Upgrade thoughts

darreny

darreny

darreny

Soldato
Joined
19 May 2004
Posts
2,995
Was toying with the idea of getting the Sony a6000 but I'm not sure the choice of lenses are there.
Currently have a canon 1100d with kit lens, 50mm 1.8 and the 55-250 and a Sony rx100 mk1.

Im going to be taking a lot more photos in the future so I'm stuck between upgrading the body for either new 760d or 2nd hand 70d or canon 100mm macro usm and canon 17-55 2.8.
It will be mainly photographing bands in pubs and street photography
 
Well if you've already done some street/band photography then you probably know what you're lacking?

Do you want a faster longer lens? Get the 100mm F2.8
Do you want something fast but flexible to get low light shots in tight spaces? Get the 17-55mm F2.8

If you're happy with the lenses for now but want better autofocus/frame rate/sensor then get the new body :)

As for getting the Sony body, I don't know what lenses are available there either so someone else can advise lol
 
If you've not done it before then you should probably try it first with your existing kit. Once you've done it a little then you should be able to find the areas where your equipment is left lacking.

As for new kit, what's best will depend on how close you want to get to your subjects.
 
If you've not done it before you might not even know you like it! You should be absle to use the 50mm prime for starters but will force you to be a little more distant. Whole band shots will require the kit lens which wont be ideal but will suffice. A faster 24 or 35mm prime would be a good addiiton for shooting gigs. A flash would also come in to its own.


I don't think a camera body will make much difference at all, especially if keeping wihtin the canon system then all the sensors are much the same.
 
I do have a yongnuo flash, think it's the 565. I was thinking different body for improved iso and cropping and the tilting screen would come in handy for both still and video.

With lenses I was thinking better low light than the kit lens and maybe learn to get the framing right first instead of cropping.
It will be part of my job so whether I like it or not I have to do it.

I'll give the kit lens a go but it's never seemed sharp to my eyes.
 
darreny said:
I'll give the kit lens a go but it's never seemed sharp to my eyes.
Click to expand...

All the kit lenses these days from all manufacturers are very good in terms of image quality so if yours doesn't appear sharp enough then it either has a fault (which is very possible) or a its a mixture ISO / Aperture / Shutter speed / user which are making the images appear as they do.

If you are cropping heavily as well remember the 1100d is a 12mp camera which while allowing some headroom for it does hit a limit pretty quickly.
 
darreny said:
I do have a yongnuo flash, think it's the 565. I was thinking different body for improved iso and cropping and the tilting screen would come in handy for both still and video.

With lenses I was thinking better low light than the kit lens and maybe learn to get the framing right first instead of cropping.
It will be part of my job so whether I like it or not I have to do it.

I'll give the kit lens a go but it's never seemed sharp to my eyes.
Click to expand...

As you say, if you have to crop a lot then you should get used to using the right lens and getting int he right location. I woudn't buy a new higher resolution camera just to crop more, the result of an outcropped lower res camera will be superior (assuming same sensor size).

You will get very slightly improved ISO with a newer camera but really the differences are quite small, especially with Canon. You might gain 1/3rd to 0.5 stops at the most, but an f/2.8 lens will give you 2 stops over your kit lens, and a fast prime will give you 3 or 4 stops more .

If budget is an issue then IMO it is better to put the money into lenses that don't devalue quickly if at all. Cameras are like any other digital device and quickly get superseded so if you wait another year or 2 then it just means you get an even better model for less money, but lenses just don't change that quickly. The best lenses now will still be outstanding in 10 years time, and good enough in 20 years!
 
Thanks for all the input is given me plenty to think about.

If I was to get a 17-50 2.8 for low light like pub gigs is it worth spending the extra on a stabilised lens
 
For shooting a band IS won't make any difference because the guys are moving so you will need a fast exposure in any case.


I think the sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 would be perfect,1&1/3 stops faster than the 17-55mm lenses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom