7D or New Lens?

[wagneo]

I've had the Canon Rebel XT for the last 5+ years and have learned a TON on that camera. I'm at the point that I think it's time for a new camera, but I can't decide if it would be better for me to get a new lens and stick this one out for a bit longer, or go for the new camera. I've decided that my next camera will be the 7D, and if I got a new lens instead, it would probably be an L series walk around lens. I currently have the 18-55mm kit lens, the 50mm 1.8 and the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens (all Canon) as well as the 430EX flash. I take pictures of just about everything - kids, kid activities (sports, band concerts, etc.), vacation pics, landscapes, wildlife, so I need something that is very versatile. Which would you go for? If I did get the 7D, are either of the kid lenses (18-135 or 24-135) worth getting?

 

[dakkon76]

Can you identify the limits of your XT that are holding you back? If not, can you identify the limits of the current lens you have? Take a hard look at both and it will be clear where you should upgrade. I just upgraded from an XSi (well... my 7D is on the FedEx truck and out for delivery as we speak!!!) and wasn't happy with the auto-focus. I also like lots of action and the XSi wasn't able to burst as fast as I would like, and could only buffer about 5 or 6 shots at a time. We also have pretty low light in our house, and it's next to impossible to get good indoor shots here. All of those reasons made me choose a new camera body.

If I didn't have the right reach with my lens, or I could identify other problems that different optics would have fixed... then I would have stayed with the body I had - it still took excellent portraits for my purposes.

Also.. the kit lens is the same lens that comes on an XT, Ti series, and every other Canon aside from the 5D and up kits. They're crap. May as well keep and use the one you have, or plan on getting one with the right focal length for you. For instance the Sigma or Tamron 17-50 gives you the focal equivalent of having a 24-70 on a full frame (5D, etc) camera. This is why knowing your limitations is key to buying your gear

 

[MLeeK]

My vote for you would be for the 7D, but I am biased! The XT is so limited on compared to the 7D. There are just so many upgrades since the XT that it will be incredibly overwhelming. Make sure you get the Magic Lantern Guide with it. It will explain to you in detail all of the new features. It tells you everything the manual SHOULD tell you, but doesn't.
How many shutter clicks are on your XT? It's an older model and if you've used it for a long time you might want to keep in the back of your mind the life expectancy of the shutter. Could be coming to it's end pretty soon if you have shot a LOT with it!

 

[wagneo]

Thanks so much for the input. I'm actually kind of surprised to hear that a new body might be best! I keep reading that getting new glass is always better, but with so much that has changed with the technology since I got the XT, I was starting to think that a new body would do me more good. It's good to hear I'm not crazy for thinking that!

I've got about 30k shutter clicks on the XT. It's still going strong and I'd like to be able to upgrade before it gives out so my 13 year old can use it to learn. I think what's holding me back the most is it's performance in low light. I'm getting more noise than I'd like at ISO's around 400 and from what I understand the DIGIC 4 processor does much better with the noise. Auto-focus and burst's are also high on my list.

 

[gsgary]

You probably need both but none of your lenses are spectacular

 

[Big Mike]

I'm getting more noise than I'd like at ISO's around 400 and from what I understand the DIGIC 4 processor does much better with the noise. Auto-focus and burst's are also high on my list.

Those are three aspects where a new body, especially the 7D would be much better than your current camera.

I agree with Gary though, your lenses aren't spectacular and you won't get the most out of a high MP camera like the 7D, with lower level lenses.

 

[Overread]

XT (350D) combined with good light and good lenses : Juza Nature Photography - Birds: Miscellaneous

The camera is very capable, it is older, it has its limits and there are better options out there; but camera bodies can only work with the light you give them. Put lowgrade glass infront and shoot without enough light and you'll get bad results no matter the level of the body - but put good glass and have good lighting control and even lower end bodies can deliver some great shots.

My advice is to look at the focal lengths you use most; look at the style of photography you like working in and the method that you yse - then consider how far you want to go (rough ballpark idea of budget) and see what lenses and items might well suit your direct needs. It might be that you do need an upgraded body; but it could also be that investing less in a new body or all in a new lens/lighting setup will get you a much bigger quality gain.

 

[analog.universe]

I agree with Mike. If those are your requirements you'll be quite pleased with the 7D. It has the same sensor as my 60D and I can shoot comfortably at ISO 2000, and adequately to about 3200. It also has the best autofocus and burst rate of any Canon APS-C camera. Certainly you would benefit from better glass than what you have, but it does in this case sound like you need the body more. I wouldn't get any of the kit lenses, they're not a significant change to what you have. Save up for a 17-55 2.8 IS or 70-200 or something.

 

[wagneo]

Wow, thank you for all of the info & help. I know my lenses suck...I bought the 70-300 back when I was still getting my feet wet and, of course, wanted to hurry and get new stuff to play with without really understanding why the $1000+ lenses were SO much better, and worth waiting for! I just got the 50mm 1.8 about a month ago (which I know isn't spectacular, but is SO much better than what I had) and can really tell what a difference it makes. I'm just having a hard time deciding which will provide a better improvement (since I get both new camera & lens right now). It's sounding like the 7D will treat me well and get me through until I can fork over the cash for a much nicer lens.

 

[MLeeK]

OH YES! The high ISO handling on the 7D would be something you can't possibly imagine with your xt. I regularly shoot at ISO 12,800 on my 7D and I can almost promise that there is less noise in those than your ISO 400 images.
Here's one shot at ISO 800. I have MUCH higher ISO stuff, but this is the quickest I could find
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6038/6264913562_0fffaea77b_b.jpg

Your XT should have a lot of shutter life in it still.

 

[MLeeK]

Here is one shot at 12800 ISO. Shutter of 1/500, f/2.8
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6223/6264961868_eb3f8e514b_b.jpg

 

[dots]

you won't get the most out of a high MP camera like the 7D, with lower level lenses.

Good point.

I would get a 7D plus a good, prime lens. Save the Rebel and kit for your son. Start putting together a 7D-and-up system, starting with the one prime lens. I'm not familiar with the Canon lens line-up but i'd go for a 24 or 28mm lens. Then a 24-70 type zoom. Then an 85 portrait. Then a 70-300.

 

[wagneo]

Thanks for sharing the photos MLeeK! That really is a huge improvement over what I'm getting.

 

[MLeeK]

Thanks for sharing the photos MLeeK! That really is a huge improvement over what I'm getting.

You are welcome.
The football image there is absolutely nothing special done. I believe my noise removal settings in ACR are set at 15 for luminant noise and the same for color noise for that high of an ISO. That's it. There are hundreds of shots when I shoot a game, so I can't spend the time to touch each one.