Glass or Camera

Just asking this question implies you are content with the performance of your Rebel. Am I wrong in that? If I'm not, go with glass. When you tire of your 300D, the good glass you invested in now will still be there and you'll have had plenty of good use out of that body in the mean time. And possibly, by that time, there'll be a bigger and better and cheaper body than what's available today.

$1200 gets you into some worldclass glass.

segasaturn wrote in post #3891964
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.

yup, I'd second this as well. either 30d or 20d *and* some decent glass. the step up from the kit to the 17-50/18-50 is pretty big, and would fit in your budget if you only upgraded to the 20/30d instead of the new 40d. just a thought.

It is always about the glass. I work in a camera store, high end, and I test the various bodies of SLRs and if you want better image quality go for the lens. The bodies currently out from Rebel XT through MK III or Nikon D40 through D2Xs do not offer better image quality but the lenses sure do make a difference.

Hugh

Thanks for everyone's response. I have been toying around with the idea of upgrading the body, then i lean towrds some nice glass (70-200L f4 or f2.8/17-40L). I have been seeing focusing issues and exposure issues with the my camera. It could be the end user too. Tough to say sometimes. I hit the focus point right on and still comes out fuzzy (shutter speed plenty fast). I also have a hard time going above 200 ISO. I think the noise is pretty excessive 400+. Maybe the camera needs (or me ) a tune up!

Then I see photos by one of out POTN members (LordV, macro photography) and uses the 300D for a lot of his photos. They are so crisp, clear, colorful, etc. Here are some examples (https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=374272

Again, I would like to thank everyone for there feedback. Looks like some decisions to make.

Scotty O

Glass is where it's at.

if your goin to get a body then i woudl prob. get a 20d body with a grip, faster, better resolution and more features

Better glass.

I'm usually a subscriber to the idea that upgrading glass is better. I've got a 350 that i intend to stick with and will be getting more L glass soon. You generally get much more bang for your buck by upgrading glass.

If your camera is on the fritz then that may be a good reason to get it out. Did it used to expose properly and now doesnt? That would be a sign of hardware failure and i would kick it to the curb. I think an XTi would be a nice upgrade for you, even new it would still leave you some cash for a flash or lens money. I have shot a few of my pro stuff with the XTi and the clients are none the wiser. You ought to be able to get a new XTi and 70-200 f/4 and be in your budget.

Chris

I agree with most here although it took me some time to realize it. I had a 40D pre-ordered but cancelled the order earlier and am going to get the 35L lens instead.

There were two factors in my decision. The first being that the 30D has dropped in price too much for me to justify the $600 upgrade (after selling 30D). Second, I really want FF, so I am waiting for the new 5D. Hopefully I won't be waiting until this time next year...

kcbrown wrote in post #3891356
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).

Dekka wrote in post #3891966
Just asking this question implies you are content with the performance of your Rebel. Am I wrong in that? If I'm not, go with glass. When you tire of your 300D, the good glass you invested in now will still be there and you'll have had plenty of good use out of that body in the mean time. And possibly, by that time, there'll be a bigger and better and cheaper body than what's available today.

$1200 gets you into some worldclass glass.

If the camera's holding you back, and it sounds like its higher-ISO performance is hurting, then a body's a reasonable option. Going even to a used 20D will get you better high ISO performance and better AF performance as well. Going the used route will leave you some left over to upgrade one of your lenses, or to fill a gap in your collection. You could, for instance, replace the kit 18-55 with a faster 17050 f/2.8 from Sigma or Tamron, or get the 70-200 f/4 (non-IS) L, or a 10-20 Sigma in addition to a used 20D or maybe 30D.