What Dslr Camera Would You Buy Today?

[eurasianthai]

If only one, will be me, I guess.

I have been using it for only 2 days, so I can't really comment on the quality of the pictures.

What I can say is:

- People say it is heavy, it is indeed, but I find it more comfortable to use with the Canon 24-105mm than with the Canon 450D. More balanced.

- The viewfinder is such a huge improvement compared to the 450D, it is just another world. I now can see the photo I'm taking... before taking it...

- Not too sure about the improvement in focus abilities with the 19 points, seems pretty easy to mis-focus if you're not careful. But I'm sure I should read the manual first...

- More details and sharpness on the photos you take compared to the 450D but this is not really a surprise

And well, I did not know, or did not check, or it did not register that the Canon 7D is using CF cards instead of SD cards, so when I first wanted to try it with my 4G SD card, well, I could not.

So do not forget that if you upgrade from a Canon xxxD to a Canon xD (and maybe also from a xxD ), you'll need to buy new memory cards.

That's all for now

Edited February 24, 2010 by eurasianthai

[astral]

My Canon 40D uses CF cards as did the 10D that I had previously.

Make sure you buy the really fast CF cards to get full benefit of the continuous shooting rate.

[Nordlys]

- People say it is heavy, it is indeed, but I find it more comfortable to use with the Canon 24-105mm than with the Canon 450D. More balanced.

- The viewfinder is such a huge improvement compared to the 450D, it is just another world. I now can see the photo I'm taking... before taking it...

- Not too sure about the improvement in focus abilities with the 19 points, seems pretty easy to mis-focus if you're not careful. But I'm sure I should read the manual first...

- More details and sharpness on the photos you take compared to the 450D but this is not really a surprise.

Did you compare it with 5D Mk2 when you bought 7D?

I've never held 7D in hand but I'd imagine 5D's finder view to be even bigger and clearer than 7D naturally owing it to bigger mirror and pentaprism. I'd also imagine full frame to be much better balanced with 24-105 (than 7D), especially if you add the battery grip, but of course at extra cost and weight... As to eye-controlled focus I'm not so updated with new cameras like 7D but my EOS3 (film) needed a lot of calibration and recalibration to really command the focus point with your eye, so it might take time. I would also imagine an upgrade from a cropped sensor camera to another cropped sensor isn't so much big bang for money in terms of picture quality upgrade. I'd imagine most of the advantage you'd get is what you've mentioned above + weather proof and more robust build feel than plastic body camera.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Nordlys

[SantiSuk]

Bought a 5D Mk II a couple of months ago, but would buy a 7D if I had not already got a range of full frame L lenses. It is clearly smarter, faster and lighter from all that I have read.

I was widely published in days when I had a cheap second hand Canon 10 body - film-based. Don't get intimidated by the £ spent on a camera body. Quality of photographer is No 1, quality of lenses no 2 and quality of camera body last.

[aeon]

I am another 7d user, but since I bought it (less than 2 months ago) I took very few photos with it, I was caught by the video feature.

[The Vulcan]

Bought a 5D Mk II a couple of months ago, but would buy a 7D if I had not already got a range of full frame L lenses. It is clearly smarter, faster and lighter from all that I have read.

I was widely published in days when I had a cheap second hand Canon 10 body - film-based. Don't get intimidated by the £ spent on a camera body. Quality of photographer is No 1, quality of lenses no 2 and quality of camera body last.

Agree and indeed was (is) most certainly the case with film equipment however I put forward that in todays digital realm the "marriage" of quality glass with a quality sensor is essential. A weakness in either will outweigh the benefit of the other.

In this respect I consider these items of equipment need to be paired.

But, as you rightly say, they're only tools - the photographer makes the photograph

Enjoy your 7D

[Abrak]

A very useful and interesting thread by the way.

I used to be a fairly keen amateur SLR user but when I went digital probably 10 years back I decided that if I was going to give up full frame sensors I would just get a good semi compact. I currently have a Leica V-Lux 1 with a 12x zoom so I am not particularly price sensitive (when I could have bought a Panasonic which is almost identical). In fact I like the camera a lot but it is not 'quite the same'.

Now that full frame cameras have come down to an affordable price I am very tempted by the 5D MK11. However I get the impression that the 7D is basically a better/as good camera but not full frame. I am wondering if I wait 6 months whether Canon will come out with an improved 5D (especially in terms of focusing from what I have read) in say the next 6 months. Or if the mild criticism of the 5D are just that especially compared to my current camera or the EOS5 I had before.

I am also a bit stuck on the lenses. Ideally I just want 2. A decent but not grossly expensive wide angle - I think I had a Sigma 17-35 before and then a more expensive, not too big, longer zoom ideally about 50-250 (I used to have a 70-200 IS plus a 35-80 2.8 - sadly I gave the mid one away.) Basically the point of the second lens is for it to be my main lens that I use most of the time. I actually dont mind buying a Tamron or a Sigma but I am not really looking for a 5.6-6.8 35-350. Even if there is a 5ft long 35-350 2.8 Canon lens weighing 4 kgs you can probably appreciate that someone who knows so little looks a bit of a prat with one. I would happily pay US$2k for a lens with a good mid to long range that was light enough but there doesnt seem to be much around after a brief look. I apologize that some of what I want goes against more experienced photographers sensibilities but I am really just trying to buy myself a camera that will occasionally surprise me with the quality of the photo I take. Again maybe I need to wait a year or two.

[aeon]

try canon 70-200 f2.8 (they sell 2 models with and without IS) if needed add a 2x tele converter.

[eurasianthai]

I've never held 7D in hand but I'd imagine 5D's finder view to be even bigger and clearer than 7D

I'm actually pretty sure the one on the 7D is at least as good if not better than the 5D, higher field of view (100% actually for the 7D) and higher magnification.

But well, I never tried a 5D

[Nordlys]

I'm actually pretty sure the one on the 7D is at least as good if not better than the 5D, higher field of view (100% actually for the 7D) and higher magnification.

Higher magnification compensates small finder view, doesn't mean higher the better. Full frame sensor has big bigger mirror and prism to begin with, therefore no need to magnify the finder view in the first place (if not demagnify).

Edited February 25, 2010 by Nordlys

[SantiSuk]

Arak - sounds as though you should go for the 7D - faster, lighter and cheaper than the 5D MkII and gives you access to the cropped frame EFS lenses. The 55mm to 250mm EFS 4.5 to 5.6 would fit your bill and only costs £330 ($500). As you imply, the only mid range lens in the Canon L series is the expensive and heavy 70-200 2.8, which I own and like but which you say you have owned before.

[Abrak]

Arak - sounds as though you should go for the 7D - faster, lighter and cheaper than the 5D MkII and gives you access to the cropped frame EFS lenses. The 55mm to 250mm EFS 4.5 to 5.6 would fit your bill and only costs £330 ($500). As you imply, the only mid range lens in the Canon L series is the expensive and heavy 70-200 2.8, which I own and like but which you say you have owned before.

Thanks for the advice and from the other guys. Yes the 70-200 2.8 is a wet dream of a lens (and price is not a big issue if you consider it will last ten years while you will probably replace your camera after 3 or 4.) But it is just too big.

I actually didnt know that Canon even made these EFS lenses to fit a smaller sensor and they do fit the size better.

However, my goal is to eventually go back to full frame when the 'time is right' so I would have to ditch those lenses. It does seem from the comments here that from the camera perspective it is better off to wait for a newer EOS 5D to come out.

From the lens perspective when I checked everything out I found myself most attracted to the 18-270 Tamron (presumably I would lose the wide angle with a 7D) which is cheap and cheerful but covers so much range that I wouldnt need to carry other lenses with me many times (and I could buy a better lens to use with say portraits). However, I doubt it was built for this sort of camera. I would probably just be turning the Canon back to the equivalent of my 12x zoom compact.

There is a canon lens 70-300 4.5-5.6 which looks very compact. Never seen anyone use one though.

[The Vulcan]

When I'm traveling "light" I carry 2 lenses and a 1.4 extender (the 2x is crap) with my MK11

A 17-40 L and a 70-200 F4 L IS

Both lenses extremely well priced, sharp and great contrast, rendition and IQ

I'm then covering 17-280mm

i.e indoors up to Safari

I think you may have to wait awhile for the "New" 5D - no news or rumours yet

And that 70-300 4.5/5.6 is a very soft lens - not recommended

[Nordlys]

When I'm traveling "light" I carry 2 lenses and a 1.4 extender (the 2x is crap) with my MK11

A 17-40 L and a 70-200 F4 L IS

Both lenses extremely well priced, sharp and great contrast, rendition and IQ

I'm then covering 17-280mm

with nothing to fill in between 40 - 70? Is 70-200F4L IS that great for indoor use?

Without IS, my 70-200 is hardly any good for indoor photography.

When I travel I usually carry 24-105F4L IS and 17-40L, plus sometimes 135mm F2L if I have to.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Nordlys

[The Vulcan]

When I'm traveling "light" I carry 2 lenses and a 1.4 extender (the 2x is crap) with my MK11

A 17-40 L and a 70-200 F4 L IS

Both lenses extremely well priced, sharp and great contrast, rendition and IQ

I'm then covering 17-280mm

with nothing to fill in between 40 - 70? Is 70-200F4L IS that great for indoor use?

Without IS, my 70-200 is hardly any good for indoor photography.

When I travel I usually carry 24-105F4L IS and 17-40L, plus sometimes 135mm F2L if I have to.

The 2 feet I was born with!

Yes

That's why I've got IS !

Edited February 26, 2010 by The Vulcan

[eurasianthai]

I'm sure we said it in the lens thread but these days, for a lens that is not wide-angle, I do not think you should buy one without IS.

If you own a Canon or Nikon, thas is.

Sony, for example, has the IS integrated in the camera body.

[Abrak]

When I'm traveling "light" I carry 2 lenses and a 1.4 extender (the 2x is crap) with my MK11

A 17-40 L and a 70-200 F4 L IS

Both lenses extremely well priced, sharp and great contrast, rendition and IQ

I'm then covering 17-280mm

i.e indoors up to Safari

I think you may have to wait awhile for the "New" 5D - no news or rumours yet

And that 70-300 4.5/5.6 is a very soft lens - not recommended

I like this combination a lot. I also got the impression that nowadays with DSLRS you could still shoot very good pictures at say ISO 200 if your lens was a little slow and it doesnt have the grain that it used to (for indoor use.)

My biggest problem is really that with a consensus that the 7D seems to be a better camera without full frame it seems the 5D is a little difficult to justify at the moment. It sounds like I might have to wait up to 18 months though for a new version.

[The Vulcan]

When I'm traveling "light" I carry 2 lenses and a 1.4 extender (the 2x is crap) with my MK11

A 17-40 L and a 70-200 F4 L IS

Both lenses extremely well priced, sharp and great contrast, rendition and IQ

I'm then covering 17-280mm

i.e indoors up to Safari

I think you may have to wait awhile for the "New" 5D - no news or rumours yet

And that 70-300 4.5/5.6 is a very soft lens - not recommended

I like this combination a lot. I also got the impression that nowadays with DSLRS you could still shoot very good pictures at say ISO 200 if your lens was a little slow and it doesnt have the grain that it used to (for indoor use.)

My biggest problem is really that with a consensus that the 7D seems to be a better camera without full frame it seems the 5D is a little difficult to justify at the moment. It sounds like I might have to wait up to 18 months though for a new version.

At the end of the day it's what you feel comfortable with, what handles best for your personal pursuits and what suits your pocket.

Enjoy your purchase.

[astral]

When the OP started this thread he asked about cropped sensor or not.

Looking at the specs for the Canon 1D MarkII, even that seems to have a cropped sensor 1.3X

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmarkIV/page2.asp

A point I had not taken on board before.

Does that affect the effective focal length of lenses use, the way the 1.6x crop does??

I realise that the EF-s lenses will not fit, but it does seem to throw a new factor into the considerations.

[hughden]

The 1D models are 1.3 crop, the 1Ds models are full frame. And yes, you multiply by 1.3 (rather than 1.6) to get the effective focal length.

[SantiSuk]

Well b_gger me; here I have been sitting with a 5D MkII for 3 months thinking it was a full frame camera.

Ah well the trusty 17-35mm 2.8 still seems to give me enough width and my long lenses are now that little bit longer than I thought they were, so not to worry. Makes me think that the retailer at a respected camera dealer in the UK (Park Cameras) didn't know his deriere from his elbow though.

Now you've got me worried about my 2X converter Vulcan - must do some resolution tests.

While we are on Canon lenses, can I mention that the 85mm f1.8 lens (non-L but still a very sharo optic) is a real sweety - light enough to slip in a pocket and gives superb background blur for people pictures (sorry - can't remember the correct photographic term for that). Much better than a 50mm standard. I'd put that in my bag along with a wide zoom a medium telephoto zoom and a converter.

[The Vulcan]

Well b_gger me; here I have been sitting with a 5D MkII for 3 months thinking it was a full frame camera.

Ah well the trusty 17-35mm 2.8 still seems to give me enough width and my long lenses are now that little bit longer than I thought they were, so not to worry. Makes me think that the retailer at a respected camera dealer in the UK (Park Cameras) didn't know his deriere from his elbow though.

Now you've got me worried about my 2X converter Vulcan - must do some resolution tests.

While we are on Canon lenses, can I mention that the 85mm f1.8 lens (non-L but still a very sharo optic) is a real sweety - light enough to slip in a pocket and gives superb background blur for people pictures (sorry - can't remember the correct photographic term for that). Much better than a 50mm standard. I'd put that in my bag along with a wide zoom a medium telephoto zoom and a converter.

Give over - it's the 1D models and not the 5D models that are cropped

Anyway, I had that 2x converter previously and was not at all pleased with it - then I read this:-

"Because the Canon EF 2x II Extender is multiplying the aberrations/flaws of the lens it is mounted behind by 2x, there will be noticeable degradation in image quality when using the 2x. Sharpness and contrast take a hit with all but the best lenses. Additional CA (Chromatic Aberration) is introduced as is slight barrel distortion, but vignetting is somewhat reduced (only using the center of the image). The best 2x results will be made using a very sharp lens such as the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens.

Another negative aspect to shooting with the Canon EF 2x II Extender attached is the resulting reduction in autofocus speed. This can be an issue if you are shooting in low light and/or are using a lens that is not very fast focusing (such as the Canon 180 L lens mentioned above)."

The 1.4x extender will obviously to some degree also suffer from these problems but to a lesser amount

Totally agree on the 85 1.8 - I've had mine for 20 years now and still use it a lot

p.s. I find this a very good site for Canon stuff Canon Reviews

Edited February 27, 2010 by The Vulcan

[astral]

I find this a very good site for Canon stuff Canon Reviews

Thanks for that very valuable link.

I see the megabucks Canon 1v is also a 1.3 cropped sensor

so make sure you read the small print before buying.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Canon-Eos-1v...ew-t341516.html

[Abrak]

At the end of the day it's what you feel comfortable with, what handles best for your personal pursuits and what suits your pocket.

Enjoy your purchase.

Very true. My whole interest in going back to a full frame digital camera was prompted by my Godfather who is nearly 80 and wanted to give me his collection of Leica M lenses I suspect all of which are at least 10 years old. He could really take photos and published a couple of books and still genuinely believes they are the greatest lenses despite the fact the world has moved on. He never used a digital camera and simply doesnt believe you will become a good photographer with the likes of these Canon and Nikons with all their sexy zooms.

He thinks I should get a Leica M9, the body of which I can get a Canon D5 and a set of great lenses for the same cost. But I bet 20 years ago he paid a fortune for his stuff and he has clearly never regretted it.

[tw25rw]

Very true. My whole interest in going back to a full frame digital camera was prompted by my Godfather who is nearly 80 and wanted to give me his collection of Leica M lenses I suspect all of which are at least 10 years old. He could really take photos and published a couple of books and still genuinely believes they are the greatest lenses despite the fact the world has moved on. He never used a digital camera and simply doesnt believe you will become a good photographer with the likes of these Canon and Nikons with all their sexy zooms.

He thinks I should get a Leica M9, the body of which I can get a Canon D5 and a set of great lenses for the same cost. But I bet 20 years ago he paid a fortune for his stuff and he has clearly never regretted it.

Dslr timelines don't really count for Leicas. Leica rangefinders aren't adaptable like a dslr, but for the kind of shooting they are designed for they can't be beaten. That includes old lenses.

Plus if you ever feel inclined to buy a film Leica M (there are 2 models in production still), the lenses, old and new, will all work with it.

[Nordlys]

I see the megabucks Canon 1v is also a 1.3 cropped sensor

so make sure you read the small print before buying.

EOS 1D series has been that way from Mk1 for the last nine years and I bet most people who'd consider buying it know it. What do you think distinguished 1D from 1Ds?

Edited February 27, 2010 by Nordlys

[The Vulcan]

At the end of the day it's what you feel comfortable with, what handles best for your personal pursuits and what suits your pocket.

Enjoy your purchase.

Very true. My whole interest in going back to a full frame digital camera was prompted by my Godfather who is nearly 80 and wanted to give me his collection of Leica M lenses I suspect all of which are at least 10 years old. He could really take photos and published a couple of books and still genuinely believes they are the greatest lenses despite the fact the world has moved on. He never used a digital camera and simply doesnt believe you will become a good photographer with the likes of these Canon and Nikons with all their sexy zooms.

He thinks I should get a Leica M9, the body of which I can get a Canon D5 and a set of great lenses for the same cost. But I bet 20 years ago he paid a fortune for his stuff and he has clearly never regretted it.

You Godfather is right (sort of). Leica do make beautiful lenses and in fact you might want to consider the following.

The current "trend" is micro 4/3rds. The point about them is they are digital BUT via adapters can take any lens range. I shoot with a Panasonic GF1 and use my Zeiss Contax lenses on it. Incidentally most (i.e. me and 1 other) believe Zeiss outperform Leica.

If I was in your situation and had Leica glass available I would take this route

[eurasianthai]

If I was in your situation and had Leica glass available I would take this route

A friend of mine wanted to do the same, he also got quite a few Leica glasses from one of his uncle.

And wanted to use them, exceptional quality.

But, well, these days he uses a Nikon D3s and none of the Leica glasses...

[RAZZELL]

If I was in your situation and had Leica glass available I would take this route

A friend of mine wanted to do the same, he also got quite a few Leica glasses from one of his uncle.

And wanted to use them, exceptional quality.

But, well, these days he uses a Nikon D3s and none of the Leica glasses...

Just changed from Canon to Nikon.

D3s is a great camera. You can shoot on insane ISO's.

RAZZ

Edited March 13, 2010 by RAZZELL