i have been thinking.."get the best lens i can even though i have the baby step rebel xt body as someday i will want to upgrade"..but am i getting the full benefit of the lens with the rebel or is there a substantial difference in image quality between the same lens and the rebel xt and say a 30d?( guessing the full frame would be better but that is yrs if ever away) drooling over some of the l glass stuff i am wondering if I'm putting the cart before the horse since if i sink my money into something like the 17-55 arena, it'll be even longer till i could get a better body( OK so now i am rapidly skipping through the $600+ prices )
i am of the opinion that glass outrules the camera any day. therefore, i think you are fine and don't need to worry. i would rather have L glass on a rebel than a cheapo lens on a 1dMK2 any day of the week. the sensor is what it is, the main difference in the camera body other than resolution are speed/features/and build quality. don't worry.
2nd tim on this, good glass is good glass, and great glass is worth every penny, quality glass will last literally a lifetime, and in today's age of the digital paperweight, (5 years tops) for a body, you'll still be using good glass through a dozen bodies, it's not that the camera body will go bad, but as i've stated before, in 5 years time the newest body will have 2x the features at half the price. there's even some sort of murphy's law thing about this, moore's law technology advances??, maybe the engineers on the site can elaborate, something to do with the time frame of invention continually speeding up? the only whispers in the rumor breeze right now are of canon possibly jumping into the digital medium format back market, but from what i can glean, the technical sensor requirements almost mean a dedicated line of lenses with their own mount i would not worry too much about the ef-s mount, i feel it's going to be around for a long time, just simply due to canon's long time committment to engineering the eos style mounts so that people's lens investments work on newer bodies, last mount change for canon was the change from fd to eos, and that was more than 20 years ago now
If I may provide my response in the form of a story... Last year I entered a photo contest at my local zoo. I went there a lot over the summer, working out through trial and error the details of zoo photography. Partway through I upgraded from a Digital Rebel (the original, before they started adding arbitrary nonsensical letters to the end of the name) to a 30D. It made the experience of taking the pictures a lot nicer. It was faster, I never came close to filling up the buffer.. and I admit it, I love the heavier, more solid feel. I won second place in the contest, but I did it with a picture I had taken with the Digital Rebel before I had the 30d. I was a bit disappointed actually, I wanted to be able to say that the 30D won the contest for me. The 30D changes the experience of taking the pictures. It gives you extra options, like spot metering, 5 frame per second burst mode, and a new focusing system that is supposed to be better. And it feels oh so nice in the hands, although some dislike the heavier weight. But it doesn't just take better pictures for you. The imaging system is very similar to the XT's. My winning photo was made possible by my 70-400 F4L lens, and by good timing. I was in the right place at the right time. I'm not suggesting that the 30D is bad, I love it. I took nearly a gigabyte of RAW pictures of snow leopards last Sunday, there's no way I could have shot that kind of volume in the limited time I had with the Digital Rebel. And I've gotten some very good shots out of it, if the zoo has another contest this year I may already have another winner on my hands. And Gary, Moore's law is about the increasing complexity and therefore speed of CPUs. It's kind of complex, but popularly misquoted as saying that every 18 months the number of transistors in a CPU will double. Similar trends exist for hard drives, RAM, etc. Someone from Kodak Australia suggested that a similar law exists for digital cameras in relation to the pixel count.. but I fear that's starting to become a bad thing, resolution of P&S cameras is growing too fast, resulting in actually reduced image quality in some situations due to increasing noise levels.
you know, dan you are correct with this. the resolution of the sensor is very important, but so too are the size of the photosites that make up the sensor. it seems like 8 megapixels on a full frame chip would be better than 10 megapixels on an aps-c chip. the reason for this is noise. if you look at the tiny point and shoots, they get very noisy at iso 400 and unusable at iso 800 because the sensor is so small and packed so full of megapixels that the photosites are tiny. bigger photosites can capture more light so noise is less of an issue, as long as they aren't completely packed in like sardines. it seems that megapixel count anymore is more of a marketing ploy than an actual measure of the true quality of the camera.
I fully agree about "megapixels" not being an accurate measure of quality, but unfortunately (among the uninformed) it is a powerful marketing spec. After all, more is better, right ? There are 8 MP Point and Shoots out there now that take worse pictures then I used to snap with Nikon Coolpix 900. Why ? Because the sensor is horrible, there's a 4 second delay between shutter release and picture, the white balance is off, the focus system stinks - there's a number of reasons. But when I walk through a Best Buy and see consumer after consumer looking at some truly horrible cameras, the only thing they (and the sales person) discuss is megapixels. The best is a high MP camera with an undersized buffer. Nothing better than having every picture be taken about 4 seconds after you want it. Kind of defeats the purpose of a point and shoot.
actually that would be a" point and wait" ( assuming this is meant tongue in cheek and really not something you long for :-\ )
Of course ... I was being quite sarcastic (per usual), which often translates poorly in written form. By "The Best" I mean "The Worst". Lag time is what drove me to a DSLR in the first place. With a 7 year old and a 11 month old, I've got about .2 seconds to squeeze off that shot before they're headed off in different directions ...
Yeah, when I got into the D-SLR world I was wanting low shutter lag and fast focusing and such. I figured I'd just get the Digital Rebel body and use the kit lens. I'd get faster focusing, low shutter lag, good burst performance.. manual control options.. and I'd be happy with that. So why am I now eying $5,000 telephoto lenses and drooling? I think the D-reb was a gateway camera. You tell yourself you'll just do a little photography on the weekends.. and before you know it you're eating up a gigabyte of memory card space in the space of a half an hour, needing bigger (or wider, depending upon your want) lenses, and faster bodies, trying to find any excuse to go out and take more pictures.
"a gateway camera" - perfect. That's exactly what it is. The pushers are practically giving it away. I had mine about 2 weeks before I decided I "needed" this 70-200 f/4 L lens everyone was talking about. And then the Speedlight 580EX. And then ..... As far as my techno-addictions go, I'm pretty sure my DSLR is at the top for "gear obsession".
it's right there for me also, right next to my iPod. i have often thought that an entry level d/slr such as a rebel or comparable nikon would be the perfect camera from someone who wants a really good point and shoot. use the d/slr on auto if you must, but then if you decide you want to expand a little bit, you already have the camera body. this way you get the best of both worlds in one camera body.
i maintain that so far the xti seems the equal to my 20d in picture quality, i don't have any issues with the color saturation, and what i got it for, lightweight relatively inconspicuous use in the streets of europe, i think it'll do just fine. of course it's hard to compare to earlier 20d pics as my development as a photographer has progressed somewhat, at least as far as technical competency. artisitic vision is a different matter. i would reccommend the entry level dslr, canon or nikon to anyone thinking about their first digital camera, it's not all that much more $ with kit lens than a good p&s, and the capability to move beyong the green square technique is there it wasn't that many years ago i was a green square man myself i preach to the masses all the time, you don't have to go expensive or deep in digital, you need to read the instructional manual until you have it almost memorized, and then move to what digital's strongest point is, experiment, experiment, experiment, it's so much cheaper at that point than film learning was, that to me is what the digital revolution in photography is all about but it's hard sometimes to get a person to see beyong the $400 p&s with a "LOT OF MEGAPIXELS", trying to get them to mentally cope with spending 50% more but getting 100% more technical option, granmted some do not have that money, for those i urge starting out with used equipment, or sales of discontinued models that have drastically dropped in price to clear out inventory. nothing wrong with good used, most of my L lenses, and all my medium format gear was used gary, sitting here with bluegrass tunes in the background and nothing better to do on a cold windy day than think profound brain things
I'm not an expert, but every expert I've ever talked to has been of the opinion that as long as you have a good quality camera body (which the Rebel XT is, despite what some snobby pros might think), the most important thing is the lens. Sure, there are bodies out there that are better than the XT; it is, after all, Canon's entry-level DSLR. But the modular nature of SLR cameras in general give you a tremendous advantage when considering these questions, because if you spend a lot on a lens now, then spend some more to upgrade the camera later, the expensive lens will still work with the new camera! Upgrading your camera at this point will only give you incremental improvements. The better bodies give you more options, less noise, better color saturation, etc., but better lenses will transform your pics with longer zoom, increased sharpness, better light transmission, and IS if you can spring for it. Go for the lens now, and go for the new camera later. Better equipment can help a good photographer improve his shots, but it can never turn someone into a good photographer. Once you get past the point where all of your gear is reasonably good quality, everything else is just tweaking.
WillCad's right ... with the caveat that in the world of EF-S and EF mounts, you need to make a decision early on as to whether you EVER plan to go full frame. The only thing holding me back from jumping on an 18-55 f/2.8 IS is that it is EF-S mount and I know that at some point, for a number of reasons, I plan to go to a full frame.
Why not hang on to the crop-sensor for the 18-55 f/2.8 IS AND buy a full-frame for the other lenses? It's not like the crop sensor camera suddenly stops working when you buy a full-frame body. Also just in case your crop-sensor body is broken, they can be cheaply replaced (by that time, I mean). I used to work with only 1 body and changing lenses. But now that I've used up to 4 bodies with 4 different lenses, I don't think I'll ever come back to 1 body multiple lens combo. I'll miss too many shots that way. But that's me. ;D
I think that is a better way to look at the whole EF/EFS thing when thinking about the future. Sure, your significant other might not agree, but the value of a second hand body isn't really that high - especially when you consider that most people will wait at least two upgrade cycles if they are buying new. Get the lenses that you need now and then worry about bodies in the future. That being said, there is nothing wrong with crop bodies and they are likely going to be around for a very long time.
well i got my 70-200 f4 today and all i can say is WOW! so thanks, all the "buy the best lens you can afford"ers are right...course now it'll be longer between purchases so that might be a good or bad thing
that is a lens you will never regret buying, it's with me almost all the time, it goes to wdw every year, and it's usually the first tele i reach for if it's not a situation requiring 300 or better, esp since it works just fine with 1.4 extender did you get non IS version?, i have the non IS and really don't know if i would ever get the IS, once i get past 100mm i tend to go for tripod shots most of the time anyway, although i could see the IS version being a very good zoo lens next up for consideration, 300mm f4 , i have the non IS, another outstandingly sharp lens from canon, reputed to be slightly sharper than IS, unless canon comes out in next 2 years with IS on the 400mm f5.6, a great handholdable bird lens in the non IS, would be killer in IS follow my lead and you too can have a closet full of toys
i got the non IS since my 28-135 IS is once again in the shop...maybe it 'll work right this time but since it was the IS that went after 6 months, i am nervous about IS now...looking for a teleconverter since i have a list of wider lenses i want before another long one ( and if they are Ls it'll be a while ;D)
