550d 60d 7d 5dII

<p>Hi, I'm im relatively new to photography and been hooked on it ever since. I really haven't done that much practical just shot a few dozen rolls through my canon ae1 program. I really wanna learn photography and digital with it ability to provide on screen result and no extra cost, really made me decide i want to move to digital asap to get practicing. I'm planning to buy a new dslr body but can't really decide which one i should go for.<br>

I'm not really financially gifted however through one way or another can get my hand on these bodies. For the 7d or the 5dII i will have to sacrifice alot. 60d is still on borrowed money and 550d is affordable. Note i will be using a standard 17-55 lens for a while i save money for a nice 50 prime and hopefully a nice zoom afterwards.<br>

Personal for the requirement i need 550d ticks all the boxs including price, however the build quality really bugs me, i saw 60d as an expensive alternative with no really technical upgrade(please correct me if I'm wrong) providing the solid build 550d lacks. 7d and 5dII are my dream cameras however the price tag and the fact that I'm an amateur says i should not invest so early. <br>

The photo community has helped me alot during this learning phase and I would like your personal option on what camera body i should invest in as an amateur, keeping in mind i might have to keep this camera for a while.</p>

<p>Much appreciated</p>

<p>Abz~</p>

<p>I own a 7D and a 60D, and have used the 5D Mark II for extended periods of time. I tried the T2i and the T3i (550D and 600D) but, it feels like a plastic, fragile toy in my hands. The 7D is the one that feels the most rugged and secure, but the 60D and 5D don't fall too much behind. I would suggest you buy the 60D given that it records pretty well, has the swiveling LCD which permits you to record in more uncomfortable positions (but more interesting), has a faster fps shooting capability than the rebels, and the price tag isn't too demanding. Also, I believe the 7D and the 5D Mark II will be replaced soon, since they've been around for quite some time now, so spending on one of those would not be very wise right now.</p>

<p>Something else: you mentioned that you would like to buy a 50mm prime in the future, but I'd recommend you a 35mm instead. Remember that all of these cameras, except for the 5D Mark II, have a cropped sensor. The 50 may be too long for a lot of applications in either the T2i, T3i, 60D, or 7D.</p>

<p>Erwin Marlin.</p>

<p>First thing to do is go out and handle the cameras. The 550D is considerably smaller and lighter than the other three. This may or may not be a problem for you. The 550D, 60D, and 7D share the same size sensor (18MP), but the electronics and other bits wrapped around it differ considerably. Since you're just getting into DSLR photography, you really can't go wrong with either the 550D or the 60D, depending on which one you like the "feel" of.</p>

<p>Don't spend more than you have to. Any extra money can be used for lenses, which will probably outlast whichever body you buy now. </p>

<p>Oh - and look for the magazine called "PhotoPlus" at your news agent. It's from the UK, and concentrates exclusively on Canon DSLR photography. Lots of great tips and equipment tests.</p>

You are just getting started. You don't yet have experience that you will rely upon when you eventually purchase more

expensive gear. The 550D works great and, as you point out, the 550d does everything you need a camera to do. You

also point out that price is an issue to you. Your only issue is some vague "build quality" concern that is almost

certainly overblown for a first camera.

 

Get the 550D and start making photographs.

 

Dan

I agree with Dan. While the 550 will not be built like your AE1P and thus is unlikely to last 25 to 30 years it is a fine

camera to start with. It is better to invest in lenses than a top flight body unless you need the sealing or improved

handling of the much more expensive body (I should say that I personally shoot the 7D, 5DII and 1DIIN plus a vast

array of film bodies).

 

You need to be aware that Canon makes two lens series for their modern (EOS) bodies. Their EF lenses will fit any

body but the crop factor means that the lens will appear to be 1.6x the focal length that is printed on the lens if they

are used on an APS-C body. The EF-S lenses can only be used on APS-C bodies and are mainly fairly slow zooms.

I should also state that you cannot use your FD lenses on a Canon DSLR - while adaptors exist the flange distance

means that the adaptor needs to contain lens elements so the quality means that FD lenses cannot be used.

Interestingly old Nikon lenses can be used with an adaptor.

<p>I also agree with Dan. the 550d is a great body check out some photo.net images of the 550d in tag you will be quiet suprised...focs on good glass and getting some experience then look at an up grade, good luck with it....</p>

<p>If you plan to use the 17-55 (or maybe you meant the 18-55) lens for a while, that pretty much closes out the 5Dii. Those lenses are specifically made for crop sensor cameras and CANNOT be used (safely) on full frame (5dii). Crop sensor and full frame Canon cameras can use the EF lenses (like the 17-55, 18-55, 15-85, etc), but ONLY crop sensor bodies can use EF-S lenses.<br>

Good luck with your decision. Sounds like no matter what camera you pick, it will be a good one!</p>

Build quality of the xxxD series is not their weak point. (look at the DigitalRev movie where they mistreat a 400D and a

consumer Nikon and they just keep working)

 

The small size is either a plus or a minus depending on your use.

 

The bigger viewfinder and the controls are differentiators. (and the "sports" AF in the 7D)

 

The images come out great.

 

Hope this helps, Matthijs.

<p>I think in your situation you are being very prudent to note that "550d ticks all the boxs including price". I'm really glad, that for once an aspiring photographer is being realistic about their abilities and the corresponding needs re tools. But why this worry about build quality, which stressfull undertakings are you planning? There are hundreds of thousands of older Rebels - 350D, 400D etc. - still out there snapping happily away. It's not as if these are just falling apart on their own after a few months, you know. You are going to be embedded with some special platoon in the Afghan mountains or traipsing around the subarctic Tundras? By all means get a 7D. If not, the 550 or 600D are excellent tools which will serve you for years.</p>

<p>You are just getting started, so I would go for the 550D. I have a 400D, and there is nothing wrong with the build quality of if. Sure, my EOS 3 is sturdier, but the 400D is quite robust.<br>

By going for a cheaper body, you will also be able buy better lenses sooner.</p>

 

<p>I see majority vote goes to 550d. Thanks, really do appreciate your opinion. However i got a new problem, canon recently released the 600d but i really don't see any real improvement in the camera, and the spinning screen is a gimmick and really bugs me. Any thoughts? or have I over looked any improvement worth noting?</p>

<p>Thanks Once again</p>

<p>Abz~</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Note i will be using a standard 17-55 lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did you mean the 17-55 or 18-55? The former is by no means a "standard" lens and has the price to to prove it :) In any case, 550D is more than enough camera to get you started and will probably exceed your ability as a photographer for a while yet. Shoot with it until you gain more experience and figure out what you may need in future.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However i got a new problem, canon recently released the 600d but i really don't see any real improvement in the camera, and the spinning screen is a gimmick and really bugs me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The articulated screen is useful for macro work and other applications where the viewfinder or screen is not easily viewed straight on. In the "good old days," photographers would mount so-called angle finders onto their viewfinders to do macro and other odd-angled work. Some angle finders also provided magnification (as do modern LCD's), which is useful for macro focusing.</p>

<p>If you are certain that an articulated screen will not be useful to you, then getting a less expensive body without it could make a lot of sense. On the other hand, there are situations in which such a screen really could be useful, including certain types of macro work and so forth.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>have you considered an used 40D, they can be had for under $500 and has much improved ergonomics over the rebels (imho).</p>

<p>get the 550d or a used 40d / 50d / 60d<br>

more money for lenses</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Save money with Digital? Rethink that for a moment...calibration software, inkjet printer, quality paper, inks, monitor calibrator, quality lenses, not the crop crap kit plastic lenses, Adobe Software and others, time in front of computer...it really is just about the same.</p>

<p>It just depends on what you are trying to do...its not the tool, its the task and which tool best meets the needs of that task.</p>

<p>If you plan eventually on a full frame camera dont waste money buying a crappy kit lens (EF lenses) as it becomes a vignetting piece of junk when you go FF.</p>

<p>Buyer Beware.</p>

<p>OOps I meant EF-S lenses, which project a smaller image circle onto the smaller cropped sensors of the non FF camera bodies.</p>

<p>@ <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1159709">Mark Anthony Kathurima</a> - i meant 18-55 =3 17-55 is too expensive and i would rather get a nice 24-105 f4L since it would fit onto a full frame if i decided to move up and also retain its value more.(I think)<br>

@John Thurston - I'm a big fan of film and that why it makes this decision more difficult, i more used to a robust 35mm frame camera. However the amount of film i use in a day it frankly unrealistic. I do plan to keep my film cameras, I'm buying a nice fd 50 1.2L soon. However for practical and learning purposes i think a digital would suit me better. And yes i do plan to buy a full frame (the crop really annoys me) something like a eos 5d mark II (other ones are too bulky) however I'm still learning so i think buying an entry level product will benefit me more at this stage, where i still undecided that digital is for me or not.<br>

@everyone else- Hmm i think i might go for the 550d the screen doesn't seem worth the extra 100 pounds.<br>

About buying used equipment, i absolute hate buying used equipment unless I'm forced to. Even my canon ae-1 program and my a1 are brand new. My fd lens aren't but if i could i would pay the extra 100-200 pounds for a new one. Reason being is i like leaving my marks on my stuff, and just making something unique to myself. It might not be a good reason but i that just me.</p>

<p>Optics (and the photographer) do shoot, not a camera. Invest in good solid optics, and master classes. Get 550D. And save for 2 - 3 very good primes. Go FF only when your works are so top-class and small sensor becomes one of limiting factors.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"</em><em>Save money with Digital? Rethink that for a moment...calibration software, inkjet printer, quality paper, inks, monitor calibrator, quality lenses, not the crop crap kit plastic lenses, Adobe Software and others, time in front of computer...it really is just about the same.</em><br>

<em>It just depends on what you are trying to do...its not the tool, its the task and which tool best meets the needs of that task.</em><br>

<em>If you plan eventually on a full frame camera dont waste money buying a crappy kit lens (EF lenses) as it becomes a vignetting piece of junk when you go FF.</em><br>

<em>Buyer Beware."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow. Odd post.</p>

<p>Let's take those assertions one at a time. The majority of folks shooting these cameras (and this most likely includes our OP: "I really wanna learn photography") rarely if ever print. While high end inkjet printers cost a lot and the consumables cost more, most folks won't need them - either because they don't print, or because an inexpensive small format printer is enough, and/or they'll send out the occasional larger print to a service. In addition, the costs of doing chemical photography at higher levels (for which one might need the expensive printer, etc. that you mention) are not exactly cheap - this approach has its<em> own significant consumables costs</em>, scanning costs, and the costs of building and equipping a darkroom, and so forth.</p>

<p>Your second point about selecting the tool that is best adapted to the task at hand makes a lot of sense... especially in the context of our beginning photographer who asked the original question.</p>

<p>The paragraph before the "buyer beware" business just plain doesn't make sense. First, the kit lens is not "crappy" - it is quite decent, especially given its low coast. And, relative to your "selecting the appropriate tools" point, pretty much the right tool for beginning photographer who does not yet have any skill/experience basis for selecting which more expensive lens he might eventually need, not to mention the fact that he has no idea at this point just how serious his interest in photography will become. About "vignetting piece of junk when you go FF..." I suppose that is sort of half right. It would be worthless on a full frame camera because<em> EFS lenses won't work on full frame.</em> Do you not know this?</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I would save a bit more and, instead of buying the plastic T3i, I'd go for the 60D. You can read in detail why on my blog.</p>