Body Upgraditis (500D -> ?)

feriso

feriso

Messages
234
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, so I'm coming up on being really into this photography lark for a whole year (yes I know its but a sneeze for some of you out there :p ) but I'm wondering whether I ought to change my body. I currently have a 500D and it is quite a capable camera and I've captured some good images with it. My only gripe is that I find it quite noisy at high ISO settings.

Where this comes about is shooting indoors and in areas of low light; now although I have a nifty I still have to crank up the ISO (as I hate using the in-built flash if I can help it and I have an external one on its way to me atm) and I find it rather grainy/noisy.

The question; is it worth changing the 500D for say a 50D for the better performance at high ISO? (and it'll balance my Tamron 17-50 better!) or is there another option I'm missing!

For what it's worth; after acquiring the body I was planning on getting the Sigma 30mm 1.4 and the Canon 70-300 IS USM.
 
The 550D handles noise better than your 500D but not a huge step up in most other ways. In my very humble opinion Canons gap in high iso performance between cropped and ff bodies is quite large so either wait for the next iteration of cropped bodies or save for a 5d mk2
 
vrapan said:
The 550D handles noise better than your 500D but not a huge step up in most other ways. In my very humble opinion Canons gap in high iso performance between cropped and ff bodies is quite large so either wait for the next iteration of cropped bodies or save for a 5d mk2
Click to expand...

:thinking:

You have me confused, I was referring to the 50D not the 550D unless your point is still valid?
 
Glass upgrades before body upgrades... The glass makes a much bigger difference.

:)

Sam
 
Seems like the glass is the way to go. Just been doing some looking around on reviews etc and it seems that the 500D might be slightly better in low-light anyway, which I found to be a bit suprising, but then it was released after the 50D. I assumed that better camera = better low light performance; looks like it isn't :shrug:

In fact it might be I need to save up for a 5D/7D to really get better. :cool:
 
I have a 500D and have been thinking along the same lines as you but, I took the executive decision to get a good range of glass together first.

I'll be moving up to the 5D Mark II but i'm waiting for (a) having a good range of L class glass to make the most of the full frame body (I picked up my first L Lens last week, the 70-200mm f4 L which rocks) (b) wait until i'm starting to take enough in the way of quality photos to warranty moving upto full frame and (c) maybe the release of the 5D Mark III so the pricce on a Mark II will drop (I hear the Mark III may be released later this year but thats just gossip).

Cheers
 
Yes sorry my point was not very clear. I was saying if you are after better high ISO performance you are better off with a 550d not a 50d. But then the improvement from what you currently have is not dramatic.

So unless you can go for a 5d mk2 I'd probably wait for the next cropped bodies. Canon should have something for an answer to the d7000 soon.
 
boccers_2000 said:
I have a 500D and have been thinking along the same lines as you but, I took the executive decision to get a good range of glass together first.

I'll be moving up to the 5D Mark II but i'm waiting for (a) having a good range of L class glass to make the most of the full frame body (I picked up my first L Lens last week, the 70-200mm f4 L which rocks) (b) wait until i'm starting to take enough in the way of quality photos to warranty moving upto full frame and (c) maybe the release of the 5D Mark III so the pricce on a Mark II will drop (I hear the Mark III may be released later this year but thats just gossip).

Cheers
Click to expand...

Sounds like the route I might take now. On the subject of your lens, I was thinking of opting for the 70-300 IS USM but I suppose I could be pursuaded over to the L glass if its worth it. Did you try any other long lenses before that one?

daugirdas : I already have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8 but even with those I find that they are a bit noisy (maybe its just be trying to take pics in pitch black :lol: ). The 50mm isn't too bad, just a bit long at times.
 
feriso said:
Sounds like the route I might take now. On the subject of your lens, I was thinking of opting for the 70-300 IS USM but I suppose I could be pursuaded over to the L glass if its worth it. Did you try any other long lenses before that one?QUOTE]

I have to say, no I didnt. Before I got the 70-200 the longest I had was a 18-55mm (I also have a 10-22mm which I will probably keep for the 500D once I get the 5D MkII and get a 17-40L as my wide angle when I go full frame).

The main reasoning behind the 70-200 purchase was the cost, the fact its an L lens and the reviews.

I think 200mm is enough of a telephoto for my current needs. My main passions is landscape and architecture and I dont need anymore than the 200mm for that currently.
Click to expand...
 
I can see your point here, based on what you've said I've had a look at how much that extra 100mm gives (not a lot really) and the inc in quality is probably something else :)

Now I wonder whether the lack of IS is an issue - I suppose I could find out. Saying that I have an 80-200 EF that has no IS and I've managed OK with that but I've not used it excessively.

edit : oh decisions, decisions what shall I do ;); the helpful hand of TP strikes again!
 
feriso said:
I can see your point here, based on what you've said I've had a look at how much that extra 100mm gives (not a lot really) and the inc in quality is probably something else :)

Now I wonder whether the lack of IS is an issue - I suppose I could find out. Saying that I have an 80-200 EF that has no IS and I've managed OK with that but I've not used it excessively.

edit : oh decisions, decisions what shall I do ;); the helpful hand of TP strikes again!
Click to expand...

IS was a worry for me too but look at the cost of getting that Lens with IS, basically double!!

You have to consider when will IS be an issue? Probably in low light situations. I still went with it on the basis that (a) id predominantly use the lens in good light and (b) if it was a low light situation id simply use a tripod or find a surface i could rest it on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top