Differences between the Rebel and 30D?

I currently have the Rebel - really like it...I use it alot with the Tamron lens. I would like to upgrade to the 30D. Just wondering if anyone else made this switch and was able to tell a difference in the quality of the pictures. I just started doing family portraits, so I'm hoping the 30d will give me better quality. I have gotten some very good pictures with the Rebel. Thanks for your thoughts.

After reading some posts, I'm now thinking keep the Rebel and get another lens...Have a Tamron 18-200 ( I think that's the range??)...I'm thinking I should spend the money on the new L lens - 24-105...

I upgraded from XT and feels like hell allot of difference... 30D is much better in use, % of keeper shots have increased significantly, and I see more shots being pinned sharp as hell - rate for focus problems with XT was way higher

I was in the same situation as you not too long ago. I had my Rebel and kit lens, and thought about upgrading the body. I ended up buying a couple of lenses and now I see no reasons to upgrade, yet.

I think for portrait work the Rebel is just fine, so I'd recommend getting some new glass .

-Sam

I just upgraded from an original DRebel to the 30D. In general use, the photos are very similar in quality. 2MP increase from 6 isn't really that big. However, on high ISO shots, the 30D does have less noise than the DRebel. However, for still portrait or landscape shooting the Rebel is fine.

The 30D is a huge step up in responsiveness and usability. It's far easier to change settings on the fly, switch focus points (the first thing anyone should do is switch focus point selection to the little mini-controller), etc. It's also infinitely better at capturing moving subjects. Usable AI Servo (though obviously not to 1D standards), much shorter shutter lag and mirror blackout, and 5 fps for a good amount of shots makes it a much better camera for event or sports photography. I upgraded because I have begun shooting a lot of events (performance with lots of movement), and moving people (like my nephew). The Rebel just couldn't cut it in those situations. Plus the 30D just feels so much better in the hand.

So, based on that, make your choice.

288GTO wrote in post #2401467
I was in the same situation as you not too long ago. I had my Rebel and kit lens, and thought about upgrading the body. I ended up buying a couple of lenses and now I see no reasons to upgrade, yet.

I think for portrait work the Rebel is just fine, so I'd recommend getting some new glass .

-Sam

Everyone says the same thing until they actually upgrade! Then when you do you kick yourself in the ass for not doing it sooner!

Does anyone have any pictures with both cameras and the same lens?

Thanks!

I upgraded about 2 months ago from a 300d to 30D. Its a big difference, the 300d feels like a toy compared to the 30D. I wish I would have upgraded sooner.

Here's a couple of shots with a 300D with 70-200 F2.8 IS and the another shot at the same event with my 20D with 70-200 F2.8 IS. (identical IQ of the 30D).
As you can see, there isn't much difference. However the handling and speed of the 20D/30D are SO MUCH better than the Rebel.

Image 1 (Digital Rebel with 70-200 F2.8 IS - F2.8, ISO 800, 1/160 sec)

HTTP response: 500 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 500 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

NOLA wrote in post #2401279
I currently have the Rebel - really like it...I use it alot with the Tamron lens. I would like to upgrade to the 30D. Just wondering if anyone else made this switch and was able to tell a difference in the quality of the pictures. I just started doing family portraits, so I'm hoping the 30d will give me better quality. I have gotten some very good pictures with the Rebel. Thanks for your thoughts.

If you have the XT, keep it and get L lenses. That will improve the IQ of your shots (not necessarily the composition ) more than moving to the 30D, unless you need the 3200 ISO, better built body and 5fps...oops, sorry, I didn't mean to market the 30D. The 30D also is rated at 100k clicks. The rebel is significantly short of that, if I recall right (check www.dpreview.com).

Toogy's pics look same to me on IQ. Interesting. I think it is the lens myself.

Before I sold my 300D after I got my 30D I did some direct comparisons across the Aperture range. I can't access my site from work but if you use the link inmy sig you should find the gallery under 'other' category.

I will post a direct link later.

I bought good glass before upgrading but the 30D is a wold ahead of the 300D on useability and handling.

StewartR just yesterday pointed me to a great statement on this question from another thread:

Yes, the 30D (or a used 20D, by the way) will perform nicer (faster, more convenient) and offer you slightly better image quality than your 300D. So will a 350D or 400D (faster).

However, you have to completely compare the 2 options:

1) New 30D + Tamron 18-200 ... more convenient, faster, marginally better image quality

2) old 300D + new lens (e.g. 70-200/2.8 L or 24-105/4 IS L or some good primes) ... slightly better handling (faster AF, brighter viewfinder), and most likely dramatically improved image quality

So my vote would go to better glass, wait maybe another year or two, and upgrade your camera when you feel you have reached its limits.

Best regards,
Andy

Link to 300D vs 30D pics

http://www.e-scapephotography.co.uk​/gallery/1343486

I understand what you mean. I KNOW that the 30D is better then my 300D. I had the opportunity to use one for a couple of shots and its amazing. But I would not want to have a 30D with the kit lens only. I'll get one when I feel I really NEED one. So far I'm happy with new glass.

Pretty much what Andy said .