Why upgrade my 30D if it's good enough for National Geographic?

<p>An office clerk by day and a photo hobbyist on weekends and vacation, I load my photos on Flickr to share with friends, coworkers and family.<br>

<a href="http://www.flickriver.com/photos/phil_marion/sets/">http://www.flickriver.com/photos/phil_marion/sets/</a><br>

I took this photo while visiting Easter Island 2 years ago.<br>

<a href="

<img src=" alt="" /><br>

It was taken with my 30D and 24 - 70 L lens. Imagine my surprise/suspicion when someone on Flickr claiming to be with National Geographic asked if they could license my photo for use in their magazine and website. i thought it was either a scam or someone on Flickr trying to play a joke on me. Well turns out it WAS the real deal. Lo' and behold my photo is in the November UK edition and a few other European language editions.<br>

<a href="

they even used it on-line.<br>

<a href="http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2010/11/easter-island-hats.html" target="_blank">http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/20...land-hats.html</a><br>

Well they paid me $825 for the shot and I am wondering if I should upgrade the 30D to a newer body. It would have to be the 7D because my lenses are geared towards crop sensor. But then I say to myself: "If what I have is already good enough for National Geographic why would I upgrade just for the sake of upgrading?"<br>

my gear is on my Flickr profile page<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/phil_marion/">http://www.flickr.com/people/phil_marion/</a><br>

I'd hate to turn in to a dpreview gearhead that upgrades every new camera iteration. Jeez, these people complain about focusing problems yet they've no idea how to use the focus points or even the simple technique of a) focus, then b) recompose. They buy new bodies but never deviate from the kit lens. The only benefit i see that the 7d has is faster focus and frames/second. From my site you'll see I don't do any sports shots. I imagine the 60D is a classy plastic Rebel and a downgrade.<br>

I just feel the money from the photo is some cosmic signal to upgrade - LOL. Is there any HUGE upgrade in photo quality from a 30D to 7D? Or should I just wait a few more years? I've always believed in wanting better glass over body upgrades but can't see what lens I could splurge on.</p>

 

<p>There's nothing wrong with wanting something new, even though I've never wanted a new body or lens. ;) You are correct that the 30D is a very capable camera, but if you have the means to upgrade and you desire a 7D, then make the leap. It is quite an upgrade and some of the new features will likely assist you in getting more great photos. Not to mention that getting a new, more powerful camera makes you feel like you're 8 years old on Christmas morning; you'll have a blast playing with it for quite a while.</p>

<p>If you're happy with your 30D and if you continue to use it to produce images you (and others enjoy), I see no reason to bow to mindless consumerism and one-upmanship. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I looked at your flickr page and you have some really nice stuff. I don't want to get into a big 5D vs 7D debate, lord knows we've had enough of those, but I noticed that you shoot mostly landscapes and portraits. A full frame camera may be something for you to consider. The larger sensor will give you better use of your wide angle lenses for landscapes, better bokeh for portraits, and it will allow for clean large prints. Of course the 5D II would be the first choice of full frame Canons, but the original 5D and 1DS II are very capable and affordable cameras to consider. </p>

<p>Congrats, that is very cool!</p>

<p>I think good photographer plus good glass is going to equal some great pictures regardless of what body you use. I confess that I love the live-view feature in newer bodies, and while my pictures aren't really any better, having the option to fine tune focus or composes a scene with screen is pretty nice.</p>

<p>Phil,</p>

<p>Is this the only payment you have received?</p>

<p>"One swallow does not make a summer" is a well-known saying.</p>

<p>I would not extrapolate too much from a sample of one. Your picture happened to be the right one at the right time. It is a fundamental truism that equipment is unimportant but the photo is all important. The point, as you know, is that very often having good equipment may make a better picture, particularly at times when to getting the right one is very demanding. But in general terms there is probably no point in you upgrading unless you need better resolution/cropping ability, fast AF and low noise at high ISOs.</p>

<p>I was identifying with you (hobbyists, flickr, 30D, vacations, family, published) until I checked your flickr site. For a mild mannered clerk you travel like superman. Yemen, Jordon, Toronto, Prague, Mexico and Amsterdam are a mix of vacations spots and travel restricted countries. I have a 30D and my crowning achievements are a couple of photos used in a blog, one children's book and a old scanned slide of my fathers in another book. I have only lusted after L glass and couldn't justify the cost of a new body with my hobby. I don't think I would classify your photos as hobbyists. Get the new body and use the 30D as a spare body. You deserve it.</p>

<p>I am with Robin, you upgrade when you <em>need</em> to upgrade. At the basic level, <em>all</em> cameras perform the same function: they record an exposure. Try shooting @ f/1.4 and focusing and recomposing.... that may not work. Much better to have a focus point <em>on </em>what you want in focus. In that case, the more focus points the better. But if one doesn't <em>need</em> that, then of course more focus points are of little value. Personally, I loved moving from a 220,000 pixel preview to 920,000- for me that was sweet! But that doesn't mean the camera itself is making a better image.... just that <em>I </em>might be able to better judge and adjust to make a better image.</p>

<p>Rob Bernhard nailed it.</p>

<p>The reason why I upgraded from the 30D to the 7D although the 30 has served me well for 5 years was: 1) Sensor Cleaning 2) weather resistance 3) improved LCD 4)Grid 5)Better Auto focusing 6) better pop-up flash 7) 18 Mega pixels for bigger prints 8) last but not least Live-View and Video.<br>

Phil it looks like you don't need any of these things your pictures look great !</p>

 

<p>You're already spending money on exotic trips. Why not spend on an exotic camera!</p>

<p>Seriously, I think the value of a high-end camera is to increase your odds of getting a great shot. I'm guessing that not every image from your 30D is as good as the one National Geographic published. With a $7000 camera you might get two keepers per ten shots, rather than just one.</p>

<p>The only reason I upgrade or buy a new piece of equipment is to solve a specific problem or because I really need it.</p>

<p>It sounds like you are happy with your current set up, and have no problem that you are looking to solve, so why buy for the sake of it? I'm also not sure why a "high end camera" would "increase your odds of getting a great shot" unless you are losing shots for a specific reason that a different camera might solve (frame rate, buffer, quicker AF, etc.) and that doesn't seem to be the case here.</p>

<p>You'll know when you need to upgrade your camera when you feel that the (lack of) capabilities of your camera are restricting your ability to achieve a particular result. It does not sound like you are at that point - so why upgrade? <br>

I upgraded from my 30D firstly because it failed and I faced a repair bill. I then went full frame and it's been revelation - because I shoot a lot in low light and in that case low noise, DOF change, Live View etc make a big difference. Also I find that lenses like the 24-70mm and 70-200mm cover a more convenient range on a FF camera than on a crop - I found it difficult using my 70-200mm for studio portraits because of the crop factor but now it's much more useful on a FF.<br>

I considered the 7D also - because I had the 10-22mm and 17-85mm - it has the Live View, Video, improved flash system, better focus system etc - for landscapes and portraits all of these were not as important as FF to me - and so comes the additional expenses, new lenses etc. <br>

I have not bothered to get my 30D repaired as the 5D is a big step up in many ways. If my 30D had not failed I would probably be waiting for the 5D MkIII but now to me the 30D looks unusable above ISO 800 - lots of noise and the 8Mb is a restriction. YMMV.</p>

 

<p><em>The only benefit i see that the 7d has is faster focus and frames/second. From my site you'll see I don't do any sports shots. </em></p>

<p>Higher IQ. Weather sealing. Much better VF. Much better screen. Better ergonomics. Amazing battery. Video. And yes, awesome AF and fps.</p>

<p><em>I imagine the 60D is a classy plastic Rebel and a downgrade.</em></p>

<p>No, and that meme annoys me almost as much as the "FF is always much better" meme. The 7D is certainly a better camera, but the 60D is a strong camera in its own right. No one who has actually touched one reports that it feels like a Rebel, they all say that it feels very sturdy yet lighter than traditional xxD bodies. The only crummy thing about it is the lack of MFA which you don't have now.</p>

<p><em>Is there any HUGE upgrade in photo quality from a 30D to 7D?</em></p>

<p>I would say there's a pretty big jump. It may not matter if your prints are generally 8x10 and low ISO. At 16x20 or higher ISO it matters.</p>

<p>30D -> 7D hardly qualifies you as a gear head, and I doubt the 7D mkII (which is still a ways off) will make you regret it. I would say go for it.</p>

<p><em>A full frame camera may be something for you to consider. The larger sensor will give you better use of your wide angle lenses for landscapes, </em></p>

<p>Unless, of course, his wide angles are EF-S.</p>

<p><em>better bokeh for portraits,</em></p>

<p>Bokeh is a lens characteristic. Perhaps you meant less DoF / more blur? He can do that cheaper with a fast prime. Looking at some of the portraits in his photostream he is getting good blur now by shooting at 200 f/4 against distant backgrounds. But that also flattens portraits out and may be pushing him towards tight crops (how far can you backup?). An 85 f/1.8 would be a good investment. (Assuming he doesn't already have one. I don't have time to review many of his shots, though I wish I did.)</p>

<p><em>and it will allow for clean large prints. </em></p>

<p>So will any of the 18 MP bodies.</p>

<p><em>Of course the 5D II would be the first choice of full frame Canons, but the original 5D and 1DS II are very capable and affordable cameras to consider.</em></p>

<p>The original 5D was a great body, but recommending it over a 7D is terrible advice. Why give up IQ and a warranty, to say nothing of all the other features? The used price would have to be darn good.</p>

<p>The 1Ds II would kind of be like a bigger, heavier 7D without warranty and that has probably been shot to death. For the right price it would be good, but again, it would have to be a very good price and despite the rugged nature of the beast I would be concerned about prior use. (Since 1 bodies tend to be used hard.) IQ will not be significantly different, but it does have 1D ergonomics for those who want that.</p>

<p>If he is going to go with FF (and there are valid reasons, just not the ones usually cited), I would say just go for the current 5D mkII.</p>

<p>I would agree with everyone here. If you were an ameteur I would say learn as much as you can with the 30D first. However, you already have several L-series lens, nice primes and you are a world traveler. A 5D Mark II would be an excellent upgrade for you an an investment. I believe it will take your already great work to a new level. I can say this because I shoot with both a 30D and a 5D Mark II. The 30D takes good shots, the 5D Mark II takes excellent shots. The biggest thinkg I notice is with my 85 1.2L and 5D Mark II I can get shots way into the night shooting with nothing but the moon or a single street light. I can't really explaing it, but even really simple pictures just look so much better way more detail and clarity. I also shoot with a Canon ELAN 7NE which I used to love. However it does not compare to the 5D2. Also, many people say you have to have all L-series lenses for a 5D2. I totally disagree. I would rather have a 5D Mark II with a cheap Tamron lens than any L-series lens on a 30D. Basically, you are a real photographer so treat yourself to a 5D Mark II. I wouldn't waste time with a 7D the big difference is Full Frame.</p>

<p><em>I wouldn't waste time with a 7D the big difference is Full Frame.</em></p>

<p>The difference is so big that in a recent thread about this nobody could tell me which test samples came from which body. Same thing with 24" and 30" prints. The 5D mkII wins for large prints from high ISO and for certain lenses with no real crop equivalents (i.e. 35 f/1.4L). Otherwise the 7D is the better body and gives you $1,000 saved for glass.</p>

<p>DLT,<br />I completely agree with all of your points. The 7D is an amazing camera and I'm sure it can produce large prints on par with the 5D II. I was just throwing another suggestion into the mix. I thought if he had a 17-40mm, or another wide EF lens, then the FF camera would allow it to be used as a superwide, of course if he has EF-S lenses, then they would have to be sold. As for bokeh, the full frame sensor records the farther edges of the image circle that the APS-C sensor misses, creating more background blur. I know its possible to get great bokeh on a crop sensor, but that doesn't make the above statement false. A 7D may be a newer and better choice than an original 5D, but a used 5D is a few hundred dollars less than a new 7D, if budget were an issue. I don't think you could really go wrong with any of the newer cameras, I just thought I'd give you a couple more things to think about when doing your comparisons.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, many people say you have to have all L-series lenses for a 5D2. I totally disagree. I would rather have a 5D Mark II with a cheap Tamron lens than any L-series lens on a 30D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Suit yourself. You may not need ALL L lenses, but good glass does help. A chain is only as strong as its weekest link, so putting a cheap lens on an expensive body will only limit the potential of the body.</p>

<p>also, I wasn't suggesting the 5D <strong>over </strong>the 7D, I was just suggesting it as an alternative in case you decided the 7D wasn't quite what you wanted. I think the 7D is a supurb camera and I was in no way downgrading it, I was just being informative about the existence of full frame cameras.</p>

<p>I was using a samsung nx10 camera that i really loved in that it got me back into photography, but as i used it over a few months, was being limited by ISO and lack of sharp lens. I would rather have one nice lens than 3 mediocre ones. I got a canon T2i (ok i would prefer a 5Dmark-2 or even a 7D) but the t2i was maxing it for me, and i got a really nice canon 60mm f2.8 lens macro that i use as a walk-about.<br>

I love that lens, and it has made the world of difference for me, i got a few kits lens with the camera for almost free, but it is the sharp prime that i stay with most of the time.<br />I feel like it is going to take me a while to hit the limit of that camera and lens - there is always some shots that can benefit from the best, such as birds, animals, etc, but overall i can keep learning with it for some time to make it, my vision, and me one - transparently. The ISO is about 2 stops better than the samsung, and while there is still some noise in the shadows, it is much more workable - the newer sensors have come a ways (the samsung is a newer camera but it is using an older generation sensor i believe or else canon is just better at it)<br>

The T2i, 60D, and 7D are all using the same sensor, what you are paying for in the better models is mostly more and better A/F points. The 7d has the weather sealing and micro lens adjustment. While yes, the Rebel T2i is polycarbonate, it does not feel cheap in the sense that it is all tight and functional and a battery grip ($35 for chinese version) greatly improves its solid feel - i would not look at that as a downgrade in terms of the quality, but an upgrade.<br />I would then invest in lens, if you need them, such as a sigma 30mm 1.4, or a canon 200mm 2.8 IIS prime to compliment what you already have.<br /><br />I also got the T2i, besides being all i good afford (on credit), because at some point in the future i would go to a full frame camera rather than a 7D. Also in the comming years there are some amazing advances in sensors on the way - i do not mean just in megapixels, but think more dynamic range, better reds, less noise, and all of these are going to need good glass, otherwise the lens will make those no better than a cheaper camera.<br /><br />I have been to and lived in a number of the places in your photos, and you have a real way with capturing a quality with people, telling a story,composition, beauty, and people - thats what it is about - whatever you do you cannot really make a bad decision -wait for a good sale, a great promotion - and then go for it.</p>

I would buy nothing if I were you. Your kit seems more than capable to produce the photos that you require at this stage. If you do decide to go pro at some point, then you can consider an additional investment in gear. For now, just enjoy taking photos...:)

<p>Nathan - <em>As for bokeh, the full frame sensor records the farther edges of the image circle that the APS-C sensor misses, creating more background blur.</em></p>

<p>I consider bokeh to be the quality of the blur, but perhaps I'm being strict in drawing a distinction against the amount. It could be used to describe the combination. Under my use of the word above bokeh is inherent to the lens and has nothing to do with the format size.</p>

<p>Blur is also more complex than most people realize. Near the plane of focus it is determined by depth of field which is, of course, related to format size. (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html) Far outside the plane of focus it's determined by physical aperture size independent of format size. (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html) In the middle it's determined by a mix of both.</p>

<p>Phil is already getting completely blurred backgrounds in some of his portraits at 200mm and f/4. 200 / 4 = 50mm which means this combination will give as much blur as an 85 f/1.8 where the background is well off in the distance. And it will give the same blur regardless of format in that scenario.</p>

<p>However, the faster lens will give more blur where details are closer to the subject. In that scenario FF will also give more blur, assuming of course that the FF shooter walks up closer to frame the subject the same.</p>

<p>All that said...yes, full frame gives less DoF and more background blur in most portrait situations. You can actually end up in a situation where you get less total blur if the background is far off and you need to stop down the FF to get a little more DoF around the subject. Over all both formats can sufficiently diffuse a background for most purposes. And with fast primes you can get pretty thin DoF on crop. I'm not sure how much value there is in going from one eye in focus to one eyelash.</p>

<p>Fair enough on the 5D. I just think the price would have to be considerably lower to warrant it. It's a great sensor but in an old body design, used with no warranty. If price is a concern he could also save money going with the 60D and get more fine detail and better high ISO, new with warranty and a more modern feature set (Canon's 18 MP APS-C sensors are all the same). The 5D was a great body and continues to remain competitive in terms of IQ years after its introduction, but against current prices it would have to be priced pretty low.</p>

<p>Also, I don't mean to jump on you about the FF comments. Perhaps I do that too much but it irks me when it can be easily demonstrated that at low ISO there's no real difference. That won't hold forever, eventually Canon will release higher resolution FF sensors (possibly this spring if rumors about the 5D mkIII are true). But it's something to consider right now.</p>

<p>Congratulations on your publication and the $825. I shot with a 30D until I won a photo contest and got a $300 gift certificate to B&H, the camera mail order retailer. I used the money to help pay for an upgrade to the 5D2, which I much prefer. Frankly, however, your picture could have been taken with any camera, including a P&S, and it would be just as good. There are a couple of reasons to prefer the newer bodies: Live View (this is the main one), micro-adjust focus (also a huge benefit--make sure that the body you are considering has it, not all do) and an extra stop (maybe) of usable hi-ISO. If you really care about the last point, you should get a full-frame camera because then you will see a big jump in performance. There's absolutely nothing lacking in the 30D in daylight shooting situations. I did a test comparing the 30D and 5D2 at 100% at low ISOs and found them essentially indistinguishable. The big sensor gives you more shallow DoF options. It also avails you to the 24-105 lens, which has a very convenient zoom range for travel.</p>

<p>Like some of the other posters' experiences, in upgrading from 8mp to 10mp to 12mp to 21mp DSLRs I'm not noticing improved image quality as much as nicer camera features. My newest DSLR is much quieter, the LCD is much bigger and looks nicer, and the menu system is easier to navigate. Those are the changes I really notice. Are these changes vital to creating photos? Nope, but they are nice.</p>

 

<p>Personally, I see no reason to ever upgrade equipment unless what you have isn't good enough. Despite being in sales myself, I strongly feel 'better' equipment is unecessary if yours is plenty good. If you're at low ISOs all the time for instance, the much-better high ISO performance of the 7D is irrelevant.</p>

<p>If I were you, I'd funnel that money into your next trip. You take much better photos actually taking photos. If this lit a fire under you, you could even get back in contact with the mag and ask them where to go. You might say something like, "I'm looking to take another trip, and I'm not sure where I want to go. Is there someplace that you haven't seen a lot of photos from?" The best thing to do is to avoid sounding like you're asking for work (since you only sold them one image), or come off like Mr. Photographer With an Ego. If you sound like you're just looking for ideas, they might come back and say, "Well, we could use some photos of Place X ...", and then you could potentially be on your way to your next sale.</p>