300d

[Alexda1988]

is it any good for bird photography, especially raptors and birds of prey when they move so fast?
or is it a better idea to save the extra £100 or so for the 30D?
im really just getting into it so i was thinking simply start with the 300D until i get some good experience and save for the 30D, obviously a gd lens is just as, if not more important than the body but thats an after thought at the moment
any help is appreciated

Cheers
Alex

[mike from ebbw]

Obviously you should try to get the best camera you can afford.At the time the 300d did me proud.Yes it is good enough to take pics of birds of prey.The Kite was taken with my 300d and Canon ef 75-300mm lens (about £80-£100 on ebay) the Peregrine was with my 300d and the Sigma 135-400mm.

[MSA]

Here's a link to the thread with pics taken with my 300D, as referred to on your other thread..

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=82246

..and a few more on here..

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=90317

It was a starter camera for me as well - just bought the 40d.

[Alexda1988]

thanks Mike and MSA
i reckon i will start with the 300D save for a gd lens and then move onto a better body afta all the other bits and pieces, aswell as more experience
means alot to me guys
Cheers
Alex

[postcardcv]

I had a 300D for a while and am extremely glad that I no longer use it, cameras have moved on a long way in an a short time and the 300D feels very old. It is a slow camera (2 second wake up), with a tiny buffer - my lasting memory of it was that I was always waiting for it to catch up, not a problem I have with more recent models. If you're looking for a cheaper camera than the 30D look for a used 350D. Yes it will cost a bit more than a 300D but it is significantly better and much nicer to use.

[baillieswells]

is it any good for bird photography, especially raptors and birds of prey when they move so fast?
or is it a better idea to save the extra £100 or so for the 30D?
im really just getting into it so i was thinking simply start with the 300D until i get some good experience and save for the 30D, obviously a gd lens is just as, if not more important than the body but thats an after thought at the moment
any help is appreciated

Cheers
Alex

The 300D is now really obsolete, it was followed by the 350D and the latest in the series is the 400D. At this stage I would go straight to the 400D. I have both the 350D and the 400D, I keep a different lens on each, they are both light, so easy to carry both, and it saves time having to change lenses. There is no doubt that the 350D is a superb camera, but in my opinion the 400D just has the edge. I am now selling my 350D and taking the plunge of getting the new 40D to accompany my 400D. It should arrive this week.

[Jos Stratford]

As a contrast, I have had the 300d for a number of years and cannot say I dislike it - all pictures on my website, including the Bearded Tit header were taken with it. Yes, the 350 and 400 may be better, but the 300 is still a very good camera. As a starter camera, I think you could do much worse - anyhow, much of the results you get will be due to your skill, not the camera's skill.

[paul goode]

If I needed a cheap body (this could be misconstrued ;) ) I'd go for a good condition 20d. Far better than the 300d, better than the 350d and having used both I'd take one anyday over the 400d. With 30d prices falling i can't see a 20d fetching much money.

Paul

[mike from ebbw]

Yes guys but we seem to be missing the point regarding the price range,£150.

[Alexda1988]

Yes guys but we seem to be missing the point regarding the price range,£150.

HAHA thats exactly it Mike
my budget is my problem its all very well for u big shots with dosh lol im skint atm so its only a starting camera
cheers for the opinions tho
Alex

[postcardcv]

HAHA thats exactly it Mike
my budget is my problem its all very well for u big shots with dosh lol im skint atm so its only a starting camera
cheers for the opinions tho

...but in your original post you aksed if the 300D was worth it or if you'd be better saving for a better camera - having used both I'd say that the 350D is well worth the extra ~£50 it would cost you.

[barriehicks]

I have a 300D body for sale if you are interested. It is my back-up camera for my 20D and is in mint condition having been hardly used. You can have it for £120. PM me if you are interested on barriehicks 'at' hotmail.com

Cheers, Barrie.:t:

[paul goode]

Yes guys but we seem to be missing the point regarding the price range,£150.

Thats why I mentioned the 20D Mike. They're probably a little bit more than that but not much.

[Keith Reeder]

Yes guys but we seem to be missing the point regarding the price range,£150.

But Alex himself said:

or is it a better idea to save the extra £100 or so for the 30D?

[Alexda1988]

omg iv started a row! haha
its okay guys its probably me getting u all confused with my posts haha
the info is a great help tho
thanks alot

Alex

[mike from ebbw]

Thats why I mentioned the 20D Mike. They're probably a little bit more than that but not much.

I would have thought that Paul but just checked my local dealers website and they are knocking them out at £350 used!

[mike from ebbw]

But Alex himself said:

I stand corrected Keith.I was going by a different thread Alex had started.Doh!

[paul goode]

I would have thought that Paul but just checked my local dealers website and they are knocking them out at £350 used!

All the best to them. Mine didn't sell for a lot less than that.