Anyone step up to the 30D yet?

[surfy]

I'm looking at purchasing Canon's 20D, but for a little bit more I can get the new 30D, and I was just wondering if you guys think it's even worth it?

I've read a lot of reviews from photography forums, but I wanted to get some advice from the users here before I decide. The photography forums are really nit-picky when it comes to reviews, so I have a hard time justifying spending the extra cash if it's not really worth it.

So if anyone here is using the 30D... or even 20D, I would love to hear your thoughts on the cameras.

Also, If you are using a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, I would love to hear your feedback on the lense.

I would love to get the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo, but that will be quite some time from now.

Thank you.

 

[BlueCorn]

Don't have the 30D but I do have the 100 2.8 macro and I love it.

 

[louist]

They are pretty similar, once you are busy shooting, they don't have that much of an appreciable different IMHO.

The 100 macro is an awesome lens, and so is the MP-E65, but that's for more advanced macro shooters, definitely not a beginner lens.

 

[gregr]

Have and love the Canon 100 macro- it's a great lens without a doubt.
The 65 though... like most people when I saw the specs I thought it was awesome and I had to have it. Then I got to play with one and realized how limited its uses are. For one thing at 5x the focus range is from .78" to 1.02"! Not much room to work with there...
The other limiting factor is the minimum aperture is only f16 so depth of field may be an issue. It's not really designed for the kind of stuff we shoot in our aquariums.

 

[surfy]

Thanks for all the imput guys. I am glad too see the 100 macro is highly praised. This will be the first lense I get with the camera then especially since it doubles for a telephoto as well.

I do a lot of photography, so most of my macro will go to other projects besides the aquariums.

I've also heard many people dislike the 65 due to exactly what you just pointed out gregr. I don't have a problem getting that close to the subject, but I know it will be frustrating at times... especially trying to keep it in focus while trying to take the shot, and the lighting issue during low contrast situations. But I have quite a while before I am ready for this one.

 

[PoukieBear]

My BF has the Canon 20D. He absolutly loves it. The pictures that he takes with it are amazing.

 

[reefrunner69]

I'm not sure what the price difference is but the two most useable differences between the 20D and the 30D are 1/3 stop iso instead of full stops and spot metering vs partial. Those two would be worth a hundred bucks to me. I wouldn't upgrade from my 20d to the 30d...but if I were looking to buy one or the other...depending on the difference in price, I'd go with the 30D.

 

[CrystalAZ]

I would go for the 30D. I have the 20D and wouldn't spend all that $$ to upgrade, but if you are going to spend that much, get the new one!

As far as lenses, I have the 100mm 2.8 macro. I NEVER use it other than for tank pics and flower/bug/jewelry macros. I find the 70-200 4.0L a much more useful lens for everyday use. If you can only afford one starter lens, I'd recommend something else. My most used lens is the 17-40 4.0L - a GREAT walking around lens. I have taken tank pics with all of them and although the 100mm makes great macros, I have been able to get good pics with all three lenses.

Crystal

 

[reewik]

I was going to get the 30D but went with the 1D instead.. In need of a 100 mm macro...

 

[louist]

I've also heard many people dislike the 65 due to exactly what you just pointed out gregr. I don't have a problem getting that close to the subject, but I know it will be frustrating at times... especially trying to keep it in focus while trying to take the shot, and the lighting issue during low contrast situations. But I have quite a while before I am ready for this one.

But this IS the essence of macro photography! Try handholding a 180 macro with 580ex on top, chasing a dragonfly all over the pond under mid-day sun for a few hours

MP-E65 and 180 macro are all designed for the more seasoned macro photographer. As to whether one's a "seasoned macro photographer", well that's up to one's own interpretation. I have seen some awesome work done on tiny insects with the 65, but this is from people who have already mastered the 180.

 

[gregr]

tsk tsk tsk... sorry Louis but I'm going to disagree with you for the first time That 65... have you used it much? Hand holding it is pretty much not an option- the depth of focus and field is so narrow that the tiniest movement wrecks the shot. I'm not one to toot my own horn but I do quite a lot of handheld shooting and I'm ok at it- but with that lens? Tripod only for me, stationary (or extremely slow moving) subjects only. I've used the 180 a bit too and it's basically like using the 80-200f2.8-- big and heavy but a piece of cake compared to the 65. It's my contention that the MP-E65 was designed to take pictures of things like circuit boards and text- not fish and insects and no matter how seasoned the photographer it's still a very limited tool. Just trying to save you some money man

 

[louist]

Greg, I definitely agree that the 65 is pretty much a tripod-only lens. However, I am not lying when I say I saw some AWESOME nature/insect photography done with it

The 65 is a highly specialised lens, and unless one is already very confident shooting macro, buying the 65 thinking it's going to provide awesome macro might lead to serious disappoint, and it isn't the lens' fault!

 

[gregr]

just wanted to make sure you (and everyone else) were aware of the limitations