To buy or not to buy?

ram.adi88 · Aug 11, 2015

Hello! I'm an amateur photo enthusiast, and have been using an EOS 1100D (the 'most' entry-level DSLR) for the past 2 years. I own 2 lenses - the 18-55mm kit lens and another 55-250 mm long-range (no prime lenses yet!)

I've been tuning up my photoshop skills, and have been getting much better at it now. Some of my work can be seen at - Ramamoorthi s Photos - ViewBug.com - ViewBug.com .

I do notice that my results tend not to be as captivating as those obtained from a mid-range camera, or better. I've been told that that the megapixel count doesn't matter, and that unless it's a high-end full-frame like a 5D or 6D, it's not going to make much difference as to what camera I use; my opinion is starting to differ.

I am now considering upgrading to a slightly higher end camera, maybe a 70D or the likes. However, I'm confused - can a basic camera such as mine replicate professional-level results? Can I do better with my current camera? Would it be a better option to simply buy a new lens (if so, any suggestions?). I would be grateful for any advice/suggestion/comments/criticism! Thanks in advance!

goodguy · Aug 11, 2015

You have a good eye and I enjoyed your flickr pictures.
No, better camera like a 70D will not improve you shots by much.
Improving results will be mostly a matter of improving your skills.
Full frame will be mostly important if you do low light photography.
If talking about gear better lenses will have a much bigger impact then a new body.

Ask yourself in what way does your camera limits you, if you find a reason then look for a camera that has the advantages you are looking for.

Good luck and keep shooting

Peeb · Aug 11, 2015

This is an enthusiasts forum- always buy!

Seriously, consider renting an upscale camera and use with your existing lenses to compare. There will be your answer.

astroNikon · Aug 11, 2015

Nice Photo Gallery !!

I think he needs to add one of those 50/1.8 lens to understand Depth of Field better. Then he can see the affect aperture has on photos more than on his kit lenses. I know when I bought a 50/1.8 it really opened my eyes on DOF.

I only bought f/2.8 lenses or better after that.

Dao · Aug 11, 2015

I do not believe upgrading the camera will change the way your photos looks at all. But a better camera body sometimes offer convenience. Jumping from entry-level camera to a top display with 2 wheels camera body was a nice jump for me. Lens, flashes (on and off camera) and experience have more impacts on my photos. At the end of the day, it is all comes down to what you are looking for.

ram.adi88 · Aug 11, 2015

To reply to all of your comments - firstly thank you for taking the time! Critiques are the only way to keep improving!

I guess that I do not particularly need anything more than what my camera can offer - I rarely need high-speed, and I'm quite comfortable with the full manual controls on this one. My one big problem is with the autofocus capability (speed and accuracy); but then I suppose that a good 50/1.8 prime lens can solve that issue to an extent. I haven't yet started using an off-camera flash (or much of the on-camera, for that matter!) - I prefer natural lighting, or increasing the aperture - I rarely go for higher ISOs (except for night and certain indoor photography, of course). I still can't comment on my need for higher megapixels though!

Maybe I'm just getting caught up with all other photographers owning cameras better than mine - a mere case of materialism?

goodguy · Aug 11, 2015

ram.adi88 said:
Maybe I'm just getting caught up with all other photographers owning cameras better than mine - a mere case of materialism?

Equipment envy is very common among us humans LOL
P&S owners look at DSLR owners with envy eyes.
APS-C owners look at the FF owners with envy eyes

I have an older APS-C camera and a FF camera.
In good lighting condition the extra resolution, better AF and better low light performance is not really important, you will not be able to see the difference.
If and when you will feel limited by your equipment then it will be time to upgrade.
On the other hand if you feel like you simply want to get better equipment then there is nothing wrong with that too, just know you spend your money for that reason, I did it many times and was always happy with my choices but I was honest with myself and I knew deep inside I dont really need it.

Derrel · Aug 11, 2015

Your camera and lenses do not seem to be the issue to me. I looked at your gallery. I think two things,refining your image processing, and continuing to explore new compositional approaches, would be of more help than any new camera. Of course, as was said above, this is an enthusiast's forum, so the answer is ALWAYS to buy! That's funny...and sort of true here! But seriously, your images look mostly as they should after two years, but I think you could refine the post-processing and color toning you are doing by a bit.

ronlane · Aug 11, 2015

I think most have covered it above. I would consider purchasing better glass first. I don't know that a 50mm f/1.8 is going to speed up your focusing any, but the new STM is a good lens. The 50 or something like the 24-105 f/4L or 24-70 f/4 or 24-70 f/2.8, those would probably be better at this time than getting a new camera body.

ram.adi88 · Aug 11, 2015

Derrel said:
Your camera and lenses do not seem to be the issue to me. I looked at your gallery. I think two things,refining your image processing, and continuing to explore new compositional approaches, would be of more help than any new camera. Of course, as was said above, this is an enthusiast's forum, so the answer is ALWAYS to buy! That's funny...and sort of true here! But seriously, your images look mostly as they should after two years, but I think you could refine the post-processing and color toning you are doing by a bit.

Thank you very much! That was very constructive - I agree that I need a lot more work on my post-processing. I'm transitioning from Lightroom to CS6, and am still playing around! Hopefully I get better at it. I have definitely noticed that I tend to overdo the contrast-saturation corrections. I haven idea why! It only strikes me later, once I've posted them! My tryst with photoshop has been a bit better - I've learned to increase detail, and experiment with curves and masks. Thanks again for your criticism - it's actually one of the first I've received as I'm quite new to forums! I'll work on it!

ram.adi88 · Aug 11, 2015

ronlane said:
I think most have covered it above. I would consider purchasing better glass first. I don't know that a 50mm f/1.8 is going to speed up your focusing any, but the new STM is a good lens. The 50 or something like the 24-105 f/4L or 24-70 f/4 or 24-70 f/2.8, those would probably be better at this time than getting a new camera body.

Incidentally, I was just checking out the 50mm f/1.8 STM lens - it's about £30 higher than the Mk II, but the reviews all seem good so far - seriously considering buying it now. I really do envy owning an L-lens, but I don't think my wallet is fat enough!

Derrel · Aug 11, 2015

I agree, you are kind of overdoing the contrast and saturation. And yes, the new 50mm STM lens from Canon looks interesting--and it has simply GOT TO BE a better lens than the 50mm f/1.8 EF-II standard lens. I owned the 50/1.8...I was not impressed with its focusing in lower light, and it's noisy, and the bokeh is harsh. The new STM 50 on the other hand, looks nice. Good lenses last for decades. I think the two Canon pancakes, the 40mm EFG and the 24 EF-S look nifty as well. Of the two, EITHER has usefulness on an APS-C camera, the 24 as a normal length, the 40mm as a semi-selective length lens that will allow you to pick details out of close-up scenes, and to select small sections of the real world on scenes shot from 10 to 40 meters.

Prime lenses force you to learn to see and shoot a specific way, which can be a good way to learn, through repetition using the same angle of view across many different situations.

ronlane · Aug 11, 2015

I admit to not liking the 50mm f/1.8 EF-II. I had one for maybe 8-9 months and traded it for another lens. I got the new 50mm f/1.8 STM in June and I have been using it a lot now. I like it tons better than the old one.

Examples of it can be seen on my flickr page, just look at the exif information. I have used it on both the old 7D and the 7D mk II.

I'm keeping it.

Dao · Aug 11, 2015

Yes, if I am going to step into the prime lens zone, the new 50mm Canon f/1.8 STM lens is the one I will get. (I used to own the ver 1, 2 of the f/1.8 and now own the f/1.4 instead).
But the issue is once you get the 50mm, you may find the other primes such as the 24mm, 85mm, 100mm 135mm, 200mm, 300mm or 500mm are interesting too.

ram.adi88 · Aug 11, 2015

Derrel said:
Prime lenses force you to learn to see and shoot a specific way, which can be a good way to learn, through repetition using the same angle of view across many different situations.

ronlane said:
Examples of it can be seen on my flickr page, just look at the exif information. I have used it on both the old 7D and the 7D mk II.

Dao said:
Yes, if I am going to step into the prime lens zone, the new 50mm Canon f/1.8 STM lens is the one I will get. (I used to own the ver 1, 2 of the f/1.8 and now own the f/1.4 instead).
But the issue is once you get the 50mm, you may find the other primes such as the 24mm, 85mm, 100mm 135mm, 200mm, 300mm or 500mm are interesting too.

Interesting - the pancakes seems quite attractive indeed. They're not too expensive either - about the same prices as the 50mm STM lens. I guess I could buy one after the other, probably on Black Friday deals and boxing-day!

The results from the STM lens definitely look sharper than the Std II ones - probably should be my first buy.

As for the other prime lenses - greed

I'm still young - I supposed I don't need to have (the best of) everything! I definitely will be investing in more specialist lenses in the future. That said, even macro lenses are quite attractive! Let me not get carried away now!