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

[Waddizzle]

---

@ScottS wrote:

Yeah, Waddizzle,

I've read that, too, about the 7D Mark II, that the body is a beast ~ sealed and like a tank :)!

---

Exactly.  Go for it, then, even if it means buying just the camera now, and a lens at a later date.  Buy the camera and a Canon battery grip now, and worry about a len later.  The extra battery power may come in handy on longer trips.

If you do buy a battery grip, something to consider is whether or not you might purchase an L-Bracket, which I will.  I bought the Canon grip because every L-Bracket that I have seen out there are designed around the Canon grip.  I have read a few reviews from people complaining that the the L-Bracket doesn't quite fit their 3rd party grip.

[ebiggs1]

Congratulations,........grandpa!  

[ebiggs1]

"... Siggy lens WILL make a huge opportunity for better photographs in lower light, yes?"

Well for starters that statement makes me wonder.  The word "huge".

Most people read all the reviews they can. The problem is some, maybe more than half, are written by people just like you.  They really have little idea or experience in how this craft works.  Folks buy a DSLR and pay some large coin for it and overnight they become pros.  And if I have become a pro, I can write a review since I got a DSLR with a couple of lenses.

Like I said, I don't want you to drop the dime and think you will have night vision.  The 6D with the ef 24-105mm f4L and the Siggy 35mm Art is going to be a killer "starter" combo.  Just about as good as it gets for low light and general photography.  But it will still have its limits as to what it can do.

Our new Grandpa is still off just a tad as, if you read and understood my earlier post, DR, Resolution, Noise and high ISO performance depends on pixel size.  Not sensor size.  Forget FF vs crop (6D vs 7D).  It is the pixel size itself that matters.

Example, the 5D Mk III has a pixel size of 6.25 microns.  The 7D has a pixel size of 4.3.  If this was the only spec we were to consider the 5D wins the high ISO case.

The larger the effective pixel area, the lower the noise and the lower the noise the higher the dynamic range. If you double the pixel size (pitch) then the signal/noise ratio improves correspondingly. Lower noise means that you can shoot at higher ISO settings. What you get with cameras is a compromise between resolution and noise . Big pixels give you lower resolution.  But lower noise equal higher dynamic range. Small pixels give you higher resolution along with higher noise and lower dynamic range.  What this means is the 6D is going to beat the 7D in low light shooting.  The Siggy 35mm Art is going to help it.

The new 5Ds is capable of resolving a huge amount of detail, but it’s not the best choice for shooting in very low light as another example.

"... being a performer, conductor, teacher myself ..."

What kind of music do you teach?  I play trombone in several groups around here. I tutor at the local high school and middle school.  I do lots of composing and arranging for some local groups and I am a beta tester for Finale.  My son has a Masters degree in music and teaches at the high school and Emporia State University plus the local community colleges.  I was involved in music way before photography.

[ebiggs1]

"...  the 7D Mark II, that the body is a beast ~ sealed and like a tank"

No camera is sealed like a "tank" if you change the lens.  Dust will find its way inside.  Believe me!

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Congratulations,........grandpa!  

---

Thanks!  Woo hoo.  [cartwheel]

"I think the images from a 10 megapixel full-frame sensor  are at least the equal of a 20 megapixel APS-C sensor, if not more so."

Hey, I know pixel size is what really matters.  Give me some credit.  I "shoot to the left", not the right  [Edit].

[ScottS]

Hey Waddizzle!

Even though we don't really know each other, congrats on your Grandpa status! (Great reason to have good cameras, eh?!)

:)Scott S

PS - I'll check out your grip idea!

[ScottS]

Hey Ernie!

Very cool that we have music in common! I teach at a junior high in the Twin Cities Metro of Minnesota. I "live" with 7th, 8th, and 9th Graders all day long, all year long ~ and of course LOVE 'em!  As a music educator trained undergrad and graduate, I play along at lessons with all of my students. (well, all except the bassoon and oboe ~ gotta work on my pedagogy there a bit!). We are one of the fastest growing schools in Minnesota, and thankfully the administrative leaders value the fine arts. So our music staff has also grown.

So you perform on trombone, compose and arrange, tutor at schools, and beta test for Finale? WOW! That is impressive! That PLUS all of your photographic knowledge. You are multiply "tooled!" We use Finale at our schools and love it. Are any of your arrangments/compositions published? I mean, could someone in Minnesnowta actually have a look :)?

Scott S

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

   Hey, I know pixel size is what really matters.  Give me some credit.

---

Except it is sensor size, not, pixel size that matters. 

For the entire photograph the small pixel, high resolution EOS 5DS has the same low light performance, dynamic range, and color depth as the fat pixel EOS 6D.

What matters is how much area you have receiving the light, not how many pixels there are in that area. One big pixel, or four smaller pixels that fit in the same area as that one big pixel it doesn't matter.

[Waddizzle]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

Except it is sensor size, not, pixel size that matters. 

For the entire photograph the small pixel, high resolution EOS 5DS has the same low light performance, dynamic range, and color depth as the fat pixel EOS 6D.

What matters is how much area you have receiving the light, not how many pixels there are in that area. One big pixel, or four smaller pixels that fit in the same area as that one big pixel it doesn't matter.

---

Okay.  I haven't delved into the science behind it much at all. 

All I know for sure is results.  A 10 megapixel full-frame image looks better to me than a 18 megapixel APS-C image does.  And a 20MP FF image blows the socks off the 18MP APS-C image.  The FF image just seems to capture more dynamic range, and more natural looking lighting.

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

TTMartin wrote: 

Except it is sensor size, not, pixel size that matters. 

For the entire photograph the small pixel, high resolution EOS 5DS has the same low light performance, dynamic range, and color depth as the fat pixel EOS 6D.

What matters is how much area you have receiving the light, not how many pixels there are in that area. One big pixel, or four smaller pixels that fit in the same area as that one big pixel it doesn't matter.

---

Okay.  I haven't delved into the science behind much at all.  All I know is that a 10 megapixel full-frame image looks better to me than a 18 megapixel APS-C image does.  The FF image just seems to capture more dynamic range, and more natural looking lighting.

---

And the 50 megapixel EOS 5DS, has better performance than the 20 megapixel 7D Mk II, which has the same pixel size.

It is sensor size that matters not pixel size.