My old Pentax istDL2 camera has died on me and I need to invest in a new camera. I never really bought lots of lenses so I'm not really stuck with Pentax. I do have an old Sigma zoom lens (100-300) that I carried over from my analogue camera, but its not in the best of shapes... As usual I don't want to spend lots money, so I'm looking at entry level models. Currently I'm considering the following: Eos 450D (Xsi) / 550D (T2i) Nikon D5000 / D3100 Lens wise I'd really like a walk about cover-all lens. Over the years switching back and forward between the wide angle kit lens and my zoom lens was an irritating hassle. Also I was missing out on a chunk in the middle - kit lens went from 18-55 & the zoom effectively started at roughly "150" (when applied to a DSLR) I gather that the longer ranged lenses (eg 18-200) are either WAAAAY to expensive or have a slow focus & lack of quality. I HATED the slow focus on the pentax camera, so thats a real turn off... Also I've never had the VR / IS stabilizer function. That seems to be rather useful and worth getting and sacrificing a longer zoom lens for? (eg spring for a shorter zoom range with VR, instead of a longer one without) So maybe I could look at something like a 18-105 lens to start out with? Any thoughts / tips / advice? Gus_Smedstad perhaps?
I have the Canon EOS T3 (1100D) and have had absolutely no complaints with it. The kit lens is a standard 18-55, which of course is more like a 28-88mm lens since the T3 isn't a full-frame camera. I got a great deal on the kit back in November through Amazon, and later picked up a 50mm/1.8 prime lens for about $105. For a zoom lens, I highly recommend one with Image Stabilization, unless you're exclusively shooting on a tripod and even then you'll want to get a lens collar to properly balance the camera. Good zoom lenses are pricy, though.
Funnily enough I'm thinking about getting a compact-ish camera (maybe one of those hybrid systems from Olympus) or something else with electronic shutter, because modern DSLRs suck at flash sync time and I want to play more with being a strobist.
It really depends on whether image quality is important to you. Zoom lenses with a wide focal range are never good, because the designers have to make serious compromises, no matter how much money you pour into manufacturing it. Canon does make an L-series "vacation" lens (the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L), but it's softer in the center than the slightly less expensive 70-200 f/2.8L is in the corners - even with then latter lens is wide open at f/2.8. The image quality of the consumer vacation lens (the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS) is roughly on par with the kit lenses of the 90's - soft, lots of distortion at 18 or 200, and of course chromatic aberration. However, if you're only going to view images on a computer, and never print your images, the shortcomings won't be so visible. It's not all that expensive at $560 street price. I can't really recommend the 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 IS instead of the 18-200. You'd think the narrower focal range would help, but from reviews, it's about on par with the longer lens. If you're going to sacrifice image quality for convenience, you might as well get the wider zoom range. For that matter, you might even consider a fixed-lens compact camera. The main drawback to the compact cameras vs. a DSLR with a vacation lens is the small sensor size, which in turn means poor low-light performance. The EF 24-105 f/4L IS is a decent lens, but probably too pricey for you at $1,020 street. Personally I'd have troubles giving up that much at the wide end, but I tend to strongly prefer wide angle anyway - my second most-used lens is the EF-S 10-22. My standard advice is learn to live with switching lenses if you care about image quality. You don't have to spend a lot. The EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6L IS II is a decent lens despite being a kit lens, and the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS II is OK, and together they'll add about $300 to the price of the body if bought as a kit. They aren't going to compete with $1000 L-series lenses, but they aren't crap like the kit lenses of yesteryear either. My personal experience is that 18-55 is a very versatile range, but that really depends on the photographer and choice of subjects - I've read posts by photographers who shoot almost exclusively in the 70-200 range. I'm a big fan of image stabilization, but I tend to shoot stationary subjects, and I'm often dealing with serious light issues. For example, this is a hand-held shot in natural light, using the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS at 17mm: That's a 1/6th second shot, even at 1600 ISO. I'm pretty steady, but I'd probably have blur for such a long exposure even at 17mm without image stabilization. It's not just for telephoto shots.
Thanks for the input! Nice pic! Thats kinda what I was hoping for when I learned about IS/VR. Like I mentioned I've been rather frustrated with my old camera, as everything short of bright daylight tended to be tough to take a pic of. Either the autofocus took forever, or if I did it manually I'd need to crank up the iso way too high and still get a shaky out of focus shot. I guess I should really go for a 2 lens option if I want quality and responsiveness, though I was really hoping to cut some corners there.. This looks like an interesting offer from Amazon Warehouse: Nikon D5000 Kit incl.18-55mm VR + 55-200mm VR for 540€ (722$) That camera has a fold out screen which could be useful when taking shots at odd angles, though quite a few specs are slightly below the newer 3100 model. Also I've found that the Eos camera bodies on the 450/550 models are pretty compact and not that comfortable to use with my rather large unwieldy paws, but I assume thats something that I could just learn to live with.
I'm less familiar with the Nikon line, but I wouldn't sweat the differences between bodies that much. Going by what feels good in your hands is good a guide as anything until you get really serious about photography. I've got a fairly expensive body, but I was toying with photographing birds in flight which is pretty demanding for both autofocus and frame rate. $700 is about right for that package. The fold out screen is less useful than you might think. Since you're focusing in Live View mode, it's contrast-based and focus is a good deal slower and less reliable. It's probably handy for taking movies, since you're in Live View for that anyway, though I didn't find a fixed screen to be much of a drawback the few times I've experimented with movies. My point being that it's a "nice to have" feature rather than something you should consider required.
I read about the weakness of the contrast-focus, but I've been in lots of situations where I have my camera mounted on my gorillapod on the floor or stuck on something at an odd angle. In those cases I use the timed release anyway and might as well focus manually while I'm at it, so I imagine that it should prove to be useful in those circumstances? However ultimately I realize its a gimmick I won't be using all that much. Similar to the video mode. Its probably fun to have, but I doubt I'd use it alot and if so 720p is probably enough to cover my needs.
I rather distrust manual focus with a LCD, since it's simply not as sharp as the optical viewfinder and what looks in focus may not be. That said, having the option certainly can't hurt. I did own a DSLR-like compact for a few years (back when DSLR bodies were $2K+) with an articulated LCD. I think I used it once, when I was shooting from a point of view well above my head. However, this strongly depends on your own choices of subject, and you may find it more useful than I did. In any case, I'm sure you'd be happy with that setup from what you've said, provided you can live with changing lenses.
Manually focusing with the LCD is a nightmare, really not recommended. Auto focusing in liveview mode is painfully slow, but the T2i has setting where it will quickly flick the mirror down and focus normally, really useful if you need to shoot a moving object.
My wife has the D3100 and loves it. She's new to photography and has found the it's really good for a beginner. She's got both a 18-55 and a 55-300 lens and get's some pretty decent shots out of it.
I have a Canon Rebel XT. We bought a 30D for work with a 18-125 lens (a co-worker is a semi-professional photographer). The 18-125 is one I covet but he also has several lenses If you're in the market for new or used, I highly recommend http://www.bhphotovideo.com because they have a wide selection of both and very competitive prices (I've often found them to beat Amazon for the same product)
The Nikon D5100 uses the same 16 mpixel sensor as the D7000; both have notably better high ISO performance than Canon's T2i/T3/T3i. The D5100 kit is about $800. I'd avoid the kit, though, and start with something like a D5100 body with a 16-85 f/3.5-5.6G and maybe a fast prime, like the 35mm f/1.8G.or 50mm f/1.8G. If you are feeling particularly wealthy, the 17-55mm f/2.8 (that lens by itself costs 3x the camera body price, though). I'd
No, no they don't. The sensors themselves are about equivalent, which you'll find if you look at any RAW comparison. If you've been led to believe there's a difference, it's in in-camera noise reduction, which is always a matter of sacrificing sharpness for reduced noise. If you want more noise reduction with a 550D / 600D, shoot RAW and apply the noise reduction afterward, and you'll get the same effect. The lens advice is completely ignoring what Cormac wants. Not everyone needs a fast prime, and he specifically said he wanted longer focal lengths.
Even if someone desires long focal lengths, it's still worthwhile having a fast prime. If you read what I wrote, you'll note that I made it a secondary consideration. When I reviewed the D7000 versus the T3i and 60D, I noticed that chroma noise on the Canons were considerably worse than on the D7000 above ISO 1600. The Nikons tend to have very little chroma noise up to ISO 6400, and surprisingly little above that. Luminance noise is somewhat easier to clean up than chroma noise. I've been shooting Nikons specifically for sports in low light (crappy gym and nighttime stadium lighting). That's one of the main reason I've shot them in the past, though I'll probably do less of that type of shooting going forward. Back to the question about longer reach... A good combination if that's what's really needed is one of the following: * 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 plus 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6. or * 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6. But it's not sharp at the extremes as it could be. * 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6. Really a full-frame lens, so isn't really very wide at the wide end. And if money is no object, there's always the 70-200 f/2.8. It's a beast, though, as my arms and shoulders can attest to after long shoots.
No, not really. You're projecting your own shooting habits and budget on him. Look over his posts again. He originally wanted a vacation lens. He's not going to want to carry around a third, specialized lens to deal with nearby, moving subjects under low light. Hell, I've got ~$4500 in lenses in my kit, and I don't carry around a fast prime. It simply hasn't made sense for the subjects I shoot. Were you comparing RAW images without applying noise reduction? What methodology did you use to measure chroma noise? I ask because when DPReview did that precise test, they didn't find any measurable difference. Not that I'd expect any. Sensors aren't magic parts. Noise comes from three sources: shot, read, and thermal. Thermal's unimportant for ordinary photography, and read noise is relatively small compared to shot noise, and comparable anyway (2.5 e- for the D7000, 1.5 e- for the 60D) . Shot noise is the serious issue, and since it's noise in the signal, rather than the sensor, it's only dependent on two things: the size of your sensor and its quantum efficiency. The more photons you convert to electrons, the better the signal part of signal / noise. Both cameras are at about 40% QE. The reported QE for the D7000 is slightly higher, but it's a difference you'd be hard pressed to note in real photographs. I got the distinct impression price is an issue, and that's $1200 in lenses. I covered above why that didn't seem like a good idea; the consumer grade vacation lenses are awfully soft. Of course, some people don't mind that, and if you look at my original post (#4) I mentioned this as an option if convenience trumps image quality. And even softer than the 18-200.
Thanks for all the input guys! Yeah, price is a definitely an issue... There's only so much I can justify spending on a toy I basically only use on holidays. I love photography and have been taking pix with an SLR for 25 years, but its still just a hobby and I've never really grown beyond entry level tinkering. So I'd initially aimed to spend about 500€, realized that I wouldn't get anything newish with current features at that price. So now I'll maybe go up to 600€, but thats kinda my hard limit. The 5100 looks good, but the body alone is already 560€.. Thus the need to look for alternatives like the 5000 or the 3100. That set I mentioned up top with the 5000 and the two VR lenses (18-55 & 55-200) is an amazon warehouse deal, meaning its used or can't be sold as new (whatever that means) It looks like a decent package for 540€ (can't find any other prices getting close to that with VR lenses). Now in theory, if I were to sell those two, I could probably try to get a catch-all lens, but quality-wise thats probably not a good idea... Apparently the video record function on the 5000 was developed in the early days of dSLR-video and thus not too great. Also you guys have said that the live view focus is not really practical, so I'm a bit torn if I should just go with the cheaper 3100 and accept the lack of a tilt screen / bracketing / adjustable flash values...etc After going back to the store a couple of times to handle the cameras, I'll say that the canon bodies (for the cheaper 450/550) are a bit too compact for my hands, while the Nikon bodies allow slightly more room for the fingers on my right hand between the release button and the lens. Might sound petty and irrelevant, but I think it would bug me, though possibly I'm being too critical. The 600d however feels like a good fit, but again, is too expensive with the body starting at 550€. Anyway... Hope that wasn't too much rambling! :) I appreciate all your input!
Live View focus does work, it's just slow if you use auto focus, and probably not in focus if you do it manually and don't zoom in to 1:1 to verify focus. Manual focus in Live View is a bit more forgiving with movies since the resolution is much lower, and thus stuff that would be visibly out of focus in a still photograph still looks acceptable. From what you said, though, you were talking about manual focus for stills, not movies. I've used Canon SLRs exclusively for a variety of reasons, so there's this urge to steer you in that direction, but honestly what I said earlier is true. The capabilities of the bodies are so close for casual photography that deciding based on which feels best in your hand is likely more important than any feature of the body. I have a 7D, a 40D, and a 350D, and I still feel the 7 year old 350D is a perfectly fine body.
See what Gus said. At these prices, and for straight up photography and casual videos, there aren't huge differences. Will the D5000 offer lower noise at high ISOs than the equivalent Canon? Sure it will. Will a T3i or T2i do better video than a D5000? Yup. But if you're just experimenting, the D5000 makes for a decent starter camera. The lenses you're looking at will be sharpest at f/5.6 and beyond, up to about f/16. While we talk about "soft" with lower cost lenses, with a little shot discipline, you'll get perfectly good images with those lenses.
Gaaah. Stop saying that. It's like insisting that water runs uphill if you're far enough up the mountain. Anyway, it's not that important for this discussion. I had great results when I was shooting with a 350D at 1600 ISO: ... and any of the bodies you're considering is better than that camera.
Man the noise on that picture is terrible. It makes the model look like some kind of statue or something.
Here's the first part of the little DSLR roundup I wrote: http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/everything_you_need_know_buy_your_first_dslr It includes the high ISO tests I conducted in a fairly low light environment. One thing not noted in the article was that I set the focal lengths of all cameras are about the same (70mm). Note the high levels of chroma noise in the Canon shots. While the web-based image is JPEG, the original sent to the magazine (which they used for the print version) was an uncompressed PSD taken from raw files. So none of the originals were JPEGs. This JPEG, though, looks pretty much like the original.
Your test images are not identical. You can't expect to get testable results if the images are significantly different, which they certainly are for the 12,800 ISO images. I'm guessing you had some trouble adjusting for camera distance and focal length, since the size differences are so significant, though I'm surprised to see so much variation between different targets at different ISO. Didn't you use the PC control utilities to shoot so you could change this without touching the camera? I'm also a bit concerned that the images weren't converted with the same tone curves, or the lighting was different, since the D7000 white areas differ significantly in brightness. The white balance isn't consistent even within camera samples, some are biased toward red while others aren't. The dimmest images have white background values of 170 vs.220 for the D7000 / ISO 12,800 sample. Differing tone curves can have make a big difference in visible noise in the resulting JPEG. You don't want to compare 100% crops from cameras with different resolutions anyway. Pixel noise depends on pixel size, just as overall image noise depends on sensor size. 4.3 micron pixels (Canon's 18mp sensor) are going to be noisier than 4.8 micron pixels (Nikon's 16 MP sensor) at the same QE, but that ignores overall image quality. A 100% crop from my 350D will look better than either one on a 1:1 pixel basis because the pixels are 8.8 microns square - 3.3x the area of the Nikon D7000's pixels, and hence they gather 1.7 stops more light. If you want to do it scientifically, you have take a photo of a neutral gray card, and do statistical analysis of the result. Further, you do the analysis of the RAW data without converting it, so the conversion process doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your data. There's lots of astronomy software that deals with the RAW data without applying a curve. You then have to adjust for pixel size. Because noise is a random effect and noise adds in quadrature, if you double the number of pixels on a sensor without changing the quality in any other way, the per-pixel S/N drops by a factor of sqrt(2). Actual image quality is the same in terms of total noise. For example if a single pixel captures 100 photons and has a SD of 10, two pixels will capture 50 each and have a SD of 7.07. If you add them, it's 100 photons and sqrt( 7.07^2 + 7.07^2 ) = 10. Ergo, you need to normalize noise by the square root of the number of pixels forming the image if you want a fair comparison. Now, at this point, you may be thinking "but I see more chroma noise in my test!" My point is that if you don't tightly control these steps, you can get wildly different results. Tweaking the RAW conversion alone could reverse your results, and as I said, my 350D will beat any of those cameras if you're comparing 100% crops instead of adjusting them for equal image area size. The problem is that resampling the image is going to skew results based on the algorithm used, which is why a mathematical approach is more fair. It's all pixel-peeping anyway. For real photos, you just aren't going to see significant differences. I care about this crap because I do astrophotography, where noise can drown out your subject entirely. For terrestrial stuff, well, this is one of the more demanding images I've taken, at 6400 ISO: Depth of field is a bit limited since that's a f/2.8 photo, but the subject was practically pitch dark. Flash wasn't permitted - it damages the paint, which is very old - and focus was a real bear. I have other images I like from the site a lot better, but that one was the darkest.
For whatever it might be worth, the noise performance of any recent DSLR is going to be very good unless you have a very specific application. I wouldn't worry too much about the differences in noise characteristics between cameras. Go to a good camera shop and try out a few cameras. Borrow some from friends if you can. The best camera is always the one you enjoy using.
A few points: 1. I didn't use PC control utilities, but did use remote shutter release. 2. White balance was set to fluorescent (which was the lighting in the space.) Could I have set custom white balance? Sure. Will most users of cameras in this class do that? I kinda doubt it. I was trying to strike a balance between test lab conditions and real world usage. 3. The cameras were tripod mounted, the tripod taped to the floor. 4. None of what you mentioned would alter the results: Canon APS sensor cameras have more chroma noise at high ISOs than Nikons in the same class, for bodies with APS sized sensors. 5. I shoot nighttime stadium events (marching band, color guard) with a D7000 alongside a lot of Canon shooters, including one pro shooter. We've all got pro gear (typically 70-200 f/2.8's) All of them commented on how much less noise are in my shots, even before noise reduction is applied, relative to their shots. These guys are typically using EOS 7Ds or 60Ds. Some of this is just physics. EOS 7Ds are 18 mpixels, and the pixel density is higher than even the D7000. I'm done arguing this. I will agree that not everyone needs to shoot at high ISOs with high shutter speeds. Image stabilization helps a lot of users, too. One thing I think is neat about Canons, and I wish Nikon would emulate, is S-RAW. I've preordered a D800, and I'll need bigger flash memory cards due to the big file sizes for raw files. *sigh*
My budget has expanded a bit as my I'm getting an early birthday present. :) So now my options are slightly better and I'm going to have to reevaluate my options. I'll head back to the store tomorrow to look at the Eos 600, as I recall that one being slightly larger than the 550 and feeling better in my hand. Also the features looked pretty neat on it. Otherwise the 5100 is still in the running, so I'll see if I can't arrive at a decision tomorrow!
Generally spending more towards the lenses has a greater effect than spending it on the body (which will be "obsolete" in few years)
What Candide said. Once you get into a system, whether Canon or Nikon, get the best lenses your budget will allow, even if you have to cut back on the body. New and better bodies come out all the time, but a good lens has a very long lifetime, and should last you through many body upgrades.
I've repeated this in every DSLR thread we've had, but the above is really important. When I bought my DSLR I splurged on the then new EOS 20D. It took me years before I could afford my first lens. I should have bought the 400D (which I think was the Digital Rebel out at the time) instead - I love the 20D's bigger sturdier body and the extra speed is nice - but more lenses from the get go would have been the wiser choice.
Obviously you didn't understand what I wrote, then, since almost everything I mentioned would. And no, your beliefs don't affect physics, nor are they consistent with any actual scientific testing of the sensors. As I said, DPReview has covered this ground. If you want to get into really hairy analysis of noise for both manufacturers, check out some of the astronomy papers on the subject. Christian Buil (astrosurf.com) spends a lot of time on this, though some of his papers aren't translated from French. While astrophotography papers tend to spend a lot of time on thermal noise, which isn't relevant to most terrestrial photography, quantum efficiency and noise in general are very pressing concerns. This is very true. DSLR bodies are consumer electronics, like computers. They go through rapid product cycles. The one flip side to this is that purchasing mid-range lenses isn't bad either, because decent lenses at almost every price point tend to hold their value. They do go obsolete with time as lens design improves, but the product cycle is much longer. Buying a $600 lens instead of a $1000 lens usually isn't a mistake, because you'll probably be able to sell that lens for a decent price if you feel the need to move on. This is particularly true if you buy that lens on the used market, of course.
Gus: you probably know this already, but this is for the rest of the folks... Some of the best deals are factory refurbished lenses, which are often lightly used to begin with. Prices are often 20-30% lower than retail, but the lenses are usually in great shape. Note that warranties may be a year or less on refurbished lenses, however. However, watch out for gray market lenses, only because local warranties are void. For example, if you buy a lens at B&H Photo labeled "import", that's a gray market lens that's been imported from another country. Those lenses are new, and can cost as much as 10% less than local prices, but you get no US support or warranty.
I was thinking more in terms of eBay, but refurbished works as well, and how the gray market works is something worth mentioning in any camera-buying thread. So is the bait-and-switch shop. The way this works is you see a low price, well below the reputable near-wholesale shops like B&H or Adorama. You buy it, but then you get a phone call to "confirm" the sale, with a high-pressure pitch to buy grossly overpriced accessories. Sometimes they try and sell you things that come with the camera, like the battery (not an extra battery, an additional charge for the included battery). If they don't rack up enough extras to make the sale significantly profitable, they cancel or lose your order. I don't think they do this with lenses, since it's hard to run an accessory scam with lenses. It's almost always camera bodies. For used, besides refurbished, eBay, used sales at B&H and Adorama, there's KEH. I've never purchased a lens there, but they have a decent reputation. I know some people don't like using eBay for lenses, but I've had excellent results both buying and selling there. Fred Miranda is probably the best-known used forum, but I've never had any luck there. Popular stuff goes fast, and sellers will pick and choose between offers, so if you're not a long-standing member with lots of trades, you'll find it difficult to get what you want. There are also people who want to avoid PayPal fees by labeling the transaction a "gift," which I find distasteful and unsafe.
I have had very good experiences with KEH and the B&H used store. The ratings at Adorama seem to be very hit or miss. Maybe we need a flickr or recent photos thread.
Cormac, as someone who was in your boat and wanted to get a DSLR on a relatively limited budget, I ended up with the D7000 with the kit lens, the 70-300, and the 35mm f/1.8. (I also got the 50mm f/1.8 (the one without the internal autofocus motor) but never use it because the 35mm is so much more appropriate for 95% of what I shoot as it's practically a 50mm lens on this body). My take on it is that the kit lenses on Nikons and Canons are just fine for vacation shooting, especially if you know how to take pictures and have decent editing software. The best money I've spent on this hobby was on a copy of Understanding Exposure, a copy of Photoshop CS5, a copy of RadLab, and a BlackRapid strap (those aren't affiliate links, so click away). Also download Microsoft ICE, which is free and does an amazing job of stitching panoramic shots together. It's perfect for those times you can't back off enough to shoot a landscape you want, as you can just take several pics and mash them into one big beautiful shot later. The 70-300 has come in really handy for shooting sports (daytime) and plays, and is also nice for taking pics of my kids because you can stay far enough back that they forget you're there. The 35mm is on the camera 99% of the time because it is small, light, focuses fast, and takes pictures in all kinds of lighting conditions. I generally use these over the kit lens because they give me great bokeh, but the kit lens works just fine for landscapes and other stuff where I don't care about controlling depth of field (or at least having backgrounds look pretty). Generally I find that I want to back off more than I want to zoom in closer, and the kit lens lets me do that. Apparently the 18-55 kit that comes with the less expensive bodies is even sharper than the 18-105, and with less distortion (Photoshop takes care of the latter problem, fortunately). I thought I would always want more reach (which is one reason I got the 70-300 with the camera), but didn't understand at the time that the more you zoom, the more light you need and the more camera shake is magnified (and the more soft your images get when you're using inexpensive glass). I rarely shoot with a tripod, so the 70-300 is a worthless anchor much of the time. In some ways you'd be better off spending a few hundred bucks on a separate superzoom camera and slinging it around your neck than dropping a few hundred on a DSLR telephoto. I used the 18-200 for a few weeks, and while it is versatile it is also a big honking lens that is expensive for what it does. I vastly preferred shots from my 35mm and 70-300mm to it. I have a friend who goes all over the world to hike and climb mountains and she always comes back with absolutely stunning shots. She gets all of them with an older Canon Rebel body and the kit lens. It's amazing how much you can do with inexpensive equipment if you know what you're doing. And if you ever want to try out a high-end lens you can always rent them. Another friend just did that when he went to Africa and came back with superb telephoto shots without having to drop a few grand on something that he didn't really need to own.
This is a pretty tough decision.. At the moment I'm thinking of getting the 600D with the EF-S 18-135mm 1:3,5-5,6 IS kit lens for my trip to Scotland in 2 weeks. After that, and once I've saved up a bit more again, I'll figure out what lens I want to to supplement that one with. Perhaps I can even sell my old Pentax ones? As accessories go, I'm using the Blackrapid strap and a gorillapod stand. My copy of photoshop is a but older (CS3), but I think that should do alright. Once I've got some new fotos I'll check out that Rad Lab demo...
If you could find a T2i for less money I'd go that route. The T3i (600D) was a pretty insubstantial upgrade from what I've heard.
The 600D gives you the articulated LCD. Not an important feature, but he said before that he liked the idea. Otherwise, yeah, they're substantially the same.
Well, the price difference between those two is about 70€ / 90$ and yeah that articulated screen seems pretty useful...
