Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 23, 2006, 4:52 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2
Default

Hi,

I am planning on buying myself a new DSLR and have narowed it down to the rebel xt and the 20d or 30d.

I am just wondering if there is a HUGE difference between the xt and 20 or 30d. I am by no means a pro photographer but am slowly learning. I like to take macro as well as low tungsten (theatre) shots.

is it worth spending the extra money on the 20 or 30, or should i get the xt and spend the extra money on lenses?
thanks,
amy
Amesdabomb is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 24, 2006, 3:25 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Marc H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 130
Default

Depends solely on the photograpy you do, based on the 2 you list, i would choose the rebel.

The noticable difference's between the camera's are: Faster and deeper burst, A higher iso option, a bigger (and slightly better) body. none of the things you would really notice during macro/concert photography.

For concert photography you're better off buying a nice fast prime, like the 50 MM F/1.8 canon.

But do try both camera's before buying, the rebel is quite small, too small for some people. I made the choice between both camera's recently, and went for the more expensive 30D. The rebel was just too small for me, especially with some of the big lenses i use like sigma's 50-500, and coming from a 10D. And doing sports, the faster and deeper burst makes photographing fast cars/planes easier.
Marc H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2006, 2:21 PM   #3
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Marc has some good advice!

I would only add the following:

You may find the ISO 3200 capability of the 20d/30d to be beneficial.

I would say if you can find a new 20d for $1000 then get it - the higher ISO, burst rate and better build are worth the extra $$ IMO.

But, Marc's best advice is to handle both. I am in the same camp as he is - when I tried the 350 and 20D a last year (had to replace my 300D) - I felt the 350 was too small and 'cheap fealing' compared to the 20d. Others really like the smaller size.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2006, 2:22 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11
Default

I second the above regarding the types of photography that you do effecting the choice. It sounds like you would be fine with an XT (i currently use one for macro shooting), if you ever plan on doing any sports or anything that has fast action, you might be happier with the 20d or 30d. between those two the only real difference is the bigger screen on the 30d, they're basically the same camera(except the 30d cost more)...
rhowe7op is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2006, 3:58 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Marc H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 130
Default

rhowe7op:

I agree up to a point, the 30D should have been called 20D Mark II

But, as a 30D user, i find the upgrades worthwile. The biggest advantage's, imho, of the 30D is the finer control over ISO settings, and the hi/lo burst setting.

I use a lot of f4 to f5.6 lenses, so i often have to shoot at higher iso's to get workable shutterspeeds. And having the option of smaller steps, instead of having to double the iso works great.

Last weekend i was shooting a show of the Blue Angels, and having a 5 frames a second burst is great, but in many situations such a high speed camera means shooting often 2 pictures, instead of just the one.
and with a 20D you're just stuck with single shot, or 5 FPS. My camera is always set in a low 3 fps burst mode, so i can respond quickly if something unexpected happends.

If you're seriously thinking about a 20D, do consider the 30D also.

Marc H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2006, 8:47 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
terry@softreq.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,539
Default

The main difference in my mind between the XT and the 20/30D is the ISO3200 and the build quality.

I'd say go with the most you can afford.

Keep in mind you'll need budget for lenses, media cards, camera case etc.

-- Terry


terry@softreq.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2006, 3:34 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15
Default

I had the same issue. I tried the 350 XT, and I didn't like it: it was too small and cheap feeling (I have small hands, so I didn't expect the size to bother me). I thought long and hard about the Nikon D50 and the Olympus E-500, but I settled on the Canon 30D. I am so impressed with this camera. The low light performance, high burst rate, and build quality are terrific. I thought that I wanted a light camera, but I love the heft of the 30D. Don't underestimate the value of the 2.5 inch LCD, either.

I have used a Canon A-1 film camera for 20+ years, and the 30D should meet my wants for a very long time.
Gern Blanston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2006, 4:16 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 175
Default

Amesdabomb wrote:
Quote:
Hi,

I am planning on buying myself a new DSLR and have narowed it down to the rebel xt and the 20d or 30d.

I am just wondering if there is a HUGE difference between the xt and 20 or 30d. I am by no means a pro photographer but am slowly learning. I like to take macro as well as low tungsten (theatre) shots.

is it worth spending the extra money on the 20 or 30, or should i get the xt and spend the extra money on lenses?
thanks,
amy
Amy, it's really a personal decision, but of the three, the 30D is definitely the best, and it is also worth every penny. It's build quality is superior to the Rebel, and you can feel this just by holding it. The Rebel has a plasticky, toylike feel compared to the 20D/30D.

Regarding the 30D, the larger LCD is a REALLY nice feature. It is much easier to confirm open eyes on group shots on the large 30D LCD compared to the small LCD of the XT or 20D. Also, the 30D has a true spotmeter, which is very useful for advanced photography. Finally, Picture Styes are really nice if you shoot JPG and don't want to have to Photoshop all of your images. It applies a nice set of post-processing to each of your images at the time of capture.

Hope this helps,

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

ChrisDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 3, 2006, 9:40 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Bache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 170
Default

I just ordered 30D myself. I had 300d and in my opinion bigger buffer is the biggest upgrade to my old 300D. I shoot lot of concert photos and i hated 300D small and slow buffer size (only 4 raw files) when shooting concert photos at burt mode.

I cant wait to get my new 30D

My photos at http://www.wilisnetcorner.com
Bache is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:55 AM.