2 350 D bodies

jamiewexler wrote in post #4177674
Shoot - I effed up then .

My first (free) wedding as the pro:

1 300D Digital Rebel
1 kit lens
1 50 f1.8
1 Cheap @ss Sigma 55-200
1 Sigma ef500 DG Super flash
...and it was still better gear than I was...

Ok.............you got me. I effed up.

No, you gave good advice - I was dang lucky that nothing went wrong without a BU!

My main concern of owning anything below the XXD line besides the obvious image quality difference is the lack of incredibly longer battery time. Grips are a God-Send. I agree with most of what's been said in the thread as well.

Define incredibly longer battery time? One battery lasts about 800-1000 exposures on the 350D. Of course more with a battery grip and two batteries.

CyberPet wrote in post #4178758
Define incredibly longer battery time? One battery lasts about 800-1000 exposures on the 350D. Of course more with a battery grip and two batteries.

I think you answered your own question. I like to shoot straight through projects without power changes. Grips will generally get you through an entire day/wedding. There's nothing worse than missing something important when you're changing batteries.

??? You can buy a grip for a 350D/400D...

Then your talking almost 2k images, I can't see shooting more than that.

amonline wrote in post #4177741
My main concern of owning anything below the XXD line besides the obvious image quality difference is the lack of incredibly longer battery time. Grips are a God-Send. I agree with most of what's been said in the thread as well.

Show me some examples of this "obvious image quality difference" you speak of.

If I was to show you pictures from a 350d and a 1d Mk II, same lens, I highly doubt you'd be able to spot any differences. Perhaps at very high ISO's, there might be a tiny difference, but across the board, I bet you couldn't pick which picture was which.

slappy sam wrote in post #4178884
??? You can buy a grip for a 350D/400D...

Then your talking almost 2k images, I can't see shooting more than that.

No, I said in body at or above the XXD line.

brenno wrote in post #4178891
Show me some examples of this "obvious image quality difference" you speak of.

If I was to show you pictures from a 350d and a 1d Mk II, same lens, I highly doubt you'd be able to spot any differences. Perhaps at very high ISO's, there might be a tiny difference, but across the board, I bet you couldn't pick which picture was which.

You can't be serious. I'm not talking about final 4x6 processed prints here. I'm talking about what you have to work with at the computer. There's quite a difference.

I don't have anything but my 40's now or I'd do a comparison. I won't argue about it, but I can see a vast difference in the results I'm getting. I assume it's mostly due to the newer Digic III.

If glass was the 99% contributing factor as you made it sound in your earlier post in the thread, we'd all be shooting Rebels. However, glass is only 50% of the equation - thus, the reason everyone strives for higher end SLR's.

amonline wrote in post #4179597
However, glass is only 50% of the equation - thus, the reason everyone strives for higher end SLR's.

So every wedding photographer better be shooting with the highest end cam on the market, otherwise they are doing themselves or their clients an injustice?? C'mon mate, that's just frogs**t.

I'm sorry, I disagree. I'm not here to argue either, but when someone ask's for help spending their hard-earned cash, and what they get is info saying they need a 40d, 5d, 1d mk III or whatever to get better IQ as your post clearly states, its simply wrong. I know, I've been in the situation before.

Everyone probably strives for higher end cam's due to the spot metering, better high ISO performance, picture styles, etc, or perhaps even their own ego's (EG. I need better gear than the guests, or I am inferior!!). Hell, I want the best gear I can get too, but I don't kid myself thinking that a higher end body is going to give me superior IQ results compared to the cam I've been using. Better functions, controls, ISO performance, AF performance?? Yeah, probably.

I upgraded to a 1d mk II and now 40d, and kept my 350d as back up. Did the 1d mk II give me better IQ than the 350d?? Put simply, no it didn't. Did the better glass I purchased give better IQ than the kit lens or lower end lenses?? Hell yeah!!

I say again, if I put to you a 350d image against a 1d mk II or 30d or 20d or even 40d if you like, with the same glass, I think you would have trouble picking which was which.

I've blown up several 350d pic's to 20x30 (cropped!!) and they came out great, so this 4x6 nonsense is just that, nonsense!!

Glass will be the determining factor, rather than the body when it comes to IQ.

brenno wrote in post #4181631
So every wedding photographer better be shooting with the highest end cam on the market, otherwise they are doing themselves or their clients an injustice?? C'mon mate, that's just frogs**t.

I didn't say that either. You don't read very well, do you? I said something at or above the XXD line.

brenno wrote in post #4181631
I'm sorry, I disagree. I'm not here to argue either, but when someone ask's for help spending their hard-earned cash, and what they get is info saying they need a 40d, 5d, 1d mk III or whatever to get better IQ as your post clearly states, its simply wrong. I know, I've been in the situation before.

Again, you can't be serious. You're actually saying there's no benefit in image quality by owning a higher quality camera? Are you serious? You know, there is a reason why Canon and other manufacturers make several levels.

brenno wrote in post #4181631
Everyone probably strives for higher end cam's due to the spot metering, better high ISO performance, picture styles, etc, or perhaps even their own ego's (EG. I need better gear than the guests, or I am inferior!!). Hell, I want the best gear I can get too, but I don't kid myself thinking that a higher end body is going to give me superior IQ results compared to the cam I've been using. Better functions, controls, ISO performance, AF performance?? Yeah, probably.

So, you agree everyone strives for higher end like I said. You also agree it's because of things like "spot metering, high ISO performance, etc". Are you blind to what you are saying? What do these things produce for results? That's right, better image quality. You're really making my point for me here.

brenno wrote in post #4181631
I upgraded to a 1d mk II and now 40d, and kept my 350d as back up. Did the 1d mk II give me better IQ than the 350d?? Put simply, no it didn't. Did the better glass I purchased give better IQ than the kit lens or lower end lenses?? Hell yeah!!

If your 1D/40D is not giving you better quality, it's because you don't know how to use the camera(s) properly. I also never said glass was not a factor. It obviously helps, but you're just being thick to say all camera levels perform the exact same.

brenno wrote in post #4181631
I say again, if I put to you a 350d image against a 1d mk II or 30d or 20d or even 40d if you like, with the same glass, I think you would have trouble picking which was which.

I've blown up several 350d pic's to 20x30 (cropped!!) and they came out great, so this 4x6 nonsense is just that, nonsense!!

Once again, read my posts more carefully. I said not at such a small print size. However, you're dead wrong about an enlargement to such a large size. Anyone on this forum could spot the differences in something that large. You even said so yourself with the "higher ISO performance". Again, before you go quoting me all wrong, I'm talking about no processing.

brenno wrote in post #4181631
Glass will be the determining factor, rather than the body when it comes to IQ.

Only to a degree.

Seriously, your arguements are laughable.

amonline wrote in post #4178786
I think you answered your own question. I like to shoot straight through projects without power changes. Grips will generally get you through an entire day/wedding. There's nothing worse than missing something important when you're changing batteries.

Uhm... I still don't understand your post above, where you talk about "lack of incredible longer battery life". What is it with the 350D/400D that is worse than 30D/40D when it comes to battery life? I want to know what you base this comment on, what facts. My own experience is that they are the same.

My batteries last a whole day, and I've never had to change batteries in the camera during a shoot, even if it's been 12 or 14 hours day. The batteries would last me many hours more, if I had wanted And I use grips on both the 30D and the 350D.

Yes, the 30D/40D have better IQ than a 350D, when it comes to noise in higher ISO's. But saying that the 350D is not a good camera, is kind of rude. The IQ from the 350D is better than almost any Nikon camera.

CyberPet wrote in post #4182486
Uhm... I still don't understand your post above, where you talk about "lack of incredible longer battery life". What is it with the 350D/400D that is worse than 30D/40D when it comes to battery life? I want to know what you base this comment on, what facts. My own experience is that they are the same.

My batteries last a whole day, and I've never had to change batteries in the camera during a shoot, even if it's been 12 or 14 hours day. The batteries would last me many hours more, if I had wanted And I use grips on both the 30D and the 350D.

Most wedding photogs take somewhere in the 800-1600 images per day range. I was simply stating that I like the image quality and battery life of the next line of cameras up from the OP. Thus, I was giving him the thought of waiting just a bit to get a better camera. (the actual question he asked about) He already realizes he needs more/better glass. It's nice to not have to stop shooting and risk missing something important by having to replace batteries. That's all. A simple thought expressed in a simple way.

CyberPet wrote in post #4182510
Yes, the 30D/40D have better IQ than a 350D, when it comes to noise in higher ISO's. But saying that the 350D is not a good camera, is kind of rude. The IQ from the 350D is better than almost any Nikon camera.

Are you sure? Not according to brenno.

I never said the 350 is a "bad camera". I just offered a thought about an added perk to taking the next step. While I didn't go out of my way to go deeper into why he should invest in the "next step", I offered a simple perk that's available to him by doing so. I could have mentioned the differences in ISO, chips, AF, bitrate, color and much, much more. I think it's really funny that I got jumped simply because I said, "hey, you can double your battery time and image quality."

If the OP is happy with his 350, then it is totally up to them to justify purchasing another. Coming here to ask about it shows he has doubt.

I almost bought a second 350D for wedding photography. I'm so glad I got a 30D instead. Thank heavens B&H wanted to ring me to check that it really was me at the address given so I could change my order :d

Perfect rhys... why do you feel you made a better decision taking the next step. Why are you "so glad" you did? Just curious on your take.