Opinions on upgrading

SpaceCowb0y

Hello all

I know someone only started a thread about upgrading recently but didnt want to hijack their thread so mods feel free to move where appropriate if I shouldn't have started a new one.

I've been using a Canon 1100d for quite some time now, i got it secondhand and have really enjoyed learning the basics with it and have gained a proper interest in photography in the process.

With so many options out there it's hard to know which camera to go for outside of budget constraints. I've outgrown the 1100d now and want to upgrade in the next few weeks, the cameras i'm looking at mainly are the Canon 700d, 750d and the 70d. I'm happy with the Canon brand so not looking to move to Nikon or Sony.

My budget is €600 max.

The 750d is on Amazon for a little over €600 with an 18 -55mm kit lens (not the STM version)

Or i could get a 70d body only for about the same pice. I have a couple of lenses already but would it make sense to use my old kit lens on a new 70d? My other lens is a nifty 50.

On the other hand there are great deals to be found on Adverts however i'm reluctant to buy secondhand just in case i end up getting ripped off as I wouldn't really know too much about cameras as a whole and what to look out for outside of taking a few photos and seeing image quality was ok.

I take a lot of images in low light too which is a consideration, and main reason i'm upgrading as the 1100d just does not fair too well in this situation so ideally i want a camera that will handle this better but from all the reviews and read and watched the difference between the 750 and 70d is almost negligible.


All thoughts and opinions by those in the know (or at least with more knowledge than me, which isn't much) very much appreciated.

Cheers

dory

The best thing you could do on a budget is get an external flash. I had an old Canon and spent about €230 or so on a flash and spent a lot of time experimenting. If by low light you mean indoors at night time and don't want it to look too bright with the full on flash.

To get great low light results I've found you need to spend a bit more - full frame camera, lens with low aperture number. There's a Sigma 1.4 lens that's cheap enough (for my Sony anyway). Even a tripod might make a difference.
From what I've read you'd have to spend a lot more on a camera body to see a big difference in low light performance.

SpaceCowb0y

dory wrote: »

The best thing you could do on a budget is get an external flash. I had an old Canon and spent about €230 or so on a flash and spent a lot of time experimenting. If by low light you mean indoors at night time and don't want it to look too bright with the full on flash.

To get great low light results I've found you need to spend a bit more - full frame camera, lens with low aperture number. There's a Sigma 1.4 lens that's cheap enough (for my Sony anyway). Even a tripod might make a difference.
From what I've read you'd have to spend a lot more on a camera body to see a big difference in low light performance.

Hi Dory

Thanks for the response By low light i mean i like to do a lot of night photography. Rambling around the streets etc, there's always some light source around, street lamps and from buildings etc but even with that and at longer exposure my images still usually come out quite grainy. Do you think an external flash would help with this? Stupid question but does the flash stay on for the entire length of the exposure? say for 20 seconds etc?

dory

I don't think a flash would be much use outside as they only have a certain range - a few metres or so. You'd be shooting things a lot further away. I've never used mine for long exposures so not sure.

Sounds like you just need a better camera and/or better lenses. I'm not sure what you'd get for €600 that would be significantly better. My guess is second hand would be your best bet.

Chavways

I'm no expert and don't know the exact spec of the 1100d but I would think the 700d and 750d wouldn't be much of an upgrade. They have a few more features but would be along the same lines as the 1100d in terms of image quality. The 70d would probably be the way to go and use your kit lens for now. Or the other option as you'll probably see around is to get a good lens and upgrade the body later. That's what I did and it definitely made my photos better!

You can get used bodies from places like mpb or camera jungle and they come with warranties and are good value if you're afraid of being stung on adverts.

monkeynuz

Chavways wrote: »

I'm no expert and don't know the exact spec of the 1100d but I would think the 700d and 750d wouldn't be much of an upgrade. They have a few more features but would be along the same lines as the 1100d in terms of image quality. The 70d would probably be the way to go and use your kit lens for now. Or the other option as you'll probably see around is to get a good lens and upgrade the body later. That's what I did and it definitely made my photos better!

You can get used bodies from places like mpb or camera jungle and they come with warranties and are good value if you're afraid of being stung on adverts.

+1

Mint 7d on camera jungle with <2000 shots £409.50.

Wailin

Out of the 2 listed the 750d would be the better camera. Newer sensor and processor (digic 6 vs digic 5). Higher megapixels (24 vs 20), slightly better dynamic range and it's 2 yrs newer.

As i said in the previous thread, for low light shooting a 6D would be better with the full frame sensor but probably outside your budget. You should see a difference in image quality from the 1100d (my first camera too!) But low light performance won't be much better.

SpaceCowb0y

Chavways wrote: »

I'm no expert and don't know the exact spec of the 1100d but I would think the 700d and 750d wouldn't be much of an upgrade. They have a few more features but would be along the same lines as the 1100d in terms of image quality. The 70d would probably be the way to go and use your kit lens for now. Or the other option as you'll probably see around is to get a good lens and upgrade the body later. That's what I did and it definitely made my photos better!

You can get used bodies from places like mpb or camera jungle and they come with warranties and are good value if you're afraid of being stung on adverts.

monkeynuz wrote: »

+1

Mint 7d on camera jungle with <2000 shots £409.50.

Wailin wrote: »

Out of the 2 listed the 750d would be the better camera. Newer sensor and processor (digic 6 vs digic 5). Higher megapixels (24 vs 20), slightly better dynamic range and it's 2 yrs newer.

As i said in the previous thread, for low light shooting a 6D would be better with the full frame sensor but probably outside your budget. You should see a difference in image quality from the 1100d (my first camera too!) But low light performance won't be much better.

Wow, thanks all for the super helpful information!

I do have a guy willing to sell me a second hand 70D the he says was only recently purchased along with a canon nifty 50 lens for €565 (it was advertised at €680). I'll obviously test it and check out the actuations before buying but do you think if all is in order that would be a good deal considering they are going for £1000+ on Amazon?

I can see that 7D on Camera jungle, would that really give me better images than the 70d?

According to both the comparison reviews the 70d is the better (with newer technology) camera:

http://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-7D-vs-Canon-EOS-70D

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-70D-vs-Canon_EOS_7D

Jentle Grenade

Personally, I did not see any marked low light performance difference between my starter Rebel and the 70D I upgraded to a few years ago. Certainly not hundreds of euros worth of a difference. It was fairly disappointing. I sold the 70D and saved a few months longer for the 6D. IMO if you're solely looking for low light performance increase the 6D is your best option.

Wailin

If your budget is 600 surely you'd be better off waiting and saving another 300 or so for the 6D?

In saying that, it will mean any EF-S lens you have will be useless. Full frame Canons only accept EF lens.

SpaceCowb0y

Jentle Grenade wrote: »

Personally, I did not see any marked low light performance difference between my starter Rebel and the 70D I upgraded to a few years ago. Certainly not hundreds of euros worth of a difference. It was fairly disappointing. I sold the 70D and saved a few months longer for the 6D. IMO if you're solely looking for low light performance increase the 6D is your best option.

Oh really?? I would have thought bumping the ISO up a bit would result in much less noise at least?

My images come out very grainy at 800, there's noticeable noise even at 200 if there's very little light around. The waterproofing of the body is obviously a big premium too considering its always raining over here ha.

There's no chance i can afford a 6d any i've seen are 1000+ and i'd need to buy new lenses as well, I'd love one though! I'm going travelling next year and need to keep as much as i can for that however i'd like to take a good camera with me and this would be around the max of my budget (actually going over what i was hoping to spend). That said if a canon 1300d with a good lens will do the exact same job then for cost it would obviously make more sense to just get the cheaper model.

dory

SpaceCowb0y wrote: »

There's no chance i can afford a 6d any i've seen are 1000+ and i'd need to buy new lenses as well, I'd love one though! I'm going travelling next year and need to keep as much as i can for that however i'd like to take a good camera with me and this would be around the max of my budget (actually going over what i was hoping to spend). That said if a canon 1300d with a good lens will do the exact same job then for cost it would obviously make more sense to just get the cheaper model.

I travel with a Sony A5000 and it's brilliant. Now, I don't do much low light stuff and am about to upgrade to an A6500.

Saying you want good low light performance on a €600 camera is like saying you want to be able to overtake really fast in a 1 litre-engine car. Unless you buy second hand it's not really possible.

Jentle Grenade

I guess it depends on whether or not you're gonna print the images and how much post-processing you want/don't want to do. If travelling is on the cards though I wouldn't be overly bothered with a x0D sized body, just get a new lightweight 200D and a 24mm pancake and call it a day. I think that you'd take more pictures (and keepers) with that combination rather than a bulkier setup.

SpaceCowb0y

dory wrote: »

I travel with a Sony A5000 and it's brilliant. Now, I don't do much low light stuff and am about to upgrade to an A6500.

Saying you want good low light performance on a €600 camera is like saying you want to be able to overtake really fast in a 1 litre-engine car. Unless you buy second hand it's not really possible.

I have no issue with buying secondhand if it gets me what i'd like or close to.

Pete67

If you want really good low light performance you really need to go with a full frame camera. You could consider a 2nd hand 5D mk2 - a few years old now but full frame, and very decent low light performance. For night time street photography pair it with a EF 50mm f1.8 or similar and you should be well set up and the overall cost should be close enough to your budget.

You can always add more lenses later. If you buy 2nd hand lenses you will be able to sell them on for what you paid for them, if you look after them. Not true with bodies unfortunately.

SpaceCowb0y

Pete67 wrote: »

If you want really good low light performance you really need to go with a full frame camera. You could consider a 2nd hand 5D mk2 - a few years old now but full frame, and very decent low light performance. For night time street photography pair it with a EF 50mm f1.8 or similar and you should be well set up and the overall cost should be close enough to your budget.

You can always add more lenses later. If you buy 2nd hand lenses you will be able to sell them on for what you paid for them, if you look after them. Not true with bodies unfortunately.

The more i look into things the more confused i'm getting. There's just too much choice to know exactly what to go for. I'm now looking at taking a small loan to add to the money i have put aside already and getting either the 80d with the 18 - 55mm kit lens or a second hand 6d body only for €1000 - i'd have to buy a lens for the 6d too though so it still makes it a little out of reach but still something to think about.

While the 80d won't have the low light performance of a full frame it has a much newer sensor than the 6d as well as a lot of extra features and technology, the articulating screen is a big plus. Up to 60fps for 1080p video is a plus too, however I will be mainly using the camera for stills at the moment so not that important but definitely something i'll be getting more into in the future.

On the other hand the imaging capabilities of the 6d is the one area in the camera decision review that the 80d is trumped and by quite a bit too. Obviously the larger sensor is always going to give much crisper images and perform better at high ISO but does the older technology still hold up today or is it really going to become outdated in the next couple of years as i don't plan on upgrading again for quite some time and don't want to outgrow the camera too soon. Obviously the EF lenses require a more expensive investment too.

To further complicate things for myself i'm now also looking a the Sony A6300 as an option which is cheaper than both canon cameras, smaller, lighter and from what i can see hold up better under low light. Also records 4k video.




I am a creature of habit though and do love Canon and have a good bit of kit already.

dory

Sony is a great option. I have the A5000 and just ordered the A6500. Look into price of lenses though. Some people think they're expensive relative to other systems (I don't know, I've always been Sony).

SpaceCowb0y

dory wrote: »

Sony is a great option. I have the A5000 and just ordered the A6500. Look into price of lenses though. Some people think they're expensive relative to other systems (I don't know, I've always been Sony).

Ah God... i was hoping i'd be told not to mind about Sony :pac: