Which Digital SLR?

playman

thanks for a quick reply, ollyk!

The points you have raised are valid and it seem clear that the lenses should be added to a budget, especially if i want to take it a little more serious. 30D seems to be a good camera and the main feature i like is the 5fps, really good for action and sport shots. 400d is good with 3fsp, but not best.

A decent camera lens for a Canon is around £600, that is for a 135mm F/2, and incase i cannot get close i will end-up with something like 200mm F/2.8, at simular price of £600. All hoping the light on a rink is sufficient. If not, the lenses easily run into £1k range. A little pricy for a hobby, IMO

The lens clearly outruns the camera cost, so I wonder how well does the Canon 400D perform with a good, expensive lens? Will the camera pull it, are there any constrains i should take into the account?

ollyk

playman wrote: »

thanks for a quick reply, ollyk!

The points you have raised are valid and it seem clear that the lenses should be added to a budget, especially if i want to take it a little more serious. 30D seems to be a good camera and the main feature i like is the 5fps, really good for action and sport shots. 400d is good with 3fsp, but not best.

A decent camera lens for a Canon is around £600, that is for a 135mm F/2, and incase i cannot get close i will end-up with something like 200mm F/2.8, at simular price of £600. All hoping the light on a rink is sufficient. If not, the lenses easily run into £1k range. A little pricy for a hobby, IMO

The lens clearly outruns the camera cost, so I wonder how well does the Canon 400D perform with a good, expensive lens? Will the camera pull it, are there any constrains i should take into the account?

I really think the best you could do is to post on the Canon forum I linked to, tell them your intensions and see what advice you get. Maybe even ask for examples as I see quite a few ice hockey shots on that site as there are a lot of americans their...

I suspect the 400D will more than cut it, and the 350d would to a lesser extent (focus more hit and miss which is the only real 'important' difference between the two). You have to decide whether the extra 2fps are worth sacrificing a better lens if your budget is that tight and things pan out that way? I suspect you could live with the 3fps if it mean't you could stretch to a better lens, but that is my opinion.
Glass really is the one thing that determines overall image quality more than anything else from what I have gathered. Besides, this is why the camera bodies are sooo cheap and the lens's are so expensive!