DSLR upgrade

[flight147z]

I bought my first DSLR back in April 2014. It was the bottom of the range Canon DSLR at the time, the EOS 1100d. I have now reached the point where I think it may be a good time to upgrade.

I mostly use my camera when travelling, though I have also used it a little for motorsport and for portrait shots at home. The lenses that I currently have are the 18-55mm IS STM, the 55-250mm IS STM and an old 50mm prime which I don't use a lot anymore.

I only use the camera for still shots

What I would like to get out of a new camera is a better rear screen, improved low light performance and better image quality where possible. Looking at the current Canon range, to tick all of these boxes I think I would need to get the 800d, but I am not that keen on spending £500 for the body only. Based on that I am also happy to consider second hand older models such as the 750d.

It would be good to hear thoughts on whether this is a sensible plan. The 1100d is from 2011 and is therefore obviously very dated now and I expect all more modern Canon's will be significantly better - I will be disappointed if there isn't a noticeable improvement after I upgrade which is why I wanted to set expectations upfront

Thanks for your help

[RobDickinson]

1100D has quite an old sensor and the 750D is better by almost a stop, but its not going to be a massive leap.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-si...

Much easier to get 2/3rds stop (or more) changing that kit lens for a 17-55/2.8 which gets you 2 stops at the long end.

The 750D is a great all round upgrade though better LCD screen, AF, fps etc.

[Tony1963]

I’d advise going to a camera shop to use a camera in low light. Only then will you know if it’s up to your requirements. Sensors have improved incredibly, but I’d not want you to expect miracles. Could you just hang on and buy a much better camera later by saving?

Is there a reason for you not mentioning the xxD cameras?

[flight147z]

Hi both

Thanks for replying

Ultimately what I think I would like if I didn't have any kind of budget is a mirrorless camera, however I expect it will be a number of years until that technology drops down into the range I am looking at

There are obvious limitations with the 1100d, the main one being the terrible screen, however obviously that won't have any impact on the quality of the images that the camera produces

How do you measure how many stops a camera is better by - ISO?

I would look at the XXD series but again I assume there would be a big step up in price? What would the main benefit be of going up to that series compared to the XXXD series below?

Thanks again

[RobDickinson]

flight147z said:

How do you measure how many stops a camera is better by - ISO?

Yeah so 1 stop better means the new camera will look as good at ISO 3200 as the old one did at ISO 1600

flight147z said:

I would look at the XXD series but again I assume there would be a big step up in price? What would the main benefit be of going up to that series compared to the XXXD series below?

Thanks again

xxD series are larger, bigger screen/viewfinder, more controls, more robust, typically better af and fps but not always

Have a look at the early sony a7 bodies uses, or a canon 6d, both will do better in low light than any crop - but need new lenses.

[flight147z]

RobDickinson said:

flight147z said:

How do you measure how many stops a camera is better by - ISO?

Yeah so 1 stop better means the new camera will look as good at ISO 3200 as the old one did at ISO 1600

flight147z said:

I would look at the XXD series but again I assume there would be a big step up in price? What would the main benefit be of going up to that series compared to the XXXD series below?

Thanks again

xxD series are larger, bigger screen/viewfinder, more controls, more robust, typically better af and fps but not always

Have a look at the early sony a7 bodies uses, or a canon 6d, both will do better in low light than any crop - but need new lenses.

I'm still a bit confused on the top point - how do you know that the camera will be look better at the same ISO level?

I think second hand is the way to go, but there are a lot of older models to research first. Just having a nicer body (and screen) would be a nice upgrade however I take your point on the lenses and I think it is worth me looking at those too. The 17-55 looks like a really nice lens but is also very expensive (for me at least!)

Not so keen on going full frame due to the size and weight of the cameras and the cost of the lenses

[RobDickinson]

flight147z said:

I'm still a bit confused on the top point - how do you know that the camera will be look better at the same ISO level?

I know because of measurements like DXOmark etc, so the noise level (and dynamic range etc) has improved between the two cameras.

Or you can compare real world images on sites like dpreview.

[SCEtoAUX]

If you want good performance in low light switch to Nikon.

[RobDickinson]

SCEtoAUX said:

If you want good performance in low light switch to Nikon.

What before they go bust?

Nikon have no magic sauce for low light.

[Craikeybaby]

With Canon you will get a better jump by moving to on the of X0D series, rather than the XX0D series, the handling is much better, with two control wheels.

Surely there must be some good second hand deals about as everyone seems to be switching to mirrorless...

[SCEtoAUX]

RobDickinson said:

SCEtoAUX said:

If you want good performance in low light switch to Nikon.

What before they go bust?

Nikon have no magic sauce for low light.

Show me a test where any Canon camera of similar resolution gets even close to the ISO performance of a D750.

[RobDickinson]

SCEtoAUX said:

Show me a test where any Canon camera of similar resolution gets even close to the ISO performance of a D750.

5d4 matches it pretty exactly (dxomark) and gives 25% more pixels.

but anyhow we are not talking full frame cameras but low end crop cameras, and still nikon has no special sauce, most of their low end cameras miss features I would count as essential and the guy has canon lenses already,

but feel free to continue with pointless suggestions.

[Tony1963]

I do love arguments involving one or more pixel peepers.

[flight147z]

Having done a bit of research over the past few days I think the best course of action is to perhaps save up for a bit and then upgrade to full frame. In the long run the lenses shouldn't lose any value as the canon "R" mirrorless system accepts those lenses and I also expect any full frame DSLR will still be decent a few years down the road. To get the notable change that I am looking for I guess I just have to step up and spend a bit more money than I originally thought!

[Tony1963]

Good decision, I’d say.

[Elderly]

flight147z said:

Having done a bit of research over the past few days I think the best course of action is to perhaps save up for a bit and then upgrade to full frame. !

You said "I mostly use my camera when travelling, though I have also used it a little for motorsport ...."

Just be aware that although full frame (mirrorless) bodies can be quite compact and light these days,
a full frame outfit with its large lenses might be too heavy and bulky for travel,
and as you want to shoot motorsport, you will need long (read 'large' for full frame!) lenses.