Should I upgrade now?

[tc811]

I'm using Canon EOS 350D currently with canon 17-40mm L, tokina 24-200mm lens. I'm thinking of upgrading my camera and lens as well. Ideally will be 30D, but rumours of 40D around the corner makes me hesitate. So should i wait?

I'm of the idea of getting a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 together with a 70-200 f/4 L lens. Something to cover the wide of 17mm to 70mm so as to join by the 70-200. Any other alternatives for the range from wide to telephoto? Thanks.

[genegoh]

In my opinion, the fantastic performance, esp noise control, of the 1DmkIII points to a significant improvement in the next camera model, be it to replace the 30D or the 5D.
Dunno abt you, but I'm waiting it out. My 2 cents.

[Redsun]

yea im waiting it out too. cmon canon!Give us 3 inch Lcd and DigicIII on 40D as well lol

[midicity]

The 40D could be announced in Sep 07. So with the initial rush and stock out issues, you can probably see it actually stocked either Dec 07 or early next year.

Actually, your 17-40L is a very good lens. I think you might be losing image quality with a change to 17-70.

I think a possible upgrade for that is the 17-55 f2.8 IS for the f2.8 and IS. You can still get the 70-200 f4 (with or w/o IS). 56mm-70mm might not be so crucial for shots. You can always shoot wider and crop a little.

But , what you can do with a f2.8 IS lens is something a 17-70 might not be able to do

[tc811]

Originally Posted by midicity The 40D could be announced in Sep 07. So with the initial rush and stock out issues, you can probably see it actually stocked either Dec 07 or early next year. Actually, your 17-40L is a very good lens. I think you might be losing image quality with a change to 17-70. I think a possible upgrade for that is the 17-55 f2.8 IS for the f2.8 and IS. You can still get the 70-200 f4 (with or w/o IS). 56mm-70mm might not be so crucial for shots. You can always shoot wider and crop a little. But , what you can do with a f2.8 IS lens is something a 17-70 might not be able to do

Well, it does sound ideal to me. I don't intend to get the 17-55 f2.8 cos that might drain my budget a bit. In that case, i probably have to wait until dec or early next year for my next upgrade.

[user111]

some suggestions:

1. keep the body first and wait for 40d to come out. then wait a while more for 30d price to drop further so that u can get a cheaper 30d
2. keep the 17-40L. its a very good lens already
3. get the 70-200 now. (sell the tokina 24-200 to get back some $$$ for the 70-200)

logical?

[tc811]

Originally Posted by user111 some suggestions: 1. keep the body first and wait for 40d to come out. then wait a while more for 30d price to drop further so that u can get a cheaper 30d 2. keep the 17-40L. its a very good lens already 3. get the 70-200 now. (sell the tokina 24-200 to get back some $$$ for the 70-200) logical?

Hi user111,

U suggesting tat i get a 30d rather then a latest 40d? I was thinking that 40d may includes the latest DIGIC III and anti-dust technology. So might as well get the latest model.

[Redsun]

well the reason user111 recommend you to get a 30D is because when the 40D comes out,you'll be able to get 30D at a bargain price.Just look at the price of 20D right now.i feel that the noise control in canon is already very good.Maybe DigicIII might be even better but at what cost?I think cost will be a factor too.If 30D's price drops like 20D's price now i tink i'll probably get a 30D instead

[tc811]

Originally Posted by Redsun well the reason user111 recommend you to get a 30D is because when the 40D comes out,you'll be able to get 30D at a bargain price.Just look at the price of 20D right now.i feel that the noise control in canon is already very good.Maybe DigicIII might be even better but at what cost?I think cost will be a factor too.If 30D's price drops like 20D's price now i tink i'll probably get a 30D instead

That sounds logical. But if the price is reasonable and affordable with additional features as mentioned, maybe would be better getting the 40D. Else i might stick to a 30D.

[user111]

ok the thing to realise is that for us hobbyists, there is a point in the technological scheme of things where it already get very good enough for our hobby works. lets call this the "cut off point" - defined in terms of a price limit (the most u r willing to pay) and the best possible specifications that must be available. any further better technical specs will make no real significant difference to your pictures

for me, the cut off point in 1.6x bodies is the 20d. i.e, if i were to take a 1.6x body, the lowest i will go is 20d. things like 30d, 40d, really make no difference to me since the 20d is the lowest ranking item that meets my criteria in terms of picture quality and ergonomical handling. which means, given the current market price, i will not buy a 10d or 400d because they are below my cut off point, i will not buy a 30d or 40d when it arrives, because they are more expensive than the cut off point.

again, why i continue to use the old 1D is because it is my cut off point for pro body. the mark2 is still too costly, the mark3 as well. i can only get them if the price drops further. in fact my cut off point for pro body used to be EOS3 and EOS1n but unfortunately there is no digital equivalent for EOS 3 and i dont shoot film anymore so my only choice left is the old 1D.

what i am trying to say is that instead of aiming for the best, why not cut cost and aim for the cut off point. then what constitutes your own personal cut off point? now that will be for you to decide. but for my case, i will not pay more than 1.1k for a 1.6x body, thats why i initially recommended you to wait for price drop of used 30d. in fact, why dont you try a 20d now? instead of waiting for the 40d to arrive. honestly, to me, digic II or digic III seriously makes no diff to me (of course it does to you, hehe). and the 20d is still a very nice capable body.

[reneson]

.. further more 20d and 30d have the same picture quality, 30d just LCD bigger and with spot meter...

[antacid]

in the words of my forever wise girlfriend:

"Got money, buy lor."

((=

can you tell whats the difference in output between a 350D, 400D, 20D, 30D? i can't, that's why i'm sticking with my 350D cos its the cheapest.

i no money.

[user111]

sorry she is not wise
if she is wise she should have said : "got $, save lor"

[gryphon]

Most important question.... WHY do you want to upgrade your camera body?

[Redsun]

Good question indeed.Issit because you want to have the latest model?
Will anyone know you're using a 40D from your pics?Unlikely.So i say theres no need
to go after the latest model.20D is a very capable camera.But for me,i would want to have spot metering so im going for 30D when the price drops

[Venom81]

Get 70-200L 1st.

[mysum]

Originally Posted by tc811 I'm using Canon EOS 350D currently with canon 17-40mm L, tokina 24-200mm lens. I'm thinking of upgrading my camera and lens as well. Ideally will be 30D, but rumours of 40D around the corner makes me hesitate. So should i wait? I'm of the idea of getting a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 together with a 70-200 f/4 L lens. Something to cover the wide of 17mm to 70mm so as to join by the 70-200. Any other alternatives for the range from wide to telephoto? Thanks.

I'm going to have to be the odd-one-out here.

If the 350D is not a liability to you in any way, keep it and invest in good lenses instead. There are still people with 300Ds, you know.

[An drew]

Originally Posted by user111 ok the thing to realise is that for us hobbyists, there is a point in the technological scheme of things where it already get very good enough for our hobby works. lets call this the "cut off point" - defined in terms of a price limit (the most u r willing to pay) and the best possible specifications that must be available. any further better technical specs will make no real significant difference to your pictures for me, the cut off point in 1.6x bodies is the 20d. i.e, if i were to take a 1.6x body, the lowest i will go is 20d. things like 30d, 40d, really make no difference to me since the 20d is the lowest ranking item that meets my criteria in terms of picture quality and ergonomical handling. which means, given the current market price, i will not buy a 10d or 400d because they are below my cut off point, i will not buy a 30d or 40d when it arrives, because they are more expensive than the cut off point.

Originally Posted by mysum I'm going to have to be the odd-one-out here. If the 350D is not a liability to you in any way, keep it and invest in good lenses instead. There are still people with 300Ds, you know.

Wise tips. If you already have a 20D or 350D then the improvement from the later models are incremental and there is little point in upgrading unless you need a specific feature (e.g. spot metering).

If you are buying the first DSLR then it is often (but not always) the best idea to get the latest model as DSLR's tend to obey Moore's Law, you get more and more with less. http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/index.htm

An upgrade is only necessary when you current equipment cannot meet your needs or when there is technological leap, which may result in a quantum shift of optimal technology/price point. Then all hell break loose and we empty our piggy banks...

[fuwen]

Change from Canon L to Sigma IMHO is not an upgrade.

[tc811]

From the replies and advices from bros here, i will have to seriously consider my options. Most important is the 70-200 f4 IS L lens first, then will be the decision on 30D or "40D". A wise option would be to invest in 30D and not strain budget so as to get the 70-200L.

My decision in upgrading is partly 1) the spot metering
2) the camera body is too small and thus uncomfortable
holding it.
3) various functions not found in 350d, eg.picture styles,etc