T5i vs 70D for fast action/low light

[shades-of-thepast]

<p>I am upgrading from a 300D (Yes, I know most of you are probably like "What's that?"..LOL). I need something for fast action, specifically martial arts action shots and marching band photos where lighting is usually poor. Budget is 1000.00-1500.00, I would like to go with the 18-135 STM lens instead of the kit lens. I am wondering if it is worth it to spend more for the 70D instead of the T5i? Thank you! Wendy </p>

[ant_nio_marques]

To keep the terminology, the T5i is the 700d (the names take a capital D, but I find it less confusing to use a d). There is

no no question that the 70d is worth every buck that it costs in excess of the 700d, but I can't tell if it will make a

difference for that specific usage. It has a faster processor, but its main advantages vis a vis the 700d are the new live

autofocus, which iiuc is only for video, and being more pro oriented (which won't be relevant for a lot of pros because it

isn't FF).

[ant_nio_marques]

Regarding the lens: I've heard the 18-135 isn't especially good. But I have no personal experience with it. If I were you, I'd

look into the EF (not S) zooms before making a decision.

[wgpinc]

<p>For low light focus and higher ISO the 70D is probably significantly better than the T5i. For the applications you state you may have to be selective in your lenses. You probably will need a 2.8 constant zoom so that eliminates the 18-135mm. Right now the 70D is around $1k with the rebate program so that leaves you up to $500 for a lens. If it was me I would go for the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non VC lens. A maybe little better choice might be the Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens that I use. If you can't get close enough for the action with 50-55mm then you need to dial back your expectations or spend $$$ because a lens that is longer and fast (2.8 or so) is expensive and you will need to shoot at a reasonably high shutter speed to capture the action. The 18-135mm lens is probably good to mediocre outside in good light but it is 5.6 at the long end which doesn't let in enough light to allow you to shoot with a fast enough shutter speed to freeze action. For action you want to shoot at 1/250th of a second or higher to stop subject movement so you need a lens that will let in enough light and a decent camera that will allow you to raise the ISO high enough. These principles are fairly basic and need to be learned if you want to make good pictures in low light, particularly when there is action. Good luck!</p>

[eric_altherr]

<p>I owned the 18-135 for about 3 weeks and sold it. Terrible soft; I would not recommend. Also not fast enough for poor lighting conditions.<br>

My advice, that probably won't be particularly popular here, is to scale back on the camera and up on the lenses. For 1500 you could get a used EOS body (60D or comparable), 17-50 2.8 and Sigma 50-150 2.8, or consider another combination that includes a 70-200 2.8. That covers you wide to telephoto at 2.8. There isn't much you wouldn't be able to do with that set up.<br>

Try KEH, Allen's Camera, or any one of the used retailers that will warranty the product and will let you return if not satisfied with the purchase. </p>

[ant_nio_marques]

Wendy has a 300d, so no need to get a used EOS body.

Maybe the best advice is to get a lens first and think about the body later on.

[eric_altherr]

<p>Wendy, while I think you could benefit from a slightly better body, Antonio is probably right. The 300d should be able to keep up with all but the most challenging situations. Having the right lenses will make a ton of difference. Keep in mind, on a crop body, multiply your lens by a factor if 1.6, so a 50mm lens is the equivalent of an 80mm lens.<br /><br />If you do buy a new body, don't be afraid of used. Over a decade as a paid professional and never once bought a new camera. Cameras are like used cars: Find one that's been well cared for and let someone else take the hit on depreciation from new :)</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Regarding the lens: I've heard the 18-135 isn't especially good.]]</p>

<p>[[i owned the 18-135 for about 3 weeks and sold it.]]</p>

<p>Are either of you talking about the<strong> STM</strong> version of the 18-135? </p>

[eric_altherr]

<p>No, I did not have the STM version, so IQ may have improved, but it is still f5.6 on the long end.</p>

[phule]

<p>Eric,<br>

Yes, the slow aperture at the long end is not the right tool for the job here, but I was asking only about the comments regarding image quality. From everything I have read the STM versions of all of Canon's lenses are said to be quite good, especially for the money, and certainly much better than the previous non-STM versions of the same lenses. As the OP asked specifically about the STM version of the 18-135mm, it is misleading to claim the image quality is poor if your experience is with the non-STM versions. </p>

[eric_altherr]

<p>You are correct Rob. My error. My reaction was that its the wrong lens for the application. The STM version may have improved IQ and video focusing performance, but won't get the job done based on the OP's indicated use.</p>

[avinash_balakrishnan]

The 70D is definitely wonderful with high ISO and has a very good AF system. But if your 300D haven't died of shutter life and can take pictures, you might want to consider staying with that and buy a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L USM or the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8VC - both are within your budget. If you don't mind buying used, the Canon would be better I believe, if you want a new lens, I'll suggest the tamron because I use one and its awesome (with 70D) and almost a 100$ cheaper. I haven't compared to the Canon non-IS version (I'm not that rich) , but internet says Tamron is sharper and has more vignetting. It does vignettes at the longer end, but its easily removable with light room. But since you are shooting action, you'll probably use high shutter speeds , so you'll definitely be happy without IS and lesser weight. But for me, the VC is important, I'm not always shooting action, so the Tamron. If u want a new Canon lens and IS, then 70-200 f/4 L IS USM. But that means half the light of the mentioned f/2.8 lenses.

[avinash_balakrishnan]

Sorry that I didn't mention before, used 7D is available for around 700-800$ which is excellent for fast action and used Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L is around 800-1000$. So you might wanna check into these as well. And if you can do with a prime, consider a used Canon 135mm f/2 for around 800$. I have never heard any on complain about that lens and its a stop faster than f2.8lenses. Or let's say about 8times light you get with the 135mm zoom lens at f/5.6.

[sarah_fox]

<p>Wendy, I have no specific knowledge of the lenses you mention. I'll only comment on the camera bodies:</p>

<p>My first EOS camera was a 10D, which was generally more capable than your 300D, but otherwise the same generation with (I think) the same sensor. My next camera was the 5D, which is now an old camera, and then the 40D, which came shortly thereafter. The difference in processing speed between the 10D and the 5D or 40D is the difference between a tricycle and a 10-speed bike. I cannot imagine shooting anything fast-paced with the 10D, let alone your less capable 300D. An upgrade to a modern camera would be well worthwhile for processing speed alone.</p>

<p>And then there's the matter of ISO. Modern cameras are far more sensitive than yours. Upgrading your body will be even more important than buying a fast lens, at least for the type of photography you're describing. Going from a maximum ISO of 1600 to a maximum ISO of 12,800 gives you an additional 3 stops to play with. So with an f/5.6 lens on a 70D or T5i, you could take exposures at the same shutter speed as your 300D with an f/2,0 lens. Or with the same lens on either camera, you can drop your shutter speed on the 70D or T5i to 1/8 of what you were using on your 300D. That's substantial!</p>

<p>You're definitely due for an upgrade. I ordinarily say lenses are more important than bodies, but in your case I'll make an exception. I'll leave it to others to discuss whether the 70D or T5i would be a better fit for you. I'm not extremely familiar with either one. You should definitely find the opportunity to handle both cameras, because they will feel VERY different to you. Expect the T5i to be much more menu-driven and the 70D to be a bit more "expert-friendly" (meaning that when you learn how to use it, you'll be able to change settings much more quickly and easily). Also the 70D has a dual-pixel sensor used for sensor-based focusing. This would be very useful for videos. But beyond that... I admit I really haven't kept up.</p>

[mark_ethridge]

<p>One other thing that no one has mentioned yet is buffer size and burst rate of camera bodies. I upgraded from a 400d to a 7D because I like to shoot airshows and I was missing a lot of shots because of a full buffer. If you're shooting action and you anticipate needing to shoot a series of shots in a burst so that you get just the right instant captured, you'll want to make sure the camera's burst rate is high enough--if you're shooting RAW, that will really tax the cameras buffer. I can't give you advice on the bodies you have mentioned, but it might be worth it to look at a used 7D. I can tell you that a 7D coupled with an 70-200 f/2.8L is a very fast and razor sharp combination and should work very well for the conditions you're interested in photographing, provided you're not too close to the action. If a shorter focal length is required, then the aforementioned Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Canon EF-S 17-55 f.2.8 would be the way to go.</p>

[shades-of-thepast]

<p>Thanks everyone. I will definitely need to upgrade the body as the autofocus has failed on the camera, I suspect it will not be worth fixing. I will try to see if I can squeeze a little more into the budget on lenses. Thanks for all the advice!</p>