Friday, January 30, 2009

My 40D

My new camera is here! It is a used Canon 40D that I won in a hard-fought eBay auction. I lost four or five auctions before I won this one. I just wasn't willing to pay more than I thought the camera was worth and, despite the economy, a lot of other people were paying TOO much. Or maybe other people just don't know how to use the "advanced search" feature on eBay to see how much they should be paying. Anyway, this camera had taken around 9700 shots before arriving at my door, with a lifetime expectancy of around 200,000 shots. And I got it for about 2/3 the price of a new 40D which, to me, is a bargain. Other than the fact that I'm starting at shot number 9700 instead of shot number 1, I would never have been able to tell that the camera was used. It came in its original box with the original packaging materials, the manuals have never been removed from their shrinkwrap, nor had the camera strap, and the original warranty card was enclosed...it seems new to me!

I also bought a used lens in a separate eBay auction. That was for the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8. I paid about 3/4 of the retail price for it, which is about what they seem to be going for on eBay these days. It just arrived on my doorstep and I haven't even taken it out of the box yet.

I think I know what I'll be doing this weekend...

4 comments:

Fulton said...

how did you get that picture??!? you have the camera turned the wrong way!

Hillary Dickman said...

You goon. I was looking in the mirror. :)

Fulton said...

haha!! im really very stupid... i actually thought that scott took a picture of you holding up the camera... i should have thought a little harder about that one.

question for you, did you look into the Nikon's at all? I think with a little of our tax return, we are going to get Liz a Nikon D80. just wanted to see if you compared at all. we have a friend who's obsessed with nikons and cameras and recommended that one.

Hillary Dickman said...

I think that Nikons and Canons are essentially equal in their quality. We stuck with Canon because that's what I started with in 1998, so I already had invested in some Canon lenses and they don't work on Nikon bodies. The lenses are more important and more worthy of investment and once you start buying lenses, it's not likely that you'll switch to a different brand. I know professional photographers who use both Nikon and Canon. Two of my favorite photographers, though, use Canon and they're open about what lenses and bodies they use and so it is easy for me to learn from them and know what kind of lenses I need to take various kinds of photos. For me, that is a big part of it -- knowing other people who are working with the same equipment so that I have someone to talk to when I'm looking for advice and feedback.

With few exceptions, the lens that comes in a kit (body and lens sold together) stinks. Generally the aperture on kit lenses isn't good for much other than landscapes (they usually have an aperture over 4.0 or 4.5 which doesn't give you much depth of field nor does it allow much light into the lens -- not good in low light situations), but apparently the lens that comes with the D300 is not bad. I think that these photos (http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/2349) were taken by a pro photographer on a D300 with the kit lens, but he's a pro shooter and a pro on Photoshop. So maybe that's why his look so good. I just looked at the D90 that Costco is offering and that kit lens starts at a 3.5 aperture, so it might be a good one, too.

Here's Scott's two cents: "The Nikon strap is yellow and black and it will make you look like a Steeler fan."

Heaven forbid.