Body vs. Lenses

[renaylor]

<p>I recently bought a Canon 50D(traded up from the 40D) less than a week ago. There were enough improvements for me to justify the upgrade so I jumped at the chance before the next Canon model is released and I don't get a least half of my money that I invested. I had been eyeing the 7D though-but not big on the price tag. I am not a Pro just a serious amateur who likes to take pictures of landscapes, portraits, wildlife and macro. I am not big on sports-I only go to Wrestling events once a year or so. I currently have a 50mm 1.4 lens(got this as a gift for Christmas) . I sold the 28-135 mm IS kit lens because I want pro level L glass or more prime lenses preferably a zoom that covers my needs and a macro lens. The 7D appears to have very accurate AF and renders tack sharp photos with minimal effort. The wireless capability is great but I really would only need it for portraiture-if I even need it at all. The HD video is a nice feature but there is no autofocus during filming, and you can only record 4 gb at a time. The recording format is mov which I don't like using. I edit my own videos at home and I am used to a dedicated camcorder. The workaround to convert the video to a usable HD format is no fun and too time consuming for me. If I were to choose the 7D it would be for the AF and the fact it does well with fast action. I know that beautiful photos can be taken with each camera. However should I choose to return the 50D(I have 15 days to do it) and purchase the 7D or invest in a prime zoom lens or L glass that fits my needs. What is so frustrating is the choices out there that is overwhelming. Years ago when I had my Canon AE-I program I was so happy with it and the results it produced. Focusing was manual only-split screen focus and it was a no-brainer. Now it is all about MP, Sensors, and AF. Too confusing...</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Actually my advice would have been to keep the 40D and buy all your lenses first. Lenses are upgraded slowly, especially in comparison to bodies, and they hold their value much better, but today's miracle camera is tomorrow's antique, often within a year. So my obvious advice is to upgrade your lenses first, and so by the time you're finished you can then buy the new 40mp 17D, or whatever.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>The camera companies make it about MP, but photographers know that this is not what its all about. The 50D is a very capable camera. If you don't shoot sports often, the extra frame rate won't be a big deal. Also, as you said, the HD video doesn't matter to you. The AF is nice, but the 50D AF works fine for most applications. I'd stick with the 50D and get better glass. I have a 50mm like you and it fills the gap between my 17-40mm and 70-200mm. This is a good set up for an APS-C camera. I would definitely get a wide angle that is 17mm at the most on the wide end; anything more is not really wide on a crop sensor.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Renee, after reading your question, looking at your profile and looking at the couple of your example images, I don't really see a need to move up to the 7D yet. I would also support staying with the 40D and spending your money on a good lens that'll help you do something better.<br>

Is you 50mm f/1.4 and L? If so, that's a wonderful lens. You might supplement it with a nice wide-zoom. You might get some specific recommendations if you'd a goal of the type of images you're after. If it's portraits, I see your kid, then you might want a zoom or prime in the portrait range. Since you've got the budget to consider a 7D, how 'bout thinking about an EF 70-200mm f/4L IS?<br>

If you were doing birds in flight and wildlife, then I might talk about the 7D, but you'd still need a great lens for that.<br>

Since I don't see evidence that you need superior high-ISO performance, or any other body performance demands, I think that you should stay with the 40D and buy another fine lens that suits a particular objective.</p>

[renaylor]

<p>The pictures I took of my daughter and son was about 3 yrs ago. The one with them both was taken with a Nikon D40 that I started with before I moved up to the 40D. I did trade up the 40D already though and purchased the 50D last w/e-I don't regret it because my images were rather on the soft side with the 40D. The 50D is tack sharp and all the other extras that are in that body was worth it. I do have a long way to go with my composition and other things. When I used film it made me less lazy about things and more creative. I have to rework all this using a DSLR.<br>

In regards to lens I was looking at purchasing the 70-200MM 4L USM(non IS)- I have heard good things about this lens and it would cover a wide range on the longer end. I am even considering a more wider angle lenses but I am aiming for the zoom first.</p>

[mneace]

<p>From someone that has had a 40D since October 2007, and added a 7D about 3 weeks ago, I'd say keep the 40D and get that good glass.<br>

If you were doing a lot of low light shooting I'd say get the 7D. I've noticed it just AFs better in low light than the 40D. I also like the 19 point system. But it really excels in lower light, both in focusing and high ISO performance. What you use it for I don't think you would see any real difference at all. Unless you have some very large prints.<br>

And by the way, the 7D will auto focus while in video mode if you push the AF button. But it's not a video camera. Used it last night at our daughter's school choir performance. The pictures came out a lot better than the video! A little clumsy, compared to a real video camera...and I was only using a monopod.</p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>Why did you trade a 40D for a 50D. I don't see a real "improvements" there. 40D to 7D, now we are talking.</p>

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>Unless I'm missing a specific feature that you find more useful on the 50D than the 40D doesn't have I'm not sure why you made such a small jump up. If you do some searching you will find that people have been finding the 40D pictures to be better especially at higher ISO than the 50D. In that regard you have actually downgraded by going to the 50D. Remember unless you are printing really big.... it's the lens that will show you better improvement in picture quality then the camera (ie. good primes) at normal picture sizes. You'll get better bokeh, saturation, and contrast.</p>

[renaylor]

<p>Many have made that small step up and found it worth it as I have. I did comparisons with the photographs taken with the 40D and the ones I recently took with my 50D. They were sharper. I also noticed that my 50mm lens did a lot of searching to lock focus in low light than when on the 50D which locked focus fast. The 7D with all its bells and whistles is a big step up in turns of features and price. If I am going to spend my money on something I want it to be a long term committment whether it be body or lenses. I hear on one hand a great lens on a 50D is just as good as a great lens on a 7D. My take is this...it is the photographer that takes the picture-not the camera.</p>

[rjtully]

<p>"My take is this...it is the photographer that takes the picture-not the camera."<br>

Then why did you trade in your 40D for the 50D?<br>

Whatever! Whichever camera makes you more comfortable and gives you more confidence is all that counts. If you feel you are getting better shots from the 50D then you made the right choice. We all would like at least the next step up because another step up will capture better photographs than what we have now. Right? Well, maybe not. Maybe you are right when you say it is the camera. I have a T1i and I am very happy with it (for now). Prior to that was a Kodak DC290. That cost as much as the T1i back in 2000. Prior to that an Elan IIE and an AE-1. They all took great shots. Be happy with your 50D and use it to your best ability. You will out grow it eventually but for now YOU will get great photographs from it.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I think the 50D is an upgrade to the 40D just in terms of the LCD. The LCD on the 40D is horrible. BUT even your wondering about the upgrade by asking the questions. If you were truly happy, we would not be talking about this :). So I can tell you one thing, the 7D is head and shoulders above the 40D and 50D. I never liked my 40D, even at low ISO the grain was too much. The AF system on the 40D, 50D and 7D are NOT that much different. Just to step up to a 7D for AF doesn't make sense. The 600.00 higher price from 50D to 7D is worth to me. Good luck v/r Buffdr</p>

[renaylor]

<p>My take is this- If I return my 50D and apply the difference of what a 70-200 mm non IS USM f4L would cost it would buy me the 7D which is a great body. However would I benefit by leaving the 50D and purchasing that lens instead. Will it give me better photos than just switching the body. Is the AF system and bigger viewfinder and other internal features worth the upgrade?</p>

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>If higher ISO quality is what you want here is the info supporting what I read about the 40Ds images looking better.....</p>

<p>http://tech.spotcoolstuff.com/photography/digital-camera/slr-showdown-40d-50d-canon-eos/<br>

http://www.xtremephotography.ca/Canon-40D-50D-ISO-Comparison/Crop/default.htm</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>Renee, it's kind of hard answering your question. YES if you buy the 70-200 f4 with your 50D, you will get awesome pictures using it outside in good light. The files would look a lot better than lets say you get the 7D with a cheapo 28-135 IS. But the 7D can grow with you, a jump from 40D to 50D didn't gain you much now and in the future. With the 7D you can do lots of off camera flash with it's wireless commander. The ISO is way better (it's as good as 5D mk I) AND the video! You will be able to take awesome video's of your babies too! V/R Buffdr </p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>You seem to have a choice of 50D+70-200 f4L or the 7D?<br>

Do you <em>want</em> the 70-200? Or do you <em>need</em> the 70-200. If you <em>need</em> it then what use is the 7D without the 70-200 - it does not have such a significant increase in pixels that you can 'zoom' by cropping. Do you do a lot of very low light photography? Have you had a lot of shots where lack of really fast AF is frustrating? So it comes back to why you are getting fixated on the 7D.<br>

My feeling is that you have the 50mm lens and nothing else so getting a 70-200 and then a wide angle will enable you to take a wider range of photographs. Getting a 7D may (may!) improve the photographs you are already taking. You say that at this point you want a long-term solution in which case I would again say get the lens.</p>

[renaylor]

<p>I think what I have been doing is getting caught up in the "body wars" versus what I really need to take the pictures I want to take:landscapes, macro, portrait, and wildlife. In reality I do not take very many moving subjects and stop action shots or BIF for that matter to warrant fast AF that the 7D can give. I have seen some phenomenal pics in the galleries and other photography websites to see what the 50D can do. Just about all those pictures use "L" glass-quality lens. Of course the composition is on point as well so the photographer is 90% of the equation. I need a telephoto like the 70-200 to get the far reach I want for the large as life photos. Glass is an investment while bodies change every year. There will always be "buyers remorse" because they are always releasing new bodies every 12-18 months which is ridiculous. Some of the functions are more than we will ever need or use but we buy it just to keep up -same with computers-every 12 months is another processor and new upgrades-I got wise-invest in a good motherboard and have it built to decrease the chance of becoming obsolete fast.</p>