Upgrading from a canon 1000D - Need some recommendations - 100d vs 700d vs 1300d vs ???

Messages
21
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello, first post, i thought a dedicated photography forum would be much friendlier than the Reddit photography group.

So here is my situation, i got a 1000d in 2010, i have loved owning it but i took it on a holiday last year and i felt i lacked the amount of crop i wanted for a lot of shots, i think the 10MP sensor is letting it down and showing its age, apart from that i love it, perfect photos for what i need. My idea is i could get a second hand body as a nice upgrade, now as i said the big reason is megapixels, i just want more crop room but then i have been researching cameras for close to a month now and i honestly just cant decide. There is a 100d which seems smaller but apart from that the 700d seems to be an all round better camera, i can get that for £300ish second hand with less than 3000 shots. The other option is a 1300d new but then it seems again like the 700d is superior in most ways. There is the route i spend more money on say the 200d but then thats a £420 so much more expensive.

Im just lost and need some advice from people who live cameras. I have 2 lenses, the stock 18-55 IS lens and a EF-S 55-250 mm f/4-5.6 IS zoom lens, i know they are budget and considered rather junky compared to professional lenses but again im not a pro, i like to take both lenses out and take wildlife photos and macro shots. This is my flickr to show what i use my camera for if that helps you in anyway https://www.flickr.com/photos/trumbit/.

Any advice would be fantastic, i have been looking at second hand as i say and would like my budget to be around the £300 mark but im not saying no to a little bit more.
 
Oh sorry i didnt realise i could not post links. My flickr name is the same as here so that should be easy to find.
 
Oh sorry i didnt realise i could not post links. My flickr name is the same as here so that should be easy to find.

You need to make 3 posts before you can post a link, its part of the auto spam catcher.
(They end up in a moderator area for approval)
Welcome to the forum, I've approved your posts, make a couple more and you are sorted (y)
 
well I cant offer advice on which camera to go for but looking at your flicker pics they are really good, clean, clear and nicely sharp. just goes to show that those kit lens are not all duffs if you ask me.
 
well I cant offer advice on which camera to go for but looking at your flicker pics they are really good, clean, clear and nicely sharp. just goes to show that those kit lens are not all duffs if you ask me.
Thats my thought, im not a pro and to me the kit lens and the cheap zoom lens works, i might not win competitions but they are fantastic for an amatuer. I dont understand the hate, i got told on reddit to buy glass instead of a new camera but i explained i wanted the crop room, i like my lenses as they are, i dont think i could spend £400 on a lens without worrying everytime i used it.
 
I also had another question, do the stock lenses differ much? As in there seems to be different versions, I II or III and then there are STM versions and IS versions. I have the IS version I lens from 2010 but are the new STM lenses any better or are they all equal where it matters?
 
As a former Canon user, I loved the 600D. It was probably my favourite camera ever (with the same kit lenses you mentioned). I believe sensor/image wise it's exactly the same as the 1300d. I think longevity wise though I'd go with the 700D. The newer sensor is *probably* better, it has touch screen and articulating screen and there's another couple of frames per second if that is a particular need. It's bigger slightly as well which I prefer. Honestly though I would just get which feels better and not worry. Even though I use Nikon, one thing I like about entry level Canon models is they all have buttons! One minor drawback on the 700D though is no ISO button which i like.

As for kit lenses, they are excellent value for money and also light! The only reason I would upgrade is for build quality if you're in a war zone (or just heavy handed!) Or better low light/shallow DOF capabilities. I didnt find my 55-250 all that sharp but it hardly matters in a digital world.

P.S. I had the IS ii versions and they were pretty good, but I don't think I'd upgrade to them.

I have wasted a lot of money trying to find the perfect camera/lens setup and it doesn't exist. I would say you're always better spending money on going places and things to photograph.

Nice Flickr pics by the way.
 
Last edited:
I was in your position a number of years ago and have upgraded a few times. From your budget, it looks like you would also be able to get a used Canon 7D which I hear very good reviews about. It might be worth adding this to your list.. For your budget, you'd be looking at around 35k shutter count. The 7D is in a higher range to the ones you are looking at so then you could start to focus on the glass after that.
For me, ISO was my issue as I wanted to try astrophotography. I found my 40d very noisy and glass wasn't going to fix that. Not sure I've helped, but perhaps given you another option...
 
I was in your position a number of years ago and have upgraded a few times. From your budget, it looks like you would also be able to get a used Canon 7D which I hear very good reviews about. It might be worth adding this to your list.. For your budget, you'd be looking at around 35k shutter count. The 7D is in a higher range to the ones you are looking at so then you could start to focus on the glass after that.
For me, ISO was my issue as I wanted to try astrophotography. I found my 40d very noisy and glass wasn't going to fix that. Not sure I've helped, but perhaps given you another option...
I had a look at the 7d, although it seems like technically a better camera it lacks a few features such as touch screen and swivel, its also nearly a kg in weight and i will be taking my camera on a 80miles walking holiday, i think that extra 450g will make a difference. I will definitely keep it on my maybe list but i think the 700d edges it out for quality of life features and weight.
 
As a former Canon user, I loved the 600D. It was probably my favourite camera ever (with the same kit lenses you mentioned). I believe sensor/image wise it's exactly the same as the 1300d. I think longevity wise though I'd go with the 700D. The newer sensor is *probably* better, it has touch screen and articulating screen and there's another couple of frames per second if that is a particular need. It's bigger slightly as well which I prefer. Honestly though I would just get which feels better and not worry. Even though I use Nikon, one thing I like about entry level Canon models is they all have buttons! One minor drawback on the 700D though is no ISO button which i like.

As for kit lenses, they are excellent value for money and also light! The only reason I would upgrade is for build quality if you're in a war zone (or just heavy handed!) Or better low light/shallow DOF capabilities. I didnt find my 55-250 all that sharp but it hardly matters in a digital world.

P.S. I had the IS ii versions and they were pretty good, but I don't think I'd upgrade to them.

I have wasted a lot of money trying to find the perfect camera/lens setup and it doesn't exist. I would say you're always better spending money on going places and things to photograph.

Nice Flickr pics by the way.
So you mean the ISO button my 1000d has the 700d doesn't? I guess thats done via the touchscreen instead? I can see that being annoying, i like the handsfree ISO changes. Im looking at the 700d being the winner, i could spend an extra 1/4 total and get a 200d but honestly im not sure its worth it. the 100d is like a smaller 700d but i have large hands and im used to a larger camera like the 700d. The one thing that irks me is its a 5 year old camera now, it seems weird wanting a 5 year old camera over say the 1300d which is less than a year old but the tech really hasnt changed much unless i spend a LOT more cash, it seems weird to me coming from a computer perspective where nothing 5 years old could compete with a new system of the same costs.

Do you know if there is a difference between th i, ii and iii? they look the same and are the same speeds from what i can see?
 
I had a look at the 7d, although it seems like technically a better camera it lacks a few features such as touch screen and swivel, its also nearly a kg in weight and i will be taking my camera on a 80miles walking holiday, i think that extra 450g will make a difference. I will definitely keep it on my maybe list but i think the 700d edges it out for quality of life features and weight.

Sounds like a good argument indeed, I didn't realise there was such a difference in weight, and yes it certainly would make a difference over such a distance. 700d certainly sounds a good option in that case
 
If you don't mind buying a grey import, e-infinity are selling the 750D for £339 inc delivery.
The comments on upgrading you lenses do have some valid points.
Put a sharp L series Canon lens on something like a 40D and you will still get very sharp photos after cropping, it's not all about the megapixel count.
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't upgrade the body but I don't think that alone would be beneficial.
I presume your 55-250 IS is the mark 1 version?
I owned the mark 1 when they first came out and I currenty have the STM version of the lens which is well regarded for the IQ for the price.
However, I think if I was in your shoes I'd either upgrade the body then save for a lens or vice versa.
 
If you don't mind buying a grey import, e-infinity are selling the 750D for £339 inc delivery.
The comments on upgrading you lenses do have some valid points.
Put a sharp L series Canon lens on something like a 40D and you will still get very sharp photos after cropping, it's not all about the megapixel count.
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't upgrade the body but I don't think that alone would be beneficial.
I presume your 55-250 IS is the mark 1 version?
I owned the mark 1 when they first came out and I currenty have the STM version of the lens which is well regarded for the IQ for the price.
However, I think if I was in your shoes I'd either upgrade the body then save for a lens or vice versa.
Oh for sure, i know MP isnt a reason to upgrade, its used so much in marketing but really for me the 10mp images my 1000d takes just seem a little small, i have a 14mp phone and i love the extra room i get to crop, i think once i hit 18mp with a 700d or similar i wont even want more again, 10mp just seems a little small for a big crop.
 
So you mean the ISO button my 1000d has the 700d doesn't? I guess thats done via the touchscreen instead? I can see that being annoying, i like the handsfree ISO changes. Im looking at the 700d being the winner, i could spend an extra 1/4 total and get a 200d but honestly im not sure its worth it. the 100d is like a smaller 700d but i have large hands and im used to a larger camera like the 700d. The one thing that irks me is its a 5 year old camera now, it seems weird wanting a 5 year old camera over say the 1300d which is less than a year old but the tech really hasnt changed much unless i spend a LOT more cash, it seems weird to me coming from a computer perspective where nothing 5 years old could compete with a new system of the same costs.

Do you know if there is a difference between th i, ii and iii? they look the same and are the same speeds from what i can see?

I have a 700D and it does have a dedicated ISO button, in front of the mode dial, quite prominent and firm, and easily found by touch. I wouldn't do without the option of quick and positive control of ISO. There are also dedicated buttons on the back for white balance, drive mode, and AF mode. In addition there's the Quick Control button which makes a lot of commonly required settings immediately available on the touch screen. Despite being from the entry level end of Canon's range, I found the design and layout comfortable and intuitive. The sensor isn't the latest, as Canon rather sat on those at this level for a while. I think the 750D was the first significant move forward in that regard, and probably the best value in their range when it came out. I also have a 200D for maximum portability. If weight is your priority it is amazingly small and light. I find image quality adequate, not great at high ISO but decent in good light. Performance is a bit poor, slow frame rate and small buffer, only manages 6 frames before stopping for a long delay as it writes to card. Unimpressive battery life, perfectly adequate for a full day's casual use though. Also has a dedicated ISO button, in the same position as the 700D but smaller and a bit spongy. The point of this camera, though, is always having one with me, and it has caught me a lot of good keepers thanks to that property. The 200D has an even bigger articulated touch screen than the 700D, and includes the Quick Control feature. You mentioned the size of your hands, which is important, and the 200D is a slightly tighter fit. My hands are quite large, and I do prefer the chunky full-frame experience (mainly shoot with a 6D), but I'm also very comfortable using small tools and fine motor control so it's not an issue for me. However, a friend of mine tried handling my 200D and found it unpleasant in his stubby sausage fingers. Your best bet is just to give them all a good grope in a shop.

What you want to shoot makes a lot of difference. Otherwise similar looking models actually possess significant performance variations; max shutter speed, frame rate, number and type of AF points etc. Some are better suited to sports and wildlife, for example, others to landscapes or portraits. What are your priorities?

I have to say, I share the doubts in your cropping logic. It's a legitimate option where necessary, but really a last resort as it's costly in potential image quality. Always better to use the right position, lighting, and lens for the job whenever possible.
 
I have a 700D and it does have a dedicated ISO button, in front of the mode dial, quite prominent and firm

You're right of course. It's the same as the 600D and most others of that line. I should go and have a lie down.
 
I have a 700D and it does have a dedicated ISO button, in front of the mode dial, quite prominent and firm, and easily found by touch. I wouldn't do without the option of quick and positive control of ISO. There are also dedicated buttons on the back for white balance, drive mode, and AF mode. In addition there's the Quick Control button which makes a lot of commonly required settings immediately available on the touch screen. Despite being from the entry level end of Canon's range, I found the design and layout comfortable and intuitive. The sensor isn't the latest, as Canon rather sat on those at this level for a while. I think the 750D was the first significant move forward in that regard, and probably the best value in their range when it came out. I also have a 200D for maximum portability. If weight is your priority it is amazingly small and light. I find image quality adequate, not great at high ISO but decent in good light. Performance is a bit poor, slow frame rate and small buffer, only manages 6 frames before stopping for a long delay as it writes to card. Unimpressive battery life, perfectly adequate for a full day's casual use though. Also has a dedicated ISO button, in the same position as the 700D but smaller and a bit spongy. The point of this camera, though, is always having one with me, and it has caught me a lot of good keepers thanks to that property. The 200D has an even bigger articulated touch screen than the 700D, and includes the Quick Control feature. You mentioned the size of your hands, which is important, and the 200D is a slightly tighter fit. My hands are quite large, and I do prefer the chunky full-frame experience (mainly shoot with a 6D), but I'm also very comfortable using small tools and fine motor control so it's not an issue for me. However, a friend of mine tried handling my 200D and found it unpleasant in his stubby sausage fingers. Your best bet is just to give them all a good grope in a shop.

What you want to shoot makes a lot of difference. Otherwise similar looking models actually possess significant performance variations; max shutter speed, frame rate, number and type of AF points etc. Some are better suited to sports and wildlife, for example, others to landscapes or portraits. What are your priorities?

I have to say, I share the doubts in your cropping logic. It's a legitimate option where necessary, but really a last resort as it's costly in potential image quality. Always better to use the right position, lighting, and lens for the job whenever possible.

A lot of people are saying that about the cropping, now im no pro as i said but i love to take photographs of birds, bugs and any wildlife, now you cant always get THAT close so im sitting at 250mm on my lens almost all the time and even then im in need of a crop, if i had that extra 8mp it would surely allow for a much more detailed and closer crop compared to my 10mp camera. Not only that the 700d or another model would give me a lovely screen, my 1000d has a small non touch screen. I understand the quality of photos wont change but it would allow me more room for crop from what i understand.

I like taking wildlife photos most but i also really like landscapes, i never take fast moving photography, i enjoy long exposure photography using my tripod too.
 
Can i ask, is there a problem with my idea of a new camera to get a larger crop area? I find a lot of people find that its flawed but i cant see why, maybe im clueless?
 
so im sitting at 250mm on my lens almost all the time and even then im in need of a crop, if i had that extra 8mp it would surely allow for a much more detailed and closer crop compared to my 10mp camera.

You've hit the nail on the head, at 250mm the lens is at it's maximum focal length so the further away you are from the subject the more you will need to crop your photos, that is when you notice they are softer and lacking detail.
Even with some of the cheaper up to 300mm zoom lenses there tends to be a lack of IQ at 300mm.
So for instance, if you took a photo with sharp lens @ 400mm, not only will the will the subject will be larger, the IQ would be sharp then allowing you to crop to what you require.
I learned the hard way by buying way too many lenses because I thought they would be find for wildlife but once I saw the IQ of photos posted here I realised that I needed to invest in better lenses.
The Canon 100-400L IS mark 1&2 is a very popular lens for wilidlife photography, there are also the Sigma and Tamron (this is the one I am going to buy) 100-400 lenses.
For even more reach there are lenses like the Sigma & Tamron 150-600.
 
Last edited:
Can i ask, is there a problem with my idea of a new camera to get a larger crop area? I find a lot of people find that its flawed but i cant see why, maybe im clueless?

I’d lean towards the latter. ;)

There’s more to life than pixels and not all pixels are created equal.

My experience of Canons crop sensors tells me that the18mpix isn’t hugely better IQ wise than the 10 mpix one. If you need vastly better IQ, then go for a 24mpix camera, the later sensor is head and shoulders better.

As a photographer though, I’d say using the right lens is a better option, and I’m guessing if I was a wildlife photographer I’d be advising that improving fieldcraft would help too.
 
You've hit the nail on the head, at 250mm the lens is at it's maximum focal length so the further away you are from the subject the more you will need to crop your photos, that is when you notice they are softer and lacking detail.
Even with some of the cheaper up to 300mm zoom lenses there tends to be a lack of IQ at 300mm.
So for instance, if you took a photo with sharp lens @ 400mm, not only will the will the subject will be larger, the IQ would be sharp then allowing you to crop to what you require.
I learned the hard way by buying way too many lenses because I thought they would be find for wildlife but once I saw the IQ of photos posted here I realised that I needed to invest in better lenses.
The Canon 100-400L IS mark 1&2 is a very popular lens for wilidlife photography, there are also the Sigma and Tamron (this is the one I am going to buy) 100-400 lenses.
For even more reach there are lenses like the Sigma & Tamron 150-600.
There is no way i could afford any of those lenses, im stretching myself for a 700d or similar. So maybe if i explain my thinking you can tell me why im wrong and then i can understand why im wrong. My idea is when i take a photo of say a bird the image i get is about 75% wasted and i want to crop away since i cant get that close to certain animals, being 10mp that 25% left can become rather pixelated and blocky but i was thinking if i was running an 18mp or even 24mp sensor it would allow that 25% to look much sharper due to having more pixels in the image. Is that flawed logic?
 
There is no way i could afford any of those lenses, im stretching myself for a 700d or similar. So maybe if i explain my thinking you can tell me why im wrong and then i can understand why im wrong. My idea is when i take a photo of say a bird the image i get is about 75% wasted and i want to crop away since i cant get that close to certain animals, being 10mp that 25% left can become rather pixelated and blocky but i was thinking if i was running an 18mp or even 24mp sensor it would allow that 25% to look much sharper due to having more pixels in the image. Is that flawed logic?

You are putting too much emphasis on megapixels.
If it was that easy no one would have bought the lenses I mentioned.
Buy a new body and test your theory, if that doesn't work then save up for a new lens.
End of.
 
You are putting too much emphasis on megapixels.
If it was that easy no one would have bought the lenses I mentioned.
Buy a new body and test your theory, if that doesn't work then save up for a new lens.
End of.
Or

Heed the advice from the people you believedwould help and spend money on the lens, and if that doesn’t bring benefits, think about how many pixels you’ll need ;)

Seriously, @Trumbit youve asked for advice based on a theory, been told your theory is flawed, and that the lens is abetter use of your cash.

Do what you like, but just remember why you asked in the first place.
 
Your telephoto lens and your budget will get you a longer telephoto from MPB

Current choice:
Canon 100-400
Sigma 120-400
Sigma 150-500
Sigma 50-500

All under £400
 
Last edited:
Or

Heed the advice from the people you believedwould help and spend money on the lens, and if that doesn’t bring benefits, think about how many pixels you’ll need ;)

Seriously, @Trumbit youve asked for advice based on a theory, been told your theory is flawed, and that the lens is abetter use of your cash.

Do what you like, but just remember why you asked in the first place.
I didnt mean to sound ungrateful, i am 100% taking everything people say on board, you guys know so much more than me, i was just trying to understand thats all, i feel im missing some rather basic knowledge and its tripping me up.....I have been looking at lenses, the Sigma 120-400 looks like a good buy, the rest are a bit expensive for what i would be using it for although i have read glass is sort of an investment and it rarely needs replacing unlike the body's. I do have a third lens, maybe you can tell me if its junk or not, my grandad gave me it as he used to be into SLR photography back in the 80s, its a Canon EF 35-70 1:3.5-4.5 A, it fits my camera and i have used it a few times but damn it sounds SO different to my current modern lenses. Im not sure how that would rank compared to my 18-55 in quality.
 
I didnt mean to sound ungrateful, i am 100% taking everything people say on board, you guys know so much more than me, i was just trying to understand thats all, i feel im missing some rather basic knowledge and its tripping me up.....I have been looking at lenses, the Sigma 120-400 looks like a good buy, the rest are a bit expensive for what i would be using it for although i have read glass is sort of an investment and it rarely needs replacing unlike the body's. I do have a third lens, maybe you can tell me if its junk or not, my grandad gave me it as he used to be into SLR photography back in the 80s, its a Canon EF 35-70 1:3.5-4.5 A, it fits my camera and i have used it a few times but damn it sounds SO different to my current modern lenses. Im not sure how that would rank compared to my 18-55 in quality.
I didn’t mean to suggest you were ungrateful.
There’s a known point in your photographic journey where you realise that lenses are much more important than cameras.
Then you’ll realise much later that the gear is less important than you previously thought.
 
And that old 35-70 wasn’t a great lens, worth keeping as a spare, but a modern kit lens is both more appropriate in fl and better quality.
 
I didn’t mean to suggest you were ungrateful.
There’s a known point in your photographic journey where you realise that lenses are much more important than cameras.
Then you’ll realise much later that the gear is less important than you previously thought.
I took the 35-70 out for a quick walk, meh i find it ok, it seems like a much softer version of the 18-55, it seems to almost add a blut to everything it takes so its sort of useless for close up photography but i guess maybe portraits it would be decent with, its not wide enough to be my landscape lens and its not long enough to be a zoom, its in this weird bubble where i cant find a use for it, i think the 18-55 has much more utility.

The past few times i have been out i have noticed my 1000d has been choking a bit, when i take a photo it snaps no problem but the second photo i get no auto focus at all and i have to turn it off and back on again, doesn't matter what lens i have installed. I cleaned the contacts with isopropyl alcohol but its still the same, is that a common problem with an easy fix? Maybe i have done something stupid?
 
You are putting too much emphasis on megapixels.
If it was that easy no one would have bought the lenses I mentioned.
Buy a new body and test your theory, if that doesn't work then save up for a new lens.
End of.
I realise my error, i have been thinking of maybe grabbing a lens instead or maybe even a cheaper body like a 100d for £200 and then save for another month and get maybe the Sigma 120-400 to go along with it, then i have both a more up to date body with touch screen and other quality of life features and a nicer lens. Sorry if i sounded like i was ignoring you, just trying to understand my error.
 
i have read glass is sort of an investment and it rarely needs replacing unlike the body's.

Exactly, just have a look at how long the MK1 version of the Canon 1000-400 was around before the MK2 version was released.
Invest in decent glass then it will be a long time before you need to upgrade whereas over a few years you might replace the body a couple of times.
 
i have been thinking of maybe grabbing a lens instead or maybe even a cheaper body like a 100d for £200

I'm not sure what sector of the market Canon are aiming the the likes of the 200D, 2000D and 4000D at and I've not read the specifications and too be honest I don't see the point, how many bodies does a manufacturer need to produce for the beginners market?
I kind of think that perhaps they are supposed to be a step up from bridge cameras.
In you case I would consider something like the 750D onwards as this is when Canon released the 19 point AF system with XXXD bodies.
You can pick up a new 750D for under £400 from e-infinity if you don't mind buying a grey import.
There is also the option to 'buy now pay in 12 months' with some retailers but I certainly would not encourage you to over spend or get yourself in debt.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Your telephoto lens and your budget will get you a longer telephoto from MPB

Current choice:
Canon 100-400

All under £400

My only arguement with buying a used 100-400 would be to check out the date code.
I've read a few articles that say later models are better but I have no way of proving if this is true or not.
One I've been looking at on a certain auction site was manufactured in 2006 and the seller is asking £600.
Personally I wouldn't pay that for a 12 year old lens.
If the OP is not worried about a grey import he can get a Tamron 100-400 for under £500.
I've previously owned a MK1 Canon 100-400 and although it was a fantastic lens, I'm currently weighing up buying either another or a grey import Tamron 100-400 with a one year warranty or a genuine UK stock with a 5 year warranty.
 
I'm not sure what sector of the market Canon are aiming the the likes of the 200D, 2000D and 4000D at and I've not read the specifications and too be honest I don't see the point, how many bodies does a manufacturer need to produce for the beginners market?
I kind of think that perhaps they are supposed to be a step up from bridge cameras.
In you case I would consider something like the 750D onwards as this is when Canon released the 19 point AF system with XXXD bodies.
You can pick up a new 750D for under £400 from e-infinity if you don't mind buying a grey import.
There is also the option to 'buy now pay in 12 months' with some retailers but I certainly would not encourage you to over spend or get yourself in debt.
[/QUOTE]
I was looking at the 750d today, its £380 on MPB for an excellent condition model, i love the idea of 19 point AF when i currently have 7. I read really good things about the 750d, i dont see the point in the 100/200d like you, the 100d only seems good because its £230 for a like new used model but new they seem silly, Canon has a seriously bloated product line i have noticed, i can easily pick 3 cameras with almost exactly the same spec but different years/names.....its like they are out to confuse newbies like myself!
 
I'm not sure what sector of the market Canon are aiming the the likes of the 200D, 2000D and 4000D at and I've not read the specifications and too be honest I don't see the point, how many bodies does a manufacturer need to produce for the beginners market?
I kind of think that perhaps they are supposed to be a step up from bridge cameras.
In you case I would consider something like the 750D onwards as this is when Canon released the 19 point AF system with XXXD bodies.
You can pick up a new 750D for under £400 from e-infinity if you don't mind buying a grey import.
There is also the option to 'buy now pay in 12 months' with some retailers but I certainly would not encourage you to over spend or get yourself in debt.
[/QUOTE]

would you say the 19 point AF would stop the issue i have, when taking a photo of say an insect/bird or something small i struggle to get a focus on it due to the AF points being so spaced out, i have to take the photo at weird angles and then crop because i need an in focus subject but then i hate the photos where the subject is dead centre, rule of thirds and all that so it makes the process just extra irritating! Im guessing having 12 more points would help me here?
 

would you say the 19 point AF would stop the issue i have, when taking a photo of say an insect/bird or something small[/QUOTE]

Nope, still lenses, for insects you would need a macro lens and for small birds a focal length of at least 400mm.
Stop trying to chid yourself that a body upgrade is all you need.
 
Back
Top