Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

A bit of Guidance . . .

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    Nigeyboy
    Nigeyboy  6536 forum posts United Kingdom
    27 Jul 2012 - 12:54 PM

    Hi EPZers,

    Wanted to ask your opinion on a camera upgrade I am looking into.

    I currently have a 400D, which has served me very well for a number of years now, but I want to upgrade to a more professional body.

    I dont have a huge amount to spend - perhaps £500 at a push. My current thoughts are a 40D with some new glass. 40D's seem to be going for about £300 on Fleabay at the moment. With the change I could get a decent prime - got my eye on the Canon 85mm f1.8 - and at a push, a battery grip.

    However, I have also been looking at the 1Dn mk II. Body only its about £500, and i would need to save more to get some good glass to put on it. . . .which would take longer!

    So question is - 40D with with 85mm and battery grip, or save for longer at get the bullet proof 1D? What do you think? Happy for you to throw more ideas in the pot as well!!

    Cheers all

    Nige

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    27 Jul 2012 - 12:54 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    mikehit
    mikehit  46171 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
    27 Jul 2012 - 1:13 PM

    First of all, what is you are looking for from the new body that you are not getting from the 400D? The phrase 'more professional body' does not mean anything to be honest. Your comment "bullet proof 1D" suggests you are after a more rugged body but to be honest, the plastics they use for the 400D are plenty strong enough unless you are ubelievably clumsy or use the camera in horrendous conditions. Your suggestion of lenses suggests that you are not into wildlife (I may be wrong) so you do not need the AF of the 1Dn.

    Personally I would go for a 40D/50D rather than a 1DnmkII if only because it means you can buy good glass now and that has a far gerater impact on image quality - if you get the 1DN and use uinferior glass you have achieved nothing by upgrading. Also the 1DN is a big increase in body size/weight from your 400D - are you ready for that? Admittedly the 50D+grip is not much different but at least you have the option.
    The classifieds on this site (look under 'community' menu) has a 40D for £350 or a 50D+battery grip for £575.

    Last Modified By mikehit at 27 Jul 2012 - 1:14 PM
    MalcolmS
    MalcolmS e2 Member 81061 forum postsMalcolmS vcard England13 Constructive Critique Points
    27 Jul 2012 - 1:14 PM

    I have a 40D in the classifieds at the moment, it's the one above

    Last Modified By MalcolmS at 27 Jul 2012 - 1:16 PM
    Nigeyboy
    Nigeyboy  6536 forum posts United Kingdom
    27 Jul 2012 - 1:47 PM

    Mike - thanks for the advice. You are right - I'm not really into wildlife photography. I tend to shoot anything and everything, though I am leaning toward portraits a little more, hence the 85mm. I want a faster camera too, as i am going to start shooting sports in the near future. The 3fps of the 400D is not really fast enough.

    I suppose some of it is down to the 'prosumer' image of the 400D! I love it - it has never missed a beat, but i feel that now I want a more versatile body. I will keep the 400D as a back up, but reading reviews of the 40D, despite the same sensor size, it uses 14bit capture, so results in a slightly better IQ.

    I likes the idea of the 1D - I have always wanted a top camera like that! But reality says I won't get better results with it!!

    Nigeyboy
    Nigeyboy  6536 forum posts United Kingdom
    27 Jul 2012 - 1:56 PM

    Should have added, although I would prefer to buy a second hand camera off someone here (thanks Malcolm!), i don't currently have the funds available. It will be in the Autumn!

    steve486
    steve486  3126 forum posts United Kingdom
    28 Jul 2012 - 9:24 AM

    hi there,i would look at a good 5d mk1, i use one and get very good pics. steve

    Nigeyboy
    Nigeyboy  6536 forum posts United Kingdom
    28 Jul 2012 - 10:52 AM

    Steve - have looked at the 5D. However, as its full frame i would need some pretty decent glass to put on it!

    GlennH
    GlennH  91891 forum posts France1 Constructive Critique Points
    28 Jul 2012 - 11:20 AM

    The weight of the 1d MK II is epic, not least of all because of its NiMH battery. Operating it will also take some getting used to after a 400D. But still, it'd be a good choice for sports photography if you were going to get seriously into that (wouldn't that also require a significant lens investment?).

    Perhaps a 50mm f/1.8 might make a decent starting point with the bigger sensor for less cash? It'll look like a pimple on the front of a 1D, but the results will nonetheless be high quality.

    Nigeyboy
    Nigeyboy  6536 forum posts United Kingdom
    28 Jul 2012 - 11:29 AM

    The sports side of things will be swimming gala's and possibly outdoor netball. My daughter is in a couple of different teams, and the clubs have shown some interest in me taking pictures of the squads.

    Indeed, the 1D is aa beast! I was lucky enought to hold and very briefly use a 1D III a while back at a wedding! What a camera!! you are right Glenn - I would need to invest in some decent long lens as well - maybe out of my budget!!

    I have been doing some more research since my original post, and am thinking the 40D as the body - it seems fast enough for what I want to do at the moment. The 50mm 1.8 would be an 80mm equivalent on the 40D, which is ideal portrait length. For the sports side, what are your thoughts on either the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, or the Canon 70-200 f4L?

    GlennH
    GlennH  91891 forum posts France1 Constructive Critique Points
    28 Jul 2012 - 12:33 PM

    The 1D III became appreciably lighter than the MK II because of the switch in battery technology. The MK II is a veritable breeze block of a camera, but still a good piece of gear (and produces dinky, manageable files from its 8MP sensor). No dust reduction, which as the world's worst sensor cleaner is always a consideration for me. The 5D MK I was a PITA for that, too.

    I can recommend the 70-200mm f/4L as I owned it until recently, but I suppose if I were pondering getting into sports photography in any serious way I'd be looking at the faster lenses, despite the high ISO image quality achievable these days with modern sensors and improved raw processing.

    So I'd look closely at the Sigma if I were on a budget—which I often am—even though Canon telephotos are generally tough [impossible?] to beat for refined image quality. I own an old Canon 80-200mm f/2.8L (aka Magic Drainpipe), which produces fantastic pictures and has fast AF, but it's a bit off-the-wall as a recommendation because Canon no longer repair them, and I don't think they can be used with Canon convertors.

    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.