Upgrade lens or body??

[Derrel]

Better, richer color? Don't buy the 7D, buy the 70-200 f/4 L IS ISM...the 7D does not have the rich, saturated colors of some other cameras. Lenses are largely responsible for providing richer, more-saturated color; lenses that have good coatings and good optical designs, and which have higher levels of contrast, will tend to produce richer, more-saturated, better-looking color than lenses that are, well, lacking. This can be seen pretty easily in many of the Nikon ED-glass lenses...the more-costly lenses often produce richer, more-vivid color than consumer or entry-level lenses that lack extra-low dispersion glass elements and which have simpler, cheaper to produce optical designs. While the 70-300 you have is a good lens, the Canon 70-200 f/4 L is an excellent lens...and it will leverage whatever body you put behind it, for years to come. If you get a new, high-grade lens, you're immediately "good to go". If you get a new body and have to keep shooting with the 70-300, I do not see the gain.

 

[Inst!nct]

Better, richer color? Don't buy the 7D, buy the 70-200 f/4 L IS ISM...the 7D does not have the rich, saturated colors of some other cameras. Lenses are largely responsible for providing richer, more-saturated color; lenses that have good coatings and good optical designs, and which have higher levels of contrast, will tend to produce richer, more-saturated, better-looking color than lenses that are, well, lacking. This can be seen pretty easily in many of the Nikon ED-glass lenses...the more-costly lenses often produce richer, more-vivid color than consumer or entry-level lenses that lack extra-low dispersion glass elements and which have simpler, cheaper to produce optical designs. While the 70-300 you have is a good lens, the Canon 70-200 f/4 L is an excellent lens...and it will leverage whatever body you put behind it, for years to come. If you get a new, high-grade lens, you're immediately "good to go". If you get a new body and have to keep shooting with the 70-300, I do not see the gain.

Alright thank you so much for all the advice, that's what I thought at first, but the lack of that 300 dollars made me change my mind for some reason, I could probably sell the 70-300 for about 400 and my crappy sigma one for like 100 . Thanks alot derrel, I'll look into the 70-200 f4 IS right away .

Edit: Despite looking at this lens couple years ago and loving it, I am looking at the pics on amazon taken by it and they are all terrid.. I need to look at someplace better then amazon

double edit: nvm looks awesome , will be buying in exactly a month, gotta get some more money but definetly a done deal

 

[prodigy2k7]

Better, richer color? Don't buy the 7D, buy the 70-200 f/4 L IS ISM...the 7D does not have the rich, saturated colors of some other cameras. Lenses are largely responsible for providing richer, more-saturated color; lenses that have good coatings and good optical designs, and which have higher levels of contrast, will tend to produce richer, more-saturated, better-looking color than lenses that are, well, lacking. This can be seen pretty easily in many of the Nikon ED-glass lenses...the more-costly lenses often produce richer, more-vivid color than consumer or entry-level lenses that lack extra-low dispersion glass elements and which have simpler, cheaper to produce optical designs. While the 70-300 you have is a good lens, the Canon 70-200 f/4 L is an excellent lens...and it will leverage whatever body you put behind it, for years to come. If you get a new, high-grade lens, you're immediately "good to go". If you get a new body and have to keep shooting with the 70-300, I do not see the gain.

Alright thank you so much for all the advice, that's what I thought at first, but the lack of that 300 dollars made me change my mind for some reason, I could probably sell the 70-300 for about 400 and my crappy sigma one for like 100 . Thanks alot derrel, I'll look into the 70-200 f4 IS right away .

Edit: Despite looking at this lens couple years ago and loving it, I am looking at the pics on amazon taken by it and they are all terrid.. I need to look at someplace better then amazon

double edit: nvm looks awesome , will be buying in exactly a month, gotta get some more money but definetly a done deal

The 70-200 F/4 IS is really an awesome lens, its friggin TACK SHARP.

 

[Neil S.]

the 7D does not have the rich, saturated colors of some other cameras.

LOL...dont really know what else to say to this one...

Derrel man, let the 7D thing go.

 

[cfusionpm]

the 7D does not have the rich, saturated colors of some other cameras.

LOL...dont really know what else to say to this one...

Derrel man, let the 7D thing go.

Clearly this is based on his extensive hands-on experience with the 7D. He must do all his shoots in JPG with Saturation turned to -4 in the camera! It's pretty obvious this guy is an expert on the 7D, being that he doesn't own one, and hasn't really ever used one either.

Lova ya, Derrel. :hug::

Here's a dull, desaturated shot from my 7D that I took today:

This image is heavily cropped from the original, which showcases the nice optics of the 70-200 2.8 IS mkII paired with a high res 18mp sensor.


Anyway, back to the OP, I don't know if you checked your other thread, but I replied over there with my input before seeing this one:

"The big question you need to ask yourself is: Do I need to shoot at 1600, 3200, or 6400 ISO comfortably? Do I need to shoot at 8 frames per second? And do I want wireless flash control? If you answer "no" to all of these, you probably don't need a 7D. The XTi is a fine camera in ideal conditions like well lit studio portraits. But for events and stuff (especially dimly lit areas), the high ISO capabilities of the 7D paired with some fast lenses will make for some great shots.

That being said, you may get just as good results from a 60D; preliminary ISO tests I've seen put it as near to the 7D as makes no difference: Canon EOS 60D Digital SLR Camera Review It doesnt have the fancy upgraded AF or quick 8fps burst, but for your needs, it looks like it would suit the bill as well as a 7D would, but several hundred dollars cheaper. Put that money towards a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8, both of which would be excellent on a 60D (or even your XTi) for portraits and events."

 

[Buckster]

the 7D does not have the rich, saturated colors of some other cameras.

LOL...dont really know what else to say to this one...

Derrel man, let the 7D thing go.

Clearly this is based on his extensive hands-on experience with the 7D. He must do all his shoots in JPG with Saturation turned to -4 in the camera! It's pretty obvious this guy is an expert on the 7D, being that he doesn't own one, and hasn't really ever used one either.

Lova ya, Derrel. :hug::

Here's a dull, desaturated shot from my 7D that I took today:

This image is heavily cropped from the original, which showcases the nice optics of the 70-200 2.8 IS mkII paired with a high res 18mp sensor.

Some interesting EXIF data showing some of the PS work done to get it to this state...

# crs:Sharpness = "36"
# crs:LuminanceSmoothing = "65"
# crs:ColorNoiseReduction = "37"
# crs:SaturationAdjustmentOrange = "+52"
# crs:SaturationAdjustmentYellow = "+45"
# crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen = "0"
# crs:SaturationAdjustmentAqua = "+27"
# crs:SaturationAdjustmentBlue = "+68"
# crsarametricShadows = "-28"
# crsarametricDarks = "-19"
# crsarametricShadowSplit = "25"
# crsarametricMidtoneSplit = "50"
# crsarametricHighlightSplit = "75"
# crs:SharpenRadius = "+0.7"
# crs:SharpenDetail = "77"
# crs:SharpenEdgeMasking = "6"
# crs:LuminanceNoiseReductionDetail = "50"
# crs:ColorNoiseReductionDetail = "50"

Seems like it was pretty dull when you first got a look at the image out of the camera, so you fixed it up in post to give it the pizazz you really wanted by pushing saturation and reigning in the noise issues.

No biggie, of course. I've owned and shot several digital cameras myself over the past 10 years or so, including the Canons: 20D, 40D, 7D and now the 5DMKII, so I know what you're working with there, and have to do the same thing with my 7D images.

But let's not try to pretend that we don't or that the 7D is "all that and a bag of chips", 'cause it just ain't; It's got it's own set of issues, and Derrel has rightly pointed some of them out over time here, as have others around the web who are no slouches when it comes to photographic equipment.

IQ is acceptable for these web images and small to medium sized prints after we work them in PS, as was done here, but there's a reason this isn't a $4000 body - it ain't got what it takes to be one, no matter how many amateurs think it's the greatest thing since somebody said, "what if we slice the bread BEFORE we sell it?"

Just sayin'...

 

[cfusionpm]

Seems like it was pretty dull when you first got a look at the image out of the camera, so you fixed it up in post to give it the pizazz you really wanted by pushing saturation and reigning in the noise issues.

No biggie, of course. I've owned and shot several digital cameras myself over the past 10 years or so, including the Canons: 20D, 40D, 7D and now the 5DMKII, so I know what you're working with there, and have to do the same thing with my 7D images.

But let's not try to pretend that we don't or that the 7D is "all that and a bag of chips", 'cause it just ain't; It's got it's own set of issues, and Derrel has rightly pointed some of them out over time here, as have others around the web who are no slouches when it comes to photographic equipment.

IQ is acceptable for these web images and small to medium sized prints after we work them in PS, as was done here, but there's a reason this isn't a $4000 body - it ain't got what it takes to be one, no matter how many amateurs think it's the greatest thing since somebody said, "what if we slice the bread BEFORE we sell it?"

Just sayin'...

Hand in the cookie jar, eh? Shooting through a hazy marine layer with only 200mm of focal length was definately a challange, I just posted that to bother Derrel.
No Photoshop though, just some simple sliders in Lightroom. I added some extra Lum NR because I loved the smooth, almost-fake, painted look it gives the plane and smoke.

Regarding saturation, here's a completely unedited shot in the horribly gray morning:

Make no mistake though, that in no way do I think this is the best camera in the world. I feel Derrel's critisizms are unfair because he is only relaying whatever he reads on the internet rather than actually using the camera himself. That's why I (and others) rag on him every time he rants about the 7D, 50D, or just about anything Canon makes It's certainly not the best camera in the world, but I personally feel it is the best crop body and offers the best speed and AF performance south of a 1DmkIV. It can't hold a candle to the kind of image quality that comes out of either camp's expensive professional full frame offerings, but that's to be expected from something that costs $3000-5000 less.

If I had rented a 400/2.8 instead of trying to get away with my measly 70-200, I would have gotten a lot more out of the high flying shots. But that being said, I got several that should print nicely at 8x10 and 300dpi. I plan to have them on my wall as soon as they ship to me. :thumbup:

 

[Buckster]

I feel Derrel's critisizms are unfair because he is only relaying whatever he reads on the internet rather than actually using the camera himself.

No, he's clearly not. He's got a wealth of knowledge gained from years associated with photographic equipment and contact with people in the business that's ongoing. He understands the issues associated with optics and physics and how they relate to this gear.

You don't have to actually own and eat burnt toast to see that it's burnt, and there's no reason to buy and shoot a camera that you can see is not up to a quality standard you consider acceptable - so he doesn't.

There's nothing at all "unfair" about that, and frankly that doesn't seem like the reasoning at all for you rearing up every time it comes up like this, and even if it is, it's certainly not a valid reason. No, to be honest, it looks a LOT more like you take a dump on everything he says about it because you don't want your preccccciooousssss to be defamed or something; at least, that's how it comes off - like fan boy antics.

I own the camera. I shoot with the camera. I've read what he's had to say about it here, and I've read plenty from others who are knowledgeable saying the same kinds of things. Several others with extensive knowledge that frequent this forum are among them. And from my EXPERIENCE with the camera, I concur with him/them.

I've said it already in another thread, and I'm not too proud or ashamed to say it again here: If I knew then what I know now, I would have skipped right past the 7D and applied the money to a better body.

When I bought my 7D, I chose to disbelieve the Derrels out there and the things they were saying, and to believe folks like you instead; people who had the camera and were just wild about it. I'm now sorry I did that, and I hope that others who are weighing these purchasing decisions will do a better job than I did of discerning the knowledgeable from the fan boys.

 

[prodigy2k7]

I feel Derrel's critisizms are unfair because he is only relaying whatever he reads on the internet rather than actually using the camera himself.

No, he's clearly not. He's got a wealth of knowledge gained from years associated with photographic equipment and contact with people in the business that's ongoing. He understands the issues associated with optics and physics and how they relate to this gear.

You don't have to actually own and eat burnt toast to see that it's burnt, and there's no reason to buy and shoot a camera that you can see is not up to a quality standard you consider acceptable - so he doesn't.

There's nothing at all "unfair" about that, and frankly that doesn't seem like the reasoning at all for you rearing up every time it comes up like this, and even if it is, it's certainly not a valid reason. No, to be honest, it looks a LOT more like you take a dump on everything he says about it because you don't want your preccccciooousssss to be defamed or something; at least, that's how it comes off - like fan boy antics.

I own the camera. I shoot with the camera. I've read what he's had to say about it here, and I've read plenty from others who are knowledgeable saying the same kinds of things. Several others with extensive knowledge that frequent this forum are among them. And from my EXPERIENCE with the camera, I concur with him/them.

I've said it already in another thread, and I'm not too proud or ashamed to say it again here: If I knew then what I know now, I would have skipped right past the 7D and applied the money to a better body.

When I bought my 7D, I chose to disbelieve the Derrels out there and the things they were saying, and to believe folks like you instead; people who had the camera and were just wild about it. I'm now sorry I did that, and I hope that others who are weighing these purchasing decisions will do a better job than I did of discerning the knowledgeable from the fan boys.

Some of us don't have the luxury to buy a pro line camera.

For the heavily knowledgeable and experienced, maybe the 7D isn't on par with what they like, but to many its a damn amazing camera and stupid to say its a bad camera for the price.

 

[Buckster]

Some of us don't have the luxury to buy a pro line camera.

Anyone who can save up $1700 or so to get the 7D can save a bit longer to get up another $700 and get a 5DMKII.

For the heavily knowledgeable and experienced, maybe the 7D isn't on par with what they like, but to many its a damn amazing camera and stupid to say its a bad camera for the price.

First, I never said it's a bad camera for the price, so I'm sure you don't mean to infer that I'm "stupid" with that remark you just made. That said, that doesn't make it a great camera for the price either my friend. Especially not when for a few hundred bucks more, you can actually get a great camera for the price.

Second, there's still no reason for the knee-jerk reactions we see out of some folks around here every time someone like Derrel happens to speak the truth about this camera that isn't all warm and glowing and gushing with pride and giving the 7D fan boy club woodies over it being such the performance monster they like to pretend it is.

I bought into that rhetoric. I bought the camera. I used the camera. I still use the camera. It's acceptable for some things. It has some nice features. But it's still not all that it's hyped up to be. It's just not. Sorry. Sometimes the truth sucks I guess.

Hey, trust me, I get it. It's not easy to pay $1700 bucks for a camera body, full of expectations of it's capabilities, and then discover that maybe it's not all you thought it would be. And maybe because I've had several other cameras to compare it to, now including the 5DMKII, that's given me some additional perspective on the situation that they (and you) don't necessarily have. Hey, to someone with no camera at all, a Holga is the shiznit. Yeah, I get that - all of it.

But in the end it's just a camera, not a religion, and folks don't need to smack each other around over it, nor hang themselves on a cross over it, nor worship it. It's just a camera... Just a camera.... just a camera... just a camera...

 

[prodigy2k7]

Some of us don't have the luxury to buy a pro line camera.

Anyone who can save up $1700 or so to get the 7D can save a bit longer to get up another $700 and get a 5DMKII.

For the heavily knowledgeable and experienced, maybe the 7D isn't on par with what they like, but to many its a damn amazing camera and stupid to say its a bad camera for the price.

First, I never said it's a bad camera for the price, so I'm sure you don't mean to infer that I'm "stupid" with that remark you just made. That said, that doesn't make it a great camera for the price either my friend. Especially not when for a few hundred bucks more, you can actually get a great camera for the price.

Second, there's still no reason for the knee-jerk reactions we see out of some folks around here every time someone like Derrel happens to speak the truth about this camera that isn't all warm and glowing and gushing with pride and giving the 7D fan boy club woodies over it being such the performance monster they like to pretend it is.

I bought into that rhetoric. I bought the camera. I used the camera. I still use the camera. It's acceptable for some things. It has some nice features. But it's still not all that it's hyped up to be. It's just not. Sorry. Sometimes the truth sucks I guess.

Hey, trust me, I get it. It's not easy to pay $1700 bucks for a camera body, full of expectations of it's capabilities, and then discover that maybe it's not all you thought it would be. And maybe because I've had several other cameras to compare it to, now including the 5DMKII, that's given me some additional perspective on the situation that they (and you) don't necessarily have. Hey, to someone with no camera at all, a Holga is the shiznit. Yeah, I get that - all of it.

But in the end it's just a camera, not a religion, and folks don't need to smack each other around over it, nor hang themselves on a cross over it, nor worship it. It's just a camera... Just a camera.... just a camera... just a camera...

Saving up another 700 for a body isn't as east as it sounds. Especially for a college student who already budgeted for the 7d and already is paying a lot for it. 5d mk2 is just out of the question.

A lot of what you said about the 7d fan boys and whatnot can easily be said about derrel. He's all nikon and always bags canon products.

 

[dcmoody23]

Here's a dull, desaturated shot from my 7D that I took today:

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[dcmoody23]

Ooh and the 7D is going for about $1500 now, not $1700.

I LOVE my 7D, granted I've never worked with anything else except a T1i for a good like 2 shots. Eh, normally I'd say lens but I'm really feeling the 7D for this call.

 

[Buckster]

Saving up another 700 for a body isn't as east as it sounds. Especially for a college student who already budgeted for the 7d and already is paying a lot for it. 5d mk2 is just out of the question.

Your excuse is duly noted. I find it fairly weak though, tbh.

A lot of what you said about the 7d fan boys and whatnot can easily be said about derrel. He's all nikon and always bags canon products.

Except for the fact that he congratulated me on my 5DMKII and went into some detail about what a great camera it is and how much he knew I'd enjoy it.

You folks seem to just want to see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe, while ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

I don't get it. :er:

 

[dcmoody23]

Saving up another 700 for a body isn't as east as it sounds. Especially for a college student who already budgeted for the 7d and already is paying a lot for it. 5d mk2 is just out of the question.

Your excuse is duly noted. I find it fairly weak though, tbh.

...

You folks seem to just want to see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe, while ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

I don't get it. :er:

Purely from a psychological standpoint:

Why? Why are you trying to ignite a fire in the middle of an ocean? Money is tight for some people -- you can't tell them they have a weak excuse because they can't go out and spend an extra $700 on a camera body. More importantly than your camera body is putting food on the table, having clean clothes, and a roof over your head, a good education? A poor excuse, or poor judgement on your behalf? I guess I just don't understand why you'd ever attack someone who can't come up with extra money. If the 'extra' factor played into it, everyone would skip out on their XSis and head straight for 1Ds, and tote around a bag full of L lenses, and accessories galore.
Maybe a bit overkill on my part, but how unnecessary of you to say something like that, especially when you don't know the situation. Not to mention that the 7D is perfectly capable of producing excellent shots.

And don't try to say that in saying 'duly noted' what i've just said should be completely disregarded, because 'duly noted' translates directly to 'i'm covering my ass here, but'.