Canon 450d upgrade

E

Elenaee

Messages
2
Edit My Images
No
So I have been doing photography as a hobby (nature, portraits, travel, flatlays, etc) for a few years now and I have been using my old canon 450d with my canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 is lens and sigma dc 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 lens. They've served me well and still do, but sometimes I feel like the quality isn't what it could be, the details in photos not being very clear and all that stuff. And the the camera is relatively old, so I'm assuming that newer ones would have better photo quality.

So because of this I have been thinking about buying a new camera or possibly a new lens if that would help, but I honestly have no idea what to get. Because it's still just a hobby I'm not willing to buy a thousand dollar camera, but I was wondering if there were some cameras (or lenses) with lower price tags that you think would be an improvement from my current equipment and be worth the switch?
 
Last edited:
Are you thinking about buying new or used?
If you are thinking about sticking with the XXXD series then I would take a look at the 750D/760D or even the 800D.
If you are prepared to go for a used body the 60D / 70D should be within your price range.
Lens wise are you looking to acheive more reach or wanting to stay close the focal range of your exisiting lenses?
 
Last edited:
As a current 450D owner, I also feel that the sensor in that camera is very limiting. I think in main, a new body would make a difference. Ask yourself what qualities you like about it, I.e size, placement and amount of controls etc and have a look at Canon’s current offerings. (I personally would avoid the 18mp Canon bodies as I don’t think it is worth the upgrade, but the 24mp esp the dual pixel ones seem to be a worthwhile upgrade. ) The 77D whilst a bit pricey is probably more like the replacement for 450D but if you don’t mind a lower spec then look at the 200D. Just one more thing, what software do use to edit with and do you shoot RAW because that would be the cheapest way to improve your images.
 
Last edited:
You could have a look at the Panasonic GX80 and a 14-42mm Mega OIS zoom which would give you roughly the equivalent zoom of your 18-50mm and you could maybe add a Panasonic 25mm f1.7 for low light shooting.

Note though that this is not a DSLR, it's a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera but it should be quite a step up in image quality over the 450D. Sorry to confuse the issue with a mirrorless camera :D but maybe you could take a look and see what you think.

Alternatively if you stick with a Canon DSLR I'd recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or the similar Sigma 18-50mm f2.8.
 
woof woof said:
You could have a look at the Panasonic GX80 and a 14-42mm Mega OIS zoom which would give you roughly the equivalent zoom of your 18-50mm and you could maybe add a Panasonic 25mm f1.7 for low light shooting.

Note though that this is not a DSLR, it's a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera but it should be quite a step up in image quality over the 450D. Sorry to confuse the issue with a mirrorless camera :D but maybe you could take a look and see what you think.

Alternatively if you stick with a Canon DSLR I'd recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or the similar Sigma 18-50mm f2.8.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8?
 
I upgraded from a 450d to a 60d some time back and I have to say although the improved features were a big step up and very helpful, I don't remember noticing a huge increase in picture quality. It's there, but in my experience upgrading lenses had a much more noticeable impact.

Having said that, as mentioned above if you upgraded to a 77d or similar having double the megapixels might give you the resolution you are after, but that might be quite pricey.

I thought your sigma 17-70 is supposed to be quite sharp at the longer end? Is it just wide end that is lacking in your kit?

Do you have a budget in mind? For a few hundred pounds I think you could pick up a second hand zoom that would be sharper than your 18-55 or alternatively a couple of prime lenses
 
I've just upgraded from the 450D to the 750D. Handling seems to be very similar, which is a good thing for me. I haven't had a chance to get outside and shoot properly with it yet but initial signs are encouraging. Focusing seems to be reasonably fast and accurate and the pictures are nice and sharp. This is whilst shooting inside so I haven't tried with any moving targets yet.
 
Mintchocs said:
I believe these are two separate lenses. The 18-50 does not have optical stabilization whilst the newer 17-50 does. I have the 18-50 and it hardly leaves my 450D.
Click to expand...

Yes, they're two separate lenses. What I meant to say is that people usually compare the Tamron 17-50mm with the Sigma 17-50mm as being similar to one another, not the 18-50mm. :)
 
Thanks for all the advice so far, it's been very helpful.

I was wondering what people think of cameras like the canon 2000D? Obviously it's a lower quality camera - Even just based on the price, I mean I could get a new one for the same price as an used 60D - but it still has more pixels. I know pixels are definitely not the only thing that matters, but as I'm not an expert on what makes a camera good just bear with me here.
 
Could you stretch your budget to the 200D (SL2)? It’s about $600 with the kit lens. Could you give us an idea why the 450D wasn’t giving good photos?
 
Last edited:
Here is a good website for the cheapest deals in the UK www.camerapricebuster.co.uk
I've not read up on the 2000D but looking at where it sits in the Canon price range it looks like it's aimed at beginners.
I've got a 1000D and hate it because it's auto ISO isn't a patch on the previous bodies I've owned and I've now got a 650D to replace it.
I'm sure the 2000D would fair better than your 450D but Personally I would go for the 60D or something like the 750D/760D.
As you've said, pixels are not everything so a 60D would be a good choice and if you do decide that you wanted more pixels either 750D or 760d would be fine.
There are a lot of people still using the 40D and the 50D and they are more than capable of producing a sharp photo with the right lens.

As you've mentioned lenses and you like taking travel and nature photos, if you shoot landscapes an ultra wide angle lens woud be handy but not everyone likes them.
The Canon EF-S 10-22 is a very good lens, I loved mine when I owed it and the newer EF-S 10-18IS also a good lens for the price.
The EF-S 10-18IS is quite cheap and you can pick a used one up for a for under £200.
Sigma make a 10-20 but I've never used one.
 
About 5 years ago, I sold my 350D and bought a 60D. My main lens is the Sigma 17-70. You could afford to get rid of your 18-55 kit lens because your Sigma is doing everything your 18-55 kit is and more. I managed to get over £50 on eBay for the kit lens alone which I thought was massive. The 60D is a well worthy upgrade from your 450D and I know the 70D is around too, though know nothing about it but I’m sure it would be worth a look.
 
I just posted some photos in the PHOTOS For Pleasure. Taken with the 450D and basic Canon 10-18 STM lens. There is some noise in the shadows but still quite good redults. It's possible your kit lens is a bit soft or it may need the focus to be aligned.
 
Last edited:
Elenaee said:
Thanks for all the advice so far, it's been very helpful.

I was wondering what people think of cameras like the canon 2000D? Obviously it's a lower quality camera - Even just based on the price, I mean I could get a new one for the same price as an used 60D - but it still has more pixels. I know pixels are definitely not the only thing that matters, but as I'm not an expert on what makes a camera good just bear with me here.
Click to expand...
The big difference between entry level cameras and mid range cameras is the ergonomics. Something like a 60d is a joy to use with lots of dedicated switches and dials, whereas a 2000d is mostly menu driven and slower to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top