First D-SLR buyer

for a good all around lens in the 400-500 dollar range the Sigma 17-50 is hard to beat.

the 17-55 generally gets better reviews but its almost $400 more.

OP, the 7D is a bit of a steep learning curve, maybe a bit overkill for what you're planning to shoot and is a quirky camera in a lot of ways. To get the best out of it you need to nail every shot perfectly for focus, exposure and metering otherwise you get a lot of fairly poor photos. I had one with a 5D2 pairing and while I got some great photos with it I got a lot more average ones as well.

I've since moved on to a 5D3 and 60D pairing and they seem to work much better than the previous pair. As for lenses, my 24-105 f4 L kit lens with the 5D2 has spent more time on my 7D and 60D than it has on my 5D2 or 3. It's a great lens giving a solid IQ and has a good AF system on it and is a great range for a walk about lens. The 70-200 f4 makes a great pairing with it (IS or non IS) and with those 2 lenses you'd be able to shoot anything apart from really low light for a good while.

Op - first of all don't listen to anybody telling you to get this or you SHOULD get that because of learning curve or being a newb or what ever reason. it is all nonsense, if you looked around and decided on the 7D then go for it, there is no reason not to and you will regret not getting what you really wanted. as for lens, for $400-$500 you might be able to get a used EFS 15-85 or an EFS 18-135 which are pretty good all around lenses that fit your budget right now and then move in to better glass as you can afford it.

regards
bob

unistudent1962 wrote in post #14613991
. Unless you have your heart set on a 7D, consider the 60D which will allow you to invest more in lenses.

more lenses? how many more "lenses" can one get with the max five hundred savings?

modchild wrote in post #14615331
OP, the 7D is a bit of a steep learning curve, and is a quirky camera in a lot of ways.

I had heard so much stuff about the "learning" curve prior to getting the 7D
bear in mind I went from a Rebel XS as my first camera to the 7D. Never looked back. I found no learning curve per say and I suck at reading manuals

the 7 feels much nicer than the 60 too

"First DSLR" and 7D is not a particularly good idea.

I don't know you or your abilities, but I'd never recommend a camera designed and targeted at experienced DSLR users and pros, for a first time user. I am not putting down 7D... It's a good camera. I've been using two of them myself for about 2-1/2 years. It just has little support for someone with limited or no DLSR experience and is the most complex crop sensor DSLR Canon has produced to date, requires quite a bit of knowledgable user input to produce the great results it's capable of. 60D is a much "friendlier" camera, has a number of auto modes and learning tools that will walk you through using it. The Rebel/xxxD series are even more easily used and learned, have more support for new users.

I've been shooting as a serious amateur and pro for 30+ years and I take between 50,000 and 100,000 images a year. Over the years, I've used dozens of different cameras, film and digital, from point n shoots to large format. The 7D was one of the hardest cameras I've ever tried to pick up and start shooting with. Coming from three 50Ds and a 5DII, early on when there was minimal info about the new focusing system, I almost gave up on 7D. The first couple months were a struggle and my keeper rate went way, way down. When you make your living shooting, you can't afford that. It's better for people migrating to 7D now, there is more info available, tutorials online, experienced users here on POTN and elsewhere to answer questions... But a 7D most definitely has a steeper learning curve, a lot more complexity than other Canon and less automation to support new users. I would no more recommend someone new to SLRs pick up a 1D series camera.

You'll do what you want and 7D can be learned and used well... just plan to put some extra time into learning it.

However, perhaps more importantly, it sounds as if the camera will eat up much of your budget.... leaving less toward lenses. Lenses are actually far more important than the camera they are used upon.

Go look at and handle a 60D in a store. Don't go by what you read and hear. I was very pleasantly surprised when I first checked it out... It's a very nice, solid feeling camera and a lot more friendly to first time DSLR shooters. It's also cheaper, gives near identical IQ and high ISO performance to 7D (maybe even a wee bit better, some people claim, it's a slightly newer camera). The price will leave you more in the budget for lenses. Lenses determine how your images look... the camera just captures the images produced by the lens.

If at all possible, get a kit that includes a lens. 18-135 or 28-135 are often bundled with the 60D are significantly discounted when in kits. This will serve as a good walk-around/general purpose lens and you can add other zooms or primes as you wish for other purposes. Personally I like the older model 28-135 best of the two, for it's USM focus which is fast, quiet and accurate. It also usually costs less, in kit. It's not particularly wide though, at 28mm on a crop camera.

Both those lenses are a step up from the usual kit lenses 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS. Those are pretty decent optically, but lightly built (particularly the 18-55) and have slower, noisier, less accurate non-USM (micro motor) focusing. They are quite affordable, though.

At the other extreme 17-50/55 for the larger f2.8 aperture is more expensive, bigger and has a much narrower range of focal lengths. And it's still only f2.8. That's the fastest zoom you'll find. For what you want to shoot, you might also need/want a 50-150/2.8 or 70-200/2.8... which are pricier, bigger and heavier. These aren't offered in kits.

The 15-85 IS is a USM lens that's excellent yet compact and gives a very nice range of focal lengths for a walk-around lens, but it's max aperture is smaller & variable - f3.5-5.6 - and is fairly pricey. It's not offered in kit.

Instead you might want to consider complementing the "walk-around" zoom with a couple fast primes for indoor, low light shooting... and particularly for portraiture. Canon 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are all good choices. The latter two are particularly nice portrait lenses. They all are fast focusing, have good IQ, and mid-grade build quality. The Canon 50/1.8 is a popular "entry level" portrait lens... inexpensive and capable of decent image quality, but it's build quality is probably best described as "toy like" and it's AF is slow, noise and has iffy accuracy. There are also Sigma 30/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 lenses, high quality, but relatively pricey and typically more expensive than the closest Canon equivalents. A little longer lens, might substitute for the 85/1.8... is the Canon 100/2.

The USM (and HSM in Sigma) lenses will be better able to keep up with dogs and kids in motion.

There are various ways to put together a kit of lenses. You won't find a single lens that "does it all", but that's the whole point of an interchangeable lens SLR camera... you can adapt to different situations with a simple lens change.

ErgoSpacePig wrote in post #14615479
Op - first of all don't listen to anybody telling you to get this or you SHOULD get that because of learning curve or being a newb or what ever reason. it is all nonsense, if you looked around and decided on the 7D then go for it, there is no reason not to and you will regret not getting what you really wanted. as for lens, for $400-$500 you might be able to get a used EFS 15-85 or an EFS 18-135

There are several good reasons not to get the 7D actually. IQ will not be any better than the 60D (may even be worse if you consider and believe the low ISO noise, intolerance to exposure error, and more aggressive low pass filter on the 7D), the OP will have less money to spend on lenses (which matter far more than the body for what he is planning to do with it), and the 7D has a far steeper learning curve whether you like it or not, as Alan has just pointed out. I remember how hard it was learning even just the basic rebel functions coming from P&S cameras, I shudder to think what unsuspecting people face when the salesperson has successfully unloaded a 7D on them and they try using it out of green box mode. Finally, and sort of repeating myself here; the 7D brings practically nothing to the OP for what he plans to shoot that a 60D doesn't (besides MA).

But again, its entirely up to the OP, his money, his choice. He'll be happy either way I'm sure.

If your choice is between the 60D and the 7D, go for the 7D. It has more to offer; yes, even for a first-time DSLR user. I wanted to upgrade, from the 500D, about a year ago. The choices for me were 60D or 7D. I chose the 60D because it was the better choice for me. Don't buy the argument about get the cheaper camera and put the money into lenses. There is not enough money difference between these two cameras to buy any piece of good glass with. That argument makes sense if you are considering 5D3 vs 60D. In your case, if the 7D works for you, buy it. You won't be happy with a 60D simply because you 'coulda had a 7D'.

I went from manual film cameras into digital, then into D-SLR over the last 4-5 years. As far as lenses go, wait until the lens(es) you have won't do something you want to do. THEN buy the best lens you can afford that will do that. I started out buying new glass and got some stuff that really works for me: 100 f/2.8, 18-135, 50 1.8, 10-22. My problems began when I started to compromise what I wanted, with what I wanted to spend. Big mistake. You will spend less money in the long run to get what you want the first time. I got a 135L and a 200 f/2.8L because I wanted to avoid the size and weight and whiteness of the 70-200 f/2.8L. Well, after buying them, deciding they did not work for me, and still wanting the 70-200 f/2.8L, then selling them, I am still without a 70-200 2.8L. The only good thing is that good glass holds its value. I was able to sell them for 90% of what I paid for them. Get what you need the first time.

That said, I have also bought some really good, inexpensive used lenses here and there. Just because Canon no longer makes a lens, does not mean it is no good. I have a lot of really good, clean, inexpensive Canon lenses. Read reviews, check out sellers, be careful, but don't pass on the used stuff just because it is used.

The IQ of a 60D or 7D will be about the same. ANY 1.6 crop sensor is less forgiving of exposure or AF error because of the smaller pixels but the 7D is the most customization for different shooting scenarios and will be the best all around 1.6 crop Canon body. If you want even better IQ at a much higher price you can look at the 5D3 or 1D bodies but those will be out of your price range. If you take the time to read the manual and watch the videos available from Canon and B&H videos you will have no trouble mastering the 7D. No matter what camera body you choose the better the glass you use the better the IQ. Any 1.6 crop sensor will magnify any flaw in poor quality glass due to the higher pixel density.

It isn't just which camera is better ... It's which camera is right for the user. In this case the 60D would be a much better match for the OP. I have had the 60D with the 18-135 and with the 15-85. The 15-85 has slightly better IQ, but is significantly more expensive, and is very heavy. The 18-135 comes in the kit, is a great starting lens, and is easily saleable when you want to step up.

I, personally chose the 60D with the 15-85, and used that setup 95% of the time, and had a 70-300 also. However, I would still say for you to go with the 18-135 to start. The new 60D with 18-135 goes for $1,199. The 60D with 15-85 is abouit $1,600.

Cameras are one of those things that often your eyes can be bigger than your stomach. There is no reason to over-complicate, over-weight, or over-spend until you are very sure what you want.

Good luck ...

Sirrith wrote in post #14615988
There are several good reasons not to get the 7D actually. IQ will not be any better than the 60D (may even be worse if you consider and believe the low ISO noise, intolerance to exposure error, and more aggressive low pass filter on the 7D), the OP will have less money to spend on lenses (which matter far more than the body for what he is planning to do with it), and the 7D has a far steeper learning curve whether you like it or not, as Alan has just pointed out. I remember how hard it was learning even just the basic rebel functions coming from P&S cameras, I shudder to think what unsuspecting people face when the salesperson has successfully unloaded a 7D on them and they try using it out of green box mode. Finally, and sort of repeating myself here; the 7D brings practically nothing to the OP for what he plans to shoot that a 60D doesn't (besides MA).

But again, its entirely up to the OP, his money, his choice. He'll be happy either way I'm sure.

i think this thread has been hijacked a bit () as the OP is not asking about which Camera to buy but about lens choices. but in the spirit of the debate, sorry i just don't see you argument regarding the learning issue, ya the 7d has a more complicated focusing system but then again it is not exactly rocket science and the fundamentals of understanding photography are the same regardless what camera you have. one could read the manual in a single day and watch all the online tutorials in a second day and have a pretty good understanding of how the camera works. you dont have to be proficient at everything on the first day in order to enjoy the hobby and this give you plenty of growing room as you expand your knowledge.

and i would turn the argument around on you and ask what can you do with the 60D that would be too hard to figure out with the 7D, you still have the same green box, AV, TV, P or M mode.

bob

DanFrank wrote in post #14612950
Well I'd start with a good portrait lens. Something good in low light. I like having the background "blown out" if that helps. Had a $400-500 budget for that. Any suggestions?

Canon EF 50 mm f/1.4.

You-by-Lou wrote in post #14615500
more lenses? how many more "lenses" can one get with the max five hundred savings?

Is a 60D the same price as a 7D?
No, I didn't think so.
Therefore if the OP were to buy a 60D he would have more money to invest in lenses.
I would have though that this was basic math.

His only mention of how much he was spending was $400-500 on a portrait lens.
He said he didn't have a lens budget "per-se".
Whether that would allow him to buy a single higher quality lens, or more than one lens would depend on how much he had to spend, whether he was willing to by secondhand, etc.

unistudent1962 wrote in post #14619636
Is a 60D the same price as a 7D?
No, I didn't think so.
Therefore if the OP were to buy a 60D he would have more money to invest in lenses.
I would have though that this was basic math.

His only mention of how much he was spending was $400-500 on a portrait lens.
He said he didn't have a lens budget "per-se".
Whether that would allow him to buy a single higher quality lens, or more than one lens would depend on how much he had to spend, whether he was willing to by secondhand, etc.

basic math is off....you said "lenses" implying plural
500 gets him halfway to one nice lens
additionally he stated he's found a 7D used at 1100 so he is willing to purchase used.
and in the end it's not even 500 that is the difference

You-by-Lou wrote in post #14619997
basic math is off....you said "lenses" implying plural
500 gets him halfway to one nice lens
additionally he stated he's found a 7D used at 1100 so he is willing to purchase used.
and in the end it's not even 500 that is the difference

Not to throw fuel on an already raging fire, but a refurb 600D with the -20% code currently active comes out to around $640...just saying

ErgoSpacePig wrote in post #14616816
and i would turn the argument around on you and ask what can you do with the 60D that would be too hard to figure out with the 7D, you still have the same green box, AV, TV, P or M mode.
bob

Me personally? I don't know, since I'm familiar with DSLRs. For a beginner, figure out the AF system for example

Plus, there are still the other issues I mention which haven't been addressed in your response.

Unless his budget for the body has no bearing whatsoever on his budget for lenses, I find it hard to talk about them separately.

sambarino wrote in post #14616210
Don't buy the argument about get the cheaper camera and put the money into lenses. There is not enough money difference between these two cameras to buy any piece of good glass with.

There's ~$350 difference between a used 60D and a used 7D. It can buy a used 85 1.8, which is a very good piece of glass, and perfect for most of the OP's needs.