Glass or Camera

I have been a 300D owner for 4 years now and I have read so many posts that getting better glass is always the way to go. However, what is your take having the first generation of the Digital Rebel instead of some better technology out there today. So... $1200 to spend by better glass (see sig) or get a better camera?

thoughts appreciated
Scott

I would suggest a new all round zoom lens like the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or something like that.

You could go up a notch to the 350D, although you will probably notice a bigger differnce if you go up to a 400D.

There comes a point when you have good glass and it's time to step up the body. You don't have to have all of the top L lenses before upgrading the body is a wise decision.

Having said that, I still use a 10D, which puts out similar IQ to the 300D. Having better lenses on it does make a difference. It's slow though, as is the 300D. If you find that to be a nuisance or shoot a lot more high ISO work, it may be time to get into a newer model. I wouldn't want to have the 10D as my only body. I have a 1D Mark II for speed and high ISO.

Go for glass. The 17-55 2.8 IS is a pretty fine lens which is just under your price range. It works in a very workable focal range and with the fast glass/IS combination, is a very good low light lens.
If you are planning to get a new camera, a used or refurbed 20D will be quite cheap now and will still give you some money left over to purchase another lens.

Generally, I say to go with better glass. With the Drebel it gets a little more complicated because there have been a lot of improvements. Are there issues with the Drebel that you feel are holding you back? Things like improved high iso performance, better burst capacity and frame rate, are a couple of functions that are greatly improved in the newer models. Is the Drebel still capable of taking excellant photos? Yes. A lot depends on what you shoot and how happy you've been with the results that you're getting with your current kit. Another option would be to split the difference. Get something like the XTi and still have enough left over for a nice piece of glass.

depends on what type of shooting you're doing. Sports ? Low light concerts? Landscapes? Wildlife? If you're not shooting fast action or in bursts, or want to print huge posters, and your D-reb still works, at least try one really nice lens first, maybe a 70-200L.

get better glass first.

If you were to get lenses instead, which one(s) would you get?

You could get an XTi, Tamron kit replacement type lens.

dekalbSTEEL wrote in post #3889368
depends on what type of shooting you're doing. Sports ? Low light concerts? Landscapes? Wildlife? If you're not shooting fast action or in bursts, or want to print huge posters, and your D-reb still works, at least try one really nice lens first, maybe a 70-200L.

exactly what i was going to say. it all depends on what you are shooting. if you are still satisfied with your rebel, then i'd look into getting some new glass. if you aren't, i would go out and get a new body.

I have the 300D. For the shot"s I take it's fine, but the picture quality would have be better with an "L" lens over the kit lens.

the 40d goes for 1299.Then you have a 1 year from canon if something goes wrong.A used one may sound good but if you find a problem it could cost you more than a new one when you add the fix to the price you paid.

I think you should have a good reason to upgrade before you buy anything. What's wrong with the equipment you have? Is your problem with the quality of your photos or with some difficulty you have using the camera and lenses?

Ultimately it's going to depend on what you're trying to do.

If there's a focal length range that isn't covered by your gear that you really need to cover, then a lens covering that range might be worth it, depending on how often you expect to need to shoot in that range.

20Ds seem to be going for about $600 these days, with 30Ds going for around $800 or so. Many 30D owners have upgraded to the 40D so the price on those has dropped a bit.

Unless I were going to use the new focal length range a lot, I would upgrade the body. While it might not necessarily help your images all that much, I expect it will significantly improve the shooting experience. I don't know about you, but one of the big reasons I enjoy photography is the feel of handling the gear. If that weren't a significant factor, I could get away with just a point'n'shoot or something (though I wouldn't have nearly as much control over the results).

scottyo wrote in post #3889315
I have been a 300D owner for 4 years now and I have read so many posts that getting better glass is always the way to go. However, what is your take having the first generation of the Digital Rebel instead of some better technology out there today. So... $1200 to spend by better glass (see sig) or get a better camera?

thoughts appreciated
Scott

I would echo (parrot?) the responses urging glass before body.

I've gotten much, much better images out of a 20D and "L" glass than I ever got back in my film days with a T90 and mid-grade (Canon) or even better grade (Tamron) lenses.

Everyone's saying get new glass. I started with a 300D and I loved it. However, it's slow and clunky in some aspects, and if you pixelpeep, you will appreciate even the slight increase to 8mp. With 30D prices coming down so much, I would consider selling your 300D, grip, and kit lens on eBay for $375, netting you $350 after fees. You'd then have funds to purchase this 30D.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=374929
This would leave you with $595, enough to buy you a used Sigma 17-50 2.8 for $400. With your remaining $195, I'd spend $15 for a nice take out dinner and $170 on poker. You end up with a 30D with a nice lens, and dinner.