Camera upgrade

[Gerry316]

I have a Canon 400D with kit lens, Sigma 10-20 wide angle, and the Canon 70-300 L zoom, and want to upgrade to either the 7D or 70D. I shoot mainly stills, landscapes,and aircraft. Any advice would be welcome.

[Polar01]

Geraint What does the 400D not do that the others can do, and is it that important in what ways?

Cheers:

Allan

[Manfred M]

I'm totally with Alan on this question. Upgrading any piece of photographic equipment should be a result of some level of understanding as to the shortcomings of your current gear and how this is affecting your ability to take the type of pictures you are trying to do.

Once you understand that, you can make a rationale decision as to the direction of your planned purchase. At that point, looking at the features and understanding how / if you are going to use them and the cost of doing so will help narrow down your choices.

[Geoff F]

As Allan mentioned, you have a reasonable camera now. Would spending more money on extra lenses or other equipment be a better option if you feel you need to spend something?

Having said that, by upgrading you could get a few benefits like more pixels or a faster shooting burst rate, for example. Or do you want to work with two bodies?

For me, the 00D range from the 40D to the 70D (about which I know nothing at the moment) or the 7D does give an easy method for doing quick adjustments (like exposure compensation) while shooting. And this is a great benefit to me; but is of minor importance to many photographers.

More pixels may be useful if you regularly do substantial crops; as with wildlife shooting. But otherwise I am often 'throwing away' those extra pixels when it comes to printing. And this is even more extreme for internet use.

Faster burst rates can be useful if you really need this. However I only shoot with a fast burst once or twice a year; if ever.

I do use the 7D along with an older 40D and yes the 7D is a good camera. Being larger than the 400D is to my liking but some people do find this to be uncomfortable and too heavy.

Incidentally, I was tempted to get a 7D when my trusty 40D died. I was going to get a secondhand 50D but found a very good price on the 7D. Eventually, I did send the 40D to a repairers for an estimate, which was £120. So I thought that was worth spending to have a spare camera.

[jcuknz]

Remembering the guy who was shooting vintage aircraft flying with his FZ200 and x1.5 tele adaptor to give himself a 900mm Angle of View .... getting an appreciable amount of more pixels could be worth while to get your reach past the current 480mm AoV by cropping. 10<18Mp is a good step in that direction. I am reasonably content with my 280mm reach of my MFT compared to the 950mm reach of my bridge camera becuase of the larger sensor .... though I am not sure of the difference between more pixels in a sensor of the same size that you are thinking of .... and more pixels and bigger sensor as in my case.

[rpcrowe]

In reply to Geoff's statements:

"For me, the xxD cameras from the 40D to the 70D (about which I know nothing at the moment) or the 7D does give an easy method for doing quick adjustments (like exposure compensation) while shooting. And this is a great benefit to me; but is of minor importance to many photographers."

I love the two dial setup of the Canon xxD and 7D cameras because I can adjust the f/stop and shutter speed very easily, even while I am looking through the viewfinder.

"More pixels may be useful if you regularly do substantial crops; as with wildlife shooting. But otherwise I am often 'throwing away' those extra pixels when it comes to printing. And this is even more extreme for internet use."

I agree with everything you mentioned. I like to extra pixels of the 7D because I have gotten in the habit of shooting my dog portraits in the landscape configuration, even when I use most of my prints in either a vertical or a square composition. I shoot in landscape because one year I didn't get any of my images in a calendar presentation because the images chosen for the calendar needed to be in a horizontal format. I now do basic post production such as: adjusting brightness and contrast, any editing that I need and do my input sharpening. I then save the image as a master in the PSD format. From that I can crop and sharpen images in any size or configuration. Since I can make a nice vertical 10x8" image form a landscape 7D file; this suits me fine. Certainly, I could shoot some vertical and some horizontal but, this would be totally effective only on static subjects. Often a fleeting look on the dog's face will change the image from a good image into a very good image. It is difficult to get his expression in two different shots...

"Faster burst rates can be useful if you really need this. However I only shoot with a fast burst once or twice a year; if ever."

I love the faster burst rate because I frequently shoot with AEB on burst mode. The faster burst mode will give me images closer together in time which I why I will have my camera on high speed burst mode when shooting in AEB. I like the faster burst ate when shooting fast moving subjects like running dogs or polo ponies.

I personally love the Camera User Mode system of the 40D-70D and 7D cameras. I use this almost all the time...

[Colin Southern]

The 7D AF will eat the 400D AF alive; may be significant for your BBIF shots (Big Birds in Flight!)

I'd say if you want to treat yourself to something more modern and upmarket then go for it (if the $$$ aren't an issue). Bit like getting a V8 for your birthday when you're used to driving a flat 4

[Gerry316]

Geraint What does the 400D not do that the others can do, and is it that important in what ways?

Cheers:

Allan

Thanks Allan, I guess it comes down to Aircraft photography, I find that I'm croping quite heavily and lose
a lot of detail, also focus is not as good as I think it is. Now I am fairly new to this type of photography and post processing, so maybe I'm hoping a few more MP's, faster AF, and newer proccesors may give me a few moe keepers.

[Polar01]

Ok than I would go with Colin's suggestion, (I shoot Nikon), now static should be little or no problem, the problem is in flight. I wish that they would allow us closer to takeoffs and landing but they will not. About the only 3 ways to get closer, it's MP's and crop, up to the 800mm lens about $12,000 (spare change anyone) or last a 1.4 or 2.0 extender. At this time I feel more bang for buck again Colin's suggestion.
Good Luck

Cheers:

Allan

[Colin Southern]

That's the joy of our local airport -- we have a walking track around it that gets to within about 50 meters of the runway

[inkista]

... Aircraft photography, I find that I'm croping quite heavily and lose
a lot of detail, also focus is not as good as I think it is. ...

To me, while this does indicate a higher-tier body for AF performance might be useful, what you may really just need is a longer lens. The 70-300L rocks, but I think possibly that a 100-400L might have been a better way to spend that cash when it comes to aircraft photography. The 100-400L is THE airshow lens.

You might be able to get away with a 400/5.6L USM, but you'll curse it a lot for not zooming and being too tight.


Canon 50D. EF 400mm f/5.6L USM. Parade of Flight.

There are also the Sigma lenses, the 120-400 OS, 150-500 OS, and 50-500 OS, but generally, the Canon Ls best them by a shade or two when it comes to optical/AF performance.

For me, my birds-in-flight keeper rate was much more affected when I moved from a 75-300 III to the EF 400/5.6L USM than when I shifted from the Canon XT/350D to the Canon 50D.

[Colin Southern]

To me, while this does indicate a higher-tier body for AF performance might be useful, what you may really just need is a longer lens. The 70-300L rocks, but I think possibly that a 100-400L might have been a better way to spend that cash when it comes to aircraft photography. The 100-400L is THE airshow lens.

You might be able to get away with a 400/5.6L USM, but you'll curse it a lot for not zooming and being too tight.


Canon 50D. EF 400mm f/5.6L USM. Parade of Flight.

There are also the Sigma lenses, the 120-400 OS, 150-500 OS, and 50-500 OS, but generally, the Canon Ls best them by a shade or two when it comes to optical/AF performance.

For me, my birds-in-flight keeper rate was much more affected when I moved from a 75-300 III to the EF 400/5.6L USM than when I shifted from the Canon XT/350D to the Canon 50D.

I'm just grateful you didn't get hit when the centre drop tank fell off the F18 in the bottom right-hand corner!

[RustBeltRaw]

The 70-300L rocks, but I think possibly that a 100-400L might have been a better way to spend that cash when it comes to aircraft photography. The 100-400L is THE airshow lens.

You might be able to get away with a 400/5.6L USM, but you'll curse it a lot for not zooming and being too tight.

The 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L seems to have quite a few haters. I don't have an opinion since I haven't used it, but any thoughts on the push-to-zoom mechanism (which strikes me as clever, and not that difficult to get used to) and the quality?

[inkista]

I'm just grateful you didn't get hit when the centre drop tank fell off the F18 in the bottom right-hand corner!

[grin]. You're just jealous you didn't get to watch planes playing dress-up.

The 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L seems to have quite a few haters. I don't have an opinion since I haven't used it, ...

Ditto. But most of the shots I've seen from them seem to be on a par with my 400/5.6L, so I'd say it's probably terrific, despite the Dust Pump nickname. And every time a Canon shooter is into airshows, this is the one that keeps getting mentioned in threads. It is an older design, but the fact that Canon hasn't seen fit to MkII it probably says a lot about the quality of what you do get.

[Jim B.]

I've been using the 100-400 IS for 6 years.
For me, the push-pull zoom was very easy to get used to. I've not had any issues with internal dust.
Have to agree it's a great airshow lens.
I also like the close focusing distance. Great for butterflies and dragonflies.