Is my body limiting me?

roadeh

roadeh

Messages
137
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
I know people say that people should upgrade their body only after they have got some decent glass, and I'm starting to wonder when that point is; my 450D is decent, in fact I find the fact that its small and lightweight a huge plus. But at the same time, I'd love something that could cope with low light conditions better, plus also let me experiment with more advanced functionality.

At the same time, I'm curious to dabble with FF; given primarily I'm a landscape photographer (with the occasional flirt with portrait and wildlife photography), I think the benefits of FF would outweigh the disadvantages.

Anyway currently I have:

18-55 EF-S kit lens (soon to be sold given I never use it and now have the range covered)
10-22 EF-S (my most used lens by far)
24-105 EF (newly acquired so no thoughts on this yet)
50 1.8 EF (second most used)
100 2.8 Macro EF (I like it a lot but find it quite bulky so rarely take it out unless I know I'm going to use it)
100-400 EF (rarely used; but it has been invaluable when the situation demands, again won't take it out unless I know I'll use it)

The options I'm considering are the 7D and 5D (MKI/MKII?) (all second hand).

The 5D would be perfect, but the lack of live view and sensor cleaning is a concern; they also seem to be fairly pricey at the moment second hand.

The 5D MKII is again excellent, but more than I'd like to spend; I was hoping the MKIII might drive prices down but its arrival is not guaranteed anytime soon!

The 7D is the only option for me as a crop sensor; and is well priced, but my, possibly unnecessary, desire to go FF is making me reluctant to choose it.

I should also mention that I'm going to be travelling round Central and South America for 6 months in September, so having something lightweight may be preferable. In addition, at the moment I'm planning on taking the 10-22, 24-105 and the nifty fifty.. obviously if I go FF, then I'd need to get a 16-35/17-40 instead of the 10-22, at which point I start duplicating a lot of the range of the 24-105....

So in short I'm in a bit of a quandry and curious what thoughts TP members have..

Cheers
 
I woul stick with lenses you have and get a 7D and personally, I wouldn't leave the 100-400L at home.
You will have some fantastic wildlife opportunities on your travels, I really wish I had my 100-400L when I did a Central America & Caribbean cruise.
You say you dabble with wildlife but I think you will kick yourself for not taking it.
I don't know much about the 5D but I would have thought the 7D would be better at higher ISO levels given that it's a newer camera than the 5D MKI?
I wouldn't be too concerned about onboard sensor cleaning if you do decide to go for a 5D, just make sure you take a blower, sensorklear pen or swabs and fluids.
I can only assume that you plan to sell the 450D and if finances allow, perhaps a 5D and a 50D?
You'll then have the 5D for landscapes / people and a 50D for wildlife.

A couple of things I can suggest that are worth doing, go to Costa Rica and take a boat trip down the river, it's a great place for wildlife photography, head for Puerto Limon, you will see the part of the country many tourists avoid as it's quite a poor region.
Cartagena in Colombia, the old Fort is a great place for doing some city scapes.
The centre is also a good place for photography and have a good wander around, there is a poor area which is quite well hidden and the shacks make for some good shots as well.
here's something to wet your appetite and hopefully convince you to take the 100-400L : http://www.flickr.com/photos/hashcaked/sets/72157615370468652/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/hashcaked/sets/72157615300676448/

You will have a fantastic time, the people / culture in that part of the world are fantastic.
Can I come with you? :lol:
 
Last edited:
If you are in a position financially to be talking 5D then I would look at upgrading your lenses before you go for the new body,if you do go full frame tghem from what I understand you will have to get better glass to allow the sensor to give of its best.
Re the 450 what exactly is it limiting you that requires you to upgrade
 
What sort of low light conditions do you want to shoot in? Just thinking...a 450D @ ISO 1600 with a Sigma 30/1.4 indoors should yield decent results. If you will be shooting in really dark and dingy conditions, then you'd probably be better off with a 5D II and 50/1.4, where high ISO performance is better and you have the option of ISO speeds above 1600. Or...grab a 550D / 600D / 60D or 7D where high ISO is also brilliant, but without the full frame goodness (not quite as clean as the 5D II).
 
I think the biggest issue you are likely to face is actually not the "low light" performance, but the noise generated by long exposures during low light situations (cityscapes at night, for instance).

Personally I would head for the 5DII, but saying that, the 7D does give more than adequate performance if you like to do landscapes in the dark (clicky).

Average lenses do tend to look below average on a decent body.

Steve
 
In your situation I would go for the 5DMK2.You could probably swap or sell your 10-22 and get a 17-40 for no extra cost.If you don't use the macro much just sell it and put the funds towards the MK2.Buy yourself a cheap extension tube to stick on the 50mm for when you need to do a bit of macro work.
That would give you 17-400mm lens coverage and a very nice body to match.
You don't mention a flash.Don't forget the 5D and Mk2 don't have a built in flash so you might have to figure in getting yourself a cheap flash too.

The 7D is a super camera and you would find it an awesome ungrade to the 450D.The files however are no match for the 5D2.I'm basing that on owning multiple copies of the 7D and 5D2.

It all depends if you want to go full frame or not.If not,why not take a look at the new 600D.You like the smaller form factor of the 450D and you would get all the new advancements of a brand new to the market camera.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Cheers
Gary
 
Can I borrow your 100-400mm while you're away? I'd love to play with one. :p

I would have offered to temporarily swap you for my 10-22mm for your trip, but you already have one :(
 
OK wow, quite a diverse range of questions/thoughts - thanks:

@hashcake; I'm backpacking for the 6 months so weight is a concern; I certainly won't be taking two bodies, and the reason for not taking the 100-400 is 80% a weight/size one (20% for making me a big mugging target). I could downgrade to a 'cheap' telephoto, I guess; but it would still mean carrying 4 lenses (and from every other travelling thread I've read, most people say you'll only regret having so much weight on you!). I'm sure I will miss some excellent opportunities, but I think its a compromise I'll have to accept.

Thanks for the tips on what to see though; I've done very little planning so far, but your flickr pics are excellent.

@CaptainPenguin: Most of what is limiting to me now about the 450D is the noisey ISO1600 - 800 is the max I find acceptable to use, but having played with a mate's 5DMK2, it just seemed so much of a toy in comparison!

@manualfocus-g: The nifty fifty would be my only fast lens when travelling, so its going to have to cope with anywhere indoors basically. I do plan on taking a compact for when lots of beer will be involved, so clubs or whatever aren't a concern, but I'm sure there will be many times in dingy bars where any extra low light ability would be nice! I find that even at ISO1600 and 1.8 that I often get just shutter speeds that are just a bit too slow (i.e. I can nail it sometimes, but have far too many that are soft). A sigma 50mm 1.4 is a consideration right now too for this reason..

@Jelster: Yes I do like doing night time cityscapes and so any improved performance would be appreciated!

@vulcan2912: Yes the swap to FF should mean no additional lens cost for the logic you cited; As I said, it would be just more of a pain for the fact that the 17-40 and 24-105 then overlap so much! I have been contemplating selling the macro and 100-400 (which will basically get me the new body), but hashcake has thrown a spanner in the works ;)

As for flash, I'm not really a big fan of using one - a) they are massive for both carrying and make you're equipment look a lot more expensive (similar thing for the white lenses) and b) I like using the natural light from the atmosphere (hence the need for good low light performance!)

The 600D seems a bit of a sideward step, although definitely an improvement. I'd rather make a marked jump to the 7D/5D..
 
@WinstonSmith: Hehe, its definitely not going to sit idle, it either will come with me or I'll sell it, but you can consider that a long term switch for £900 or however much I sell it for ;)
 
Ben,

It's interesting that you say that ISO 800 is the max you will use as my even older 20D is useable at ISO 3200.

Have you thought about looking at how you process shots? Even if you get a new body I think that you are still going have to process your shots to get better results.
 
If you're a landscape 'tog on crop, I'd stick with 10-22 and add a 15-85 (although at 3.5-5.6, it is a bit slow but it does have very good IS) and be done with it. I think that would cover you for general purpose walkabout (I think you'll be swapping between 10-22 and 24-105 too much on crop for general purpose walkabout you'll find it annoying). If you want low light and need zoom, either look for some primes or add a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and use that at night (leaving the other two at the hotel). Cost will be just a little more than 17-55 2.8, but with the benefit of much more reach for daytime and equivalent picture quality.

Looking at your lens lineup, I think you've decided you need full frame ;) :D, in which case it's 5D2 time even though it's stretching it. Swap the 10-22 for a 17-40 if the 24-105 isn't wide enough. Think of the 17-40 as a 17-24 rather than overlapping focal ranges. How about selling the other lenses if you don't use them - pointless having them left in the house... You'd certainly have enough for a 5DII then ;)
 
woof woof said:
Ben,

It's interesting that you say that ISO 800 is the max you will use as my even older 20D is useable at ISO 3200.

Have you thought about looking at how you process shots? Even if you get a new body I think that you are still going have to process your shots to get better results.
Click to expand...

And I have no problem with my 400D at ISO 800
 
"is my body limiting me"

Mine does, mainly my knees....(Boom Boom!)
 
@woof woof: OK put it this way - ISO1600 is what I'll use when I absolutely have to, but only when it comes to getting the shot or not. If I was selling the pic, I'd be very reluctant about using above 800.

Having said that, I only use the inbuilt photoshop noise removal algorithms; so maybe I should look into NoiseNinja or whatever..

@arad85: Yes I've heard people say they hate having to swap constantly with the 10-22 & 24-105.. but having only just bought the 24-105, I haven't had time to experience the pain. I've got 6 months until I go, so I'll see if its workable.. having said that I know that I'll need wider than 15mm :) In fact if I went FF, I'd probably be looking at getting the new 8-15 despite me having no justifiable reason given its cost... I just like shooting wiiiiide :)
 
Hi Ben

The difference between 17 and 24mm is quite large.Consider the 17-40 and 24-105 as partners rather than overlappers.

Re the trip away.What's more important the experience of the trip or the photos.Myself,I would rather endure the hardship of carrying the gear and being able to get the shots I want than come home and regretting not taking the gear.My back will recover but my wallet might never let me make that trip again.

If you stay on a crop body I would dump the 24-105 and get the 15-85.Smaller,just as sharp,better IS and it is also very nice build quality.Much better than the 10-22 and 17-55 EFS.Once again,speaking from owning and using everything above.

Cheers
Gary
 
roadeh said:
@woof woof: OK put it this way - ISO1600 is what I'll use when I absolutely have to, but only when it comes to getting the shot or not. If I was selling the pic, I'd be very reluctant about using above 800.

Having said that, I only use the inbuilt photoshop noise removal algorithms; so maybe I should look into NoiseNinja or whatever..
Click to expand...

Getting the most from digital images tends to take a bit of effort so I think this is well worth looking into. I wonder do you sell digital images or prints? The reason I ask is you shouldn't be seeing a great deal of noise in a print of a 450D shot taken at ISO 800, certainly not in a whole image shot.

And on the other side of things... there are many truly awful 7D images on line that haven't been processed in a way that does them any justice at all.
 
roadeh said:
@arad85: Yes I've heard people say they hate having to swap constantly with the 10-22 & 24-105.. but having only just bought the 24-105, I haven't had time to experience the pain. I've got 6 months until I go, so I'll see if its workable.. having said that I know that I'll need wider than 15mm :) In fact if I went FF, I'd probably be looking at getting the new 8-15 despite me having no justifiable reason given its cost... I just like shooting wiiiiide :)
Click to expand...
There's also the Sigma 12-24 for full frame. I bought Vulcans and really like it but I'm augmenting it for my "trip of a lifetime" (mostly landscape shots - Arizona/California) with a 17-40 for that slightly crisper quality it appears to have from the shots I've spent hours looking at. If it doesn't do it for me, I'll move it on at a slight loss, but I'll have had it in my hands for a while to really understand it. I will keep the 12-24 anyway - I love 12mm on a FF!

We've also just bought a 7D/15-85 combo. We don't need to freeze action, so the IS and good zoom and excellent picture quality will make it an ideal camera for my OH to take pictures (and provide a mega autofocus system for her other love - macro - we have the 100 L IS too).
 
Gary, haha thanks for ruining my new purchase before its even arrived ;)

But yes you're right; getting the photos is important to me - just the thought of a 5 day trek up the inca trail, which I'm pretty sure won't have any need for a 1.3kg lens, will seem like a mighty stupid idea.

As I said, every other travel thread I've read has said not to take too much gear, as you'll end up just hating it so its about getting the balance right.

@woof woof; Yes I plan to take a netbook with me to ensure that I can do some sort of workflow throughout.. just need to find something that can run Lightroom sufficiently well ;)

I don't have any problem at ISO800, but I do definitely see it more at ISO1600, hence my reluctance to use it. I don't currently sell prints, but its something I would be open to, but that's a whole different thread.. but it does therefore make me think about what would be acceptable noise.
 
arad85 said:
There's also the Sigma 12-24 for full frame. I bought Vulcans and really like it but I'm augmenting it for my "trip of a lifetime" (mostly landscape shots - Arizona/California) with a 17-40 for that slightly crisper quality it appears to have from the shots I've spent hours looking at. If it doesn't do it for me, I'll move it on at a slight loss, but I'll have had it in my hands for a while to really understand it. I will keep the 12-24 anyway - I love 12mm on a FF!
Click to expand...

Ah I hadn't realised that was an EF fit.. hmm - maybe that's an alternative then. 5DMK2, 12-24 and 24-105.. Although the fact you feel the need to augment it suggests that you're not happy with its performance?
 
roadeh said:
Ah I hadn't realised that was an EF fit.. hmm - maybe that's an alternative then. 5DMK2, 12-24 and 24-105.. Although the fact you feel the need to augment it suggests that you're not happy with its performance?
Click to expand...
Very, very good but not quite as sharp as I think I'd like (yes, I pixel peep!) and has a slight colour cast. I think the 17-40 may be better - see: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...LensComp=369&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Given we're spending 3+ weeks on a roadtrip around the USA and I've just had a bonus, I thought I'd splash out :D

BTW, the 8-15 is a fisheye, the 12-24 is rectilinear. Amazing for architecture, but I'll always be niggled that it may be slightly lacking for landscapes (for a pixel peeper ;))
 
Love the Siggy 12-24mm. I think it's actually impossible to take a bad picture with it.

pier12.jpg
 
woof woof said:
Love the Siggy 12-24mm. I think it's actually impossible to take a bad picture with it.
Click to expand...
And that's on a 20D - on FF it's scarily wide...
 
I've mounted it on my film camera and it looks great and although I've not shot any film with it (I use a 20-35mm on my SLR) it tempts me to.

PS. I actually prefer the Siggy to the Canon 10-22mm. I had one of those and replaced it with the Siggy as the Siggy seems to suffer much less distortion and light fall off, in fact it has none of either that I can see.
 
Last edited:
Just nipping back up the thread a bit, the 50/1.8 on a crop camera gives an effective 80/1.8 which isn't always going to give you the fast shutter speeds you need in low light, unless you step up to ISO 3200 (certainly from my experience).

I'd still recommend a shorter, fast lens for indoors / dark work on a cropper.
 
I was in a similar boat recently, I needed something to replace my 20D, budget dictated it was either a 7D or a 5DI, in the end I went for the 5D on the basis of image quality for the type of shots I take at the moment (landscape), faster AF/sensor cleaning/more pixels/higher ISO are all good, but the pictures from the 5D at "normal" ISO are just nicer.

With regards to travelling I only tend to take my full kit if it is a specific photography trip with other photographers, usually I try to travel as lightly as possible, especially when I'll be carrying my gear for a lot of time, quite often just one body and a fast wide prime. As you say, white L lenses just scream "steal me".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top