Used Camera Price?

[Dirk W]

I'm contemplateing buying a used Cannon d30 with 3,000 clicks on it and all original accessories. It would come with a Lowepro 2 bag, an extra battery, car charger and a Visible Dust Cleaning kit with a spinner tool. Total cost would be 925$

Question - Do you guys in the know think this is a fair price?

[Dbl]

That is a very fair price with that many clicks on it and those accessories.

[Steve Foss]

If you mean the 30D, then that's a good price. If you mean the D30, which was a pro Canon digital design from more than five years ago, it would be a VERY bad deal.

[Dirk W]

Its a 30D . Looks like I'm a new dslr owner soon. Now for the lenses - $$$$$

[Steve Foss]

Good for you, Dirk. You've got a seriously good camera there.

It's one of the three DSLR camera bodies I own, and is sweet. Great image quality, lots of nice features.

Let us know what type of photography you really want to do, as well as your budget, and we'll be able to chime in on lenses. I will tell you up front that if you're into wildlife, and bird photography in particular, you'll need a telephoto with lots of muscle. But there are some really nice pieces of big glass out there for under $1,000.

Anyway, let us know whatever type of shooting you're after. We've got a really wide variety of expertise here. All we ask in return is that you post some examples of your work here. We're all about sharing and helping.

[Dirk W]

Thanks for your willingness to help out with the lens selection process. I’m willing to spend about a grand on a lens, less if possible. I’ll buy one lens now and another as budget permits. I’ll end up being a two lens guy for quite a period of time do to the need to eat and make house payments!!

My priorities at this time are:

1. Get a lens that will improve sports shots of my kids’ tennis and softball – and possibly indoor basketball (there goes the price). I’ve looked at the Cannon 70-200 f/4.0L and the IS model. Also the 2.8 and 2.8L IS but that is out of my price range. This will also double as my nature/back yard bird type lens. Maybe a 1.4x extender is needed??

2. Get a lens that will be a “everyday” lens that can also take pics of flathead cats at sunset, dusk, and complete darkness. My point and shoot can do this now but it’s hit and miss. I want to know that if I do my part I’ll have a quality photo. A flash isn’t in the budget yet so the camera flash will have to do. This will be the second lens. My point and shoots can cover this for now.

Have at it boys – what do you think would make a good set up?

[Dbl]

Quote:

---

Thanks for your willingness to help out with the lens selection process. I’m willing to spend about a grand on a lens, less if possible. I’ll buy one lens now and another as budget permits. I’ll end up being a two lens guy for quite a period of time do to the need to eat and make house payments!!

My priorities at this time are:

1. Get a lens that will improve sports shots of my kids’ tennis and softball – and possibly indoor basketball (there goes the price). I’ve looked at the Cannon 70-200 f/4.0L and the IS model. Also the 2.8 and 2.8L IS but that is out of my price range. This will also double as my nature/back yard bird type lens. Maybe a 1.4x extender is needed??

2. Get a lens that will be a “everyday” lens that can also take pics of flathead cats at sunset, dusk, and complete darkness. My point and shoot can do this now but it’s hit and miss. I want to know that if I do my part I’ll have a quality photo. A flash isn’t in the budget yet so the camera flash will have to do. This will be the second lens. My point and shoots can cover this for now.

Have at it boys – what do you think would make a good set up?

---

Well Dirk based on your usage you are right you will not be happy. If you are looking at sports you really want the fastest lens you can. Ideally you want the 70-200/2.8, you don't really need the IS for sports shooting. Here are some options though.

Here is what I would do. Get the 70-200/4 for around $530 and a Canon 1.4TC II for around $280. This will give you nice coverage for your outdoor sports shooting. That will do for now. When basketball rolls around pick up a 50/1.8 for around $100. I would also look at a Tamron 28-75/2.8, around $325. This will allow you some inside shooting but will work very well as an everyday walk around along with your 70-200. This gives you nice coverage from 28 out to almost 300 ( with TC). You could also not get the TC and just pick up the Tamron now and you are covered for under $1000. Get the 1.4 later when your budget allows. Choices, choices.

If you are set on using your 70-200 on inside sports, I know, bite the bullet and get the 2.8 version. That would be the preferred route, but you could always sell the f4 version later if you decide you want the 2.8.

Remember the 1.4TC on the f4 lens will now make it a f5.6, you lose one full stop with it. So don't even think you will be using it indoors or even outdoors when the light starts to drop. If you had it on the f2.8 lens you would now be at f4. The issue of the Tamron for sports will be limited due to slower focus speeds. That is why I recommended the 50/1.8, much faster focus.

[Steve Foss]

Dirk, I'd give you pretty much the same advice as Dan has.

One note. You can save $100 by buying the Kenko Teleplus PRO DG 1.4 TC instead of the Canon. I've owned both, and found no differences in their image quality and speed of operation.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

I would agree with about everything said. I own a 70-200 F4L IS,and wouldn't consider buying a non-IS lens. [tele] There are just too many situations where IS will get a clear image when others won't without a tripod.

As an everyday lens the 17-85 IS is tough to beat for the money. I have it as well as a 17-40L,and I find myself using the 17-85 more than the L because the IS can save the day when shooting quickly when there's no time for good technique. It is just as sharp/contrasty as the L,but not the same build quality,which,unless you are really hard on stuff,won't matter. Having twice the range of the L doesn't hurt either.

I'm kinda new to the game,but I just went thru what you are going thru.

Dan and Steve have given good advise to everyone here,so don't take my word over their's,I just thought I'd post my own observations.

Those old timers know their stuff,they have been in it for many,many,many,many years.

[Dirk W]

Well, all the camera goodies came in the mail today so its decision time. I'm thinking I'll tippy toe in with the f/4.0L and 1.4 converter. These "L" lenses seem to hold their value well and I can learn on it and sell it later if needed. Actually, from what I have read, its a heck of a lens.

I do have another question about the 4.0. It appears to do well in "decent light" that outdoor sports provide. What exactly do you photographers consider "decent light"?

Thanks for the help guys. I look forward to getting into this soon.

[Steve Foss]

Dirk, I shot a lot of sports for four years with the 100-400L IS, and I never had trouble getting enough light, even on cloudy days, to stop baseball action at iso400. At 400mm, that lens has a max aperture of f5.6. On a very few rare occasions, I'd bump iso to 800, but I can count those times on the fingers of one hand.

Once you get a good steadying technique down with the 70-200 f4/1.4 TC combo, you should have no trouble with outdoor daytime sports. Under the lights is a whole other matter, however.

[polarsusd81]

Dirk,

I too am a Canon user. I have the 70-200 F4L and used it to take some awesome shots. If you search in the photo forum, I have some shots from the Twins Home Opener that were shot with that lens. I was about 15 rows up in the upper deck about even with 3rd base. They turned out pretty good for the situation.

I also have a 24-70 F2.8 L and the 50 F1.4. I would highly recommend the 50 F1.4 over the F1.8. The build quality is so much better and that lens has been rated very highly among all the reviews I could find. You can find them online through some of the major retailers for about 300. Also a good idea is to check out certain online classifieds for lenses. I got my 70-200 F4 with the tripod collar for 400. A steal of a deal considering the tripod collar is another $130 on top of the 530 or so new. The 70-200 is also one of the more popular ones that goes up for sale because it is a great starter L. Don't be affraid to go used on an L as long as you inspect it completely.

Tom

[Dbl]

Dirk,

I primarily shoot sports, around 3,000 to 4,000 shots on an average week. I think I can give you some good guidelines on what is successful for me. I shoot during BRIGHT daylight at ISO 200 to 400 depending on backgrounds with f2.8 glass. On cloudy days I often will be at ISO 800 or above with f2.8 glass. If you want sharp, stop action photos that will give you the best results. Can you shoot at lower ISO's and speeds? Sure but you won't get as many sharp, crystal clear, stop action shots. You can certainly get many nice shots, especially if you concentrate on sportrait type shots, or if you don't mind some motion blur.

You mentioned earlier that you want a definition of decent light. During the late afternoon and early evening your f4 or slower lenses will really start to suffer. I shoot a ton of sports with the 300/2.8 with the 1.4TC on bringing it to an f4, and at those times of day I will almost always be at ISO 800 and above.

Yesterday I shot baseball late afternoon and softball starting at 7:30pm. Looking at my EXIF data the baseball game was shot mostly at ISO 500 which kept the shutter speeds up to freeze the action. The softball at around 7:50pm was at ISO 640 and at 8:00pm I was at ISO 800 to 1250 giving me only 1/1000s shutter speed. That is my bare minimum for day shooting for action. Remember this was with a f2.8 lens. At that point I just put the camera down and enjoyed the rest of the game.

I recommended the 50/1.8 for the price, $100 and because it is fast focusing. If you are looking at using a 50 for sports avoid the 50/1.4 it's focus is to slow for sports work. The other problem you will have with the 50/1.4 is the razor thin depth of field when shooting wide open. You will have many throw away shots because you can't maintain enough DOF to keep the subject in focus.

Here are a couple of examples from last night of the ISO's I mentioned. All with the MarkIIN and 300/2.8 last shot with 1.4TC.

#1 ISO 500, f2.8, 1/6400s at 6:30pm. Seems high doesn't it? I like a minimum of 1/2500s for baseball, always faster if I can get it. By the way this guy threw a PERFECT game! 21 batters faced, 21 set down.

Here is a shot from a little later in the evening at softball.

#2 ISO 640, f2.8, 1/1250s at 7:50pm

#3 and this one is ISO 800 f2.8, 1/1000s at 8:00pm This should have been bumped to ISO 1250 or 1600 to get a better shutter speed.

#4 And here is a midday overcast shot with the 300/2.8 with 1.4TC on it. ISO 800, f4.0, 1/1250s.

If you are using a slower lens don't be afraid to keep upping your ISO to get better shutter speeds. The 30D does a nice job at the higher ISO's with noise. The most important thing to remember is to slightly OVEREXPOSE, or shoot to the right on your histogram. This gives you more detail in your shadow areas with out an increase in noise. If you try to "fix" it in post processing you will introduce more noise to your image.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Quote:

---

3 and this one is ISO 800 f2.8, 1/1000s at 8:00pm This should have been bumped to ISO 1250 or 1600 to get a better shutter speed.

---

Dan,don't you want a little motion implied on the bat and/or ball? It seems if everything is completely frozen,it wouldn't look right. Just curious.

[Dbl]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

3 and this one is ISO 800 f2.8, 1/1000s at 8:00pm This should have been bumped to ISO 1250 or 1600 to get a better shutter speed.

---

Dan,don't you want a little motion implied on the bat and/or ball? It seems if everything is completely frozen,it wouldn't look right. Just curious.

---

Viewer preference, though I can see emphatically say that the vast majority of my sales are on frozen shots. I personally like the ball with no movement, but as I said personal preference.

[Steve Foss]

Quote:

---

Dirk,

I primarily shoot sports, around 3,000 to 4,000 shots on an average week. I think I can give you some good guidelines on what is successful for me. I shoot during BRIGHT daylight at ISO 200 to 400 depending on backgrounds with f2.8 glass. On cloudy days I often will be at ISO 800 or above with f2.8 glass. If you want sharp,

stop action

photos that will give you the best results. Can you shoot at lower ISO's and speeds? Sure but you won't get as many sharp, crystal clear, stop action shots. You can certainly get many nice shots, especially if you concentrate on sportrait type shots, or if you don't mind some motion blur.

You mentioned earlier that you want a definition of decent light. During the late afternoon and early evening your f4 or slower lenses will really start to suffer. I shoot a ton of sports with the 300/2.8 with the 1.4TC on bringing it to an f4, and at those times of day I will almost always be at ISO 800 and above.

---

While Dan and I seem to be saying different things, we're really not. I'm not trying to put words in Dan's mouth, but here's how I see this, and Dan, for sure feel free to chime in on this.

Dan's work is primarily excellent action portraiture, and he has a very real need to stop action on baseball batters and throwers, which are among the two fastest motions in baseball. Those are the shots preferred by his clients.

I had different needs. I shot for a newspaper, and while we were interested in action shots, they tended to be things like slides into base and running to catch fly balls or fielding ground balls. When I shot batters for the paper, they most often were bunting. All those types of images don't require such fast shutter speeds because their lateral and vertical motions aren't as fast as what Dan needs to freeze, and the work of that slower motion I did at 1/400 on cloudy days at f5.6 with the 100-400 was a sharp as the sunny-day stuff I did. The IS helped a lot, too, but especially on the running shots, tracking the runner helped reduce the need for IS.

So, while we're both working to "stop action," Dan and I are working to stop different levels of action, and I think our perspectives reflect those differences. While Dan needs the f2.8 glass to do his business, I could get away with the slower glass.

I'm sorry I don't have any examples to post. When I left the paper last month, I dumped about 60 Gb of sports shots because I don't own the rights to them and can't use them for anything meaningful. I still have most of them backed up on CD, but it would be a lot of work for not a lot of value to dig through them and find a couple examples, not to mention that I'm at the family lake cabin right now and not in my studio office.

[Dirk W]

Everyone went beyond the call of duty helping me out. Thanks. After reading your posts and some careful thinking I just ordered ordered the 2.8. The reasons? I've got 2.8 if I need it, it comes with a tripod collar (the 4 didn't), I like the weather sealing, and with a rebate I was just a twish over budget . In a few days the real learning begins....

[MARINERMAGNUM]

I have been watching a 200mm F1.8L on evilbay. What a whopper!

[Dbl]

Steve as usual you wrapped it up perfectly. You are 100% correct, you just had a better way of bringing it across!

Dirk I think you made the right choice with the 2.8 version. You will NEVER regret buying that lens. There are a few shooting sports here with that lens, WCS has one I know, I have both the IS and non-IS version. You will fall in love with its speed, both focus and low light capability, and with the sharpness it produces. Can't wait to see some of your work, make sure you post some for us.

Here is an example of what Steve was talking about, plays on bases, catches, etc. You don't really need as much speed to stop the action, though this was shot at 1/8000s. I like to be able to read the brand of baseball It could have easily been captured at a much slower speed and still produced a publication shot.

[Steve Foss]

Dirk, you've got a lot of fun in store, and you'll soon learn to cherish the extra stop that f2.8 provides.

MM, you gotta pay to play!

[WCS]

As Dan mentioned, I do own the 70-200 f2.8 lens. I have mostly shot indoor sports with it so far and it has exceeded my expectations. Since I am still playing senior league baseball, it makes it difficult to shoot while playing. Although that would make for an interesting perspective. I think I have convinced my wife to take some shots on tomorrow evenings game. I think the f2.8 will be overkill on stopping the action while us old guys are playing

[Steve Foss]

I don't know about that, WCS. Those bellies get jiggling and it takes some serious shutter speed to freeze those biggies.

[WCS]

So what your saying Steve is that the 70-200 f2.8 is fast enough for our league, just not wide enough?

[Steve Foss]

Exactly. I think the 16-35 f2.8L is about right.