How important is the body, really?

[mij]

Hello.

I have long since grown out of my old compact Fuji (well not so compact) and finally decided it is time to do something about it. I have done a lot of reading on various sites and forums and seem to have been left questioning conventional wisdom.

The general consensus seems to be to buy the cheapest body that does what you want and then invest in the best lenses your budget allows because this is what will make the difference, and will last. But when reading reviews about the 30D it is often remarked that the same lenses produce significantly better and sharper pictures with it than they did with a 350D. That it allows you to take decent pictures with lower apertures and higher ISO than would otherwise not have been possible.

This makes me wonder whether I would be better with a 30D than a 350D. The two types of picture that most interest me are landscapes (including at night) and sports. So there is an appeal in a faster body, in terms of focusing rather than fps, which would work better in low light.

Given that the difference in price between the two at £300 is a reasonable lens, am I just falling victim to wanting the latest and greatest technology [that I can afford]? Are those reviews overselling the difference?

As an aside, an embarrassingly novice question, but when focusing is referred to as slow on a DSLR, would it still be faster than a simple P+S camera or does the extra complexity make it slower? I am wondering whether the 350D would just be so superior to what I have now that a 30D would be overkill.

Although I want to spend as little as I can, I would rather get something now that will last than to buy with an expectation of wanting to upgrade later on. I also expect I would buy the same lenses regardless of body, so it is not an issue of compromising here.

Many thanks in advance for any help.

Michael.

[dbiggs]

The IQ of the 2 bodies with the same lenes in daylight will be roughly the same however the 30D has better noise reduction for your night shots and more frames per second for your sports. I would go with the 30D all the way

[Jon]

For landscapes, the 350D is fully capable; for sports, many people will find one or another feature of the 30D invaluable. Depending on your technique, either the bigger buffer or the faster burst rate of the 30D, or both, may be more satisfactory. Depending on the sport, spot metering may also help. The larger screen may help you get back to shooting faster after checking the histogram, since the larger graph and "blinky" image will be easier to grasp if there's no problem. If you're working indoors or at night, ISO 3200 of the 30D may help over ISO 1600 of the 350D (but a 1-stop faster lens, for about the same difference in price, will too).If you're just starting out shooting sports, I'd recommend that you go with the 350D and good fast, long glass, and learn to spot the "decisive moment".

[ofdphoto]

There is a difference in focussing speed between 350D and 30D, but it's pretty small, esp. if you have no plans to shoot timing-critical low-light events. (That said, I shoot weddings with my 350D ... it works fine ... I only want to upgrade to a 30D for ease of use reasons).

The only other difference between the cameras that may have an impact on image quality is noise handling. The 350D is slightly noisier at faster film speeds than the 30D. Again, only very slightly.

In most tests I've seen, the image quality difference between 350D and 30D is utterly negligible. If you have no plans to go pro and your hands aren't too big for the 350D (I'm serious about that!), I'd go with a 350D and put the extra cash towards good glass (eg. a 70-200 f/4L).

The focussing speed of the 350D will stagger you, even with the kit lens. Upgrade to an L and you'll be even more impressed. You'll won't even notice the difference with the body in most situations.

Oh, and welcome to the forums!

[liza]

I'd go with the 30D for the faster autofocus. That can be crucial when shooting sports. I also like the command dial setup for changing settings on the fly. I use an XT and a 20D side by side, and prefer the 20D for the reasons I've already listed.

[x2x3x4x5x]

I'd go with the 30D for the faster autofocus.
Is all that extra money worth a barely noticable difference in AF speed? The 30D is no doubt the better camera, but I'd much rather save the extra cash, and get a good lense.

[René Damkot]

For some situations, it is, for others not. Depends a lot on the kind of pictures you take...

[KevC]

Some reasons people upgrade bodies:

-build quality (ever held a 1-series? You'll know)
-AF speed/accuracy
-brighter viewfinder
-smaller crop

You'll find that IMAGE QUALITY isn't on that list. Why? With the quality glass, a low end body will produce AMAZING results, as long as it is exposed and focussed properly. =)

[Tom W]

It would be hard for me to recommend either one over the other in general, but do note that the 30D does have better AF, particularly when hooked to an f/2.8 or faster lens. If you're shooting sports, that is a plus.

I think that you ought to look at the feature lists for both and make note of the features that you may prefer. See if one of both have those features.

Then go out and handle both. The 350D is a great camera, but for some users, it is too small. For others, the small size is a plus.

Finally, look at a few test report results and compare the performance of each in contrast to your needs.

[liza]

Is all that extra money worth a barely noticable difference in AF speed? The 30D is no doubt the better camera, but I'd much rather save the extra cash, and get a good lense.

I don't call 3x faster barely noticeable. When I shoot basketball, I get a significantly higher number of keepers with the 20D vs. the XT. Experiences may vary, but that's mine.

[MikeMcL]

My vote is for the 350d. Especially that you are coming from point and shoot. The 350d is leaps and bounds beyond the P&S in many ways. if you are a photo enthusiast, hobbiest or "part-time Pro" the 350d will give you much more capability than you will ever use. it is the best VALUE for sure.

That said, if you have surplus cash, always go with the best... I personally would rather shop value and leave my savings account in the savings account. you have to draw the line somewhere.

I know several people that make a living behind the 350d. it is possible. it is not a bad choice at all. much better to spend the money on a good stable of lenses, IMO. In the end, most people here will probably tell you to go for the 30d, and you can't go wrong there, but I am very happy with my camera...

Either way, you will be astounded at the capabilities of your new camera. Good Luck, and welcome.

[grego]

For sports, the 30D will win any day of the week. Now of course the 350D with the 300 2.8 IS vs the 30D with the 70-300 would lose, but then glass is more important. Then body.

30D is your best bet if you want sports. Aside from the AF advantages, you have a higher frames per second count which can be useful. And then it has a bigger buffer(which goes highly underrated). If you shoot low light sports, the 1/3 ISO stop is nice. I've shot stuff recently where I just needed to shoot a 1000 or 1250, rather than kicking up all the way to 1600.

They are all tools(body, lens, flashes, etc) though. The photographer can take advantage of them or not.

But keep in mind, the 30D is a better camera relatively speaking. That's why Canon prices it higher. Now that's relative to the user as well. If you are never going to do action, then the 30D isn't going to be as valuable.

[bachscuttler]

A maybe important consideration if you are wanting the body to last you some time is shutter life.

It's certainly a worry of mine and I'm upgrading shortly.

Do some research on the 350d and 30d or I'm sure someone here can post the expected life data.

On the other hand, if you are dipping your toe in the world of DSLR you may want to test the water so to speak before you part with your money.

I know a handful of people who couldn't take to it and have gone back.

[dkord]

Like everyone says, it depends on how you're going to use the cameras.
The 30D is heavier built, the button layout is more design for someone who like to make changes on the fly. Yes the focus is faster, fast enough to keep up with 5 frames per second and have more keepers. To optimize that focusing speed, you really need to look at USM lenses that's 2.8 or faster. You put a slug on it and yeah, you won't notice much difference compared to a camera shooting 3 frames per second.

For predominately landscapes, you will not notice much difference in image quality.

But when reading reviews about the 30D it is often remarked that the same lenses produce significantly better and sharper pictures with it than they did with a 350D.

I would like to know who wrote that review.
The 30D/20D's parameters(adjustable) are usually set less aggressively than the Rebel XT(350D). Which means out of the camera's default, the 350D's image is suppose to be sharper and more saturated that the 30D.
The sensor between the 30D and 20D is the same, the characteristics of those two should be identical.

DPReview:
The model line in which the EOS 30D sits has seen a total of five models, each offering either an upgrade in features, resolution or both... So eighteen months after the EOS 20D comes the EOS 30D, which honestly has to be one of the least exciting upgrades so far. The real headline improvements are a larger LCD monitor, standardizing on 'Picture Style', spot metering, third stop ISO selection and selectable continuous shooting speeds. Despite this subtle update there's still a huge amount of interest around this model, Canon has taken the "if it ain't broken don't fix it" approach to the image pipeline, the EOS 30D has the same sensor and image processor (DIGIC II) as the EOS 20D, and that camera has for the eight megapixel digital SLR benchmark since it was introduced.


So if you can be swayed to getting the 350D(Rebel XT in North America) you might want to take a look at a used 20D, save some of that money and get some great glass.

About the shutter actuation's, the 30D is officially rated for 100k. The 20D is undisclosed, but the Canon Museum mentions,"The shutter durability is about twice that of the EOS 10D".
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/f_index.html
2004/20D: point 8.
From my understanding, the 10D, Rebel and Rebel XT is about 50k though I don't have Canon's offical word on that.

[mij]

Thanks you all for the advice, you have made it a difficult decision again, which is not necessarily a bad thing!

I must admit I never really thought of longevity in terms of the shutter life span, despite it being something I was aware of, so that is certainly something to consider. Because the 30D is relatively new and does seem to be holding its value well for resale I feel safe taking the gamble that I might not take to it as I know I will not lose out too badly.

But it is something I see as a long-ish term investment and so baring any amazing advances in the next few years I want something I will be happy with without having to worry about upgrading or replacing. Something that will last twice as long seems something worth paying for.

Certainly you have all got me reconsidering the 350D again though. It might need to be settled by judging them both in person and whether the smaller size is easier to handle.

Thanks again, hopefully before too long I will have something decent in my hands and might even be able to be someone productive on this site when the next noobie comes along with questions!

Michael.

[oni0n56]

I would actually go with the 20D over both. I believe theyre 999 at B&H with psmay.

[Moppie]

Im just about to step into a DSLR, but Iv been luckey enough to have used several 300D's, a 350D, and good collection of 20D's.
While the IQ might be very, very close on all of these, Im going to go and buy a 30D simply because its just a little better than a 20D (which is getting hard to get here new).
I don't think in terms of features its worth NZ$1000 more than a 350D, but in terms of how it feels to use, for me, I think its worth it.
I like the two control dails, so I can shoot manual and adjust both apature and shutter with out taking my eye of the viewfinder, and Iv used a 300D and a 20D with canons el-crapo old 70-300, and thought the 20D simply made a more stable, easier to hold platform.

[michael_]

fancy having the same name and a similar dilemma i faced when i was purchasing my 30D, i was after longevity and build quality as well as the best IQ quality and features for what i wanted, i couldnt justify spending the money on a 5D (even though it would be nice) but i wanted something on par with the 350D feature wise but more pro oriented as i would like to take photography as far as i can and feel the 30D could get me there with good lens choices, i think its like the decision to buy the IS 70-200 2.8 or non-IS, both are awesome but the IS (if you can afford it) is the better choice in the long run and most versatile.