I could probably post this in the gear forum, but I'm primarily needing it for wedding photography so thought you guys might have a better opinion relating to what I really need.
I'm looking to buy an additional backup camera...I already have another 20D...but am in the market for an additional 20D or 30D. They're the same megapixel and cost about $100-150 difference. Is there really a benefit to me spending the extra change on the backup camera? Will I miss any technical benefits by going with the 20D? Thanks.
I have 20's and the only technical difference (that I'm aware of) between the 20 and 30D is that the 30D allows you to adjust ISO in 1/3 stop increments. Not a huge technical difference, but there are time I wish I could do it on my old 20. All of the other differences are cosmetic... bigger LCD etc.
Sounds like I should steer towards the 20D then...and save some additional money to put towards a new lens. What about shutter count? I know the 30D has remarks about it lasting for 100,000 actuations...
Why not save a little more and get a newer model. A 40D could be used as a second camera / backup with the other 20D as a 3rd just in case you need it.
well, that was my thought too...but I was thinking maybe it'd be wiser to get a cheaper body and then I can put the extra towards a news lens - I'm after a 24-70 and 135L...having the extra camera is important...but the 40D is also twice the cost.
Both cameras should provide the level of service and image quality that you need.
Ideally, you should work continuously or alternately with both cameras (rather than keeping one as a never-used spare)--that way you always know the condition of both cameras and are constantly familiar with both cameras.
Well, I'm going to step out of line and go ahead and say it. If you really want to be competitive amongst most wedding photographers these days, you are going to need a better camera body than the 20D. If your profits are so tight that you can't swing $1200 or so for a used 5D, then you might want to reconsider your business model.
Apologizes if this comes across as condescending or presumptuous, but it is something worth considering.
deepbluejh - i agree with you, honestly....but we're holding out for the 5DII later this year...so I really don't want to purchase a 5D right now and I have considered that option. We technically have the profits to do so (our budget is a little under 2K), but instead, I'd prefer to throw all of our profits into glass - that way, rather than having a nice camera and cheap lenses, we'll have really good lenses and decent bodies.
at the same time, we've made sure to advertise to a client base that expects the level that we provide...we're very good about not overselling ourselves, or offering high rates that don't match what we bring to the table...our clients know that we're still new and still improving both equipment and fine-tuning our style...and they've been happy with that (mainly because we work our butts off for lower prices )
drawin2 wrote:
deepbluejh - i agree with you, honestly....but we're holding out for the 5DII later this year...so I really don't want to purchase a 5D right now and I have considered that option. We technically have the profits to do so (our budget is a little under 2K), but instead, I'd prefer to throw all of our profits into glass - that way, rather than having a nice camera and cheap lenses, we'll have really good lenses and decent bodies.
at the same time, we've made sure to advertise to a client base that expects the level that we provide...we're very good about not overselling ourselves, or offering high rates that don't match what we bring to the table...our clients know that we're still new and still improving both equipment and fine-tuning our style...and they've been happy with that (mainly because we work our butts off for lower prices )...Show more →
I completely disagree with deepbluejh's statement. Your effort to purchase those two lens will serve you far better than purchasing a newer camera. The 135 by itself will yield great images in a way you will not be able to tell the difference as to which camera used in certain situations. I've used the 35L and 135 on my 20D and 5D and often times have a VERY difficult time looking at the images and telling the difference (most things being equal). Now if you're looking at the 5DII later on you *may* be able to tell the difference and you do get higher ISO advantages, but FOR NOW go with the 20D and never mind the 30D or anything else....go get those lenses
I would opt for the original 5D. I do see Cordelle's point, however, I am with deep on this. The 5D is a much better cam than the 20D, full frame and all that.
Cordelle is correct, the 35 and 135 are both special pieces of glass, but for now, the 5D would be my choice.
Well, I made my decision and went with the 20D. It came with some bonus items (nice bag, 2 batteries, CF card, etc...really good condition with all the extras [strap, etc] still sealed in original packaging) that I couldn't pass up for about $320.
The 5D may have been a better choice if we weren't already lacking in the lens department. We were currently using a 28-135 IS and 50mm 1.4. I was ready for some L lenses that could perform like we wanted them to.
RL15 - thanfully, by getting the cheaper camera, we'll now have a full backup for emergencies for when we get the 5DII. 5dII main, 20D second, and 20D backup. I don't mind having a cheaper camera that never gets used - one that's saved for emergency situations only.
It's funny how everyone seems to forget how good a camera was when it first arrived on the scene. Once it's replaced or something new comes along everyone starts talking about how it's horrible in low light, it's slow to write, it's metering is bad, AF is slow, blah, blah , blah. I'm not saying everyone loved the 20D when it first arrived on the scene. What I am saying is that many liked it a great deal. I'm also not saying it was ever as good as a 5D, but it certainly is worth great consideration based on *THIS* particular BUSINESS plan.
If one compares the option of much better glass to a camera that will yeild only so much, I'd always say 'get the glass'. It's so difficult to beat pro level glass in terms of RIO over the long haul. New techie toys are nice and all (and that's what "upgrading your camera is), but it's mostly a novalty until the next new one arrives and everyone forgets.....once again.....how good it WAS.
cordellwillis wrote:
I completely disagree with deepbluejh's statement. Your effort to purchase those two lens will serve you far better than purchasing a newer camera. The 135 by itself will yield great images in a way you will not be able to tell the difference as to which camera used in certain situations. I've used the 35L and 135 on my 20D and 5D and often times have a VERY difficult time looking at the images and telling the difference (most things being equal). Now if you're looking at the 5DII later on you *may* be able to tell the difference and you do get higher ISO advantages, but FOR NOW go with the 20D and never mind the 30D or anything else....go get those lenses
Ordinarily I would agree with you - but not when we are comparing a crop camera vs a full frame camera. Both the 35L and 135L are amazing, which is why you want to use *all* of the lens. With a 20D you are literally throwing away 60% of the image because of the crop factor, which is a shame. These lenses don't reach anywhere near their full potential until you put them on a full frame camera.
20d + 135L = IQ that will be hard to tell from 5d and 70-200 2.8is. At least at reasonable print sizes. I had a 20d that I let someone use for a couple years. Got it back a couple weeks ago, and the IQ with good glass is amazing, as long as you don't have to push the ISO very much.
That said, the 20d has yet to make it out of the bag at a wedding since I got it back....
)