Upgrades: 300D to 20D, better lens, or stick!! ? (1 Viewer)

Neil Grubb

Well-known member

• Jun 17, 2005

• #1

Okay, here's the situation. I have a Canon EOS300D, and an 8 year old Canon 75-300mm f4.0-5.6 lens. By and large I get on fine with these for bird photography. I have struggled most with low light, and with focus for in-flight shots (where I currently use manual focus cos the auto on my current lens is no use). I have some back-pay coming, and could probably afford an upgrade.

My questions are:
(i) what are the advantages of the 20D over the 300D, other than the marginal resolution improvement ?
(ii) would a Canon 100-400mm IS lens offer much better image quality shooting in low light than what I have? The really fast lenses seem to cost thousands of pounds and this is the only compromise lens I have seen.
(iii) I am not prepared to shell out for both. If anything, which upgrade would you go for ?!!

Any advice would be welcomed.

 

geedub

Well-known member

• Jun 17, 2005

• #2

Hi Neil
I use a 300D and have always worked on the principal that a camera is only as good as the lens on the front - if you can afford Canon's prices then I reckon a lens upgrade is of more use than a new body. I've been impressed by the Sigma 80-400 EX OS APO which is Sigma's (cheaper by £300 at least) version of Canon's IS system - it works well and coupled with the 300D's AI Servo AF mode will easily track flying birds although the images are only JPEG (still 6.3Mb though) and not RAW files and I can only shoot at 2.5 frames per second for a maximum burst of 4 frames but I've been more than happy with the results. I'd say spend your money on a lens and wait a bit until the 20D is reduced in price which it surely will be.

 

robski

Well-known member

• Jun 18, 2005

• #3

I second that - the 20D won't give as much advantage as a better lens in your case.

The 20D can wait until until you find limitations with the 300D. In my case it was the slow startup and generally slow every thing. The advantages of a 20D are more general. Apart from slightly higher resolution and lower noise there is no major gain in the image department. If you put your 75-300 on the 20D your still get much the same results.

Having just bought a top range lens I can say it is well worth the outlay. You can pick up good lens second hand. I intend to upgrade my telephoto when funds permit. I have learnt the hard way to buy the best lens you can afford. Don't cut corners and make do with the cheapest lens as it's only a question of time when you come to regret it.

Robert

 

Last edited: Jun 18, 2005

PWG

Well-known member

• Jun 18, 2005

• #4

I'd third that.

I went for the 100-400L with my 300D, later I went for the 20D and there is little in it as far as image quality. Change the glass first and go for the best you can afford or you may regret it.

 

postcardcv

Super Moderator

Staff member

Supporter

• Jun 18, 2005

• #5

Another vote for getting the lens.

I use the 300D and think it's a cracking little camera - I'd love a 20D but mainly for the faster start up and better burst photography - personally I'm gonna wait for them to drop (massively) in price. I use a Sigma 170-500 lens which is fine, but given the money I'd happily shange it for the Canon 100-400IS - though as Geedub mentioned the Sigma 80-400OS would be worth a look too. You could probably pick up the Sigma with a convertor for less than the Canon.

 

Tyler Vargo

Well-known member

• Jun 18, 2005

• #6

Get the lens, it will be of more use to you, although if you can do both you should do so because a 20D would be a vast improvement over the 300D. I am looking into the Sigma 80-400 OS and like what I have seen. It only costs $1,000 US which is about 33% less than a Canon 100-400L.

 

stevo

Well-known member

• Jun 18, 2005

• #7

Save up get the lens,camera manufacturers are always upgrading cameras.Pay the money out on a decent lens look after it & it will last years.

Cheers Steve.

 

nigelblake

don't re member

• Jun 18, 2005

• #8

You would be far better to upgrade the lens than the camera at the moment. The likelyhood is that Canon will have a replacement for the 20D in the not too distant future, (September would be my guess, as 20D appeared last sept-oct and the 10d a year earlier) its likely to have better shooting rates and higher pixel count, when that appears 2nd hand 20D's will be two-a-penny, or you will have the option of the new body at possibly around the same price as the 20D is now.

The new(ish) Tamron 200-500mm is a cracking lens for a street price of about £800

 

Gashead

Well-known member

• Jun 18, 2005

• #9

postcardcv said:

Another vote for getting the lens.

I use the 300D and think it's a cracking little camera - I'd love a 20D but mainly for the faster start up and better burst photography - personally I'm gonna wait for them to drop (massively) in price. I use a Sigma 170-500 lens which is fine, but given the money I'd happily shange it for the Canon 100-400IS - though as Geedub mentioned the Sigma 80-400OS would be worth a look too. You could probably pick up the Sigma with a convertor for less than the Canon.

Click to expand...

In a nutshell thats 90% of what I got by upgrading from a 10D to a 20D............get the lens.