I hve been taking pictures for about 30 years as a photo enthusiast. I currently own an EOS rebel 450 D, along with a 10-22 EF-S F 3.5/4.5 USM and a 70-200 EF Zoom. I am going to Hawaii next month and have to make a decision as to what camera I will purchase. as an upgrade. I looked at the rebel 4Ti but I am also thinking about the canon 6D. I have never used a full frame before but I want to get more serious and think this could be an interesting option. I was going to get the lens kit of 24-105 EF. I would appreciate suggestion from the other photographers out there. Thanks. Barb
I've been to Kauai and toured the island both by car & took the heli tour back when the 20D was the new body to have. The majority of my shots were at the wide end using the then new Sigma 18-200 which met ALL of my needs lens wise. Depending on what you'll do on your trip you may only need to add a lens like the 24-105 to cover all of the situations you'll want to capture UNLESS Whale watching is one of them which might demand an even longer lens than you currently own.
Unless you are planning some low light photography that needs better AF performance or higher ISO I really can't see the need for a newer (& more expensive) body if you know the one you have well. I also don't understand the need to upgrade to FF from a crop body unless you are looking seriously at the shallow DOF side of photography.
Don't upgrade to the 6D because you're going to Hawaii and want the best possible pictures. In fact, I wouldn't even upgrade to a 650D just because I'm going to Hawaii. I own a 450D (and a 6D) and I know exactly what it can do. It's a capable camera with the right lenses (which both the 10-22 and 70-200 are).
We were just discussing this yesterday with my buddy eBiggs. There's an assumption among those who haven't shot full frame that they're 'the next level'. They're not. There are advantages to FF, sure, but there's advantages to crop as well. Only go full frame if low light performance is paramount to your photography and/or razor thin DoF is a big part of your creative style. Yes, everyone would take better low light performance if given the option, but I mean - low light photography is something you do often and the 450D isn't cutting it performance wise. Going full frame means investing in a lot of new, expensive glass. It's bigger, bulkier, worse performance on the corners, less reach, cost more. All these things are worth it if that's what you want, but make sure that's what you want.
The 650D is a significant upgrade from the 450D in my opinion. More so in features than image quality, but you do get quite a bit more resolution as well - and you have the lenses to use that resolving power. The cost of a 650D body isn't much relative to some of those lenses. Again, I wouldn't do it because of Hawaii, but because you feel you're ready to upgrade.
There's also the 60D, which is a fine camera and a notch up in features from the Rebel line.
Thanks for the advise. I looked into the EF-s 15-85, there is also a 17-85 f 2.8, which would you choose? Also you mentioned a new camera possibly coming out in July. Tell me what advanatages it would have over the 60D. I appreciate your input.
The 17-85 ISN'T an f2.8 lens and it's also not that good a lens based on owning 2 of them. The 15-85 however has an excellent reputation.