Think I'm ready to upgrade

Not sure what to get. Of course, one of these typical lame threads. But my 30D is being stretched a bit far and I need to get a little better IQ. Not that it's shabby, and not that I have grandiose ideas of becoming a better photographer with a new camera. But I need better high ISO images, and more detail in my landscapes.

Health is a concern, heavy cameras are somewhat of an issue right now (and will only get worse) but until that happens I want to have a blast with my photography before "downgrading" to the G11.

I don't have tons of money, but have an ok amount to spend. If i go the 5DII route that means only getting the kit, no other lenses. I would like to keep the cheap 28-105 and get the 70-200 or 17-40 instead of the kit, but wonder if the quality would be too bad for getting good details in my shots. But if I get a cheaper camera then I can invest more in glass. Heck I'd even consider a rebel and great glass if I can get GREAT IQ and great high ISO quality.

So basically I want the best IQ, as much detail in landscapes, and good low light capabilities. It doesn't matter how I get it. And yes this will be my camera for as long as possible, I doubt I'd outgrow anything that's on the market today, I only outgrew the 30D mostly due to my needing something better for low light (REALLY low light- meaning even with a 1.4 lens I'm still getting shutter speeds of 1/15, while it's ok it's really pushing it.)

What I don't care about:
movies
super high AF (as in sports)
really long tele stuff (while I love birds, the lenses are way too heavy and really hurt my hands and back)
other "fancier" features

I really use center point AF, spot metering, long exposures in both low and high light, and basically just need a basic camera without too many frills. Sure they all have frills now, but I won't use them.

This would be an easy 5Dc but I need better high ISO then it has.

You seem to be describing the 5DII throughout your thread...

Seems like you've answered your questions. Although a couple of thoughts occur. While the new cameras are better at higher ISO performance and will give you some benefits high iso isnt always a panacea. I dont know what you are shooting in that low light, but is it something that could benefit from flash?

7D or T2i (other than AF / burst speed supposed to have the same performance). Or 50D but I'm not sure it's at the same low light level as these two.

Hmm, if you have ruled out the 5D Classic because you want better high ISO performance, then your choices are rather limited -- I'd say to either the 7D or the 5D2 (the 1D4 would be in there as well but of course at a high price and heavy).

Maybe discounting the 5Dc off the bat isn't such a good idea. I recently purchased one used for a great price and am floored by the difference in the image compared to the xxD (former) and 7D I shoot with now.

Landscapes and high-ISO isn't an issue. Even when shooting at higher ISO settings I believe the 5Dc gives almost a film quality to the images. Something I like and hasn't been available on the other bodies I've shot with.

Budget + quality of image might mean a 5Dc is a good choice for you.

dave

If you're looking for a small (and economical) body with a punch, consider that the T2i basically matches the 7D in terms of IQ.

And I agree...the 5Dc is still worth considering given your criteria.

I would avoid the 7D if you want the detail in landscapes. Its diffraction limited aperture is calculated at f/6.3 so you will definitely see a fall off in landscape detail when you're up at f/13 or so.

I had one and have traded it in after being unhappy with its ISO100 noise performance and high aperture detail loss. That said, it performs very well at higher ISO relative to other bodies out there.

Given you don't want the fancy autofocus and that you are describing the body as your last hurrah before heading for a G11, why not say stuff it and get the 5DII and the 17-40mm

snyderman wrote in post #10447260
Maybe discounting the 5Dc off the bat isn't such a good idea. I recently purchased one used for a great price and am floored by the difference in the image compared to the xxD (former) and 7D I shoot with now.

Landscapes and high-ISO isn't an issue. Even when shooting at higher ISO settings I believe the 5Dc gives almost a film quality to the images. Something I like and hasn't been available on the other bodies I've shot with.

Budget + quality of image might mean a 5Dc is a good choice for you.

dave

I completely agree. If you are looking for detail and great IQ the 5Dc is superior to any xxD or the 7D. The only thing that does not match your description is the super low light capabilities. I still feel more comfortable shooting at very high iso with my 7D.

OK, I was going to go with the 5DII (my husband says to get that one and the kit) and will have to wait to get additional lenses. But everyone here always says upgrade glass before bodies..... So I was hoping to maybe get something cheaper to get more glass.

But with people saying the 5Dc is still good even with a lower high ISO maybe I'll go that route instead. So even with the ISO being the same, will the images be better under those harsh conditions? I know the sensor is bigger and can handle the light more, but is it really so much better I'll notice a good difference?

And no flash isn't an option. I prefer "natural" light. Especially for photographing a band at a fairly close distance. Don't want to blind them so they can see each others signals.

If you don't need video or incredibly high ISO performance then just buy a 5Dc and save yourself a whole boat load of cash for a good lens. The 5D sounds like it would definitely fit the bill for you.

juanpafer wrote in post #10447353
I completely agree. If you are looking for detail and great IQ the 5Dc is superior to any xxD or the 7D. The only thing that does not match your description is the super low light capabilities. I still feel more comfortable shooting at very high iso with my 7D.

Agree. The 7D's high ISO performance is amazing. Guess unless we have the $$ to throw at the 5DII, we'll have to make do with the 5Dc noise floor and tell ourselves it has that 'film grain' quality to it!

dave

gardengirl13 wrote in post #10447372
OK, I was going to go with the 5DII (my husband says to get that one and the kit) and will have to wait to get additional lenses. But everyone here always says upgrade glass before bodies..... So I was hoping to maybe get something cheaper to get more glass.

But with people saying the 5Dc is still good even with a lower high ISO maybe I'll go that route instead. So even with the ISO being the same, will the images be better under those harsh conditions? I know the sensor is bigger and can handle the light more, but is it really so much better I'll notice a good difference?

And no flash isn't an option. I prefer "natural" light. Especially for photographing a band at a fairly close distance. Don't want to blind them so they can see each others signals.

Since you are coming from a 30D, the 5DC will definitely be an improvement in a lot of ways, including the high ISO performance -- it will be very noticeable. The controls/interface are identical to the 30D so it will be a natural move. The 5D does, though, have a very nice viewfinder that will be refreshing coming from a 30D.

There are things that newer cameras do have, though, such as Live View, micro-adustment for fine-tuning autofocus, and the auto sensor cleaning, things which can make a difference, but I have those things on my 1DM3 body and still love shooting with my 5D Classic.

Now, is the 5D2 better? Sure, in numerous ways, both what I mentioned above and the fact that with a much higher resolution you will have more fine detail that huge prints will show. And, it does have a better high ISO quality range -- an ISO 6400 looks at least as good as a 5DC ISO 3200 image ("fake" ISO on the 5DC), from what I see. If you shoot in situations that demand ISO 3200 and higher, then you will benefit from a 5D2 for sure.

My husband still wants me to get the 5DII. He thinks if this will be my camera for a long time he'd rather me spend the money on something new that may take me a bit farther, then something that may very well need a new shutter, or work done on it in the next year or two. The one I was looking at, no one can tell me how many clicks it has, or how the original owner took care of it. My husband said to get a new body, but used lenses. He thinks it's better that way since "glass is forever" and used glass will usually work better longer then a possible 5 year old camera.

I'm of course fine with that! Sure I'll have to wait a bit to get the other lenses I want, but man that mark II sounds soooo nice! In my mind I see better photos. I know this is a stretch, since it's the photographer not the camera, but I'm hoping for real clear landscapes and being able to learn to get the best I can. Even if it is basically a snapshot! I also do need good low light photos. Sure getting the proper exposure is 80% of the image, but that other 20% of say not being able to use a lens unless it's wide open instead of stopping it down to 5.6, or getting too much movement since my shutter speeds are only 1/25, it'd be really nice to get better shots. I'm getting better with the low light stuff, but still feel I could do more.

Well, I sure won't argue with your husband!

Seriously, what lenses do you have? That does matter -- if you have mainly EF-S lenses then buying a 5D2 means you will be seriously limited, but if you have a decent set of EF lenses then you will be able to get a good start on things. Wide angle can be a challenge -- the EF-S lenses cover Ultra Wide through medium telephoto in a pretty comprehensive and inexpensive way, whereas with the full frame you have to pretty much start with something like a 24-105 or 24-70 or have primes that will cover the range. Or, the older 28-135...