30D or 70-200 f/2.8L IS

Well, it's almost time for me to go spend some cash that I've been saving. I can't seem to decide whether I would be better off with a camera upgrade or a lens upgrade. I currently have a 350D and a 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS. I've been dreaming for the IS for some time now, but I have also had this feeling of "I need more camera". While my XT has given me outstanding pictures, I can't help but feel like, again, I need more camera.

I could sell my 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS for let's say $950 and get the IS for $1600 using psaug. Let's say psaug isn't around when I make the order and I only get $900 for the 2.8L, that's around $900 for the upgrade. Do I need the IS? Anyone who has gone shooting with me and has seen my images will tell you that I don't. But I know there were instances when IS would have easily saved a poorly executed shot. I can consistently shoot 200mm at 1/50", and I obviously can't help but wonder what would be possible with IS. Would IS actually improve the consistency of my photos? Probably.

B&H carries the 30D for $1140 with psaug. Do I need a 30D? Like said, my XT has given me high quality pictures, but it doesn't feel like enough camera. I'm not just talking about the physical build quality but the features as well. The quicker focusing speed would be a large benefit as I do mostly action shooting such as candids and sports. The slightly bigger viewfinder (as I noticed on the 20D, I assume it's the same on the 30D) did feel much more comfortable actually. While it was still nothing compared to the full-frame cameras, I did notice it immediately. While 3 fps is usually sufficient, it's nowhere near enough to give you some images to play with like with what 5 fps can deliver. I can't ignore the build quality. I have enormous hands, and now that I don't let my XT lie on my neck too much anymore, I'm beginning to realize how uncomfortable the camera feels in my hands. I was thinking about getting a handstrap, but thought it might be a bit clumsy when switching from landscape to portrait as I tend to switch quite often. The larger LCD is obviously an awesome benefit, but I've become quite adept at chimping on the smaller LCD of the XT. I know what's sharp and what isn't. But hey, if it saves time, why not!

Would the 30D deliver better pictures? Probably not, but I'd sure as hell feel much more comfortable behind the camera. Then again, I'm not even sure if that comfort would be $1140 worth of comfort.

How does the 30D compare to the XT in IQ and high-ISO performance? I know the IQ of the IS VS non-IS is a non-issue.

Should I decide to get the 30D, I would still be keeping my XT. I've put way too many miles on it for it to even be worth a few pennies. I'd use it as a backup and put another lens on it.

I'm just a high school student so the only money I have is the money I make with my photos. There's no "buy this now, buy that later". Later really is later.

Thanks in advance for the help.

Always buy lenses before bodies

lenses are waaay more important to me than the bodies.

The non-IS is an excellent version of that lens (we used to own it) and I'm wondering if you've rented the IS version and find it to be so much of an improvement to your photographs that you "need" it?

As for your comments of why you'd like to upgrade the camera, they are all very good points, and if you are making $ with your shooting, I'd definitely do the camera upgrade. I've seen pros often use the 30D (as a backup and sometimes their main camera but never the xt) I found all those things lacking when I owned my XT and upgraded....lack of spot metering alone made me upgrade from the xt.

Get the 30D. It handles a lot better.

You already have the 70-200 2.8L, so might be better to go for the body upgrade this time. Then you could always chase the IS later.

IS is just one factor. You already have the great 70-200 series lens. With the 30D, you'd get a bigger buffer, 1/3 ISO stops, a real control dial, spot metering, 5fps, better AF.

BTW, its nice to have 2 camera bodies. And the 70-200 2.8IS seems to be around 1600 in B&H's codes all the time, so it probably won't disappear.

I'd upgrade the body. I love my 20D + 70-200 combo, I can't imagine that the 350D balances well with it it all.

I would go for the body

glass. always glass.

Dante King wrote in post #2186813
glass. always glass.

Seriously mighty King friend? Would you, if you only owned an xt buy glass first (especially if you owned the same lens as a non IS?)

"glass. always glass" is really only applicable when you either have no glass, or what you have sucks. OP's glass certainly does not suck.

So far I'm currently sided with the camera body because I feel like the 30D may open new shot opportunities. While I may not find an increase in image quality with the camera upgrade, a new camera may change and hopefully improve how I shoot action.

What can I expect in terms of image quality/high iso noise performance from the 30D compared to the XT? Like I've been saying, I'm more than satisfied with the IQ that the XT gives me. The lens upgade would actually increase the keepers and the consistency of my shots whereas the camera upgrade would make me more comfortable/confident.

Am I better off waiting for the next iteration of the 30D?

With all due respect, it seems like the "glass always before camera" suggestions are coming from those who aren't even reading my post. I guess I've already answered my own question.

30D!
You will see a difference in performance, better..more accurate AF, faster response. Better built body. Good time to buy 30D, with the rebates
and all. But..I say that because you already have some good glass.
If you use a monopod or tripod, the IS isn't an advantage. If you are handholding, the IS can be advantage. I shoot highschool football with a
70-200 f/2.8 non IS, and have been very pleased. Till I added a 200 f/2.8
prime. (lighter...much more handholdable..but that's another thread)

Calzinger wrote in post #2186884
So far I'm currently sided with the camera body because I feel like the 30D may open new shot opportunities. While I may not find an increase in image quality with the camera upgrade, a new camera may change and hopefully improve how I shoot action.

What can I expect in terms of image quality/high iso noise performance from the 30D compared to the XT? Like I've been saying, I'm more than satisfied with the IQ that the XT gives me. The lens upgade would actually increase the keepers and the consistency of my shots whereas the camera upgrade would make me more comfortable/confident.

Am I better off waiting for the next iteration of the 30D?

With all due respect, it seems like the "glass always before camera" suggestions are coming from those who aren't even reading my post. I guess I've already answered my own question.

IQ is pretty similiar. There's a bit less noise but not significant. Nailing the exposure is key regardless of the camera. You'll notice better, more consistent AF, especially in AI Servo. Tracking will be easier. Not a 1 series easier, but definitely an improvement. One shot will be more precise. Again, not drastic but noticable. You can also keep your noise down a bit better with the 30D since you don't have to select full stop increments. If you're maxed out and need 1600 you can't do much about that, but if you only need ISO1000, you can use it. You don't have to automatically go all the way up to 1600 as with the XT.

On-the-fly changes are easier. The command wheel makes it faster and more natural. No more accidentally activating the timer.

For what it's worth, I didn't read your entire post either. BUT as soon as I saw the lens you have, and the lens you're thinking about...I knew the body would be a better choice. IS is only good on static subjects...and if you can do it now, you can do it with the 30D. Get the IS lens later when money isn't a problem...

get the body and use a monopod. the 30D is super sweet man.