GolfGTIforum.co.uk
General => General discussion => Topic started by: jamie_pyrite on 09 June 2010, 19:04
-
So I'm trying to decide what to blow my money on.. My current gear is:
Canon 400D
Sigma 10-20mm
Sigma EX DG 24-70 2.8
Canon 50mm 1.8
Opteka external flash
So my flash sucks and lets me down now and then and has a rubbish recharge speed.. So thinking I could upgrade that to a Canon Speedlite? 240 EXII maybe? I'd also really like to add a 70-200mm f4 Canon lens (fancy white one!) which is a very nice spec for about £400 as the highest focal length I have is only 70mm!
Alternatively, I could upgrade to a beautiful Canon 7D body for about £1200ish, maybe a bit less. Fantastic spec and does HD video very well too. This would mean better quality images, less noise at higher ISO (my main gripe with the 400D) and just a better all round camera to get the most out of my current lenses.
Which would be your choice? Is there point having loads of fancy lenses if my body is still an amatuer model? Or would it be better to go for the lenses to increase me choices for photos?
Let me know what you think!
-
go for the body upgrade :cool: (although i'd go nikon)
-
i was going to go 7D but i was just dribbling over the HD video function, i went instead for the 50D which is so much better than the 400D, still ahve the 400D as a back up body but the feel and well just everything on the 50D is great. Picked my body up for about £700 which would leave you enough for a decent flash gun like a 430 exii or if you got the budget you could get the 530 :)
-
I would buy the best glass you can afford and a decent flash. Remember, it's not how flash your equipment is, it's how well the person behind the camera can use it.
These days you buy decent glass and upgrade your body due to the speed technology is advancing, not the other way around as was the case 20 years ago. :smiley:
-
rather than asking what kit to buy, ask yourself this question
what photos do I want to take that my current kit won't allow?
When you've answered that, you will have a much better idea of what to buy next.
-
Thanks for the input so far :) I already have some great glass, but I'm really missing something with more of a zoom and could really do with that hole filled tbh! A 7D would be 1200.. I just can't justify going for a cheaper body as I'd always be wishing I'd saved up a bit extra for the better spec model.
Stink, any chance you could give me some info on how the 50D performs compared to the 7D? I'm guessing you did a lot of research into it :)
-
rather than asking what kit to buy, ask yourself this question
what photos do I want to take that my current kit won't allow?
When you've answered that, you will have a much better idea of what to buy next.
Good question! Well, not having anything over 70mm limits me quite a lot. 70mm isn't very far!
I've been getting more people wanting paid portrait work from me lately so I could do with the better quality images from the better lens.. Compared to higher end canon cameras I've seen, the 400D is pretty shoddy in anything but perfect lighting conditions.
But £400 for the 70-200 lens + £200 for a speedlite flash is half the price of a £1200 body! I think the lens and flash would make the biggest impact to my photography I reckon. I'm just a sucker for gear!
-
7D is a pointless buy from the 400D and given the glass you've got is cheap it's really going to show how hungry the 7D sensor is.
This will be be apparent on your high ISO shots as canon have crammed a lot onto the APS-C size sensor, if you want good low light performance then you need a Nikon, on the other hand if you want HD video buy a Canon or a video camera :laugh:
If you're going to get a new body then, like stink says, get the 50D or go full frame.
I'd say the D300s over the 7D any day, but would require you to replace your glass.
So IMO get some quality glass, also I'd recommend buying full frame compatible glass, otherwise when you do want to go full fat you could be stuff with incompatible glass.
-
Thanks for the input so far :) I already have some great glass, but I'm really missing something with more of a zoom and could really do with that hole filled tbh! A 7D would be 1200.. I just can't justify going for a cheaper body as I'd always be wishing I'd saved up a bit extra for the better spec model.
Stink, any chance you could give me some info on how the 50D performs compared to the 7D? I'm guessing you did a lot of research into it :)
i just did some searching on reviews and asked on the photography forum and it all came down to the fact that for what i needed the 50D was perfect where as i think the 7D although it had a higher mega pixel and HD video its was just alot of stuff that wasnt needed and that the 50D was more than capable of doing and save me a good £700 so overall i would say 50D all the way its a great camera alot heaver and chunkier that the 400D and trust me you wont be disappointed at all
As already said if you want HD video you can pick up a HD camcorder for 2-300 a nice feature to have but im a photographer not really a videographer so was just surplus to me requirements :D
-
Yeah, that's true.. I think the video recording would be a gimmick to me. I'd probably have a shot at being a wagenwerks wannabe, find I don't like it compared to photography and never use the feature again!
Something that really disappointed me that I just found out a couple of days ago was while recording, it won't use servo AF. You either have to use manual focus or half press the shutter every time you want to focus on something new (One Shot AF).
I'll do some research into the 50D then :)
Ridg: Thanks for the advice. I can't justify going to Nikon though.. Got too much Canon gear that I'd lose a fortune on! Oh, and my Sigma stuff is quality glass! :p The 24-70 2.8 is a brilliant lens :)
-
Ridg: Thanks for the advice. I can't justify going to Nikon though.. Got too much Canon gear that I'd lose a fortune on! Oh, and my Sigma stuff is quality glass! :p The 24-70 2.8 is a brilliant lens :)
that's fair enough, one of the problems with buying into a lens system.
No offence meant by the 'cheap' comment, tamron and sigma do make some quality glass, but take you 24-70 2.8, it's not going to touch the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, that's what I meant.
If you're looking at portrait work, then maybe check out the 85mm 1.8 I've got the Nikkor equivalent and for head shots, it's up there with the 50mm 1.4
a 105mm or 135mm could also be worth considering, depending on what your working distance is.
If you're getting money coming in for portrait work, then I'd get kit to make your life easier doing that, so say a nice portrait lens (obviously your 50mm and 24-70 will do a good job at these, but you're going to be quite close to your subject) a decent flash for on camera or some cheap speed lights and triggers for off camera; you can pick up two cheap (say nissin or metz) for the same money as the 580.
And then once you've got some more £££ look at the 5D MkII
-
Ridg: Thanks for the advice. I can't justify going to Nikon though.. Got too much Canon gear that I'd lose a fortune on! Oh, and my Sigma stuff is quality glass! :p The 24-70 2.8 is a brilliant lens :)
that's fair enough, one of the problems with buying into a lens system.
No offence meant by the 'cheap' comment, tamron and sigma do make some quality glass, but take you 24-70 2.8, it's not going to touch the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, that's what I meant.
If you're looking at portrait work, then maybe check out the 85mm 1.8 I've got the Nikkor equivalent and for head shots, it's up there with the 50mm 1.4
a 105mm or 135mm could also be worth considering, depending on what your working distance is.
If you're getting money coming in for portrait work, then I'd get kit to make your life easier doing that, so say a nice portrait lens (obviously your 50mm and 24-70 will do a good job at these, but you're going to be quite close to your subject) a decent flash for on camera or some cheap speed lights and triggers for off camera; you can pick up two cheap (say nissin or metz) for the same money as the 580.
And then once you've got some more £££ look at the 5D MkII
You sound like you really know your stuff Ridg! Thanks for the info :) You're right that there are some terrible Sigma lenses, having owned one of those lenses I know what you mean! I've had a really good experience with my 24-70 and I was lucky to get a sharp 10-20.. (they're known for their amount of unsharp lemons they produce). What do you think of this lens then? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EF-70-200mm-F4-L-USM-Lens-Boxed-f-4-70-200-/250646746510?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item3a5bb5d58e
Any experience with this? I'd love to start buying primes once I've got some more money but that'll be a while down the line as I've just started my first job after finishing my degree so lots of money to pay back!
What flash would I get for £200? I think I read somewhere it's not worth paying extra for the 580 model over the 430 EX II?
-
I'd be very dubious about buying a second hand lens, given the price of that new ~£1400 you'd expect that it's been looked after but im not sure if i'd take the chance, for similar money you can get the 70-300 4-5.6 IS USM granted a stop slower, but you get IS and it will be new.
What you looking to shoot? sports, wildelife, motorsport or as a longer lens for portrait work?
The 580 lets you command other canon flashes, so if you're going to buy more canon flashes this would be the place to start, most people buy a brand flash or one that does TTL for on camera work and then cheaper ones to use with radio triggers, meaning that the extra you paid for the commander functions is pointless.
The 580 will also have a high guide number (it's brighter) than the 430, but the other features a canon user will have to tell you :wink:
Stink's probably your best bet as I think he's got both :undecided:
Re the primes, it's defiantly worth having 1 or 2 as you don't have to worry about distortion; you know they are rock solid and they are so quick
-
I think given your budget (assuming around £1200), there's no point going for a 7D because you'd be using it with cheaper glass and have little money to upgrade your lenses to match the body.
If you do have around £1200 to spend, why not look at the 50D, it really is a serious upgrade from the 400D, (but won't show up your current lenses like the 7D would) and the images will be even better when you upgrade your glass.
Once you've got a 50D, you can then spend the remaining amount on that 70-200 lens and a decent flash (no reason you can't buy this second hand either if you want to get more for your money).
As said, look at what sort of pictures you're taking now and think about how your current kit restricts you.
As for the 7D's HD movie capability, it really is a gimmick. Talking to one of my colleagues whose a freelance cameraman, he was saying that although the 7D can do HD movies, they aren't great if you want to pan the camera or do tracking shots. They work best when on a tripod doing fixed shots.
So you'd get much better results from a proper HD video camera and that's really only if you find yourself wanting to do video.
-
Don't rule out a used 40D. Better high ISO performance than the 50D and can be picked up for sub £500 from reputable camera stores with a small warranty.
Nick
-
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/used-digital-slr-cameras/used-canon-digital-slr-cameras/canon-eos-40d-7/
-
Thanks for the link Nick, the one you linked to is sold buy there is one for £409!
From the professional reviews I've read, the 40D actually outperforms the 50D in image quality and as you've said, ISO performance and noise-reduction.
I just need to work out what other differences there are between the 40 and 50D that would sway me towards the 50D. I can pick up a used 50D from photography forums for around £480.
-
Thanks for the link Nick, the one you linked to is sold buy there is one for £409!
From the professional reviews I've read, the 40D actually outperforms the 50D in image quality and as you've said, ISO performance and noise-reduction.
I just need to work out what other differences there are between the 40 and 50D that would sway me towards the 50D. I can pick up a used 50D from photography forums for around £480.
also consider how often you're going to be shooting at a high ISO
-
Thanks for the link Nick, the one you linked to is sold buy there is one for £409!
From the professional reviews I've read, the 40D actually outperforms the 50D in image quality and as you've said, ISO performance and noise-reduction.
I just need to work out what other differences there are between the 40 and 50D that would sway me towards the 50D. I can pick up a used 50D from photography forums for around £480.
also consider how often you're going to be shooting at a high ISO
Well I find myself needing ISO800 more than I'd like with my current camera and it gives pretty poor results.
So I've done a load of reading into the 50D and 40D and it seems that if you set the resolution to the same as the 40D (around 10) it out-performs the 40D in terms of image quality and noise reduction.