Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 17, 2007, 6:24 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Cool Breeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 321
Default

I have been using a point and shoot Fuji for a number of years. Recently driving home from work I noticed a number of Hawks along the beltway. I tried to get a good picture, but with sad results. My camera has a 6x optical zoom but ha, what is that? LOL

So I have been looking at the Canon 30D and a couple of lenses I can afford.


Let me say that again, there is a price factor here .

I'm looking to get some decent pictures of wildlife (mainly birds in flight, and birds of prey) and sports pictures, (motorcycle racing to baseball games).

Would the Canon 30D and the Canon 28-135mm/ Canon 70-300mm be good choices for a begginerand this type of photography?

Cool Breeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 17, 2007, 6:52 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

You've got quite a bit of overlap in those two lenses (and no wide angle). You might want to consider a wide angle zoom, like the 18-55mm instead of the 28-135mm.

the Hun


rinniethehun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2007, 7:02 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Cool Breeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 321
Default

how about a EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM zoom super wide angle autofocus?

Also, what is that wide angle going to do for me?
Cool Breeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2007, 7:32 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

I was thinking more of the 17-55mm F2.8. The wide angle has a lot of possiblilities...like when you're taking a picture of an eagle sitting on top of a tree...maybe you'd like to take a pic of eagle and the whole tree - without having to back up until you fall off the cliff. And while you're snapping pics of the motorcycle race, you might want to show the distance between the first and second place bikes...or the stands filled with fans...or the shortstop flipping the ball to the second baseman...and be able to get them both (as well as the sliding runner) in the frame, etc.

the Hun

rinniethehun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2007, 8:07 AM   #5
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

The 70-300 is an excellent choice for your stated purpose. But it's not a walk-around lens so it would be too limiting for your other shots. So, it becomes a question of:

what focal length do you want available on your camera when you're NOT shooting wildlife or sports.

This is a completely personal thing - it varies by photographer. I fancy more reach than wide angle so my walk-around is the 28-135. Although I do have the 17-40 for when I want wide angle. For me and my style 55mm is too short for a walk-around lens - but for other people 28mm is too long. For me the key is this: The walk-around lens should meet 75% of your non-specific needs (i.e when you're not shooting sports or wildlife). The 17-85, 28-135 and 17-55 are all great lenses. Remember though to factor in the crop-factor of the camera - so 17mm behaves like 26mm and 28mm behaves like 44mm. The 17-55 is the nicest lens but the most expensive and the shortest. The other two lenses are about the same in quality - the 17-85 has better version of IS but the real difference is the focal lengths. So, bottom line - choose the lens that fits the focal length needs for your walk-around lens.


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2007, 2:26 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 2,093
Default

If birds are more than just an occasional subject 300mm is too short. 400mm or more will be more useful. I think it will exceedingly unusual where you could approach a bird of prey with an 18mm lens thatthe bird would be more than a speck.
ac.smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2007, 4:06 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Cool Breeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 321
Default

thank you for the feedback! I hope to make some progress and return something worth showing!
Cool Breeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 22, 2007, 10:19 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6
Default

i think the canon 30d is an excellent choise.
i used to have the canon 610A and upgraded to the 30D and i am very pleased.
the macro functionworks really great, although the zoom is not that good (only x5).

anyways,you can check the camera details here -

[SPAM REMOVED BY MODERATOR]

david.clark80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2007, 4:25 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Before the C30D you really should take a look at the Pentax K10D

The 30D is getting a bit aged... and still no 40D in sight.

The Pentax K10D is new technology, and capable of some cool thing the 30D isn't.

As well as offering good imagae stabilization on ANY lens made for Pentax pretty much EVER.... even an old manual one.....
VS expensive per lens IS as only avenue on Canon or Nikon.

It is also dust and weather sealed, great in my seaside/island environment..

I have had one several months now after a few years of original Canon Rebel, and fed up waiting for the never forthcoming long rumored 40D

Pentax came out with the only SHORTLY rumored K10D and I jumped on it.... no regrets.

The P K10D is also hundreds less than the C30D, yet actually more capable.

PS and the IS on the K10D great for long lens wildlife shooting hand held, even with a low end SIGMA or Tamron 70-300mm. Take a look at some of the stuff on the PEntax board.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 23, 2007, 10:35 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Cool Breeze wrote:
Quote:
... My camera has a 6x optical zoom...
This is an example of why the X factor on digicams is a useless number - if that were stated in terms of a 35mm equiv it would be easy to figure out what focal length on a dSLR was the same. Likely the long end is about equiv to a 200mm equiv, or about a 135mm on a dSLR with an APS sized sensor (the reasonably priced ones).

You said you got "Sad results" - What does that mean? Lots of blur (shake)? Poor focus? Missed shot because of lag? Subject to small (need longer lens)?


BillDrew 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 8:35 AM.