Whats better - the latest Body or the recently superseded Prosumer Model

O

Overexposed

Messages
1,341
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi would like a bit of serious advice – Im just in the process of changing bodies and maybe even systems having just sold my Canon 500d having never really felt the love for it.
I’m trying to decide which way to go – I’ve currently got an 18-50 Tamron Canon fit but im prepared to chuck that in the mix and start with a clean sheet. My photography is really landscapes, places and people – I’m not dead experienced but I appreciate the ability to take nice photos and to tinker with effects.
My quandry is to decide which way to go next – I though about a 40d or maybe a 50d – but am just wondering if the way to go is to buy the last reincarnation of prosumer cameras. Ie D200, D80 or 40d. I don’t see the need for Massive Megapixel counts – just a good solid body that takes pictures not video. Am I really missing out not going for the D300, D90 or 50d? What would be good options for lenses? 17-55 or 24-105L ? for Canon but whats the Nikon equivalent. To be honest im fed up with reading reviews wondering how much I’ve lost when the next body comes out with more features I don’t want or need – I just want a good solid body that will take good pics, I can grow in to and forget about – I cant see me getting into full frame so I’d love to hear some honest opinions. I don’t want to start the usual Canon / Nikon bun fight but would love to know what I could buy lens inc for £700-800
 
Given your photographic preferences, have you considered a second hand 5D? Landscapes, places and people fall right in to the area that the 5D excels at, and being full frame, the IQ is a joy to behold. I know you say you aren't considering FF, but I don't think a 5D classic should be outside your budget.
 
Why are you not considering FF? I would have though that as you list Landscapes at the top of your preferences, it would be something you'd be seriously looking at...

I'm not going to try and start a brand-war here - but since you say you had no 'love' for the Canon, maybe look at the D700 if it's within your price range? Or maybe the Sony (no idea of the model...lol) equivalent...
 
Think what you didn't like about the 500D and try to find something that improved upon those bad features.

Video is fast becoming standard on cameras, but you don't have to use it. Maybe try a few different bodies out and find one you are comfortable holding to use.

I did all that and unlike you the 500D was my preferred choice, coupled with a 17-55 it gives excellent results (well I like them anyway)
 
1dsmkI or 5dmkI (£700 ish)
with a 28/1.8 (landscape) and a 50/1.84 (general) (300ish each)
decent tripod (200 ish)

throw us a ball park on budget ;)
 
tijuana taxi said:
Think what you didn't like about the 500D and try to find something that improved upon those bad features.

Video is fast becoming standard on cameras, but you don't have to use it. Maybe try a few different bodies out and find one you are comfortable holding to use.

I did all that and unlike you the 500D was my preferred choice, coupled with a 17-55 it gives excellent results (well I like them anyway)
Click to expand...

I dont see the point of paying for features you neither need nor want I used the video once on the 500 it was crap - ive got a panasonic sd9 i use for video and the differnce in quality is night and day.
The body on the 500D IMO is a bit too plasticy and not enough grip - i tried a 40d andthat was much nicer in the hand but then sos a Nikon D90 but again I dont need the video.
My point is are you best off going up a level one model back for better build quality and proper features not the latest gimics. 15.1 Mp just isnt needed nor IMO is video on a DSLR
 
I don't know about Nikon gear, but the Canon stuff from the last generation (40D and 5D) are cracking cameras, they great IQ without the extra gimmicks of the newer models.

The 5D has a slightly bigger body than the XXD series, but obviously you may need to get new lenses.
 
I was just trying to say that its going to be hard to get a camera soon that doesn't have video
The Canon 7D is by all accounts a great camera and would be more than happy to own one even if I never used the video.

Can see what you mean about going back a model to get what you want, but some of the latest models improvements are worth having.
For instance the screen on the 500D is superb (as is the 50D) you might like the high ISO capability of the newer models too.

Unfortunately we live in the age of fast changing technology, just had my pc rebuilt and its so much faster.
Could have said when my old one was working that it was sufficient, but know which I prefer now
 
what an excellent thread title,I totally agree with your sentiments regarding video and huge megapixels,both are in my opinion not really important unless you want to shoot movies(in which case buy a camcorder) or print bill board size prints.If it were me,it would be the prosumer model route,it seems to me that the manufacturers are in a bun fight at the moment over who put the highest number of gadgets on a camera that are unnecassary.
 
Going by what you've said about MP/video etc...........a used 40D would be a good choice for body as they are quite cheap now, and lens combo: 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM + UWA lens such as Canon 10-22mm or Sigma 10-20mm.

I have recently aqcuired this setup with the Sigma UWA, and it has been very good to use so far for landscapes. Also, the 17-55mm is an amazingly good walkabout lens for general shooting when out and about.

Like others have said, maybe you should ventrue into FF and get the 5D mk1 with a 17-40 L as the UWA and 24-70 L as your walkabout/standard landscape lens, or if you don't need the f/2.8 go for the 24-105 L.

It all depends on your budget as well I think, because I imagine the FF option will be a bit more costly.
 
lauy said:
Going by what you've said about MP/video etc...........a used 40D would be a good choice for body as they are quite cheap now, and lens combo: 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM + UWA lens such as Canon 10-22mm or Sigma 10-20mm.

I have recently aqcuired this setup with the Sigma UWA, and it has been very good to use so far for landscapes. Also, the 17-55mm is an amazingly good walkabout lens for general shooting when out and about.

Like others have said, maybe you should ventrue into FF and get the 5D mk1 with a 17-40 L as the UWA and 24-70 L as your walkabout/standard landscape lens, or if you don't need the f/2.8 go for the 24-105 L.

It all depends on your budget as well I think, because I imagine the FF option will be a bit more costly.
Click to expand...

A 5d with the full compliment of L lenses would be lovely but I just cant justify the cost!
 
Just noticed you put a budget of £700-800.......a used 40D is about £400. Used Sigma 10-20 is around £200-300, and a Used 17-55mm around £500-600. If you can definitely go no higher than £800, then maybe just stick with your 500D for now, and invest in the lenses you really want. For landscapes, the 500D will be ok and the quality of the lens will more likely make a bigger difference. If you can afford to, I recommend getting both of those lenses, if not, then you need to decide how much of each lens you would make use of and go for the one you would use more.

The UWA lenses are good for dramatic landscapes, but don't always work and depends on what type of shot you are going for. Then at a later date, upgrade to a better body.

Also, is this £800 budget already taking into account of what you will get back for selling on your 500D + Tamron?
 
The 5d option is seeming more and more appealing !
If you had to buy one lens ( initially) to go with a 5d what would it be?
 
Overexposed said:
The 5d option is seeming more and more appealing !
If you had to buy one lens ( initially) to go with a 5d what would it be?
Click to expand...

Easy - 24-105 IS! Another option is 24-70 + 70-200 f/2.8, and the third 17-40 + 50 + 70-200 f/4. 5D mk1 is just a bit more expensive than 50D. Perhaps 1D mk2 may be also interesting if the bulk and weight don't scare you.
 
Personally i would prefer the 500D over the 40D as it is a later model. Why not the 50D?
 
I know of a guy who has a 40D for sale with very little use and seems very well looked after. I was going to buy it myself but due to an email problem I couldn't get in touch with him the night before I went away so bought a 50D at the airport (I tried the D90 and didn't like the feel of it). Anyway, when I got back I bought his 17-55 2.8 lens and battery grip but he still has the camera. I think it was around 1,000 actuations.

I'd be happy to pass on his details if you wish. I am also aware of someone else selling a 40D with two calibrated lenses - a 10-22 and a 24 -70 L series but this would be about £1,500.
 
40d and 24-70 L and 10-22 that sounds a nice combo
trouble is i cant purchase all this at once! Decisions Decisions!
Im beginning to wish I hadnt cleared the decks to start again !
i think my GF1 will have to go at this rate!
 
Overexposed said:
i think my GF1 will have to go at this rate!
Click to expand...

Look on the bright side, you can always keep GirlFriend No 2 ;)

Looking at your needs, I think a 5D with a 24-70 or 24-105 lens would meet your needs very well, you don't need a fast frame rate or particularly high ISO.

Another option, although as tad more expensive is a s/h 1Ds MKII, which was until the MKIII came out the landscape photographer's tool of choice, capable of amazing images, built like a tank with good battery life, all you need for landscape shooting.
 
Les McLean said:
Look on the bright side, you can always keep GirlFriend No 2 ;)

Looking at your needs, I think a 5D with a 24-70 or 24-105 lens would meet your needs very well, you don't need a fast frame rate or particularly high ISO.

Another option, although as tad more expensive is a s/h 1Ds MKII, which was until the MKIII came out the landscape photographer's tool of choice, capable of amazing images, built like a tank with good battery life, all you need for landscape shooting.
Click to expand...


LA LA LA LA ( fingers in ears) - stop it please ! im trying to be sensible here - on a serious note ive got to think about weight in the rucksack too !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top