Would you recommend improving glass before the camera?

[ScottS]

Would you recommend improving glass before the camera? My situation is this: I own a Canon 40D, which I purchased very clean from a photographer who was upgrading to the 70D. I own only kit lenses at this point. One of them is the "Nifty Fifty" Canon 50mm 1.8. I can't afford my ultimate dream quite yet of full-frame and L series glass. I think I can begin to either upgrade my lenses or my camera.

My choice right now is between the following scenarios:

Stay with my Canon 40D ~ purchase the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 IS II

Stay with my Canon 40D ~ purchase the Sigma 18-35 MM 1.8 Art Lens

(possibly both of those)

OR

Purchase the Canon 7D Mark II w/ the 18-135 STM Kit Lens

Purchase the Canon 6D w/ the 24-105 f4 Lens

I am leaning toward better glass, because low light, clear, sharp photographs are my goal. Video and sports photography are not what I'm needing now.

I am very open to your thoughts and experience.

Thanks much!

Scott S

[ScottS]

Hey TTMartin,

Thanks for your input! Again, I think my original post has been scanned a bit too quickly. Sports and video are things that I am NOT needing right now. (I guess I should have capitalized that in my original post).

Knowing that new information now, if you'd be willing to post your feedback, I'd be very open to your thoughts.

Thanks!

[ScottS]

Also, TT,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the 70D! I've heard good things about that, too :)!

[ScottS]

Part of this story for me is that I am a world traveler. I am currently saving for two very exciting trips: 

Visit to the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Austria, including the cities of Prague, Budapest, and Vienna.

AND

India in the Himalayas.

My $$$ means I can't do the "full meal deal" of FF AND L lenses. IQ and pics of landscape, architecture (inside and out), the Himalayan Mountains, PEOPLE pics are my focus (excuse the pun!)

And so though my dream-team would be the Canon 5D Mark III, with the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 II lenses....

I need to either make my Canon 40D "sing" with one of the above two, and perhaps the Sigma Art 1.8 18-35 Lens

OR

Give up low light capability and go with a new camera.

My heart is really leaning toward the lens upgrades ~ especially knowing and believing that one day I will in fact, own a FF. Upgrading "partially" to a new Canon with better optics, while that is exciting, I just really don't want to have the low light issues I currently have with kit lenses that only drop to f4 or so....And I am not a flash guy (though I know there's a place for that). Certainly not in the temples and cathedrals where I often find myself.

The Canon 7D Mark II just seems like a ton of fun ~ like a sports car or something!
And the Canon 6D sounds magnificent in all the IQ issues that I want.....but only arriving with an f-stop of 4 on the included lens.

I appreciate all of your thoughts, and certainly welcome more! 

I appreciate the demeanor and positivity, too! I don't get the feeling that anyone is trying to twist my arm back up around my head ;)! Yet....as a novice, my humility is high and my pride is open.

If I've got some "blind spot" in my thinking, I'm open.

I just know that IQ is critically important to me, as is view variety with telephoto, wide angle, and LOW LIGHT levels.

Thanks again!

Scott S 🙂

[ebiggs1]

"In your opinion and experience, is your Canon 6D a solid replacement for the need for a 5D Mark III?"

No it is not.  Not even close.

The EOS 6D and ef 24-105mm f4L is still the choice for you.  You do realize that f4 is only one stop slower than f2.8?  That is not a big deal.

IMHO, your second place choice would be the EOS 7D Mk II with the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens.

These two cameras are entry level models into a pro level camera.  xxD series is not.  That is a huge difference.

Also consider, by the time you are ready for an even bigger upgrade the 5D Mk IV will probably be out.

And remember with a 7D series or xxD series and a 24-70 or 105mm, is going to limit your WA ability some what.  Not a good thing for indoor temples, art galleries and buildings, etc.

Give the EOS 6D and the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens a good look and try.

Lastly, most of what folks are saying about video, AF speed and low light, whatever, is just nit-picking.  If you are not into this at the professional level and your job is dependent on it, any of these cameras are pretty darn good.

[ScottS]

Hey ebiggs1,

Thanks for your passionate reply! I have a question for you: is the f4 stop on a full-frame equivalent to a f2.8 stop on a crop sensor? I thought I read about this someplace recently ~ dpreview, image-resource...someplace ~ that APS-C cameras compared to Full-Frame end up having this ratio.

If this is true, then I DEFINITELY could see the importance of the 24-105 f4 having way more "oomph" to low light than I had previously considered. If that 4 stop is as effective in low light as a 2.8 on a crop sensor body, then it really helps my thinking.

I like what you shared about the 6D being "entry level" of the professionals, because that has been my impression in all the scores of hours of reading that I have done, particularly on the somewhat bizaare comparisons of the 7D Mark II and the 6D, which have completely different markets, uses, etc, as I understand. Maybe it's simply because they are both new, and both around the same $$$.

My "gut" REALLY wants the 5D Mark III down the road, as I've read and read and read about what this camera can do. And I know I have a truly good "old" Grandpa in the 40D in many ways. My quandary was not to become a gear-head. Not at all! But to "BUILD TOWARD" my future in photography ~ travel, concerts, wildlife (I know, I know....this moves things back to a whole 'nother domain), landscape, people, possibly even.....one day weddings.....But in the meantime, with about $2K plus to spend, and not the $3-4K that would be "ideal" to really move effectively more deeply into classes on photography with new tools for new frontiers ~ perhaps I need to scale down what I most need for me right now.

I've looked at hundreds of images with that Canon 70-200mm USM 2.8 II.....and felt my adrenaline rush. It's kind of a strong feeling. Maybe that's later for me. Not sure yet.

Thanks for your thoughts :)!

[ScottyP]

Architecture and landscape takes minimal AF.  Nearly any camera would do for that, so 7d2 is wasting money on AF you won't use. 

You don't shoot video so the dual pixel autofocus of the 70d is likewise not particularly critical for you. 

You don't beat up your camera or get it wet in extreme outdoor shooting conditions so you could easily live with the partial weather sealing and mostly metal body of a 6d vs. the more heavily sealed 5d3. 

You shoot in pretty dim places like cathedrals, so FF makes a lot of sense.  If not right now, then maybe later. 

I think you are right in not going for a super expensive body, to save money for glass. The question seems to be whether to forget bodies altogether and go all in on glass, or whether to grab a 6d plus some FF glass.  Shooting what you shoot I would get away from crop bodies eventually so I'd not get any more lenses that won't mount on full frame bodies. 

I don't know your budgeting priorities, but a 6d needs a walk-around lens. If you only get the 70-200 at first you won't have any walk around lens.  Getting the 24-105 with the 6d makes sense because it comes cheap as a package. Maybe you start with that package plus a bright wide-ish prime like a Canon or Sigma 35mm or the new Sigma 20mm so you are killing it in low light. Then you can get the 70-200 later. 

[ScottS]

Scott,

You make so much sense in your wisdom shared. Thanks for your patience, and your zest for my issues. This forum is THE BEST that I've run across in people really sharing their ideas with me. I'm really excited about that. And I am really excited to "GROW THIS PASSION OF PHOTOGRAPHY" of mine. (Sorry, I forgot that typing capital reads like shouting :)>>>)

That Canon 70-200mm USM 2.8 II just takes such amazing pics, that it makes me almost want to cry. And I know attaching it to a Canon 40D might be like putting $200 Nikes on a "Grandpa," but that's a hard one for me to give up. I have kit lenses from 28-135, Nifty Fifty 50mm 1.8, and a cheap kit 18-55 EF-S. So I guess when I think India, and "grabbing that pic" of a family coming down the trail....from over 100 yards away....without being "in their face," I think of the White Horse Lens as being my hero ~ even on a 40D.

But what you and ebiggs shared about the 24-105 f4 actually being a great start to my L lens collection NOW and for the future....also makes sense. And the low light capability of the Canon 6D and the optics and all ~ really has me rethinking the "both a camera and one L series lens upgrade" at the same time ~ as you mention.

Can I ask you? I also asked another on this thread. Does the f-stop on a crop translate to one higher f-stop on a FF? Is a 2.8 on my Canon 40D roughly equivalent to a 4.0 on a Canon 6D? Or does it not work that way? Sorry if that is incredibly elementary as a question, but I know that the sensor makes a huge difference.

Here's a dilemma. When the sun is going down, and there is existing light along the Ganges, and people are sending little flowered boats into the river to honor fallen loved ones, it is a sublime setting. Last summer I was shooting this with my kit lenses, and getting about one out of four shots to come out relatively well. Flashing at that event just feels so invasive. Would a Canon 6D with an f-stop of 4 have much better luck at that very real scene in my life?

Thanks, Scott! Also ~ do you shoot professionally? Is a Canon 6D a worthy wedding/event camera? Or do we need to have the 5D series for those?

[ScottyP]

First off, buying the 70-200 is what pushed me over the edge in going full frame.  The images were so fantastic it got me excited about using it all the time.  Unfortunately on a crop sensor, it was often just too long.  On a crop, the field of view is equal to a 112 - 320mm, and the 112mm "wide end" was often just too tight for use indoors, except for maybe tight head shots.

But as for the comparison of stops on crop to FF:

Think in terms of equivalent exposures.  There are 3 values on the "exposure triangle"; 1.) shutter speed, 2.) aperture, and 3.) ISO.  And everything is measured in "stops", which are doublings or halvings of one of the values.  

Shortening the shutter duration from 1/100th to 1/200th is losing one stop.  Going from 1/100th to 1/800th is losing 3 stops because it is halving the shutter duration 3 times.  But you can trade a stop of shutter for a stop of aperture, or a stop of ISO.  As far as exposure goes, it is all the same.

Every stop of aperture wider you go is a doubling of the area of the open circle in the lens, so it is letting double the light in.

Every doubling of the ISO sensitivity means you need 1/2 the amound of light to properly expose the image.

An exposure on a crop is the same as an exposure on FF.  The difference is that on the FF body you can double, or, depending on the two cameras being compared, just about quadruple the ISO setting on the FF camera without getting more noise in the image than you were getting on the crop body.  That allows you to keep a faster shutter speed without getting more ugly ISO noise.  So lets say if you need a certain shutter speed (like 1/200th) to freeze some subject movement, then an f/2.8 lens would allow you to use that shutter speed at an ISO that is 1/2 what you would need with an f/4 lens (1 stop better).  BUT, since the FF camera performs at least 1 stop better at high ISO's (usually somewhat more than 1 stop better), then you can shoot the FF camera at f/4 and get the same noise or even less than if you had an f/2.8 lens on a crop body.  

The other visual difference you will see between the two lies in the field of view and the depth of field.  A crop sensor gets its name by simply cropping off the outer part of the image circle coming through the lens.  So if you put your FF 50mm f/1.8 lens onto your crop camera, the image circle projecting through the lens into the camera is bigger than the sensor, so the outer edges of the image are "cropped off" because they are larger than the crop sensor.  

The image therefore appears to be zoomed in 1.6x in terms of field of view, but there is no change in terms of the depth of field in focus, as there normally would be if you were using a longer focal length.  So your 50mm lens gives you an image that looks like 80mm shot on a full frame camera in terms of the framing (the field of view) but it does not have as shallow a depth of field when shot on the crop body as it would on FF.  At least not if you are shooting from the same distances.   

Tim actually has a great explaination of this he has shared before, and Ernie is always good about reminding people to think in terms of FOV.  Both are better than I can do.

[ScottS]

Scott,

This explanation of the camera stops is just awesome! Thank-you! That helps me think about my options and goals very thoroughly. I knew 1.6 issue with crops, but not that DOF  was not also affected. And though ISO settings still kind of baffle my ever-growing brain around it, I didn't realize to what level that would impact the aperture.

I'm sure camera "buffs" would be smirking or quietly eye-rolling me in a pub in Scotland by now...but I truly appreciate your camera basics explanation (and will probably copy and print this off as a guide until it is truly inside my cranial tissue 🙂

SO....it sounds like I really SHOULD explore the Canon 6D a bit closer, and not underestimate that 24-105 f4L lens. I mean holding off on the White Monster does sadden me some. But what I would be gaining in that camera, that one lens, my nifty fifty, and then saving for the 70-200 USM 2.8 II maybe makes more sense than being "stuck" with 112-320mm. I knew about that, but the options for better low light capacity and IQ (two of my concerns) makes the 6D a real candidate. The $$$ all would end up about the same for now. Then I would just have to save for another year plus for the White Beast.

Can I ask you another couple of questions, Scott? (And anyone reading this, too! I'm learning a ton here on the Canon Forums. You are all great!) Scott, do you have a fave low light, fairly wide angle lens for your 6D? I was strongly considering the Sigma 18-35 1.8 for my 40D, but if I were able to go full frame, I would want something affordable to go with that but also something of quality.

I was looking at dropping about $2600 on the "package." I've also been eyeing the Canon 85mm 1.8. Though that is not "wide-angle," the low light capacity and portrait strengths have me interested. Moneymoneymoney :)!

The second question is how do you feel about getting refurbished or used lenses, such as eBay and Craigslist?

Thanks for ALL your insights, Scott 🙂

Scott

[ebiggs1]

You have two issues here to consider.  They both boil down to pixel pitch or pixel size.  It isn't the size of the sensor that is important.  It is the pixel size which I believe 5 microns gives the best results.  The larger pixels (5+) are going to be better at low light.  The smaller pixel (5-) size for detail.  This is simplistic because it is more involved than just that but 5 microns is a seems a good average.

EV does not change between crop and FF.  But referencing a debate we had here, the noise will be.  I believe the meaning of that discussion actually should have said an EV change is required when trying to keep noise level the same. That would require an EV change. Crop vs FF, giving the pixel size difference if there was one.

It is virtually impossible to compare two different cameras like the 7D Mk II vs the 6D.  There are just too many different aspects beside the size of the sensors.

I read reviews that say you can't shoot landscapes with a 7D.  That is just nonsense.  On the other hand folks say you can't shoot sports with a 6D.  Again, that is bogus.  You should stop reading those reviewer's.

Example, the best cameras made by either Canon or Nikon do not have real high pixel counts.  The 1Dx (Canon) has 18mp and the D5 (Nikon) has 20mp.  These are two of the best cameras made in the world.  They are a good compromise between low light and high resolution.

Bottom line here is the fact that both of these cameras are extremely good.  You can be happy with either.  But you must consider the other specs beside the size of the sensor.  That is just one spec.  If someone was to tell me, you can have one camera. That's all.  You must choose between the 7D Mk II and the 6D.  I would choose the 7D Mk II but that is MHO.  I would prefer the FF sensor of the 6D but considering the rest of the package, the 7D Mk II is the winner.  Again, IMHO. The main thing for me is the robustness of the build of the 7D Mk II.

It seems you are getting caught in the low f-ratio quandary.  The numbers sound like it is a big deal but when you think about it, are they?  f4 to f2.8 is only one stop.  f2.8 to f1.8 is not quite two stops.  And dropping down to f1.2 is not even a full stop faster than f1.8.  Example, if you had a very low light scene and have a f1.8 lens, the chance of you getting the shoot does not improve significantly by dropping down to f1.2.  It is a every little bit helps situation, though.

Oh, one more thing, there are no Canon cropper "L" lenses if that is important to you.