30D or 70-200 f/2.8L IS

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2186905
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.

Chris forgot already. He apologizes.

Calzinger wrote in post #2189459
Chris forgot already. He apologizes.

lol no prob. Just ribbin' you a bit.

The 30D might not be a Pro series body but next to the XT your gonna think it is. Way more solidly built camera _ as Don pointed out too, no pressing the menu buttons + set every time you want to make an adjustment. The wheel is a god send from the Rebel series.

Calzinger wrote in post #2186256
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.

You have answered yourself. You have a fantastic lens and good hand.
So go for the body. That's my 0.002 cents...

Good luck.

Calzinger wrote in post #2187077
David, thanks for the suggestions. However, most of my shooting is done at the telephoto end which is why I'm considering the lens upgrade rather than a new lens. I listed my gear below. I've been more than satisfied with the results that my other lenses have given me. I don't think I could justify spending $1000 on a lens that wouldn't see much use.

Sorry to throw in another variable, but if you're a telephoto shooter, why aren't you considering the 100-400L?

Calzinger wrote in post #2189398
And let's assume that I do upgrade to the 30D, which seems more and more likely with every post. Should I sell my XT? It's a silver one and has a bit over 31,000 actuations put on it in less than a year. Yes, I'm quite shutter-happy. I'd probably be better off using it as a backup/secondary camera with another lens on it since I need to cover plenty of events at my high school, not just sports. I don't think the sell value would be worth it. If I could even get $300, I think the sell might be worth it, but with that kind of shutter'age, can I even expect that much?

ABSOLUTELY KEEP IT! When I moved from a 10D to a 20D early this year, I made the mistake of selling the 10D. I went shooting in the mountains where I needed both wide angle and telephoto shots and missed a lot of shots because of getting sick of switching lenses back and forth. Using two cameras with two lenses just makes it that much better. So either keep your XT or find someone with a 10D willing to trade you because having two bodies is such a stress reliever.

When I bought my MKIIN, I sold my XT...then when I bought my 5D I sold my MKIIN...both times I regretted not having a back up body (for different reasons w/ea sold camera). Finally I bought the 30D as a back-up. My point? Save yourself a lot of $ and keep it as a backup until you are positive you won't ever use it as such. I doubt the XT will go down much further in price....it's dropped so severely now, that I can't see it selling for much less than $300 ever....

Permagrin wrote in post #2190577
it's dropped so severely now, that I can't see it selling for much less than $300 ever....

I have to agree. It might hit $300 but even the 10D is fetching $400-600 on the used market, depending on condition.

30D. I don't think the IS is super useful! Bring a tripod/monopod! Heck, your 70-200 already comes with a tripod ring!

I would say the 30D. I just updated yesterday and noticed the improvement right away. I love how fast and accurate the focusing is.

grego wrote in post #2188272
That's not completely true. You can still get a softer focus from some handshake, even at speeds of like 1/500. The IS will help correct that if you are hand holding in low light situations where you are forced to do the near bare minimums. Might not be as noticable, but those are factors that do effect how spot on a photo is. I know i'd see that with my 120-300 if i didn't use it on a monopod at speeds around there.

Very true, that!

You only have to ask yourself if you realy NEED IS, if not then buy the 30D, if yes then buy the IS.
How many shots have you lost using the NON IS version of your lens?
Your choice should be made on the basis of what kind of results you are getting now. Is the inconvenience of hitting the buttons with your nose causing you to lose concentration while you are shooting because you are continualy worried about hitting them?

We could all put in out 2 cents worth but in the end, it's you, that will have to determine which will get you a better hit/keep rate. Which is what it's all about.

GilesGuthrie wrote in post #2190419
Sorry to throw in another variable, but if you're a telephoto shooter, why aren't you considering the 100-400L?

I treat my 70-200 as my walkaround lens. It's just more suited for the things I tend to shoot, which is a bit of everything. The 70-200mm range and the f/2.8 max aperture are part of the reason why it's my walkaround. Given the range of the 100-400L and its max aperture, I don't think I'm ready to put in that kind of money into a lens that wouldn't see as much use as it should especially given my kind of income.

Thornfield wrote in post #2191880
Is the inconvenience of hitting the buttons with your nose causing you to lose concentration while you are shooting because you are continualy worried about hitting them?

I'm basically guaranteed that I will accidently hit the drive mode button and move into timer mode at least once during a day's shoot.

Can anyone compare the size of the viewfinder on the XT to the 30D? I've seen the viewfinder on the 20D and it does seem substantially bigger compared to the XT.

Perhaps this thread belongs in the cameras forum now.

Glass > Body

Id say get the lens, but 350D vs 30D is a huge difference. I was itchin really hard to move from my rebel to a 20D when I was shopping around.

Glass makes all the difference tho. Im waiting for something amazing before i switch from my 20D. Ill stock up on glass in hte mean time tho.

Just saw this Cal,

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=233596

Maybe that is a good deal for you?