Whats more important? New body? New Lens?

Milla wrote in post #9184250
I feel like I need to get a few more really great lenses. Another photographer thinks I am doing fine with my lenses but should upgrade my camera body.

Stick with your gut feeling...good glass rules. The "other photographer" is probably just a techie who always must have the latest and greatest. I can take pictures just as well with a original Rebel as i can with a new 7D.

In this order is what makes a good picture:

1. You
2. Good Glass
3. Off Camera lighting
.....
125. Camera Body

Jeffro250 wrote in post #9190112
I can take pictures just as well with a original Rebel as i can with a new 7D.

No, you can't. Don't push it.

The AF system does make a difference. The ISO handling does make a difference. The memory write time does make a difference. The FPS does make a difference... The truth is still that a better camera will not only manage better quality but will also allow you to capture some photos you will go home without with an old/low-end camera.

But the 50D is miles ahead of the original Rebel.

Depends on the picture! I contend that for many shots you don't need autofocus at all. For kids, action sports or wildlife, sure fast AF, high fps rate, high IO performance, etc. is great! But for landscapes on a tripod? Sunsets? 5x macro? Adult portraits? I don't think so. If you're buying new today then by all means get a new body to start out current but otherwise stick with what you have.

Great glass can really make pictures pop, let you stop action or get narrow depth of field but the subject really matters most. You need to choose the subject, the framing, perspective, depth of field, etc. The body can help you with the exposure, IS can help you hold it steady but it can't help you with composition yet, unless you count the grid lines in live view LOL.

Unless the OP needs to do wildlife photography I'd say the lens set and body are great. For birds I'd get a longer telephoto.

Off camera lighting can open up all kinds of possibilities. The crummiest lens in the world is usually pretty good stopped down to f/8 or f/11 and a flash can get you there. You don't need to worry about noise reduction so much, you can really control the light and shadow. Colours are more saturated, sometimes too much. You can go portable or with stands and umbrellas. Controlled lighting is a whole new learning curve however.

pwm2 wrote in post #9190214
No, you can't. Don't push it.

The AF system does make a difference. The ISO handling does make a difference. The memory write time does make a difference. The FPS does make a difference... The truth is still that a better camera will not only manage better quality but will also allow you to capture some photos you will go home without with an old/low-end camera.

But the 50D is miles ahead of the original Rebel.

If your competent enough of a photographer, have good glass and know your camera inside and out, you can take comparable pictures with a 200 dollar body or a 2000 dollar one.

Granted, things like improved auto focus, faster FPS and other things will get you a higher keeper rate but to sit there and say "no you cant" is just plain ignorant.

pwm2 wrote in post #9190214
No, you can't. Don't push it.

The AF system does make a difference. The ISO handling does make a difference. The memory write time does make a difference. The FPS does make a difference... The truth is still that a better camera will not only manage better quality but will also allow you to capture some photos you will go home without with an old/low-end camera.

But the 50D is miles ahead of the original Rebel.

Depends what you shoot! You have valid points.. for sports or BIF shots a 7D would blow away my cameras. Of course if you don't have good lenses with USM/HSM then it might not matter anyways. The 7D does have better ISO performance then prior APS-C cameras, however with proper noise reduction techniques I've seen some ISO3200 and 6400 shots from 50D that look very close. IMO if your goal is to shoot above ISO3200 you should be saving up for a 5DmkII or something, cause the 7D (while good with noise compared to 50D or Rebels) starts to lack detail and saturation.


@Milla: Just curious but what does your friend want you to upgrade to?

Jeffro250 wrote in post #9190664
If your competent enough of a photographer, have good glass and know your camera inside and out, you can take comparable pictures with a 200 dollar body or a 2000 dollar one.

Granted, things like improved auto focus, faster FPS and other things will get you a higher keeper rate but to sit there and say "no you cant" is just plain ignorant.

No. The claim "I can take pictures just as well with a original Rebel as i can with a new 7D." is still wrong.

You can take some pictures just as well.

I haven't had a 300D, but owns a 350D. And it isn't just a factor of technique, but the 40D or 5Dmk2 regularly brings home pictures the 350D didn't. And I'm not talking about IQ.

pwm2 wrote in post #9190700
And it isn't just a factor of technique, but the 40D or 5Dmk2 regularly brings home pictures the 350D didn't. And I'm not talking about IQ.

That alone right there tells me that your "technique" is a factor.

pwm2 wrote in post #9190700
I haven't had a 300D, but owns a 350D. And it isn't just a factor of technique, but the 40D or 5Dmk2 regularly brings home pictures the 350D didn't. And I'm not talking about IQ.

I shot with a 300D for three years, then upgraded to a 30D. The 300D can take quality pictures - as long as you don't ask it to do something it can't do.

For example, it doesn't even have AI Servo focusing in the creative modes. My primary reason for upgrading was to get better focusing on moving subjects.

My 30D is much better at focusing, but your 40D and 5D2 are better yet.

-js

I agree with pmw2...with one caveat.

Jeffro250 said:

Well, I know that statement is untrue for me. I had an original DRebel, and I know the DRebel would not work for me as well as my more modern cameras, and certainly not as well as a 7D. That would go for any kind of picture. The 7D is a smoother, better handling camera by such magnitude that I would find any kind of picture easier with the 7D than with a DRebel.

But I don't know about Jeffro250. Maybe he can't do any better with a 7D than with a DRebel.

But I can. And I guess pmw2 can, too.

Jeffro250 wrote in post #9190790
That alone right there tells me that your "technique" is a factor.

He's got his "technique" with him regardless which camera he uses.

RDKirk wrote in post #9190874
He's got his "technique" with him regardless which camera he uses.

Exactly...and if you try to use a 7D technique on a 300D, your going to be disappointed.

Jeffro250 wrote in post #9190790
That alone right there tells me that your "technique" is a factor.

Not at all. My technique can't make the 350D behave at 6400 ISO. If 1600 isn't enough, my technique can't magically invent more light. Sometimes flash can help. Sometimes longer exposure times. Sometimes neither are applicable, in which case I do need the extra ISO.

My eyes can't see the small red dots of the AF points on the 350D, and I can't switch to live view for MF. Is it my technique that allows me to switch to a MF focusing screen on the 40D? What if the center point doesn't have enough accuracy for fast lenses?

In some situations I do want several pictures in quick succession. Not because I expect most of them to miss the action or the focus but becaues there is a lot of interesting things happening in a very short interval. Or maybe I just need bracketing because of too much dynamic range. 3fps instead of 6.5fps doesn't matter for a static object. Sometimes, the object isn't static. The 350D can only buffer 4 RAW photos. My technique can't get people at an airshow to slow down because I have caught several great pictures but have a stuck shutter while waiting for the buffer to empty.

You wanted to say that a 300D and a 7D wouldn't matter. The 300D has a 0.8x viewfinder. The 7D has a 1x viewfinder. Better technique would make old eyes overcome the difference?

Probably my technique that makes me look for the PC Sync connector on the 350D?

A good photographer can compose and get great photos with just about any camera. But not all photos can be taken with any camera. That is a fact of life.

In this case, the OP has a 50D, which means that the camera is very good and hence way down on the upgrade list. But don't ever fool yourself - or anyone else - into believing that the camera doesn't matter. It is not just the IQ that differs between old and new, or low-end and high-end.

DStanic wrote in post #9190676
@Milla: Just curious but what does your friend want you to upgrade to?

50D IS

lol... "50D IS"...sounds like a P&S to me

cheungupdt wrote in post #9191030
lol... "50D IS"...sounds like a P&S to me

oppss not sure what happend there.. lol better edit that one.

cheungupdt wrote in post #9191030
lol... "50D IS"...sounds like a P&S to me

She thinks I should upgrade to a 5D. Sounds lovely, and I'm not knockin' the 5D, but for me
right now I don't feel its nessesary.

Someone on pg 1 asked what my backup is, and it's the Rebel XSI. Not exactly ideal, but it'll do the trick for now.

I'm not opposed to upgrading in a year or so, but I found it funny how she was hounding me for our whole meeting that I really NEED the 5D instead of a new external flash or a new lens (two things I REALLY want!). I was tempted to tell this Photog 'friend' to give me a couple thousand and I'd be HAPPY to upgrade! LOL