Canon body

[ss7]

So the old lady wants a camera. She "doesn't have a budget," but doesn't fully know the cost this hobby can absorb. She understands the value of quality lenses and the body selection will not influence which lenses are purchased.

So here is the dilemma: she wants a quality body for when the kids come (+3 years, please), quality lenses starting now, and wouldn't mind getting familiar with a cheaper model currently and upgrading to a higher performing camera when necessary. Would it be best to purchase a cheaper body (T3i/60d) now and wait to upgrade (5d ??) down the road? We have no real experience with photography but are both eager to jump into the hobby.

The camera will spend a lot of time taking photos on our frequent hiking excursions, infrequent beach vacations, and common indoor settings. I expect the camera will see some humidity, but would not be subject to harsh weather conditions. I do not expect much video will be taken, but I could be surprised.

I tend to wish to save money and get some time behind something relatively inexpensive. Having the mind of certain upgrade in the future, would you grab a T3i or 60d?

Is the 5d going to benefit us now in the short term? Should we reconsider spending some extra money now? I initially persuaded her to take the 5d off the list. Please keep in mind we are new, patient, and want the best quality when we need it.

I appreciate your time in reading and response as this seems daunting for us...

 

[analog.universe]

This is a complicated issue, that ultimately comes down to your actual budget concerns as well as how you like to approach new fields. To me, the price difference between the T3i and 60D makes the 60D an obvious choice. It has better viewfinder optics, better construction, better ergonomics, etc... for like $100 more. The 5D MkII is an aging camera, and it's replacement is due in 2012 sometime, so I'd stay away for now (unless budget REALLY doesn't matter). The differences between crop and full frame are limited to very specific areas, and if you're just starting out, the differences may be too subtle to be worth the cost (maybe they're not too subtle).

Aside from the "which body is best" discussion..... if buying a different body will influence what you spend on lenses, then spend as much you can on lenses.

I'd go for the 60D, I love mine. Buy some nice primes with the >$1k you saved not getting the 5D.

 

[MLeeK]

In your boots I'd probably go with the 60D. The 5d II is a LOT of camera for someone who isn't going to use it to it's fullest potential-and the gap in potential between it and the 60D is quickly closing.
The 60D is a quite a lot of camera for a beginner, to be honest. Plus the newer 60D is going to perform very close to the 5D2 in high ISO's, etc. It also has a better focus system than the 5d2.
Another reason I'd probalby steer clear of the 5d2 for you is that the 5d3 is due on the market any minute now. You are talking a 3 to 5 year investment here. The 60D is newer than the 5d2. It'll free up your budget now for lenses that are good quality which is most important.
The 5d2 also has a fairly specific use. You aren't sure what your use is REALLY going to be at this point. It's a studio and portrait camera. It's not a sports camera. Whereas the 60D is kind of made for the little bit of everything shooter.

 

[Buckster]

If you decide to get a crop sensor body for now and also intend to upgrade to a full-frame sensor body later, do yourself a favor and stay away from the S lenses - they won't fit your future full-frame body.

 

[MLeeK]

I have to add a disclaimer here: I own the 5d2. I am rather disappointed in it overall lately. When I bought it back when it came on the market it was awesome and I loved it. However, the focus system is weak and I definitely feel it.
I also shoot sports and it's NOT a sports camera. The focus system combined with the low FPS hurts. The focus system REALLY hurts.
Then I got the 7D and found that the difference between the two just wasn't there. The 7D's focus system has put my 5d2 on a shelf most of the time. I still use it for portraits and weddings, but otherwise? Not worth it. If you REALLY want to invest more than the 60D then look at the 7D. Otherwise I stick by my 60D recommendation.


Buckster means the EF-S lenses. That s at the end is what he is talking about.

 

[katerolla]

I have 5DII and I use it for portraits and weddings and I love it in that way but if your not going to shoot professional portraits and weddings I would sugges the 7D

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Some interesting points raised here about the 5D2! Seems alot of the rumours about the flaky AF system are true.

I think the main thing that appeals to me about full frame cameras is firstly, the amazing low light performance and secondly the fact you can use prime lens in the way they were designed to be used. The only thing you lose on a full frame, is the crop factor for sports and wildlife photography.

 

[Buckster]

Some interesting points raised here about the 5D2! Seems alot of the rumours about the flaky AF system are true.

I think the main thing that appeals to me about full frame cameras is firstly, the amazing low light performance and secondly the fact you can use prime lens in the way they were designed to be used. The only thing you lose on a full frame, is the crop factor for sports and wildlife photography.

Right, because everyone knows you can't crop a photo in post.

 

[analog.universe]

Some interesting points raised here about the 5D2! Seems alot of the rumours about the flaky AF system are true.

I think the main thing that appeals to me about full frame cameras is firstly, the amazing low light performance and secondly the fact you can use prime lens in the way they were designed to be used. The only thing you lose on a full frame, is the crop factor for sports and wildlife photography.

Right, because everyone knows you can't crop a photo in post.

A crop sensor has denser pixels though... if you're cropping in post, then you're actually losing pixels. A full frame with enough resolution after cropping to equal a 7D would need to be 45 megapixel.

 

[Buckster]

Some interesting points raised here about the 5D2! Seems alot of the rumours about the flaky AF system are true.

I think the main thing that appeals to me about full frame cameras is firstly, the amazing low light performance and secondly the fact you can use prime lens in the way they were designed to be used. The only thing you lose on a full frame, is the crop factor for sports and wildlife photography.

Right, because everyone knows you can't crop a photo in post.

A crop sensor has denser pixels though... if you're cropping in post, then you're actually losing pixels. A full frame with enough resolution after cropping to equal a 7D would need to be 45 megapixel.

While that may be important for pixel peepers and noobs, it's not so important for real-world applications, from my experience.

 

[gsgary]

Some interesting points raised here about the 5D2! Seems alot of the rumours about the flaky AF system are true.

I think the main thing that appeals to me about full frame cameras is firstly, the amazing low light performance and secondly the fact you can use prime lens in the way they were designed to be used. The only thing you lose on a full frame, is the crop factor for sports and wildlife photography.

If the 5D is used for what it is made for there is no problem with focus, when i use my 5mk1 i get 98% in focus

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Some interesting points raised here about the 5D2! Seems alot of the rumours about the flaky AF system are true.

I think the main thing that appeals to me about full frame cameras is firstly, the amazing low light performance and secondly the fact you can use prime lens in the way they were designed to be used. The only thing you lose on a full frame, is the crop factor for sports and wildlife photography.

Right, because everyone knows you can't crop a photo in post.

A crop sensor has denser pixels though... if you're cropping in post, then you're actually losing pixels. A full frame with enough resolution after cropping to equal a 7D would need to be 45 megapixel.

Thank you Analog! My point exactly! I do not like cropping photos unless I have too, so this isn't a good solution for me at all.

 

[jaomul]

To op. As mentioned above 98% focus reliability is possible with s 5d I suspect the user is more competent with the camera than the average person who wants to get good family photos of children and day to day events. Full frame is what most enthusiasts with crop camera users want but while its nice to have the high ISO capabilities of a full frame it is probably only wedding shooters or pro shooters selling images need them. I would love a 5d mark ii to complement my 50d but if I could only have 1 it would be the 50d. I know all things going well the 5d images will beat the crop hands down but i have many family shots that were on high speed burst with continuous focus. Maybe 15 shots rattled off in 3 secs and maybe 3 keepers, but a slower camera would have let me down. I would recommend the 60d over the 5d for the average not pro user like myself