"A Basic issue"-- First time user--so pardon

frisco

TPF Noob!
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Location
texas
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Just found you and just joined. When I finally went digitial three years ago I (embarrassed to say) stepped down from my Canon EOS A2 to a Rebel XTi, not realizing the non-equation of features, quality etc. (I was obviously not a "serious" hobbyist.) My principal lens is the Sigma 18-200.
Anyway, after coming to some very elemental understsanding of the fundamentals of full frame vs. APS-C sensors, the possible greater importance of "glass" over body, and simple quality, I am trying to figure what next step should be. Knowing it's subjective and also dependent on type of photography--mine being more people and travel, what are virtues of 60d vs. 7d vs. 5d. (5d is probably out of budget). And lens choices--or leads.
The most major gap I have is that with the 1.6 (if I have it right) ratio with APS sensor, even my 18 leaves me with a longing for an expensive wide angle lens.
 
You can get a used 5D1 for less than a 7D if that tickles your fancy.
 
How often will you have a need for wide angle? Certainly not often for the people part, and for travel, 20% of the time? 50% of the time? More? The 7D, while a crop body, has a lot going for it. I'm still too pissed at Canon for destroying the XXD line with the 60D to recommend it, but that's just me and my ire. It may be a great body, but it certainly isn't prosumer. I think you'll find most people who own crops don't feel limited on the wide end, it's a trade off they're willing to make for a quality crop body. Another option that sticks to the adage of glass first, body second, is to upgrade your glass first, then upgrade to a body that will get the most out of it. A Sigma 18-200 won't shine on either a 7D or 5D. Both of them are glass hungry. So unless you have the $ to buy a body and a couple $K or more on glass, I'd stick with the XTi for a while and get some great glass with an eye towards a future body upgrade. Just my 2¢.
 
Canon gets a lot of flack for the 60d which I don't understand in the slightest. All the technology improves, but the body goes from magnesium to plastic and suddenly it's not worth anything? The 7D is much more expensive than the 60D and it's advantages are quite specific and will not apply to everyone.

There are lots of advantages of full frame, but if the wide-angle thing is what's really bugging you, getting an ultrawide zoom will be way cheaper than getting a full frame. I use the Tokina 11-16mm, which is like having a 17mm on full frame. Sigma even makes an 8-16mm which is quite nice, the only reason I went for the Tokina was because it accepts filters.
 
Canon gets a lot of flack for the 60d which I don't understand in the slightest. All the technology improves, but the body goes from magnesium to plastic and suddenly it's not worth anything?

There's a lot more to it than just changeing the body material. If you own a XXD body prior to the 60D, you understand. It's not a replacement for the 50D, it's a downgrade, which even Canon admits to in their marketing; it's geared toward the "photo enthusiast" (i.e., MWAC's and people who don't know or care to learn anything about photography). The XXD line used to be geared towards serious amatuers who needed good kit, but couldn't afford, or justify, the cost of a Pro body. Canon stripped a lot of nice features off of the XXD line when it created the 60D, which from all the previews I've read of the T3i, makes it a glorified Rebel. They're basically identical, except for size and ergonomics.

To the OP, sorry about hijacking your thread a little.
To anolog.universe, I ain't snipin' at you, just explaining.
 
Well, you're certainly entitled to your own perspective, but from the research I've done, you're taking a few very specific things and blowing them out of proportion... and from the condescension in your "explanation," I've no interest in continuing this conversation.
 
I hope the annoyed coments were not directed at me. I have been researching for the last several days and for everyone info, for what it's worth I put out this summary with all humility. For someone who is not primarily action photo oriented, thereby taking that 7d plus out of the picture, it has come down to 7d vs. 5d. I have read stuff where money aside, there is laudatory stuff about the 7d. However, it seems clear that IQ (which I have finally come to understand as image quality) still goes over to the 5d--esp at low light/ISO's of 1600 which I can't even work with on Tsi. Then there is the issue of the lens : the canon 28-300 (which suits my need and like for a single traveling lens) is almost perfect but as much as the 5d body. The Tamron 28-300 seems clearly not as good, but to a number of professionals quite passable at 1/4 of the cost. I can later fill in the gaps with a wide angle Sigma when I can afford (I originallly wrote Tokina but that is dor APS-C) If it were today, it would be a close call between 7d (cheaper lenses, or add new higher quality plus that Tokina 11-16) and 5d. BUT--here's maybe the turning point, there is going to be a 6d or a 5dIII. Assuming it's not more than a few hundred dollars more than the 5d, and presuming that it will get raves for incorporating best features now lacking of the 7d (more focusing, faster per second), I could see popping for that.

I am confident I am generally on right analysis track, but not sure how close. Appreciate your helpful insights.
 
Last edited:
No negative comments directed at you. In fact, there really weren't any at all, just miscommunication, which happens.

If you're always waiting on the latest upgrade, you'll never buy anything. If I were buying today, and choices were 7D or 5D II, for my shooting requirements, I'd go 7D for it's much better AF system. And lenses aren't cheaper for the 7D. The same lenses you would want for a 5D, you would also want for a 7D. The 7D also performs very well at higher ISO, so for me that's a non issue, especially since like most people, I try to avoid ISO's that high as a general rule.

OTOH, if you feel you need FF, and only you can decide that, Then 5D it is. But like I said earlier, I would still go the glass first route. Either of your choices absolutely need top notch glass, or you won't see the difference you're wanting in a body upgrade. Cheap glass on an expensive body gives you pics that look like they were shot with cheap glass.
 
OK. I get that. I am not at all committed to full frame or crop--just was reading advocates of both and I hear all sides. I sense you are absolutely correct on the lens quality issue, so her's last q, and thanking you in advance: While the Tamron 28-300 ($800 from recall?)is not in the class of the Canon 28-300 ($2600?) I read one pro write that it was quite passable and for the weight (and even the "gaudiness") issue, he gave up the canon. So, from your view, how much of a qaulity drop off is there. The single travel lens (vs. the constant switching between two lenses, which I did for many years) is defintely a big plus.
 
Well, you're certainly entitled to your own perspective, but from the research I've done, you're taking a few very specific things and blowing them out of proportion... and from the condescension in your "explanation," I've no interest in continuing this conversation.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your own perspective, but from the research I've done in this thread, you're taking subscuck's analysis and blowing it out of proportion... and from the douchieness in your retort, I've no interest in continuing this conversation.

tl;dr, Chill out Analog.universe.
 
Mr. TPF Junkie: Whe n I saw your earlier response to analog or whomever, I thought wahat an unpleasant human being this was. Now that I see your response to me, I am astonished. Your photo seems to leave much latitude for confirmation that you are truly one mean person. I hope you will find a way to greater kindness.
 
Was that directed at me, and if so was it a joke?
 
OK. I get that. I am not at all committed to full frame or crop--just was reading advocates of both and I hear all sides. I sense you are absolutely correct on the lens quality issue, so her's last q, and thanking you in advance: While the Tamron 28-300 ($800 from recall?)is not in the class of the Canon 28-300 ($2600?) I read one pro write that it was quite passable and for the weight (and even the "gaudiness") issue, he gave up the canon. So, from your view, how much of a qaulity drop off is there. The single travel lens (vs. the constant switching between two lenses, which I did for many years) is defintely a big plus.

I can't really comment on either of those lenses as I've never owned or used either. Honestly, I don't see either of them mentioned on this, or other fora, that often. My quick research shows the Canon is the old "push/pull" design, while the Tamron is twist type, and I believe internal zoom as well. While the idea of an all in one lens is attractive, lenses with this type of focal range generally have a sweet spot, usually in the middle, where they perform their best, and less than ideal characteristics on either end (CA, barrel distortion, softness, etc.). If you want it just for "travel" and not serious work, I guess the Tammy looks fairly attractive. Be aware tho, that IQ will be less than with a couple of higher quality, shorter fl zooms or primes.

As far as Tyler goes, lighten up a bit. His responses to you have all been good in intent. You'll find he is a wealth of information that he freely shares here, and simply calls 'em like he sees 'em. Internet fora aren't for the thin skinned.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top