Canon 550D/50D/7D as 1st DSLR?

[Derrel]

Speaking of "the OP"...one post, on the 3rd of August...no follow-ups...do I smell something very under-the-bridge-like here? Is this just another wind-up thread?

 

[Derrel]

Most of this debate is pointless in my opinion to the original post. Fine, Everyone has there favorites we got that. The bottom line is between the models listed the 50D would probably be the best option and best bang for the buck right now. It offers quality, though not up to the 7D does a good job and provides build and speed the T2I (550D) can not. With the coming of the D60 the prices will drop big, making it a great starter camera. Yes, both the 7D and the T2I are amazing cameras, the 50D is the happy middle ground between them.

^This.

I just like to jump on Derrel because he doesn't seem able to pass up an attempt to continue his "I hate high MP cameras" and "The 50D and 7D suck!" campaigns. And rather than offer some constructive information to the thread (like... I don't know, suggesting a camera?) he just continues his random, skewed attacks against Canon, the 50D, and the 7D.

I'll personally apologize for Derrel and his complete obsession with making sure everyone in the world knows how terrible Canon high MP cameras are based on one arguably bias article. (Here's one that takes those same attributes into consideration, but presents it in a way that doesn't sound like radical damnation.)

I'll also apologize for continuing this joke of an argument with Derrel. It's clear that he has his opinions, and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. The 50D is a terrible, terrible piece of trash camera that no one should ever buy. The 7D is even worse. I mean look at all those pixels! Awful camera. Everyone should buy a 6 year old 20D.*

*To the original poster, this is satirical mockery. Right now is probably the best time to get the 50D, as prices are dropping like crazy in preparation for the new 60D. Despite what a single biased article may lead you to believe, it's actually a pretty good camera and will fit many needs at a great price. I've owned one for over a year and a half and have used it for lots of things from air shows to football games to model shoots. I was very pleased with the images I was able to get. And in the end, thats's all that matters right? :thumbup:

Well, Matt, you're a young, inexperience shooter, who doesn;t own a full-frame camera, and who simply isn't technically-minded enough to know and understand why excess pixel density HURTS overall,total,system performance. I can understand that you want to defend yor 50D and your 7D...you have a lot of your "ego" tied up in them.

Unfortunately my good young man, you simply do not have the basis for comparison that older, more affluent and more dedicated shooters have. Like, for example, let's read about your perfect 7D and how it stacks up against FULL-frame sensors...shall we?

Rob Galbraith DPI: Canon announces 17.92 million image pixel, 8fps EOS 7D

"What the pictures look like is perhaps easier to digest. So far, the photos we've taken with a beta 7D look a lot like they've come from a 50D, except with 2.9 million additional pixels of resolution. Canon appears to have done a masterful job of wringing out every ounce of quality from the 7D's little pixels (smaller than any Canon before), resulting in photos that are fairly crisp, reasonably clean and usable up to about ISO 1600.

Noise, when it appears, has a natural graininess to it, up until about ISO 1600 as well. At ISO 3200 and beyond you'll run into increasingly unmanageable amounts of digital dandruff (white pixels spread throughout darker areas) and plugged shadows. At all ISO increments, other than the very lowest ones, pictures can take on a somewhat harsh, chunky appearance not present in larger-pixel cameras in Canon's lineup, such as the EOS-1D Mark III. Or Nikon's D3 and D700.

Correcting for digital dandruff requires image detail to be softened, sometimes considerably, while the slight harshness is simply a trait to be lived with.

This means that overall, 7D image quality is shaping up to be decent, though not groundbreaking. If you're coming from a 50D or Rebel T1i, you're likely to be right at home with the picture quality from this camera. If you're coming from a camera like the 5D Mark II, the 7D's pictures will almost certainly seem inferior, in some instances by a fair margin."

End quote. Sorry Matt...there are many people out there besides you, with more experience than you, and a better basis from which to judge. I liken you to the Japanese import car owner who cannot believe for a second that his brand and model isn't the best-ever! I see your posts all over this board, trying to defend your 50D and 7D purchases, as if they somehow reflect on you, personally. Give it a rest. Do the math. Bigger is better. Maybe if you had a FF camera, you'd know what you were talking about WRT to performance of FF and lower-density sensors and modern lenses. As a 40-year PJ and pro sports shooter and digital learning instructor says, "if you're coming from a camera like the 5D Mark II, the 7D's pictures will almost certainly seem inferior, in some instances by a fair margin."

As to the OP,who seems to have disappeared into the ether: just purchase a d-slr. For your first one, you just need to BUY one. Any one. I smell a trollish absence of the OP...

 

[cfusionpm]

Derrel, please learn to read. I never mentioned anything about the 7D being perfect, nor comparing it to a full frame camera whatsoever.

And that article is about a pre-production beta 7D. Good job mate.

I'm done "arguing" with you. At least for now. This waste of text has taken up valuable time I could be using to edit the photos from a shoot last saturday.

 

[Overread]

Speaking of "the OP"...one post, on the 3rd of August...no follow-ups...do I smell something very under-the-bridge-like here? Is this just another wind-up thread?

There is nothing inflamatory in the OP's post - nothing to suggest that it is anything but a simple question being asked. Not everyone checks the net every day and its only been 3 days. Heck the OP might have read the forum several times since then without logging in.

Any winding up was done long before this thread was started and the toys were already well wound before the discussion here got under way.

 

[Idahophoto]

I noticed that to Cfusionpm. Derrel often refers to beta version so it seems he has never even probably picked up a demo at a store. Right now the 7D is the top rated cropped sensor Camera on the market. Those ratings and sales I would assume did not come from a work in progress but of a full released version. I think someone needs to perhaps visit there local Best Buy

 

[icassell]

As a 7D owner, I can vouch for the fact that the camera does not do well with less sophisticated glass. If you are going to sink $$ into a 7D (and I absolutely love the camera), be prepared to invest in the higher-end glass as well. I don't know if it's pixel-density or what, but it does make a difference. My Sigma EX 100-300mm f/4 is a good lens and works fantastically well on my 30D. My Canon 400mm f/5.6L is not noticeably better on that body. On the 7D, the 400L runs circles around the 100-300.

 

[Derrel]

Derrel, please learn to read. I never mentioned anything about the 7D being perfect, nor comparing it to a full frame camera whatsoever.

And that article is about a pre-production beta 7D. Good job mate.

I'm done "arguing" with you. At least for now. This waste of text has taken up valuable time I could be using to edit the photos from a shoot last saturday.

Nice try Matt. The beta had no differences from the cameras they began shipping two weeks later...same camera....again,if you'd ever owned a full-frame camera your point of view would make some sense....but you're a crop-framer all the way...the point Galbraith is making is that to those who have experience with full-frame or professional-level Canon's, the images a small,cramped sensor makes are not as good as those from the higher-priced cameras...from either Canon, or Nikon.

Bigger is better. I agree, your post has been a waste of text. Yeah, now run along and edit those photos.

 

[cfusionpm]

Yeah, now run along and edit those photos.

You got it! :thumbup:

 

[Overread]

I'm confused.
Why are we debating fullframe vs crop sensor in a thread where the OP hasn't expressed any interest in going fullframe nor have they expressed any interest in subjects that would greatly benefit being shot with a fullframe body over a crop sensor. If its a fullframe vs crop general argument you might as well start recommending medium and large format as well (pretty sure they blast 35mm out of the water!).

 

[Idahophoto]

Pretty much which is why I said much of this debate is pointless. Its getting off track. T2I (550D),50D and D7 were the cameras being asked about not anything else. Welcome to the forums though I guess lol

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Either a Nikon D200, D2h, or the D5000.

D5000 with 18-55mm kit - 12mp up to a clean ISO3200, HD video, 4fps, articulating screen, 11 af points, little beefier grip than the rebels.

D200 + 35mm f/1.8 - 10MP up to a clean ISO 800-1600ish, 5fps, 11 AF points, big viewfinder, solid professional build that's completely weather sealed, pop up flash can act as a commander for other speedlights.

D2h + 35mm f/1.8 - 4mp, up to a clean ISO 800-1600, 11 AF points, HUGE viewfinder, 8fps solid professional beast of a motherf***er. Don't let the 4MP fool you and besides, how many times do you print larger than 11x14?

If I were in your budget, those would be the kit's i'd consider

D2h: Nikon D2H Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

D200: Nikon D200 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

D5000: Nikon D5000 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

So if you were to categorize the three cameras you'd have this:

Working Professional: D2h

Prosumer: D200

Amateur: D5000


Personally, for a budget around 1100, i'd do a D5000 kit or a D200 (d2h is too big for me), get the 55-200VR, and the 35mm f/1.8. Than next paycheck drop $200-$350 on a solid Manfrotto or Gitzo tripod and the Nikon ML-L3 remote. That combination will let you do almost anything, and you'll still be under your budget.

 

[Naphtali14]

Hmm...

Here is what I suggest with that budget:

-Canon T2i/550d (body only)
-Canon f/1.4 prime lens
-Quality Camera Bag (I like Lowerpro)
-Quality Tripod and Tripod head (check out flashpoint for a nice meeting between quality and price)
-High Class SD Card(s)
-Extra Battery
-UV Filter (I like Hoya)


That will probably put you a little above your budget but it's a great starting set up.

 

[Scatterbrained]

I'll never understand why people would recommend a prime as a first (and only) lens. There is a reason that camera kits come with zooms and not primes.

 

[Josh66]

Think about it, a $1000 lens might be worth $850 in two years. A $1000 body will probably be worth $500.

A $1000 lens would actually probably be worth $1200 in two years. A $1000 body will be hard to give away...

Every single lens I own is worth more now than I paid for it. I bought them all new too... Blame the economy, I guess...

To replace all of my gear, I would probably have to spend about double what I originally spent...

 

[Josh66]

I'll never understand why people would recommend a prime as a first (and only) lens. There is a reason that camera kits come with zooms and not primes.

Personal preference I guess.

The only zoom lens I ever really use is the 70-200... Everything else is prime.