Narrowed down my choice to two DSLRs..details inside

Thanks for that. I'm not sure if that warrants a near doubling in price

Maybe a 60d and a something else as opposed to a 70d
 
60D launched for the same price as the 70D, it is a 3 year old camera after all!

If the 60D doesn't do what you need it to, the price is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
al4x said:
Thanks for that. I'm not sure if that warrants a near doubling in price

Maybe a 60d and a something else as opposed to a 70d
Click to expand...

In the real world you wont notice any IQ difference between the 60 and 70D unless something more drastic but unlisted changed, e.g. they weakened the AA filter. The resolution differences themselves wont be noticeable to the human eye alone. Also the Digic5 will only improve the quality of JPEGs, not the RAW files.

The 50D is also going to be very close to the 60D so that might also be an option to look at.
 
Yes, i have read a few articles on the 70D not being much better than the 60D for IQ
I will use raw
I feel the flip out screen could be useful on some occasions but am not fussed by the touchscreen
Considering i probably wont have a 400mm for quite some time (due to the cost) the main photography will be macro and night/creative things (the 100-400 for birds as you guys have said 200 is too short)

Canon have made it very difficult for me to choose due to adding features as opposed to improving IQ. I may be wrong but i dont think i will be doing much video at least to start.
The nikon niggle still hasnt gone..just the thing of my partner using canon and the super macro lens from canon stop me getting the d7100
 
Last edited:
having your partner on the same system does have a small advantage but unless you duplicate lenses you end up having difficulties sharing and if you do duplicate lenses then it doesn't really matter what system you have duplicated it on.

For ample, lets say you buy a 100-400 and you go to S.A. for a safari, well only one of you has the ideal lens so how are you going to share this?


If you both like different types of photography then it can work out because you will use different lenses, but then the same kind of argument holds that if you are going to use different lenses then putting them on different camera systems doesn't change the equation.


The advantage is more subtle, things like sharing the same batteries and charger or being able to swap cameras and have the controls feel right, getting photos that have the same skin tones and rendition etc..


One thing to be aware of the Canon 65mm is that at that focal length it isn't ideal for live insects. Something like 105mm works better on a crop, or even the 150mm Sigma. You get more working distance, lighting is easier, less likely to scare the insects etc. Also the Canon 65mm cost similar to a lens like the 300mm F/4.0 which is good for wildlife. If you are on a budget then I would look at the Tamron 90mm, Sigma 105mm Macro lenses, available for both Canon and Nikon.


Now I am not trying to persuade you to go Nikon, although the D7100 is undoubtedly a much better camera in itself, just trying to let you know some additional info in regards to macro lenses etc.
My Wife has a Nikon D7000 but we never really share lenses, she like her 18-105 kit lens and I gave her my 50mm f/1.8 I never use, we have never shared lenses since then. The only reason she got the Nikon was again, the D7000 was just the best crop camera you could buy at the time.
 
Last edited:
D.P. said:
having your partner on the same system does have a small advantage but unless you duplicate lenses you end up having difficulties sharing and if you do duplicate lenses then it doesn't really matter what system you have duplicated it on.

For ample, lets say you buy a 100-400 and you go to S.A. for a safari, well only one of you has the ideal lens so how are you going to share this?


If you both like different types of photography then it can work out because you will use different lenses, but then the same kind of argument holds that if you are going to use different lenses then putting them on different camera systems doesn't change the equation.


The advantage is more subtle, things like sharing the same batteries and charger or being able to swap cameras and have the controls feel right, getting photos that have the same skin tones and rendition etc..


One thing to be aware of the Canon 65mm is that at that focal length it isn't ideal for live insects. Something like 105mm works better on a crop, or even the 150mm Sigma. You get more working distance, lighting is easier, less likely to scare the insects etc. Also the Canon 65mm cost similar to a lens like the 300mm F/4.0 which is good for wildlife. If you are on a budget then I would look at the Tamron 90mm, Sigma 105mm Macro lenses, available for both Canon and Nikon.


Now I am not trying to persuade you to go Nikon, although the D7100 is undoubtedly a much better camera in itself, just trying to let you know some additional info in regards to macro lenses etc.
My Wife has a Nikon D7000 but we never really share lenses, she like her 18-105 kit lens and I gave her my 50mm f/1.8 I never use, we have never shared lenses since then. The only reason she got the Nikon was again, the D7000 was just the best crop camera you could buy at the time.
Click to expand...

This is a good point and has crossed my mind a few times, the benefit would more come if only one person was doing something

i was so convinced i would be getting a canon i already have a 100L which i used on the gfs 400d before it was sold
its not a hassle to sell it should i decide to go nikon

i dont think i have been in this much of a quandary over buying something for ages!
I see it as quite a big commitment
the fact that what nikon comes out with seems to be better than canons equivalent recent also doesnt help!
 
Why did you sell the 400D?
I was going to suggest if you are not sure just buy a cheaper, older 2nd hand model to get you going and see what you like. Then when you are more experienced and know what you want you can selling the cheap body and get something you really like, and/or jump systems. Buying and selling o2nd hand older bodies incurs minimal cost.


If you have the 100L then just buy whatever Cnon you can afford and re-think things through in a few months once you have got used to things.
 
Have you considered the 6D? that would be a significant bump in IQ and an ideal solution if you don't particularly care for sports or wildlife. The image quality between the aps-c sensors isn't really noticeable. Regarding the 70D the significant upgrade was the improved capabilities for videographers, if you are going to use the video function sparingly then it is perhaps not a worthwhile upgrade.
 
the 400d was my partners and she wanted to sell it for a dog. it was a bit restrictive with the iso, i didnt use it much but dont think it had raw, the MP count was quite low when cropping into macro shots

i dont think i really want the 6D, i feel a crop will be much better for me tbh, wildlife is something i do want to do and the extra reach will be handy for that. (am i right in thinking it will also be useful for macro?)

at present i think i may go for the 60D and wait until the 7D ii comes out, im sure that will be at least as good as the d7100 (he says through gritted teeth)

i wont invest much in lenses just in case nikon keeps up the better cam and cheaper bodies
maybe just a wide angle and my macro.. the 100-400 is a lot if i find i want to hop
 
ReCoN1989 said:
Have you considered the 6D? that would be a significant bump in IQ and an ideal solution if you don't particularly care for sports or wildlife. The image quality between the aps-c sensors isn't really noticeable. Regarding the 70D the significant upgrade was the improved capabilities for videographers, if you are going to use the video function sparingly then it is perhaps not a worthwhile upgrade.
Click to expand...

Certainly an option although there are tangible benefits for macro photography using a smaller sensor so one has to decide if macro is really important.

---

Macro lenses have a 1:1 reproduction ratio , so something 1" big in the real world covers 1" on the sensor. With an APS-C sensor that 1 " will cover much more of the frame, with a FF sensor that 1 inch is obvious a smaller relative area so you have to crop the image down to get the same framing. If the pixel density of the FF sensor is lower, as is the case with all Canon FF sensors, then the end result will be much less pixels covering the subject which ultimately will mean less detail. Alternatively with the APS-C camera you can have the macro subject further away to get the same framing, this gives you more working distance which is less likely to disturb insects and allows easier lighting.
 
thanks for the detail (i do like all the technical concepts in photography and this is another reason why im doing it)

so at 1:1 mag on the lens that real world inch would actually be an inch on the sensor no matter how big the sensor (given the sensor is equi distant to the lens glass) between FF and APS-C..thus the tubes available increase the distance between lens and sensor.

so is there a theoretical point where if given enough pixels that the lens becomes the weak point and cannot provide enough detail to saturate the pixels? made even worse by adding tubes?

i dont really see many draw backs with crop for macro except that FF can gather more light
 
Last edited:
Yes, each lens has a maximum resolving capability, that is to say if you had a very high pixel camera a lens could become a limiting factor in terms of detail. However something like a 100mm f2.8L macro would have a rather high maximum resolution.
 
yes, the 400d i did feel lacking with that lens, that damn nikon has a fair few i hear :p
 
al4x said:
thanks for the detail (i do like all the technical concepts in photography and this is another reason why im doing it)

so at 1:1 mag on the lens that real world inch would actually be an inch on the sensor no matter how big the sensor (given the sensor is equi distant to the lens glass) between FF and APS-C..thus the tubes available increase the distance between lens and sensor.

so is there a theoretical point where if given enough pixels that the lens becomes the weak point and cannot provide enough detail to saturate the pixels? made even worse by adding tubes?

i dont really see many draw backs with crop for macro except that FF can gather more light
Click to expand...

What you get is diffraction limitation. The math : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disc

And a great article here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml
In table 3 you can see as the aperture decreases (f number increases) the maximum theoretical resolution decreases.


So all lenses hit a limit of resolution.
 
I'll have a read of those articles

I think I've discounted the 70d now, it's not the price but the bang for buck that Iccan't handle
 
Just get a used 40D or 50D tbh. Either will be good enough, invest in good lenses and wait for the body you want to come out or reduce in price.
 
Last edited:
Deciding between nikon and just sell the one lens I have or get 60d
Dont really want to go older than the 60d
 
Im gonna get the 60D, im sure canon wont always be behind nikon and hope that the 7d mkii will be the one i get once i have got the basics with the 60D

so now i have some spare cash for other stuff
tripod..this is essential for everything i want to do
bag for 2 lens and cam
strap
rail for macro
flash system geared to macro
and maybe another lens for night/dusk work?...any recommendations here?..will probably be doing star trains, car light trails and other creative stuff..at a guess i want a wide angled lens which doesnt have to be too fast..however if this lens was also to have daylight applications whatr would i be looking for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom