Opinions on upgrading gear

John Mc

John Mc

Messages
742
Name
John
Edit My Images
No
As the title states, looking for some help and opinions on upgrading gear.
I have a budget of around £2k to use in the upcoming future from family and i want to use it wisely. I mainly shoot Landscapes but i want to look into shooting portraits and wild life and motorsports. A little bit of everything as i haven't found my subject yet. Im looking into wide angle lenses aswell as telephoto's and ive decided on a few, Such as a 17-40L or a 10-22mm for wide angles and 70-200 L f4 aswell as a 300mm L f4(2nd hand). and throwing in a 85mm 1.8 aswell.

The Lenses aren't my main concern, i know what i'll need to shoot the different subject's. Whats making my head hurt is if i should look at getting another Camera. Out of my £2k budget i'd like to put £6-700 on a camera but I'm not sure if i should go FF or stick to crop sensor. I know and increase in Fps would be an advantage in a few roles, and i can only really get that with a cropped sensor. I see 5D mk1's are costing around £600 with medium usuage. This doesen't give me the fps rate but it does give me a FF sensor, which i wouldnt mind having. Another option would be a 1D, however, the 1D series confuse me. some have FF sensors, some have 1.3 cropped sensor's but a higher Fps. Which i dont mind tbh. Can someone out there share there opinions on either of theses camera's? Which they would suggest?(even if its another canon option)

John
 
For motorsport and wildlife you generally want the same features, a long fast lens and good AF, generally speaking a cropped sensor camera is better due to the extra reach. Certainly when I was shooting motorsport I wasn't into machine gunning lots of photos, and actually turned the FPS down on my 1D, so I wouldn't get too hung up on FPS.

For portraits and landscape image quality and DoF control is more important and FF is generally a better bet.

I had a 1D (1.3x crop, it's the 1Ds that are FF) and found this a good compromise, however, they are a bit dated now and will generally have had a hard life at the £600-700 budget.

Do you really feel tat you need to upgrade your body now. What is holding you back with it? If it is just wanting to move to full frame, I would advise against it if you want to do wildlife/motorsport photography, as the longer lenses needed, as opposed to a cropped sensor camera, will be a lot more expensive.
 
Cheer's guys for the responce. I should maybe have explained myself a little better last night when typing this up.
I'm fairly happy with my 500D, the only complaints i have about it is the size as i feel in my hands,its too small(i've got big hands). I wouldn't be getting rid of the camera, its My first camera and have an un natural bond with it. So i suppose i wouldn't be upgrading my camera, more adding to my equipment. That's why i was looking at a FF Body.
 
And still too small?

Anyways upgrade or buy new lenses mate before a new body. For me i actually need a new body now as the 400d is not doing coping for my needs but i am buying a new lens soon before a new body as the extra reach i need and is far more important then the camera body.
 
Okay, Let me just say once again, I wont actually be Changing my Camera body, I'll be adding to my Original equipment. The reason im looking at a Full frame camera is mearly for Landscapes and portraits. I Shoot Landscapes mostly on my film camera, which is why i'm also looking at the FF side of things. Also means i can buy one wide angle lens.
 
The 5D Mkii is an option im looking at, and if i can spy one with a 24-105 L for a decent price second hand i might just snap it up. The option of having Full Hd recording also is an option i'd like.
 
You have three basic choices:

1) 600 on body, 1400 on lens. This gives a 5dmk1 + some awsome glass.

2) 1k on body, 1k on lens. This gives a 1dmk2 + some nice glass.

3) 1400 on body, 600 on lens. This gives a 5dmkii (if you can find one) + something left over for some glass I hope.

Of course, the 40d/50d is very capable (but not ff)
 
aeronic said:
You have three basic choices:

1) 600 on body, 1400 on lens. This gives a 5dmk1 + some awsome glass.

2) 1k on body, 1k on lens. This gives a 1dmk2 + some nice glass.

3) 1400 on body, 600 on lens. This gives a 5dmkii (if you can find one) + something left over for some glass I hope.

Of course, the 40d/50d is very capable (but not ff)
Click to expand...

Well Steven, Option 1 was what i was thinking to begin with, i'd rather have better glass then more mega pixels. I think 12.1mp on a FF sensor is plenty, my 450D i used for a few weeks was this and i never had any problems with it till the shutter prematurely died and i opted to pay a little more for my 500D. So i think 600 on a decent 5D mki body and the remainder on lenses may be the better idea :)
 
So after my Dad's friend coming over to my parents tonight and bringing along his 5D mkI, I've decided to go for one, My Budget for this is around £600, Yet it will be the last thing i purchase. I think first i shall upgrade my lenses.

I've decided on firstly buying a Canon 70-200mm L f4(non IS). However, im not sure if i should purchase second hand or go brand new. There's only £120 difference(as ive seen they can bring £380 average on ebay etc), yet its £120 that could go to another lens. I figure this would be a good portrait lens on my film Slr aswell as standing a few feet back and using it on my 500D for portraits/sports etc.

For landscapes/wide angle on FF im looking at Canons 17-40mm L f4, I'm considering getting this second hand, seen one on ebay today go for £400-ish. I also figure,that this would be a good all-round lens on the 500D as at the longest length (40mm) it will be close to 64mm.

I'm looking at prime telephotos and im yet to decide if i should go with a 400mm f5.6 or 300mm f4. This lens would mostly be used with my 500D. I'm also curious if its worth buying these new(im aware its allways worth buying new) as i'm not sure if there would be a price difference buying second hand, i've seen the 300mm sell for £100 cheaper then new price that was used for a year and ive seen some go for £400 cheaper if not less and they've been owned for 2 years and barely used. Do these lenses have faults or is it just luck on the time of purchasing them?

Lastly, iv'e decided,that because the majority of my lenses will be no lower then f4 I need something that has a wide aperture. I have a 50mm f1.8 mkii, I love it! i love how sharp it is and its such a good little lens. However, i feel i'll be wasting the ability of the 5D if i put this on it all the time, so i think i'll look to selling this and my 28-105 F3.5-4.5 lens, and kit lens and buying a 50mm f1.4.

If anyone has some opinions/alternative items i should look at, i'd love to hear it.

John
 
That sounds like a reasonable set of lenses to me. I'd suggest seeing how you get on with 50mm f1.8.
 
I'd think about changing the 1.8 50mm to the Sigma 50mm 1.4, £300 ish used I believe.

Sounds like the general choice you have made is wise though, should cover you very nicely. I assume you have a flash already, otherwise get a 430EX.

A 7D is the jack of all trades, master of none, would suit more though if you were going for just a 1 camera setup.
 
I've currently got the 50mm1.8, it would be getting sold to fund a 1.4 version. Ive yet to try the sigma version, is it a better lens to the canon equivelent?
 
John Mc said:
I've currently got the 50mm1.8, it would be getting sold to fund a 1.4 version. Ive yet to try the sigma version, is it a better lens to the canon equivelent?
Click to expand...

Its a much more modern lens and by all accounts is a better lens than the canon. No doubt someone will be along in a minute to say don't buy sigma as they are awful but they may well not know what the hell they are on about! ;)
 
Fair enough :) I don't buy lenses unless I've tried them, there's a camera store in Glasgow that deal with sigmas alot, so I might go have a little play about :) I've used the canon version and I've noticed it's sharper then the canon 1.8 :), but I'll take your advise :)
 
I thinjk the Sigma 1.4 50mm costs more and is meant to be sharper, it would have to be I guess as Sigma is usually a cheaper alternative to Canon but aims for simailr quality.

It is meant to be good, heard mixed things about the Canon 1.4.
 
Cheers shabba, I'll do abit of research first and revise what I'll be hoping to get :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top