Which Camera and Lens?

[scaly_piscine]

Thanks for all the info and advice.

Someone I know on another forum seems quite keen on the Canon 40D. The extra speed and robustness of the camera sounds very nice, as well as lots of little things and also the price is coming down what with the 50D. But it seems like a lot of money for a body.

[Geoff F]

I use the Canon 40D and would have no reservation in recommending it. When placed alongside the Canon 450D and the Nikon D80 I found the 40D to be easier to hold and adjust for changing conditions. The dials and display were big enough for me to use without my glasses. It just feels a more robust camera.

But, as I said previously, some people find the 40D to be too heavy and chunky to comfortably carry around all day. If so, the alternatives have similar specs and will produce good results.

I have done an average price check BODY ONLY:- Canon 450D, £420; 40D, £578 inc. Canon £60 cashback offer (earlier this year I paid £520 inc £100 cashback).

I don't know anything about the Canon 1000D at £298 but although the specs are OK it does sound as though the construction is a bit lighter.

Nikon D80 (equivalent to Canon 450D) £400; D90 (equivalent to Canon 40D) £670; D300 (probably similar to Canon 50D) £940.

All equivalent comparisons are very approximate.

But what the hell, get a real camera, Nikon D700 will do all that you could possibly want and a snip at £1600.

[scaly_piscine]

Think I'm pretty much decided on the Canon 40D with 70-300 IS lens. I wanted to go for a lens that was a bit better, but the next lenses up I was looking at are too big an increase in price. Hopefully when I get the camera one of those pesky kingfishers will do what they did two days ago - fly straight towards me and then do a U-turn when it twigs I'm there. Might just be able to catch one of them in mid-air then.

[Geoff F]

The 70-300 is a good sharp well made lens. I frequently use one. Maybe a bit small for those tiny birds but the alternatives are a lot more money or lack quality and 70mm is a handy size for general use. Careful cropping and resizing works well because you have plenty of pixels in the 40D.

It will not accept a Canon teleconverter but I think the Kenko will fit although there may be a considerable loss of quality. I use an extension tube for macro work with good effect, but only use manual focus for best quality.

[madukan]

I'd just want to say i've enjoyed reading through this thread, it's like going back a year to the same dilemma I faced when I decided I wanted a 'decent' camera.

If I could give any advice from my limited experience it would be don't get fixated on the camera body (make&model) and more study what you want to photograph, next study what lenses would give you the best chance of getting the photos you want. Price is an issue and generally you get what you pay for lens wise. Don't get dis-heartened when your new all singing all dancing kit doesn't give you the photos you expected, remember your old camera made most of the decisions for you, you are now the weakest link

Personally I didn't follow my own advice, I chose the Canon 40D first because it had live view, a function I've yet to use. Then I got the Canon 28-135IS as my first lens because I thought it would cover most of what I wanted to do, I was lucky It's a good lens but well short of an 'all rounder'. I've since added a Sigma 50-500, Canon 10-22, Canon 50(nifty fifty), various converters an filters and I am planning on getting my first L lens in the very near future and a more specialised macro. What started as an upgrade has kind of mushroomed a bit

As for raw v's JPEG I prefer shooting raw because If I make a pigs ear of it I am more confident I can fix the shots using Canons DPP software. Maybe with more experience I can shoot JPEGs with more confidence.