Another body? Another lens?

I currently have a XS and I am feeling a little limited by it. Mostly when I am trying to crop as well as the FPS of the XS. I shoot mostly event, street and will eventually be going to school for PJ. My question is, should I get the 50D w/ kit lens and then the 70-200 or the 70-200 and then the 50D? Although it shouldn't, many other photographers and other potential clients may be taking me less seriously because of the "beginner body." So, lets just assume I can get each one six months apart, which would you get?

Difficult question. I'd challenge those that question your "beginner body" by showing them your results. the 70-200 will definitely improve your images with any body (as long as your technique and skills are able to use it to it's fullest) and that should be the proof.
I went to a local art fair here (very few "national" photographers) and the images were excellent, mostly taken with "consumer" level cameras. Glass first, body later.

I bought a Rebel XS last christmas and used it for only a month and a half. Was a good camera to learn from and after a while I felt the XS was too limited too. I had a 55-250mm and the kit 18-55IS and the nifty fifty. The XS gave me some nice pics but the camera itself feels like a toy. Too plasticky. I am serious enough about photography now that I am willing to invest more into it. I ended up selling the XS, 55-250, and going to sell the nifty fifty. Bought a 50D but did not want to use the kit lens (28-135). Since I knew what lens I wanted, I just bought the body and then bought a Tamron 17-50 and now have a 70-200 f/4IS. This should cover me for a while till I can afford more better lenses. Are you able to buy both the 50D and 70-200 together? If not maybe you can just get the 50D first then the 70-200 later. That way you can at least have a better camera to work with. I got the 50D first and was very happy with it over the XS then when getting the 70-200 was the icing on the cake =D

either the lens first or body first is up to the OP's piority and preference. One of the things that i'm going to throw into the pot is the fact that 50D has been out for 1.5years already, soon some new camera may take over and the value of the 50D will drop by a portion. But put that on a side,If you are going to get both anyways, then I would ask the OP which of these two can give you "the shot" that you need earlier. If you have a slow lens. A better IQ, more DOF control and faster shutter speed can get you "the picture" better and easier, then then by all means, get the 70-200mm. But if the higher ISO quality, faster frame per second, microadjustment, better built, two wheels, etc. along with your current lens can get you "the picture" better and easier, or if getting a "bigger" body will get you the confidence/revenues, then by all means, get the body first.

But as a general rule is always lens first and body second, but if you've already has the lens that can do the job, then go for the body. One of my argument for me if i have enough lens is that: upgrading one lens can only release the potential for a body(if you have only one body), but upgrading a body can release the potential for all your lens(if you have many lens).

Anyways, have fun!

I think I'll go ahead and get the 50D body soon and then go for the soon following. After I get the body too, I think I'll guilt myself and be able to get myself to make more time for my photos in the midst of school, girlfriend and work stuff. Thanks for being my sounding board once again POTN.

-Matthew

I understand the FPS is very limited in the Rebel XS (1.5 in RAW is pathetic..) even the older Rebel XTi is a better camera in that regard. So I don't blame you for wanting to upgrade for that reason. 10mp is however adequate IMO and if you find yourself doing heavy cropping you are probably using a lens that is too short. So if it's lens or body, I say go for the lens because a 50d w/kit lens you will still have to crop (and probably will not notice a huge gain in image quality). People will not even pay attention to what body you are using when you have a big white lens attached to it.

70-200 f/4, 85 f/1.8, 20D, & keep the XS as back-up. Keep your Kit lens, & upgrade to a faster WA focal length before you go to PJ school.

learn to shoot with what you have, no need to upgrade bodies. Get over the FPS and MP is everything. That will not make you a better photographer. Better glass will help you in certain situations were the bodies can not. so Glass before bodies.

Off topic but how old are you? You want to become a photojournalist and want to go to school for it? Take some advice from someone in the field, learn to shoot portraits. Heck, I would avoid going to PJ school if I were you.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #9774236
70-200 f/4, 85 f/1.8, 20D, & keep the XS as back-up. Keep your Kit lens, & upgrade to a faster WA focal length before you go to PJ school.

Sounds like a sound plan but, if I can swing it I'd like to go 40D/50D. Obvious reasons for the 70-200 but the 85 would be for portraiture I am assuming?

canonnoob wrote in post #9774267
learn to shoot with what you have, no need to upgrade bodies. Get over the FPS and MP is everything. That will not make you a better photographer. Better glass will help you in certain situations were the bodies can not. so Glass before bodies.

Off topic but how old are you? You want to become a photojournalist and want to go to school for it? Take some advice from someone in the field, learn to shoot portraits. Heck, I would avoid going to PJ school if I were you.

I'm 22. Not going to school strictly for PJ, I am currently a history major and am looking to go to J-school for grad.

I am looking to do more of the "multimedia" or "web" journalism field which is where things seem to be heading. I do not want to make a living strictly of my photos, I am more interested in being an "all-in-one" journalist that is competent with stills, audio and eventually video but, diving into film is a tad bit expensive.

I just got a bunch of studio flash equipment and am now cutting my teeth on portraiture which is a lot of fun. Different kind of challenge than I am usually used to and I imagine once you get over the learning curve, allows for an immense amount of creativity.

It could be. I've used it for HS gyms, bands, & moving cars at night.

http://img.photobucket​.com …strict-Champions_0978.jpg

http://img.photobucket​.com …008/Dream-Cruise_0438.jpg

http://img.photobucket​.com …/Bands/BP-Poster-2_01.jpg

Sounds like you talked yourself into the 50D. Good choice. The lens is also a good choice. If you can swing it then why not?

I don't know what your other lenses are but you may want to consider something with a 2.8 f stop.

I buy my equipment only after some serious thought as to what is limiting me, how that can be overcome and do I really need the new tech to overcome it?

The limiting factor for me on the 400D was the low ISO, FPS, and focus (in low light). That made the 50D an ideal fit. There was no way I could overcome the problems above by technique.

People dont look down on you for lesser equipment if you produce the results. I have seen awesome shots from the 400D (even produced a couple myself ) but there are certain circumstances when better gear does equal better results.

At this point I have talked myself into the 70-200 2.8 IS and then after that either the 17-55 or the 50D depending on what I feel I need. To clarify the gear that I have now: XS, 18-55 IS, 50 1.8, 430EX, manual speedlights w/ various modifiers.

@neilwood32: the thing that was drawing me the most to the 50D was the FPS but more so better ISO but, I heard the 40D is arguably the same/better. And M.A. I guess is always nice but I guess not absolutely necessary.

_method wrote in post #9780880
At this point I have talked myself into the 70-200 2.8 IS and then after that either the 17-55 or the 50D depending on what I feel I need. To clarify the gear that I have now: XS, 18-55 IS, 50 1.8, 430EX, manual speedlights w/ various modifiers.

@neilwood32: the thing that was drawing me the most to the 50D was the FPS but more so better ISO but, I heard the 40D is arguably the same/better. And M.A. I guess is always nice but I guess not absolutely necessary.

With the 40d/50D you will have usable ISO3200 (still kinda noisy though) with only modest improvement at ISO1600. The cost to upgrade the body just for that is not worth the same price as a good lens. If you are shooting indoor alot consider the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, it's wonderful for a zoom lens. Or a couple primes (I love my Sigma 30mm/Canon 85mm combo).