Newbie: Is it worth sticking with Canon?

[PrOeliuM]

Hello everyone. I need some advice on my current equipment and whether or not it is valuable enough to stick with Canon. Here is my current setup:

I have an old Canon EOS Rebel X (35mm) that I've used a bunch over the years, no issues with it. I'm looking towards getting a DSLR but don't know whether or not my equipment is compatible (and hence whether or not I should stick with Canon in order to keep using it).

If anyone is interested at seeing what they look like: http://www.proelium.org/pics/EOS_Rebel/

Canon EOS Rebel X Body (pics 1-2)
Canon 35-80mm f4.0-5.6 lens (pics 2-3)
Canon Speedlite 244T (pics 4-7)

Can I use this lens on an EOS 350D or 20D or will it have issues (I don't know much about mounts)? Can I use the flash on those cameras as well? The flash works fine but (as you can see in the pictures) it only has a mode for ISO 100 and one for ISO 400. What happens if I try to use it with a different sensitivity (like say flash set to ISO 100/400 and taking a pic at ISO 200? Is it still useable or does it mess up shots?

If you guys think that the flash isn't worth all that much (since it's inflexible) and that the lens won't do so great on a new Canon DSLR, then I can begin considering other systems (like the Nikon D50 or Pentax *ist DL). My budget for a new sytem is $700 or less. Any advice on what you would do in my situation (even if it's to pawn off the stuff for something newer) is appreciated! Thanks for the help.

 

[Abstract]

Well that lens isn't worth sticking to Canon for, although I don't think autofocus would work anyway, only metering (possibly).

The flash.......well, i don't see why it would matter much. If you were to set your flash to ISO 100, and you had a Digital Rebel XT set to ISO 200, you'd think that by doubling the shutter speed (or increasing it appropriately), it wouldn't make a difference.

However, seeing as how Pentax, Nikon, and Olympus probably have starting camera systems cheaper than Canon, you may want to just start fresh. If you want to spend $700 max, non-Canon brands might be the way to go, and you might even be getting a better camera in many ways (other than noise at high ISOs, which the canon is a bit better at dealing with).

Anyway, stay with Canon if you like them and such, but you really have all options open to you. I'd get a 20D, and any of the starter DSLRs from Nikon, Olympus, and Pentax, over a Rebel XT, though.

 

[sjl]

I have an old Canon EOS Rebel X (35mm) that I've used a bunch over the years, no issues with it. I'm looking towards getting a DSLR but don't know whether or not my equipment is compatible
[...]
Canon EOS Rebel X Body (pics 1-2)
Canon 35-80mm f4.0-5.6 lens (pics 2-3)
Canon Speedlite 244T (pics 4-7)

Can I use this lens on an EOS 350D or 20D or will it have issues (I don't know much about mounts)? Can I use the flash on those cameras as well?

I'm guessing here, but the lens is probably an EF mount. Given that Canon still sells a 35-80mm f4.0-5.6 lens, it's almost certainly an EF mount. EF mount lenses will work just fine with any current Canon DSLR.

Having said that, though, you probably wouldn't bother. Unless you spend the money on the 5D or the 1Ds, the lens will act as though it's a longer lens on the digital body relative to the 35mm body. (For the bodies you're most likely to buy -- the 30D and the 350D -- it would act similar to a 56-128mm on a 35mm body.) It's only worth $AU130 or so RRP brand new, so really, I wouldn't bother considering it as a point for Canon in buying a new body. A better choice, if you wanted to keep the ability to zoom in to that extent, would be the 17-85 (which does cost a lot, probably more than your budget.)

As for the Speedlite: there's nothing on Canon's webpage that specifically mentions that one, but my guess is that it wouldn't work with their DSLR models.

Overall recommendation: relatively cheap gear that either won't work with the DSLR, or will work but isn't really worth the effort. Consider selling it instead (eBay, pawn shop, camera dealer), and look at all the manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus being the main ones) to decide which is the best value for your money. You don't have anything that's worth so much that you would be better off staying with Canon.

 

[law guy]

Hello everyone. I need some advice on my current equipment and whether or not it is valuable enough to stick with Canon. Here is my current setup:

I have an old Canon EOS Rebel X (35mm) that I've used a bunch over the years, no issues with it. I'm looking towards getting a DSLR but don't know whether or not my equipment is compatible (and hence whether or not I should stick with Canon in order to keep using it).

If anyone is interested at seeing what they look like: http://www.proelium.org/pics/EOS_Rebel/

Canon EOS Rebel X Body (pics 1-2)
Canon 35-80mm f4.0-5.6 lens (pics 2-3)
Canon Speedlite 244T (pics 4-7)

Can I use this lens on an EOS 350D or 20D or will it have issues (I don't know much about mounts)? Can I use the flash on those cameras as well? The flash works fine but (as you can see in the pictures) it only has a mode for ISO 100 and one for ISO 400. What happens if I try to use it with a different sensitivity (like say flash set to ISO 100/400 and taking a pic at ISO 200? Is it still useable or does it mess up shots?

If you guys think that the flash isn't worth all that much (since it's inflexible) and that the lens won't do so great on a new Canon DSLR, then I can begin considering other systems (like the Nikon D50 or Pentax *ist DL). My budget for a new sytem is $700 or less. Any advice on what you would do in my situation (even if it's to pawn off the stuff for something newer) is appreciated! Thanks for the help.

Good notes above, for some more general resources:

For compatibility questions, a good resource is the canon forums over at photography-on-the-net:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

A general page on Canon lenses can be found at:

http://bobatkins.com/photography/digital/10d300dlenses.html

 

[Counterfit]

They're all part of the EOS system, so they should all work to some extent. Of course, I would certainly dump that flash in a heartbeat. And the lens too.

 

[PrOeliuM]

Thank you for the comments fellas, they are very helpful. I'm curious about:

The flash.......well, i don't see why it would matter much. If you were to set your flash to ISO 100, and you had a Digital Rebel XT set to ISO 200, you'd think that by doubling the shutter speed (or increasing it appropriately), it wouldn't make a difference.

though. Would it really be just as easy as doubling the shutterspeed to make the old flash work with an ISO 200 sensitivity? I thought there was more complicated stuff involved when trying to sync a flash and the shutter.

Keep the opinions coming, I'm trying to make as an informed decision as possible.

 

[law guy]

Is the continued use of this gear the lynch pin of your decision to buy a Canon DSLR or a Pentax/Nikon/Olyp/Other?

What system would you rather use going forward? What are the features you are looking for?

 

[Abstract]

Thank you for the comments fellas, they are very helpful. I'm curious about: though. Would it really be just as easy as doubling the shutterspeed to make the old flash work with an ISO 200 sensitivity? I thought there was more complicated stuff involved when trying to sync a flash and the shutter.

There is. Your camera probably won't be able to feed your flash any info, but I was just talking about technicalities regarding the ISOs you mentioned and light in general. It was more of a brain fart.

More specifically, that flash is going to be useless on a 350D, I'm guessing. Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt it'd work on a digital SLR. Your lense would work, but then your photos are gonna get cropped automatically by a factor of 1.6x, so you're really only ever going to capture the central part of what you see.

 

[-hh]

Is the continued use of this gear the lynch pin of your decision to buy a Canon DSLR or a Pentax/Nikon/Olyp/Other?

That's a "No and Yes" type of question that's not ever going to have a clear, definitive answer. What the basic question comes down to is how much "value" is placed on the preexisting equipment, and thus, how much it can influence the decision.

As a minimum, the decision will have factors that will include the general cash value of the legacy gear in question, the person's budget (and/or other resource limitations), and other factors, such as the legacy item having sentimental value ("family heirloom", etc).

For a simple example, it doesn't make that much sense for a $100 legacy lens to influence a $2000 purchase, because that's only 5%, its cash value is not a significant influence. But if it happens to be the family heirloom that your Uncle took a photo of Sasquatch with, the cash value factor may very well be ignored.

What system would you rather use going forward? What are the features you are looking for?

Agreed. You can add to this also the question of how much they value backwards-compatibility...assuming that they really expect to keep the 35mm body. Overall, my inclination would be that since the OP only has one old body and one pretty basic looking lens and strobe, I'd be inclined to opine that the "backwards compatibility to legacy" may not necessarily be that significant of a factor, even though I'm also a Canon user. If he's looking to save that old Rebel from the trash can, if I can sneak it in without my wife noticing....


-hh

 

[law guy]

That's a "No and Yes" type of question that's not ever going to have a clear, definitive answer. What the basic question comes down to is how much "value" is placed on the preexisting equipment, and thus, how much it can influence the decision.

As a minimum, the decision will have factors that will include the general cash value of the legacy gear in question, the person's budget (and/or other resource limitations), and other factors, such as the legacy item having sentimental value ("family heirloom", etc).

For a simple example, it doesn't make that much sense for a $100 legacy lens to influence a $2000 purchase, because that's only 5%, its cash value is not a significant influence. But if it happens to be the family heirloom that your Uncle took a photo of Sasquatch with, the cash value factor may very well be ignored.

-hh

Of course, all assumed in the question - the crux of the question asked seems to be, does the value (and this appears just to ask us about the monetary value because we don't know if there's an emotional attachment) of these items make it worth sticking with Canon. The question itself leaves a lot of unknows as you've identified. It's not clear to me why the person is thinking of changing systems. PrOeliuM states $700 is the budget. So, we're not talking about changing to a much different type of camera - really, it seems to be a question between D50, Rebel XT /350/? I think we have consensus that we need a little more info on what the alternatives are and why PrOeliuM is thinking of changing systems.

Reading the original post again, with the budget number - I wouldn't let the existing equipment dictate - I'd still get either a XT kit or a D50 kit at that price if we're talking new - or see if you can get a deal on a used D70/s or 20d (there may be more on the market soon with the release of the 30d to some stores next week in the US, but I'm not sure you're going to find something down as cheap as $700, so we're back to the D50/XT option more realistically). Beyond that PrOeliuM, we're back to the issues of what features you like - if there's something about Nikon that you really like that you don't like about the XT, if you're thinking of upgrading at somepoint - e.g., you may not like the XT as much based on a grip size, but perhaps you like the Canon lenses more and at some point in the next few years you're thinking about upgrading anyway. In that case, I'd go XT. Or vice versa with the Nikon. (or Pentax, etc. - trying not to exclude here)

 

[ChrisA]

Your lens will work fine and so will the strobe. But the 35-80 is not worth much (well under $100) and is not a good zoom range for a digital body. The digital sensor is smaller then a 35mm film frame so the lens actslike it is about 1.5 time longer. Your 35-80 will act like a 55-120 and you will want something wider. The "kit lens" that comes with any of the Canon bodies will cover the 35-80 range so you'd likey not use the 35-80 even if you did buy a 350D

Now is the time to re-think what you want. Maybe you continue with Canon and buy a 30D. or 350D Or go with Nikon D50/D200 or Olympus (or if you can afford it Contax or Mamiya.) The Rebel XT and the lens have little value. Keep them in case you want to shoot film. One thing digital can't do is "slides". Keep it for that.

Thank you for the comments fellas, they are very helpful. I'm curious about: though. Would it really be just as easy as doubling the shutterspeed to make the old flash work with an ISO 200 sensitivity? I thought there was more complicated stuff involved when trying to sync a flash and the shutter.

Keep the opinions coming, I'm trying to make as an informed decision as possible.

You are right. The shutter speed has no effect on flash exposure as long as it is slower then the sync speed. The flashe's "duration", that is the lenght of the light pulse is very, very short. Keeping the shutter open does not let more of the flashe's light in. It dos let more of the ambient light in.

You are getting a lot of technically wrong answers here. Likley because this is a forum for Apple Mac rumors and not a photography forum. Find a good Canon SLR specific forum. or a Nikon on if that is what you want. (PM me for good Nikon sources) Better yet find a "real" camera store (not Best Buy) and go in and talk to them pick up and play with the equipment. Bring your old camera with you

The Canon digital rebel will work jut fine in manual mode with a manual flash. _Any_ flash will work in manual mode. But the Conon DSLRs have built in flahes that

 

[law guy]

You are right. The shutter speed has no effect on flash exposure as long as it is slower then the sync speed. The flashe's "duration", that is the lenght of the light pulse is very, very short. Keeping the shutter open does not let more of the flashe's light in. It dos let more of the ambient light in.

You are getting a lot of technically wrong answers here. Likley because this is a forum for Apple Mac rumors and not a photography forum. Find a good Canon SLR specific forum. or a Nikon on if that is what you want. (PM me for good Nikon sources) Better yet find a "real" camera store (not Best Buy) and go in and talk to them pick up and play with the equipment. Bring your old camera with you

The Canon digital rebel will work jut fine in manual mode with a manual flash. _Any_ flash will work in manual mode. But the Conon DSLRs have built in flahes that

ChrisA mentions camera forums:

A few are (Nikon)
http://www.nikonians.org
http://www.nikoncafe.com

(canon)
http://www.photography-on-the-net.com/forums/ (as noted before above I believe)

Info Sites:
(Nikon)
http://www.bythom.com
http://www.kenrockwell.com

(Canon)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/index.html
http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/index.html

Review Sites In General - few are:
http://www.dpreview.com
http://www.dcresource.com
http://www.stevesdigicams.com
http://www.popphoto.com (popular photog magazine - look for the tech/gear section)

 

[ethen]

I think it's a matter of personal preferences, no offense to nikon's user, i prefer to stick with canon because i'm used to teh control, not saying nikon's control is bad, but if you are used to one camera, sticking with it would be nicer

 

[Abstract]

You're all getting way too analytical.

Look at Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, and yes, Canon. Get new everything, because the lens and flash you have now isn't worth anything.

 

[PrOeliuM]

Wow thanks for all the great advice everyone! I'll definitely check out the links posted to see if I can get my feet wet with the whole thing. Someone posted about why I'd like to change systems, and really it was because of simple things I thought it might be keeping the old lens/flash for.

I read a few photography forums and I often hear people complaining that internal flashes on DSLRs like the D50/350D/istDL are "too weak" to have good ranges or that they are inadequate for doing other types of photography, which is why I figured that having an external flash (if I could get it working of course) might be a benefit to sticking with Canon. I also knew a little about crop factors so I was thinking that my 35-80 could be a short term remedy to the need for a telephoto capable lens (since with the crop factor it would be 58-128) so I could get a wider angle lens with the new DSLR and have both worlds.

These aren't real deal breakers (especially because I don't know whether I could get the old stuff working on a new system), but it's the main reason I made this thread. There seems to be a consensus that my stuff isn't really worth keeping (which I don't mind since I value honest opinions), so I'll start taking a look at some more reviews of the various entry-level DSLR systems and what they're good for. At this point in my photography I'm still trying to find my niche, so I'm looking for a system that is flexible (I hear some like maybe Nikon are really good at macro stuff and Canon for sports) enough that once I do grow into a better photographer I won't have to switch systems again (I like keeping around old stuff as you guys can see). If you guys have any more advice or opinions, I'm still very interested and even if you want to let this thread die, I'd be glad to accept PMs.

 

[Abstract]

May I suggest that you read this thread?

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/187528/


It's what we have and why we bought a particular dSLR. Sometimes I think that the reviews at sites like DPReview have lots of information, but too much useless information. I'm a picky purchaser, but I know when something is important and when it isn't, and when they start cropping 95% of a photo out in order to look at how clear the label on a bottle of alcohol is, I told myself that some info they provide isn't worth anything to anybody who can think for themselves, because that's never going to be something I will do or encounter.

All the dSLRs are good, so it's really a matter of which companies have the ergonomics, "feel", and lenses for you. Even companies like Olympus, which does not have nearly as many dSLR specific lenses as Canon, still have too many lenses for you to own, and probably have a lense for every situation you're going to be in.

 

[sjl]

I read a few photography forums and I often hear people complaining that internal flashes on DSLRs like the D50/350D/istDL are "too weak" to have good ranges or that they are inadequate for doing other types of photography, which is why I figured that having an external flash (if I could get it working of course) might be a benefit to sticking with Canon.

Considering that the flash likely won't work with the DSLR, it's not a major one. If you're really curious, take the flash down to your local camera shop and ask to try it with a 350D or 20D; that will give you a definitive answer as to whether or not it would work. (My money's on not, but I'm no expert on this.)

I also knew a little about crop factors so I was thinking that my 35-80 could be a short term remedy to the need for a telephoto capable lens (since with the crop factor it would be 58-128) so I could get a wider angle lens with the new DSLR and have both worlds.

Well, the 350D comes bundled with a 18-55, so you would have a slightly greater range than you otherwise would, but in all seriousness, the 35-80mm isn't worth so much that it's worth putting down as a major plus. Slight plus, maybe, but only really enough to tip the balance if the Canon comes equal first with some other brand, IMO. (There's also the point that the 18-55 isn't as good optically as the 17-55 or the 17-85, but both of the latter cost more than you're likely to want to pay, based on what you've said.)

At this point in my photography I'm still trying to find my niche, so I'm looking for a system that is flexible (I hear some like maybe Nikon are really good at macro stuff and Canon for sports) enough that once I do grow into a better photographer I won't have to switch systems again (I like keeping around old stuff as you guys can see).

Canon has done very well at getting a fair chunk of the sports market; they have some excellent long lenses, but they cost big bickies. Unless you're a serious professional, you'll probably be looking at the cheaper end of the telephoto range, no more than 400mm (and a fairly slow 400mm at that), and there, I believe (but don't quote me) that Nikon and Canon are roughly on a par.

As for macro: both Canon and Nikon have decent macro lenses at reasonable prices.

The ultra-top-end stuff is very expensive, and it's not worth considering except as a "that would be nice if I won the lottery" type situation. For instance, Canon's 180mm macro is $AU3100, compared with a rather more realistic $AU1100 for the 100mm, for example -- it's a nicer lens, but there's no way I can justify that money for it (especially since one of the major reasons I want a macro - underwater photography - won't happen with the 180mm). Similarly, the 100-400mm costs $AU3500, compared with $AU2700 for a comparable (f/5.6) 400mm prime; the faster 400mm primes cost $AU12,700 (f/4) to $AU16,000 (f/2.8). The situation will be similar in the Nikon world. (All prices are recommended retail, which only a muggins pays, by the way.)

In short, what I'm saying is that you should be realistic in how much you're likely to spend on gear in the medium to long term, and compare the gear in that price range from the various manufacturers. Don't fall into the trap of comparing the top-end Canon with the top-end Nikon, if you're not likely to spend the money on it.