DSLR dilemma

[julianhj]

I've wanted a DSLR for a while, but have been put off by the cost. I've been interested in photography for years, but never really made the most out of my EOS 650 because of the cost of processing film. I have a Casio Q40 digital point'n'shoot, which I like, but feel rather hindered by in terms of features (lens length) and image quality.

I'm getting married in Iceland next year, plus taking trips to Norway and California. I want to make the most of it with a really decent camera. I've been told that a DSLR can often be a hinderance to a novice. Another motivating factor is that I start working shifts next month, so I'll have quite a few days to myself (6 days on, 4 days off). To keep myself from getting bored I've been thinking about a hobby. Give that the main cost is the initial outlay, this could be a great opportunity to get back into it.

So, my question is do I take the plunge and fork out for a Canon EOS 400D or similar, or go the second-hand route? If so, which one? Or do I go for a top-spec point'n'shoot?

[Gemm]

It looks like you've got an aim and motivation, so I'd definitely recommend a DSLR. 400D looks like a good choice to me.

[julianhj]

Gemm said:

It looks like you've got an aim and motivation, so I'd definitely recommend a DSLR. 400D looks like a good choice to me.

Is it a better option than a second hand model for the same money? A good mate of mine has a 20D, IIRC. Will the 400D be more than adequate for my needs?

[Podie]

julianhj said:

Gemm said:

It looks like you've got an aim and motivation, so I'd definitely recommend a DSLR. 400D looks like a good choice to me.

Is it a better option than a second hand model for the same money? A good mate of mine has a 20D, IIRC. Will the 400D be more than adequate for my needs?

Julian, two years ago every camera I'd had was a point and click. I was going on a touring holiday of a lifetime, so bought a 300D, a full six months before I left.

It's become something of a hobby now, and something that I get enourmous enjoyment from, yet despite several courses and regular learning an experimenting, I've still not exhausted the talents of the camera.

There seems to be the thing on PH that you have you have a top-end SLR - something which unfortunately is beyond my budget - but my 300D has served me well, and I'm still earning and getting an immense amount from it. Get yourself a 400D with a couple of lenses, and enjoy.

(All IMO of course)

[monkeyhanger]

julianhj said:

Will the 400D be more than adequate for my needs?

Depends what your needs are..

What will you be shooting?

If you're worried about the learning curve you can always use "Green Box Mode" and turn all the in camera settings up to max (sharpness/saturation/contrast) to achieve the typical Point&Shoot effect until you learn how to use it.

[Gemm]

julianhj said:

Gemm said:

It looks like you've got an aim and motivation, so I'd definitely recommend a DSLR. 400D looks like a good choice to me.

Is it a better option than a second hand model for the same money? A good mate of mine has a 20D, IIRC. Will the 400D be more than adequate for my needs?

400D should do the job fine. But there's always a temptation to go one better. Yes, 20D would be a better camera. It would probably feel better in your hands too. (unless you've got tiny hands!) If you don't mind getting a 2nd hand (considering with all the risks), then I'd go for 20D.

[julianhj]

Cheers, the basic 400D seems to be the way to go then. Just need to decide I definitely want to commit myself (90% there)

How much might I expect to pay for a s/h 20D?

Edited by julianhj on Tuesday 12th December 20:47

[RobDickinson]

Realy depends what your doing, in some ways the 400D is better than the 20D.

20D can shoot quicker and is more physicaly robust and larger. Apart from that (and its secondary top mounted LCD display) its no better than the 400D.

400D has the 20/30d's AF system, a newer higher mp sensor, sensor cleaning etc. Only real thing it lacks from the 30D is the spot meter(which the 20D does not have).

Unless your after something extreem the 400D will do all you want. IMO buy the new 400D and a decent 'walk round' lens (sigma 17-70, tamron 18-200, canon 17-85IS etc) unless you have specific requirements (tele zoom or wide angle).

[srider]

julianhj said:

Cheers, the basic 400D seems to be the way to go then. Just need to decide I definitely want to commit myself (90% there)

How much might I expect to pay for a s/h 20D?

Edited by julianhj on Tuesday 12th December 20:47

I have a 10D which I'm going to sell, PM me if you're interested........

[barreti]

Go get hold of a 400d before shelling out for one.
I've got small hands (but big feet ) and the 300d feels just about right whereas the 400d is so much smaller that I can only get 3 fingers around it. I'd want the battery grip added to give me more to hang on to.

My 300d is capable of far better shots than I'll take for a while yet, so don't rule out a good 2nd hand bargain on one of these.

[marctwo]

Well, just to be different, I'd get a second hand 20D. Haven't tried the 400d but I didn't like the feel of the 350d, it was just too small.

As an alternative I'd be happy to lend you my 30D for as long as you'd like (I still have my D30 which I love). At least this way you get to try before you buy. Just give me a call.

[stevieb]

Ive got a New 350d for sale used once mail me if you are interested.

www.pistonheads.com/sales/119663.htm

Edited by stevieb on Wednesday 13th December 09:46

[havoc]

RobDickinson said:

Realy depends what your doing, in some ways the 400D is better than the 20D.

20D can shoot quicker and is more physicaly robust and larger. Apart from that (and its secondary top mounted LCD display) its no better than the 400D.

400D has the 20/30d's AF system, a newer higher mp sensor, sensor cleaning etc. Only real thing it lacks from the 30D is the spot meter(which the 20D does not have).

Unless your after something extreem the 400D will do all you want. IMO buy the new 400D and a decent 'walk round' lens (sigma 17-70, tamron 18-200, canon 17-85IS etc) unless you have specific requirements (tele zoom or wide angle).

Good advice there.

I was in this position at the start of the year (honeymoon pending, old film SLR (T70), digi-compact 'not enough). I tried a 350D and a 20D for 'feel'/'heft', and felt the 350D was a bit too small and lightweight for me, so went for a refurb'd 20D direct from Canon (off eBay) for the same money.

Took it on honeymoon and left it on auto as I hadn't really had time to RTFM. Got some good shots by default, but now disappointed in myself as even 6mths later I can spot a lot of missed opportunities...and I really haven't done that much except for some background reading. What the D-SLR HAS done is massively rekindled my interest in photography.


Re: lenses - walkabout lens is a good idea - the kit 18-55 is mediocre (better than a digi-compact though), and you don't want to be changing lenses all the time. I've got a 2nd hand 28-135 IS now from a chap on here, just for that purpose. It's got a good rep, although I've yet to use it.

400D has some very nice features, although the benefits over the 20D are slim, and offset by the feel and speed of the 20D. If you're not planning to print at A4 size or bigger, then by all accounts the D70S is well-worth a look too, or the D80 if your pockets are deeper.

[chim666]

Some good, practical, opinionated and useful reviews and tips here www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm#cameras

BTW - It a US site, so the 350 and 400 are called 'Rebel'

Edited by chim666 on Wednesday 13th December 15:42