Canon Newbie: XT or 20D.... and acessories?

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hello, for the last few years I have been greatly in love with photography. Shooting pictures of sporting events, flowers, land scapes. Stuff like that. I've been using some very basic cameras. I just started using digital 3 years ago and my first was a little 2.0mp fujifilm. Currently I'm using a 6.1mp Kodak EasyShare camera. I love the Kodak, and I've gotten some great shots out of it, but it's time to move onto a more.... professional/amateur type camera.

I want a relatively advanced camera that will allow me to greatly expand my knowledge of photography, and skills as a photographer. Something I can enjoy, and learn. I hate buying technology that is too easy to figure out. Takes the fun out of things.

So, anyway, the canons look sweet and now it's just a question of which one to buy! And of course what to buy with it. My faves are sports photography, nature (animals), and macro photography. I have a budget of around $3,000.00. I would like to keep it under that, but I could afford going over a bit by a couple hundred.

Right now I'm leaning towards the Rebel XT or the 20D. As for lenses..... I don't know.... the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS has definately caught my eye. L glass rocks, but at $1,400 it would pretty much deplete my cash. For that kind of money I could get myself a 75-300mm non L with IS and a 100mm Macro Lens..... and then some...... maybe even the 17-85mm for a lil more..... all that for the cost of one lens.... is L glass really all that worth it?

Sorry this is so long... but thanks to anyone who can help me out with this. I'm having a pretty tough time making a decision. So, once again, THANKS!

[tim]

There are loads of threads on this.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=67225
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=62781
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=64454

The best thing to do is read reviews, and see which suits you better. The XT will take photos as good as the 20D, it's just a little easier to control the 20D. XT's smaller. 20D does more frames per second. There's not many differences really.

I'd go for one of the 70-200 lenses rather than the 75-300: you'll just want to replace the lens soon anyway, it's not meant to be great, but then again it's not horrible either. Read this (http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56-page1.html).

[Sicily1918]

Personally I would go for the 20D (which I did in January). You seem to have far more recent expertise than I (I'd been away from serious SLR photography for a decade) and I believe you'd find the 20D better suited. It's Canon's best prosumer level camera and is built to give you many years.

Not to say the XT is bad -- it'd be my second choice if I were looking, but with your budget I'd try for the features (software and otherwise) of the 20D and build up from there. While the lenses are arguably 50% of the shot, a good body helps ;)

My choices based on what you wrote and my personality:


20D (body only, no kit) -- $1400
28-135mm IS USM is great for about $430

Alternately, the 24-85mm USM for a really nice all-around lens (it's so good I cannot justify getting the 28-135 unless mine breaks) -- $300

2nd battery -- $50
2 Sandisk and/or Lexar 80x 1GB CF cards (instead of one big card, carry two or more smaller ones... if a card dies out in the field, you can then have the option of simply switching cards) -- $170 for both and each card can hold about 220 pics (~265 at ISO 100).
420EX Flash -- great unit for only $170. Unless you're gonna do some serious flash photography this flash is better (for your wallet) than the 580, and if there comes a time when you need the 580, this one can be slaved to it so you can't lose.
This brings you up to about $2200. Now, here's the trick -- you seem like the kinda guy that needs a nice telephoto:


The 100-400L is just beautiful, but at $1400 it'll put you over by $600.
The 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM at $1150 is not bad -- it may not be an L, but it's a beautiful lens nonetheless and put you over by $350 instead (because of the small difference in price, I'd still go for the L).
The 70-200mm f/4L USM is a possibility (L glass and f/4 at 200mm), and at $550 it's a steal, but it only goes to 200mm; I think you'll be lusting for more ;), but it'd at least put you at about $2750 total... not bad and you could then save for the 100-400L.
Lastly, the 75-300 IS at $450 could hold you off for a while, but I think you'll quickly wanna go for the 100-400L and then you would have paid $450 for a lens you won't use.
So, there you have it... I think... :)

[MadTony]

Personally I would go for the 20D (which I did in January). You seem to have far more recent expertise than I (I'd been away from serious SLR photography for a decade) and I believe you'd find the 20D better suited. It's Canon's best prosumer level camera and is built to give you many years.

Not to say the XT is bad -- it'd be my second choice if I were looking, but with your budget I'd try for the features (software and otherwise) of the 20D and build up from there. While the lenses are arguably 50% of the shot, a good body helps ;)

My choices based on what you wrote and my personality:

20D (body only, no kit) -- $1400
28-135mm IS USM is great for about $430

Alternately, the 24-85mm USM for a really nice all-around lens (it's so good I cannot justify getting the 28-135 unless mine breaks) -- $300

2nd battery -- $50
2 Sandisk and/or Lexar 80x 1GB CF cards (instead of one big card, carry two or more smaller ones... if a card dies out in the field, you can then have the option of simply switching cards) -- $170 for both and each card can hold about 220 pics (~265 at ISO 100).
420EX Flash -- great unit for only $170. Unless you're gonna do some serious flash photography this flash is better (for your wallet) than the 580, and if there comes a time when you need the 580, this one can be slaved to it so you can't lose.
This brings you up to about $2200. Now, here's the trick -- you seem like the kinda guy that needs a nice telephoto:


The 100-400L is just beautiful, but at $1400 it'll put you over by $600.
The 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM at $1150 is not bad -- it may not be an L, but it's a beautiful lens nonetheless and put you over by $350 instead (because of the small difference in price, I'd still go for the L).
The 70-200mm f/4L USM is a possibility (L glass and f/4 at 200mm), and at $550 it's a steal, but it only goes to 200mm; I think you'll be lusting for more ;), but it'd at least put you at about $2750 total... not bad and you could then save for the 100-400L.
Lastly, the 75-300 IS at $450 could hold you off for a while, but I think you'll quickly wanna go for the 100-400L and then you would have paid $450 for a lens you won't use.
So, there you have it... I think... :)

one other idea...go for the 70-200 f/4 and 1.4x teleconverter. Puts you over by about $30. 1% over is pretty dang good, and that would get you out to 280mm at the long end and give you another useful tool to keep around.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Thank you all so much for the suggestions! You've been very helpful, and very detailed in your suggestions. I definately want the 100-400mm L lens, but I don't know. With the 20D that would put me way over budget..... and I wouldn't have anything for Macro shooting. I was thinking maybe I could start with a XT at 1000 with standard lens, get the 400mm which would put me at about 2450ish, a 100mm macro which would put me up to about 2900. Then maybe another 2-300 in acessories. (Memory, tripod, bag, ect.) Then I'd have just about everything I want. Then again, the 20D is so amazing, and I hate how small the XT is... Maybe I should just start with a 75-300mm IS lens and a 20D with standard lens. That'd keep me at around 2300 after acessories and everything. Then I could keep saving up for a while, play with the camera to get a feel for it and decide on what lenses to purchase afterwards. Hmmmmmmm such a tough choice.

Well, thanks so much to the people who have responded so far, and thanks in advance to who ever else posts a response.

[Skip Souza]

This site (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/eos_digital_rebel_xt_vs_20d.html)is what did it for me. I almost got the XT which I think is a great camera. Besure you handle each before you buy and get the one that fits.

For the money I wish I would have got the 70-200mm f/4 L as having decent reach, excellent quality and can be combined with the 1.4X TC for a reasonable cost per mm.

I also would have gotten Tamron SP AF28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD (IF) macro. My wife has this lens and it is crisp, fast focusing, and reasonable compared to a similar L lens.

Don't agonize or your choices just do the best you can and have fun.

Photography is like life. It is too important to take seriously.:lol:

P.S. I do lust after the 100-400 L...................someday:mrgreen:

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Haha, definately right. I shouldn't be stressin over it I guess. Thanks for the help I'll go check that site out right now.

[tim]

one other idea...go for the 70-200 f/4 and 1.4x teleconverter. Puts you over by about $30. 1% over is pretty dang good, and that would get you out to 280mm at the long end and give you another useful tool to keep around.

It will give you a 112-280 F5.6, which IMHO is next to useless. I returned a 70-300 F4-F5.6 lens because with F5.6 you could only take photos in bright daylight if you cranked the ISO way up or used a tripod. Even with the tripod if you're subject's moving you want the shutter speed.