Nothing concrete at all but rumours have it that there is likely to be new products announced by Canon and Nikon in February. It's only the Nikon stuff I've been following so don't know much about what Canon may say although have read that they too should announce something in Feb. Seems to be mostly speculation regarding both however new products have appeared recently as being compatible with a D900 so I'm going to wait until mid Feb and see what happens. I bought my D70s just before the D80 came out so I'm not wanting to make the same mistake again.
To 7D or not 7D...
- Thread starter Rojin
- Start date
I can't believe I am going to ask this, but is the kit 15-85 a decent lens, has anyone actually used one? Digital Picture say the picture quality is pretty good, not far off that of the 17-55 f2.8... which kind of caught my eye! One of my big regrets with the 500d though is getting te kit lens!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
edit: scratch that, got confused with the 18-135 kit. Thought it was bit of a billy bargain!
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
edit: scratch that, got confused with the 18-135 kit. Thought it was bit of a billy bargain!
Last edited:
Well that's it then, I'd better sell the 500d now!
Why? SLR gear hold their values extremely well, my friend is trying to get a 2nd hand 400D body after breaking his 350D and wont stop complaining how expensive it is still even though its 3 generations old and dont even have live view.
Well it will drop in value however slight. Selling second hand, buyers will expect a better deal as a new model is out so will possibly be harder to shift...
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
If thats the case then you really should give the tools you have more time and effort.
Ok a 500D isn't gonna trump a 50D at sports.
Thats horses for courses.
Fact remains that if you took one image of lets say a portrait with one camera and the same with another. You'll be scratching your heading looking for where your moneys gone.
You got a 5D and it made you a better photographer because you prefered the body and feel. It was pleasing to you but if your job depended on it, you'd get the same shot using a lesser camera if your reputation depended on it.
There is no promise that this is going to be the case with everyone who upgrades their body. They could easy fall victim to not understanding everything they could be learning by blaming it on the kit.
For me the camera body is nothing more than a means to open the shutter and snap the pic. The real talent is in the light/subject that passes the shutter.
I think you need to reconsider what you'll be doing with the camera.
My understanding of the 7D is that it would be the dogs gonads for motorsports, bird watching and similar, i.e. stuff that requires great AF AND the reach from a 1.6 crop. I'd actually be surprised if the actual image quality is massively different to what you already have.
If you don't need the AF, something like a 40D or 50D would be substantially cheaper and offer some of the functionality that's on the 7D.
If you want better IQ, IMO you really need to look at going full frame, with it's advantages of lower pixel density and DOF.
If you simply want to blow some cash, go get some good glass. IMO that would be more effective at improving the IQ that by moving to another crop camera and would also hold it's value massively better.
I know you've mentioned the 17-50, but do also consider some primes, some of which really are ace.
If I were in your position and knowing what I do now, I think I'd go with the glass. Do remember that however good the Tammy 17-50 is, it won't fit on a FF camera, meaning that if you ever upgrade in that direction, the lens will need to go.
My understanding of the 7D is that it would be the dogs gonads for motorsports, bird watching and similar, i.e. stuff that requires great AF AND the reach from a 1.6 crop. I'd actually be surprised if the actual image quality is massively different to what you already have.
If you don't need the AF, something like a 40D or 50D would be substantially cheaper and offer some of the functionality that's on the 7D.
If you want better IQ, IMO you really need to look at going full frame, with it's advantages of lower pixel density and DOF.
If you simply want to blow some cash, go get some good glass. IMO that would be more effective at improving the IQ that by moving to another crop camera and would also hold it's value massively better.
I know you've mentioned the 17-50, but do also consider some primes, some of which really are ace.
If I were in your position and knowing what I do now, I think I'd go with the glass. Do remember that however good the Tammy 17-50 is, it won't fit on a FF camera, meaning that if you ever upgrade in that direction, the lens will need to go.
also rumours of a new Sony Alpha.
I have considered exactly that and it is was has brought this decision forwards. For sports use (mainly Rugby), air shows, toddlers... I won't be going full frame as I want the extra reach from the crop and I am happy with that decision... no really! I don't have the money needed for the glass required on a full frame, I wish I did! I like the 50mm in available light and the 500d struggles sometimes with that, I'm hoping the more advanced AF of the 7D will help with that. I probably be getting a 50mm 1.4 soonish as well...
7D arrived today... Best purchase ever! I can't wait to run it out at the rugby tomorrow, the 8fps is awesome. The AF setup is great, although I have to admit I haven't really got to grips with it yet. I haven't smiled this much with a purchase since... well ever! Tamron 17-50 is on back order, aaaaargh!
