Upgrading my camera/lenses....

[buddy13]

A few months ago I have bought myself my first DSLR, a Canon SL2/200D.

I am really enjoying myself exploring all kinds of cool features and neat photography tricks and can say that I now feel very well versed into taking good Manual photos

It's 'mechanical' feel and by being able to do all the adjustments I want, it really lets me feel good at capturing a good shot .

In these months, I have bought myself the 10-18mm & 55-250mm standard EF-S Canon lenses (along with 18-55mm) that came with the camera. I also bought the 50mm f1.8 prime, which is truly a cheap & cheerful full frame camera lens which is great for portraits & creamy bokeh.

I really enjoy Travel/Street & Portrait photography, but also like Macro and lately, I've been dipping my toe into astro-photography (have a lot to learn). I was lately thinking of adding the 17-50mm F2.8 to my lens collection, to replace the kit lens, as this the lens I ultimately use most.

While I enjoy the 200D, I've been finding it a bit basic. So lately I've used a 6D MKII and really liked the feeling of having a 'professional' feeling camera with the LCD on top and having many buttons, with all adjustments within easy reach.

It daunted on me, that in the future, should I opt to upgrade my camera I'd also be throwing away many hundreds of Euros in lenses .

I also know that the most expensive glass on a good APS-c will still not be as good Budget glass on a full frame camera. So, buying EF L Full frame lenses for my 200D, just in case I go full frame later, makes little sense at the time.

So, should I just wait until I get myself a full frame, before investing in more good quality glass?


I also like the new 90D a lot, when I handled it, a good quality, APS-c sensor camera, with all the features I could ever need. Also feels very good and satisfying to use. This camera could still make use of all my lenses and so I could sell the 200D.

I also saw that the Sony A7 II, complete with 24-70 glass is not overly expensive, all things considered.

So between:

- Keep 200D, buy the 17-50mm f2.8 & upgrade when time comes.
- Sell 200D, buy 90D
- Buy 6D Mk II (+ keep 200D)
- Sell 200D, buy Sony A7 II

Which would you choose and why ?

[Blansky]

Serious photography is a process and learning curve.

You are always better off to choose a system and stick with that brand, that way you can use the lenses if you upgrade the body, which you will.

Jumping around from brand to brand is generally an expensive and futile proposition.

AND only up to a point, are the camera and lenses the determiner of great photography.

[themast]

If you are looking long term, I would buy an EOS RP to jump on the RF system. Unfortunately they have not released yet affordable good lenses but they will come.

On the short term, the 6D is not a bad choice because EF will live many more years but you probably won’t have an upgrade path at some point.

[037]

You'll need proper speedlights at a minimum. Lighting is crucial. The best camera is nothing without light.

[JasoninDenver]

Originally Posted by Blansky

Serious photography is a process and learning curve.

You are always better off to choose a system and stick with that brand, that way you can use the lenses if you upgrade the body, which you will.

Jumping around from brand to brand is generally an expensive and futile proposition.

AND only up to a point, are the camera and lenses the determiner of great photography.

Blansky is one of the photo gurus here and his advice is golden on this point as well.

I presonally like APS-C and find the lenses can be fantastic. My goto travel lens is a Sigma 18-70. Much better than the Canon lens until you get to L series.

Consider keeping the APSC format and then maybe supplementing with a mirrorless kit or even good P&S for even lighter weight.

My brother is shooting the Canon 6 full frame and, honestly, he has to carry 5 pounds of gear to go on a hike. Too much for me and my photos are every bit as good unless I blow them up to the size of my bedroom wall.

[Blansky]

The basics of photography are really, in respect to the camera, the relationship between shutter speed and aperture (f-stop) and how that correlates to depth of field and to desired movement of the subject. (like the angel hair affect of a waterfall)

Since you are shooting manual, you are or have taught yourself this already, and now you know more than 90 percent of people photographing today, since they shoot on automatic.

Your next quest is probably composition, learning the rules, and when and how to break them.

As for equipment, working your way up to full frame is probably a goal, (although not a necessity) and getting quality lenses. The expense of very fast lenses is a nice luxury but not a huge necessity. In a relatively short time you'll probably pick 2-3 lenses you do pretty much everything with and may shed some of the others.

Also to be a good to great photographer you HAVE to learn how to do post (after capture) manipulation. The taking of the picture is barely maybe a third of the aspects of putting your photographic vision down on paper or saved for a file. In fact once you rework an image in photoshop or a darkroom you will learn better how to crop in the viewfinder and what you are capable of.

One other thing about cameras, is its a business like the car business, and they flog out new stuff every year but these days the advancements are minimal. You can buy used and save a ton.

And its good to have a "good" system which you do most of your work with BUT also a carry around for everyday. My carry around is a Canon SX50 which has now been upgraded a few times. It has a 24-1200 zoom. It's in my car all the time and often the only one I take on vacation. And no matter what you have, you'll probably always say, damn, I wish I had the.....

[77T]

I don’t really have a preference on the camera bodies you listed. But I have an opinion on the Glass question.

I wouldn’t be buying more glass until I had more classes on using the tools I already had.

Professional systems produce the best results when well-educated heads & hands use them.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[buddy13]

Thanks lots for all your helpful replies

I have read all your advice and certainly agree.

I'm not saying that buying a 5D MKIV will make me the next best photographer overnight, but we all aspire to have great equipment we enjoy interacting with, which makes our hobby even more fun. It's the same with watches I suppose, in theory we should all be perfectly happy with a G-Shock .

For now, I'll keep just the 200D. In fact I have just added a 17-50mm F2.8 Sigma lens for it and can't wait to properly test it out.

I am really enjoying improving composition and taking simpler pictures. The 'exposure' part was the easy part for me. I have even read the Beginner & Advanced (interesting tips & lessons) Canon manuals. I can take Full Manual photos in a heartbeat now and can easily make use of all functions, but of course, the 'eye' & creativity take years to develop.

I am shooting RAW & am really enjoying manipulating my snaps in Lightroom camera RAW .

Next step is to add some filters, ND Grads, polarizers etc and a cheap speedlite (Yongnuo most probably). This will give me plenty playing & growing potential.

I still love full frame snaps for their High Dynamic Range, sharpness and the quality retained at high ISO (6400 & above). My 200D starts to fall apart at 3200.

For now, I will not buy more lenses. I have all I need for my current camera.

In the future, I might still get a Full Frame camera and will then have to get all new lenses to go with it, which is a bit of a shame. Still, I think I'll keep my 200D for it's portability, so it's not a waste of money. Thanks again for all your replies .

PS: Anyone uses the Fuji X-T3? IT seems like a real fun camera to use. Right up my alley, with all the knobs and buttons. I only discovered it a few weeks ago. At the time I bought my 200D, I thought it's all Nikon or Canon.

[Blansky]

Once you get the camera stuff down, then you can begin the journey into lighting.

Lighting people, objects, and lighting in scenics. Additive lighting, subtractive lighting, soft light, hard light, etc.

Enjoy the journey.

[themast]

Originally Posted by buddy13

Thanks lots for all your helpful replies

I have read all your advice and certainly agree.

I'm not saying that buying a 5D MKIV will make me the next best photographer overnight, but we all aspire to have great equipment we enjoy interacting with, which makes our hobby even more fun. It's the same with watches I suppose, in theory we should all be perfectly happy with a G-Shock .

For now, I'll keep just the 200D. In fact I have just added a 17-50mm F2.8 Sigma lens for it and can't wait to properly test it out.

I am really enjoying improving composition and taking simpler pictures. The 'exposure' part was the easy part for me. I have even read the Beginner & Advanced (interesting tips & lessons) Canon manuals. I can take Full Manual photos in a heartbeat now and can easily make use of all functions, but of course, the 'eye' & creativity take years to develop.

I am shooting RAW & am really enjoying manipulating my snaps in Lightroom camera RAW .

Next step is to add some filters, ND Grads, polarizers etc and a cheap speedlite (Yongnuo most probably). This will give me plenty playing & growing potential.

I still love full frame snaps for their High Dynamic Range, sharpness and the quality retained at high ISO (6400 & above). My 200D starts to fall apart at 3200.

For now, I will not buy more lenses. I have all I need for my current camera.

In the future, I might still get a Full Frame camera and will then have to get all new lenses to go with it, which is a bit of a shame. Still, I think I'll keep my 200D for it's portability, so it's not a waste of money. Thanks again for all your replies .

PS: Anyone uses the Fuji X-T3? IT seems like a real fun camera to use. Right up my alley, with all the knobs and buttons. I only discovered it a few weeks ago. At the time I bought my 200D, I thought it's all Nikon or Canon.

Sound decision. In the end, composition and lighting make the photo. I follow gear a lot but I don't buy a new camera every year.

[dimag333]

one of the best things you can do is buy a film camera without a meter that is all manual to learn

steve

[m j b]

I'm a Nikon guy, so I can't directly respond to the equipment questions.

However, I did go from film to digital, originally with an inexpensive DX. Then a more expensive DX and then (at the request of my editor) full frame, which as noted, required new glass.

A friend of mine who also wrote for the same magazine always said "spend your money on the glass."

He was right.

But in hindsight, the pictures coming out of that cheap entry-level DX camera are just as sharp and vivid as my pro-level FX, just fewer pixels.

And so many pro photographers these days spend more time in post processing than they do creating the proper conditions, that I sometimes wonder what is happening to the profession.

But really, the best thing you can do to become a better photographer is to take pictures. Learn about lighting (as mentioned above) and how to compose photos. Don't get hung up on megapixels and vibration reduction and all that. My best photos are taken on a tripod.

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by m j b

But in hindsight, the pictures coming out of that cheap entry-level DX camera are just as sharp and vivid as my pro-level FX, just fewer pixels.

I second on the sharpness thing.

It's not necessarily the end all in photography. In the time before Ansel Adams and his F64 Group (which means sharpness) was the pictorial era where a more soft focus romantic trend was in style. In fact the F64 Group was a backlash to the era meaning Adams group was sick of soft focus.

In my portrait days I actually had a piece of Cokin plastic over the Hasselblad lens to tone down the sharpness, (too much reality) and in photoshop now I will usually soften the image.

Granted in lots of scenics, sharpness is a goal but as was stated the difference between an incredible lens and a cheaper one, may not necessarily give you that much difference in sharpness and in fact you may not need it. Also you can sharpen in photoshop a little if necessary.

Great photographs are defined by "impact", not sharpness.

[buddy13]

Originally Posted by Blansky

I second on the sharpness thing.

It's not necessarily the end all in photography. In the time before Ansel Adams and his F64 Group (which means sharpness) was the pictorial era where a more soft focus romantic trend was in style. In fact the F64 Group was a backlash to the era meaning Adams group was sick of soft focus.

In my portrait days I actually had a piece of Cokin plastic over the Hasselblad lens to tone down the sharpness, (too much reality) and in photoshop now I will usually soften the image.

Granted in lots of scenics, sharpness is a goal but as was stated the difference between an incredible lens and a cheaper one, may not necessarily give you that much difference in sharpness and in fact you may not need it. Also you can sharpen in photoshop a little if necessary.

Great photographs are defined by "impact", not sharpness.

Yes. It's quite interesting to me, how sometimes 'soft' tend to fit some photos better than if they were pin sharp. But again, photography is somewhat subjective.

I don't like photos with overdone post production. I do not like photos that end up looking 'cartoonish' or 'extraordinary'. I like photos that are faithful.

In fact, my rule, is to always apply editing to the whole picture in a subtle way. I don't like removing/adding details in photoshop. I also love simple monochrome photos very much .

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by buddy13

Yes. It's quite interesting to me, how sometimes 'soft' tend to fit some photos better than if they were pin sharp. But again, photography is somewhat subjective.

I don't like photos with overdone post production. I do not like photos that end up looking 'cartoonish' or 'extraordinary'. I like photos that are faithful.

In fact, my rule, is to always apply editing to the whole picture in a subtle way. I don't like removing/adding details in photoshop. I also love simple monochrome photos very much .

Yeah the trick to photoshop and darkroom works is that the work done is not noticeable. As with women who wear makeup. If you can see it, it's too much.

[Jocke]

I use to say: Use your money on good lenses, they you can keep for a long time.
Try to get your pic so good as you can in the camera, some things you can't add nice with a editing program.
Then practice, practice and practice.

[srvrf]

There are a lot of great systems out there and what you ultimately choose should be reflective of your anticipated needs. I tend to base my decisions on the lenses more than the bodies. I buy the highest quality lenses I can afford/justify with the idea that I can always upgrade the bodies later.

My first major decision years ago was Canon vs. Nikon. I went with a 3MP Canon D30 and eventually got a couple of Canon L and Sigma lenses. Over the years, I upgraded the body (D30 -> 10D -> 1D -> 1D Mk II -> 1DX) and the switch to the bulky 1D sports bodies was due to my kids' sports and activities. It is hard to beat a full-frame system with fast lenses for low light situations and sports photography. But as my kids got older and their activities lessened, I found the only time I'd look for a camera was travel. Then my bulky full-frame system wasn't so great.

So in 2013 I bought into the Olympus micro four thirds system. I loved the small form factor with the professional and weather-sealed build. I bought their pro lenses and have taken them with me to various places around the world. There are certainly some limitations of the smaller sensor, but over time, the bodies have continued to improve the AF, tracking and low light performance. The electronic shutter feature of a mirrorless cameras provides an extra bonus of silent shooting.

It is a fun journey and just like with watches, its the process that is a big part of the fun. Most of these systems are more than capable. But deciding on current and future projected use can help narrow down the field.

[psv]

The easy/short answer is to use what you've got and try to practice as much as possible and become a student of light (the quality, amount, and direction) + spend a lot of time learning how to post-process to your liking.

The more complicated answer: What is your budget? What would you get out of going full-frame? Personally, I wouldn't invest a lot of money in a APS-C sensor DSLR system at this point because the world is definitely going mirrorless. I switched over to Sony and FUji mirrorless years ago (later got rid of Fuji and got a Canon EOS R along with the Sony system to enjoy the RF 50/1.2L) and I would never go back to a DSLR with an optical viewfinder, mirror slap, no IBIS, larger/heavier, etc. I would think of getting out of your gear while it is still worth something, but hence, it will be a big investment to build a new system.

I think it is always a good idea to rent a camera + lenses to try it out for a long weekend. The other alternative is to buy used - personally I really like fredmiranda.com and I have had good luck both buying/selling my year there. If you don't feel the need to go FF, I think buying a used Fuji XT-3 and a couple of lenses is a great start - it is a lot of fun to use that system.

Oh well, I can rant about this forever. Please give us some ideas of what type of phtography you want to do, what your budget is, if you are open to switching system and brands, if you want to go FF, etc.

[psv]

Additionally, if you can swing around $1,100-$1,200 I would buy a used Canon EOS R if I were you and then start investing in good RF glass. Add an used minty 24-105/4 for around $700-$750 and you have a fantastic FF system. Lastly, add a RF 35/1.8 macro as a fast prime. The alternative is to get the new Canon RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 IS USM if you don't mind a slower lens.

Do try out the Sony rig as well. Much more choices on native mirrorless glass, many alternatives from Sigma, Zeiss, etc. I have owned the Sony A7 > A7II > A7III and I've been largely happy with the system.

Again, while mirrorless is a bit more expensive at this stage, if I was starting from close to scratch like you and I took a liking to the hobby, I'd go mirrorless. If you end up going with Canon, Sony, Nikon or Fuji (APS-C) will largely down to shooting style and preferences, but all of those systems have good image quality and AF systems at this point.