New lens or new camera? Tough one.

[sincere]

I have a Rebel XTi for about 5 years now and i am wondering if i should get new glass or a new camera. The thing with getting a new camera is that i dont have the funds to get a full frame and with glass, i wonder how much the picture quality "interacts" with the camera if i got a - lets say - L Series lens. I do want new glass but would i really have the same quality result if i just stay with my Rebel XTi or should i get a new camera? As far as glass, i got the 18-55 kitlens and a 50mm 1.4. Either way, what would you do?

 

[tyler_h]

New lens; once you have nice lenses you'll get more out of the body, even if it is an old one.

Once you have a nice selection of lenses upgrading bodies makes more sense.

 

[Tomasko]

It is always far better to have a great lens on a cheaper body than to have an expensive body with average lens attached... The technical quality of photos is hugely determined by the quality of the lens. Body itself is less important.
I would definitely go for a new glass.

 

[Markw]

It really depends on what you want that yo don't have now. If you want something that only a new lens can give you, different FOVs, better quality, etc, you're going to want a new lens. Of you want features that only a new body can give you: better shots in low light, better dynamic range, better. Video, etc, etc, a new camera is what you will want. It also depends on your shooting style. If you shoot something that the crop factor is going to be needed, you won't want a new camera. Just know the advantages and disadvantages of each, and you will have the answer. Why do you want to switch to full frame in the first place?

Mark

 

[Overread15 3]

Do you feel that you need/want to shift to the fullframe world? The angle of view is the biggest and, probably, most driving reason to shift to fullframe and if you feel the need to shift to that wider angle of view for your work then my advice is to try and make that shift (or for that matter any shift of sensor/film size) as soon as possible. That way you can build your lens selection around that field of view rather than building it around a smaller/larger one and then finding that - when you do shift - its not quite as you want and you have to build the lens selection all over again.

That said there are, of course, limits and typically new lenses will unlock more potential and quality than new camera bodies, which mostly just extend the limits (Eg higher ISO and dynamic range, better AF) that you currently work within. If you want some good glass don't have any worries at all putting it infront of the the XTi/400D - its a very capable body still and if you put some top quality glass infront of it it will deliver some great results!

 

[Kerbouchard]

You can change lenses...heck, you can even borrow or rent lenses for special occasions. But you can't really switch out your film to a better quality for an important shoot.

The old advice that it is always better to upgrade your lens rather than your camera body dates back to when the camera body was a light proof box. The camera body performs a much larger role in how the picture turns out than it did 20 years ago.

Since I don't exactly know your budget, I would tentatively say new camera body, assuming you aren't just going to get the newest rebel.

 

[imagemaker46]

Camera body, without question. Bodies wear out alot quicker these days, lenses last a lot longer, even getting bodies serviced after a few years can be a challenge. Canon doesn't like to service anything that is older than 2-3 years.

 

[Overread15 3]

400D + pro glass:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4146/4978894089_8059ea1e39_z.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4457589479_7c48d9fc98_z.jpg?zz=1

Will a better body do better with the same glass - of course it will. But a better body mated to cheap glass will not to any better, and with the high MP bodies outresolving weaker glass you might even get a worse result with the very cheap class on top end bodies.

 

[Kerbouchard]

400D + pro glass:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4146/4978894089_8059ea1e39_z.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4457589479_7c48d9fc98_z.jpg?zz=1

Will a better body do better with the same glass - of course it will. But a better body mated to cheap glass will not to any better, and with the high MP bodies outresolving weaker glass you might even get a worse result with the very cheap class on top end bodies.

And I can find good photos taken with Iphones and P&S's...that doesn't mean there isn't value in using a better camera.

 

[Overread15 3]

And I can find good photos taken with Iphones and P&S's...that doesn't mean there isn't value in using a better camera.

Ahh read what I wrote again
I wasn't disputing the fact that good bodies were not worth getting (otherwise I wouldn't have bought my own) however, there are limitations on what the body can do and they come direct from the lens itself. The lens refines and directly affects the light the camera has to work with - poor glass will have imperfections and a modern high MP camera can quickly show those up - resulting in poorer performance.
Of course all this advice is within reasonable limits and I don't want to give the impression that only "L" glass (since we are talking canon) is good enough; since there are several high quality EFS lenses as well as a range of high quality 3rd party options.

 

[WesternGuy]

I guess my question would be...why do you feel you need a new body? Given the situation, I will opt for new glass just about every time, but then that's just me. For me, glass is forever, well almost, but bodies come and go, I mean look at the evolution of the Rebel series alone. If you were going to opt for a new body which one would you go for and why? What do you have in mind for new glass and why? I do believe, as others have stated that new glass on an older body, will give you better images, but I also think that maybe it depends on the "new glass" as well...an "L" series lens should definitely give you a better image on an old body. I agree an XTi is a little old in terms of the technology, but a lot depends on what you think a new camera will do for you now versus what a new lens will do for you now. Just for comparison, your camera has the Digic II processor in it which is the same as mine, a 5D FF, so I can hardly wait until the Mk III comes out. I opted for glass instead of going for the 5D Mk II, which would have meant doubling of the number of pixels in the sensor and going to a Digic 4 processor, but I was happy with the Mk I, so I opted for glass...glad I did, because I now have glass e.g., the 16-35 f2.8 L IS Mk II wide angle lens which I would not have, had I opted for the Mk II. That is my story, but, of course, your story is up to you - what do you gain from a new body vs. what you think you will gain from new glass. God luck. :thumbup:

Cheers,

WesternGuy

 

[Kerbouchard]

I guess my question would be...why do you feel you need a new body? Given the situation, I will opt for new glass just about every time, but then that's just me. For me, glass is forever, well almost, but bodies come and go...

That's the ironic part of this whole thread and 'body vs lens' debate. Yes, bodies come and go.

So when does it become time for the old body to go and the new body to come?

 

[imagemaker46]

Depends on how many frames have gone though the bodies, I have two 1D's that I use as lense holders now, they are tired and slow, the next step for them are door stops. I use a MKll as a primary body for most shoots and have acces to Nikon gear when I need it. The glass I am using is 10 years old and still pretty much perfect, I have an old FD4002.8 from 1992, I shot with it last night, it's as good as it was when I bought it. Camera bodies are fast becoming disposable, especially at the pro level, all based on daily usage, most last 2-3 years, which is why Canon isn't keen on service, they want the pros buying new gear all the time. For an amateur that isn't running 10,000+ frames though a month, a good body will last, so will the glass. Of course buying crap lenses will get you crap results, but putting good glass on a crap body won't do you much better. I suppose it's one of those "go big or go home" deals, I buy good bodies and have good glass, but then it's what I need.

 

[WesternGuy]

I guess my question would be...why do you feel you need a new body? Given the situation, I will opt for new glass just about every time, but then that's just me. For me, glass is forever, well almost, but bodies come and go...

That's the ironic part of this whole thread and 'body vs lens' debate. Yes, bodies come and go.

So when does it become time for the old body to go and the new body to come?

Good question and I am sure that I do not have the definitive answer...who does? I think that this really becomes a personal thing unless (my opinion) you are a professional, which I am not, and then it becomes a question of whether or not the "new body" gives you all sorts of "new things" that will go towards improving the quality of your images, or you simply wear the thing out (if that is possible); however, if you are an amateur, then it comes down to similar sorts of things, but I suspect that cost and budget become more of the factors for consideration. Of course, if it "breaks" (whatever that means in this techie world) then I guess you have to either opt for a new one or fix it and if, as someone has said, "Canon doesn't like to service anything that is older than 2-3 years" then I guess maybe the decision will be made for you. Given that most amateurs do not shoot nearly as many images as the pros do, I suspect that if you get a reasonably decent digital SLR and handle it with care, then it should last for quite a few years, which is one of the reasons that I opted for glass (as noted) over the 5D MkII, but really that was still a personal thing...priorities vs. needs - glass vs. body...hmmm...now the camera body has risen to the top of the priority list. I think everyone has to decide where their priorities are and act accordingly, although, I for one, know that this can be hard, but its "your" money and "your" decision.

This probably does not answer your question, but I am not sure that there is a single answer that will satisfy everyone.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

 

[sincere]

Ok. As far as lenses, i am looking at the 17-40/f4 L or 17-55/f2.8. I want something with zoom and light to replace my kitlens.

Which one would you perfer?

I like the bokeh on the 17-55 even though it costs more than the 17-40 L series but i keep on hearing that it attracts dust and dirt and that using a UV filter is the only way to prevent and using a filter will take away from the lens being a 2.8. Also, i keep reading those reviews on the german amazon about chromatic aberration issues. one guy sent his in like 4 times til he got a proper one. its like getting a bed egg or something,lol..any infos on that?

As far as the 17-40mmL, the only thing i dont like about it is the f4. either way, which would you pick? Maybe even a different one alltogether?

As far as getting a camera, a 60D is what i had in mind. i compared it with the 7D and with the exception of the frames per second and the focus points (7d has 19..wtf you need 19 for? geez), the 60d is pretty much the same and lot cheaper. Then again, maybe i should wait since Canon likes to release new cameras like every week,lol..

Thanks!