$1200 To Spend...What Camera To Get???

[rikers_mailbox]

Have you used it yet? How much time have you spent using it? Loading photos into your computer and examining your photos when compared to other cameras?

I used it briefly just last week... one of those family member, inlaw, friend-of-friend connections had an almost-final production model on loan from Sony. I'm not a professional photographer or anything, but I know my way around a camera. I was definitely impressed with the image quality and the ease of use. The IS is VERY nice. And from what I was told, the CCD w/ anti-dust coating is top-of-the-line.

One feature I really liked was an image preview button that allows you to see through the viewfinder how the picture will look without actually taking it. (Canons might have something similar?)

Check out this article.

 

[Earendil]

I don't mean to be elitist (though I use a Mac ) but Sony and Minolta do NOT stack up to the offerings of Canon and Nikon.

Everyone here seems to be looking at the camera bodies. DO NOT DO THIS.

Lenses are what make a camera, believe it or not. When you buy a brand you are investing in their line of lenses. On the consumer/prosumer level Nikon and Canon are leagues ahead of the competition. They have more lenses, cheap and expensive, with all different ranges, and all different features. Sony and Minolta do not offer the lens flexibility that Canon and Nikon do.
They MAY offer it in the future, but that's your bet.

For reasons others have mentioned, and more details can be researched, IS (image stabilization) is better to have in the lens. Period.
Also you can not put an IS lens on an IS camera, or at least the effects will not stack. So forget buying an IS camera and hoping for putting a nice IS lens on it.

Go to Dpreview.com and research the cameras. Visit the forums (though search them before asking questions, they have more forum posts/resources than Macrumors over there).

Personally I researched heavily for 2 months, camera bodies but more importantly the lenses. I've handled many of the cameras, and and tested a number of lenses. For my purposes, and because I'm taking photography seriously as an amateur, I want something that handles nice now, and allows for a future.


You wouldn't buy the most powerful G5 computer if you could only use a 13in display, would you?
Or that only allowed 8mb of video ram?

The camera only captures the light that the lens feeds it, that's all it really does. You can't improve an image with an incredible sensor if it's going through bad class first.

And as for IS being required... Ask any pro photographer before the year 2000 if it is required ;-)
It's nice, I've used a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 with VR (same as IS) and it was AMAZING. But I only really used it when I was shooting plays on poorly lit stages.
Before my current camera (I'll mention later, don't want to sound biased) I owned a Fuji s5000, 30-300 equiv tele photo with a f/3.2-5.6 (I think).
I used to use a tripod with it all the time, really hard to hand hold it except in the brightest light (turn the shutter speed up).
However I can now hand hold just about any shot I take because the camera/lens is amazing. Use a tripod if you wish, but it isn't needed, just helpful.

Good Luck though,
And do some research and find out what is best for YOU, don't take my word for it.

~Tyler

ps
a month ago I bought a Canon 20D with the kit 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 and a 70-200 f/4.0 L
Split second focusing is amazing on the L lens. Wouldn't trade this camera for anything.

 

[form]

...Get a camera, a memory card, and a lens or two. What suggestions are you looking for? Brands are subjective, and you know what focal lengths you need to have the equivalent of your present camera. Resolution will only be slightly improved with 6mp, or moderately improved with 8mp. The big gain will be the better image quality at higher ISOs.

I like your website and business idea. I should do something like that if I ever learn how to take good photos with my $1800 worth of dSLR camera equipment which has made me approximately $45 back towards expenses since I've had it. I just don't have the talent, I guess.

 

[-hh]

To be sure, I have no idea what an IS is...or if I really need it . I think I'll get a monopod...or whatever they're called...to take pictures at hunter-jumper shows. I take macros fine with the DiMage 7i - and I have very, very steady hands - so I don't know if I need this IS thingy...

In a nutshell, tripods, monopods and IS are all technologies that "buy" you more light-gathering performance for your imaging system by allowing longer shutter speeds than what would otherwise normally be afforded as per the 1/(focal length)sec rule of thumb to minimize camara shake.

The rule of thumb for IS is that it buys you two full stops. IIRC, a monopod is around the same order of magnitude. So for a 200mm lens where the traditional rule of thumb says you need 1/250sec (I rounded up) to minimize shake effects, you would theoretically be able to shoot this as slowly as 1/60sec with no adverse effect.

Overall, it rarely hurts to have IS available (since it can always be disabled), but the caveat is that while you might not need a short shutter speed to freeze camera shake, you may need a short shutter speed anyway to freeze motion of the subject, so you didn't have the gain you might have been hoping for. There's no such thing as a free lunch

Although to a certain degree, I think that one might be able to successfully argue that IS is becoming (slightly) less important because unlike film, you can very easily change ISO on the fly with a dSLR, and the noise levels on ISO 800 and 1600 aren't as bad as you might think, so they can be usable.

Shrug, I have no clue - I think I'll go back to the shop and compare the Nikon D50 to the Canon Digital Rebel some more...

To mostly sidestep the Nikon/Canon debate, my $0.02 is that these two manufacturers are generally considered the industry leaders because they have very broad product lines ... noteably, lenses ... to choose from, which the other manufacturers lack. As such, either one represents a "safe" choice in that the lens(es) you'll eventually want probably already exist within their product lines.

Insofar as which one specifically to choose, since you have no preexisting legacy lenses to influence your decision, your better bet is to physically hold each dSLR body candidate (preferably with a couple of your candidate lenses) to see if you like the general "feel" (ergonomics), as well as if you like/dislike the logic of the layout of the controls.

This thread was aimed more at lens/accessory recommendations - I think that whatever camera I purchase will be a vast imporvement over what I have now. Thanks!

Your comment on horse jumping suggests a need for a telephoto lens, and you'll need some speed ... in system focusing and in glass ... in order to freeze motion.

I'm not sure how much lighting a typical horsejumping competition is shot under, but my initial thoughts might be to look at a Canon 20D with the 70-300 IS f/4.0-5.6 lens. I recognize this is over your budget, but it should have more than sufficient reach, and it is less "over your budget" than the same body with the 70-200L f/2.8 IS lens would put it.

Be aware that on the Canon side of the fence, there's several 70ish-300 lenses to get confused by...IIRC, there is at least:

75-300 (at $150, its within budget, but check reviews to see if it is soft)
75-300 IS (discontinued; I happen to own this lens; it is soft at 200mm+)
70-300 IS (replaced the above; reportedly "much improved")
70-300 DO IS (reportedly quite good, but generally considered overpriced)

When you put any of these onto a Canon dRebel or 20D, their 1.6x crop factor makes them into 35mm equivalents of 120mm-480mm.

For the longer term (ie, "more budget"), I'd say that the potential is that you would eventually consider an "L" zoom telephoto such as the Canon EF 100-400L IS f/4-5.6 lens, or the EF 70-200L IS f/2.8 lens, possibly with a 1.4x extender.

BTW, you had also originally asked about Camera Stores. I generally use & recommend B&H.


-hh

 

[gwuMACaddict]

Add a few bucks to your $ limit and pick up a Nikon D200. Nothing else like it in it's price range.

 

[Earendil]

Add a few bucks to your $ limit and pick up a Nikon D200. Nothing else like it in it's price range.

A nice camera for sure, and with his budget he'll be quite adapt and taking pictures without using a single lens ;-)

 

[Clix Pix]

If he is shooting photos for other people and being paid for them, then he needs to be using decent equipment that will do the job now and which will in turn lead to additional jobs. The D200 would stretch him a bit beyond his currently stated budget, but in the long run it might be the best investment he could make. It has the responsiveness necessary for the kind of shooting he will be doing and it has the flexibility to adapt to all kinds of shooting situations. It has many of the controls readily available on the camera body, which makes it much easier to quickly make adjustments while in the midst of shooting rather than having to stop and fumble in the menu.

Yes, if he's planning to shoot horses jumping and such, he's going to need a decent lens: not just a tele but a FAST tele.

My recommendation would be to purchase the best that he can afford (whether it be the D200 or the Canon 30D -- forget the D50 and the Digital Rebel) and then consider renting the lenses he needs for specific occasions until he can afford to buy his own. Many camera shops will rent out lenses and that way he could put a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR or the Canon equivalent on the camera and shoot away....

 

[njmac]

From Your (very nice ) website:

Compare the prices below to the hundreds of dollars for 11 x 14 and 16 x 20 prints that other photographers offer.

I'm not sure how some of the pro photographers in this forum will feel about this, but when you offer such low prices for your work because you don't make a living doing this, you are undercutting the people who do make a living at it. How can a pro compete with rock bottom prices? You are also setting yourself up as a budget photog and its hard to get away from that rep.
If you do quality work with pricing far below the competition it will drive prices down and would you really want to do that to your industry?

Its the same in the video industry. The pro's are working their butts off to do quality production and make a living and someone comes along and offers to do the video for $500.00. It has tremendously hurt that business and you don't want to do that to your business either.

BTW, I love your website and your pictures. You do very nice work! Good luck finding a camera and let us know what happens!

EDIT: there is a lot of new photographers on this board who would love to make money from photography, so if you have some time/interest I would love to see a thread about how you go about starting a business/ selling your photos.

 

[princealfie]

Olympus E500 with 2 lens kit. best deal on the market today.

 

[Clix Pix]

Recently on another site in which I participate someone posted an article discussing the issues facing professional photographers today, especially those who specialize in weddings, portraits and seniors..... The advent of affordable digital cameras, both point-and-shoot and digital SLRs, has definitely had an impact on the professional photography industry as a whole. People are increasingly more reluctant to pay professional prices for professional quality work when Dad or Grandpa or Uncle Joe with their new digital whatsis can do almost as good..... And the crux of the matter is that "almost as good...."

<sarcasm>Why pay a professional wedding photographer thousands of dollars to shoot Susie's wedding when they can just ask their friend Mary or the groom's cousin Pete to use their nice digital camera and shoot for free or for minimal cost? Each of these people has got an expensive looking fancy camera, of course they know how to use it, right? Uncle Joe can also bring his new camera, too, to capture the extras.....

Why pay a professional photographer to do a professional portrait of the family when they can ask the neighbor down the street, the one who's always out taking pictures with some big black camera with a bazooka of a lens, to come over one day and shoot a few shots out in the back yard? That'll be just as good as some of those professional portraits of families sitting under a tree in some park! </sarcasm>

The increasing popularity and affordability of digital photography is definitely having an impact that is already being felt by many professional photographers.

 

[ChrisA]

If he is shooting photos for other people and being paid for them, then he needs to be using decent equipment that will do the job now and which will in turn lead to additional jobs. The D200 would stretch him a bit beyond his currently stated budget, but in the long run it might be the best investment he could make. .

I'd be willing to make two bets:

(1) None of his clients would be able to tell the difference between otherwise identical photos taken with a D50, D70s, D200, 250D, 20D or 30D. If you asked the average customer which camera boady took which photo I doubt they could do better than guess

(2) In five years (July 2011) both the D200 and the 30D will be concidered "obsolite" and not suitable for profesional work. If your bussines is for-proffet you have better have a plan to recover the cost of the camera ivery quickly. A DSLR is NOT an investment. It is a lot more like a computer,

 

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Olympus E500 with 2 lens kit. best deal on the market today.

Is there a telephoto lens available for the E500 that has 200mm+???

I have had great experience with Olympus cameras, so that might be a consideration.

Oh, and thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread so far! I've been very busy at work the last three days, but I'll make some more comments later tonight or tomorrow.

 

[Earendil]

From Your (very nice ) website:



I'm not sure how some of the pro photographers in this forum will feel about this, but when you offer such low prices for your work because you don't make a living doing this, you are undercutting the people who do make a living at it. How can a pro compete with rock bottom prices? You are also setting yourself up as a budget photog and its hard to get away from that rep.
If you do quality work with pricing far below the competition it will drive prices down and would you really want to do that to your industry?

Its the same in the video industry. The pro's are working their butts off to do quality production and make a living and someone comes along and offers to do the video for $500.00. It has tremendously hurt that business and you don't want to do that to your business either.

BTW, I love your website and your pictures. You do very nice work! Good luck finding a camera and let us know what happens!

EDIT: there is a lot of new photographers on this board who would love to make money from photography, so if you have some time/interest I would love to see a thread about how you go about starting a business/ selling your photos.

Welcome to the open market
Supply and demand and all that.
I'm not trying to lighten what is becoming a dire situation for professional Photographers, it is a big deal that I have been following. However the reality is that, unlike 50 or 100 years ago, a consumer with no photography skills can buy a DSL and with a couple months to learn it and some basic photography and produce *decent* shots. No where near professional shots, of course not, but better than a person could produce 50 years ago. pare that with some average post production software to cropping and final touch ups, and you can replace 80% of the basic darkroom.

If he can produce a product of equal quality and do it for less, power to him. If he can produce a product of less quality and advertises exactly that, power to him. He's only a scum bag if he sells himself as a pro, with pro prices, and hands out crappy work.

----

Back to Photography. A D200 is an awesome camera. However, and I'll say this again, if his budget is 1200 firm, he would be better off getting a Canon Rebel and a 70-200 f/4.0 L (or Nikon equiv) for 1100, with room for an extra battery, than he would be blowing it all on a D200 with the crap $90 kit 17-55 lens.
The rebel, with that cost, will produce far better images in what he is shooting, fast action with the need for fast focus.

And the 20D doesn't produce HALF bad images either ;-)
Links to come...

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Is there a telephoto lens available for the E500 that has 200mm+???

The 40-150mm f3.5/4.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom Lens that is provided in the Two Lens Kit is equivalent to a 80-300mm. This is because Olympus SLRs use the Four Thirds System lenses.

 

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

I appreciate those who have worked with me in my budget (I am going to college in about a month, so 1200 is not too flexible... )

Anyway, here's what I'm looking at after visiting a local Wolf Camera Store.

Canon Digital Rebel
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...191&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
From what I've heard, the color reproduction and the speed of the autofocus is slightly superior to the Nikon D50. Additionally, it has a faster burst rate (3 fps vs. 2.5 fps) which is extremely important in what I do. Plus, just in case I do need to crop pictures, 8 megapixels is higher than 6 megapixels
750 Dollars

Lexar 2GB 133x CF Memory
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...117&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Currently, I have a 40x CF card at 1 GB. This thing sounds like a screamer - is it right for the camera I want to purchase???
110 Dollars

Monopod
Anyone have any suggestions for a monopod that is under 100-125 bucks???

Telephoto Lens
Yeah so I was looking for a lens and this page came up:http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf
...And basically I **** myself a little so if anyone knows of a decent telephoto lens that comes around 2-300 dollars that would be great as well. Just for comparison, I had a 7x Optical Zoom on my Minolta, and that was about perfect...a little less would be okay, a little more would be great, either way, I'm good...

Alright well I think that I'll probably order this camera tomorrow or Saturday. I really appreciate all the help and work you guys have put into contributing to this thread.

(By the way, I'll purchase a lens-protector (16 bucks) and an extra battery or two from the local camera shop)

 

[Earendil]

LadyBug 1/400 f/5.6 ISO 200

HummingBird 1/1000 f/4.0 ISO 1600

BumbleBee 1/500 f/9.0 ISO 400


I can provide 100% crops of specific images if requested.
I'm not sure a D200 is required. But that's MHO.

~Tyler

 

[njmac]

Welcome to the open market
Supply and demand and all that.

No,no, I don't disagree with that but I was just mentioning it because you can make a choice not to undercut the competition so much as to shoot your industry in the foot. Competition is good, it keeps prices fair, but to shoot far below competition is not a smart move for the future of your industry.

Instead of seperating yourself by offering rock-bottom, bargain basement prices, why not price competitively and offer extra services, free framing, no minimum purchase, discounted or no sitting (which he already does), GREAT quality, etc.

 

[Earendil]

AvS-

When I was using a Nikon D70, and went looking for a camera of my own, I ruled out the D50. I'm with you on that one
The Canon Rebel is a very nice camera for the price imho. It has the exact same sensor as the 20D, and you aren't sacrificing much there.

I would HIGHLY recommend you get the 70-200 f/4.0 L for your purposes. There really isn't much room here, you need a lens that can focus fast, and that has more to do with the lens than the camera. You can also lock out that lens so it doesn't try and focus on things closer than 3m (making even faster).

I was in the same boat as you. I just finished my sophomore year of college, and have been saving for a while now. If you are shooting horse and rider, are you able to get very close? People are suggesting the 70-300 IS lens but IS won't help you too much if you are tracking a moving target. In fact it will help next to none. And at 300mm (460mm equiv) and shooting such large objects, you might be pushing it. And for that extra reach you will be sacrificing focus speed, which trust me, is very important!

$545 after a rebate
http://www.adorama.com/CA702004AFU.html?searchinfo=Canon 70-200mm f/4.0&item_no=2
I know it is a lot, I know I was looking for a cheap tele as well. But I do not regret it one ounce, even if it means I have to go our to dinner, buy fewer coffees, or go a little easier on the gas peddle

Cheers man, and congrats on joining the dSLR world! You'll never go back!

~Tyler

I appreciate those who have worked with me in my budget (I am going to college in about a month, so 1200 is not too flexible... )

Anyway, here's what I'm looking at after visiting a local Wolf Camera Store.

Canon Digital Rebel
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...191&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
From what I've heard, the color reproduction and the speed of the autofocus is slightly superior to the Nikon D50. Additionally, it has a faster burst rate (3 fps vs. 2.5 fps) which is extremely important in what I do. Plus, just in case I do need to crop pictures, 8 megapixels is higher than 6 megapixels
750 Dollars

Lexar 2GB 133x CF Memory
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...117&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Currently, I have a 40x CF card at 1 GB. This thing sounds like a screamer - is it right for the camera I want to purchase???
110 Dollars

Monopod
Anyone have any suggestions for a monopod that is under 100-125 bucks???

Telephoto Lens
Yeah so I was looking for a lens and this page came up:http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf
...And basically I **** myself a little so if anyone knows of a decent telephoto lens that comes around 2-300 dollars that would be great as well. Just for comparison, I had a 7x Optical Zoom on my Minolta, and that was about perfect...a little less would be okay, a little more would be great, either way, I'm good...

Alright well I think that I'll probably order this camera tomorrow or Saturday. I really appreciate all the help and work you guys have put into contributing to this thread.

(By the way, I'll purchase a lens-protector (16 bucks) and an extra battery or two from the local camera shop)

 

[Earendil]

No,no, I don't disagree with that but I was just mentioning it because you can make a choice not to undercut the competition so much as to shoot your industry in the foot. Competition is good, it keeps prices fair, but to shoot far below competition is not a smart move for the future of your industry.

Instead of seperating yourself by offering rock-bottom, bargain basement prices, why not price competitively and offer extra services, free framing, no minimum purchase, discounted or no sitting (which he already does), GREAT quality, etc.

Well, right, and he can make more money too ;-)
However shooting with a Minolta, while a greater starter, isn't exactly pro
Once he has a nice dSLR and some sweet glass he'll be producing incredible 8x12 photos (or bigger) and should have no problem charging close to professional prices while still selling under market a little bit.

How hard can shooting horses be?!

~Tyler

 

[jared_kipe]

Wow this thread is really blowing up.

Firstly, let me say that I don't see any more noise in Panasonic Lumix shots than any competing Canon or Nikon. For low noise there are a few Fuji cameras like the 10 something.

But for low noise nothing beats a dSLR. A Canon would be my vote for both low noise, and what I consider to be better photos strait from the camera, and burst mode. So either a Rebel XT, or 20/30D. Then there are lots of threads about lenses, and I have to go wait on someone in surgery so I can't talk too much now.

 

[ipacmm]

Also if you are buying a Canon camera and lens, I would buy it soon because the rebate will be expiring soon...I would personally buy the body of any camera and put the extra money towards better lenses over buying a "kit"

 

[-hh]

Canon Digital Rebel
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...191&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
From what I've heard, the color reproduction and the speed of the autofocus is slightly superior to the Nikon D50. Additionally, it has a faster burst rate (3 fps vs. 2.5 fps) which is extremely important in what I do. Plus, just in case I do need to crop pictures, 8 megapixels is higher than 6 megapixels
750 Dollars

IIRC, the 20D's burst mode is 5fps, which I suspect would likely be worth it for your needs, if its "not too much more".

Also, understand that autofocus speeds are very much contributed by the lens ... for example, the 75-300 IS (old version) was considered to be pretty "slow" in its speed of focusing.

Lexar 2GB 133x CF Memory
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...117&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Currently, I have a 40x CF card at 1 GB. This thing sounds like a screamer - is it right for the camera I want to purchase???
110 Dollars

It won't improve your burst mode. I'm not sure if it will improve your "time to fully recover" from a full burst.

In any event, a 1GB card on the 8MP Canon's will give you just under 75 images when shooting JPEG+RAW simultaneously. Personally, I'd look to shaving this cost to stay within your current budget constraints.

Monopod
Anyone have any suggestions for a monopod that is under 100-125 bucks???

I have some model of Bogen that I'm not using. I found it generally unsuitable to use as an "all-day" day hiking pole, as it is a bit big/bulky/heavy. If you don't mind buying used, I'll dig it out and look up what model# it is and sort out a fair asking price. This is also probably something that I'd look to cutting out of the budget.

Telephoto Lens
Yeah so I was looking for a lens and this page came up:http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf
...And basically I **** myself a little so if anyone knows of a decent telephoto lens that comes around 2-300 dollars that would be great as well.

I've stared at that chart for hours too.

Unfortunately, this is where the "No such thing as a Free Lunch" bites deep. To be sure that you definitely have fast autofocusing speeds, I'd say that you're going to have to go with something like the 70-200, although you can save bucks and go with the f/4 version, which is only "$500ish". With just the dRebel and nothing else (no CF, no monopod), this combination might be just close enough to your budget target...you can easily raise your fees by a couple of bucks per print to help pay for it.

The other option that I'd be kicking around would be the cheap, plain vanilla 75-300mm III, which sells for $150, combined with a 20D (around $1000?) and spend the last $50 for another 1GB CF card. The lens is clearly the weak link in this setup, but overall, I can't really imagine that it would be significantly worse than the status quo. I'd experiment by bumping up the camera's ISO to shoot it at f/8 (or higher) if it manifests any softness, and based on what's learned for focal lengths for the application, be planning on upgrading the lens to the 70-200 (any variant, possibly with the 1.4x extender) when the budget permits.

Just for comparison, I had a 7x Optical Zoom on my Minolta, and that was about perfect...a little less would be okay, a little more would be great, either way, I'm good...

It is inevitable that one always wants "just a little more" than whatever focal length range one currently possesses.


-hh

 

[cgratti]

Add a few bucks to your $ limit and pick up a Nikon D200. Nothing else like it in it's price range.

I beg to differ, the Canon 30D is quite like it in it's price range.....

 

[Earendil]

hh has some good info and ideas here, I'll just add a few on top

IIRC, the 20D's burst mode is 5fps, which I suspect would likely be worth it for your needs, if its "not too much more".

Also, understand that autofocus speeds are very much contributed by the lens ... for example, the 75-300 IS (old version) was considered to be pretty "slow" in its speed of focusing.

It is true the 20D has a burst mode of 5fps > than the rebel's 3fps. This is NOT a breaking point though I don't believe. Horses move fast, you want to capture the moment, but they don't move THAT fast. The HUGE difference you'll notice right away about an SLR camera is the "instant picture" effect. You won't have to rely on a burst mode to capture the right moment due to untimely delay in the shutter button.

I used to have to rely on burst mode on my Fuji s5000, but when I moved to a dSLR I found myself not using burst mode for hardly anything (besides Basketball dunks). You are actually better off capturing "The Moment" by taking a single shot than relying on Burst mode. If you want to get a batter hitting a ball, or a soccer players perfect foot on ball during a kick, you will be lucky to capture that with a burst mode of even 5fps. You'll have to trust me on this one, I've shot media (college paper) for two years now, I've taken a fair number of pictures of such games and fast action ;-)

It won't improve your burst mode. I'm not sure if it will improve your "time to fully recover" from a full burst.

In any event, a 1GB card on the 8MP Canon's will give you just under 75 images when shooting JPEG+RAW simultaneously. Personally, I'd look to shaving this cost to stay within your current budget constraints.

It will improve the dump time. Get an eltraIII x133. They aren't really that much more. and do NOT buy it off ebay right now, they are flooded with bad copies.

I wouldn't shave the cost. you will easily shoot 100 pictures at these events, I'm sure. Check that though with what you currently shoot. I'm betting you won't be shooting less. For reference though 1 gig should do you. On 8mp jpg Fine you will be getting 240 or so shots. That should be plenty. Bring you sweet new Powerbook along if you need more room. That's what I do when I'm in a powerbook friendly environment

*snip*

The other option that I'd be kicking around would be the cheap, plain vanilla 75-300mm III, which sells for $150, combined with a 20D (around $1000?) and spend the last $50 for another 1GB CF card. The lens is clearly the weak link in this setup, but overall, I can't really imagine that it would be significantly worse than the status quo. I'd experiment by bumping up the camera's ISO to shoot it at f/8 (or higher) if it manifests any softness, and based on what's learned for focal lengths for the application, be planning on upgrading the lens to the 70-200 (any variant, possibly with the 1.4x extender) when the budget permits.

I'm still placing bets on the rebel + 70-200 f/4.0L producing superior pictures and results than the 20D + cheaper 75-300 if only for the focusing speed. And you'll look really pro with that white lens L glass on the front ;-)

It is inevitable that one always wants "just a little more" than whatever focal length range one currently possesses.

AMEN!

~Tyler

 

[form]

The sensor in the Rebel XT isn't exactly the same as the 20D; it's very slightly smaller and produces a little more noise.


Because of the crop factor of APS-C sensors, the closest single lens - nay, the ONLY close single lens - to what you currently have is the Sigma 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC (27.8-200mm equiv.) And, if you buy it online, you can get it for just under $300. As far as light gathering ability, it isn't as fast as yours (F/2.8-3.5), but it's not too bad. And, it's not a high grade lens, so image quality may not be the best, or it may have some other issues. General consensus seems to be that it's a pretty good lens for the money.

Reviews of that lens:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=257&sort=7&cat=37&page=2
http://www.ephotozine.com/equipment/tests/testdetail.cfm?test_id=377

For strictly telephoto, I was going to suggest the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, but apparently they've jacked up the prices on it quite a lot since last I checked, to the point where it's actually more expensive than the EF 70-200mm f/4L. Both are a lot more than $300.

You're just not going to get a single dSLR lens that compares to your Minolta in terms of light gathering speed AND zoom range. You'll have to get separate lenses that cover different ranges. Also, any zoom lenses that stay at f/2.8 are fairly expensive, Tamron and Sigma being cheaper than Canon, and having some pretty good offerings.