Looking to bring my phtotgraphy to the next level

[bethanyanna]

I have always enjoyed photography. I can't remember a time in my life when I didn't have a camera!
I currently have a point and shoot Sony Cybershot. It does good, for what it is. But now that I have children, I really want to hone my skills. I can take decent stills and landscapes all day long, but I want to get nice portraits without having to pay a photographer.

So I've been doing some research, and I think I've narrowed my search to the Canon EOS 7D. It seems to have gotten pretty good reviews, and it looks like it would be a nice middle of the road camera to get my feet wet with.

I think I read that it shoots in RAW, but I honestly am not going to even pretend that I know what that means. lol

So before I go drop a grand on a camera, I would love some feedback!

Thanks for the help!!

[ebiggs1]

I had two EOS 7D's.  They helped me make a living.  I am retired now so I sold down a lot of stuff so I don't have them any longer.  But I can tell you, they are mighty fine cameras.  They are the lirst level to a full on pro body.

If I were you, I would look for a deal on the 7D and a white box EF 24-105mm f4L lens.  You will likely need a little wider lens for your "decent stills and landscapes".  Possibly a EF-s 10-22mm.  The camera and thoes two lenses would be a killer combo.  Plus you need not buy all at once.  

Do not let any internet keyboard jockey tell you the 7D deosn't do portraits.  It does and very well.  Also don't let that same knuckelhead tell you it won't do landscapes. It does and very well.

I prefer to use 'angle of view' over millmeters in describing lenses.  However most don't.  As long as the AOV matches the photo will be the same. No matter the camera.  This spec is easy to find on any lens.

As to using RAW, I use it entirely.  I never shoot jpg.  Even in my G15 P&S, I shoot RAW.  RAW is the uncompressed complete data the camera captuers.  Except for tif, all the rest compress data and than delete it.  What this means, is your high dollar camera/lens is giving you full data and then you are throwing it in the trash before you ever get to see it.  That's jpg!

However, RAW requires post processing. You will get DPP software free with the EOS 7D.  It will do the processing for you with very little input from you.  But it will allow you to do far greater "fixing" as you see fit. Plus there are better post editors out there, not free, that do even more.  Lightroom and/or Photoshop or PS Elements for example.  If you are serious you must learn one of these.  Great photos are 1/2 camera/lens, 1/2 post editing and 1/2 you.  Yes it does add up as you will learn and may not always be in that order.

Go for it, it's gonna be fun.............

[TTMartin]

---

@bethanyanna wrote:

I have always enjoyed photography. I can't remember a time in my life when I didn't have a camera!
I currently have a point and shoot Sony Cybershot. It does good, for what it is. But now that I have children, I really want to hone my skills. I can take decent stills and landscapes all day long, but I want to get nice portraits without having to pay a photographer.

So I've been doing some research, and I think I've narrowed my search to the Canon EOS 7D. It seems to have gotten pretty good reviews, and it looks like it would be a nice middle of the road camera to get my feet wet with.

I think I read that it shoots in RAW, but I honestly am not going to even pretend that I know what that means. lol

So before I go drop a grand on a camera, I would love some feedback!

Thanks for the help!!

---

For a general use camera I would choose the 70D over the classic 7D.  The 70D is very close to the classic 7D in its performance feature (fps, 19 focus points, etc) and adds some nice features for general use like the tilt swivel touch screen, much finer more even noise characteristics, and Dual Pixel AF for video.

As for lenses, Canon really upped the image quality when the updated their consumer lenses with the STM motor. The STM lens line matches the image quality of the first generation IS L lenses. No reason to look any further than the STM lenses. In fact the STM lens line is one of the big reasons to choose Canon over other brands, no one else offers that level of image quality at the same price level.

[bethanyanna]

"If I were you, I would look for a deal on the 7D and a white box EF 24-105mm f4L lens.  You will likely need a little wider lens for your "decent stills and landscapes".  Possibly a EF-s 10-22mm.  The camera and thoes two lenses would be a killer combo.  Plus you need not buy all at once"

So would it be bad if I just started with the 28-135 mm Kit that comes on the camera out of the box first? Which lens would gain me the most usability when it comes to portraits?

"For a general use camera I would choose the 70D over the classic 7D"

... that's kinda the point... I'm not looking for something general use. I really looking to bring my photography to the "next level". I'm looking to be able to create professional quality portraits.

[TCampbell]

You specifically mentioned wanting something nicer for portraits.  Of course any camera can take a "portrait" (even a phone), so when someone mentions wanting something "nicer" it occurs to me that you might be thinking of the effect in which the subject has tack-sharp focus and yet the background is beautifully blurred.  

If this is what you had in mind when you said you wanted nicer portraits, then lens selection certainly factors into the results.  The effect is created as long as the camera has a reasonably large image sensor (due to the physics of how it works, you can't get much of this blurred background effect if the sensor is tiny.)  You also need a lens with a long-ish focal length (wide angles can't produce much of the effect) and it should also have a low "focal ratio" (This is the size of the opening in the lens through which the light can travel as compared to the overall focal length of the lens.  If a lens can provide a focal ratio of say, f/4, ten it means that the focal length is four times longer than the aperture diameter.)

A 50mm lens can do this, but the effect isn't particularly strong.  It's much stronger with an 85mm lens and anything over 100mm does very well -- and all of this assumes a low focal ratio.  One of my favorites is my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with the focal length out near 200mm and the focal ratio down near f/2.8 or f/4.  I also use an EF 135mm f/2 lens which has an intensely strong effect.

The variable focal ratio zooms (like the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6) don't have a very strong effect because as you zoom to the longer focal lengths, the focal ratio increases to f/5.6 -- which isn't very low.

The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM can do this, but you'll need to zoom to the 105mm focal length, use the f/4 aperture (at f/4) place your subject very close to the camera, and make sure the background is quite a bit beyond your focused subject.  The longer the focal length of the lens and the lower the focal ratio, the stronger the effect is.

7D vs. 70D wont effect the look of the image.  The cameras will handle differently but they both have the same sensor size.  The 70D is better at video (if you're interested in using your camera for video -- some people don't use video.  I am one of those people who have really only switched on video mode once or twice just to toy with it, but I really don't use it.)

[jazzman1]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

You specifically mentioned wanting something nicer for portraits.  Of course any camera can take a "portrait" (even a phone), so when someone mentions wanting something "nicer" it occurs to me that you might be thinking of the effect in which the subject has tack-sharp focus and yet the background is beautifully blurred.  

A 50mm lens can do this, but the effect isn't particularly strong.  It's much stronger with an 85mm lens and anything over 100mm does very well -- and all of this assumes a low focal ratio.  One of my favorites is my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with the focal length out near 200mm and the focal ratio down near f/2.8 or f/4.  I also use an EF 135mm f/2 lens which has an intensely strong effect.

The variable focal ratio zooms (like the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6) don't have a very strong effect because as you zoom to the longer focal lengths, the focal ratio increases to f/5.6 -- which isn't very low.

The EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM can do this, but you'll need to zoom to the 105mm focal length, use the f/4 aperture (at f/4) place your subject very close to the camera, and make sure the background is quite a bit beyond your focused subject.  The longer the focal length of the lens and the lower the focal ratio, the stronger the effect is.

---

Tim thanks much, you've stated this subject in plain terms that I now clearly understand.  And I had no idea my 24-105L f4  was good for portraits.   I thought my 50mm f1.4 was better.

[ebiggs1]

"So would it be bad if I just started with the 28-135 mm Kit that comes on the camera out of the box first? Which lens would gain me the most usability when it comes to portraits?

"For a general use camera I would choose the 70D over the classic 7D"

... that's kinda the point... I'm not looking for something general use. I really looking to bring my photography to the "next level". I'm looking to be able to create professional quality portraits."

Let's take these in order.  The EF28-135mm is a fine lens and you can be happy with it forever.  The EF 24-105mm f4 is a better lens.  The big difference is the build quality.  The latter is a "L" lens and designed as a pro level lens.  Either will do a good job on portraits.

The which one do you choose, the 70D over the 7D is also basicly down to build quality.  The 7D is built more like a pro body.  The 70D is a enthusists level camera.  Of course there are some features that each bring to the table but the photos, or portraits, either produces will be similar.

"I'm looking to be able to create professional quality portraits."

A point that has been over looked is the crop factor.  A 50mm lens on either camera will appear like a 80mm lens does.  If you are going to use millimeters a the measureing factor, you must multiply it by 1.6x.  50mm x 1.6 = 80mm.  This menas the 50mm lens will do a fine job for portraits on the 70D or 7D.  Likewise the 28-135mm or the 24-105mm has 50mm inside its zoom range!  Right?   Except for the wider aperture they will provide the exact same picture as the 'prime' 50mm does.

A 70-200mm does not include 50mm does it?  It will be too long for use on a 70D or 7D for portraits.

The bottom line is the 70D and the 28-135mm will do as you want.  If you feel you want a more pro level built in your camera the 7D and 24-105mm is the choice.  The results of either combo is going to be very similar.  IMHO, I would go for thr 7D and EF2 24-105mm f4 but that is me.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

A point that has been over looked is the crop factor.  A 50mm lens on either camera will appear like a 80mm lens does.  If you are going to use millimeters a the measureing factor, you must multiply it by 1.6x.  50mm x 1.6 = 80mm.  This menas the 50mm lens will do a fine job for portraits on the 70D or 7D.  Likewise the 28-135mm or the 24-105mm has 50mm inside its zoom range!  Right?   Except for the wider aperture they will provide the exact same picture as the 'prime' 50mm does.

A 70-200mm does not include 50mm does it?  It will be too long for use on a 70D or 7D for portraits.

---

At or near the wide end, the 70-200 is a perfectly good portrait lens on a crop-frame camera. I've used it often for candid portraits on a 7D.

I'm not sure how the 70-200 got into this discussion, but there it is.

[ebiggs1]

"I'm not sure how the 70-200 got into this discussion, but there it is."

Ahh, this.....

"One of my favorites is my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with the focal length out near 200mm and the focal ratio down near f/2.8 or f/4."

On a crop this lens is just a tad bit too long.   At 112 to 320mm?  You think that is a good protrait length?  To each his own I guess.

[ebiggs1]

My EF 70-200mm f2.8 is my very favorite portrait lens on my FF bodies, BTW.  Not on a cropper.