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

Is this a silly idea?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

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

Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    trivets12
    trivets12  101149 forum posts
    30 Jan 2013 - 11:27 AM

    I recently bought a Canon 600D for my husband to use, as he shoots as back up tog with me at weddings. I am currently using a 5D with 24-105 and a 350D with the 70-200 f2.8 IS on it.
    I have to say, when I saw the images from his 600D, I was absolutely blown away by the quality especially at high iso's even up to 3200. Of course, my 5D doesn't go up to this speed.
    I am now wondering whether to sell the 5D, the 70-200f2.8, the 24-105 and the 350D and replace it with two 600D's. the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 and the 70-200f4 IS.
    Does this sound like a mad idea? I still love my 5D but at iso above 800 the noise is quite awful but then again, I still love the quality of images from it.............
    I guess the 5D is getting quite old though.
    Just wondering what other epz'ers think. I haven't made a decision yet.
    Thanks
    Trudy

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    30 Jan 2013 - 11:27 AM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    Paul_Anthony
    30 Jan 2013 - 11:50 AM

    Despite the image quality of the 600D being excellent, I think you may soon regret loosing the build quality of the higher end cannon models.

    Personaly I am really careful at weddings and have never bumped or knocked any of my gear hard enough to cause any damage and I tend to be where the Bride, Groom and Guests are when it is raining, indoors, so rarely call on my gears weather sealing at a wedding either. But then with all that said, you never know and it's good to know that the build quality and ruggedness is there if and when required.

    Paul

    Last Modified By Paul_Anthony at 30 Jan 2013 - 11:51 AM
    JackAllTog
    JackAllTog e2 Member 53528 forum postsJackAllTog vcard United Kingdom58 Constructive Critique Points
    30 Jan 2013 - 12:54 PM

    You may miss the top LCD and the control dials. You also may find you lack DOF and need a wide EF-s wide angle lens.

    For not that much more would a 6D be a better bet!

    mikehit
    mikehit  46144 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
    30 Jan 2013 - 1:09 PM

    No, I don't think it is a mad idea. If the DOF that Jack mentions does not affect your photography, the ergonomics are acceptable (for me it would be top LCD, wheels v buttons, weathersealing and brighter VF) and the image is good enough then go for it. However, my choice would be 7D or 6D.
    Why would you sell the 70-200f2.8 and buy the f4? That seems odd.

    trivets12
    trivets12  101149 forum posts
    30 Jan 2013 - 1:20 PM

    Hi,
    thanks for your comments.
    The reason I would sell the 70-200 f2.8 is because of the sheer weight of the thing. I know that makes me sound a pathetic female but at the last wedding I used two 5D's and one of them had the f2.8 on it and the weight was really cumbersome and I found it really quite a nuisance. I always wanted that lens and was able to buy it last year, but as I am thinking of giving up wedding photography, it seems a good idea to sell it and get a good price for it and buy the f4, which is half the weight and also still a cracking lens.
    Not sure what to do, really!

    trivets12
    trivets12  101149 forum posts
    30 Jan 2013 - 1:22 PM

    p.s the 17-55 would give a similar reach to a 24-70 and would have the benefit of the f2.8. Just going to check the depth of field range on the dofmaster website.

    puertouk
    puertouk  21053 forum posts United Kingdom17 Constructive Critique Points
    30 Jan 2013 - 1:29 PM

    Why not go for the Canon 5D MKII? Its available at Panamoz for only 1,150. Or, you could go to the 5D MK III for 1,880. They-re a very good company to deal with as well.
    Stephen

    WhiteRose1
    WhiteRose1 e2 Member 41028 forum postsWhiteRose1 vcard England133 Constructive Critique Points
    30 Jan 2013 - 2:07 PM

    If high Iso/low light is a pre-requisite I would look at other options before the 7D... I'm saving for the 5D mkIII for this reason, although you may find the weight creeping up a bit on this option.

    scottishphototours

    Giving up wedings? To do what?...that may drive your choice of kit.

    trivets12
    trivets12  101149 forum posts
    30 Jan 2013 - 6:11 PM

    Well, I'm still working full time in my hospital job and had hoped that I could build up the wedding photography and do half and half, but that hasn't happened, regrettably.
    After I finish the 11 weddings I currently have booked, the photography will be just a hobby again.

    Paul Morgan
    Paul Morgan e2 Member 1314893 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
    1 Feb 2013 - 2:13 AM

    If your planning on giving up weddings use your current kit for the 11 you have left, then decide on new kit.

    jimthistle73
    1 Feb 2013 - 2:30 AM

    If you even half think you might shoot any more weddings, I'd go for good low light performance every time. I'm a Nikon user so can't comment on the cameras you mention but have just ditched my two D300s because they couldn't cope above 1600 ISO. 3200 is still not great given that the newer cameras produce acceptable results up to crazy-high ISOs. In fact, my D700 must be six years old and will give decent images at up to 12800 and beyond.

    I have a 70-200 VR and it only ever leaves the bag when I get an obstructive vicar / priest / minister who banishes me to the back of the church. It's just too heavy for all day use - get shot if you need the money for a 'standard' zoom.

    • «
    • 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.