New body advice - a step upwards

[tenohfive]

I cut my teeth on digital photography with my 400D which has done me well over the last 3 years I've had it but I think it's time I moved on. But I know sod all about what body to upgrade to - my plans have always involved improving the glass before the body. I do find myself hitting the limits sometimes though, and there's a minor fault (flash hotshoe) that to fix will probably cost a chunk that would better be put into a new body anyway.

Budget first. Ideally around £600 but I could probably stretch to £700 if it gets me to that sweet spot of value/features for money. And I'm quite happy if that's for a 2nd hand body.

Intended use will be a mix of landscape, astro and portraits (the latter termed loosely - photo's of the little 'un flying around like an exocet missile is the reality.)

In terms of what the 400D doesn't quite do, there are a few basic features - screen decidedly average for reviewing shots, no liveview, no video etc - but the main thing is noise performance. I'd like something that'll produce less ISO noise, and which when I push a shot in post will fare slightly better.
I'm not fussed about frame rates etc and I don't think FF will be in price range but I'd have no problem if it were (even if it meant selling on my beloved Tokina 11-16mm.)

Can anyone suggest a short list to read up on? Any that come with the 24-105L would be a massive bonus, as regardless of the body that's a lens I intend to add to the collection.

[tenohfive]

If FF comes within budget then yes, I'd be happy to go FF.

[tenohfive]

DibblyDobbler said:

You're probably looking at a 5D2 if you go FF but will your lenses work with it and still cover the correct focal lengths you need? Second hand 6D maybe just out of reach I think.

Didn't realise the 5D2 and 1Ds2 were within reach second hand.

On the lens front, allowing for the crop factor I think the 24-105L will be wide enough for what I want to use most of the time, and a 17-40mm would be on the cards somewhere down the line.

[tenohfive]

Sitting here scouring for comparisons - doesn't seem that too many people compare the 5D2 to the 1DS2. But pro's list for each to help make a decision:

1DS2:

Better/faster AF, better in low light
Durability/sealing
Max shutter count
Better battery life

5D2:

Slightly higher MP for cropping but comparable IQ
Some argue less noisy at ISO 1600-3200
Live view
Arguably better screen
Much less weight (my photo outings are often up mountains, sometimes camping) and bulk.

Is that a fair summary?

[tenohfive]

PBLP said:

Up your budget Chris and get a 6D, come on you know you want too

The missus is going to kill me one way or another, so I'd rather have the extra couple of hundred quid for a train ticket out of harms way. (And on a practical note, I need to find some money for a 24-105L whatever I go with.)

markmullen said:

Yep.

The weight isn't a huge issue, as you know I use them for similar jobs and its only on the very longest days when you feel the difference.

I won't write it off on that alone then, but I do think I need to pop somewhere and have a play with one and see how a 1DS2 feels in the flesh before I make a firm decision as whilst I do take a tripod with me on specific photo trips, a lot of the shots I take are en route to and from the location - so I still do a lot of handheld shooting.

DibblyDobbler said:

Or why not stick to a crop sensor a go with the 70D brand new - bang up to date kit and meant to be very good. Sorry to throw in a flanker

Like making a decision wasn't hard enough?

Don't know what to make of the 70D - I like the feature set and the video options, and it sounds like a noise is a step up from the 60D (so a significant jump from my 400D I would have thought.) Anyone care to speculate on IQ of the 70D vs. a 5D2 or 1DS2?

[tenohfive]

DibblyDobbler said:

Well the 2 FF bodies are roughly 10 years old old and the 70D is bang up to date - if these were the choices I'd have the 70D (or save a bit longer and get a 6D if you really want to go FF).

What lenses do you currently have though? This is quite a big factor isn't it?

It usually is, but with a small lens collection perhaps less so.
Tokina 11-16mm
Canon 18-55mm ISII
Canon 50mm f1.8

And as I say, the 24-105L to follow shortly - I suspect that'll become my walkaround lens, it covers most of the kit lens range (which I just don't use much because I'm not happy with the IQ.) I don't find myself pining after any other glass right now - there's some I'd like, but nothing else I feel need right now.

If I went FF I'd sell on the Tokina and replace it with a 17-40 when funds allow, and carry on using the nifty fifty for family duties. But I'm open to suggestion - I think I can be happy with either. At the end of the day my 400D is very dated, and whichever option I choose I believe it'll be a big step up in terms of performance.

[tenohfive]

I think I see what you guys mean about the 24-105L - I'd still be tempted if I went FF (is there a better walkaround for FF of similar reach?) but either the 17-55 or 15-85 makes more sense on a crop. The latter covers all the reach I'd want anyway (on a crop) and reviews suggest the quality is almost as good as the 17-55, so that would be my preference.

I'm veering towards the 70D right now - it's less outlay so I'll be able to get the body and 15-85 much sooner (before my next photography trip), I like the fact it's got video and some of the other modern features. Astro will be infrequent, and I think noise performance will still be well ahead of my 400D - even if it's a chunk below a FF equivalent performance. And a small thing but having a working hotshoe means that indoors low light performance is less of an issue, whilst the Lee filter kit and grads I'm hoping Santa will deliver should reduce my need to push shots so hard in post.
And having a good APS-C body in the stable doesn't sound like a bad shout in future - when I do make the jump to FF the 70D and it's reach sound fairly sensible as a second body.

I will go to FF eventually - probably in a couple of years - but I think I can live with a crop for now. I'm going to try and pop down to somewhere I can check the 70D out in the flesh this weekend hopefully.

A bit rambling, but does that make any sort of sense or have a missed something fundamental and obvious?



The sums I'm working off, all based on eBay sold auctions - so buying second hand.
70D = £500.
15-85mm= £300.
Total: £800

Canon 6D: £800.
24-105L - £350-400.
17-40mm - £350.
Sale of Tokina 11-16mm & 18-55mm:
+£300.
Total: £1250.

Canon 5D2: £600 (possibly more)
Same other sums as the 6D.
Total: £1050

Canon 1DS2: £500
Same sums as the 6D.
Total: £950

[tenohfive]

Have just seen a new 70D from a UK seller (Park Cameras) that comes in at £589 once the Canon cashback is factored in. Am I likely to see cheaper than that for a new, UK based seller in the next few months?

[tenohfive]

DibblyDobbler said:

Seems like a really good price to me - go for it

Am going to have to hang fire on the body for now, forgot how much it costs to tax big engined derv's and that had to come first. Watching a few auctions on eBay, if I see one that looks like it'll go for around £500 I might chuck a bid on - or if I see one new (UK) for £550 in the meantime I'll sell a kidney or something.

DibbyDobbler said:

PS - probably not relevant as you are going for a crop, but if you still want a 24-105 I am selling mine!

Cheers but having done some more reading up I'm settled on the 15-85 now.

gangzoom said:

If you haven't already got one I would recommend 100% the Canon 17-55mm f 2.8 IS lens. It's fantastic lens, wide enough for landscapes, and enough focal range at the top end, the f 2.8 aperture along with IS means you can get shots in conditions that would otherwise need a flash/extra lighting.

I've heard very good things about the 17-55 and I'm a big fan of fixed aperture lenses, but I want a bit more reach than it can offer for isolating scenes when doing landscape work. From what I've read the 15-85 is on a par with the 17-55 IQ wise for much of the focal range and only a smidge below for the remainder so I think that'll be more in line with what I need, much as the 17-55 looks like a great lens.