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]

Waddizzle,

Your comment at 7:13pm the other day is why I thought you were affirming the weather sealing:

"I mention this to bring your attention to how well the 6D and 7D mark II are weather sealed."

So I was building my statement upon what I thought you were stating. I certainly do not know anything about the weather sealing on that. I, too, am eventually going to own the 70-200mm 2.8 USM II for ALL the right reasons. Just not sure when!

[Waddizzle]

I realized it after I posted it and read it back.  Hmm, that could sound like I'm praising it, when I'm not.

It is my understanding that the 7D Mark II is better sealed than the 6D against dust and humidity.  If that is the type of environment that you will be in, then the 7D Mark II would be a better choice over the 6D. 

I would not overly concern myself with each camera's low light performance.  The biggest problem with shooting in low light is motion blur, either from the camera, or most likely from the subject.

[ScottS]

Yeah, Waddizzle,

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

[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!  

[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!

[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.