Need pro advice on upgrade

[mstu33]

The time is now. I have the approval to make a camera/lens purchase for my department at work. I work as Director of Marketing & Communications at an independent school. I have $4,800 for both a camera and lenses. What combination would you recommend? I am excited to upgrade from the T3i I have been using. I have rented both the 80D and the 5D Mark IV. 

[jrhoffman75]

Putting aside the extra features of the 5D, did you see an advantage of full frame vs crop camera?

[ebiggs1]

"EOS 6D Mk II,

EF 70–200mm f/2.8L IS III USM,

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM"

This is the kit you need. Perhaps you could buy just the EOS 6D Mk II  and EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM first off.  Later on get the EF 70–200mm f/2.8L IS III USM.  Forget a flash as it is the last thing to never needed item.

If you just have to save money look at the 80D with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and the EF 70–200mm f/2.8L IS III USM.

[TCampbell]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"EOS 6D Mk II,

EF 70–200mm f/2.8L IS III USM,

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM"

This is the kit you need. Perhaps you could buy just the EOS 6D Mk II  and EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM first off.  Later on get the EF 70–200mm f/2.8L IS III USM.  Forget a flash as it is the last thing to never needed item.

If you just have to save money look at the 80D with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and the EF 70–200mm f/2.8L IS III USM.

---

Ernie is always trying to go against the grain.  I wouldn’t want to do indoor / dim-lighting shots without a flash if I wanted good results.  You can crank up the ISO... if you want noisy results.

In the pecking order of what makes a good photo it’s:

#1 Your skill

#2 Lighing

#3 Lens

#4 Camera body

Lighting makes a bigger difference than the lens in terms of photographic results. 

My two most-used lenses for indoor concert events are my 70-200 f/2.8 and my 135mm f/2.  I don’t use the 24-70 f/2.8 very often for these events because it would require being too close to the stage.  (I use the 70-200 far more than any other lens in my bag.)

There’s also the question of f/2.8 depth of field... if shooting just one subject it’s great.   If shooting a group, you can have people falling out of focus... at which point you’re back to f/4 ... or f/5.6... and lower light... and thinking about how nice it would be to have a flash.

[Waddizzle]

---

@mstu33 wrote:

I do a lot of low-light shooting in the theater so I felt the faster lens would be helpful for that. 

---

Then I would strongly advise a constant aperture f/2.8 zoom.  Generally speaking, the higher performance camera bodies can focus better with an f/2.8 lens, compared to an f/4.

Lots of low light shooting is good reason to want a full frame.  The 6D and 6D2 are entry level full frame bodies with very good low light performance.  The 6D is a great camera, but the 6D2 has a better AF system.  Big difference in price at the Canon Online Refurbished Store, too.  Go for a full frame.

If you have a full frame 50mm prime, then I recommend the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, not the version III, only because of price.  The version II is an impressive lens.  A 50 prime and 70-200 zoom are a good start.  My next lens choice would be a wide angle zoom, like the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM, or the version III, zoom lens.  This later lens would work very well on a T3i, too.

[ebiggs1]

"Ernie is always trying to go against the grain"

Tim, my friend, do you or have you ever made your living with a camera?  Obvious things are usually obvious.

"In the pecking order of what makes a good photo it’s:

#1 Your skill

#2 Lighing

#3 Lens

#4 Camera body"

Not even in the ball park of what it takes to makes a great photo.  Like I like to say, photography is 1/2 camera/gear, 1/2 you and 1/2 post editor.  If you don't understand that seeming contradiction, I can understand but it is what it takes.

[TCampbell]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Ernie is always trying to go against the grain"

Tim, my friend, do you or have you ever made your living with a camera?  Obvious things are usually obvious.

"In the pecking order of what makes a good photo it’s:

#1 Your skill

#2 Lighing

#3 Lens

#4 Camera body"

Not even in the ball park of what it takes to makes a great photo.  Like I like to say, photography is 1/2 camera/gear, 1/2 you and 1/2 post editor.  If you don't understand that seeming contradiction, I can understand but it is what it takes.

---

Ernie, that’s three halves and a bit light on details (but you remembered that there should be a camera involved and there should be someone to push buttons on the camera so maybe we give you partial credit).  Also, it implies some of the most well-known photographers in history must not know what they’re doing if they achieved notoriety before post editors were invented.

You ramble on about stuff you don’t seem to understand ... while the rest of the industry (who has done their homework) disagrees with you.  If you want to be right Ernie, you’re going to need to do your homework so you can actually be right. 

Good photos have good lighting.  Good lighting has good shadows.  If a photographer wants control over that (and a good photographer does), then they’ll use lighting modifiers and they’ll use supplemental lighting.

Good photographers even use flash outdoors on sunny days.  That may come as a complete surprise to you and you may not understand why.  Rather than me explain why ... maybe you can research why they might do that. 

Do you want me to supply a reading list?

[ebiggs1]

Good lord the King of 'ramble' said this?  "You ramble on about stuff you don’t seem to understand ... "  

I would be surprised if I added up a months worth of replies of mine to just one of yours you would win the ramble contest.

"while the rest of the industry (who has done their homework) disagrees with you."  Really, my friend, after 40 years of dealing with and producing for the industry in a major worldwide company.  Well I let that speak for itself.  BTW, do you have such a back ground?  No I didn't think so.

Now do you truly think the old timers, of which I am one, didn't have a post editor?  Yeah, my friend, it may not have been PS but we always had something even if it was just kitchen spoon to use as a dodge tool. The fact three halves don't add up in your world shows the fact that any one of them can be the most important.  Rarely will it be 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3 and work but it could. Usually one part excels over the other two.

"Good photographers even use flash outdoors on sunny days"

And, good photographers don't. So what? If a person is limited in budget, as the OP indicated, and something has to be cut out, a flash is certainly on the top of the list.

Each of us is entitled to our opinion Tim. So, flash away to your hearts content.

[shadowsports]

Guys,

Wealth of knowledge on this thread.  Can we keep it civil and stay on topic.

Guy wants to spend upwards of $4500

mstu33...  Where does a Director of Market and Communication take the majority of his/her pictures?  Indoors / outdoors, both?

Are the subjects mostly still or do you have to catch action?

Everyone here has made some good points about what you can spend your money on.  You said you rented an 80D and a 5D4.  Which did you like better.  Did the 5D4 feel like overkill?  Or were you snapping away going holy $h()t I'm taking some great pictures.  The 80D is a enthusiast grade camera.  The 5D4 is pro.  Which are you? 

The 80D has an articulating screen.  Is this important to you?  It is for me...  so no 5D4.  I'm suffering though life with my 6D2 and loving every minute of it. 

[coachboz68]

---

@mstu33 wrote:

The time is now. I have the approval to make a camera/lens purchase for my department at work. I work as Director of Marketing & Communications at an independent school. I have $4,800 for both a camera and lenses. What combination would you recommend? I am excited to upgrade from the T3i I have been using. I have rented both the 80D and the 5D Mark IV. 

---

First, if I had to make a tradeoff, I'd go with spending more on lenses than the body, relatively speaking.  

Second, if I had to choose between the 24-70 and the 70-200 (EF f/2.8 L versions of both) then I'd have to think hard about how much I could control my environment.  If you have the ability to stand wherever you want, have people get out of the way and/or pose, etc, then you can get a ton of stuff done with a full frame camera and the 70-200.  If you don't have the luxury of controlling the environment, then you have to decide which situations are most important to you.  For example, if you're going to be at close range in low light, you may opt for the 24-70 as that is a nice versatile range.  

I suppose my advice would be to think through your most common scenarios before deciding.  If you'd care to share what those are, perhaps others could advise further.  

[ebiggs1]

"First, if I had to make a tradeoff, I'd go with spending more on lenses than the body,..."

And so would any person of average intelligence. And, less on little used add-ons.