Advice please

session savage

First off I apologise for having to resort to asking for advice, Im sure you are forever getting these questions, but I have read the 'buying a camera thread' (briefly to be honest) and Im just a bit overwhelmed.

I want to get into landscape and wildlife photography. In particular, on the landscape side Im really interested in getting into low light shots like dusk/dawn or good moonlit scene.

I have put an offer on a Canon 20d with Tamron 70-300 lens on adverts (offer not accepted yet)
I have a canon SLR at home already (film camera - EOS I think) with a 35-80 lens which I presume will also fit the camera Im trying to buy.

As far as I know the tamron lens will be pretty useless for the low light stuff. Would the 35-80mm lens do this part of it while the tamron might do for wildlife shots?

Overall I only have a budget of about 250, but I put a bid on the canon 20d at 150 with tamron lens, so I could get another lens if I had to.

Any advice, am I wasting my money or could this setup work for me?

Thanks for your help.

CabanSail

A lot depends on your expectations.

The Canon 20D is quite an old camera body but should still give good results. Like all cameras from that era noise may be a problem when increasing the ISO.

Generally for Landscape you will want a wide lens, so the 70 - 300 may not be the best. You will also be shooting with the aperture closed down and so the lens does not have to be fast. For low light a tripod will be required as you will be using slow shutter speeds.

Going over to the wildlife side of things the 70-300 may be ok there. I assume it will be a slower lens. You will be using fast shutter speeds for this. At the long end you will need to be shooting at 1/500th or faster if handheld, maybe a a bit slower if you use the tripod. With a slow lens and limited ISO you will get best results with good light.

If you push the ISO then you will get some noise. This can be remedied to some degree in post. It will be a good budget camera and let's face it the 20D has been used to take some brilliant images and still can. You just have to work within the performance envelope.

Paulw

A 20D is about 10 year old technology now. I started on a 20D.

It won't be much good in low light. After ISO800, you may forget it.

It is a decent camera for sport/wildlife and landscape. Very usable in decent light.

I guess it will depend on how much you are paying. I would assume the 20D is about €150, so a cheap entry point.

For more money, you could look for something like a 5D mkII or 60D camera. Much newer technology.

flyingsnail

I sold my 20D last week, they are a bit old but still a solid camera. As said above the ISO is not great 400-800 is probably the max you would want to be using. The bodies on their own are selling for about 75-100, in the 150-175 range you should get a 40D which is a step up in most regards.

Provided it is an EOS lens the 35-80 should work but you will find It lacking on the wider side of things particularly with the 1.6 crop factor turning it into a 55-125 lens, but a canon 18-55 should not be to hard to pick up cheap.

session savage

Hi Folks,
Thanks for the replies,
The original sale fell through and I eventually bought a Canon 1200D with a Canon ES-F 18-55 and Canon EF 75-300

I have a tripod already, not top of the range but I think it will serve fairly well.

I think I would ideally need a wide angle lense or would the 18-55 serve?

flyingsnail

the 18mm is reasonably wide but not super wide, I would say play around with it and see how you like it before you rush to spend more money. If you constantly feel like you need something wider when using it then it is time to look at ultra wide like the 10-18mm or 10-24mm

CelticRambler

You should be grand for a good while with the 18-55mm. I bought a 10-18mm last year (which I'm very happy with) but since the start of the year I've hardly used it at all for traditional "landscape" scenes (beaches, mountains, fields). Instead, I use it mostly for urban landscapes, or inside the house/castle/whatever.