New body or new gear?

[Ridg]

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

[jamie_pyrite]

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?

[Ridg]

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 

Stink's probably your best bet as I think he's got both 

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

[DubFan]

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.

[Horney]

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

[Horney]

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/used-digital-slr-cameras/used-canon-digital-slr-cameras/canon-eos-40d-7/

[jamie_pyrite]

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.

[Ridg]

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

[jamie_pyrite]

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.