SpeedyManiac
Member
- Aug 8, 2000
- 2,374
- 0
Hi guys,
I'm going to pull the trigger soon on a DSLR and am just looking for some opinions. Background: I primarily take sports photos (I work part time for a snowcat skiing operation in the winter, plus I do a little moto photography) but also do some landscape photography. I like that the 40D has 6.5 frames per second burst rate compared to 5 fps for the 30D, but I'm wondering if it's worth the increased price. Right now there's a $300 price difference in the bodies, $450 difference if the kit lens is included.
So, is the 40D worth the extra cash? I'm sure I'd be happy with the 30D, but I don't want to get it then kick myself down the road for cheaping out. Regardless of which body I get, I'm looking at getting the EF 70-200 f4.0L IS USM lens, and something for wide angles (not sure which one yet). Thanks everyone.
I'm going to pull the trigger soon on a DSLR and am just looking for some opinions. Background: I primarily take sports photos (I work part time for a snowcat skiing operation in the winter, plus I do a little moto photography) but also do some landscape photography. I like that the 40D has 6.5 frames per second burst rate compared to 5 fps for the 30D, but I'm wondering if it's worth the increased price. Right now there's a $300 price difference in the bodies, $450 difference if the kit lens is included.
So, is the 40D worth the extra cash? I'm sure I'd be happy with the 30D, but I don't want to get it then kick myself down the road for cheaping out. Regardless of which body I get, I'm looking at getting the EF 70-200 f4.0L IS USM lens, and something for wide angles (not sure which one yet). Thanks everyone.