Printable View
If you're going to take landscape and portraiture, you would be better off with the 5DII. There is no advantage of the 5DIII over the 5DII for IQ. The 5DIII has a better AF system, but if you're just doing the aforementioned picture taking, save yourself about half on the cost.
I think that if you're really serious about getting into photography, then you'll quickly outgrow the Rebel!
Thank you Steve, I uploaded a few examples to the following Flickr link. This is an example of what the t4i was able to shoot with a newborn (me) behind the camera. The pic of the water drop is me playing with the shutter speed. What do you think?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/85426880@N03/
Thats my conundrum Richard. When you got into photography, what was your first camera? And how long before you grew out of it?
It was so long ago, I cant even remember! I think it was a Kodak 110 in the 70's.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=...D137E&first=36
My first serious camera was a Pentax ME Super SLR 35mm in the 80's and I still have it. Now, I have two 7D's (which I've been meaning to sell, but I haven't gotten around to it yet), a MKIV and the new 1DX.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_ME_Super
My father was into photography when I was growing up and he took a ton of pictures, and we had a dark-room in our house.
Let me say that your pics look great and you have a lot of potential there. You're wife looks beautiful too and congratulations on the new arrival!
The Rebel shots look pretty good, but see how they start to break down at night, namely the noise in the night sky and in the shot of the flame.
Nice cross section of shots and by viewing the exif data, you can see there are plenty of factors that you will learn to adjust and improve. Like ISO, filters, support/tripods and shutter speed and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magijr
I had my first camera for asbout 12 months before I thought about upgrading, but I still have it as there are times when the crop factor does copme in handy. I shoot events and car shows a bit and the vari-angle screen with your t4i is a great feature for getting down low.
Rich is right you will outgrow a t4i, if you stick at it, go to lessons, upgrade your image processing software and are dedicated to making the time to take photos on a very regular basis. And that depends on how busy you are. I am lucky to find half a day a week to seriously take photos, some people don't even have that much time.
Your t4i will be a more than adequate tool to learn with and you will notice the difference with a 17-55mm lens. Then think about a flash and a tripod, some filters and then a 100-400mm zoom and then a full frame and then a ................
You may never stop, or you may stop before that, who knows, click away and enjoy.
Do you think that 5dII would stop the pic from breaking down?
Thank you by the way, we are super excited and as you can tell from my million questions that i'm a little nervous with the little one on the way. I mean, my subject was my dog (which is has been for years) then I would not even be asking these questions.
I want to have the right camera, the right lens and get the right education to take the best photo I can.
It's amazing how far technology has come in the past 30 years... I never new cameras and lenses were so technological.
What would I grow out of using the t4i?
Thank you Steve, I see you are very passionate and educated and I can appreciate that. In your recent post alone I'm going to research a half dozen items... ie image processing software, vari-angle screen, filters, ISO...
What photoshop software would you recommend?
It will definitely help, but I want to reiterate that a FF camera will also struggle in the dark, but just not as much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magijr
I know you're not ready to make a decision yet, so just continue to take your time researching it!
We'll all help you the best we can!
Have a good night, I'll catch you tomorrow!
LOL, I certainly am passionate, too much so my wife tells me. Educated, mmm I bumble along and the more I learn, the more I realise I have still to learn. There are a lot of guys that contribute here with a lot more technical expertise than me and there is a lot of excellent advice that you should consider.
This forum is a supportive, positive environment to learn in, there are people into birds, pets, portraits, landscape, astro photography, you name it and it can be found here. As well as technical and software advice.
Adobe Photoshop is considered the best image processing software, but there is also Lightroom and Elements to get you in at the ground level. Plus the Canon software does the job as well as anything else.
It's all part of the process.
I have gone through all 9 pages of replies and it seems 17-55 is the general consensus but in my opinion the "Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens" is also not a bad choice either.
Since it is a macro lens it will allow you to take real close pictures of the new born and really minute details like their tiny hands/feet,eyes..etc
also 100mm focal length will give you decent working distance and you can use the same for portraits. the F stop is the same as the 17-55 (F2.8)
when the kids grow older you can still use the 100mm focal length and did I mention its a Macro lens. So it will be useful for macro photography.
REVIEW: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
Thank you for your response DSLR_Newbie, its interesting that you mentioned a Macro lens. Is there a different way to shoot with a Macro lens vs. non Macro?
The lens DSLR_Newbie mentions, the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro will work the same as a normal lens. It is actually a good portrait lens and a good telephoto lens. You can shoot this one like a regular lens; you can use it like a regular lens very close up. If you are going to just do Macro there are techniques to get the best results. Some of those would be using a tripod, using a macro slider, shooting in live view so you can focus on the fine detail, using a mechanical release to limit camera shake. But for the 100mm F/2.8L you can just pick it up, get close to your subject and take pictures no problem. No Macro experience required.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magijr
As HDNitehawk explained the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro works like a normal 100mm lens but also doubles as macro lens for close up details, so you get a multipurpose lens. Also this lens has the latest canon IS system (Hybrid Image Stabilizing) so you can hand hold it and still get excellent detailed images.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
it is a "L" Lens so the build quality is exceptional and it will hold its price for a long period of time and it is the same price(if not cheaper) as the 17-55mm.
you can search in Google images (http://images.google.com/) for "macro baby photography" and see a few sample images. if you like what you see then this is the lens you want. I have added some pictures from Google as well.
I am not sure what the forum policies are for posting external (not mine) pictures. (Apologies if I am breaking any forum rules).
Attachment 1330Attachment 1331Attachment 1332
Thank you for the suggestion on the macro. Even if I do not purchase one now, I will certainly rent one for pics of my baby similar to the examples you provided.
I went to a local photo shop, Milford Photo, and spent an hour with a very passionate (Cannon favored) photographer. We went through the ins and outs, pros and cons of the 5DII, the 7D and the 6D. I am favoring the 7D and the 6D. Obviously the 5DII is an amazing camera, and the FF is better quality, but it's too pricey and I feel it's too complicated for me as a beginner. I like the features of the 7D and 6D... they make the Rebel seem like a toy.
Does anyone have any experience with the Firmware update for the 7D released a month or so ago?
A macro lens would be interesting for tiny toes, etc., yes. Also nifty for bugs and flowers shot at a distance of just a few inches from the end of the lens.
But if you are planning on only having one good (I would not count the kit lens as "good") lens for any length of time you will find that a fixed length lens at 100mm is too long (too zoomed-in) for a lot of shots. On a crop-body that is, well, 1.6x more true.
If I were going to have 1 single prime as my only lens, I would choose something of more average length, like 35mm or 40mm or 50mm. But still I think most shooters with only 1 lens would opt for a zoom lens, giving you a range of lengths (17-55 etc..), and maybe make a prime their second lens later on. If you are shooting hands, even tiny ones, rather than really tiny stuff like aphids or flies, you can crop a photo taken with a good-quality normal lens enough to get those finger shots just fine.
The 5DII is a little expensive, yes, but I don't think it is any more complicated than the 7D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magijr
And I think you're confusing the 6D with the 60D. If your decision is between the two and you can afford the difference, I would opt for the 7D, but maybe wait to see what these current rumours about a new one are about.
(I'd also advise the bloke in the shop to consider a camera rather than a cannon ;))
If I were you I'd buy the 17-55mm f/2.8 for the time being and then get the 100mm macro when you want to expand (or the 70-200mm if you really fancy pricey).
Thank you for your reply ham;
What's everyone's opinion on which lens is better for the topic I started with? The thread highly recommended Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM or the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD. The lens with either be on the 7D or the 60D and it will be used for indoors shots of my newborn, and family portraits.
Thank you all once again. This thread has been a lot of fun and very informative.
Bruce
On a crop body(1.6x) like the 60D or the 7D theQuote:
Originally Posted by Magijr
Canon 17-55mm focal length is effectively 27-88mm and
Tamron 24-70mm is effectively 38-112mm
so there is visible difference between the focal length. also I read somewhere that the only thing the canon 17-55mm is missing is the Red Ring so the image quality is as good as a L series lens. in the review at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx its been written that it is sharper than the canon 24-70 L lens across the complete range.
the price difference between the two is not a lot (around 100$) and both have the same F value so i reckon in the end it will come down to what focal length you prefer.
Personal Opinion: I have a 60D and I love the flip out screen which helps in taking videos and pictures where there is a huge crowd in front of you. i understand that's not a priority for you but i think its a nice feature to have.
I wouldn't take the flip-screen over the 7D's focusing to be honest. It's also got better build quality, burst rate and sealing.
But it's horses for courses, I have a 60D because I couldn't afford (or wait to afford) the 7D.
One of many reason I have a 60D as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by ham
Do you think a lens like the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is a good lens for a first lens, walk around and indoor photography on a crop body like e 60d, or is the 17-55 still a better option?
It will be better weather resistant, probably better IQ in terms of corner to corner sharpness and chromatic aberration but it will be a little less versatile, alot more expensive and a lot heavier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magijr
In my opinion the 16-35mm focal length would be too short for everyday walk around lens. It would be good for wide angle and group shots but wont be good for portraits and head shots as focal length is not long enough.. between the two of these the 17-55 would be more suitable for your needs.
My first walk around lens was a EF-S 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 Lens which i found was very useful but it is not comparable to 17-55 in image quality as the 17-55 out performs this. the only advantage is 200mm focal length and was around $400 cheaper than 17-55 and I follow the principle that an average shot is better than no shot at all, so rather than getting great shots at 55mm max I opted for average shots at 200mm.
I did buy the 17-55 later and found it great for indoor parties, weddings as it performs great in low light.
I think the 17-55mm is a better option. The 17-55mm is actually a little sharper than the 16-35L II when comparing both on the same APS-C camera. The 17-55mm has a more useful focal range, and has image stabilization. The 16-35L II is significantly more expensive. It's true that the 16-35 II is weather sealed, but that is only useful is you're using it on a weather sealed body (the T4i is not, the 60D has some sealing, but really you'd want a 7D for decent sealing); also, a filter is needed to complete the sealing and 82mm filters aren't cheap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magijr
If you were asking about an ultrawide zoom for a FF camera, the 16-35L II would be the recommendation. For a general purpose lens on APS-C, the 17-55mm is the better choice of the two.
What is your opinion the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM vs the 17-55mm worn on a 60d? Would you still go with the 17-55mm for an all purpose lens?Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
I owned one, it has no IS and this is a negative. Lens was soft, I sold it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magijr
Wait for the 24-70 II to be released, last update I heard it should be out next month. If you go FF I would wait for the new 24-70.
It seems to me that the answer keeps coming back to the 17-55mm.
unless you go ahead and get a full frame camera.
Here are my thoughts on going full frame and L gear. When I first started with digital I bought a 50D, it had the kit lens and a 70-300mm IS. I spent about $2,400 and thought I was set. The 7D didn't exist at that time and the 5D II had not been released. I bought mine to go in to photography, not to take pictures of the grandkids. Grandkids and family pictures were just a bonus. I could do those with a much cheaper set up.
Like I said I thought I was close to being set, the only thing left was a really long lens. What I quickly learned is to go from the prosumer bodies and kit lenses to the full frame and L lenses cost well over 3 times as much money. Had I known this I would have skipped the 50D completely, but when you are laying out $2,400 to get in to something at the start it feels like you are already paying the full premium. Yesterday on a job site I was taking pictures. I was asked how much camera cost, I didn't want to tell him but he was guessing it was worth about $1,000. In reality it was about $4,000 and all together I had about 20 grand worth of gear with me. So if you decide full frame just be aware you are going to spend 3 to 4 times the amount of money as you will with the crop body and lower grade lenses, you will be able to do more creative things and possibly get better IQ but that little bit of extra creativeness and IQ cost a huge amount.
Regarding the price difference, I agree, the FF is just too expensive for me and my needs.
I am deciding between the 60D and 7D. The price deference between these two is about $500, and I am trying to weigh the pros and cons of each. Through recent research I have read that the major differences (aside from the price) are 1) that the 7D has more focus points (19 vs 9, not sure if that matters too me), 2) the 7D is weather sealed (I do like to hike) and the 3) 7D is 100% vs 96% in the 60D. The 7D also just had a firmware update... not sure if that will make a difference for me or not. The 7D also has more options, which again, I'm not sure if I will use now... but maybe in a year or two.
The 60D does have a flip out lcd screen, which seems like a nice option, and its lighter, which is good for traveling.
Do you think the 7D is a better choice? Or am I over spending and should go with the 60D?
Thank you again.
I think the 7D over the 60D is a good choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magijr
The 7D should be the next body due for an upgrade from Canon. But I am not sure it is coming since they did the big release. That would be my only fear, that a better version is released next month. You can ask the question if anyone knows if there will be an upgrade, but you will not get a reliable answer.
About your points;
1, The af system will perform better on the 7D, the points really do not matter other than it is an indication of how much more is put in to the system over the other.
2, It is talked about all the time. It is something I do not worry about one way or the other. If it is raining I don't let me equipment get wet. If I were in a very humid part of the world, worked at sea or was in some other similar environment I might worry about it. For me thought this point is a non issue.
3, Not sure what you are referring to.
Sorry for the lack of clarification. I am referring to the view finder coverage for each camera. The 7D has 100% view finder coverage and the 60D has 96%.
That would be a negative for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magijr
Still the EF-S 17-55mm. If you have no intention of getting a FF camera soon, I'd limit your choices to the EF-S 17-55mm vs. the EF-S 15-85mm. A 24-xx zoom is great on FF, but it would be hard recommend a lens lacking a wide angle as a walkaround lens (24mm on APS-C is normal, not wide).Quote:
Originally Posted by Magijr
I would get the 7D over the 60D due to the 7D's; more sophisticated AF system, more rugged build (magnesium body), better weather sealing, faster frame rate, 100% VF and longer shutter life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magijr
Between the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, I would eliminate the 15-85mm due to its variable aperture which becomes slower as the focal range increases.
Now between the 24-70mm f/2.8L and the 17-55mm. The 24-70mm is a better lens, but it's also $2000 and the 17-55mm is $1000.
The 24-70mm is weather-sealed. It's also much larger and heavier than the 17-55mm. It actually over powers the 7D a bit, but not a major concern in my opinion, but the size and weight may be.
But, what would be better for you on a crop camera? The 24-70mm doesn't go as wide (38mm) on a crop camera for wide landscapes, but it goes longer which will be better for portraits 112mm (70mm X 1.6 crop).
So, take a look at your current shots and see if you would miss the wide-end from 17 to 23mm.
The 17-55mm won't fit on an APS-H (recently discontinued MKIV) or a FF Camera, but you only need it to fit the camera that you own and the lens could always be sold if you ever upgrade to FF. Some people like to keep their crop camera (if the resale value has dropped) for the reach and then add a FF camera for the other stuff. The EF-S lenses can not be shared on both cameras, but the EF- 24-70mm can. I have the 24-70mm and it fits the 7D, MKIV and 1DX.
The 17-55mm doesn't look that great wide open at f/2.8 at the wide end 17mm, which is not a common use, since most people would stop down their wide angle shots anyway.
The 24-70mm also looks a little better to me between 28 to 55mm at f/2.8 which will probably be the range that you will use for baby shots, however on Bryans ISO crop shots, the 24-70mm was shot on the very expensive FF 1DS and the 17-55 was shot on the crop 50D since it's a crop lens, so it's not a fair comparison. Bryan also mentions in his review that the 17-55mm isn't that sharp when used close up. Not to be confused with close-up normal use, the 24-70mm Version One, also has a "Macro Mode", it's not a true 1:1 Macro lens but it works pretty well.
The 17-55mm has "IS" which may also help you starting out. It reduces camera shake and it allows you to shoot at a slower shutter-speed (for lower noise) in lower light, for stationary subjects (see babies). The 35mm f/1.4 is even better for this.
When I bought my 7D, I purchased the EF-24-70mm f/2.8L and I have never been sorry about that. However, I also eventually purchased the 10-22mm for wider shots, but I hardly ever use it. Now that I will be selling my 7D, I will probably also sell the 10-22mm since it doesn't fit on my MKIV or 1DX, but it did serve its purpose on the 7D.
If you want to save a $1000 and you want to shoot wider landscapes, then get the 7D and 17-55mm.
If you want to get the better lens with the longer portrait focal range, and have it be FF compatible then get the 7D with the 24-70mm. The version two of the 24-70mm is supposed to be released in September. It will be more expensive and it won't have the Macro feature.
Remember, that no-one into photography only has one lens, so don't sweat the decision too much, because you will eventually get a few more lenses.
Rich
Rich,
Thank you for your detailed response. Do you think that the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM would work as well on the 60D as the 7D?
Thank you,
Bruce
Yes, of course that lens would work well on any camera. However, that focal range would be more of an outdoor lens.
I don't know either of the lenses from a lot of personal experience, but I'm sure the 17-55 is much better at 17mm than the 24-70, which is a total failure from 17-23mm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Lane
I personally don't want to miss the zoom range from 17 (or 15 in my case) to 24mm on my general purpose lens on a crop camera.
It comes down to personal preferences I think.
Arnt
OK, I'm going to purchase the following:
1) Canon EOS 60D Digital SLR (body only)
2 Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
3) Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM
The 7D on paper is a better camera; "sophisticated AF system, more rugged build (magnesium body), better weather sealing, faster frame rate, 100% VF and longer shutter life." - Rich (thank you for your information Rich).
However, I like the 60D's video capabilities, the lower price tag (almost 40% less), the lighter size of the 60D (yet it's still partially weather sealed), and the rotating lcd screen better. I will not be shooting in the rain or shooting scenes that 8 shots per second is makes a difference, (not for a couple years at least).
The IQ from many websites, forums and people I talk to is nearly equal. The 60D is also a better first camera for armature photographers.
My goal is to learn photography with the EOS 60D Digital SLR and shoot with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM, then purchase a FF camera in 3-5 years and continue to use the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM and other lenses I purchase throughout my journey with the FF camera.
I am looking for a third lens to purchase that will fit well with my plan.
Do you have any thoughts / suggestions on a third lens that fits well with the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS US and Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM and will be usable on a FF camera in 3-5 years?
This forum has been the most helpful tool in my journey, and I thank you all for your responses; each response has been very appreciated.
Thank you again,
Bruce
The EF 85mm f/1.8 will make a great portrait lens on both the 60D and a FF camera.
+1 on Neuro's suggestion. I think the 60D the 17-55mm, 70-200 and the 85/1.8 would be the ultimate kit to start with and learn with and grow into.