New body or new lens?($1000 budget)

tracy.p.payne · Dec 3, 2014

Would love some opinions. I am not a professional but I do take a lot of pictures of my kids and often do photography for small weddings and events for my church. I have an older body, the 40d. In general, the only problems I have occasionally is a "busy" screen. My lenses are cheaper ones. I have the original kit lens, a 50mm and a 55-250mm..... my husband wants to get me a 7d body for Christmas. That's right around $1000. Would I be better off keeping my 40d and spending the money on better lenses instead?

Nevermore1 · Dec 3, 2014

Could you embellish what you mean by "busy" screen?

I'm sure someone with more knowledge will chime in soon, I can't remember what the detailed specs are on the 40D so I can't say for sure if it would be a major improvement in processor/sensor. I can say that I personally would think a 40D would still be a pretty good camera to have. I updated about a year ago from a 20D and that was still working great. To be honest if my daughter hadn't of needed a camera for her photography class in school this year I most likely would not have upgraded my body (her class was just a "good excuse" as she inherited my 20D for the class since I wasn't going to give a klutzy 16yo a brand new camera to lug around at school). Unless there is some damage to your camera which is affecting the use of it then I would go for a nice lens if I were in your place.

goodguy · Dec 3, 2014

I assume you are talking about the older model 7D, it has an old sensor and it shows, pretty poor low light performance, its designed to be a sport camera and while it can do weddings I think there are other cameras that will be much better for this task for less money.
Shooting in church means lower light conditions so I would recommend moving to Nikon and get the D3300 or D5300 with the 50mm 1.8G,
Low light performance will be much better and will also produce a much sharper image due to the lack of an AA filer, new Sony sensors in these cameras, much better dynamic range, better low light performance and as I said sharper images.
The D3300 with the 18-55mm kit lens will cost you around 500$, with the 50mm 1.8G an extra 200$

If you are keened to stick with Canon maybe you can consider the 70D, not a bad camera but Dynamic range and low light capabilities still lag behind Nikon's camera I suggested.
The Canon 7D II will give you a huge step up from your current camera, from the old model 7D or 70D but it will cost you around 1800$

Good luck

Nevermore1 · Dec 3, 2014

The 70D is what I upgraded to and while it's not as good in low light as some higher priced cameras it still does pretty good. If you want to see some samples of low/difficult to work with light go to my flickr page and look at the album for MDW - Spirit of America or even the NASCAR race. The race was taken under the lights about 23 (?) rows up in the grandstands, the SOA shots were at Giant Arena in Hershey and I was sitting in complete dark with just the lights being used for the show.

As goodguy stated you can also consider going over to Nikon but then you will also need to budget for all new lenses as well. It just depends how much you have to spend and how much you are willing to spend.

Derrel · Dec 3, 2014

The 40D is 3/4 of a decade old, and back from the 10-megapixel era. Nikon has moved to 24-megapixel sensors made by Sony, or Toshiba, in almost all of their small-body cameras; the Df and D4 currently use 16-MP full-frame sensors. You're riding a pretty old horse, but a new saddle might feel nice. But still...the 40D is now pretty far behind the technology curve as far as really being able to "leverage" even f/2.8 pro-grade zooms. The upper ISO limit on the 40D might very well be considered ISO 800, as long as the light is "decent". The problem for Canon shooters is that Canon has re-used basically the same sensor in every small camera since 2009, and then added 2 million pixels to it for on-sensor focus detection that really helps VIDEO autofocusing more so than image quality or ISO capability. The 70D with its touch-screen AF in video mode is kind of a neat feature-rich Canon.

I know where you are coming from. Let's just say this: the 18-55 is an $89 lens in Nikon mount this month; the 55-200 f/4.5~5.6 Nikkor is at $99.96 right now. Nikon does NOT MAKE a cheap, plastic 50mm like Canon does, so there is no el-cheapo Nikon 50, only a semi-professional grade $169 50mm f/1.8 this month, right now. So...you are in effect, holding your entire photography hobby "hostage" to a trio of the cheapest Canon-branded lenses ever made.

Right now, as in today, a D3200 + 18-55 + 55-200 Nikon kit from B&H is $499, shipped for free. The newer D3300 body-only is $499, and the D3300 has the best viewfinder and fastest shooting of the entry level models Nikon has ever made. In effect, you could go back to a Nikon D3100 for $399, and be ahead of the 40D, image quality wise.

I dunno...it's unpopular to bash Canon for its lack of sensor development. Body-wise the 40D was a nice, mid-level $1,599 camera when it came out, but you have reallllly cheap lenses on it right now. I think a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 would be a nice lens to use on a 40D, as would be some FAST primes like the Canon EF 35mm f/2, and the Canon 85/1.8. The 60D and 70D offer about the same sensor performance as one another, and are nice cameras. USED 7D cameras are flooding the used market right NOW, bringing about $450-$550 today; my local store has 4 of them for sale used. Again--you are currently using three of the lowest-spec'd, lowest-cost lenses; that is what you've hitched your wagon to.

D-B-J · Dec 3, 2014

Derrel said:
The 40D is 3/4 of a decade old, and back from the 10-megapixel era. Nikon has moved to 24-megapixel sensors made by Sony, or Toshiba, in almost all of their small-body cameras; the Df and D4 currently use 16-MP full-frame sensors. You're riding a pretty old horse, but a new saddle might feel nice. But still...the 40D is now pretty far behind the technology curve as far as really being able to "leverage" even f/2.8 pro-grade zooms. The upper ISO limit on the 40D might very well be considered ISO 800, as long as the light is "decent". The problem for Canon shooters is that Canon has re-used basically the same sensor in every small camera since 2009, and then added 2 million pixels to it for on-sensor focus detection that really helps VIDEO autofocusing more so than image quality or ISO capability. The 70D with its touch-screen AF in video mode is kind of a neat feature-rich Canon.

I know where you are coming from. Let's just say this: the 18-55 is an $89 lens in Nikon mount this month; the 55-200 f/4.5~5.6 Nikkor is at $99.96 right now. Nikon does NOT MAKE a cheap, plastic 50mm like Canon does, so there is no el-cheapo Nikon 50, only a semi-professional grade $169 50mm f/1.8 this month, right now. So...you are in effect, holding your entire photography hobby "hostage" to a trio of the cheapest Canon-branded lenses ever made.

Right now, as in today, a D3200 + 18-55 + 55-200 Nikon kit from B&H is $499, shipped for free. The newer D3300 body-only is $499, and the D3300 has the best viewfinder and fastest shooting of the entry level models Nikon has ever made. In effect, you could go back to a Nikon D3100 for $399, and be ahead of the 40D, image quality wise.

I dunno...it's unpopular to bash Canon for its lack of sensor development. Body-wise the 40D was a nice, mid-level $1,599 camera when it came out, but you have reallllly cheap lenses on it right now. I think a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 would be a nice lens to use on a 40D, as would be some FAST primes like the Canon EF 35mm f/2, and the Canon 85/1.8. The 60D and 70D offer about the same sensor performance as one another, and are nice cameras. USED 7D cameras are flooding the used market right NOW, bringing about $450-$550 today; my local store has 4 of them for sale used. Again--you are currently using three of the lowest-spec'd, lowest-cost lenses; that is what you've hitched your wagon to.

Nikon has the 50mm 1.8D cheapo lens for about $100....

goodguy · Dec 3, 2014

D-B-J said:
Nikon has the 50mm 1.8D cheapo lens for about $100....

That's true, I own this lens and while its cheap it is also a good lens but will work only on higher end bodies with inbody AF motor, not on lower end bodies like the D3xxx or D5xxx

iolair · Dec 4, 2014

The 7D is great as a sports camera, but doesn't give you much advantage over your 40D for the type of shooting you'd be doing. Ten megapixels is plenty for most purposes.

If you want to stay with Canon, then a lens upgrade may be the best way to go. While you'll want to look at the main focal lengths you shoot at, I'd consider the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 (very good image stabilisation helps a lot in low light) EF 50mm 1.4 (much better autofocus than the 1.8 in low light), and for the long end maybe the EF 85mm 1.8. If it's only small weddings, you're unlikely to need anything longer than the 85mm on a crop-sensor body.

However, as Derrell points out, the three particular lenses you have are inexpensive, and given that a kit lens is very good value with a new body, it could be an ideal time to start afresh.

I personally wouldn't change to Nikon - and that's largely because I find their cameras 'unfriendly' to use; admittedly that's completely down to personal taste. I would consider Pentax though; their cameras are good value, the sensors are as good as Nikon's, the bodies are more user friendly than either Canon or Nikon, and their range of lenses is not bad. (Although Canon have the best range of lenses, with Nikon not far behind).

goodguy · Dec 4, 2014

I would like to point, I now own 2 DSLR cameras.
Nikon D750 and Nikon D60
The D60 is a 7 years old camera which I bought only few weeks ago.
Bought it for few reasons, one of the reasons is because its such a limiting camera, I can put my good glass on it but still its very limiting especially in lower light situation, above 400ISO and you are looking at noise galore, great for me as it challenges me to try and look for ways to bypass this but when I need to get serious I go for my new camera which is a beast in low light.
Your current camera should have roughly same low light performance and frankly I wouldn't keep it, not as a main shooter anyways, buying good glass to extend its life for me looks useless.
Get a good modern camera and good glass to really move (technologically) to the next level.