cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Should I get the EOS 700D?

redmondyu
Apprentice

Looking to buy my first DSLR. I am specifically into low-light photography, but I would also like to be versatile enough to take pictures of people (for family events), and inanimate objects (focusing on one). Right now, I am divided between the EOS 700D and the more expensive 70D.

2 REPLIES 2

ScottyP
Authority
Hi Redmondyu,

What kind of dim light are you talking about? If your subjects are inanimate, any half decent camera and lens can shoot fine in dim light if you put it on a good steady tripod, so that you can shoot long exposures.

If your subjects are moving/living then you need to address the problem with equipment. Both cameras you mention are about equal for low light work. If you want a body that is appreciably better in low light, you would have to go full frame, like 6d.

The biggest thing for you would be bright fast lenses. A wide aperture lens is one that opens wide to let light in. They call them fast lenses because when they open that wide it lets you use a faster shutter speed than you could have used with a narrower aperture. The best bang for the buck in wide aperture lenses are the fixed-length (non-zooming) lenses, also called "primes". They are both sharper and brighter than zooming lenses costing 2 or 3 times what they cost.

The kit lenses you get in bundled packages will NOT be good in low light. When deciding what body to get, be sure to leave enough money in your budget for a wide aperture lens. A prime like a 50mm f/1.4 lets literally 4 times more light into the camera (thus lets you shoot in 1/4th the light) compared to the kit lenses.

To make your budget stretch enough to get the equipment you need, including a bright prime, consider getting the lesser priced body, or consider getting the body without the included discounted kit lenses. Or both.
Scott

Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?

Here is a link to the 50mm f/1.4. 50mm on a crop sensor body is great for portraits. Perhaps you get the kit 18-55 lens they give discounted in the kit bundle, and you pick up this prime for low light work.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.4-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


Another possibility would be a better-than-kit quality general purpose walk-around zoom lens like the EF-s 17-55mm f/2.8. It is not quite as bright as a prime like 50mm f/1.4, but it is much brighter than the kit lenses are, and it it pretty sharp too.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Scott

Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?
Avatar
Announcements