That's true Dylan, but let me show you something:



^shot with a point and shoot $300 new Sony in auto - granted the camera focused on the distance



^shot with my current Sony DSC-F717 $1200 new in auto


Even though I could not get the cheapy camera to focus on the main subject, you should still be able to tell a bit of a detail difference. If you can get the top photo to look like the bottom one in Photoshop, I won't look at another SLR camera

 

thats a big difference... (trun the flash off)

but ultimately what made the real difference?? (for instance if the same camera was used) different shutter speed? longer exposure? flash/no flash?....

 

Ok, I'm not a professional ... but I do own a Canon 20D, and a bunch of lenses ...

I don't own any of the lenses you're asking about so I can't comment directly on them except for the Canon PRime 50mm f/1.8 ... Which is a downright amazing lens for the price.

The Rebel XT is a great little camera ... Its extremely fast overall (taking pictures, writing to the card, etc etc etc) ... But, its size makes it difficult to use large lenses on it. I've never held the XT with a Telephoto lens on it, but it may seem strange to hold onto the XT with a long lens on it. The 20D is better at this, and you can sometimes find the 20D for $1000 body only if you look hard enough (Dell often runs promotions).

For $800, the Sigma Telephoto 70-200mm f/2.8 is a "fast" lens, but I'd recommend the Canon 70-200mm f/4.0L lens. Its a professional lens, with REALLY nice glass ... It takes some amazing photos, and if you'd doing the majority if your shots outdoors, the f/2.8 won't really help you that much unless you're doing a lot of photography with moving objects. Cars aren't that difficult to photograph while moving unless you're really up close to them ... With birds or other animals, you might be able to really take advantage of the higher aperature and faster shutter speeds.
Link: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...oughType=search


On the same note, after Rebate I'd consider the Canon 17-40mm f/4L lens instead of the Tokina. Personally, I prefer Canon equipment ... and while the Canon 17-40mm won't go as wide as the Tokina, it is also another amazing lens that will take really great pictures. Link: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...oughType=search

There's also currently a promotion from Canon with rebates for buying Canon gear. Buy the camera, and 2 qualifying canon lenses and you'll get $300 back on the camera, and maybe $100-300 back on the lenses.
Check the rebate: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/Reba...nCIWCREBATE.pdf

Your other choices seem good. The Canon 100mm f/2.8 is also on the rebate list.

I'd personally upgrade to the 20D just for the size of the camera and the all metal body ... After the $300 MIR, the 20D body only would come out to $900 from BHPhoto.com : http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...oughType=search

Also, I'd recommend the Canon 17-85mm EF-S lens for a good walk around lens. Its wide enough for most situations and has a decent zoom for everyday situations.

Also, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a great lens for portraits ... with the 1.6x crop factor, the 50mm is a little too "close" for portraits, I much prefer the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which is a little more "normal" but its not cheap!

BTW- SLRs, the big difference here is the ability to change lenses. The quality of the SLRs is pretty high too ... but you can do so much more with the flexibility of the SLRs versus a normal Point and shoot.

If you want to see some examples of my pictures (I'm not that great of a photographer but every once in awhile I take some good ones) ... checkout http://www.ryanshomepage.com/gallery

 

$3000 is a bargain for all that gear.

-- 12-24: good call.

-- You mean 85/1.8 right? Awesome lens. L series lens without the L price.
Love it.

-- The 50/1.8 is a no-brainer - it's cheap and works well. Keep an eye on the 50/1.4, though. Sure it's a few hundred, but an amazing performer great for low-light.

You seem to have left filters off of your list. I assume you're going to want protection for the outer glass, right? Don't skimp here. Go with Tiffen at a mimumum and B+W if you can bring yourself to spend that much Basic UV filtering is fine, but get decent ones.

What kind of sports are you planning on shooting?
The 70-200/2.8 is a good choice, but unless you need fast shutter speeds in relatively low light, you can save some cash and weight and go with the Canon 70-200/4 - a brilliant lens itself. The XT's high-ISO noise characteristics (i.e. very good) make the /4 a viable alternative.

I bought the 70-200/2.8IS and man that thing gets heavy. And I've only got a 10D, which doesn't do so well with the high ISO noise.

So, if you go for the 70-200/4 and save a few bucks, you might then look at the 300/4 for sports ($1150) - again, depending on your shooting needs. The 200 doesn't really have all that much reach. Whenever I shoot autosports, unless I'm near the track in the infield I slap the 300 on for the reach and super sharp shots. Of course, you could always add a 1.4x TC (teleconverter) for a couple hundred down the road if you need a TAD more reach. Image quality suffers slightly and you lose a stop, tho.

Finally, you're missing a tripod or monopod and no, that Veloban lightweight tripod that came with you 1996 edition VHS-C camcorder ain't cutting it.

Some suggestions - you need to be able to support the weight and do it solidly:

Bogen 3001 series with 3-way pan/tilt head @ $139

Quite honestly, I wouldn't go any cheaper than this. The head is good, has a quick-release plate (absolutely necessary) and the legs a very stable set. For about 3-4x as much you can get carbon fiber and save some weight (it's not rice, I swear)

For a monopod, the 676B would do just fine, combined with their suggested 3229 Swivel Tilt Head w/Quick Release.

Now, as far as the bag goes... I know it's nice to have everything in one place, but if you've got a bag that will fit all that gear you will NOT want to carry it with you Consider getting a smaller bag to fit the body and 1-2 lenses - perhaps a backpack style bag from Lowepro.

Alas.. more things I see missing from your list... Extra batteries (at least 1) and possibly the battery grip for that body. If you've got largeish hands, the battery grip makes holding and using the camera so much more comfortable, in addition to giving you two batteries and the vertical grip controls. Not a cheap add-on, but it can certainly wait.

edit I see you said "with grip" but I'll leave this advice for others.

yeah?

 

[QUOTE]On the same note, after Rebate I'd consider the Canon 17-40mm f/4L lens instead of the Tokina.

 

Yeah the 17-85mm by far isn't the most "professional" lens out there, but its pretty decent and very flexible and doesn't cost a fortune like the Canon L lenses.

 

Thanks Liq and Chris - I was just inquiring about the lenses and body. The grip is coming too - along with filters (already have quite a few).

I'll probably go for the monpod down the road Chris. I hadn't really thought about the Canon 70-200 f4 with a higher ISO camera - thanks

 

Chris - what were you using for the rolling shots you did a while ago? Like the one in your avatar.

 

This is crazy talk. But I do suppose it's nice to have quality pics. But holy moly... that's some serious loot for some serious gizmo's.

 

you can say that again...

The funny thing is, the actual camera body is cheap compared to the higher end lenses.
You know those big white lenses you see on the sidelines at football games? heh...

300/2.8 IS

$3900

400/2.8 IS

$6600

I would just about kill for that first one... all of my lenses together (5) cost about as much as that first lens there. The body I use was about $1200. Probably get one for half that now.


Pointy The mount setup I had going for the rolling shots was a ghetto but stable setup. Enough so that I felt comfortable hanging my camera and 16-35/2.8 off of it

I also used the Canon Timer Remote to trigger the shots (set to shoot a pic every 10 seconds or so).