I've been reading dpreview (and others) like crazy to catch up on newer technology and trends and am now wondering if my earlier desire to get an SX10 IS not a bit premature. Turns out several canon alternatives (SX1, 1000D, 10D, etc) are equally attractive for a variety of reasons. A lot boils down to cost and the relative expense of a used mutliple lenses vs one P/S zoom. I've also been reading the enormously informative EOS FAQ III on lenses. I was not aware there were so many quality levels in the EOS lens family.
Now, I'm considering a used EOS 10D and a couple lenses. I read where the pair of lenses with the 1000 kit are the "EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens and Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom" which are the range equivelent to the 20X P/Ss. I assume these are both of the infamous "kit lens" ilk which seems to be so highly disdained in this group. OK. Got it. My question is, are these kits lenses on par or substandard to the lens quility of the superzoom P/S line. Sure, I'd like to do better, eventually, and hope to, but for a beginner are they adequate? Would I be better off looking for mid-range or even higher quality used lenses? Thank you.
> I've been reading dpreview (and others) like crazy to catch up on > newer technology and trends and am now wondering if my earlier desire > to get an SX10 IS not a bit premature. Turns out several canon > alternatives (SX1, 1000D, 10D, etc) are equally attractive for a > variety of reasons. A lot boils down to cost and the relative expense > of a used mutliple lenses vs one P/S zoom. I've also been reading the > enormously informative EOS FAQ III on lenses. I was not aware there > were so many quality levels in the EOS lens family.
> Now, I'm considering a used EOS 10D and a couple lenses. I read where > the pair of lenses with the 1000 kit are the "EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 > IS Lens and Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom" which are > the range equivelent to the 20X P/Ss. I assume these are both of the > infamous "kit lens" ilk which seems to be so highly disdained in this > group. OK. Got it. My question is, are these kits lenses on par > or substandard to the lens quility of the superzoom P/S line. > Sure, I'd like to do better, eventually, and hope to, but for a > beginner are they adequate? Would I be better off looking for > mid-range or even higher quality used lenses? Thank you.
A lot depends on ability and finances. The anal posturing over point and shoot versus SLR, and kit lens versus prime lens is bullshit. The best equipment is SLR and prime lens but will the sorts of pictures you'll take and how they'll be presented push that?
I started with an A590. It's adequate and with a CHDK hack and my own colour profile tweaks I could get good results for me. I've got a G9 shipping because I wanted better quality and RAW without the hassle. I'll be looking at an SLR in a couple of years but I'm not there yet.
The point I'm trying to make is it's one thing spooging over award winning photos, "tack sharp", "fast glass", and Photoshop but how much of that is reality and how much is just obsessing? You get the same bollocks in politics with idealism versus reality. Photography is no different.
> Now, I'm considering a used EOS 10D and a couple lenses. I read where > the pair of lenses with the 1000 kit are the "EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 > IS Lens and Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom" which are > the range equivelent to the 20X P/Ss. I assume these are both of the > infamous "kit lens" ilk which seems to be so highly disdained in this > group. OK. Got it. My question is, are these kits lenses on par > or substandard to the lens quility of the superzoom P/S line.
Firstly the EF-S 18-55mm will not fit the 10D. It will only accept EF lenses.
Secondly - yes, both lenses will give superb results when compared to a point & shoot.
Take a look on the bay for a 30D or 40D. Much better cameras and cheap as chips at the moment.
notbob wrote: > I've been reading dpreview (and others) like crazy to catch up on > newer technology and trends and am now wondering if my earlier desire > to get an SX10 IS not a bit premature. Turns out several canon > alternatives (SX1, 1000D, 10D, etc) are equally attractive for a > variety of reasons. A lot boils down to cost and the relative expense > of a used mutliple lenses vs one P/S zoom. I've also been reading the > enormously informative EOS FAQ III on lenses. I was not aware there > were so many quality levels in the EOS lens family.
> Now, I'm considering a used EOS 10D and a couple lenses. I read where > the pair of lenses with the 1000 kit are the "EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 > IS Lens and Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom" which are > the range equivelent to the 20X P/Ss. I assume these are both of the > infamous "kit lens" ilk which seems to be so highly disdained in this > group. OK. Got it. My question is, are these kits lenses on par > or substandard to the lens quility of the superzoom P/S line. > Sure, I'd like to do better, eventually, and hope to, but for a > beginner are they adequate? Would I be better off looking for > mid-range or even higher quality used lenses? Thank you.
> nb
Like others: the 10D is way too old. Find something more recent: 30D, 40D, or even 350D/400D.
The EFS 18-55 IS is good (but is part of the 450D/500D kits, the 1000D comes with the previous version, without IS, and not as good, at least in my part of the world). A better alternative to the 75-300 would be the EFS 55-250 IS (stabilization is really useful on tele lenses) that is not much more expensive.
Don't focus too much on telephoto reach. The image quality on a P&S never allows to use 1:1 crops while this is usable on a DSLR.
notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote: >I've been reading dpreview (and others) like crazy to catch up on >newer technology and trends and am now wondering if my earlier desire >to get an SX10 IS not a bit premature. Turns out several canon >alternatives (SX1, 1000D, 10D, etc) are equally attractive for a >variety of reasons. A lot boils down to cost and the relative expense >of a used mutliple lenses vs one P/S zoom. I've also been reading the >enormously informative EOS FAQ III on lenses. I was not aware there >were so many quality levels in the EOS lens family.
>Now, I'm considering a used EOS 10D and a couple lenses. I read where >the pair of lenses with the 1000 kit are the "EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 >IS Lens and Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom" which are >the range equivelent to the 20X P/Ss. I assume these are both of the >infamous "kit lens" ilk which seems to be so highly disdained in this >group. OK. Got it. My question is, are these kits lenses on par >or substandard to the lens quility of the superzoom P/S line. >Sure, I'd like to do better, eventually, and hope to, but for a >beginner are they adequate? Would I be better off looking for >mid-range or even higher quality used lenses? Thank you.
You haven't mentioned what you expect to do with a camera. It makes a difference!
Is this your first camera? Or is this the first "serious" camera? And are you an artsie or are you a techie (or worse, are you a bit of both???)?
What kind of photography impresses you? Do you like what you see in other people's scrapbooks and family albums? Are you into ecstasy when you look at portraits, landscapes, flowers, or what?
Who's photography, or what photography, do you wish *you* could emulate?
Err, and mention the price range that you can manage without depriving anyone of school books or shoes that fit.
And ignore all advice you've seen from people who do not know the answers you would provide to the above, because nothing they said involves you (they've told you what works for them, which is nice but useless).
> notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote: > You haven't mentioned what you expect to do with a > camera. It makes a difference!
> Is this your first camera? Or is this the first > "serious" camera? And are you an artsie or are you a > techie (or worse, are you a bit of both???)?
> What kind of photography impresses you? Do you like > what you see in other people's scrapbooks and family > albums? Are you into ecstasy when you look at > portraits, landscapes, flowers, or what?
> Who's photography, or what photography, do you wish > *you* could emulate?
> Err, and mention the price range that you can manage > without depriving anyone of school books or shoes that > fit.
> And ignore all advice you've seen from people who do not > know the answers you would provide to the above, because > nothing they said involves you (they've told you what > works for them, which is nice but useless).
I totally agree. But you must be forgiving. They must be lawyers. The advice they gave is completely accurate and completely useless
On 2009-11-04, Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> You haven't mentioned what you expect to do with a > camera. It makes a difference!
Hi Floyd. How are you doing?
I plan on doing it all. Stills, wildlife, action, scenic. You see, I moved to the high Colorado Rockies 2 yrs ago and I have the time to do what I want. I've been using my trusty PS S10 since it was new and am ready to kick out the jams. ;)
> Is this your first camera? Or is this the first > "serious" camera? And are you an artsie or are you a > techie (or worse, are you a bit of both???)?
Hardly. I snapped my first pics on a Kodak 620 browie box when 4 yrs old. Got my photography merit badge in the BSA and was using a 4x5 Graflex in my HS photo shop. Konicas and Topcons followed through my Viet Era days with Olympus bringing up my post service days. I will admit to losing interest during 20 yrs of not so happy marriage (past tense) and only a passing interest when I got my S10. Sold my A1 and film stuff few years back, being essentially one cheap sumbitch. Now that quality filmless photography is back within my now limited budget and my gaining experience on GIMP, and kayakers, wild animals, bald eagles, and gorgeous songbirds practically ...and literally... smearing their noses on my sliding glass door and 14K ft snow-capped vistas just outside my window, my shutter bug is beginning to re-flutter in earnest. I sharpened my stills skills doing detailed shots for ebay with my S10 (serial interface to my Commadore 1040 monitor). I'd like to improve those skills, also.
Oh! ....I'm "both". ;)
> What kind of photography impresses you? Do you like > what you see in other people's scrapbooks and family > albums? Are you into ecstasy when you look at > portraits, landscapes, flowers, or what?
I think most photography today is pretty much mastubatory in nature, being of little interest to anyone else. Not a bad thing, to shoot for your own interests, but a shot that peaks someone else's curiousity is a real acheivement, IMO. "Wherethehell is the caption!?" is a reaction I'd be happy to get from one of my photos.
What gets me excited is brutally defined clarity. I actually admire advertising photography for its purity and sharpness. I once had a computer wallpaper taken from the shore of some deserted tropical beach, the shot looking out to a placid sea with a tad bit of shore in the foreground. Not much of interest to see. No sunset, jut a hot windless mid-afternoon day. The sharpness and clarity of sky and sea were so acute as to make one feel they were actually viewing it, for real. You could almost feel the heat and smell the salt air. Killed me when I lost that jpeg. That's the kind of photography I'd like to learn to do. I've always regreted not buying that used Hasselblad or that old Graflex at the flea market when I had the chance. Maybe the oportunity it will come again. Right now, I want to start again, almost from scratch, as it were, being so inexperienced with digital.
> Who's photography, or what photography, do you wish > *you* could emulate?
I'm not a photographer idolater. The only ones I can think of are Ansel and Annie L, only cuz I've heard the names a gajillion times. Yes, Ansel was a pioneer, but I'm not a b/w freak and have seen all those places he's photographed a million times in real life. So much prettier in color. Annie? Snore. I like some portaits, but would rather look at bright happy colorful smiling faces of someone doing something than those dreary b/w pics of ancient wrinkled geezers in their rags who've survived a beat-down life. Apparently, this last genre seems to be a gawddamn career field for some photogs.
> Err, and mention the price range that you can manage > without depriving anyone of school books or shoes that > fit.
I was looking at a camera and a new laptop for around $1K. I may sacrifice some lap for some snap. Used is no prob.
> And ignore all advice you've seen from people who do not > know the answers you would provide to the above, because > nothing they said involves you (they've told you what > works for them, which is nice but useless).
> notbob wrote: >> I've been reading dpreview (and others) like crazy to catch up on >> newer technology and trends and am now wondering if my earlier desire >> to get an SX10 IS not a bit premature. Turns out several canon >> alternatives (SX1, 1000D, 10D, etc) are equally attractive for a >> variety of reasons. A lot boils down to cost and the relative expense >> of a used mutliple lenses vs one P/S zoom. I've also been reading the >> enormously informative EOS FAQ III on lenses. I was not aware there >> were so many quality levels in the EOS lens family.
>> Now, I'm considering a used EOS 10D and a couple lenses. I read where >> the pair of lenses with the 1000 kit are the "EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 >> IS Lens and Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto Zoom" which are >> the range equivelent to the 20X P/Ss. I assume these are both of the >> infamous "kit lens" ilk which seems to be so highly disdained in this >> group. OK. Got it. My question is, are these kits lenses on par >> or substandard to the lens quility of the superzoom P/S line. >> Sure, I'd like to do better, eventually, and hope to, but for a >> beginner are they adequate? Would I be better off looking for >> mid-range or even higher quality used lenses? Thank you.
>> nb
> Like others: the 10D is way too old. Find something more recent: 30D, 40D, > or even 350D/400D.
I am still using a 10D that I bought new. If the 10D has all the features needed and you aren't planning on making prints much larger than 8.5" x 11" there is noting wrong with a 10D. It doesn't have the write speed of my 40D nor does it do as well at ISO's of a thousand or more, but those and other differences may not matter and it may be a good deal cheaper than a used 30D or 40D leaving more $$$ available for lenses.
>>> Firstly the EF-S 18-55mm will not fit the 10D. It will only accept EF >>> lenses. >> DOH! Good catch, Rusty. I missed that "-S" when I cut and pasted >> from an ad.
>>> Secondly - yes, both lenses will give superb results when compared to a >>> point & shoot.
>>> Take a look on the bay for a 30D or 40D. Much better cameras and cheap >>> as >>> chips at the moment. >> Thnx. I'm following an EF 75-300mm usm auction on ebay right now.
>> nb
> Be sure to get the EF 75-300 IS USM not just the EF 75-300 USM. The Image > Stabilization is well worth the price!
> On 2009-11-04, Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> You haven't mentioned what you expect to do with a >> camera. It makes a difference!
> Hi Floyd. How are you doing?
> I plan on doing it all. Stills, wildlife, action, scenic. You > see, I moved to the high Colorado Rockies 2 yrs ago and I have the > time to do what I want. I've been using my trusty PS S10 since it was > new and am ready to kick out the jams. ;)
>> Is this your first camera? Or is this the first >> "serious" camera? And are you an artsie or are you a >> techie (or worse, are you a bit of both???)?
> Hardly. I snapped my first pics on a Kodak 620 browie box when 4 yrs > old. Got my photography merit badge in the BSA and was using a 4x5 > Graflex in my HS photo shop. Konicas and Topcons followed through my > Viet Era days with Olympus bringing up my post service days. I will > admit to losing interest during 20 yrs of not so happy marriage (past > tense) and only a passing interest when I got my S10. Sold my A1 and > film stuff few years back, being essentially one cheap sumbitch. Now > that quality filmless photography is back within my now limited budget > and my gaining experience on GIMP, and kayakers, wild animals, bald > eagles, and gorgeous songbirds practically ...and literally... > smearing their noses on my sliding glass door and 14K ft snow-capped > vistas just outside my window, my shutter bug is beginning to > re-flutter in earnest. I sharpened my stills skills doing detailed > shots for ebay with my S10 (serial interface to my Commadore 1040 > monitor). I'd like to improve those skills, also.
> Oh! ....I'm "both". ;)
>> What kind of photography impresses you? Do you like >> what you see in other people's scrapbooks and family >> albums? Are you into ecstasy when you look at >> portraits, landscapes, flowers, or what?
> I think most photography today is pretty much mastubatory in nature, > being of little interest to anyone else. Not a bad thing, to shoot > for your own interests, but a shot that peaks someone else's > curiousity is a real acheivement, IMO. "Wherethehell is the > caption!?" is a reaction I'd be happy to get from one of my photos.
> What gets me excited is brutally defined clarity. I actually admire > advertising photography for its purity and sharpness. I once had a > computer wallpaper taken from the shore of some deserted tropical > beach, the shot looking out to a placid sea with a tad bit of shore in > the foreground. Not much of interest to see. No sunset, jut a hot > windless mid-afternoon day. The sharpness and clarity of sky and sea > were so acute as to make one feel they were actually viewing it, for > real. You could almost feel the heat and smell the salt air. Killed > me when I lost that jpeg. That's the kind of photography I'd like to > learn to do. I've always regreted not buying that used Hasselblad or > that old Graflex at the flea market when I had the chance. Maybe the > oportunity it will come again. Right now, I want to start again, > almost from scratch, as it were, being so inexperienced with digital.
>> Who's photography, or what photography, do you wish >> *you* could emulate?
> I'm not a photographer idolater. The only ones I can think of are > Ansel and Annie L, only cuz I've heard the names a gajillion times. > Yes, Ansel was a pioneer, but I'm not a b/w freak and have seen all > those places he's photographed a million times in real life. So much > prettier in color. Annie? Snore. I like some portaits, but would > rather look at bright happy colorful smiling faces of someone doing > something than those dreary b/w pics of ancient wrinkled geezers in > their rags who've survived a beat-down life. Apparently, this last > genre seems to be a gawddamn career field for some photogs.
>> Err, and mention the price range that you can manage >> without depriving anyone of school books or shoes that >> fit.
> I was looking at a camera and a new laptop for around $1K. I may > sacrifice some lap for some snap. Used is no prob.
>> And ignore all advice you've seen from people who do not >> know the answers you would provide to the above, because >> nothing they said involves you (they've told you what >> works for them, which is nice but useless).
> Hell, I knew that, but never hurts ask.
> Always good to hear from you, Floyd ;) > nb
So, dop it all photography with nature and landscapes...
I would recommend a 10D, 20D or 350D / 400D Put the rest of your budget in lensen, *good* lenses.
Then start saving for a full frame
My 2 cents...
Personally, I am still with my 300D (Rebel XT), got some great lenses and I am after a full frame now.
> "Ron Recer" <RonRe...@aol.com> wrote in message > news:006ea6ba$0$23475$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... >> Be sure to get the EF 75-300 IS USM not just the EF 75-300 USM. The >> Image Stabilization is well worth the price!
>> Ron > Hold on! If weight is an issue forget it. The IS lens weighs a ton > [slight exaggeration].
If you are going to shoot much at 300 hand held the IS is great if you can't use a fast shutter speed. I bought one when I purchased my 10D and was glad to have the IS. Now I use a 100-400 IS and at 400 the IS is often necessary for hand held shots.
If you plan on taking many wildlife shots you need all the zoom you can get and hand held you need IS!
|
