400D Upgrade

[V4NT0M]

Last year I bought my first DSLR and went for a 400D after advice from this forum. It has been a great camera for me and helped me learn a lot about photography and I have even enjoyed the lack of live view, now every time I pick up any kind of camera it's straight up to my face.

The image quality on the 400D is excellent and I'm happy with almost everything about it but as I get more adventurous with my photography the lack of live view screen is starting to become a hindrance.

Ideally I want to upgrade to something with a swivel screen as this is going to give me the best versatility when trying to get awkward shots. Having the option to plug it into or wirelessly connect to an Android tablet would do instead I think.

I'm also wanting to get something that can do HD video too. I was looking at the 600D as an upgrade as I can still use the same lenses ETC but open to any suggestions as to what might be better or cheaper

 

[Columbo]

No reason to look beyond the 600D tbh unless you feel the handling and features of the 60D would suit you better and the budget allows.

Be aware though that live view auto focus on Canon & Nikon DSLR's is a slow affair. The contrast system they use is no where near as fast as the phase detect you get when using the viewfinder. It's not a big problem for most people but is something to bare in mind.

Canon improved this massively on the 70D but there's is obviously a cost associated with buying a fairly recent body such as that.

The flippy screens are brilliant for video though and very useful for low and high angle stuff where fast AF is not required, however again forget AF during video as if you are shooting anything moving faster than a slug it wont keep up.

 

[D.P.]

I don't think you know what live view is and what is can or should be used for.
Even a DSLR with a good live view implantation should not be used in live view mode for a majority of photography. You still want to use the optical viewfinder most of the time, that is why you have a DSLR in the first place. Live view has a few select situations where it can be beneficial: video, and manually focussing static scenes on a tripod which typically applies only to macro work so you can check focus.



If you really want something that you can use a rear LCD screen predominantly then I would ditch the DSLR and go mirrorless. Have a look at something like an Olympus EPL-5 or a Panasonic m43 camera, some of the Nikon 1 cameras, or the Sony NEX cameras.

If you don't want an optical viewfinder and you want good performance using a rear LCD then buy a camera system that is designed to do that. The optical viewfinder is the single greatest asset of a DSLR, live view is pretty useless for most photography with DSLRs. Even with a better contrast based AF system the lenses are simply not designed to be driven by such a system. Lenses for mirrorless cameras have been designed for the AF information provided by the image sensor and a geared appropriately.

 

[V4NT0M]

Be aware though that live view auto focus on Canon & Nikon DSLR's is a slow affair. The contrast system they use is no where near as fast as the phase detect you get when using the viewfinder. It's not a big problem for most people but is something to bare in mind.

I don't imagine that slower AF would be a problem as most of the shots I take on a tripod (where I'll want to use the screen) are static scenes or long exposures anyway.

I don't think you know what live view is and what is can or should be used for.

I'm not really sure how to take this post, it came across as pretty condescending.

As I said in my post, the main problem I have is awkward shots usually when using the tripod at very low, very high or very tight angles it can be difficult to impossible to look through the viewfinder. In these cases I often just shoot blind. Last time I took a star scene with the roof of a wigwam in shot it was exceptionally difficult to look through the viewfinder and even hard to see the preview screen.

I'm not sure if you're from some kind of method school of photography where using the live view screen to see what you're taking pictures of is some kind of faux pas.

 

[Columbo]

I personally regard live view as an indispensable tool now, regardless of how fast the focus is I wouldn't buy a body without it and I use it nearly everytime I use the camera. Perhaps that makes me stand apart from the rest of photography scene but there you go.

Some people just love the old way of doing things, as an old film shooter from the early 90's I did as well but I'm not nostalgic in anyway, Live View and EVF's are just another way of doing the same things. Better for some, not so for other, neither is right or wrong just different.

Owning both a Sony A77 and Nikon D7000, I personally prefer the EVF / Fast Live View combo of the A77 over the OVF / Slow Live View of the D7000 but that my preference.

Whatever the reason for not liking it I see no reason to not recommend any type of Live View because it is a massively useful tool regardless of whether its fast or slow.

As I said before if the 600D fits your wallet requirements go ahead and get one, based on your OP I think you'll find the differences useful enough to enjoy the change and not regret it.

 

[D.P.]

I don't imagine that slower AF would be a problem as most of the shots I take on a tripod (where I'll want to use the screen) are static scenes or long exposures anyway.

I'm not really sure how to take this post, it came across as pretty condescending.

As I said in my post, the main problem I have is awkward shots usually when using the tripod at very low, very high or very tight angles it can be difficult to impossible to look through the viewfinder. In these cases I often just shoot blind. Last time I took a star scene with the roof of a wigwam in shot it was exceptionally difficult to look through the viewfinder and even hard to see the preview screen.

I'm not sure if you're from some kind of method school of photography where using the live view screen to see what you're taking pictures of is some kind of faux pas.

I'm sorry, I absolutely did not want to sound condescending but the way you talked about live view was quite bizarre and startling. The whole point of a DSLR is so that you have an optical view finder and don't need to use an LCD.
From that assertion everything else I said is spot on - if you don't want an optical viewfinder and want a better liveview experience then you need to have a system designed from the ground up to support liveview, including both the camera and the lenses.

An Olympus EPL-5 seems just right for what you do - very good liveview, very fast autofocus with live-view, lenses designed around contrast based focusing, a nice flip out screen that is also controlled by touch. The smaller system will make it easier to use in complex positions. Image quality is equal or superior to the 600D.

 

[D.P.]

I personally regard live view as an indispensable tool now, regardless of how fast the focus is I wouldn't buy a body without it and I use it nearly everytime I use the camera. Perhaps that makes me stand apart from the rest of photography scene but there you go.

Some people just love the old way of doing things, as an old film shooter from the early 90's I did as well but I'm not nostalgic in anyway, Live View and EVF's are just another way of doing the same things. Better for some, not so for other, neither is right or wrong just different.

Owning both a Sony A77 and Nikon D7000, I personally prefer the EVF / Fast Live View combo of the A77 over the OVF / Slow Live View of the D7000 but that my preference.

Whatever the reason for not liking it I see no reason to not recommend any type of Live View because it is a massively useful tool regardless of whether its fast or slow.

As I said before if the 600D fits your wallet requirements go ahead and get one, based on your OP I think you'll find the differences useful enough to enjoy the change and not regret it.

Comparing an EVF and live-view is like comparing apples and oranges. They are very different things. EVF doesn't necessarily suffer form the same shortcomings of a rear LCD, you A77 certainly doesn't.

The problems with live-view on most DSLR is you have thrown away the phase-detection based auto-focus which is the primary advantage of a DSLR in the first place - accurate optical view finder with the fastest possible focusing abilities. And there are several fundamental issues which limit liveview on an LCD:
The lenses for DSLR are designed for phase detection based auto-focus and are geared that way. They will simply never be as fast as lenses designed around contrast based AF. The whole 4/3 vs m4/3s lens system highlights this. The old 4/3 lenses were designed around phase detection so are pig slow on the m43 bodies that use contrast detection, despite the fact that m43 cameras focus as fast as DSLRs in static scenes using contrast based AF.

Stability and positioning- it is much more stable to hold a DSLR against your face than out at arms reach. You can't brace the camera against your body if you rely on the LCD screen.

Bright light- LCD screens are terrible in bright light. I have an Olympus EPM-2 I use for casual use and mountaineering. On a bright sunny day in the mountains, especially when skiing, I have to effectively shoot blind because the screen is useless in these conditions.


Then there are all the minor issues such as battery drain, sensor heating etc.


An EVF doesn't necessarily have most of those issues. E.g an SLT camera can maintain full phase detection AF

 

[V4NT0M]

I'm not sure if our wires are crossed somewhere, I like using the viewfinder and use it all the time and wish to continue using the viewfinder over the live view screen or a cruddy electronic viewfinder. Nowhere have I said I don't want an optical viewfinder.

The only time I want to use the live view is when it is not possible or extremely difficult to use the viewfinder. I'm not sure why it would be inappropriate to use the screen in this case.

It seems like you're saying that if I want to get or at least try those shots I should give up my DSLR and get a system camera.

I'm just not sure why I can't have the best of both worlds? Do you not ever want to try a shot with a DSLR where you can't see the viewfinder? Do you carry a ladder everywhere with you or are a professional contortionist?

 

[CGrieves]

I use live view on my DSLR quite a lot. I don't really care if I'm not using it's technical raison d'etre, nor do I care how the camera focuses, as long as it gets the picture.

It would seem slightly backward to pack away my DSLR and pull out a mirrorless in order to use live view, just because it's better designed for the task.

As an analogy, I use my race-rep motorcycle for occasional trackdays. I don't see the need to suddenly sell it and buy a real racebike for that one day just because it's more appropriate for the task of riding on the track. Particularly when I'll go back to commuting on mine the next day.

 

[D.P.]

I'm not sure if our wires are crossed somewhere, I like using the viewfinder and use it all the time and wish to continue using the viewfinder over the live view screen or a cruddy electronic viewfinder. Nowhere have I said I don't want an optical viewfinder.

The only time I want to use the live view is when it is not possible or extremely difficult to use the viewfinder. I'm not sure why it would be inappropriate to use the screen in this case.

It seems like you're saying that if I want to get or at least try those shots I should give up my DSLR and get a system camera.

I'm just not sure why I can't have the best of both worlds? Do you not ever want to try a shot with a DSLR where you can't see the viewfinder? Do you carry a ladder everywhere with you or are a professional contortionist?

Maybe I misunderstood your OP but it seemed like you were not happy using the OVF and wanted a camera whee you can extensively use liveview. If you want to continue having a good DSLR and use livew-view then yes, a Canon 600D or better still 70D are you best options.

And no, I have never had the need for a better live-view system. when I need to get low I get low and lay down on the ground. Only once in my life have I needed more height and yes, I used a step ladder (I was taking a group photo at a wedding).


For what I shoot I can't ever imagine the little extra height where a flip down screen would really being beneficial. Really, i would need a decent ladder or better still, a Go Pro attached to a quadrotor and do some aerial photography.

 

[CGrieves]

The problems with live-view on most DSLR is you have thrown away the phase-detection based auto-focus which is the primary advantage of a DSLR in the first place - accurate optical view finder with the fastest possible focusing abilities.

You haven't thrown it away, it's still there for the next shot where you use the viewfinder.

Are you suggesting that instead of holding the camera above your head, using live view and taking a few shots for safety (which I do all the time), it's better to carry a ladder because you must use phase-detect AF? And if you don't have a ladder or a mirrorless, it's better to miss the shot altogether?

I don't get it.

 

[D.P.]

You haven't thrown it away, it's still there for the next shot where you use the viewfinder.

Are you suggesting that instead of holding the camera above your head, using live view and taking a few shots for safety (which I do all the time), it's better to carry a ladder because you must use phase-detect AF? And if you don't have a ladder or a mirrorless, it's better to miss the shot altogether?

I don't get it.

I don't take photos above my my head, I don't get why you would want to do that. As I said, the only time I needed extra height was a group shot at a wedding and so I borrowed a step ladder. In 15 years of photography I have never had the need to hold a camera above my head.


And please don't take what I said out of context. Your counter argument is entirely irrelevant to what I said. Of course if you use the OVF mostly and occasionally use the live-view then you still have the advantage of phase detection. No where did I say otherwise. If you only use live-view then you have thrown out the entire reason for having a DSLR!

 

[CGrieves]

I don't take photos above my my head, I don't get why you would want to do that. As I said, the only time I needed extra height was a group shot at a wedding and so I borrowed a step ladder. In 15 years of photography I have never had the need to hold a camera above my head.

When stuff is in your way, when you want to get a crowd+stage shot at a concert, when you want to catch something from behind a row of spectators, when I want a downward perspective over the ledge of a tall building. I do it a lot, because I have live view, and usually don't have a ladder

I also use live view exclusively when taking astronomy shots, and not just because of the orientation of the camera- it's much easier to achieve critical focus on a zoomed-in live view.

I wouldn't buy a DSLR without it.

And please don't take what I said out of context. Your counter argument is entirely irrelevant to what I said. Of course if you use the OVF mostly and occasionally use the live-view then you still have the advantage of phase detection. No where did I say otherwise. If you only use live-view then you have thrown out the entire reason for having a DSLR!

Fair enough if you misunderstood the OP, I got the impression from his use of the phrase "when trying to get awkward shots".

My point and analogy still stand though- even if the OP never used the OVF, there are still a million reasons to use a DSLR rather than ditching it for mirrorless.

 

[D.P.]

No, I totally misunderstood the OP and assumed he wanted a camera to use live-view predominantly. In which case I still stand by my advice to ditch a DSLR.
There are only 3 reasons why own DSLRs: 1) optical viewfinder, 2) fast phase detect focus, especially on moving subjects, 3) lens selection.
#3 is not really valid for m43 systems anymore.



Anyway, I apologies for making a wrong assumption about the OP and taking the topic off course.
OP, a 600D will give you a usable live-view, 70D will be better still. There really isn't much to discuss. Sticking with your EF-S lenses (which makes sense) then most of the options are going to give similar IQ and performance.

 

[jonneymendoza]

I don't imagine that slower AF would be a problem as most of the shots I take on a tripod (where I'll want to use the screen) are static scenes or long exposures anyway.

I'm not really sure how to take this post, it came across as pretty condescending.

As I said in my post, the main problem I have is awkward shots usually when using the tripod at very low, very high or very tight angles it can be difficult to impossible to look through the viewfinder. In these cases I often just shoot blind. Last time I took a star scene with the roof of a wigwam in shot it was exceptionally difficult to look through the viewfinder and even hard to see the preview screen.

I'm not sure if you're from some kind of method school of photography where using the live view screen to see what you're taking pictures of is some kind of faux pas.

6d if budget permitted will do the trick as you can use the android app to view the screen in live view mode wirelesslesy