New lens or new camera? Tough one.

[Tomasko]

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.

Oh, that's news... So you're saying, that he should get a new expensive body and shoot with his kit lens?
Using other words, you're saying, that shooting expensive camera + average lens gives you BETTER results than shooting e.g. rebel + L lens?

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.

You're saying, that bodies wear out a lot quicker, HOWEVER, you advocate buying a new body over a better lens, even though lens would give him longer lasting investment?? That is a bit weird from my perspective.


I am not saying, that better body = wasted money or even no change in quality. But some things have higher priority, especially when a guy can't afford all the fancy stuff and have to make compromises.

 

[Tomasko]

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!

What do you use (or intent to) your camera for? What is your goal? What is usually your primary subject?
Btw, if you don't know what would you use 19 AF points for, I don't think, that it is the right time for upgrading your current body...

 

[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!

What do you use (or intent to) your camera for? What is your goal? What is usually your primary subject?
Btw, if you don't know what would you use 19 AF points for, I don't think, that it is the right time for upgrading your current body...

i mostly shoot portrait/people and the 50mm is cool but because of the crop factor, i wanted something with a zoom. as far as the AF points, instead of being a smart ass, you could have simply replied to my question. thanks.

 

[Markw]

Woah, woah, woah. Let's play nice now. We're all just trying to help you and what he said was true in a sense. If you won't utilize the extra features in an upgraded body, maybe you should reconsider buying one. Many people upgrade their bodies, and lenses, really, based n what cool things others say they have and how much better they are than the last thing. But, if you're not going to use these features, what's the sense in upgrading to that one? I think, whatever you do, just make sure it's worth your money, both in terms of quality and usability. If you're not going to use the features in am upgraded body, I'd suggest upgrading your lenses, or nothing really. Just get a new lens and work on using your camera to it's full potential. Once that happens, you'll know exactly what you should upgrade to and why you should choose that one. Whatever it is will have something specific that your setup doesn't, and that will be your reason to upgrade. That being said, id suggest the 17-55/2.8 over the 17-40/4L.

Mark

 

[sincere]

Of course i would have use for the extra features but why this is this even a question? Some here decided by themselves that i havent used my camera to its fullest potential. How would you know? I have been working with this camrea almost daily and extensively for 5 years. Assumption is the mother of all..you know the rest.

I looked at the AF points and they where placed very close to eachother where i didnt see much use for so many AF points. So again i ask, whats the purpose of 19 AF points on a camera that doesnt have a full frame sensor? Do you know how much closer the AF points are with the crop factor? (*edit* that was a rhetorical question)

 

[jake337]

Glass because you changed your mind from going crop to ff. You said 60d or 7d. Neither FF. D300 has 51 af points that are not needed either I guess.....

 

[Tomasko]

Sincere, if you think that I am smart ass because I said the truth, it is your problem, not mine. I wrote here only to give an advice, not to insult or anything. Markw said basically the same, just used a bit more words to explain... The thing is you are asking about the very basics of focusing on DSLRs and as such I don't see much sense in upgrading your body. The most important thing in photography isn't the gear, but knowledge, which you seem to lack. Don't take me wrong, I don't mean it as insult.

What do you use AF points on your current camera for? Have you ever tried capturing moving objects (dogs, cars...)?
In general, more AF points means greater focus accuracy while capturing moving objects.
If you shoot mostly portraits, landscapes or whatever, you don't need that much AF points.

 

[sincere]

Tomasko. you dont know me so why didnt you ask me any of these things? Youre making ridiculous claims about me. Instead, you want to be a smart ass by indireclty claiming "hey its me Tomasko the big shot that knows everything and you dont know ****" and now i approached you about this and you dont even have the courage to stick to what you said? instead you want to go the "im just rrying to help" route when clearly it took you like three posts for a on-topic reply.

As a child i once learned that if you dont have anything to say to the topic, dont say anything at all.


Youre an idiot.

 

[Tomasko]

That's it, I'm out of this thread. I don't have patience for this type of person. I really tried, but I don't need to be called an idiot by a guy, who I'm honestly trying to help and give an advice.
Pearls before swine.

 

[sincere]

Thank you because ive asked for help, not some some opinionated trolling.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Thank you because ive asked for help, not some some opinionated trolling.

My opinion is you will see a larger increase in quality(and enjoyability) from a better camera body with better focusing, better high ISO performance, and more external controls than you will see with a lens purchase.

 

[Overread]

Thank you because ive asked for help, not some some opinionated trolling.

My opinion is you will see a larger increase in quality(and enjoyability) from a better camera body with better focusing, better high ISO performance, and more external controls than you will see with a lens purchase.

And I'd totally say the opposite to this

 

[sincere]

I think i am leaning towards a lens you guys, i think i can grind it out with my camera for a while. I just need to know which lens (see above)?

 

[ShutterSpeed]

i recently upgraded from a d60 to a d7000 (nikon).
this however was a choice i made, because both are cropped sensors...and the d7000 offers features that i didnt have in the d60. such as AF-motor in the camera body, good ISO quality and more AF points. the d60 has 3. the d7000 has 39.
THe lenses are basically the same now..but my next upgrades are lighting or lenses. I didn't make the jump to FullFrame, because I don't really need it now and can't justify it, since I've only been getting a few clients here and there.

EDIT: The d7000 also offers wireless command of the flashes..despite being weak, its a feature that can get me buy until i can buy the radiopoppers or pocketwizards..

 

[Deo]

new lens, it is useless to have a new body with old lens, so take a new lens