Upgrade Recommendations: Camera Body

INTeJer · Mar 16, 2012

hello experienced people!

i am not experienced. i just started loving my DSLR a couple years ago. i'm not aiming for pro status, nor do i expect to make any money with these skills i'm learning... i just love photography (what i've experienced so far). i haven't even developed a personal style yet (not that i can detect anyway). i love taking candids, landscapes, portraits, macros, and low-light. of course some of these are more difficult for me than others. particularly low-light and candids.

not wanting to spend a basquillion dollars on something too powerful/versatile for me to make full use of, i bought a used Canon EOS 300D, apparently one of the first serious DSLRs to cost less than $1,000 when it came out. i'm amazed by what it can do, compared to point-and-shoots... but even with the first good lens i bought for it (Canon 50mm 1.8, as opposed to the kit 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 that came with the camera), i'm having trouble in low-light, and the speed (focusing, processing, etc.) feels like a real hindrance when trying to take quality candids.

so i've done some Googling and found that most people seem to believe that the lens one uses is often more important than the body. they say they'd rather have great glass on an inferior camera than the other way around. i would really benefit from hearing some 'real-time' opinions on that.

i'd also like to ask, what would you recommend for my next camera body (or lens, if you'd rather)? my next planned purchase is a Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS, and i've been looking at getting a used Canon T2i, perhaps. i am not interested in video capability, nor do i need many bells-and-whistles. i just want more versatility, more speed, more power. i'm sure those things will improve as my skill improves, but i'm definitely feeling a hindrance in the equipment i'm using, which of course will not improve over time the way my skills will (i hope).

all thoughts are very appreciated! for those of you who aren't familiar with the 300D: D stands for dinosaur

, my max ISO is 1600, no image stabilization, and it produces 6.3 megapixel photos (which i take in RAW and then process with Photoshop CS5).

Isjami's deviantART Gallery

EDIT: my apologies for being that guy. after posting, this awesome forum gave me several "similar threads" which i probably should have searched through before posting this. i will do so immediately (but still hoping for a few responses :er

chuasam · Mar 16, 2012

D actually stands for digital. Is there something you expect this new camera to do that you cannot already do with your old camera? Be specific.

INTeJer · Mar 16, 2012

LoL thanks... i didn't really think Canon named their camera 300Dinosaur. i just feel like i have one of the oldest DSLRs ever.

anyway: as i said, i am having trouble with low-light and candids, but i already have a pretty fast lens, and obviously shutter speed is not a problem, so i guess i'm looking for better ISO? i hate the way things look at 1600. also a lot of my candids are blurry, and a tripod's sort of hindersome for candids. if i could only ask specific questions, i guess i'd ask these:

1. if i get a body that can go up to 6400 ISO or better, will pics at 1600 really be significantly better on an already good (though cheap) lens?
2. ISO on some cameras is extendable up to 12800, but does anyone really use that to their satisfaction?? i have this [uninformed] theory that the highest ISO a camera can handle will always be dissatisfying compared to low ISO.
3. for those of you who take pictures "on-the-move," how much ($$) is image stabilization worth to you, all other things being equal?

WhiskeyTango · Mar 16, 2012

INTeJer said:
LoL thanks... i didn't really think Canon named their camera 300Dinosaur. i just feel like i have one of the oldest DSLRs ever.

anyway: as i said, i am having trouble with low-light and candids, but i already have a pretty fast lens, and obviously shutter speed is not a problem, so i guess i'm looking for better ISO? i hate the way things look at 1600. also a lot of my candids are blurry, and a tripod's sort of hindersome for candids. if i could only ask specific questions, i guess i'd ask these:

1. if i get a body that can go up to 6400 ISO or better, will pics at 1600 really be significantly better on an already good (though cheap) lens?
2. ISO on some cameras is extendable up to 12800, but does anyone really use that to their satisfaction?? i have this [uninformed] theory that the highest ISO a camera can handle will always be dissatisfying compared to low ISO.
3. for those of you who take pictures "on-the-move," how much ($$) is image stabilization worth to you, all other things being equal?

1. Yes. A body that goes to 12,800 will produce a better image at 1,600 than one that only goes to 3,200
2. Yes, but... I get very usable images at 12,800 that I couldn't get at a lesser ISO. That said, they're not gallery prints. They're indoor sports shots that I couldn't get any other way. If light were better, they'd sure as hell look better at ISO 200... I'm only shooting at 12.8 because light isn't better. It's a choice between a grainy/noisy shot or not shot...
3. I don't think I can put a specific price on IS, but it definitely has value... depending: depending on what you shoot. If you largely shoot handheld at relatively low shutter speeds, it's worth a stop or two. That can make the diff between your 12.8 and 3,200... If you shoot on a tripod with long shutter speeds, though, it's not worth anything.

subscuck · Mar 18, 2012

IS won't stop action, is unnecessary with a tripod, and I shoot mostly with fast primes, so IS isn't worth anything to me. The rare times IS might have made a difference isn't worth the cost for me.

You haven't stated what kind of budget you have for upgrades, and if you want reasonable responses, we have to know how much cheddah ya got ta shred. Or whatever the kids are saying these days. Otherwise people will recommend $3500 bodies and $2500 lenses.

The 55-250 is really kinda "meh". It's basic consumer grade glass with a decent IS system. It's not a whole lot better than the current 18-55IS kit. That's not to say either are bad, but they're no more than "decent", or "respectable".

I do agree glass makes the most difference, but that's only true when all things are equal, not when you're using a body that's first generation technology. There comes a point when the body has to be replaced. Processing, ISO performance, AF performance, the list goes on. All of those are better on a camera that's even two or three generations newer. If you're serious about learning and improving, look into a used prosumer body like the 40D or 50D. They are the last two models of the late, lamented xxD line, so they're a few years old, but still very capable.

The 50 1.8 isn't a great performer in terms of fast and accurate AF in low light, but it'll perform a bit better on a newer camera with a better AF system than the 300D. I'd like to make some recommendations, but again, I don't know how much you have to spend.