Upgrade from my 500D - to be worth while?

as Title, I feel I'm now ready to upgrade my 500D I've had over four years.
Not done it before as didn't feel there was any point

but now I'm considering it.

Now.. a 7DmkII would be great at £1300 (BODY)

or do I save my money and go 70D at just over £700.

Gives me spare money to buy better lens'.

The question is.

going to a 70D, would I feel it gives me more and above than what the 500D offfers me now?

I know teh 7DmkII would be brilliant, but do I justify the extra money on it and also at my still level lol

Has anyone been in my possition and changing cameras and what did you do?

Tnx

What do you shoot and whats your budget?

salsa-king wrote in post #17733885
as Title, I feel I'm now ready to upgrade my 500D I've had over four years.
Not done it before as didn't feel there was any point

but now I'm considering it.

Now.. a 7DmkII would be great at £1300 (BODY)

or do I save my money and go 70D at just over £700.

Gives me spare money to buy better lens'.

The question is.

going to a 70D, would I feel it gives me more and above than what the 500D offfers me now?

I know teh 7DmkII would be brilliant, but do I justify the extra money on it and also at my still level lol

Has anyone been in my possition and changing cameras and what did you do?

Tnx

Heya,

Depends on what you shoot mostly.

Nothing wrong with your 500D. Better and different glass generally gives more opportunities than a better camera. A lot of what you're paying for in the new cameras are the new features and "newness" of the body. The guts of the camera, the sensor basically, is still very relevant. If you were trying to do birds in flight or sports (action in general), sure, a new body would help in the better AF features department as well as faster FPS to capture more frames of a moment. But if you're mostly shooting still life, general, landscape, portrait, macro, etc, getting a new body isn't as big a deal compared to a specific lens or two that really open doors. Plus you really need to already be using all the features of the camera to really notice a true benefit (and not just honeymoon "better" images from being excited about a new toy).

So what is your goal with a new body?
What lenses do you have?
And what do you generally shoot?

Very best,

I try a bit of everything lol

https://www.flickr.com​/photos/neoquip/albums


I've thought about having better ISO, when in a low light environment.
Faster shooting when doing track action... the other week I thought I lacked something shooting with the 500d and the canon 55-250 lens.

Like this one, on multi shot, it's one of the better ones, but feel sit misses somthing

salsa-king wrote in post #17733986
I try a bit of everything lol

https://www.flickr.com​/photos/neoquip/albums


I've thought about having better ISO, when in a low light environment.
Faster shooting when doing track action... the other week I thought I lacked something shooting with the 500d and the canon 55-250 lens.

Budget... if it was worth spending £1300 on a body I'd save for it. But realistically does it justify the extra for me on features I'd not use.... multi slot memory cards and the like

Heya,

Well, better ISO is relative. What level ISO? How are your processing? I can get clean images out of that same sensor basically at ISO 3200 no problem. Realistically the 70D and the more recent high end cameras are all within 1 stop of ISO performance of each other. So you're paying a lot for that 1 stop (or partial stop in your case). That may not be truly worth it unless you live at ISO 6400~12,800 and do zero processing and shoot JPG only. If you're shooting with high ISO in mind with exposure to the right and in RAW you can get more mileage out of your sensor for high ISO.

For action, the 250mm is good, but it's not the fastest lens. A slightly better AF system and a faster USM lens would make a lot of sense if you're really into shooting more action stuff. This is where any 50D/60D/70D would increase your AF and FPS and getting a 200mm USM lens makes sense (a 70-200 F4L non-IS for example, or a 200 F2.8L prime for example, both budget friendly). A 70D + 70-200 F4L non-IS would be a good upgrade in general for what you're doing, along with a good shorter lens. That way it's not just for the ISO, since you can do better with that anyways with technique and processing.

Very best,

is the 70D a good upgrade then over the 500d, for AF sensor points?

Think the 500d has 9 and the 70D has 19.... the 7d2 has about 65!!


I know a better zoon lens would help me loads... 70-200L f4 (IS would be great).... is there any need to go the whole hog and pick up a 70-200 f2.8, or is the f4 just as good once used with the 70D in low light and action sports shooting?

The 7Dii is superior in every way snd would be a much better choice for action shots like those races.

^ I will second that suggestion.
The dual processors in the 7DII are designed for fast action.
If these are your primary shots in photography, the reward would be forth saving up for that camera.
It offers speed and burst specifications that both the 500D, 70D, and certainly my 6D cannot compete with.

salsa-king wrote in post #17734027
is the 70D a good upgrade then over the 500d, for AF sensor points?

Think the 500d has 9 and the 70D has 19.... the 7d2 has about 65!!


I know a better zoon lens would help me loads... 70-200L f4 (IS would be great).... is there any need to go the whole hog and pick up a 70-200 f2.8, or is the f4 just as good once used with the 70D in low light and action sports shooting?

Heya,

Yes, the 70D has significantly better autofocus and speed (FPS) over the 500D. Don't worry about AF points. Doesn't matter if you have 1 or 100, if you're using the center point, then that's the point that is doing something. If you're using all points, well, you'll end up focusing on anything frankly. Realistically you're going to be using the center or maybe a single point left/right, etc, panning with a car. You're not going to really benefit from having a ton of crosspoints for cars. Just an FYI. This is that part of you getting used to what you're actually doing and not just looking at bigger numbers and thinking it matters.

The 70-200F4L would be better because it's a stop faster, and faster to AF (ring USM). If you can get an F2.8 version, get it. Every stop matters in terms of getting more light if you start shooting in lower light and wanting to keep a certain shutter speed. So if the price allows, I'd get a 70-200 F2.8 if possible. Don't forget about Tamron's 70-200 F2.8 VC if you want to compare prices. But the Canon 70-200 F4L non-IS for budget purposes is hard to beat for cost.

I know cost is a big difference across the pond. If you were in the USA market, I'd just suggest a 7D (mk I) and a 70-200 F4L non-IS since you could get both of those together for about $800 USD second hand. I know over there, it would be considerably more even used for that setup, unfortunately.

Very best,

If you can afford the 7DII then it would be a nice investment, that paired with a longer lens such as a vgc second hand 100-400 mkI. You could get about half of the 100-400 money by selling the 500D and the 55-250.

That would give you a fun combination.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17734742
Heya,

Yes, the 70D has significantly better autofocus and speed (FPS) over the 500D. Don't worry about AF points. Doesn't matter if you have 1 or 100, if you're using the center point, then that's the point that is doing something. If you're using all points, well, you'll end up focusing on anything frankly. Realistically you're going to be using the center or maybe a single point left/right, etc, panning with a car. You're not going to really benefit from having a ton of crosspoints for cars. Just an FYI. This is that part of you getting used to what you're actually doing and not just looking at bigger numbers and thinking it matters.

The 70-200F4L would be better because it's a stop faster, and faster to AF (ring USM). If you can get an F2.8 version, get it. Every stop matters in terms of getting more light if you start shooting in lower light and wanting to keep a certain shutter speed. So if the price allows, I'd get a 70-200 F2.8 if possible. Don't forget about Tamron's 70-200 F2.8 VC if you want to compare prices. But the Canon 70-200 F4L non-IS for budget purposes is hard to beat for cost.

I know cost is a big difference across the pond. If you were in the USA market, I'd just suggest a 7D (mk I) and a 70-200 F4L non-IS since you could get both of those together for about $800 USD second hand. I know over there, it would be considerably more even used for that setup, unfortunately.

Very best,

many thanks for your input.

I've always liked the tamron 70-200 vc F2.8 and its a good price new £1000, 2nd hand cheaper. it's not an in your face lens, like cream canon L series.
When I tried one I thought how light and easy to use and quality it was. great value for money.


Is the above better than going F4 70-200 L series non IS?

Or is a 2nd hand F4 70-200 IS worth getting instead..... would i give good low light pictures at concerts or in a church environment.. or is 2.8 the only way to go?

I'm feeling the 70D is more the price I want to spend. Then I could get some more lens'

But looking at the spec of the new 760D, is that the same as the 'old' 70D?

salsa-king wrote in post #17736825
many thanks for your input.

I've always liked the tamron 70-200 vc F2.8 and its a good price new £1000, 2nd hand cheaper. it's not an in your face lens, like cream canon L series.
When I tried one I thought how light and easy to use and quality it was. great value for money.

Is the above better than going F4 70-200 L series non IS?

Or is a 2nd hand F4 70-200 IS worth getting instead..... would i give good low light pictures at concerts or in a church environment.. or is 2.8 the only way to go?

I'm feeling the 70D is more the price I want to spend. Then I could get some more lens'

But looking at the spec of the new 760D, is that the same as the 'old' 70D?

Heya,

The 70-200 F4L IS, is good, but if you need F2.8, there's no substitute for F2.8.

For concerts & church environments, I would want F2.8, with or without stabilization, but with stabilization would be ideal. You're going to want to stop motion so you still need decently fast shutter even in low light, so you still will want to attempt 1/50s, 1/100s, etc, at F2.8, and ISO of whatever it takes to get exposure, maybe ISO 6400 or higher easily in a dark concert or church. More shutter speed would be even better, but with stabilization, you might be able to get away with slow speeds like that so long as the subjects are not moving very fast or at all much (or unless you intentionally want blur, some do).

If budget allows, I would get the 70-200 F2.8 VC Tamron. It's heavy. But it's fast, F2.8, and has good stabilization and costs way less than the Canon MKII and is very close to it in quality. It would be much better suited to low light concert & church stuff, as well as being capable of turning on some action if you needed it to. Work horse lens for everything.

The 70-200 F4L IS is an excellent lens in good light, not ideal for the lowest of light settings, more of an option for someone who doesn't want the weight of an 2.8 zoom.

Very best,

UDATE:

I've gone 7DmkII

Good choice...