canon range

H

honda224

Messages
380
Edit My Images
No
can someone list the canon range in order of best to worst. Im looking for a new camera but still a bit unsure of what is the best and what is the worst. thanks paul
 
Canon don't make poor cameras. However, one or more of their range may suit you more than others. What do you want to shoot with it and how much time and effort are you prepared to put into learning the art of photography?
 
honda224 said:
can someone list the canon range in order of best to worst. Im looking for a new camera but still a bit unsure of what is the best and what is the worst. thanks paul
Click to expand...

Depends how much your willing to spend?
 
The 3 didgit numbers 600D etc are more ideal for the beginer

2 digit 60D etc are better build more features(sometimes)

1 digit 1D etc are pro cameras many many features weatehr sealed more robust but it all comes at a price.

5D etc is full frame and the 7D is still crop sensor but a dam fine camera

Hope this helps
 
i will be using it for motorsports. I bought a 400d to get into it but looking to upgrade. Before anyone says a lens is more important i have also bought a 70-200 f2.8 thanks again
 
For motorsport, unless you want to spend over five grand on a 1Dx, I would go for a 7D or a 5D Mk3. Both are superb cameras and have excellent AF systems. The 7D would though give you a little extra reach as it is a crop sensor.
 
I think I would be seriously looking at a 7D for motorsports.
Fast AF and FPS is good too.

I have a 50D and done moto GP, hill climbs, sprints etc and works very well for what I want it too
 
honda224 said:
is the 7d worth the extra money to a 60d?

thanks again
Click to expand...
If you need the better focusing system, yes. The sensors are the same, so they give the same image - if you can get the picture in focus.

If you do go for the 7D, you have a steep learning curve getting the focussing system working how you want it to (there are LOTS of ways to set it up).
 
would it be easier to get the best image from a 60d from a begginer. I do understand how everything works etc have done alot of reading and practising, but is the 60d more user friendly?
 
Why are you looking to upgrade? What is the 400D not doing for you?
 
it is very poor in low light. It only has iso 1600 max and has alot of noise to go with it. Even when the light is dropping slightly it needs to be in the higher iso range to get a half decent image
 
honda224 said:
it is very poor in low light. It only has iso 1600 max and has alot of noise to go with it. Even when the light is dropping slightly it needs to be in the higher iso range to get a half decent image
Click to expand...
I've never had the 400D, but I wouldn't expect miracles from either the 60D or 7D in those areas TBH.
 
honda224 said:
which camera would you reccomend? main use is motorsports.
Click to expand...

Depends what you're willing to spend and whether your will to go 2nd hand.

For Motorsport autofocus is the king, so 7D or 1D range of cameras are the key. Although old hand the 1D MKII can be picked up for about £500 and this easily matches any of the consumer models out there in term of autofocus.

If your pushing the ISO then you're heading towards the 5D MKIII but that's £2100-2500

You can shot Motorsport with most of the canon range of cameras, it depends how you use the camera. If you a machine spray and pray then you need the faster autofocus capabilities, but if you compose your shots and take 1 or 2 shots then really it's the lens you should be concentrating on and unfortunately that's where the real big bucks start to come into play.

Something like the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS would meet your requirements, it has its issues, but for £1600, it's very good value for money.

As for Motorsport it depends which side of the fence you are and what type of Motorsport you photograph, but coming from someone who's not inside the track you really need a minimum of 300 probably stretching to 500mm to get decent shots nowadays
 
my 7d has decent iso range, i can go up to iso 2000 (th 7d doesnt go up if full stops for iso although you can set it too) and still get sharp images, Ive done an indoor shoot with puppies that each needed to be taken without a flash (owner didn't want it, said it could harm them, im not sure if this is right) but it did decent, if I can later on Ill upload a few to show you, infact i think the iso range I was using was between 800-2500 ish i think

as long as you get a decent exposure you can reduce the noise in post (i use lightroom) and retain enough detail for a decent picture even up to iso 6400
 
Last edited:
SpikeK6 said:
The 3 didgit numbers 600D etc are more ideal for the beginer

2 digit 60D etc are better build more features(sometimes)

1 digit 1D etc are pro cameras many many features weatehr sealed more robust but it all comes at a price.

5D etc is full frame and the 7D is still crop sensor but a dam fine camera

Hope this helps
Click to expand...

Whilst you have this generally right I have to correct the first line.

Entry level cameras aren't in any way more suitable for beginners. They're built down to a price to attract consumers and offer no advantage to a beginner over a higher spec model.

Right up to the 60d range you'll find the features designed for consumers (people who have no desire to learn photography but want a proper camera) the portrait mode etc.

But a 'beginner' photographer would find any of them as suitable.

In the old days the cheapest cameras had no automation, because automation was expensive, and beginners still bought the cheapest gear. By the mid 80's Canon's flagship was the T90 which had multi program modes, and cost 3 times the cheapest nearly all manual model.
 
I do mainly motocross so the really big lens arent much of a factor. I have already bought my lens which is a 70-200 f2.8 hence now wanting a better camera. Looks like a 7d is a good choice. That's the way I'm being swayed towards
 
Canon range? Depends on the charge, ball weight and trajectory...
 
For £600 you could get a 20d and a 70-200 f4 . Is what I have used for the last two years and the body's never missed a beat and the 70-200 is soo sharp. I have used mine only for motorsport and absolutely loved it. I will post a link below of my fave pics of 2012

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=5259816#post5259816

Hopefully my pics in the link above proove that you dont need the latest kit to get good pictutes, I always say glass is more important than the latest body
 
Craft said:
Either would be a big step up from the 400D though.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure they are. Marginal on ISO TBH.... Handling and user interface yes, but fundamental image quality..?
 
Yeah of course they are.
I've seen usable shots at 3200 ISO from a 7D, the 400D can't even go that high, let alone produce a decent shot.
Noiser than a FF camera, but then they only cost half as much (or less).
 
Craft said:
Yeah of course they are.
I've seen usable shots at 3200 ISO from a 7D, the 400D can't even go that high, let alone produce a decent shot.
Noiser than a FF camera, but then they only cost half as much (or less).
Click to expand...
I think you'd be surprised if you compared them in the cold light of day next to each other...... Other than the fact the 7D actually goes to a higher ISO, there's probably not a lot in it from RAWs.

I've seen usable shots from a Panasonic G5 at ISO 6400 (which is an even smaller sensor and higher pixel density). They're still noisy, but very usable.... But if you find noise abhorrent, it's still noisy.
 
arad85 said:
I've seen usable shots from a Panasonic G5 at ISO 6400 (which is an even smaller sensor and higher pixel density). They're still noisy, but very usable.... But if you find noise abhorrent, it's still noisy.
Click to expand...
Here's my example.

1/4sec (hand held through a hotel window) f2.8, ISO 6400

 
here's the thing, you can get a decent photo even on the highest iso (12,800 on 7d) as long as you get a decent exposure e.g rather than sticking to a lower iso and lightining it in post using a higher iso even if that means you have to lower the exposure in post, combine this with noise reduction used properly and proper sharpened (with masking to make sure the noise isn't sharpening) you can get a pretty decent image.
 
N01Chris said:
here's the thing, you can get a decent photo even on the highest iso (on almost any camera)
Click to expand...
There... I've sorted that for you ;)

Yes, you need more ISO available to push it, but there is minimal difference if you look at the noise at a given ISO on different cameras (with the same sized sensor).
 
arad85 said:
There... I've sorted that for you ;)

Yes, you need more ISO available to push it, but there is minimal difference if you look at the noise at a given ISO on different cameras (with the same sized sensor).
Click to expand...

yea, i should of said that, ive just got a 7d and I'm pretty proud of it :thumbs:

edit: I am trying not too be too biased
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
Yes, you need more ISO available to push it, but there is minimal difference if you look at the noise at a given ISO on different cameras (with the same sized sensor).
Click to expand...

Quite, so if you are running in low light and can only go to 1600 you run out of light, game over.
Being able to push to higher iSOs (that the 400D can't do) means you get the shots.

The common argument against high ISO is the shots aren't good enough to use, which you've proved is not true, provided you allow for the high ISO :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top