Do you think it's wise to upgrade the 550D to the 700D?

I have the Canon 550D for 2 years, but want to buy a new camera for myself. I don't know if I want or need all the extra functions/buttons that are in the new 70D for the way I work with a DSLR, and I really don't want a heavier camera(as I mostly shoot with a 18-250 lens, which adds quite a lot of weight), the 550D is already quite heavy as it is. So, I was thinking about buying the new 700D, I think it should suffice for me.

What do you think, am I going to just throw money here, or are there some new improvements on the 700D that make this a good choice?

TIA

You wont gain any image quality improvement. It's a good move if you will make use of the swivel touchscreen and the slightly better autofocus system. I know this is a canon form but if you find it heavy as is it may be worth looking at a panasonic or olymous m4/3rds camera with their 14-150mm. This would give similar coverage in a smaller package, but may not be the best for fast moving objects, just throwing an idea out there

The 700D will give you touch screen, which is definitely more than a gimmick. It will also give you the beginnings of video autofocus IIRC.

However (and someone correct me if I'm wrong on this point), I'm pretty sure they share the same 18mp sensor. You won't get any better ISO handling than your current model and as far as image quality goes, they'll be pretty much the same camera.

What I'd do is this: Print out the detailed features of both cameras and see what the 700D has that the 550D does not, then decide whether it's worth the difference between what you'd get the 700D for vs. what you can sell the 550D for.

TBH, I don't consider it much of an upgrade. If you were going to keep the same sensor, the 60D would be a much stronger upgrade as far as controls go (minus the touch screen) and you wouldn't pay much more for it. Canon is out of stock right now, but they list the refurb body for a mere $460.

A true upgrade in every sense of the word (and keeping an APS-C sized sensor) is the 70D. It's not that much heavier, but you should probably go to a brick & mortar store to hold one and see what you think. Or, if your budget allows, you can always consider full frame and look to the 6D. Even at that price point though, it was beyond my means. I'm quite happy with the 70D.

I have a 550D and a 7D. The 550D is still a fine camera and has great image quality; it's good to just stick in a bag as my secondary camera; It will do what I need and with the 18-55IS on it, it's light and easy to hold; plus, I know I'll get decent images.

The 70D is a great upgrade if you don't want to step up to the bigger heavier 7D; it has micro-adjust, great video, and comparable or slightly better image quality. Think about what you really need before starting the decision process, though, because the differences aren't spectacular.

I personally wouldn't go to the 6D because the crop reach and AF of the 7D are important to my needs; if you want low light capability with PDAF comparable to the 70D, and don't need the reach of a crop sensor, then the 6D might be for you.

hokiealumnus wrote in post #16890990
The 700D will give you touch screen, which is definitely more than a gimmick. It will also give you the beginnings of video autofocus IIRC.

However (and someone correct me if I'm wrong on this point), I'm pretty sure they share the same 18mp sensor. You won't get any better ISO handling than your current model and as far as image quality goes, they'll be pretty much the same camera.

What I'd do is this: Print out the detailed features of both cameras and see what the 700D has that the 550D does not, then decide whether it's worth the difference between what you'd get the 700D for vs. what you can sell the 550D for.

TBH, I don't consider it much of an upgrade. If you were going to keep the same sensor, the 60D would be a much stronger upgrade as far as controls go (minus the touch screen) and you wouldn't pay much more for it. Canon is out of stock right now, but they list the refurb body for a mere $460.

A true upgrade in every sense of the word (and keeping an APS-C sized sensor) is the 70D. It's not that much heavier, but you should probably go to a brick & mortar store to hold one and see what you think. Or, if your budget allows, you can always consider full frame and look to the 6D. Even at that price point though, it was beyond my means. I'm quite happy with the 70D.

Maybe I'll just have to do that.

But, there is a problem, as the 70D is a new model, and I only shoot RAW, I fear that Photoshop CS6 won't recognize the camera's RAW files, and I'm certainly not going to rent Photoshop CC from Adobe, not until hell freezes over.

Well, they didn't make that easy did they?

The 70D is compatible with Camera RAW v8.3 (reference).
CS6 is compatible with Camera RAW through v8.3 (reference).

So you're good to go with CS6.

hokiealumnus wrote in post #16891118
Well, they didn't make that easy did they?

The 70D is compatible with Camera RAW v8.3 (reference).
CS6 is compatible with Camera RAW through v8.3 (reference).

So you're good to go with CS6.

Can I open RAW files directly to Photoshop CS6 without first to ACR? I have DPP so I don't need ACR at all.

If you don't know why you want or need a new camera, then you probably shouldn't buy one. If the new camera doesn't address a shortcoming of your camera that is stopping you from taking the pictures you want to take, then it isn't going to improve your results.

You might find you get more bang for your buck with a new lens or flash.

While Camera RAW does come with the DNG converter, it is as I understand it basically an integrated part of photoshop. That's why I can NOT open 70D RAW files in CS5, because it is only compatible up to CR v6.7. As yours is compatible up to 8.3, you should be able to install the latest CR and open files directly from CS6.

Actually, it looks like CR is up to v8.4 in release candidate form, which adds even more support to CS6.

DL;DR - Yes.


EDIT - Also, +1 to tkbslc...if you're buying a new camera just to be buying one, hey, more power to you. Just go into it knowing that when you stick with an APS-C sized sensor, while the 70D is better than your current sensor, it's not going to be night & day difference. You'd probably see more image improvements with better lens(es). You'll see more feature differences with a new camera.

Adobe Camera Raw 8.4 is final, was released on April 8th. But you can't download it, you have to use the Adobe updater software and that will download and install it for your Photoshop CS6

hokiealumnus wrote in post #16891139
While Camera RAW does come with the DNG converter, it is as I understand it basically an integrated part of photoshop. That's why I can NOT open 70D RAW files in CS5, because it is only compatible up to CR v6.7. As yours is compatible up to 8.3, you should be able to install the latest CR and open files directly from CS6.

Actually, it looks like CR is up to v8.4 in release candidate form, which adds even more support to CS6.

DL;DR - Yes.


EDIT - Also, +1 to tkbslc...if you're buying a new camera just to be buying one, hey, more power to you. Just go into it knowing that when you stick with an APS-C sized sensor, while the 70D is better than your current sensor, it's not going to be night & day difference. You'd probably see more image improvements with better lens(es). You'll see more feature differences with a new camera.

Maybe both of you are right... I don't know...

I have 3 lenses: A Sigma 18-250mm lens, the one I use most of the time, a Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro and a Sigma 10-20 ultra-wide. So, which other lens would you recommend me to buy?

The SL1 is incredibly light, surprisingly comfortable to shoot with (unless you're hand holding it for hours), has a touch screen, and will gain you about a stop better JPEG ISO (6400 is actually very usable compared to the T2i/T3i). It would probably be overwhelmed by the size of your 18-250 but there is an option to go lighter.

The T2i is plenty capable and I think you would be pleasantly surprised at what you get with better glass. What focal lengths do you use the most? Are you usually at the long end or short end of your 18-250? Superzooms are capable but not known for being crazy sharp because of the very nature of having huge focal lengths

In addition to what focal lengths you use most, what do you shoot mostly? Also, do you plan on sticking with crop for good or is there a possibility that you may go full frame down the road? Certainly wouldn't want to recommend an EF-S lens if you might go full frame.

Lastly, what sort of budget do you have?

hokiealumnus wrote in post #16891792
In addition to what focal lengths you use most, what do you shoot mostly? Also, do you plan on sticking with crop for good or is there a possibility that you may go full frame down the road? Certainly wouldn't want to recommend an EF-S lens if you might go full frame.

Lastly, what sort of budget do you have?

I shoot mostly on travels, some macro, some architecture and also landscape. not portrait or street photography.

Don't think I'll go full-frame, don't want to carry ~2.5-3kg just to take photos.

What focal lengths? actually there is no specific focal range, as I use what I need to take the shoot that I want(the 18-250 gives you that much versatility).

Hmm... well, do you do much low light photography and find you need higher ISO?

Admittedly, I'm kind-of struggling here. If you like your superzoom and find you use its entire range a lot, there is very little that won't require you to switch lenses. There are absolutely better options, but they're either on the lower end of the zoom range or the higher end.

Since you're sticking with crop for sure, we can add EF-S lenses into the mix, which are cheaper than their FF counterparts. If you've ever found yourself wanting more low light capability, plus a little wider for architecture/landscape​, theEF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is a good option. I'd love to have one of those to replace my 18-55, but have no budget so I live vicariously through others.

If you've ever wanted to dabble in ultra wide for those landscapes (and architecture), you could look into the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 USM. I'd love to have one of those too for shots like this or this. 18mm did ok, but not like 10mm would have.

If you've ever considered shorter primes, I've heard great things about the EF 30mm f/2 IS USM. Heck, just to play around you may as well pick up a nifty fifty (EF 50mm f/1.8); they'redirt cheap at the canon refurb store right now - only $70.55. It's my first (and only) fast prime and it's a lot of fun.

There are, of course, better zooms than a superzoom that start a little longer. The one I'd loooove to get my hands on is the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L. Plenty of range, L quality and relatively affordable for what it is.

Well, I'll stop there and let someone else make their recommendations too.