Feel I've progressed to an upgrade - minimal expenditure ideas HELP please.

[dinners]

Hi folks

Can I please pick your brains..........

I'm not a newbie to photography - 20 years + experience - did the old HND back in the 80's - years of 35mm - SLR - darkroom experience - chemicals etc etc.

Just wanted to voice my frustartion a bit but hopefully not sound like a spoiled brat.

In terms of ownership I've had Canon 10/20/30/40D - Nikon D50D/D200.

In addition - I've shot (through work) Canon 5D & 1DII plus Nikon D200 & D3 - more recently I've used Canon 5DII & Nikon D700

Anyway......

I've no longer access to better gear through work so I have what I have - a Canon 40D.

It's a decent camera but (and I'm no spoiled brat) I'm needing to move on.

Current kit left of my own.......

Mint gripped 40D
17-85mm EFS Canon (no good full frame)
10-20mm Sigma (no good full frame)
50mm 1.8 Canon
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
2X Canon TC


Big sigh - here's my dilema..........

My wife is now expecting child number 23 so money is TIGHT.

Landscape has always been my thing - Birds/Wildlife a new passion (so there's the crop / FF to consider) - Let's say Landscapes come first as there's options for a bit of pocket money...

QUESTION / CHALLENGE = with minimal upgrades / trades / purchases / cost how would you guys look to move on......?

PS

Canon or Nikon only..........

 

[redhed17]

My wife is now expecting child number 23 so money is TIGHT.

23, is that a typo?

Back to the serious stuff. What does the 40D not do?

And how much do you want to spend?

In your position, though money no object, I would go for the 7D. You say Landscapes first, but if you want Bird/Wildlife as well, I'd take the benefit of the crop factor. Big zooms cost money, best to get as close as you can in camera. You have a wide angle, unless you find that not wide enough all of the time, again the crop camera wins. And if it's not wide enough, back away from the scene. It's harder to get closer to the animals without spooking them.

Without knowing what is wrong with the 40D, it's a little harder to advise on a cheap route to what you want. :shrug:

 

[drb5]

1DII as an inbetween, or just plump for the 5D.

Ok, you'll need to get new glass, but that doesn't NEED to be an expensive thing.

5D - £650
Tamron 28-75mm - £300

 

[Dave Stone]

40D is a VERY capable camera. Lookling at your lens line up I would suggest spending the money on new glass.

 

[seriousrikk]

How about a decent set of filters for your 10-22mm?

The 40D is a good camera, perfectly capable.

 

[dinners]

Cheers folks.

With regards to your comments.......

23 - That certainly was a typo. I meant 3

What does the 40D not do ? - I'm drawn to full frame for landscapes which is one issue. Ingnoring the full frame issue - I'm wanting to crank up ISO for wildlife using higher shutter speeds and I'm finding noise an issue so would ideally like to find something that handles better at high ISO. Improved autofocus would be great too.

How much do I want to spend ? - that's the key to my post really - at this stage zero. I'm looking to clear out and replace the above items to replace the body at this stage. Either that or clear out for better short lenses.

Filters - I already use soft & hard ND grads.

 

[redhed17]

23 - That certainly was a typo. I meant 3

Pity, you could have afforded to sell a few.

With no budget your options are severely limited. :shrug:

You'd lose a lot if you clear out and replace, with only the
Sigma 10-20mm
50mm 1.8 Canon
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
2X Canon TC
holding anywhere near their value.

What would you want to lose, and what could you get with the money? Depends on what would go and stay really. :shrug:


The ISO problem is only going to be solved by a newer camera with better low light performance. Do you jump one generation for a minimal improvement to a 50D, or two generations for the 7D? Or do you wait for the 60D which is rumoured to be close, but will have a premium when released. :shrug:

Obviously newer cameras will have better Auto Focus performance too, with the 7D AF supposedly very good. Will the 60D AF be as good as the 7D, I doubt it, Canon have placed the 7D at higher level than the xxD range so will probably not get too close to it specs wise.

I don't see any point considering Nikon as you would not be able to get to anywhere near the quality of what you have now without huge losses. :nono:

Probably not what you wanted to hear, but maybe someone as some financially creative ideas. :shrug:

 

[dinners]

I will go full frame at some point so don't really want to consider the cost of a 7D.

I'm thinking I'll probably hang onto the 40D as a crop camera when I do get a FF body as the re-sale on the 40D wouldn't contribute much in the greater scheme of things.

Getting rid of the 10-20 and 17-85 would contribute a fair % toward a Canon 17-40 which would suit the 40D and get me wide again once I get the FF body.

The 100-400 is brand new so I'll be keeping that anyway.

 

[redhed17]

Sounds like you know what you want.

If it is FF you definitely want though, I hope the funds become available sooner rather than later, as it is an expensive route to go.

 

[woof woof]

I don't know if there's a clear one camera fixes all solution for your needs.

You want to shoot birds and wildlife which points towards APS-C and you already have a long lens and you're drawn to FF for landscape and are thinking about a 17-40mm but that's not even as wide as your 10-20mm on your current camera.

From a field of view point of view I don't know if going FF will be an advantage (unless you go for the excellent Sigma 12-24mm) but maybe you'd get better image quality and high ISO performance?

You don't say if you print or not or if you carry out severe crops and these are factors that could matter and would influence your choice. If you only do relatively small prints and don't carry out severe crops I'm tempted to wonder what you'll gain from changing bodies either to full frame or to a high resolution APS-C and if any additional image quality will actually be visible, although better high ISO performance may be?

In your position I don't think I'd do anything too severe until I was a bit clearer about why I wanted to upgrade and how to do so. I might be tempted to take a look at my lenses and wave bye bye to the 17-85mm and buy a good quality 17-50mm f2.8 or a fast prime or two. Other than that I'd forget about the 17-40mm f4 as that lens doesn't make sense to me on APS-C and Canon will probably be replacing it soon with something better anyway so if you go full frame in the future you could get the newer and presumably better replacement. All in all though, in your place, I think I'd look at my "standard" zoom as my next upgrade.

 

[dinners]

Cheers for the feedback woof woof - it does help with the old head scratching to get other people's views.

I know the 17-40 isn't as wide as the 10-20 but it tends to be the wider end of the 17-85 that makes up most of my landscape shots. Yes the 17-85 is really the one I want to replace but the 10-20 would have to go to help fund whatever I get.