MBP vs. 40D

[Westside guy]

TI'd be inclined to agree... if I didn't know the following story. I knew a woman who was shooting a wedding with her DSLR, when all the sudden in the middle of it, it just craps out on her, and she had no backup.

This isn't all that uncommon - the few pro photographers I'm acquainted with all have some sort of similar first-hand story. Digital cameras are more complex than film cameras, so there's more to go wrong.

I will note if you're shooting the wedding with an assistant (as a lot of pros do), the assistant's camera can be the backup if yours craps out. But you HAVE to have a second body available, one way or the other. There's just no second chance when it comes to a wedding.

 

[Digital Skunk]

After reading all of the posts, it's obvious that the OP wants a new (40D) body and NOT the glass, and he/she wants us to tell him/her that. So....

Just get the 40D

You will need glass later on, and the reasons for needing a second body are weak. You can drop your lens just as fast and as hard as you drop your body. Sh*t happens, and having a second body or lens, or computer won't always help you.

And as was said, you should really look into getting your own glass, but we know that's not going to happen. Renting is nice but you never know when someone will rent the lens you want, but if it works for you then all is well. Nothing is wrong with a glossy screen when it comes to toning images and correcting them. Only amatuers complain about glossy screens interfereing with their color. So you can get the MacBook as well as the 40D if you want.

Just a piece of advice. There is NO point in having a second body with crap glass to put on each. If you are going to get teh 40D, then rent only the best glass you can find. Since you aren't a pro yet, don't worry about breaking your XT, it won't hurt your career.

 

[JonD25]

This isn't all that uncommon - the few pro photographers I'm acquainted with all have some sort of similar first-hand story. Digital cameras are more complex than film cameras, so there's more to go wrong.

I will note if you're shooting the wedding with an assistant (as a lot of pros do), the assistant's camera can be the backup if yours craps out. But you HAVE to have a second body available, one way or the other. There's just no second chance when it comes to a wedding.

I wish I had an assistant, and I could probably get one if it were in the States, but that pesky flight across the Atlantic is too expensive, and most of what I was paid for the wedding went to my own ticket. If I had an assistant, this would probably be a different conversation.

 

[CallsignBaron]

I am going to jump on the "get the glass" bandwagon here. The Rebel is not the most feature laden, professional hardware but it is more than capable and will certainly let you hone your skills. Besides, if you are aspiring to go pro the 40D (although a very nice body) is probably not going to be your first choice. The 1D or the 5D should be more your goal, professionally speaking. Your computer is also not the fastest and most desirable among photoshop experts but it is capable albeit maybe a little slow. My opinion for what it's worth is to get the glass, Canon L series. As a photographer you want the best tools to shoot the best photos you can, photos that need little or no photoshop. That goal makes you a better photographer and cuts down on your post-processing time. If I have misread your intentions and are wanting to concentrate more on graphic design, then obviously I have misspoke, buy the MBP.

My two cents, FWIW.

 

[JonD25]

After reading all of the posts, it's obvious that the OP wants a new (40D) body and NOT the glass, and he/she wants us to tell him/her that. So....

Just get the 40D

You will need glass later on, and the reasons for needing a second body are weak. You can drop your lens just as fast and as hard as you drop your body. Sh*t happens, and having a second body or lens, or computer won't always help you.

And as was said, you should really look into getting your own glass, but we know that's not going to happen. Renting is nice but you never know when someone will rent the lens you want, but if it works for you then all is well. Nothing is wrong with a glossy screen when it comes to toning images and correcting them. Only amatuers complain about glossy screens interfereing with their color. So you can get the MacBook as well as the 40D if you want.

Just a piece of advice. There is NO point in having a second body with crap glass to put on each. If you are going to get teh 40D, then rent only the best glass you can find. Since you aren't a pro yet, don't worry about breaking your XT, it won't hurt your career.

*sigh*

Must.... resist..... angry.... reply.....

 

[Digital Skunk]

*sigh*

Must.... resist..... angry.... reply.....

Hey man, that's what the posts imply. You even got a little angry when everyone was telling to get certain models of Canon glass. You kind of blew them off say, "Doesn't anyone understand that I can rent glass?"

The few posters that I would put money on for being a working pro have said to get your own glass. It's okay to want the 40D over the glass especially since it's new and pretty looking.

BUT..... if you ask us what to do in your situation most of us, many of which have shot weddings professionally, will tell you glass is where your head should be.

I don't mean anything by it, just speaking from what I have read.

p.s. After seeing your site, your body is doing just fine.

 

[JNB]

Just got a chance to look at your site myself. If you're open to a critique, I think you definitely have the "eye." Technical composition skills, other "mechanical" aspects will improve, but the raw talent is already there. I can say without hesitation that as much as I love to just shoot anything & everything, I don't have the basic visual sense you have (just check my website, it's painfully obvious).

I have to say that I think the weakest area for you is actually the wedding shots; they don't seem to have the dynamism or energy that the other stuff does. I would venture to say that you seem strongest when you're in control of the setting and the shot; when you're reacting to what is presented to you with no opportunity to control or influence it, there is a loss of "you" in the final product.

I wouldn't deign to tell you how to shoot, other than to say trust your natural instincts for the shoot (even if it pi**es off the bride).

Make sure you post us some pix from "over there" when you get a chance.

 

[JonD25]

Hey man, that's what the posts imply. You even got a little angry when everyone was telling to get certain models of Canon glass. You kind of blew them off say, "Doesn't anyone understand that I can rent glass?"

The few posters that I would put money on for being a working pro have said to get your own glass. It's okay to want the 40D over the glass especially since it's new and pretty looking.

BUT..... if you ask us what to do in your situation most of us, many of which have shot weddings professionally, will tell you glass is where your head should be.

I don't mean anything by it, just speaking from what I have read.

p.s. After seeing your site, your body is doing just fine.

Thanks for that PS.

I was just frustrated by the fact that I had presented an option of buying a body and renting glass, and the only responses I got were against it and provided no real reason. They just blew me off and basically said, "Well ok, if you wanna be an idiot and put $20 lenses on $3000 bodies, it'll be your crappy photos." Their responses had nothing to do with renting and were made as if they had completely ignored the fact that I would be renting good glass with whatever body I bought. Whereas JohnNotBeatle actually provided a reasonable argument against relying on rental lenses (in a very amicable, helpful way might I add, rather than the condescending tone I got from a lot of people). I think a lot of people here have made very good points about a lot of different things, and I've listened and changed my opinions about what I originally had in mind. If you actually knew where my whole quest began, compared to where it is now, there's no way you would think that I'm just looking for people to agree with what I already wanted from the start (I was initially looking at going with film instead of digital). All I'm really asking for are reasonable arguments and a little bit of empathy and understanding that I'm in a difficult position that can't be simplified to "just get glass".

 

[JonD25]

Just got a chance to look at your site myself. If you're open to a critique, I think you definitely have the "eye." Technical composition skills, other "mechanical" aspects will improve, but the raw talent is already there. I can say without hesitation that as much as I love to just shoot anything & everything, I don't have the basic visual sense you have (just check my website, it's painfully obvious).

I have to say that I think the weakest area for you is actually the wedding shots; they don't seem to have the dynamism or energy that the other stuff does. I would venture to say that you seem strongest when you're in control of the setting and the shot; when you're reacting to what is presented to you with no opportunity to control or influence it, there is a loss of "you" in the final product.

I wouldn't deign to tell you how to shoot, other than to say trust your natural instincts for the shoot (even if it pi**es off the bride).

Make sure you post us some pix from "over there" when you get a chance.

Thanks for the critique. I think I can see what you're saying about those wedding photos. A lot of those will probably come down once I have some better ones to replace them. It was actually my first wedding, so a lot of it was me being unsure about the whole thing, and there were a LOT of things that were definitely "uncontrollable" that I wish I had control of, like the look of the actual church, the lighting, the weather, etc. That was in December, and since then I've been getting a bit more experience with uncontrollable situations. I've been taking a lot of photos of children, and if anyone else has done that, they'll understand how uncontrollable those types of shoots can be. So I have high hopes for this wedding and I think a bit more confidence going in. And also, I've seen photos of where the wedding will be, and it's absolutely beautiful, so no worries about that this time

 

[JonD25]

Sorry for the multiple posts. But I just very roughly went over what my budget might be like, and it looks like I may have around $1000 left over for a lens or two (are you happy now you lens pushers!!!! )

A nice L lens like the 24-70mm 2.8L would be ideal, but I'm open to other suggestions. I think I'd like something with a zoom that's flexible and more of an "every day" kinda lens, since it would be replacing my 17-55 piece o' crap stock XT lens. If I got that 24-70mm, that's my whole budget. So I'm open to maybe cheaper suggestions that would let me get another lens as well. A nice wide angle or fisheye would be nice. I hardly ever use telephotos, so I think past 70mm is a lower priority for me, and I'll just get by with the 75-300mm I own now.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Yes on the 24-70. It's a mainstay in the world of photography. Sorry if I did seem a bit 'negative' in my posts, I just don't want to tell you something you don't want to hear.

As for the body/lens/accessories issue, I was there a few months ago. When the D300 and D3 came out I had the choice of grabbing those bodies or something else for the same price. My D200 worked just fine, as did the D80 and other gear that I had, so I spent the cash on a 17" MBP, harddrives, RAM, various memory cards, flashes, other lenses, a used D2xs body, lights, stands and backgrounds.

It would be nice to have gotten the D3 and the 24-70, but I didn't need them as badly as I needed the other stuff. And since my shooting changes from day to day and week to week I wouldn't have been able to see the benefits of the D3 or D300, which is low light photography, as soon as possible.

The D2xs, stroboframe, and SB-80s shined in the shoot I did a few weeks ago however. In other words, like we all agree on, if you want the body or the glass or the machine grab it up... you don't need us to confirm your purchase since non of use will be right there shooting with you.

 

[JNB]

I'll reiterate my vote for the 16-35 f/2.8 L, if you can find a way to squeak it in. You know you wanna! Well, OK, the 17-40 f/4 L for half the price, then.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

Click on my sig link. Thats the best way to get a 40d and the mbp if you really wanted. Its a sweet camera but nothing replaces fast lenses.

 

[JonD25]

Yes on the 24-70. It's a mainstay in the world of photography. Sorry if I did seem a bit 'negative' in my posts, I just don't want to tell you something you don't want to hear.

As for the body/lens/accessories issue, I was there a few months ago. When the D300 and D3 came out I had the choice of grabbing those bodies or something else for the same price. My D200 worked just fine, as did the D80 and other gear that I had, so I spent the cash on a 17" MBP, harddrives, RAM, various memory cards, flashes, other lenses, a used D2xs body, lights, stands and backgrounds.

It would be nice to have gotten the D3 and the 24-70, but I didn't need them as badly as I needed the other stuff. And since my shooting changes from day to day and week to week I wouldn't have been able to see the benefits of the D3 or D300, which is low light photography, as soon as possible.

The D2xs, stroboframe, and SB-80s shined in the shoot I did a few weeks ago however. In other words, like we all agree on, if you want the body or the glass or the machine grab it up... you don't need us to confirm your purchase since non of use will be right there shooting with you.

I guess the problem I had with your post was that the idea of just telling me what I want to hear seems very condescending. Maybe you didn't mean it like that, in which case internet communication easily muddies stuff like this up. But I'm completely capable of processing opinions counter to my own, think for myself, and decide whether I agree with them or not. And if I were just looking for people to tell me what I want to hear, this whole thread would be pointless. I'm not so much looking for confirmation as I'm looking for guidance and first hand accounts from those who might have been in a similar situation as my own, and it just seemed like a lot (not all) of the responses either aren't or haven't been in the same situation as I'm in now and weren't trying very hard to put themselves in my shoes and were giving advice from their own situation which is quite different from my own.

I'll reiterate my vote for the 16-35 f/2.8 L, if you can find a way to squeak it in. You know you wanna! Well, OK, the 17-40 f/4 L for half the price, then.

I like the idea of "half price", but ideally I'd like something a bit faster than f4. I may be able to squeak that one in, and it would be a good compliment to the rest of my lenses with no overlapping (16-35 for wide to normal, 50 prime for the middle, 75-300 for tele).

Click on my sig link. Thats the best way to get a 40d and the mbp if you really wanted. Its a sweet camera but nothing replaces fast lenses.

That's mighty tempting, but it looks like that'll require a bit more time than I have available since it's all about mail in rebates and eBay. If I have the initial funds to invest before getting it all back, I might try it. Thanks.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Just buy a 40D body with the Canon instant rebate, and a lens such as EF-24-70 f/2.8L ($1,124.00). However, there are other lenses you can choose from, since you may need a wider one for group shots indoors. You can ask wedding photographers to see what they use, right here at the forum which shows lenses to choose from, and their prices:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406

I just upgraded from my trusty XT to a 40D last night. It costs around $900.00 with the instant rebate. With this rebate, you don't have to mail a coupon to Canon. The rebate is part of the online transaction. I bought mine from B&H, since I have purchased stuff from them for a very long time, but you may be able to buy it for less that $936.00 from Amazon, Beach Camera, or Adorama. And don't forget to buy one or two 2GB cards for it, which are different from the ones used with the XT, but not expensive at $36.00 for a 2GB.

I don't shoot weddings, just landscapes and large-size wildlife such as moose, etc. I will use the same lenses I now use with the XT, which are:
-Tokina 12-24mm for landscapes
-Tamron 17-50mm for pictures of my wife, friends, her dog, etc., as well as landscapes
-EF 200mm f/2.8L for the wildlife I mentioned, plus a Kenko 1.4x extender DG Pro when needed

 

[Digital Skunk]

I guess the problem I had with your post was that the idea of just telling me what I want to hear seems very condescending.

Yeah, I re-read it and it did. I apologize for that again.

Sometimes we all just need to hears our choices reaffirmed. Kind of like asking, "Is if okay to get this instead of that?" Not that you where, but if you work retail you get those kinds of questions a lot.

p.s. Thank God I don't work in retail anymore.

 

[termina3]

What's the syndrome called when you want to completely blow off Canon and any existing Canon gear you have and make the completely unreasonable but incredibly tempting leap to a Nikon D300?

Must..... resist..... D300.....

The right choice.

Hehe before I get flamed, jk, L'ers, jk.

 

[Everythingisnt]

Only amatuers complain about glossy screens interfereing with their color.

Professionals complain too, it's just that they don't then go and post all over the internet about it

 

[JNB]

The right choice.

Hehe before I get flamed, jk, L'ers, jk.

Flamed? Not here, this is the only official "neutral ground" for Canonites and Nikonians. Though, you gotta admit, dumping one's entire kit to switch labels, in either direction, is pretty extreme.

But for JonD25, if you do decide to switch, you can just dump all that nasty old Canon gear on me, and I won't even charge you shipping. I'm willing to take one for the team.

 

[termina3]

Flamed? Not here, this is the only official "neutral ground" for Canonites and Nikonians. Though, you gotta admit, dumping one's entire kit to switch labels, in either direction, is pretty extreme.

Perhaps it's neutral, but it's violently neutral. Someone who goes too strong either way gets an earful.

 

[JonD25]

And don't forget to buy one or two 2GB cards for it, which are different from the ones used with the XT, but not expensive at $36.00 for a 2GB.

Are you sure about that? Specs say it takes CF, same as XT. The XSi takes SD though, IIRC.

Yeah, I re-read it and it did. I apologize for that again.

It's ok, don't worry about it. I'm just glad I resisted what I was originally going to respond. But I figured things had just cooled down a little and I didn't want to get it all heated up again. I do appreciate your help though.

Sometimes we all just need to hears our choices reaffirmed. Kind of like asking, "Is if okay to get this instead of that?" Not that you where, but if you work retail you get those kinds of questions a lot.

That's true. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. But I'd like to think that even then, if what I have my heart set on is the stupidest choice ever, I'd hope someone would tell me, and then tell me why.

p.s. Thank God I don't work in retail anymore.

Oh no, I'm hoping to get into retail! (once I move, I'm going to try again at applying at an Apple store)

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I am not certain about the memory card. When I bought the 40D online, I bought the card for it advertised under "accessories" or something like that. Hopefully I didn't order the wrong one
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/518207-REG/Canon_1901B004_EOS_40D_SLR_Digital.html

 

[JonD25]

I am not certain about the memory card. When I bought the 40D online, I bought the card for it advertised under "accessories" or something like that. Hopefully I didn't order the wrong one
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/518207-REG/Canon_1901B004_EOS_40D_SLR_Digital.html

Yup, same as the XT

I'm planning on getting two 4GB cards. I already have 3 2GB cards, which might be fine if I were shooting JPEG, but I really prefer RAW. And taking a wedding's worth of 10 megapixel RAW images is gonna be quite a bit of memory card.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Yup, same as the XT

I'm planning on getting two 4GB cards. I already have 3 2GB cards, which might be fine if I were shooting JPEG, but I really prefer RAW. And taking a wedding's worth of 10 megapixel RAW images is gonna be quite a bit of memory card.

Good. I am glad that it's the right card. I should be able to get around 100 RAW photos on a 2GB card. With a XT and a 2GB card I should be able to save around 160 RAW images. I shoot RAW, too, and have one 3GB card, and another 2GB one, but haven't had the need to use the first one. I didn't even realized these were the same cards

I paid $20.00 for the 2GB one, new in the package, from a guy at the photo forum I posted above. I bough 2ea. 2GB cards from him.

 

[iBookG4user]

I don't think this has been said, but have you considered a used 20D body? They are going for pretty cheap right now ($400 if you look in the right places), that would more than cut the camera costs in half and give you more money to play around with. The 20D is still a good camera body and will give you quality results, it may not have all the features of the 40D but you don't really need all of them. I personally own the 40D, so this is coming from someone who owns the camera, I myself have been considering the 20D as a backup for when I do event shoots and for when I get starting with weddings in the summer. That would give you $1600 to play around with for other things to buy such as renting or buying lenses, getting flashes, etc. Anyway, that's my 2¢.