Worth upgrading?
Discussion
Been sat on this for a while and after some thoughts from people a bit more in the know than myself.
Had my Canon 400d with standard 18-55 and 70-300 lenses now for a few years after upgrading from a 300d but starting to get itchy feet for a possible upgrade.
Considering a change to a 500d with either an 18-200 lens or they do package with the 18-55IS and 70-300IS lenses for similar cash - both around the £1000 mark. However, what concerns me is whether I will really notice any difference or would I be better getting better lenses for my current 400d. I have also considered being very silly and buying a 5d mk11 at a push (big price difference I know!) but not really sure I'd get much use out of all the functions and £2k with no lenses would concern me. Obviously to have a camera such as a 5d mk11 there wouldn't be much point using bog standard cheap lenses. Tempting to have a 21mp camera with full HD capability though
!
I use my camera for recreational use only and don't necessarily take pictures of any one thing although I do like taking water sports photography. Have started to get a bit in to macro lately after seeing some of the pics in the dedicated macro thread which has really made me consider a good macro lens.
So new camera or new lenses? Fairly open ended I know but some thoughts would be appreciated.
Had my Canon 400d with standard 18-55 and 70-300 lenses now for a few years after upgrading from a 300d but starting to get itchy feet for a possible upgrade.
Considering a change to a 500d with either an 18-200 lens or they do package with the 18-55IS and 70-300IS lenses for similar cash - both around the £1000 mark. However, what concerns me is whether I will really notice any difference or would I be better getting better lenses for my current 400d. I have also considered being very silly and buying a 5d mk11 at a push (big price difference I know!) but not really sure I'd get much use out of all the functions and £2k with no lenses would concern me. Obviously to have a camera such as a 5d mk11 there wouldn't be much point using bog standard cheap lenses. Tempting to have a 21mp camera with full HD capability though
!I use my camera for recreational use only and don't necessarily take pictures of any one thing although I do like taking water sports photography. Have started to get a bit in to macro lately after seeing some of the pics in the dedicated macro thread which has really made me consider a good macro lens.
So new camera or new lenses? Fairly open ended I know but some thoughts would be appreciated.
In my opinion, it depends entirely on what you find lacking in your current equipment. The level of noise at high sensitivities? The ability to produce large prints? The ability to use the camera in the rain? The ability to control exposure bracketing outside of the menus?
Most people would probably say buy more/better lenses before upgrading the camera. However, if what you want is to take waterskiing photos at a really high frame-rate so you can catch a particular moment, then a different camera might be entirely appropriate. Or if you want to take long exposures after sunset then £600 of carbon fibre tripod and ballhead might be more appropriate; there's no one answer that will apply to everybody.
If there's nothing that you find lacking in your current kit, then maybe save your £1000 and just take lots of photos, and hopefully have fun and become more skillful in the meantime. Or spend a grand going on holiday somewhere photogenic.
Most people would probably say buy more/better lenses before upgrading the camera. However, if what you want is to take waterskiing photos at a really high frame-rate so you can catch a particular moment, then a different camera might be entirely appropriate. Or if you want to take long exposures after sunset then £600 of carbon fibre tripod and ballhead might be more appropriate; there's no one answer that will apply to everybody.
If there's nothing that you find lacking in your current kit, then maybe save your £1000 and just take lots of photos, and hopefully have fun and become more skillful in the meantime. Or spend a grand going on holiday somewhere photogenic.
Youve got a poor kit lens and probably a below average tele zoom.
You likely havnt even got close to OK quality pics with that, you'd be much better off buying a decent 17-50f2.8 zoom or even a prime (30 or 50) or an UWA (10-20) and spend time working on your photography.
Unless the 500D offers something you realy need (which honestly it doesnt) I wouldnt go near it, at least consider a 40D level body.
You likely havnt even got close to OK quality pics with that, you'd be much better off buying a decent 17-50f2.8 zoom or even a prime (30 or 50) or an UWA (10-20) and spend time working on your photography.
Unless the 500D offers something you realy need (which honestly it doesnt) I wouldnt go near it, at least consider a 40D level body.
RobDickinson said:
Youve got a poor kit lens and probably a below average tele zoom.
You likely havnt even got close to OK quality pics with that, you'd be much better off buying a decent 17-50f2.8 zoom or even a prime (30 or 50) or an UWA (10-20) and spend time working on your photography.
Unless the 500D offers something you realy need (which honestly it doesnt) I wouldnt go near it, at least consider a 40D level body.
You likely havnt even got close to OK quality pics with that, you'd be much better off buying a decent 17-50f2.8 zoom or even a prime (30 or 50) or an UWA (10-20) and spend time working on your photography.
Unless the 500D offers something you realy need (which honestly it doesnt) I wouldnt go near it, at least consider a 40D level body.
Unless you need the fps for motorsport or want the better 'handling' of e.g. a 40D, I'd stick with what you have and upgrade the lenses - any full-frame body will be badly compromised by cheap lenses, so upgrade your glass first then worry about the body later on...
Quality advice from above.
Go and spend £80 on the 50mm f1.8 then you'll realise the 400d is plenty sharp enough.
If you want to do macro you'll not spend better money than the £400 100mm f2.8 macro. If you've the budget something like a Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite will give you all the macro light you'll ever need too.
So far you've only spent £1000 and will have much better results than the 5d MKII with the crappy kit lenses.
If you're feeling really flush you can equal the £2000 purchase price of the 5d MKII with the 70-200 f2.8 IS L at £1000 and then you've amazing speed, reach and quality for your watersports.
Go and spend £80 on the 50mm f1.8 then you'll realise the 400d is plenty sharp enough.
If you want to do macro you'll not spend better money than the £400 100mm f2.8 macro. If you've the budget something like a Canon MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite will give you all the macro light you'll ever need too.
So far you've only spent £1000 and will have much better results than the 5d MKII with the crappy kit lenses.
If you're feeling really flush you can equal the £2000 purchase price of the 5d MKII with the 70-200 f2.8 IS L at £1000 and then you've amazing speed, reach and quality for your watersports.
Edited by jon- on Wednesday 2nd September 09:25
My brain is in one gear but my fingers another!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff