OT: Canon SLR?

I am currently using the S3 IS, but want to upgrade to an SLR.

I will be mainly photographing birds, so I guess the lens will be more important than the body?

My budget is just about $2,000 for the body and lens.

Which is the best camera (and lens) that I can get for this price?

And also, what is the pro/con of Canon vs. Nikon?

I'd look for a deal on a 40D and a 400/5.6. You've seen me go through everything short of the MkIII and 500/4 L in the last two years here. At this time, with the 40D out, and for about $2K, [maybe a little more], there is no better birding combination.

canonloader wrote in post #5503035
I'd look for a deal on a 40D and a 400/5.6. You've seen me go through everything short of the MkIII and 500/4 L in the last two years here. At this time, with the 40D out, and for about $2K, [maybe a little more], there is no better birding combination.

I agree, though the 30D would be a good bet as well for several hundred dollars less. With the money saved, you could get a standard lens for snapshots and whatnot.

30D + 100-400L although Mitch combo is also fantastic. the reason i said 100-400 and a 30D is because the 100-400 is much more versatile than the 400 prime and since you did not mention any other lenses, the 100-400 will allow you to do much more.

I agree with Mitch, especially if birds are your primary target, and most definitely if you are interested in doing in-flight shots. The thinking being that although the zoom is more versatile, for birding you will be using it at 400mm >90% of the time, and then the very fast AF of the prime (and lighter weight) become the determining factor.

+1 for Snir's suggestion. Very flexible, very solid IQ and AF.

Wait until next week the 18th should see $200 off on a new 40D if Canon instant rebate are true.


Also there's really no pros or cons when comparing N vs C. It's all in the way you like how they feel. You have to get you hands on them, to decide yourself.

Thank you for your suggestions!

I'm sorry, but I'm quite new to all this photography buisness. Are these lenses both with IS?
And how much are the lenses themselves, without the 40D?

You can hunt around for a used 5D if you want FF but a 40D would be great

I agree with what's been said above. I have the 40D and 100-400mm and it works quite well for birding and very versatile. The prime is quicker to focus though but lacks IS, the100-400mm has IS. You could probably find a used 400mm 5.6 for anywhere from $900 + , 100-400mm around $1100+ in the buy and sell area.

Consider a 30D/40D and a used lens mentioned. I bought mine used from a fredmiranda.com member about 3 years ago and it's my most used lens at the moment. You may be able to squeeze in a walkaround lens too like the Tamron 28-75mm

I don't think there is any choice for the body. The 40D is so far above the 30D it's no longer even in the same class. That should be the first purchase, buy glass with what you have left. You can get a damn fine 70-200/4 non-IS for about $500. That leaves enough for a Grip for the 40D and a 1.4x TC.

nontetheredbrain wrote in post #5503375
Wait until next week the 18th should see $200 off on a new 40D if Canon instant rebate are true.

I think the ad also had the 100-400mm with $100 rebate...

Both the 100-400 and the 400 are great lenses. I'd vote for the 100-400. It gives you so many more options. Add some tubes to this lens and you've got a fantastic combo for flowers, bugs, you name it up close!

Make sure you factor in a good tripod if you do not have one yet.

A friend has the 400mm 5.6, and I recently bought the 100-400. For me, I.S. is a necessity with my health. We tried to compare the two lenses, and we were both amazed at the shots which showed very very little difference.

I can't speak to the bodies, we both still shoot Xt's