New camera dilemma

[Big Kev]

Photography noob alert

I've had my Canon 550D now for about 18 months and I'm really getting in to photography and enjoying the great outdoors but I'm starting to feel some limitations in the quality of the pictures I can get with it. For the most part I feel they lack some sharpness and punch and in anything other than about F4-6 they start to get a bit noisy as the camera tends to increase the ISO or it drops the shutter speed too much so I have to up the ISO to get the numbers I want. No amount of post production can really get around those physical limitations of the hardware.

I'd always intended on getting the 550D as a starter and upgrading if I got in to it so that time is coming. I currently have the 18-55mm EF-S kit lens, a 70-300mm canon EF lens and the 100mm L Macro lens.

My problem is I dunno what to get and as I don't spend large amounts of money without researching this becomes a problem!

One option is to sell all my Canon gear and go Nikon (D600?) as they seem to be 'winning' the resolution race at the moment but I don't really want to do that if I can help it as I've always had Canon stuff and like it. Having said that my 70-300 isn't particularly sharp so that might go next year anyway. I'd also like to get something in the 10-20mm range at some point. I don't have to sell the 550D to finance any replacement and I'll be going new instead of second hand.

I shoot anything I fancy really. I do a lot of macro (insects etc), other general wildlife, I've done some landscapes, motorsport, some buildings. About the only thing I don't do is portraits and weddings.

So my dilemma comes from cropped vs full frame.
From what I understand (and I'm happy to be corrected ) full frame will give me wider shots on the same lens and probably better image/noise quality as the camera is likely to be more expensive/modern tech BUT I will loose a bit of zoom effect from my lenses (I know the kit one will be no good). The zoom thing concerns me a bit because nature likes to keep its distance and racing cars are usually a fair way as well. However, I assume too that as the overall image quality is likely to be a bit better, you can crop quite heavily and still keep that clarity. So I can't decide if that's going to be an issue for me. I frequently see similar motorsport pictures from people with only 200mm lenses and they seem to be a lot better than mine but also they are often full frame cameras. Cropped would also give me a cheaper and wider range of lenses to choose from if I needed them.

The options I'm looking at are
Canon 7D - Top of the range cropped sensor but getting a bit long in the tooth
Canon 6D - Their new entry level full frame but no proper reviews of it yet really. Seems to be getting a lot of criticism but it's mainly people who wanted a 5D3 for half the price!! Whatever I decide I'll be waiting for reviews on this one though.
Canon 60D - Not terribly interested in this as I've read some iffy reviews. Pity cos it could have been the ideal middle ground.
Canon 5DmkIII - I could stretch to this if I thought it was worth it. I would get it with 'kit lens package' of the EF 24-105mm F4L as that seems very versatile and I could go grey import and save 600 quid or so. But I could also end up with all the gear and no idea with that one. Great camera but might be one step too far on the photography tree at this stage.
Nikon D600 - Full frame, good price, 24MP but I'd have to buy new everything and have the hassle of selling the old stuff.

So any suggestions welcome

[DexterPunk]

The whole canon vs nikon thing is relevant and irrelevant. There's really not much difference, and you're at a point were you aren't massively invested in either. You could possibly jump ship. But at the same time, its also not worth worrying about (unless you want to?)... The 6D looks like it would be pretty darn good for you. Having said that... a 550D is fairly capable. You are probably noticing the limits of your lenses more than that body. It's a bit of a combination, but aside from the macro you have which is a ripper, your other lenses might be letting you down a fair bit. I would imagine you would notice a fair difference between your 100mm and the other two in regards to resolution. On the other hand, full frame is a huge improvement over a crop sensor. One of the main reasons (obviously) is down to the physical size of the sensor... because the sensor is larger, they can use larger photosites on the sensor. 18mp on a point and shoot camera with a sensor the size of your little finger nail, compared to 18mp on a larger sensor means a big difference in the size of the photosites. It's a bit like standing in the rain with a large bucket, as opposed to a small one, you're going to collect more rain drops in the larger one. Same with light, more photons falling on the larger photosites means it's essentially more effective at gathering light. Less volts/amps are needed to up the 'gain' on the sensor, so less 'noise' as a result.

I guess what it comes down to is your budget... and trying to maximise that budget. But I often find that people underestimate the value of investing in good lenses. They will also see you through a number of bodies if looked after. I hope this helps somewhat, and doesn't just confuse more.

[Big Kev]

Yeah you're absolutely right in that I definitely get the best results from the Macro lens, and so I should. Maybe the pictures I get from the others just look poor in comparison, and even more so as I'm getting better.

I definitely notice the poor ISO performance of the 550D though and that would certainly be something I would like to improve with an upgrade.

Personally I think the 6D might be ok too and I would get the 24-105mm package for that if I did but until the reviews come in I don't know how good it is. I tend to like to buy the best I can afford. I don't really have a budget cap but I don't want to go mad.

Perhaps a 6D, 24-105 and then swap the 70-300 for something L at a later date.

[DexterPunk]

The 6D will be great. I use the 24-105 a shit load. It's not my sharpest lens, but it's very versatile. Like most things in photography, its a trade off.

[Hazelb]

Kev,
Make sure you try Tdimension in terms of pricing, I got my 24-05l from their, cheapest I found and it arrived in 4days...If the 24-105l is ok for full frame, you could always buy that first, try it on the 550d and see how that improves your shots, I noticed a huge difference on my 50d.

[norbs]

The whole canon vs nikon thing is relevant and irrelevant. There's really not much difference, and you're at a point were you aren't massively invested in either. You could possibly jump ship. But at the same time, its also not worth worrying about (unless you want to?)... The 6D looks like it would be pretty darn good for you. Having said that... a 550D is fairly capable. You are probably noticing the limits of your lenses more than that body. It's a bit of a combination, but aside from the macro you have which is a ripper, your other lenses might be letting you down a fair bit. I would imagine you would notice a fair difference between your 100mm and the other two in regards to resolution. On the other hand, full frame is a huge improvement over a crop sensor. One of the main reasons (obviously) is down to the physical size of the sensor... because the sensor is larger, they can use larger photosites on the sensor. 18mp on a point and shoot camera with a sensor the size of your little finger nail, compared to 18mp on a larger sensor means a big difference in the size of the photosites. It's a bit like standing in the rain with a large bucket, as opposed to a small one, you're going to collect more rain drops in the larger one. Same with light, more photons falling on the larger photosites means it's essentially more effective at gathering light. Less volts/amps are needed to up the 'gain' on the sensor, so less 'noise' as a result.

I guess what it comes down to is your budget... and trying to maximise that budget. But I often find that people underestimate the value of investing in good lenses. They will also see you through a number of bodies if looked after. I hope this helps somewhat, and doesn't just confuse more.

Dex speaks the truth.

I did pretty much what you are talking about Kev, 300D to a 30D to a 5D. If I had my time again I would have missed the jump to a 30D and spent more on lenses.

I had a local guy I have seen out taking photos a few time ask me if he could use one of my lenses a few weeks back when I was out testing the 5D3. He had a 450D and a 18-55mm on it. I was shooting with the 80-200L at the time and he borrowed my 24-70L. I wandered off to take a call and watched him taking photos. He was chimping like a madman. When I got off the phone I asked him what he was doing. He was looking at the shots and zooming right in. Apparently not believing the quality of the shots. He smiled and told me if I was still on the phone he would have jumped in the car and left the 18-55mm behind for me.

Do you have a local camera club? Or do you have a place that rents lenses? At least you can then try some different lenses.

Also, if you do go FF, the EFS lens is useless. And the 70-300mm will probably look even worse, especially around the edges.

My gut feel. Keep the 550D and get some good FAST glass. You have proved with the 100mm macro that the camera can produce stunning images. Invest in the glass that you can keep for ever. Then once your wallet recovers, the 5D3 or 6D2 or what ever will be cheaper.

I'd be happy to have a chat on Skype or something like that on the weekend if you like.

[J.D.]

Just be aware that the internet, with the genuine exception of this forum, is very often the worst place to get information about performance issues.

This is because there is an awful lot of competitive spending and self-justification going on*. There's also the issue that there are a lot of people, those incredibly literal types, who think that a sharp picture must always be a good picture to the exclusion of everything else. That is why there are legions of people who spend half their time taking pictures of (US) $100 bills or brick walls. It's a practice usually referred to as "measurebating". They're the ones who spend the other half of their time looking at pictures in 100% and waving MTF charts at you and telling you it's a crime to use a 300 f/2.8 at f/20.

Websites like Fred Miranda are very often just sharpness competitions, which are not necessarily real-world reflections of the actual performance of that lens. Very often it's a result of one person being significantly better at sharpening for the web. I'm useless at it so my pictures will never look as impressive as they do yet I guarantee that for the size of the enlargement, there's probably absolutely no difference.

I think I managed to single handedly kill off the fallacious concept of the "sharp copy" on FM by explaining a few basic principles of photography. We never talked about sharp copies in the days of manual focus so why is it an issue now? I know of one guy who recommended buying 4 examples of the same lens and sending back all but the sharpest one! There are others who will tell you "I had to buy six copies of this lens before I found one that was any good". Complaints about Canon's quality control are usually ill-informed ramblings. Here are a few words of wisdom from a rental agent in the US who deals with this all the time:

This Lens is Soft and Other Myths

This Lens is Soft and Other Facts

As you can see, there are many variables and brand is really a non-issue. Resolution these days is also a non-issue. Sensor size is still an issue but a minor one. Yes, it's true that a good quality lens will generally perform better but calibration is very often the determining factor. That's why Canon introduced the AF Micro Adjust feature for some of their bodies. I've used it on the 7D and it's very good but your 550D won't have it.

*95-99% of internet photographers are not professionals. No harm in that but to a pro a lens is a lens. It either does the job or it doesn't Amateurs have a different view and plenty of them are pretty loud about it.

[Speed]

+1 on spending your money on lenses first.
There is definitely a good gain in having less noise on a FF but the extra sharpness of L lenses is awesome.

Edit: Haha JD I must've been typing at the same time as you. My response is my own findings & thoughts & not in response to your post.
My own findings were that when I bought my 24-105 I for my 400D I didn't appreciate how good it was until I reused my 70-300 again about a month later. My 70-300 was as soft as shit....I do believe they are a little better now.

It's one thing that not necessarily sharp shots can be amazing but I like to have the option of whether my shots are super sharp or not & of course in the right places.
Post process sharpening is definitely a black art that I hope to get a handle on one day.

[J.D.]

Yeah but don't do it until you're sure that the problems are not glass related. They could still be calibration issues.

[DexterPunk]

Quite often it's very minor calibration, or very minor focus issues. I know how sharp my lenses can be if I get that critical focus right. It's actually not always the easiest thing to do.

Let us know how you go and what you decide on Kev.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

[Big Kev]

Thanks for the advice so far guys.

Do you have a local camera club? Or do you have a place that rents lenses? At least you can then try some different lenses.

There's the Oxford Photographic Society. Although they say they welcome noobs it looks a bit high brow so I might give that a miss. I'm not really a club kind of person but I might see what else is around. Plenty of places to rent lenses form. Around £50-100 a time. There's a few one day courses dotted around though. Might have another look at those.

Just be aware that the internet, with the genuine exception of this forum, is very often the worst place to get information about performance issues.

Absolutely. I could have posted this on several sites I read but you guys are the only ones I trust to really give me a proper answer instead of being treated like a knob!

L lenses it is then.

[J.D.]

Kev, just be aware that even L lenses can suffer from calibration errors. If you end up with one you think is a bit off the mark, don't assume it's a soft lens.

[Big Kev]

I'm basically looking to replace my 70-300mm (probably some time next year as I might do Silverstone again), I'd quite like a wide one in the 10-20mm range and possible get a good mid range like a 17-40 or the 24-105. That should cover all eventualities and I'm happy to spend a reasonable amount on those. There seem to be plenty of places that have sample pictures and reviews and also flickr is good for finding the same body/lens combo to see if they go well together. Then I'll have everything I want really. I don't have any aspirations to fish eye or tiltshift and although, for nature, some mega zoomy thing would be good, they're way out of my range but an L with extensions might be a cheaper alternative at some point.

[J.D.]

Well, if it's L glass you want...

There isn't a 10mm L series lens in the Canon range but the EF-S 10-22 is an excellent choice. The only problem is that it's not compatible with full frame but I wouldn't let that stop you. It's one of the main reasons I haven't got FF.

The EF 17-40 is a good lens but if you're down in that neck of the woods the 24-105 IS would be a better choice if you already have a 10-22.

For a tele zoom, you're in much the same position as Dex was. Either the 70-300 IS or the 100-400 IS. If you can swing it, the 100-400 is probably a better option for you. A word of warning though: it's a push-pull operation. That doesn't seem to bother most people but I hate it. That lens is a very common sight at airshows, where it's said by many show shooters to be the King.

Don't get worried about having gaps in your lens range. Zoom with your feet.

[Big Kev]

I've yet to read anything bad about the 24-105mm so that could well be near the top of the shopping list.

Finding things below that is a bit more tricky. I don't really want to get in to EF-S lenses and, eventually, I'll go full frame so they won't be any use to me. But the wider view of the FF sensor might negate the need for going that low anyway. One of the main reasons was landscapes and maybe milkyway type pictures but 24mm on FF might be enough for that. Although Sigma do some lenses down that end. Their EX ones I think are the top end lenses and seem reasonably priced with good reviews.

[Hazelb]

Kev, My brother has the Tokina 10-16mm lens, he is extremely happy with it, it produces nice clear shots. If you want something wide, that may fit the bill.

[Big Kev]

Yeah I was looking at that earlier but it's only for cropped sensors.

[DexterPunk]

Yeah I'd steer clear of those. You might eventually switch to full frame.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

[norbs]

I have a Sigma 12-24. Dont use it much, but by jesus it is wide at 12mm.

[J.D.]

I don't really want to get in to EF-S lenses and, eventually, I'll go full frame so they won't be any use to me.

I have two EF-S lenses and both are great. Really great. They are completely different animals from the giveaway 18-55 that comes with your original body. A comparison is almost pointless. The front element block of the 10-22 is rumoured to be from one of Canon's L series wide angles but I don't know which one. A side-by-side physical comparison with the 17-40 reveals some similarity, especially the exotic aspherical front element and it outperforms a 17-40 on my 7D. It's a hell of a lens.

The 60mm macro, while of little value to you, is a ripper but some would find the working distance too short. That is not reflective of the quality which, for the money, is fantastic. It's also a near-perfect portrait lens. I have no regrets about either EF-S purchases and they both spend more time on my bodies than either the 17-40 or the 70-200.

A lot of people say "I'm going to go full frame one day so I won't buy an EF-S". That locks you out of some very good quality glass and you can always sell it if you do change. It might even help finance the transition.

Just a suggestion: if you're concerned about noise in your shots, a ring flash will help a lot.

Not trying to talk you out of it Kev. I'm just thinking that there are ways to maximise your enjoyment along the way. Going to FF is a big step and you will end up using your 550D as a backup body anyway.

[Big Kev]

Not trying to talk you out of it Kev. I'm just thinking that there are ways to maximise your enjoyment along the way. Going to FF is a big step and you will end up using your 550D as a backup body anyway.

Yeah that's another thing to consider.

I spent the weekend looking at the various lenses under about 20mm and apart from the usual 'it's great/it's shit' reviews for every single one of them there wasn't really much for the full frame cameras in that area so a lot seem to keep their old crop cameras and get the EF-S 10-22mm for wide stuff and use the FF camera for everything else. Sigma do a FF 12-22mm but the reviews seem very mixed for that. Considering FF cameras have a much wider view anyway I'm surprised it's not being exploited with a good short lens, apart from fisheye stuff. But then maybe you get other issues with things just looking too far away or out of proportion and in fact you're better off with a slightly longer lens and stitching pictures.

[DexterPunk]

There's some wide lenses out there for the full frame. 14mm L (super pricey), 16-35 L, and 17-40 L. Theres a wide-ish tilt shift from memory, and then yeah the fish eye stuff. Making a lens really wide usually gives you a number of abberations, most obvious would be the barrel distortion. I guess L series glass prides itself on superior image quality, so perhaps they aren't as quick to produce a lens which they feel compromises too much.

Remember as well, that 24mm on a full frame is roughly equivalent to 17mm on your crop sensor. I'd like a wider lens as well since the widest I have for my camera is a 24. But the 16-35 is what I'm looking at. 16mm is pretty darn wide, and will do the job nicely for me. I'd love the 14mm, but the front element is so bulbous, you can't get a filter over it (unless you use a kokin or lee system, which I don't want to). This means the lens is a little limited for me for landscapes as I love using an ND filter or polarising.

If you can, next time you're near a camera store, ask to have a look at a 5d with the 16-35 on it, or 17-40 even, and see what you think. You might be surprised how wide those lenses are on a full frame.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

[Big Kev]

As these lenses are all a grand a piece maybe I'll just get a tripod and stitch em
One reason for wanting a slightly wider one was that I'd quite like to try and get some pics of the milky way and all the good ones on flickr tend to be done around 10-12mm. But again, it's nothing you can't do with copy/paste I guess. I also find by landscapes a bit narrow.

Like you say 24mm on FF would be about the same as I'm already getting with the 18mm kit lens on my 550D. It would be nice to get a bit wider but I think these things will have to wait. The landscape isn't going to go away any time soon so I have time to save up, or, as JD says, get the 10-20 for my 550D (equivalent to about 16mm) and use that.

The husband of one of the secretaries at work, works for Canon. I'm waiting to hear if he can tell me when the 6D will hit the shelves and if he can get me a staff discount (although they had a bit hold on that after the tsunami a couple of years back - dunno if they're back on again). Amazon says the 6D isn't out until March but that seems a long way off from the announcement. Some are saying december. But for the price the high street is charging for the 6D I could get a 5D3 on grey import which is quite tempting!!

[norbs]

Sigma 12-24. Plenty wide on my 5D.

This is at 12mm


The sun is chasing the moon. by norbography, on Flickr

[J.D.]

As these lenses are all a grand a piece maybe I'll just get a tripod and stitch em

Actually, the 17-40 is a lot cheaper than that. I don't know what the import tax threshold is in the UK but for an L lens, that is cheap. Most people regard it as a bargain.

Dex is right: the biggest problem with super wide lenses is usually distortion.

The most common form of distortion in wide angles is barrel distortion. Unless you're after the fisheye look, it's not really very desirable. Wider than about 24mm, the 17-40 starts to gain noticeable barrel distortion, even on a crop camera. The 10-22 is almost completely rectilinear - theoretically no barrel distortion at all but it comes with its own peculiar type of distortion.

Dex has used my 17-40 on his 5D MkII and he will have had more problems to deal with in this lens than I have with my crop bodies for one reason: sensor real estate. The crop body simply does not see the corners or edges the 5D sees.

Secondary problem with super wides is chromatic aberration. Both lenses have it. Both are correctable in either Lightroom or Photoshop.

The third problem is vignetting, which is also correctable.

None of these aberrations is peculiar to any Canon design. They are a fact of life for all wide angles and wide zooms. They exist in different proportions according to how they're designed and in the end, it's a matter of preference more than a matter of specification. Look at the front element of any wide angle:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/came ... m.html?p=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and think about how much further the edge light has to travel than the light which goes down the centre and how much more glass it has to pass through.

Everything in lens design is a trade off.

Lightroom has basic lens files to correct these problems but you need to remember that they vary with camera body (crop vs FF) and lens setting. Full wide produces different errors from zoomed in so you have to do a lot of it yourself.