Equipment upgrade suggestions

[akak]

Hi everybody,

I'm a bit unsure which way to go in terms of upgrading my photo equipment so I decided to ask people that know more about it than me
I have a pretty old Canon 550D, Canon 50mm 1.8 & Canon 70-300 USM (mark I). In August I'm going for a longer trip and I feel like it's time to upgrade a bit.

I mostly photo nature and wildlife. But I treat this only as a hobby so the Canon 70-300 is a sweet spot for me regarding weight and focal length (taking crop into account). I like also doing some landscapes and macro but at the time I was buying 550D there were no affordable good wide lenses for APS-C so I tend to do photos landscapes with my iPhone and use DSLR only for wildlife. But the current setup has its limitations that I kinda accepted, but I think it's time to move forward. EOS 550D is not the fastest shooter, AF is not the best, ISO range could be better. Canon 70-300 mark I is sharp on 300mm only when at at least f8 (which is bummer with not great ISO performance of the body) + it's autofocus is often a joke.

My current dilemma is as fallows; I find myself thinking about 3-4 different options.
- The cheapest option is to upgrade to Canon 70-300 mark II. I read so many great stuff about it and it seems to be a winner in terms of 70-300 in that price/dimensions/resolution range. Great autofocus, sharp from the start etc. I would use it with 550D. I accustomed to use only center focus point on 550D so if the lens has good AF I should be good. This is quite cheap upgrade so I can also think about some compact like Fujifilm X100V for everyday & landscapes. (or Leica Q2 )
- Second option is to upgrade not only lens but also the camera to 850D. (+ maybe EF-S 24mm). I don't want bigger camera so I don't think about 90D etc. But I'm debating how much I'd feel the upgrade of the camera from 550D and is this necessary. I'm fully satisfied with the resolution and quality of the photos from 550D. The only upside is that I would get better AF (which I don't know I would trust more than my eye and just using central focus point) and a faster burst rate. This is handy but not essential. And I would need to switch my old SDs, buy extra batteries etc - it's a big change but on the other hand not as big to seem justified.
Now two much expensive options:
- Third option is to switch to Sony. Buy A7III and Sony 100-400 lens (or I'm even tempted by A7RIV which I could use in crop with this lens). Apart from obvious price downside, the lens is bigger and heavier than 70-300 from canon while on A7III without crop I can't get as close to the subjects as with Canon. What is tempting is that I'd have also a small FF camera that I could use more for landscapes and macro. I'm a bit unsure about Sony in terms of usability. I always used Canons (starting with analog EOS 300) and I'm used to it. But maybe the change is good.
- Fourth option is to invest in Canon RP (or R). I just love the idea of Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro. This is the holy grail of a lens to me in terms of everyday/landscapes/macro in one. But the only option that would fill the bill in terms of wildlife photography is the Canon 100-500 lens which is big (for my standards) and quite dark at the longer end (which I tend to use). I'm not sure how R handles ISO but I've read is not close to what Sony does.

I'm tempted to go full frame. To switch either to Sony or Canon R. Maybe with an additional short lenses I would rediscover joy of some everyday photos, street etc. apart from only wildlife. And maybe a bit heftier lens for wildlife would not be a problem. Plus it seems like an investment for a while. But on the other hand it seems hard to justify extra spending when I'm quite fine with what I have now and even cheapest upgrade would probably do for me for a while. I do have ability to buy moderately expensive gear but I try to be reasonable and don't buy something that I won't use.

Any suggestions, opinions, alternatives welcome and appreciated. I'm really curious!
Thank you in advance!

 

[AlanKlein]

Sounds like a G.A.S. attack. Buy the most expensive equipment you can. That will help avoid another attack for awhile.

 

[Braineack]

needs gas-x.

 

[Warhorse]

Buy/do not buy whatever makes YOU happy. It's your money, best to please yourself.

 

[ac12]

Not know where you live, I am using the US products.
- camera:
- - The 550D/T2i is a rather old camera, and technology has come a long way. It is still OK as a day-time camera.
- - For a new camera. If you don't want to go with the 90D, I would suggest the T8i/850D. The T8i will be generally similar in operation to your T2i.

- lens:
- - A good day-time general purpose lens is the 18-135. For many, the 18-135 may cover 90% of what they want to shoot, from wide to medium telephoto. And it isn't a large lens.
- - The 70-300 for wildlife makes sense.
- - - I suggest you also look at the 100-400, for a bit more reach than the 70-300. You have to decide if the extra cost is worth it.
- - - Canon has a 100-400. And it does have a factory tripod collar.
- - - The Sigma 100-400 does not have a factory tripod collar, but there are after market tripod collars.
- - - The Tamron 100-400 has a factory tripod collar. But the zoom ring turns in the opposite direction than Canon zooms.

About APS-C vs FF.
For wildlife where a long lens is your main lens, the crop factor of the APS-C sensor will give you more reach using the same lens vs. FF. So a 300mm lens on an APS-C camera will give you a similar view as a 450mm lens on a FF camera. The issue here is that 450mm lens will be BIGGER and HEAVIER than the 300mm lens. Lugging that extra bulk and weight can be an issue on a long outing.
Unless you go with a mirrorless, a FF dSLR will be bigger and heavier than the T8i.

Heads up warning:
Mirrorless cameras SUCK battery power.
Different cameras have different batteries and power consumption, the following has been my experience:
My Nikon D7200 dSLR will shoot all weekend on a single charge. I have NEVER had to use my spare battery.
My Olympus mirrorless will shoot 2-1/2 to 4 hours (continuous ON) on a single charge, depending on which lens I use. This means a FULL day of shooting will need up to SIX batteries. That is an additional 5 batteries, at $50+ each, for $250+.

 

[petrochemist]

N
Mirrorless cameras SUCK battery power.
Different cameras have different batteries and power consumption, the following has been my experience:
My Nikon D7200 dSLR will shoot all weekend on a single charge. I have NEVER had to use my spare battery.
My Olympus mirrorless will shoot 2-1/2 to 4 hours (continuous ON) on a single charge, depending on which lens I use. This means a FULL day of shooting will need up to SIX batteries. That is an additional 5 batteries, at $50+ each, for $250+.

Try turning your mirrorless camera off when not actively shooting. Even at airshows where my camera is on much of the time I don't usually need more than two third party batteries for a day's shooting. Note the third party batteries are considerably cheaper than OEM ones too. £50 will easily buy me enough for a full day and include a spare charger...

 

[Strodav]

This video emphasizes that you need to look at both the camera and glass when looking for a wildlife / birding rig. It is well worth the time it takes to watch it.

 

[ntz]

Hi everybody,

I'm a bit unsure which way to go in terms of upgrading my photo equipment so I decided to ask people that know more about it than me
I have a pretty old Canon 550D, Canon 50mm 1.8 & Canon 70-300 USM (mark I). In August I'm going for a longer trip and I feel like it's time to upgrade a bit.

I mostly photo nature and wildlife. But I treat this only as a hobby so the Canon 70-300 is a sweet spot for me regarding weight and focal length (taking crop into account). I like also doing some landscapes and macro but at the time I was buying 550D there were no affordable good wide lenses for APS-C so I tend to do photos landscapes with my iPhone and use DSLR only for wildlife. But the current setup has its limitations that I kinda accepted, but I think it's time to move forward. EOS 550D is not the fastest shooter, AF is not the best, ISO range could be better. Canon 70-300 mark I is sharp on 300mm only when at at least f8 (which is bummer with not great ISO performance of the body) + it's autofocus is often a joke.

My current dilemma is as fallows; I find myself thinking about 3-4 different options.
- The cheapest option is to upgrade to Canon 70-300 mark II. I read so many great stuff about it and it seems to be a winner in terms of 70-300 in that price/dimensions/resolution range. Great autofocus, sharp from the start etc. I would use it with 550D. I accustomed to use only center focus point on 550D so if the lens has good AF I should be good. This is quite cheap upgrade so I can also think about some compact like Fujifilm X100V for everyday & landscapes. (or Leica Q2 )
- Second option is to upgrade not only lens but also the camera to 850D. (+ maybe EF-S 24mm). I don't want bigger camera so I don't think about 90D etc. But I'm debating how much I'd feel the upgrade of the camera from 550D and is this necessary. I'm fully satisfied with the resolution and quality of the photos from 550D. The only upside is that I would get better AF (which I don't know I would trust more than my eye and just using central focus point) and a faster burst rate. This is handy but not essential. And I would need to switch my old SDs, buy extra batteries etc - it's a big change but on the other hand not as big to seem justified.
Now two much expensive options:
- Third option is to switch to Sony. Buy A7III and Sony 100-400 lens (or I'm even tempted by A7RIV which I could use in crop with this lens). Apart from obvious price downside, the lens is bigger and heavier than 70-300 from canon while on A7III without crop I can't get as close to the subjects as with Canon. What is tempting is that I'd have also a small FF camera that I could use more for landscapes and macro. I'm a bit unsure about Sony in terms of usability. I always used Canons (starting with analog EOS 300) and I'm used to it. But maybe the change is good.
- Fourth option is to invest in Canon RP (or R). I just love the idea of Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro. This is the holy grail of a lens to me in terms of everyday/landscapes/macro in one. But the only option that would fill the bill in terms of wildlife photography is the Canon 100-500 lens which is big (for my standards) and quite dark at the longer end (which I tend to use). I'm not sure how R handles ISO but I've read is not close to what Sony does.

I'm tempted to go full frame. To switch either to Sony or Canon R. Maybe with an additional short lenses I would rediscover joy of some everyday photos, street etc. apart from only wildlife. And maybe a bit heftier lens for wildlife would not be a problem. Plus it seems like an investment for a while. But on the other hand it seems hard to justify extra spending when I'm quite fine with what I have now and even cheapest upgrade would probably do for me for a while. I do have ability to buy moderately expensive gear but I try to be reasonable and don't buy something that I won't use.

Any suggestions, opinions, alternatives welcome and appreciated. I'm really curious!
Thank you in advance!

Hello,

I can't help with Canon choices because I have only analog Canon cameras but I have one guy to consider ... check out this .. It's imho the best deal available now across all brands .. Friend of mine have it and I can confirm from real world experience that it's great camera and overall awesome and outstanding lightweight set .. all new, one package for $1200

 

[ac12]

Try turning your mirrorless camera off when not actively shooting. Even at airshows where my camera is on much of the time I don't usually need more than two third party batteries for a day's shooting. Note the third party batteries are considerably cheaper than OEM ones too. £50 will easily buy me enough for a full day and include a spare charger...

All depends on the shoot.
When I shoot sports, I turn the camera off only a few times, like walking from 3rd base to outfield and outfield to dugout, otherwise it is mostly on.
Family events, the camera is off, most of the time, so one battery lasts the entire event.

As for the number of batteries, that depends on the shoot, and the equipment.
On vacation with my EM1 I was changing batteries, predictably, at approx 11am and 4pm, every day for almost 2 weeks. That was THREE batteries a day, with the 4 hour lens+camera combo. With another lens+camera combo, I would need FIVE batteries.
The battery of the EM1-mk2 has about 40% more capacity than the EM1-mk1.
The 12-100 SUCKS battery power (2-1/2 hrs run time), compared to the P-Lumix 12-60 (4 hrs run time).

 

[weepete]

What kind of widlife do you shot?

It's a bit difficult to reccomend Canon EF lenses or bodies right now, as there is a big shift towards mirrorless, and Canon has sytopped development on their EF mount stuff. I'd suggest going to a store and trying out the Canon mirrorless bodies, if you can live with the viewfinder then that may be the way to go. The camera maket is a bit jumbled currently, so if you buy EF just now, it may be that you find you want to change to RF mount when the time comes to upgrade in 3-10 years. Though Canon do make an EF-RF adapter that will not affect focus speed or image quality.

Assuming youll stick to EF mount:
I'm not sure why you think there are no wide angle canon lenses, the 18-55mm kit lens will do an ok job, is cheap as chips second hand and I dare say would be better than not having the option. Sigma do a pretty nice 17-70mm f2.8-4 and the Canon 15-85mm is pretty good as well.

On a crop sensor camera, 24mm isn't a wide lens, you need to go down to 15mm to get the same FOV on a crop as a 24mm on a 35mm or FF camera, so worth bearing that in mind.

The consumer grade Canon 70-300mm lenses are pretty poor IME, and a lot of widlife enthusiasts have moved to the 100-400mm or the third party 150-600mm lenses. What to choose depends on your use case. If you are happy with 300mm at the long end then I'd seriously consider the 100-400mm it's a cracking lens but comes with a price tag to match.

I can't help with mirrorless, as I'm not familiar with the range. But it sounds to me like you need to decide what you what's most important to you, and build your gear around that. You'll need to compromise in some places, generally for wildlife it's long focal lengths, bodies with fast autofocus and high FPS but that tends to come at a penalty of weight and cost.

 

[petrochemist]

What kind of widlife do you shot?

It's a bit difficult to reccomend Canon EF lenses or bodies right now, as there is a big shift towards mirrorless, and Canon has sytopped development on their EF mount stuff. I'd suggest going to a store and trying out the Canon mirrorless bodies, if you can live with the viewfinder then that may be the way to go. The camera maket is a bit jumbled currently, so if you buy EF just now, it may be that you find you want to change to RF mount when the time comes to upgrade in 3-10 years. Though Canon do make an EF-RF adapter that will not affect focus speed or image quality.

I agree it's worth considering mirrorless options, but don't see any advantage with sticking to Canon.I think there are AF adapters for EF lenses to any of the major mirrorless mounts. Micro four thirds gives more reach in a compact package that is ideal for wildlife but there are also APSC & FF options I you feel the MFT crop factor is too much.

 

[jcdeboever]

This is my opinion.

Canon EOS 5D Mark IV, Canon EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM.

Superior AF, outstanding low light performance. Great zoom lens with good focal range. If you wanted more reach, the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM is a fantastic wildlife lens. You could then grab a EF 17-40 f/4L USM.

I am not an avid wildlife photographer and I mainly shoot film. However, I own a 5D mark 1 and mark 2. I own the 17-40 and it is a great lens for the money. I use the older ef 35-350mm L lens but it is a fine lens but very different to use. I rented the 5DIV for a day and it is possibly the best camera I have ever used. Precise and fast AF, gorgeous colors, and stunning image quality.

 

[photoflyer]

It sounds like you are willing to invest if necessary so here are some ideas.

Weather sealing. I know you said you don't want a larger camera, and I can related, I have a T7i for business travel. But, when I am on an adventure, and shooting wildlife, like you do, I take my weather sealed bodies. I am just not willing to miss a shot of a lifetime because there was drizzle and the camera had to stay in the bag. And, that approach has paid off more than once.

Crop sensor versus full frame. I have both. I use the crop more for wildlife photos and the full frame for everything else. I do this because the 400mm on the crop becomes effectively 640mm. However, one of my full frames is an R6 and the autofocus is a true technical marvel. Last evening I was shooting Great Blue Heron from a boat. He took off and flew a 360 around me about 35 meters away. All I had to do was keep him in the frame and the animal detection AF locked on. I took about 12 shoots in the 360 degree sequence and only one was out of focus.

Lens. If the 70-300 you are considering is the EF Mark II that costs about $550 USD then I have that lens and it is a fantastic value. Yes, the 100-400 L Mark II is better (durability, weather sealed, etc.) but optically you really have to pixel peep to see the difference.

It sounds like sticking with crop sensor is a good idea for you given what you shoot. I would suggest the 90D or a used 7D Mark II if you value their durability and weather sealing, but that is a moor point if your lenses are not weather sealed. That leaves the T8i and from all accounts that would be a big jump from your current body. I would upgrade the body to one of the three above. You won't regret it.

If you go crop sensor, consider the Samyang 14mm manual focus lens. I have it and on the crop sensor has roughly the same field of view as my 24-105 at 24mm. Plenty wide enough for landscapes and at f 4 and above is plenty sharp. It is about $280 USD.