i'd normally say glass as well, but going from a 10D to a 450D/7D/5D is a considerable leap in sensor technology.
if i were in this situation, i might swap the sigma out for a tamron 17-50 (for the tammy 28-75 if going FF), but otherwise, i'd upgrade bodies to one of the above-mentioned three.
I'll play devil's advocate here. If you are happy with the focal length and apertures of your lenses, get a new camera body. The lenses you have are all decent performers. This is all personal choice, but I think you would enjoy the increased performance, features and useability of one of the newer camera models.
Agreed. Also, people tend to forget how big of a role pp plays. Assuming you have a solid photo to start with, good PP technique really helps bring out the photo. My friends see my photos straight out of camera and say, "great photo." Then they see the edited version and don't say anything. They just gawk
Nov 17, 2009 at 08:23 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Dpic_arctic wrote:
Definitely the glass is what makes a difference. Once you have lots of good glass, then you can think about upgrading the body.
Definitely the body. When your camera is that old and have been upgraded four times, then it's time. If waiting until having lots of good glass, it mean waiting ten more years for most people
You could always get a 40D instead of going with the 50D to replace your 10D and get a 17-40 f/4 L lens to replace the Sigma 18-50/2.8. I realize the 17-40 f/4 is slower, but the image quality, in my opinion is greater than that of the Sigma.
I'm not really sure what the going rates for those things are, but I just paid $550 for a good used 17-40 f/4 and I've seen 40D's as low as $650ish. So maybe for around $1200 you could get your camera and lens upgraded, keep the 50 and 85 as they are great performers and move up from there as your funds allow.
You could probably sell your 10D and 18-50 Sigma setup. I'm sure someone would buy one or both of the items and that would cushion your expense.
As far as what makes the difference...Good glass will create sharper, more vibrant photos. They're usually faster and more accurate in focusing. The Canon L series lenses are usually really sharp with very little issues (I've never had to send one back). However, a newer camera (40D, 50D) will give you higher ISO performance, faster shooting, a larger, more accurate LCD (so you can chimp on your photos and really get under people's skin! ), and with the improved sensors and technology, you'll likely get more accurate color reproduction. I'd personally prefer to upgrade the body to the 40D and then grab a decent lens to go with it (the 17-40 is a REALLY nice option for you).
SloPhoto wrote:
If you can learn to shoot in raw, the image processor in the camera is eliminated from the equation.
Bodies can make the task easier, Glass can make the results better.
All you need to decide is which one is more important for you to upgrade right now.
Unfortunately my only computer now is a Dell Mini 12 Netbook with a weak 1.6 Atom processor and only 1 GB or ram so I will probably shoot JPEG and avoid any post processing (just hobbyist anyway).
I don't think that laptop can run Lightroom or Photoshop. I would like to shoot RAW but it may just be too much work for me right now. Any post processing knowledge I have is from 4+ years ago so I would have to re-learn.
After reading all your great posts I think I definitely need an upgrade to both which probably means a used 50D (not much more than a used 40D) and maybe a 17-40L plus a 28 or 35 prime.
The 5D is my favorite camera also, and if you were planning to do more than be a hobby photographer I'd hop on that wagon also. I don't think you'll be going wrong at all with the 40D(I love mine) or 50D. Did you ever inquire to canon about the Loyalty thing?
I am gona be a devil for both I say get 30D ( better dynamic range then 40D and 50D and decent high ISO ) and still money left for few good lenses 70-200 f4L and Tamy 17-50 2.8 instead of 17-40 L , maybe is gona be a little $$$ left for new computer best of luck Maciek
Unfortunately my only computer now is a Dell Mini 12 Netbook with a weak 1.6 Atom processor and only 1 GB or ram so I will probably shoot JPEG and avoid any post processing (just hobbyist anyway).
I don't think that laptop can run Lightroom or Photoshop. I would like to shoot RAW but it may just be too much work for me right now. Any post processing knowledge I have is from 4+ years ago so I would have to re-learn.
After reading all your great posts I think I definitely need an upgrade to both which probably means a used 50D (not much more than a used 40D) and maybe a 17-40L plus a 28 or 35 prime. ...Show more →
Mike: I've seen your work and I don't think your work would suffer a whole lot from you not having a computer so I'm not sure what your reasoning is behind the computer recommendation...If I had to pick replacing a computer or a camera system, I think I'd replace my camera system first.
That being said...
I think your computer is fine. Sure, it's not powerful and it probably wouldn't run image editing software (although it may handle Lightroom), but it's fine for what you need it for. I think it's a common misconception that a computer is required for great digital photography. Photography was great when there were no computers, scanners, Photoshop, etc. The computer should be a tool, not a crutch.
I've been seriously shooting since I was 18. So about 7 years or so. For the first 3 years of that, I had a bootleg copy of Photoshop 6. I used a Minolta DiMage Z1 for a year and a half of that and got great results with no training in Photoshop and just my photography background from school.
I think you're on the right track with a decent digital SLR (50D, 40D) and a nice wide-angle zoom (17-40L if you're leaning away from third party lenses, as I think you are) and a 28/1.8 or 28/2.8 (to save some cash) will give you a nice 50mm equivalent.
Upgrade your computer when you have an idea about your work flow and how many images you'll be editing. Then you can decide if you need Photoshop CS4, Lightroom 2, Apple Aperture, etc. That's what I did. I decided I needed Photoshop for my graphic design studies as well so I went with a computer capable of handling the Adobe Creative Suite. You probably don't need that. Also, do a little research, netbooks are getting powerful. It may very well run Lightroom 2 as long as you keep your computer relatively clean.
matthewm wrote:
I've been seriously shooting since I was 18. So about 7 years or so. For the first 3 years of that, I had a bootleg copy of Photoshop 6. I used a Minolta DiMage Z1 for a year and a half of that and got great results with no training in Photoshop and just my photography background from school.
Funny this comes up here, I'm still running a copy of Photoshop 6.0. Don't remember if it's "bootlegged" or not. I bought a version, and made a copy, cant remember if this was it...Coupled with DPP/Zoombrowser and NoiseNinja, Photoshop 6.0 does what I need it to. A couple extra steps, but I'm working with what I have until I have the "UNLIMITED" budget (wife's blessing) to go Hog Wild...
reno.peterson wrote:
Funny this comes up here, I'm still running a copy of Photoshop 6.0. Don't remember if it's "bootlegged" or not. I bought a version, and made a copy, cant remember if this was it...Coupled with DPP/Zoombrowser and NoiseNinja, Photoshop 6.0 does what I need it to. A couple extra steps, but I'm working with what I have until I have the "UNLIMITED" budget (wife's blessing) to go Hog Wild...
Good luck on the "wife's blessing." Perhaps you could butter her up with a nice piece of jewelery? Then again, that eats into the hog wild fund. It's Catch 22.
I was fine with Photoshop 6. It was actually a REALLY stable version and had a great platform. But I bought a Mac (GASP!) and had to get new software. Luckily, I was a student and got the AcademicSuperstore.com royal treatment and ended up with the entire Suite for under $600. Otherwise, I'd still be using that bootlegged copy of Photoshop 6.
The point is that I don't WANT to have to post process my files. If it's not decent enough to print A3 out of the camera it wasn't a good picture to begin with. My netbook serves me well enough for my uses as a computer, I wouldn't want to budget another computer just to PP pics.
then go shoot film.
Seriuosly all images out of digital can benifit from some sort of PP. It may just be a white balance tweak or a slight crop or a levels boost. or even a bit of selective sharpening. RAW gives the user a chance to go back and redo if something is not good. Jpeg as done by the cam is a 1 shot thing. Now if you shoot raw and run that thru DPP then you can have all the presets from the cam.
You may find you would be better served going for a bigger faster laptop, as they dont cost too much. even a 15-17 inch screen base model from Dell etc can run elements pretty well.
It may be a better investment than a mid priced lens.
Nov 18, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Jkan2001 wrote:
The point is that I don't WANT to have to post process my files. If it's not decent enough to print A3 out of the camera it wasn't a good picture to begin with. My netbook serves me well enough for my uses as a computer, I wouldn't want to budget another computer just to PP pics.
If you don't want to do any post-processing at all Then stop using DSLR. Buy a cheap compact camera or shoot film.
It's not at all like the image was not good enough from the start if I can't print it without PP. Every image needs PP before printing ......
I think images can always benefit from post processing, but if you're happy with your images straight from the camera, then that's all that matters. Who cares about the rest?
I still say go with the 50D and 17-40L (I just got my 17-40L in the mail and it's FANTASTIC, I forgot how much I missed having that lens on my camera) with a decent little prime.
Point and shoots/cheap compacts aren't going to give you the best image quality so I think you're right in picking an SLR. You're familiar with it, thus you're more likely to produce better images with it since it's what you're familiar with. And I'd especially stay away from point and shoots if you don't want to post process. I had a G10 and no matter how perfect I thought the image was, it ALWAYS needed a little noise reduction or shadow detail or something. A point and shoot almost ensures that you'll be post processing your images. And it's been made clear that you are not interested in that at this time.
I wouldn't suggest shooting film just because of the cost. If you think, 10 rolls of film at $4 each, plus $5 per roll to develop and scan at Costco, that's $90. Do that 10 times and you've got yourself that 50D. And if you're not near a film lab, it's going to cost upwards of $10-20 to get that film shipped, developed, scanned and returned back to you. It's a waste of money.
Do what makes you happy. Hate post processing? Don't do it. Love it, process the hell out of everything. Whatever. But I do think, as I said before, that good cameras with good lenses will help make your images as good as possible (assuming you know what you're doing).
This is my personal opinion and is based on handling, feeling and perception of image quality.
I love the 1D Mark 1 and 10D image processing. It's unclean, raw (as in the word, not the file definition)...noisy in a way I like.
I also love how they handle. I don't even know why. I've used a 20D and a 40D as well as a couple of the xxxD's but my emotional response is always to go back to the classic 1D or 10D.
And as I use a lot of old manual prime glass I also have a theory that the old 60's and 70's glass performs best on older sensors, or sensors with nice big pixels. This theory I could back up, but that would take some time.
Michael White wrote:
Glass first then a body. Good glass will give better images than a new body with crappy kit lens.
First lights, then glass! Good light will give better images with a crappy lens than crappy light with an expensive lens.
No, wait, first books on composition, then camera equipment! Good compositions with crappy equipment give better images than crappy composition with good equipment!
In the grand scheme of things, I find that unless you have an unfulfilled need/desire in the lens dept, there's no real need to upgrade the lenses. If you have a body that provides good IQ at the ISO sensitivities that you shoot, there's no need to upgrade the body unless there's something about a new body that you want (greater res, better AF, whatever).
I find absolutes in what to upgrade to be ridiculous.
In that case I think your limiting factor is your processing equipment. You will get more value out of having a computer that can process raw and use Photoshop. You are wasting your money if you buy a 50d and don't PP your images. Go with a used used 20d (i upgraded my backup to this from a 10d and found it is a serious improvement in high iso/autofocus/screen viewing time). You can pick them up for about $250-300 on the b/s forums. you can sell the 10d for 200 or so on the B/S forum. 50$ upgrade!
Then buy photoshop and a desktop (you can get more power for cheap) computer.
Your 50 and 85 are fantastic lenses.
Your problem sounds like it lies in PP skill rather than equipment.
Seeing as you have no interest in that, get a 50d and a wide prime imo.
Then stop using DSLR. Buy a cheap compact camera or shoot film.