If only there is one answer...

Glam · Sep 7, 2010

Hello, I'm new to the forum. [Hopefully I have properly introduced myself at the top of the forum]
I am seeking for my second DSLR camera via several search engines. I came to this forum and hopefully I can find my answer.

First, I'm not a professional photographer. I always enjoy taking picture but over the past years, I begin to apply it more for my business marketing tools. Hence, I would like to have an upgrade.

I have the first series of Canon digital rebel. I believed it is a 6.3MP camera. I equiped it with an EF 28-135mm and a 100mm macro lens. Recently, I added a 580EXii flash to my collection of Canon.

I would to use the new camera [perhaps new lens] to take indoor portrait, closeup photos, and occasionally family activities [ I have two young children and soon adding a third]. I would also like to have some of my photo print into size either 16x20 or 20x30. [of course, provided that i have the skills to take a "sharp" image to explore to such dimension]

So, having said that I have been searching on several used cameras...e.g. Canon 50D, 7D, and Nikon D300 also Canon 5D MKII.--All used pricing. And through that search I have gotten more information than I can handle. At the same time, I also gain a better ideas as to where to start. For one thing, it has gotten me here to seek the Omni Photogeeks [I meant it in positive way

] advise and soak up much needed information.

Where do I begin? well, for one thing, I would like to know if my desire to blow picture up to 20x30" min of 250dpi or higher...will a full size capture camera be better than a APS-C?
[FYI- I ask for this b/c I have read several website columns and few postings from CfusionPM and Derrel AND still not sure about it]

And how much photo touchup program [i.e photoshop] can assist on that division? eg. upsizing

I also went to a website of Cameralabs.com and saw the comparasion of high and low ISO quality of Canon 50d, 7D, 5D and Nikon D300. To me with an UNTRAINED eyes, I also believed that in general Canon gives a softer image. Now I'm not sure if I want that in my portrait photo but my initial response would be "no".

Adding all that request, I should also mention that I'm currently have two lens from Canon. EF 28-138/f3.5-5.6 and the EF-M100mm/2.8. (1) MR-14EX. Recently, I also purchased an used 580EXii. Now, as far as what I have read those lenses are "okay lenses". I dont think I will have a problem to switch to a different maker b/c of the existing lenses. I guess I will miss those flashes more. But hey if what I seek is lies beneath on a Nikon body...then so be it.

So what should I do? Honestly, I never thought about how expensive can this upgrade costing me until I started doing the research. On the same note, if I have learn one thing from my other interest-making a good cup of espresso-that is any machine will make a good cup of espresso [provided by the hands of a skillful barista] but with better tools one can enjoy the result of the taste and less worry about the machanic behind the making of it. Once agian, after such long winded explaination [I do appreciate all your patient and time] I would like to know what would you recommend for me?

Thank you in advance.

PS- I'm aware of the new Canon 60D but based on what I have read I'm not sure if it will offer anymore than what I have selected. Frankly, I don't really care for the video part of the 7D or 5DMkII....just the speed and the size caught my eyes. Of course the used price for what its offer. Thanks.

oldmacman · Sep 7, 2010

I own the 5d mk II and my son has the 10D, which is also a 6.3 mp camera. Until recently, I had a 50D as a backup, but was used more for sports and birding. My mark II is an upgrade from the mark I, so I have used a few Canon products.

I love my 5D for landscapes. The high pixel count and FF give me flexibility in cropping and provide low noise in large prints. I have made several 24x36 prints and one that was 5' long. Without exaggeration, the grain is so tight I easily could go bigger. For the same reason, it is also a good portrait camera which is what you would be using it for. Where it falls short of the 50D is frame rate and FOV for sports and birding. So it really depends on your intended use.

I have three friends who all shoot Nikon. Two D80s and a D90. I have used both cameras and they take great pictures. The thing I love about the Nikons are how clear the viewer finder is. I don't want to make this a canon vs Nikon thread, they are both great cams. One of the reasons I have stuck with canon over the years is because of the investment in hardware. The flash and macro lens you have are not cheap. Unless you can get a good return, I would think hard before jumping ship. I'll admit that I have been tempted with a few Nikon products, but remember that it is more about the photographer than about the marginal differences in cameras.

Glam · Sep 7, 2010

Thank you for your insight. I brought Nikon into the discussion b/c the review of the cameralab.com and reading several comments who shared the same view about Nikon does gives a "sharper" image under different setting of ISO. Now I also read that some people feel Nikon's color displace is more artificial than Canon.

I guess I would like ask is that more on the issue of the lens or the body?
Seeing your photos and reading on your usage of landscape, I guess you've answer my question. Or was there a lot of after photo corrections at the computer.

I wish, if possible, do little as possible with Photoshop. I know that sound impossible in the eyes of professions and even advanced recreational photographers, but Im just a beginner with a great interest to invest further in a small increment steps.
Thanks again.. I guess if I can eliminate Nikon on the issue of "soft image tone" than that would help me to stay focus on the Canon family

oldmacman · Sep 8, 2010

Glam said:
Thank you for your insight. I brought Nikon into the discussion b/c the review of the cameralab.com and reading several comments who shared the same view about Nikon does gives a "sharper" image under different setting of ISO. Now I also read that some people feel Nikon's color displace is more artificial than Canon.

I guess I would like ask is that more on the issue of the lens or the body?
Seeing your photos and reading on your usage of landscape, I guess you've answer my question. Or was there a lot of after photo corrections at the computer.

I wish, if possible, do little as possible with Photoshop. I know that sound impossible in the eyes of professions and even advanced recreational photographers, but Im just a beginner with a great interest to invest further in a small increment steps.
Thanks again.. I guess if I can eliminate Nikon on the issue of "soft image tone" than that would help me to stay focus on the Canon family

With either camera, as long as exposure and settings are correct, you can get good image straight out of the camera (RAW will always need post processing using either camera. Just don't shoot RAW if you don't like using PS). I think the issue for you is whether it is worth dumping gear for small differences in hardware.