Advice Wanted: 30D?

Hello,

I have been reading here for a few weeks because I would like to upgrade my camera. I have read all of the comparison threads, and I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes/ getting on nerves by asking this.

Here's my info:
-Currently have the first Drebel (300D)
-Tamron 28-75mm 2.8, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, 18-55 Kit (never use), and the cheap Canon zoom (never use).
-The Tamron is my studio lens, the others are outdoors.
-I shoot mostly fast children and families, both indoors and outdoors
-I do not consider iso 400 acceptable on my Rebel and have therefore learned to cope without using it or above.
-I take on about 1-2 sessions a month at this point in time.
-I *never* shoot any type of action, not even for fun.
-I have certainly outgrown my camera though- the focus is getting slower and I am ready for nicer quality images. I shoot all manual and know the camera in and out. (I'm only noting this because you all don't know me, and I want to make sure you know that I'm not looking for a better camera to make me a better photographer)


I want a 40D, however, a part of me is wondering if I want this as in "keeping up with the Jonses" or because it is truly the best fit/deal for me right now.

I am going to buy brand new either way. (I'm not budging on this). When I look at new prices I mostly see the 30D at $1000 and the 40D at $1300. Is it worth the extra $300?

I would like to go at least 3 years without needing to upgrade the body again while I accumulate nicer lenses.

Based on the above, what is your opinion on the smartest choice for me?

I appreciate any advice/thoughts/opinio​ns you have to offer me. Thanks!

The 30D is still a very good choice.
Just because the 40D is out, it doesn't make the 30D a lesser camera than it was a few months back.

You can get a 30D for $300-$400 cheaper than the 40D.
If you need more glass or if you want to save some money, this is the way to go...and still end up with a FANTASTIC body.

You'll immediately notice the speed. The 300D was a dog when it came to writing to the CF card. The 30D will also feel more solid, better control layout, better AF, better VF, spot metering, more fps, better ISO performance...can't go wrong here.

If you are happy with your 50 1.8, then keep it. Otherwise the 50 1.4 is a nice option.

You can also sell your kit lens for $60-$70 or so. If you aren't using it, I would just sell it.

The 30D will be able to handle ISO 400 easily.

Fast moving children is "kinda" like action shooting no? You have to stop the action right?

I don't think there's anything wrong with getting the 40D either. It's the latest model, has additional features, > MP, Digic III, 6.5fps, LiveView...

But if you need more glass, I would stick with the 30D.

emh01 wrote in post #4176344
Hello,

I have been reading here for a few weeks because I would like to upgrade my camera. I have read all of the comparison threads, and I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes/ getting on nerves by asking this.

Here's my info:
-Currently have the first Drebel (300D)
-Tamron 28-75mm 2.8, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, 18-55 Kit (never use), and the cheap Canon zoom (never use).
-The Tamron is my studio lens, the others are outdoors.
-I shoot mostly fast children and families, both indoors and outdoors
-I do not consider iso 400 acceptable on my Rebel and have therefore learned to cope without using it or above.
-I take on about 1-2 sessions a month at this point in time.
-I *never* shoot any type of action, not even for fun.
-I have certainly outgrown my camera though- the focus is getting slower and I am ready for nicer quality images. I shoot all manual and know the camera in and out. (I'm only noting this because you all don't know me, and I want to make sure you know that I'm not looking for a better camera to make me a better photographer)


I want a 40D, however, a part of me is wondering if I want this as in "keeping up with the Jonses" or because it is truly the best fit/deal for me right now.

I am going to buy brand new either way. (I'm not budging on this). When I look at new prices I mostly see the 30D at $1000 and the 40D at $1300. Is it worth the extra $300?

I would like to go at least 3 years without needing to upgrade the body again while I accumulate nicer lenses.

Based on the above, what is your opinion on the smartest choice for me?

I appreciate any advice/thoughts/opinio​ns you have to offer me. Thanks!

Nick- thank you for your input! I think I need some reassurance about the 30D because so many speak of how much better the 40D is. Also, yes you're right about needing to stop action with kids. I should have been more clear in my post- I was more referring to the fact that I don't really care about fps at all.

Thank you again for your thoughts!!

No problem. Are you happy with your lens lineup?
I know it's sometimes difficult to resists new gear...oh I know!

emh01 wrote in post #4176550
Nick- thank you for your input! I think I need some reassurance about the 30D because so many speak of how much better the 40D is. Also, yes you're right about needing to stop action with kids. I should have been more clear in my post- I was more referring to the fact that I don't really care about fps at all.

Thank you again for your thoughts!!

Only you can determine if the extra $$$ is worth it. Both bodies are very capable and a clear improvement from your current one. I recently had to make the same decision between the 30 and 40 as I lost my XTi to my daughter and needed a replacement. For me the answer was simple as I too do not like buying used bodies and prefer new ones so it came down to several things. The 30D is an 18 month old camera design as opposed to 40D. Since $$$ was not a big consideration and I hope to keep the body for a while, the newer technology won out. Secondly, for me live view alone was worth the extra $$$. I love macro shots and the ability to zoom in 10x for focusing and making small adjustments for focus stacking made my decision clear.

40D is great and I never considered there to be much difference 'tween the 20D and 30D so, save some money and get a refurbished 20D. or an XTi perhaps.

Hmm... more to think about, thank you both! I don't ever do macro, and can't imagine when I would love the liveview feature... so again at this point, maybe the 40D isn't the best fit for me...and I can save money....

Nick- yes, I am feeling good about my lenses. I posted some favorite recently here:
opensourcephoto.net/fo​rum/index.php?showtopi​c=20293

Seriously, thank you all for your advice!

As a photographic tool, I'm not on the bandwagon that the 40D is any better where it counts than the 30D. You get new features on the 40D, that is for sure, but if those new features do not assist you in your photography or make it better - then you are just getting them to get them.

Save $400 bucks and get a new 30D.

Well, if you don't feel the need for additional lenses, and you don't forsee having to get anything else (typical would be flash or tripod) then I would say go for the 40D.

emh01 wrote in post #4176790
Hmm... more to think about, thank you both! I don't ever do macro, and can't imagine when I would love the liveview feature... so again at this point, maybe the 40D isn't the best fit for me...and I can save money....

Nick- yes, I am feeling good about my lenses. I posted some favorite recently here:
opensourcephoto.net/fo​rum/index.php?showtopi​c=20293

Seriously, thank you all for your advice!

Hmm.. thank you again everyone!

Although I don't need anything else photography related, I don't want to spend money on something I don't need in a camera. The main thing that had me drooling over the 40D is how everyone says it focuses even faster than the 30D. But no one says the 30D is slow, right? It's hard to read "the 40D is better" without subconsciously feeling like it says "the 30D sucks," even though that may not be the case.

Off to think some more. Good thing I'm giving myself until December to decide!
Thank you again!

If you're concerned with the ISO performance go for the 5D.
You can find a new body for only $2K.
I have both the 30D & 5D. I can crak up the ISO on 5D up to 3200 and its equivalent to 400 on my 30D.
I used the 5D for studio work and the 30D for sports.

Fortunately, the 5D is just out of my budget, so I'm not even considering it right now, but Marvin, stop making me jealous!

I regularly use iso 1600 on my 30D and get very acceptable pictures. The 30D layout is so much better than a rebel. I don't think you can go wrong with it

Very good to know Adam, thanks!

Marvin-- if you have come back- would you be willing to post an example of 5d iso3200 and 30d iso400 for comparison? I'm curious now...

mmtoruno wrote in post #4178142
I have both the 30D & 5D. I can crak up the ISO on 5D up to 3200 and its equivalent to 400 on my 30D.

Under the same conditions? I'd certainly be inclined to seeing those results too -