I'm in full support of the 70-200 f/4. If you have steady hands, it shouldn't be a problem. I was using a Sigma 100-300 f/4, which is heavier and bulkier, and only put it on a tripod after dark.
Getting very confusing and the thread only started a few hours ago!
Whatever I get when I get to Seattle will be bought asap as I am selling off my G3 and can't bare to be without a camera for longer than I have to. That will be in mid Oct so the D20 might not even be available to me? D10 sounds good but I have heard about it being slow at focusing in certain conditions i.e. low light? That is a concern especially if I did get into wedding stuff.
If you're coming to Seattle, you can rent lenses easily at Glazers (www.glazerscamera.com), and then that would give you an idea of which lenses might suit your particular type of photography. I only warn you -- the EF 200mm f/1.8L is there for about $30/weekend, and you might start getting "L" fever.
Back on topic -- You might be wise to pick one of the bodies (D60, 10D, 20D, or even the 1D mkI), get a basic normal lens (50/1.8), and rent a couple wides and teles when you get here to figure out what else you're interested in buying.
Also, if you do go with the 10D for AF in dark places (e.g. weddings), adding an EX 550 or 420 would definitely help the AF out (and you don't have to set it to fire the flash.. just AF assist.)
I would go for the 20D kit which includes a nice daylight lens/Indoor with flash
and save the rest of the money and shoot with the kit for a while then as you start to get familiar with the DSLR operations and focal lenghts then go from there. Lots of improvments over the 10D making it much easier for beginners. I also think it is a silly thing to go hogwild and buy all the lenses/zooms from 14mm - 400mm just to start out before you even know what you like/dislike.
Ah, stop listening to these people prattling on about good deals on used 10D's...or worse Digital Rebels...you KNOW you want the 20D for lower noise, higher fps, better AF, better flash photography. The buffer thing is bothersome if you shoot RAW normally, but the high write speeds of the 20D with a fast card can help soothe your woes. I commit the sin of shooting jpeg mostly for my normal every day shots, so I haven't noticed-->20 shot buffer is all I ever need.
I would second the emotion of the 24-70 2.8L, especially since you mentioned weddings. That thing practically lives on my camera. But it blows your budget, so maybe keep the kits lens and add a good prime (50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135 f2, 200 f2.8 depending on your range needs.) And a 420EX. Well, Andrew's recommendation to rent before you buy is a great idea.
Yes I do WANT the D20, but my mind is not made up, honest! I've never shot RAW even when I had the option with my G3. To me I never got any better an end result than when I shot JPEG. That might change though with my new DSLR?
...to be honest I rarely see better results with RAW than jpeg as well. It's just more data, and when I shoot "art" (note in my case this is a subjective term, and may not pass the standards of this forum) I like to retain all the data. But you fit a whole lot more shots in with jpeg, and of course now the 20D buffers the compressed data instead of RAW so there are quite clear advantages to shooting that.
Okay, my earlier post sounded like a car salesman, but I really think the 20D is better and you have the budget. I typically think buy good glass before a good body, but the 20D is just a better camera all around IMHO. I came from a Digital Rebel rather than a 10D, so I guess people with 10Ds would think different than I do, but I'm just flat out in love with my new 20D. Practically all the complaints I had about the Rebel are gone (better AF, better flash, better noise, better buffer...more control, but 10D owners have control too.)
Martin: If your $2500 budget is a starting point and not your total budget over time the 20d would be real nice! You can add lenses as you go. But if $2500 is all you'll spend for the next 2-3 years I know you'd be cutting yourself short on glass big time.
Your G3 has a 7.2mm-28.8mm f2.0-f3.0 lens!! So you could get a 20d and a wide angle zoom and have the same range as the G3!
First of all, I strongly urge you to put your wedding photography plans on hold until you have a lot more equipment. To shoot weddings, you need a wide variety of high quality glass, preferably with some overlap in focal lengths so you can continue shooting if a lens fails. You need at least one and preferably two external flashes. You need lots of CF cards. And you need two bodies, in case the first one fails. In short, you need a significantly higher budget to get into wedding photography, unless you are talking about doing it strictly as a second shooter.
Second, you can shoot weddings and anything else with a 10D. I've done it, and so have lots of pros around the world. It is weak in some areas, but you can work around most of the weaknesses. Frankly, some of them still exist in the 20D to some degree. The 10D is usable for almost any purpose other than professional sports shooting, and the 20D isn't usable for that either.
Third, bodies will come and go quickly, but good lenses last a long time. And it doesn't do you much good to buy an expensive body and slap mediocre lenses on it. So you really need to go one of two ways, keeping in mind that whatever option you choose, you are going to need more CF cards, and a good external flash if you don't already have one:
1. Buy a 20D, and get one or two high quality lenses. Tamron 28-75 and Canon 28-70 2.8L are both excellent. Complement it with a good wide angle prime, and save for a good telephoto zoom.
2. Buy a used 10D now, and use the savings to finance a broader range of good lenses. Now you can afford a good telephoto zoom and maybe one other lens. Save your money for 6-9-12 months, then sell the 10D and buy a 20D when the prices have come down, or pick up a used one.
Personally, I think option 2 is a better one given your budget. 10D prices relative to the 20D are ridiculously low, so there's a tremendous bang for the buck. You won't be so limited in what you can shoot for the first 6-12 months, and at the point where you upgrade the body, you'll be right where you would have been with option 1. Any money you lose on the 10D will be made up for by paying less for the 20D. Option 1 gives you a little better image quality in certain situations for the first 6-12 months, but is very limiting in what you can shoot, because you've skimped on lenses.
I love it how people just go buy a DSLR and think they will be shooting weddings in 6 months time without any experience or training.
Tip for potential clients looking for a wedding photographer.
look for years of true job experience, portfolio and recommendations.
And like I said before just buy the 20D with the kit lens and wait before buying other gear. It is not like you have to rush and buy everything you can. Canon will still be selling lenses next year.
davekone wrote:
Humm, how does one get years of wedding photograhy under their belt with comments like this?
How its called education and working under a pro as an apprentice.
Would you hire someone to construct a home who never built one or even took classes on doing so or would you choose someone with experience working as a journeyman and with some years/education under the belt.
There is plenty of reasonably priced wedding photographers who can offer the experience+education under the belt.
