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]

Okay, so how come they didn't include that sensor, or one with more megapixels, in the just released EOS-1D X Mark II?  The new 1D has just 20 megapixels. less than half of the 5Ds.  Native ISO of 51200, which is off my charts.

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

Okay, so how come they didn't include that sensor, or one with more megapixels, in the just released EOS-1D X Mark II?  The new 1D has just 20 megapixels. less than half of the 5Ds.  Native ISO of 512000, which is off my charts.

---

Because you have to be able to move the data off the sensor, process it in camera and move it to the card at 14+ frames per second. It is about balancing the goals of the camera.

The reality is that most review sites normalize their 'Print' scores to 8 megapixels, because for normal viewing distances 8 megapixel output is all you need. So 20 megapixels is plenty. But, we also live in a world where the market and marketing influences what is sold. Marketing has convinced us we need more and more megapixels, not technical factors.

[Waddizzle]

Both the 6D and the 1D-X , and some other models, use a 20.2 megapixel full-frame sensor.  I always wonder whether or not it is the same sensor being used across the product line.  I wouldn't think so.

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

Both the 6D and the 1D-X , and some other models, use a 20.2 megapixel full-frame sensor.  I always wonder whether or not it is the same sensor being used across the product line.  I wouldn't think so.

---

I highly doubt the 6D and the 1DX have the same sensor. 

In my opinion you have the high megapixel 5DS (and other manufacturers equivalents) not because there is a technical need for them, but, instead there is a market. How many people ever use the 500 HP in their muscle car daily driver? And that's not even a good example because some people will take them to a drag strip where it will make a difference. More megapixels, not so much.

[Waddizzle]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

Both the 6D and the 1D-X , and some other models, use a 20.2 megapixel full-frame sensor.  I always wonder whether or not it is the same sensor being used across the product line.  I wouldn't think so.

---

I highly doubt the 6D and the 1DX have the same sensor. 

In my opinion you have the high megapixel 5DS (and other manufacturers equivalents) not because there is a technical need for them, but, instead there is a market. How many people ever use the 500 HP in their muscle car daily driver? And that's not even a good example because some people will take them to a drag strip where it will make a difference. More megapixels, not so much.

---

I have doubts, too, but in the other direction. 

Canon seems to have gotten quite the product lifetime out of their image sensors in the past.  Slap in an updated image processor, or two, onto the old sensor, some new software and hardware features, and BAM, a brand new camera model is born.

[TTMartin]

---

Waddizzle wrote: 

I have doubts, too, but in the other direction. 

Canon seems to have gotten quite the product lifetime out of their image sensors in the past.  Slap in an updated image processor, or two, onto the old sensor, some new software and hardware features, and BAM, a brand new camera model is born.

---

I'm sorry that's nonsense.

Canon has steadily improved their sensors through the years, despite what DXO says. 

[ebiggs1]

First off, full disclosure, Mr Martin and I have a disagreement on this topic.  It is easy to understand though  as he is wrong and I am right.  But it is your decision to decide whom to take the advice from.   I think most of the forum followers believe I am correct.

But there are numerous articles on this subject available for you to read.  I can't give any sources right off the top of my head but you will be able to find them if you choose.  Like I have already said experience comes from years and years of doing.  Not simply buying a DSLR and becoming a pro or expert overnight.

Most importantly you can not compare any two cameras on the market to back this up because no two are a like enough. However you all can see basic output like some of you have already done that proves my point. You don't see high MP count cameras with great high ISO.  Do you?  High ISO performance requires large pixels.  SImple.

Smaller sensors produce more noise at higher ISO's because the high pixel count means that more pixels are being packed on to the smaller sensor.  Translates to smaller pixel size. This produces more noise at higher ISO's thus making it unusable.

FF sensors allow larger pixels to be used for the same pixel count. Thus equals higher ISO's before the noise gets intolerable. Make sense?

Larger pixels have more surface areas to capture light and accumulate a higher voltage from the light that hits its surface. It is therefore relatively lower (the voltage) compared to the higher voltage required by the smaller pixel to produce the same ISO level.

Look at two similar cameras on the market for another example.  The 5Ds has a 51MP full frame sensor.  ISO is 100-6400. The newest 1Dx Mk II has a full frame sensor at 21MP.  ISO range is 100-51200.  Both use dual DIGIC 6 processors, I believe.  But remember you can not really compare two different cameras as there is still too much going on.  But that is telling, isn't it?

If you are curious, a FF camera with 36MP count would have the same size pixels as a APS-C (cropper) camera with 16MP.

I have no intention of rehashing this over with Mr Martin.  He is free to believe whatever he wants and you all are free to decide which sounds more feasible.  But if any of the rest of you still have questions, feel free to ask.  After all the advice is free and worth just about that much!

[ebiggs1]

"Canon seems to have gotten quite the product lifetime out of their image sensors in the past"

Yes sir they did get quite a run out of the 18MP Rebel sensor.  

What is your first grandchild?  A little boy or girl?  I have nine.  6 girls and 3 boys.  All the girls love to have their pictuers taken.  And I love shooting them.

Second oldest is below.  Ain't it great? 

[ebiggs1]

Waddizzle just wait untill you get to do this!

My first granddaughter wedding. 

[Waddizzle]

Thanks for sharing, Ernie. 

My son and his wife had a girl.  Of course, I think it is the most beautiful baby I've ever seen in my life. I'm using the wrong machine to post photos, no access to my cloud.

Naturally, I took lots of photos, or so I thought.  The day of the birth I took less than 40, and pretty much the same result the next day.  They live hundreds of miles away from me, so I have to make a return trip real soon for more shots.