"Garry Knight" <garryknight@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1206059926.27210.0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I got interested in photography about 9 months ago so bought a Canon S3is
>as
> it would give me a lot more control over the learning process than a P&S
> camera. It's time for me to upgrade and I've been thinking along the
lines
> of going for either a Canon 400D as the cheap option from which I can
> upgrade later on as bodies improve, or the 40D as a more long-term
> investment. At the moment the 40D is looking very appealing as it has
live
> view, 14-bit processing with Digic III, and the bigger 3" TFT. However,
> I'm
> not sure that it will allow me to create very much better pictures than
> the
> 400D (and yes, I know how much of that is down to me and not the
camera).
>
> Most of what I like to shoot has been in the full-sensor-SLR-equivalent
of
> 100mm to 300mm, such as candid people shots, some wildlife, zoomed-in
> closeup shots of flowers; i.e. mostly fairly narrow-angle shots (my
Flickr
> stream will give you an idea of the kind of thing I mean). So I'm
thinking
> that my main lens is likely to be Canon's 70-300mm IS USM lens. The kit
> lens might also come in handy, but I've heard that the quality isn't
that
> good; however, while I don't do a lot in the way of
landscape/architecture
> WA shots, I would like a lens (preferably a zoom lens) to cover the wide
> end.
>
> Since I'm still very much a beginner, I'd be grateful for the advice of
> those who've already made similar decisions. So my questions are:
>
> 1) Does the combination of D40 and 70-300mm lens seem like a good
option,
> given what I've said above?
> 2) What would be a good lens to go with it, say somewhere in the 28-70mm
> range, that would be better than the kit lens that comes with the 400D
or
> the 40D?
> 3) Since the 450D isn't a very big improvement on the 400D, is it worth
> waiting for it, or would you just go for the 40D instead?
> 4) I'm not that familiar with Nikon, Olympus, Sony or other major camera
> manufacturers; is there an equivalent in a similar price range
> (£800-£1,200) that might be worth considering?
>
> I should add that photography is now my number 1 hobby and I'm not
> intending
> to go pro or sell anything; I just want to get better at it, so I want
> better kit.
>
> Thanks in advance for any thoughts or suggestions you might offer.
>
> --
> Garry Knight
> garryknight@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/garryknight
You do realise that post production i.e RAW conversion will effect the
photo
quality more than actual camera quality. Are you going to invest in a
professional RAW converter too, to benifit your photography?
You do realise that the camera won't make any difference to how you take
photos.
I'd go for the 40d, from my personal experience Canon RAWs process better
than Nikon RAWs.
|
