From a 400D to what?

i say stick with canon has you alreadly got the some lens and get a canon eos 60d it big move up from the 400d and you moving into the xxd series.
 
Op could do with replacing just about every lens he has anyway. The modestly priced Nikon primes etc. are much better than the outdated Canon equivalents...
 
An Exception said:
Op could do with replacing just about every lens he has anyway. The modestly priced Nikon primes etc. are much better than the outdated Canon equivalents...
Click to expand...

True, but the AF-S 50mm F1.4G badly needs an update also due to the lack of the aspherical element, which the F1.8G has. The sigma primes are pretty damn good on both manufacturers bodies though, to throw a curve ball :P
 
An Exception said:
Op could do with replacing just about every lens he has anyway. The modestly priced Nikon primes etc. are much better than the outdated Canon equivalents...
Click to expand...

hmm there £10 difference between the 50mm 1.4 primes and a whole £2 between the 85mm 1.8..

If he stays Canon he can replace lenses one at a time.

Normally I'd suggest to change the lenses before the body, but it seems the main problem the OP is experiencing is the size of the body, so fix that and then go about replacing lenses.
If the OP switches brands, he'll need to swap out lenses as well, adding cost.. or make do with one lens for the moment.
 
Doesn't make sense to stay with Canon over some kit lenses that your probably going to want to sell anyway.
The difference between the lenses is mainly quality, not cost, if Canon needs to update any of their lenses, it's these.
 
It's true that I would be looking for an upgrade in glass, not all at once as wouldn't be able to afford it. I think overall I want a total upgrade of body and glass. I've realised that I currently own a small collection of cheap Canon lenses.

The Nikon primes do look like great value sharpness. I've had much fun with the Canon nifity fifty, the wider focal length of the Nikon 35mm prime looks fantasic. I could see myself leaving it on the camera most of the time.
 
I'd go with the D7000 and a 35mm f1.8 g (£119 on MPB at the moment) and maybe an 18-105 VR (£149) for when you need some more flexibility.
 
2StepSteve said:
I can't see myself investing in mega expensive lenses I think the most that I would be whiling to spend on a lens would be around £600, but christ I would have to have a very good reason, such as a walk around lens.

The lack of mid range Nikon telephotos is a slight concern, but not too huge to me. Are you finding it to be a problem Amp34? You've moved from exactly what I have at the moment to what I am thinking about jumping on. How do you find the D7000? Could I ask what lenses you have for it?

I'm becoming seriously confused. Bouncing around thinking perhaps I should go down the second hand Canon body route as mentioned by 2Thumbs, and invest in some good L glass.

I'll take the advice of heading down to a shop to have a look at the D7000. I might look at it and after 5 minutes realise that it isn't for me at all.
Click to expand...

That's the point though, the 70-200 f/4s and 300 f/4 prime can all be had for under £600, the only Nikon equivalents are the £900 300 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 but that is also significantly more expensive and much bigger/heavier which for me is a pain (walking/hiking a lot).

I'm really enjoying the D7000 at the moment, the build quality is excellent and weather sealing is pretty good as well (tested in the tropics recently). The size is not too bad, maybe a little big (again because I use it a lot walking) and I have large hands and have no issues with the size for that, but then didn't have an issue with the 400D.

I currently have the Nikon 17-55 and the 70-300. The 17-55 is pretty nice but after coming from a 12-24 and a 35 f/2 prime the IQ isn't superb. It is built like a tank though which is nice (and weather sealed as well). The 70-300 is like any other manufacturers standard telephoto, good IQ but a little slow (both light and focus speed). I'm still thinking about swapping it soon for a 70-200 f/2.8 and a TC, hopefully that will sate my 300 f/4 issue as well...

Past Canon lenses I've owned are the 18-55 Kit lens, 70-200 f/4, 300 f/4, 35 f/2 and the Tamron 17-50, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and Tokina 12-24 f/4

James J said:
Definitely hold a D7000 before buying one as the size of the body doesn't fit larger hands very well at all without the grip. As for anything else, base the choice on what you actually want from a new camera. Also, you mentioning about not wanting to buy expensive lenses but then investing in L glass doesn't work sadly, as they go hand in hand!
Click to expand...

I disagree entirely (XL glove size), it's fine, but then the 400D was as well! Just depends what you are used to.

An Exception said:
Op could do with replacing just about every lens he has anyway. The modestly priced Nikon primes etc. are much better than the outdated Canon equivalents...
Click to expand...

I disagree as well. Having owned the Canon 35 f/2 and tested the Nikon 35 f/1.8 there is little in it on a crop sensor. The Canon is full frame so has better edges on crop (Better than the Nikon 17-55 throughout the apertures IMO) but the Nikon is slightly faster and quieter at focussing... But then it's a 35mm... What do you shoot that's fast with a 35mm?

Normally I'd suggest to change the lenses before the body, but it seems the main problem the OP is experiencing is the size of the body, so fix that and then go about replacing lenses.
If the OP switches brands, he'll need to swap out lenses as well, adding cost.. or make do with one lens for the moment.
Click to expand...

Not really, the 60D isn't as good as the D7000 and selling his current lenses while buying the equivalent Nikon fit lenses used will basically break even. Those are all the things I had to go through when I was looking at swapping cameras. Personally I chose the D7000 over the 7D, the 60D is way down the list.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
I disagree as well. Having owned the Canon 35 f/2 and tested the Nikon 35 f/1.8 there is little in it on a crop sensor. The Canon is full frame so has better edges on crop (Better than the Nikon 17-55 throughout the apertures IMO) but the Nikon is slightly faster and quieter at focussing... But then it's a 35mm... What do you shoot that's fast with a 35mm?
Click to expand...

People buy primes for the bokeh, all the recent G lenses have better/smoother/rounder bokeh and as a nice little bonus, are weather sealed. The Canon 35mm has terrible bokeh, i.e. really ruddy rough bokeh, that can ruin pictures imo.
Fast focus is important with photographing just about anything where good timing is relevant. i.e. if you are trying to capture a great expression, you want as minimal delay as possible from when you place your AF point over their eye, to releasing the shutter. AF speed reduces this latency.

The picture looks worse when we consider the over primes though.
Nikon 50mm 1.8G or 1.4G - Canon's 50's can't match either in overall quality, the 50 1.8 being the worst performer, however it's at least mechanically reliable even if it's focus is hit and miss. The 50 1.4 is a liability, never would I consider buying this lens.

85mm 1.8G - No contest whatsoever, the Canon 1.8 (which I'v owned two copies) is nowhere near the same standard.

Also the 28mm 1.8G, although being more expensive, is another cracking lens, and one that can be used FF to make a nice 28 - 50 - 85 combination.
 
I'll admit the bokeh isn't perfect but it's still very good. When I say slower focusing I don't mean significantly, I'm talking about the small bit slower, capturing an expression is not quite the same as tracking a flying bird coming towards you or a fast car driving round a bend, neither of which matter when you're shooting at 35mm, both are perfectly good enough to capture that change in expression of your baby... I'll admit though I didn't know the the 35 f/1.8 was weather sealed... I'm going to have to look into that...

As for the other primes I don't know much about the 50 and 85 and won't comment. The 50 for me is just too long on a crop sensor.

The 28 f/1.8 is good, same with the Canon one as well although I've never owned either of them there was a time I really wanted the 28 but couldn't afford it.

EDIT: It's not weather sealed... http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2907508

It sounds like it has a gasket to protect the camera from moisture/dust though, not the lens. It's a shame really because on such simple lenses like primes weather sealing should be pretty simple, more lenses need to be sealed.
 
Last edited:
Amp34 said:
I'll admit the bokeh isn't perfect but it's still very good. When I say slower focusing I don't mean significantly, I'm talking about the small bit slower, capturing an expression is not quite the same as tracking a flying bird coming towards you or a fast car driving round a bend, neither of which matter when you're shooting at 35mm, both are perfectly good enough to capture that change in expression of your baby... I'll admit though I didn't know the the 35 f/1.8 was weather sealed... I'm going to have to look into that...

As for the other primes I don't know much about the 50 and 85 and won't comment. The 50 for me is just too long on a crop sensor.

The 28 f/1.8 is good, same with the Canon one as well although I've never owned either of them there was a time I really wanted the 28 but couldn't afford it.

EDIT: It's not weather sealed... http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2907508

It sounds like it has a gasket to protect the camera from moisture/dust though, not the lens. It's a shame really because on such simple lenses like primes weather sealing should be pretty simple, more lenses need to be sealed.
Click to expand...

It's weather sealed, it has rear gasket and nothing moves on lens. Just precautionary language in manual saying not to use in rain.

Nikon uses a rear gasket on all it's G lenses for a reason.

Edit: also 50 isn't too long, it's about the same as my 85 on FF which is probably my most used lens.
 
Last edited:
The internet disagrees but there you go. TBH most lenses can take a bit of rain anyway.

Another good explanation anyway http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3149299 , it's to protect the camera not seal the lens. The G range means there is no aperture on the lens itself.

Even the DP review itself points out..

The 35mm F1.8 follows Nikon's new design idiom for AF-S primes, and bears a distinct family resemblance to the AF-S Nikkor 50mm F1.4G (although it lacks the distance scale seen on that lens, presumably in a bid to reduce costs). Build quality and finish is of a standard that belies the relatively lowly price; the lens feels sturdy and well put together. The barrel is made from black plastic, with a metal mount, and one nice touch is the addition of an 'O' ring around the mount to help prevent dust and water entering the camera (note though that the lens is not described as weather-sealed).
Click to expand...

Just because the lens doesn't extend doesn't mean there aren't plenty of places for the water to get in, for example round the sides of the focal ring and subsequently into the electronics.

The 50 on a traditional full frame is the usual walkaround style lens, on crop it's not. As you rightly point out it's more of an 85mm lens.
 
Last edited:
To protect the camera from ingress at the mount.

The 50 may well do for others, the 28 and 35mm focal length work nicely for a single walkaround everyday lens IMO. I used the 35 f/2 for my general lens for a couple of years, it just needed to be slightly wider, but with the Nikon DX being slightly larger 35 fits nicely in that zone, or just the 28.
 
I went to look at the D7000 at the weekend and from my brief play with it, I think it's great. Definitely leagues ahead of my 400D quality and build wise.

I still feel funny about leaving Canon though! The fact that Canon have the 70-200L which is sensibly priced, it isn't out of reach for me.

I don't think I want to leave Canon. But the only choices I have for new cameras are the 60D or 7D. Neither of which thrill me to be honest.

Crazy that I'm even looking at the 5D mkIII on finance.. Stupid idea!!! Forget it!!
 
Last edited:
Well it looks like you want to upgrade but without the finances is a bit difficult!
I'd say the 60d is a good step up from the 400 both in size, quality and added features - top screen for example. The next up is really only the mark 2 or 3 but you need cash and if you don't have it then you either stay put or you go somewhere in between
 
iamtheoneneo said:
Well it looks like you want to upgrade but without the finances is a bit difficult!
I'd say the 60d is a good step up from the 400 both in size, quality and added features - top screen for example. The next up is really only the mark 2 or 3 but you need cash and if you don't have it then you either stay put or you go somewhere in between
Click to expand...

It's hard to say if I'll be truely satisfied with the 60D. Coming from the 400D I'm sure I will be, but the want is for something which is huge in terms of an upgrade jump.

I think you are right about the next step being the mark 2 or mark 3. The cost of full frame cameras are hilarious though at this moment in time.

Just wish Canon had a camera which was closer to the spec of a D7000 for the monies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom