track doesnt start again for a while anyway, right?


Ya well it starts in the beggining of September. Well Cross country does anyway. But my second most common thing to shoot is cars and over the summer I go to lots of car shows and there is a really nice racetrack that me and my dad go to in connecticut (Limerock) and Over the summer I can shoot those things with the camera. The carshows are less demanding for timing and stuff since the cars are stationary so I can get used to the camera and then shoot XC and track when it starts in the fall.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

Sorry for going against what you guys said but I think I am going to go with the 30d and I will spend $120 on a lens JUST FOR NOW. This way I can get a decent all around lens and see what I really want to do with it and then I will get more specialized lenses when I feel like I know what exactly I want to do. Now the question is. What is the best all around lens (keep in mind I will still be doing mostly sports) for $120 or under?

A couple I found, but idk if these are good all around lenses.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3265&navigator=2 ($79) + Maybe a cheap 50mm?

http://www.adorama.com/CA2890AF3U.html
+ a cheap 50mm?
Other ideas?
Thanks alot guys, I apreciate it.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

geez I guess everybody hates me so much for telling them I am not going with that stuff right now, that they can't even tell me I am making a bad choice. Sorry guys. Next year I will get those lenses!!!!!!!! hopefully


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

Does anybody have one of these lenses. What do you think of it?
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...65&navigator=2


----------



## reg (Jun 27, 2008)

It would help if it didn't say "the page cannot be found"


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

reg said:


> It would help if it didn't say "the page cannot be found"



O huh, it didn't just a minute ago, lemme try and fix that


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3265&navigator=2


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 27, 2008)

Now it should work, sorry about that


----------



## Phazan (Jun 28, 2008)

I think your dad doesn't know how expensive photography is. I have about $2,000 in photography stuff now, and there are still some shots I can't get because of my lack of gear...But when my friends hear how much I have spent they think I'm stupid and say something like "You don't need another camera!! Don't you have like two already?"

Hahaa can't expect them to know how the system works though


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 28, 2008)

Phazan said:


> I think your dad doesn't know how expensive photography is. I have about $2,000 in photography stuff now, and there are still some shots I can't get because of my lack of gear...But when my friends hear how much I have spent they think I'm stupid and say something like "You don't need another camera!! Don't you have like two already?"
> 
> Hahaa can't expect them to know how the system works though


Yep that's what sucks, he thinks that he knows everything. Or atleast he thinks that he knows more them me, just because I'm a kid and he thinks I don't understand money, but that's not true. I'm not one of the kids that goes out and spends their money, I hardly buy anything. The only thing I have bought for a significant amount of money was a skateboard for $160 like 4 years ago. 
He thinks I am spending too much because he talked to my photography teacher and he told him I should get a digital rebel or another cheap slr because then I can find out what I like because lenses and stuff are based on personal preference and he's convinced I know nothing about it. What he doesn't know is that the cameras and lenses I told him I wanted were found my doing endless hours of research on lenses and cameras based on what I use them for and what I want, but all that time was wasted. my photography teacher told him I should get an XTi with an 18-200mm which all together would be about $600. When my dad told me that he was like so I think you should listen to him and get that. 
Ya, one problem with that dad. That camera body is like $550 and the lens is like $450, so that doesn't come clooose to $600. 
He thinks its a waste of money and that I should save it for college. He thinks I'm not into photograhpy like the people that have those cameras but I can't be into it that much with a point and shoot, plus I shoot sports which I need an slr for. Well sorry for the long post. It just makes me so mad when he gives me **** like that when I have plenty of money and it's something I truley want and would always take the best care of. But whatever, I won't be able to convince him to let me get one so, I'll just have to get over it. Thanks guys.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jun 28, 2008)

Ptyler22 said:


> Never even owned an slr, but I am willing to try the manual focus, I think I could get the hang of it pretty quick



I am saving up for a lens that I will use for some sports,
EF 70-200 F/2.8L IS USM

This is about $1700

Like the user "reg" keeps saying, you wont find a good sports telephoto lens unless u dish out some money...


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jun 28, 2008)

Phazan said:


> I think your dad doesn't know how expensive photography is. I have about $2,000 in photography stuff now, and there are still some shots I can't get because of my lack of gear...But when my friends hear how much I have spent they think I'm stupid and say something like "You don't need another camera!! Don't you have like two already?"
> 
> Hahaa can't expect them to know how the system works though



I am like that with my father.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 28, 2008)

Ya, well I have enough money, it's just my dad won't let me spend it because he thinks it's a waste, he doesn't understand it's just expensive like that.

I'll bet those 70-200's work reeeal nice though. If I was allowed to spend all the money I have on hand ($1200) I would go with one of those I think. Or maybe be a 40d. then save up for the 70-200.
Good luck with saving some $$


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 28, 2008)

At circuit city they have an open box A200 for $419 does this seem like a good deal? would I be happy with that camera?


----------



## Parkerman (Jun 29, 2008)

Just wondering... how long have you been into photography..?

You are better off with nicer glass on a cheaper body rather than cheap glass on a more expensive body.

I bought a D40 as my first SLR camera which was back in January. I've been working on buying more lenses.. and then plan to upgrade to a D300 if I feel my skills are up to par and I deserve it.

As others have said, Its not how many FPS the body has, its how quick the glass is. The lens is the 2nd most important part of the camera. First would be the user. 

And majority of a picture is the person behind the camera and their experience and knowledge. 


You need to put yourself in your dads shoes and look at it through his eyes. Most kids will want something.. and then grow bored with it after awhile. That is probably what he believes. However if all this money is yours... you earned it yourself... Then well.. its your money... Spend it how you wish.


----------



## Phazan (Jun 29, 2008)

If you want to pursue photography, consider it as an investment for life. $1,500 to start out doing something you will love for the rest of your life is pretty cheap when you think about it...
Tell your dad that. 
And If you're sure photograhy is what you want to do, and you want some good equiptment, don't settle for something you don't want..If you are capable of getting a 40d, and you want a 40d, get a 40d. Or if you want an xsi, get a xsi. It sounds like you want a good SLR, and not an A200..
It's nice to just get the better one, ya know?


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 29, 2008)

Parkerman said:


> Just wondering... how long have you been into photography..?
> 
> You are better off with nicer glass on a cheaper body rather than cheap glass on a more expensive body.
> 
> ...



Well I have always been into snapping pictures my whole life, just like everybody. But in the past couple of years I took a photography class at school and I have been taking pictures for stuff alot. I run track and I used my friends E-500 at one of our meets. He was really impressed with the shots I took, and it was my first time ever using an slr. I could take it to all the meets and I go to carshows all the time and I could take pictures there and really have lots of chances to improve on my pictures. I just feel that with a d40, it's not quite enough camera. He thinks I will get a camera and then soon afterward realize I didn't want that one and that I should have gotten another one. But even if the d40 is a better camera for me I wouldn't be happy with it because I want the 40d. Just my stubborness I guess. I guess another part is that I did earn the money, exept $400 which I got for my birthday towards a camera, so I think that it should be my say. I told him it's my money and if I want to "waste" it on someting bad it's my choice. But my dad doesn't get that.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 29, 2008)

Phazan said:


> If you want to pursue photography, consider it as an investment for life. $1,500 to start out doing something you will love for the rest of your life is pretty cheap when you think about it...
> Tell your dad that.
> And If you're sure photograhy is what you want to do, and you want some good equiptment, don't settle for something you don't want..If you are capable of getting a 40d, and you want a 40d, get a 40d. Or if you want an xsi, get a xsi. It sounds like you want a good SLR, and not an A200..
> It's nice to just get the better one, ya know?



Ya I thought the same thing, I said it's a learning process and an investment in my future.
One of his arguments against buying it was that I will have "big education expenses" coming up in the future. That's in 2 years, I will have plenty of time to make that money back, I will probably make that back over the summer I have 3 jobs!.  I also think that this investment in my future is a an educational device if you think about it, I will learn alot about photography, and cameras, and through the process I will meet people and maybe even get some buisness out of it. And on top of that I will have fun doing it. But we'll see how it goes. Thanks


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 29, 2008)

If I were to get the 40d, do you think the kit lens (28-135 3.5-5.6) would be ok for sports or would it be best to sell that for like $450 unopened and get a sigma 28-70mm F2.8 for $289 then I have a little more $ left over and I will have a faster lens. Or do you think the kit is fast enough and fine for sports? thanks


----------



## Rogan (Jun 29, 2008)

depending on what sports but IMO neither 70 will not be long enough at all

and 135 will be pushing it, ideally you want 200 at least, but u definately want F4 or higher at the long end


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 29, 2008)

Rogan said:


> depending on what sports but IMO neither 70 will not be long enough at all
> 
> and 135 will be pushing it, ideally you want 200 at least, but u definately want F4 or higher at the long end



Well for track I know I used my friends E-500 with the 14-42mm kit lens, and olympus's are 2x focal multiplier so that would be = to 84mm but the 40d has 1.6x so it would be 112mm. with the olympus I wanted a little bit more zoom. do you think the 28-70mm would be ok for track or should I try and squeeze in a 70-300mm as well?


----------



## penfold1 (Jun 29, 2008)

I have solved your problem!

Buy these three things.

canon rebel xti body 
canon 70-200mm f/4.0 L
canon 50mm f/1.8

Should be near $1000 and fit your requirements and your price range as best as possible.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 29, 2008)

If I've got the lens right, it's around $1200 alone, if I have the lens right


----------



## Overread (Jun 29, 2008)

wrong lens - there this is lens he means;
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200m...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1214777085&sr=8-2
and the camera (body only
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1214777109&sr=8-2
and the cheap (but good) 50mm
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1214777143&sr=8-1

amazon total: $1248.94
and there is rebate of $40 on the long lens.


----------



## Rogan (Jun 29, 2008)

i know ur frustration but i can see where ur coming from, $1200 is alot to spend first time onna hobby

my investment is going to be a mere $500 for now!


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 29, 2008)

Thanks alot Overread and penfold1, that might be a little too much $$ but thanks I will still consider it. That lens looks amazing. 

Or how about this, it won't give me the 200mm, but close. Do you reccomend F4 rather than F2.8 for a long lens like that?

http://www.warehousedeals.com/Sigma...froogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_source=froogle


----------



## Overread (Jun 29, 2008)

well for sports a wider aperture (thus lower f number) on the lens is desirable as sometimes you might be shooting indoors or in poor lighting conditions and being able to use f2.8 (or one stop down as full wide open most lenses are a little soft) allows you to get more light into the camera without upping ISO and thus getting more noise into a shot.
I don't know how good the sigma 50-150mm is though


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 29, 2008)

O crap it's out of stock.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 29, 2008)

WOw why is the silver body $519 and the black $599? O probably because nobody want the silver ones?


----------



## Rogan (Jun 29, 2008)

cos the silver is fugly 

F4 is alright for sports as long as its F4 the whole way, eg, short and long ends of its range, F2.8 is obviously better but theres nothing wrong with F4


----------



## kundalini (Jun 29, 2008)

This may have been asked already (I skipped page 2), but have you ever been to a camera shop and actually put the various camera bodies discussed so far in your hands?  That should be done before you get your heart (or stubborness ) set on any particular body or brand.  I had done all my research and was going to buy a Canon.  That was until I held and played around with a Nikon.  It fit my hands better.

I will agree with everybody else that has emphatically cried out to you that the best investment is in your lenses.  Pick up a cheap body for now and slap a fast piece of glass on it.  Hell, go out and buy a used body, but get the good glass.

One more thing, in.... oh say... *counts on fingers & toes* ...maybe thirty + years from now, you will realize the your father was a lot smarter than you thought.  

My 2¢ worth.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 29, 2008)

kundalini said:


> This may have been asked already (I skipped page 2), but have you ever been to a camera shop and actually put the various camera bodies discussed so far in your hands? That should be done before you get your heart (or stubborness ) set on any particular body or brand. I had done all my research and was going to buy a Canon. That was until I held and played around with a Nikon. It fit my hands better.
> 
> I will agree with everybody else that has emphatically cried out to you that the best investment is in your lenses. Pick up a cheap body for now and slap a fast piece of glass on it. Hell, go out and buy a used body, but get the good glass.
> 
> ...


 
Ya I went to a camera store yesterday, the E-420 was way to small for me, the d40 was a little small the rebels felt Ok, but they felt plasticy and creaky like most said, the d80 was comfortable in my hands and the 40d was the most comfortable by far. 
With the 40d I figure I could get the 28-135mm kit lens that comes with it and then the lens for $450, I see the new ones from the store going for $500, do you think if I don't open it I could sell it for $450? My dad doesn't believe I could, he thinks that the most I could sell it for is $250. Then if I sold it for $450 or even $400 I could get a sigma 28-70mm F2.8 and that wouldn't be quite enough zoom but I could find a cheap 70-200 or 70-300 and get one of those too. How much do you think I could sell the kit lens for? Do you think the 28-70 F2.8 is fast enough for track shots? Thanks a lot

Also on amazon they have 4gb cf cards for 23.95, they have 43x write speed. Is that going to be fast enough to keep up with either a 40d or 30d? what speeds are your cards?


----------



## kundalini (Jun 29, 2008)

I'm not understanding what you are saying above.  What's the point of buying something that you don't need or want, just to resell it.  A better option is to just buy the body you want and the the lens that suits your needs.

I don't know much about Canon anymore (after my decision to go Nikon, I let all the other crap of information go), but I'm sure it holds true.  With the advances in tecnology of dSLR's, the body is quickly outdated.  This is good for the consumer because the price drops on the outdated/updated/replaced body.  However, the lens *read Pro* will retain 90-95% of it's original price.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where the best value of your equipment should be spent.

That's why one of my suggestions was to buy a used body to start off with.  Once you have really figured out the how's and what's functions of a dSLR, and this is a hobby that you have an absolute passion for, you can then make an educated decision on your upgrade.  This will also add valuable brownie points towards your fathers concerns about your spending habits.

Two more thoughts.  Buy the fastest CF card that your camera can take, and have a couple extra.  Stick with a known brand like SanDisk, Lexar, etc.  Look for rebate time.  Another battery is also a good idea.


----------



## Overread (Jun 29, 2008)

You can buy camera bodies without the lens included rather than try to sell the lens on (where you dad is probably closer to the price mark).
As for cards, I agree with Kundalini - the canon rebel cameras work fastest with Sandisk Extreme 3 cards and won't work any faster with faster cards (simple write speed limitation with the camera). 
As for size I would go for a 4GB card - around 1000 JPEG shots and if/when you move to RAW shooting you  can get a good 400ish shots.

And another battery is always good, but remember that effective battery management can help a lot of the time - the XT and XTi can go a whole day shooting on one battery because they don't have live view (which eats up battery power) and if you don't spend ages reviewing shots you can save on power.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 29, 2008)

kundalini said:


> I'm not understanding what you are saying above.  What's the point of buying something that you don't need or want, just to resell it.  A better option is to just buy the body you want and the the lens that suits your needs.
> 
> I don't know much about Canon anymore (after my decision to go Nikon, I let all the other crap of information go), but I'm sure it holds true.  With the advances in tecnology of dSLR's, the body is quickly outdated.  This is good for the consumer because the price drops on the outdated/updated/replaced body.  However, the lens *read Pro* will retain 90-95% of it's original price.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where the best value of your equipment should be spent.
> 
> ...



Well I wolld but the lens and the body because I can buy the body and 28-135mm lens on Amazon for 1083. The cheapest 40d body I can find is $889. so if I buy the kit and sell the lens for $450 then I have only spent $633 which would be the cost of what I spent on the body which is much cheaper than a body only, that's why I would buy more and then sell it. 

How fast are the ones you use?


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 29, 2008)

Overread said:


> You can buy camera bodies without the lens included rather than try to sell the lens on (where you dad is probably closer to the price mark).
> As for cards, I agree with Kundalini - the canon rebel cameras work fastest with Sandisk Extreme 3 cards and won't work any faster with faster cards (simple write speed limitation with the camera).
> As for size I would go for a 4GB card - around 1000 JPEG shots and if/when you move to RAW shooting you  can get a good 400ish shots.
> 
> And another battery is always good, but remember that effective battery management can help a lot of the time - the XT and XTi can go a whole day shooting on one battery because they don't have live view (which eats up battery power) and if you don't spend ages reviewing shots you can save on power.


 Ya I was thinking like 4gb, and the battery, I would probably not use live view and only turn it on to delete pictures and such, I think the batteries will  take something like 1000 shots. I think I will probably try to get an extra battery since you can get them on adorama for like $20, so to me not running out of battery power is worth a lot! because if you don't have and power you might as well not have the camera which would be very costly. Do you know where I could get some used cf cards? they should be good as new used and a whole lot cheaper so I could afford lots more memory. Thanks guys


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 29, 2008)

http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-TS8..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1C108K7GR3Y40D2F5P3P
How does this look? the scandisk extreme 3 are 20mg/sec write this one is 21.5mg/sec. Do you know if transcend are know for being bad? or good?


----------



## kundalini (Jun 29, 2008)

If you shoot RAW, then by all means get a 4GB card.  ATM, SanDisk is running a rebate scheme on CF cards and Andorama is adding another 10% store credit to it.  I think tonight (6/29/08) is the deadline for the rebate.  I don't think the Canon XT(add suffix) supports the UDMA technology, so no need to go beyond Extreme III CF cards.  

Each camera has it's limits on the amount of images per GB of card.  I can only get 197 RAW images on a 4GB card, who knows / don't care how many JPEGS.

Still confused on your idea of buying something useless to you and then trying to resell it.  Doesn't makes sense to me.


----------



## penfold1 (Jun 29, 2008)

HaHA, you don't listen to anyone do you?

The lens is more important than the camera.

If you cant afford what I listed, then jut get the rebel xt body and the 70-200mm L lens.

You will sacrifice some, but will be able to take some amazing pictures.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 29, 2008)

kundalini said:


> If you shoot RAW, then by all means get a 4GB card.  ATM, SanDisk is running a rebate scheme on CF cards and Andorama is adding another 10% store credit to it.  I think tonight (6/29/08) is the deadline for the rebate.  I don't think the Canon XT(add suffix) supports the UDMA technology, so no need to go beyond Extreme III CF cards.
> 
> Each camera has it's limits on the amount of images per GB of card.  I can only get 197 RAW images on a 4GB card, who knows / don't care how many JPEGS.
> 
> Still confused on your idea of buying something useless to you and then trying to resell it.  Doesn't makes sense to me.


Ya, I will check into the rebate thing in just a minute. I am buying the lens and then selling it because it's cheaper than buying the body alone.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 29, 2008)

penfold1 said:


> HaHA, you don't listen to anyone do you?
> 
> The lens is more important than the camera.
> 
> ...



I do listen to people and my first choice would be the 40d but if I can't get it then I will most likely go with what you suggested because that looks like a really good lens for what I am doing.


----------



## Parkerman (Jun 29, 2008)

Ptyler22 said:


> Well I have always been into snapping pictures my whole life, just like everybody. But in the past couple of years I took a photography class at school and I have been taking pictures for stuff alot. I run track and I used my friends E-500 at one of our meets. He was really impressed with the shots I took, and it was my first time ever using an slr. I could take it to all the meets and I go to carshows all the time and I could take pictures there and really have lots of chances to improve on my pictures. I just feel that with a d40, it's not quite enough camera. He thinks I will get a camera and then soon afterward realize I didn't want that one and that I should have gotten another one. But even if the d40 is a better camera for me I wouldn't be happy with it because I want the 40d. Just my stubborness I guess. I guess another part is that I did earn the money, exept $400 which I got for my birthday towards a camera, so I think that it should be my say. I told him it's my money and if I want to "waste" it on someting bad it's my choice. But my dad doesn't get that.




Wasn't suggesting you get a D40.. I was just telling you what my plan was. I would much rather have a lower end body and a nice lens.. rather than it the other way around. Your picture has to pass through the lens before it ever gets to the body.


----------



## Rogan (Jun 30, 2008)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800586479-USE/Canon_1234B004_EOS_30D_Digital_Camera.html

that cud be ur solution  ?


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 30, 2008)

Rogan said:


> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800586479-USE/Canon_1234B004_EOS_30D_Digital_Camera.html
> 
> that cud be ur solution  ?



Ya, it could but they also have refurbished 30d's on adorama for 639, and if I sold the kit lens on the 40d, I would on have $633 into the body, thats why I want the 40d, selling the kit lens gives me a good deal on the body, but we'll see, I will probably go with one of the rebels.
 or maybe a used d80?


----------



## penfold1 (Jun 30, 2008)

In my experiences I always stay away from refurbished electronics. I have had nothing but bad luck with them. Yeah they are warranted, but do you realize how much it sucks sending things back to the manufacturer over and over again?  Plus, being refurbished, it will have almost no resale value.


----------



## Ptyler22 (Jun 30, 2008)

penfold1 said:


> In my experiences I always stay away from refurbished electronics. I have had nothing but bad luck with them. Yeah they are warranted, but do you realize how much it sucks sending things back to the manufacturer over and over again?  Plus, being refurbished, it will have almost no resale value.



Oh really, I never even thought of the resell value of them, but that definately makes sense, I think maybe I will stay away from that, also since the 40d after selling the kit lens is just a little more $$ than the 30d


----------



## Parkerman (Jun 30, 2008)

You might want to make sure.. But if the 28-135 3.5-5.6 that comes with it isnt IS... then you wont get over $400 for it. Because you can get the IS for $409 off of B&H. 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/149629-USA/Canon_2562A002_Zoom_W_A_Telephoto_EF_28_135mm.html


*edit* actually.. I was thinking about the 28-105.. But still, With it being $409 off of B&H.. If i was buying it from you [if i were a canon user] I would maybe give you $350.. maybe 360 for it.


----------

