2 350 D bodies

amonline wrote in post #4181757
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.

Everything i've read indicates that cameras of the same generation produce similar image quality. ie the 20D/30D and 1D2 are similar. The 40D/1D3 are similar (though ISO6400 on the 1D3 is different). I don't believe the 30D has significantly better image quality than the 350D.

tim wrote in post #4184525
Everything i've read indicates that cameras of the same generation produce similar image quality. ie the 20D/30D and 1D2 are similar. The 40D/1D3 are similar (though ISO6400 on the 1D3 is different). I don't believe the 30D has significantly better image quality than the 350D.

Agreed. Not significant, but the ability to get better images with the different onboard upgraded tools is there; provided the user knows how to use the camera correctly.

The whole "new generation" changes in Digic, bitrate, etc. is exactly what I was trying to convey without explaining my day away and starting a whole new 40D thread.

Bottom line is there is a difference and in an experienced user's hands, the difference will be seen.

I'm like you Tim, in that I'll take my 40D's over most of the rest of the line available at this time. What will crush me is when the 7D finally hits the shelves.

amonline wrote in post #4182960
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.

Actually, the OP asked if s/he should buy a second 350D, so s/he could use the same model (for different lenses) to know exactly where all the controls were, or buy another body and have the 350D as the backup.

At least that's how I read the question.

And I find it kind of insulting to those who use/d the 350D's and take fairly good images. I take it personally, as I've been shooting with them for a good while, and they have served me very well. I did opt for two of the same model for the same reason that the OP is asking about, and are now at a stage where I'm replacing the 350D's for 30D/40D instead, and eventually also a 5D, as I want three bodies (I hate sensor dust! )

from my own experience the 30d's noise at 800 and 1600 is much, much better than the 350d. also the image quality is much better if you have to push the exposure in post with the 30d files. both of these attributes are very helpful for wedding work.

My opinion is to get the second XT/350D. By the time you've pushed the cameras to the point where the "better" bodies will make a difference in your images, you'll have no questions about the usefulness of your XT bodies. You will also have likely earned enough with your photography to pay the difference. The XT is a fine camera and I recently faced a similar decision and I chose the XTi (close enough).

From my perspective, smaller steps for now and run a little later.

Kevin

amonline wrote in post #4181757
Seriously, your arguements are laughable.

My arguements are laughable??

tim wrote in post #4184525
Everything i've read indicates that cameras of the same generation produce similar image quality. ie the 20D/30D and 1D2 are similar. The 40D/1D3 are similar (though ISO6400 on the 1D3 is different). I don't believe the 30D has significantly better image quality than the 350D.

amonline wrote in post #4184710
Agreed. Not significant

Hang on a minute... Didn't you say at the start of your rants...

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.

Well is it obvious or insignifcant?? Maybe its obvious and insignificant??

I feel that a person starting out in the business would be better putting their money into high quality glass and a second 350d as back up AT THIS STAGE, as they do not need the higher end camera's now, but they do need some better glass.

amonline wrote in post #4184710
I'm like you Tim, in that I'll take my 40D's over most of the rest of the line available at this time.

FYI, I could be wrong, but I believe Tim shoots with 30d's and 20d's.

I took some really ****ty photos at my 1st wedding, but it wasn't the fault of my black XT, silver XT, L glass, or Sigma flash.

I took some really ****ty photos at my 6th wedding, but it wasn't the fault of my 1D Mark II, 10D, L glass, or Canon flashes.

I'm still taking ***ty photo's.

However, the OP asked whether to invest in glass or a higher end body. If his/her gear list is up to date, then I think the answer is quite simple really.

brenno wrote in post #4187780
I'm still taking ***ty photo's.

So am I. Probably because I can't afford a 1Ds Mark III.

cdifoto wrote in post #4187767
I took some really ****ty photos at my 1st wedding, but it wasn't the fault of my black XT, silver XT, L glass, or Sigma flash.

I took some really ****ty photos at my 6th wedding, but it wasn't the fault of my 1D Mark II, 10D, L glass, or Canon flashes.

So it was the photographers fault?????

brenno wrote in post #4187744
Well is it obvious or insignifcant?? Maybe its obvious and insignificant??

I feel that a person starting out in the business would be better putting their money into high quality glass and a second 350d as back up AT THIS STAGE, as they do not need the higher end camera's now, but they do need some better glass.

It's obvious to me, but you're talking about two different things here and reading our conversation wrong. In the "same generation" (as stated by Tim), the differences are much closer and I agreed that a jump to something like the 20/30D would be very slight. However, I've been talking about the 40D the entire thread with you and THAT DOES make a significant difference.

I agree on the importance of glass at this stage in a beginner's career. This thread was about a second camera, not glass. We're not even sure of the OP's glass collection at this point now, are we?

brenno wrote in post #4187754
FYI, I could be wrong, but I believe Tim shoots with 30d's and 20d's.

He does.

This thread's an interesting read too: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=396860

I shoot with a 20D and a 30D. In that thread you link to I said i'd rather have a 40D than a 5D, nothing else. I wouldn't mind a 40D, but I don't need one, the 20D isn't limiting me at all. My gear list is linked from my sig.

I personally find arguments like this really silly...any SLR since the 1D/D30 is capable of taking great wedding photos in the hands of the right photographer.

Getting heated over the relative 1/3 stop ISO noise advantage of a xxD camera over a XT, XTi, etc is not something you'd see a seasoned photographer do. I still have an XT(350D), and I used it at weddings...and I would still use it at weddings if I wasn't in the position where the business has paid for the gear I currently have.

So back to the original question - if the choice is between a better body and better glass/a flash/ more memory/etc, always put the body last in the list of priorities. Buy the 2nd 350D, and invest the rest in the other things that will make far more of a difference in your photographs.

And if you doubt what the 350D can do in the right hands, do a search for photos posted in this section by Petra Hall. It should remove all doubt about what that little camera can do in the right hands!

ETA:I'll save you some time...
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=346092
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=302011
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=287512
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=272265

Honestly, there's a lot of directions one should pursue with $450 when they only own a 350 body and kit lens. A second camera is probably not the smartest choice anyway.