# Dilemma: Need new body by May 1st (7d alternatives/successor timeline?)



## jaschas (Apr 7, 2013)

I've shot with Canon cameras my entire life starting with an Elan back in the 90's. A few years back I went digital with a 20D and the FANTASTIC EF-S 17-55 2.8. The 20D body was destroyed a year or so ago and I've been making do with a Canon point and shoot since then.

My first child is due on the first of May and I want to document his early months with a DSLR. Given my ownership of EF-S glass (really only the 17-55... my other Canon glass is cheap and left over from pre-DSLR days) I think APS-C is probably the way to go; but it bothers me to go after a 7d with its successor just around the corner. 

Any thoughts or angles here? I'd only like to spend $2000 and need to do it pretty quickly. I'd like some reassurance that purchasing a 7d at the very twilight of its existence isn't complete folly or maybe an alternative approach I haven't considered (a $1000 EF-S lens was a bit shortsighted of me as I have a hard time justifying FF given the investment).


----------



## rpt (Apr 7, 2013)

Why not rent a camera? 700D, 70D, 7D2, SL1 are all in the "coming soon" category and I am guessing you don't want to buy in a hurry and regret later. I would have said 5D3 or 6D but since your criteria is the budget of $2000, and you came from a 20D background I guess you are hoping for a 70D or a 7D2. Mind you, a 60D or a 7D are still great cameras.

Take a look at 6D with the 24-105 kit lens. FF is another dimension. I went from 300D to the 5D3 and am delighted to say the least.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 7, 2013)

as babys are not crawling that fast  and image quality is the same, why not buy a cheaper 550D (maybe used) and update later?

the AF from the 7D is more or less wasted on baby shots.

and when the 7D MK2 is released or the 70D you can still decide if you want to upgrade.

the 550D and kit lens is quite good for baby shots:


----------



## RGF (Apr 7, 2013)

Why not a P&S and save your $ till next round of cameras come out (7D M2 and 70 D)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 7, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> the AF from the 7D is more or less wasted on baby shots.



Maybe for a few months, but when they start moving, they move very unpredictably.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 7, 2013)

3kramd5 said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > the AF from the 7D is more or less wasted on baby shots.
> ...



nothink you could not handle with a 550D.
we are not speaking about a dog here running at full speed.

and when his kid can run.. well i guess the 7D MK2 and 70D are released by then.. LOL.


----------



## mkabi (Apr 7, 2013)

rpt said:


> Why not rent a camera? 700D, 70D, 7D2, SL1 are all in the "coming soon" category and I am guessing you don't want to buy in a hurry and regret later. I would have said 5D3 or 6D but since your criteria is the budget of $2000, and you came from a 20D background I guess you are hoping for a 70D or a 7D2. Mind you, a 60D or a 7D are still great cameras.
> 
> Take a look at 6D with the 24-105 kit lens. FF is another dimension. I went from 300D to the 5D3 and am delighted to say the least.



I agree with this dude, RENT a camera.
Or if you are really into buying. Sell your lenses and use the money to invest in a 6D with a lens.


----------



## jaschas (Apr 7, 2013)

Thanks for your comments. To address the "wait" flavored responses (either by renting or buying an interim body), realistically, this is my best window to deploy capital towards gear. The Mrs. buys the fact that we should get something before the kid comes... anything after that may be a tougher sell .

Assuming I can't wait for the next generation, I'm seeing two options:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Spend around $1000 on a slightly used 7d and keep the 17-55 freeing up around $1000 to invest in prime glass
[*]Sell the 17-55 making a 6d with the 24-105 kit lens in my price range
[/list]

I like the "sturdiness" of the 7d and that I can reuse my CF cards etc... and don't really know a lot about the 6d. Maybe the question really is: current generation entry level FF versus last generation top-line aps-c with ultimately pretty equivalent glass.


----------



## AJ (Apr 7, 2013)

Get the 7D. At this point in the product cycle it's priced right. 

The new 7D mk2 is bound to have very little improvement in the sensor department. It'll have wifi, gps, and a mind-boggling price tag. I wouldn't wait for it. Get a 7D now and start shooting.

Renting makes no sense at all. You need a camera to capture your child at every stage.

Good luck!


p.s. nice photos Canon-F1


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 7, 2013)

AJ said:


> The new 7D mk2 is bound to have very little improvement in the sensor department.



pure guessing. 

there is still some hope for a completely new sensor design.


----------



## jaschas (Apr 7, 2013)

mkabi said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > Why not rent a camera? 700D, 70D, 7D2, SL1 are all in the "coming soon" category and I am guessing you don't want to buy in a hurry and regret later. I would have said 5D3 or 6D but since your criteria is the budget of $2000, and you came from a 20D background I guess you are hoping for a 70D or a 7D2. Mind you, a 60D or a 7D are still great cameras.
> ...


I'm new to renting... wouldn't renting set me back around $500 a month? I'd want to rent in advance of the kid showing up, so there's some sunk cost there... I get renting for a week to try out a lens or maybe to cover a special wedding or something, but not sure that the model works here.

Thanks for your 6d comment - seems to make a lot of sense.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 7, 2013)

You are not likely to see any 7D MK II's until the end of the year.
If you want to capture images of a baby with minimal lighting, get a 6D. You can sell your old camera and 17-55mm lens for a EF lens. They should bring enough to get a new Tamron 24-70. 
This would be a better choice.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 7, 2013)

You reminded me why I spent so much $$$ into DSLR...it's well worth it 

With your budget, I would go 6D + 50 f1.4. The IQ on FF is so much better. 50 f1.4 is sharp from f1.8 to f2. Get more L lenses when you ready.

Goodluck


----------



## rpt (Apr 7, 2013)

jaschas said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...


If you are going to take pics almost every day, don't rent. Look into Canon-F1's suggestion too. Go into a shop. Play around with the models there and you will then get a sense of what you need to get. If you can't wait then buy the best you can. So it also depends on what else you are going to shoot with it. Sports, shots with a lot of movement would warrant a 7D. Otherwise a 60D or a 650D will be fine too. However, play with the FF cameras before pulling the trigger. The 24-105 is a great general purpose lens. If you decide on the 6D, get it as the kit lens.

I have no experience of third party lenses so can't comment on them. The 24-105 as kit turns out to give you a big discount on the lens.


----------



## robbymack (Apr 7, 2013)

Sell 17-55 $700 if in good shape. New budget 2700 and should be able to fit in a 6d kit plus even possibly a 85 1.8. Good luck and enjoy fatherhood! You'll never be so tired in your entire life but its loads of fun and worth a lot less sleep.


----------



## AJ (Apr 7, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If you want to capture images of a baby with minimal lighting, get a 6D... This would be a better choice.


That's silly. Why wouldn't one improve the lighting instead?


----------



## rpt (Apr 7, 2013)

AJ said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to capture images of a baby with minimal lighting, get a 6D... This would be a better choice.
> ...


Baby sleeping?


----------



## AJ (Apr 7, 2013)

rpt said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


Babies sleep in broad daylight


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 7, 2013)

Go to your local camera shop.... explain your predicament, and see if they have any used rebels that have come in on trade....., and see if you can talk them into letting you buy the "trade in" camera and then return it for credit once the 7D2 comes out..... the worst they can say is no, and it will probably cost you $100 or so to have that camera while waiting for the 7D2, which is supposed to be a "game changer", and supposed to be announced in the fall and probably available somewhere near Christmas.


----------



## timmy_650 (Apr 7, 2013)

My vote is the 6D 24-70 and sell the 17-55 lens. The 6D is a very good camera, it has some shorting comings but I doubt you should be unhappy with it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 7, 2013)

AJ said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to capture images of a baby with minimal lighting, get a 6D... This would be a better choice.
> ...


 
Why? Did you read what he wants? Do you think that maybe using a flash in a babies eyes is the best way to go?

OP
*"My first child is due on the first of May and I want to document his early months with a DSLR."*

I stand by my recommendation. A child is not going to be running around in his first few months, or years, and blinding him with bright lights would not be the way I'd treat my child.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 7, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



+1....therefore I voted 6D + 50 f1.4 for indoor low light shots or tammy 24-70 f2.8 due to $2000 budget. Sell everything else that he currently own.

please DO NOT get P&S as RGF recommended :'(


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 7, 2013)

If you want to go with the 7D, get one refurbed or used. A refurbed 7D on the shop.usa.canon.com site is currently 1020 + tax. With the rest of the money, you could get a fast prime and/or a flash. The 7D has AFMA, which is almost a necessity for getting the most out of fast primes. The 7D's AF is nice when the baby becomes a toddler and starts running all over the place. If you buy at 1000, then you won't lose much selling it in a couple years, if you decide to upgrade then.

A 6D will allow you to shoot cleaner at higher ISOs but the AF is worse and the 6D costs more. It is really up to you as to which format would be better given how you intend to use the equipment.


----------



## noisejammer (Apr 7, 2013)

I don't think you will see any new cameras before the end of April... I expect the 70D at the end of June (in time for holidays) and the 7D2 - if there ever is such a thing - in late October. This means your selection space is limited to what's available now.

@Freelancer - My recommendation on the 7D is that it's a wonderful camera - at the current price you get a great deal for your money. Sure, you could spend a couple of hundred dollars less and get a 550 or 600 but the user interface and versatility of the 7D gets my nod.

@OP My take is that the 7D is such a huge upgrade from a 20D, image quality will not be your limiting factor. Be aware that it's a more complex camera to set up, so you need time to get it right. If this is your route, do not delay.

How about looking to see whether you can get a 7D under the Canon Loyalty Program? If you have a broken (or even not broken) Canon P&S Camera, you can get quite a lot of credit on a refurbed SLR.

On full frame...
The often underappreciated point is that the upgrade to ff can be a lot more than the cost of your camera body and your first lens. The 24-105 L is a great lens but it's a stop slower than the 17-55, so any benefit you had with the noise performance disappears because you use higher ISO. To see a real improvement, you'd be looking at a 24-70/2.8 and that would probably drive your budget a bit far. If you decide to go for a 6D, you will also need to think about a flash. 

I don't recommend strobing a baby - just about anything will startle them - but you will probably want to think about a light panel or at least a reflector. Of course, a reflector will work for both crop and ff, so it's something you might consider chasing down anyway.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 7, 2013)

Freelancer said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > A 6D will allow you to shoot cleaner at higher ISOs but the AF is worse and the 6D costs more.
> ...



Not for the first year or two, but it does become increasingly useful as the kids get older. I had a 20D until last year, and yes, I got some great pics when my kids were born until they were 2 and 4, but AI servo on it was bad and I lost a lot of pics (more than I got). 3-4 year olds also start getting into organized sports (i.e. soccer or gymnastics) and active birthday parties. Plus once you bring a DSLR to a party or family gathering (esp. with older kids), others will ask you take pictures, and the better AF comes in handy.

The other main reason for recommending the 7D is for its AFMA. A rebel or a 60D won't have it, and it really does allow one to explore shallower DOF photography. Slapping on the 35L onto my 20D was revelatory even though I already had the 17-55, and it got better once I got a body that had AFMA.


----------



## AJ (Apr 7, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


Contrary to popular belief, flash does not injure babies.


----------



## BrettS (Apr 7, 2013)

Given what you've posted, my suggestion would be 6D + kit 24-105 if you can swing it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 7, 2013)

Freelancer said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > A 6D will allow you to shoot cleaner at higher ISOs but the AF is worse and the 6D costs more.
> ...


+1

I used a MF Canon FTQL with ASA25 film for my first baby. There was absoultely no AF in site back then.


----------



## raptor3x (Apr 7, 2013)

jaschas said:


> I've shot with Canon cameras my entire life starting with an Elan back in the 90's. A few years back I went digital with a 20D and the FANTASTIC EF-S 17-55 2.8. The 20D body was destroyed a year or so ago and I've been making do with a Canon point and shoot since then.
> 
> My first child is due on the first of May and I want to document his early months with a DSLR. Given my ownership of EF-S glass (really only the 17-55... my other Canon glass is cheap and left over from pre-DSLR days) I think APS-C is probably the way to go; but it bothers me to go after a 7d with its successor just around the corner.
> 
> Any thoughts or angles here? I'd only like to spend $2000 and need to do it pretty quickly. I'd like some reassurance that purchasing a 7d at the very twilight of its existence isn't complete folly or maybe an alternative approach I haven't considered (a $1000 EF-S lens was a bit shortsighted of me as I have a hard time justifying FF given the investment).



Buy a used 7D off of FM or PotN, should run you about $750-850; then sell it when the next round of cameras come out. Will probably end up costing you ~$100-150 for several months of use. Way way way better than renting. Also, don't get rid of the 17-55, that lens is fantastic and if it weren't for the fact that I needed a weather sealed normal zoom I would have had a hard time giving it up on the move to FF.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 7, 2013)

If you shop around the 6D can be had well within your budget (http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/04/canon-eos-6d-body-1629-via-ebay/). If you want something cheaper, and almost as good in low light, a used 5D2 can be had for even less.
My focus is wildlife(and macro) so the 7D2 will probably be my main camera for a while (I'm on a rebel right now), but if you're focusing on close up shots a full frame camera would be best (by a wide margin).


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 8, 2013)

AJ said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to capture images of a baby with minimal lighting, get a 6D... This would be a better choice.
> ...


With a nice powerfull flash you could get a lot of pictures of babies crying...... and irate spouses....

Get a couple of lightstands..... bounce the lights off the ceiling.... or walls... or whatever... just don't set them up like you are interrogating a prisoner or we go back to the pictures of babies crying and irate spouses. You cand get different colors of bulb for more natural light than the ordinary incandescent bulbs.


----------



## jd7 (Apr 8, 2013)

Let me throw in an idea from left field - how about selling your current gear and getting ... an Olympus OM-D E-M5 and two or three lenses?

Now, I know this is a Canon forum but before anyone says I'm trolling, hear me out.

Firstly, I've used Canon DSLRs for the last 10 years and I currently have a 7D and a collection of lenses. I think Canon make great cameras, but I'm trying to focus on they type of photography the OP wants to do and his budget.

Now, from what I've read (and the little time I've spent playing with a friend's OM-D), here's what you'd get with the OM-D
- much smaller and lighter - likely to be a real advantage if you're out of the house and already weighed down carrying all the things necessary for looking after a baby
- probably a bit cheaper, taking into account lens prices
- good build quality with weather sealing - don't think you'd be losing anything there
- an AF system which seems to be pretty good except for tracking fast moving subjects - which sounds like the way the 6D's AF system (and the 60D's too really) is often described - I suspect quite good enough at least until the child is old enough to be running around playing sports
- IQ which may be a lot closer to that of a 7D - and perhaps even a 6D/5DIII(?) - than many of us who are invested in the Canon system would like to admit!

An OM-D plus Panasonic 25 1.4 and Olympus 45 1.8 (remember the OM-D has a 2x multiplier for 35mm equivalent field of view so that's a 50 and 90 in 35mm FOV terms) would be well within the OP's budget without counting the money he'd get selling his 17-55. The Olympus 75 1.8 and Panasonic 12-35 2.8 are other options to consider. Plus the Olympus 40-150 4.0-5.6 is fairly cheap and gets good reviews (and compare it with the price of a Canon 70-300 4.0-5.6!). And the OM-D has in-camera lens stabilisation so IS isn't an issue.

Do a Google search for OM-D v 5DIII comparisons - I expect you'll find it an interesting read, if nothing else. To give an example, have a look at: http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/olympus-omd-vs-canon-5d-mkiii-nature-photography/
I don't know anything about that photographer beyond what is on her website, but it gives you an idea of the sort of things a Google search can turn up.

I've been considering selling my Canon gear and making the switch to an OM-D because of the lighter size/weight (I'm feeling a bit sick of lugging around a backpack full of heavy camera gear, especially when I'm hiking), but I like doing some action photography so I'll stick with the 7D for now. The size/weight of the OM-D is very appealing though, given the IQ is still pretty good.

For what it's worth, if the OP wants to stick with Canon, I agree with the others who've said the choice is between getting a 7D (and keeping the 17-55), or selling the 17-55 and getting a 6D. In my opinion, the price point of the 7D, plus its ergonomics and build quality, makes it a more appealing package than a Rebel or 60D (although I do know very happy 60D owners). As for the 6D, I haven't played with one so I only know what I read, but it sounds to me like the only real advantage it would have over an OM-D is IQ but that advantage may be smaller than you first expect, in which case the question is whether size/weight/price of the OM-D is enough to compensate. Perhaps a critical factor here is how often the OP will shoot in dim light? It seems the IQ advantage of a 6D (and to a lesser extent a 7D) over an OM-D will be increasingly apparent as the light gets dimmer.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 8, 2013)

jaschas said:


> Thanks for your comments. To address the "wait" flavored responses (either by renting or buying an interim body), realistically, this is my best window to deploy capital towards gear. The Mrs. buys the fact that we should get something before the kid comes... anything after that may be a tougher sell .
> 
> Assuming I can't wait for the next generation, I'm seeing two options:
> 
> ...



option 2

the 6D and 24-105 will serve you well

I highly recomend getting the 40mm f2.8 pancake too
this lens on a 6D or 5Dmk3 is great for taking pics of new borns
in low light. the 5Dmk3 and the 40mm were my most used lenses when my daughter was fisrt born


----------



## greger (Apr 8, 2013)

I went from a 40D to the 7D. My 17-85 F4-5.6 that came with the 40D works fine on the 7D. I like my 7D so much that
when the new cameras come out they had better have great improvements for me to have Camera Envy. Buy a 7D now
so you'll be ready when your child is born. With your F2.8 you'll be able to take pics of baby without flash. you will probably have to set the white balance manually. I shoot mine on auto white balance except when using flash at 250 TV.
I haven't shot under Fluorescent lighting yet. Even if you upgrade when the new cameras come out you may get a good trade in value with a 7D. Good Luck!


----------



## pj1974 (Apr 8, 2013)

My first suggestion is also for you to get a 7D (you can get very decent prices even for a new 7D now - or better prices for a used / refurb 7D). I upgraded from a lesser model Canon DSLR, and the 7D's AF is vastly superior to any Canon XXXXD, XXXD or XXD- particularly when you know how to use the 7D's AF to it's limit. And the 7D's IQ is notably superior to your former 20D's.

While an infant (often a barely moving or sleeping baby) doesn't require great AF... by the time they are 1.5 to 2, they can move much more, so the 7D's AF will be handy. For indoors / dimly lit, the 17-55 f/2.8 can do a lot - though possibly the 35mm f/2 IS USM would be my choice of 'pure low light' (great IQ wide open, USM AF and the mature 4-stop IS). While a flash might not 'damage' a baby's eyes permanently, I wouldn't take a photo with a bright flash in their eyes, purely from a "caring for the baby's emotions" factor.

My 2nd suggestion is for you to go with something from a 550D to 700D.  And get a good prime (eg the 35mm f/2 IS USM). Get a 7DmkII only if you really need it as an upgrade, when it's price is lower (eg 6 months or more after it's released).

All the best. And I mean that particularly for your family and caring for the precious gift of a child.

Paul


----------



## archiea (Apr 8, 2013)

jaschas said:


> I've shot with Canon cameras my entire life starting with an Elan back in the 90's. A few years back I went digital with a 20D and the FANTASTIC EF-S 17-55 2.8. The 20D body was destroyed a year or so ago and I've been making do with a Canon point and shoot since then.
> 
> My first child is due on the first of May and I want to document his early months with a DSLR. Given my ownership of EF-S glass (really only the 17-55... my other Canon glass is cheap and left over from pre-DSLR days) I think APS-C is probably the way to go; but it bothers me to go after a 7d with its successor just around the corner.
> 
> Any thoughts or angles here? I'd only like to spend $2000 and need to do it pretty quickly. I'd like some reassurance that purchasing a 7d at the very twilight of its existence isn't complete folly or maybe an alternative approach I haven't considered (a $1000 EF-S lens was a bit shortsighted of me as I have a hard time justifying FF given the investment).



I was also a 20D digital virgin. It's always great to hear the longivity of that camera. IMHO, the current xxD line went the route of being more rebel like, with the 40D being the last true xxD camera by canon. It's not so much the IQ as much as the button layout. The current xxD (like the 60D) ditched the circular dial in exchange for the rebel buttons:







From left to right its a rebel, then 60D and to the right is the 7D. See how the 60D looks more like a rebel, and the 7D looks more like your 20D?

You do have a few options: you can get a used rebel now to save some dough to, push to later a more serious camera purchase. However, as a former 20D user, and a current 7D and 5D mark iii user, I would say that the 7D would feel more like an upgrade from the 20D vs the other aps-c options. 

Worried about a new 7D coming out? Don't worry, the current 7D is a SUBSTANTIAL upgrade to our 20D. Even if it were near EOL, you would be getting tremendous value. Second, expect a new 7D mark ii to cost more, if only because it's new. You could get a refurbished 7D for $1020!
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_260463_-1

You could get it refurbished for even less at adorama and no tax:
http://www.adorama.com/ICA7DR.html

Why a 3 year old camera? It's a mature platform, it even has a v2.0 firmware with many added features like more buffered raw shooting and audio lvl control when shooting movies. It shoots 8fps and has an af system light years ahead of the 20D. You will get photos of your baby as a toddler that you would have missed. Period. Its also more rugged, full magnesium body, shutter durability and some weather sealing. I think it's a lot of value even as a three year old camera. Take the money you saved and get the canon f1.4 50 mm prime as your "portrait" lens. I've shot a lot of family babies with the 7D and f1.4 50 mm combo. It's fast and you get amazing bokeh?

The only other heads up is that the latest rebels do use the newer 40mm pankcake and a newer Efs 18-55mm lens that features canon's new Movie servo AF. This allows the comparable camera to af while shooting a movie. If you see that a lot of movie making is in your future, consider those cameras.

Good luck and congrats on new family!


----------



## archiea (Apr 8, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> You reminded me why I spent so much $$$ into DSLR...it's well worth it
> 
> With your budget, I would go 6D + 50 f1.4. The IQ on FF is so much better. 50 f1.4 is sharp from f1.8 to f2. Get more L lenses when you ready.
> 
> Goodluck



I agree with this as far as a FF solution. However since you are headed to cash-strapped baby land, I'd get the kit version of the 6D with the f4 24-105. Excellent zoom range. F4 will keep you dof in check while the camera's excellent high Iso will allow you to shoot in indoor light. Your next lens should be the f1.4 50mm and possibly the f1.8 85mm.


----------



## aj1575 (Apr 8, 2013)

jaschas said:


> Any thoughts or angles here? I'd only like to spend $2000 and need to do it pretty quickly. I'd like some reassurance that purchasing a 7d at the very twilight of its existence isn't complete folly or maybe an alternative approach I haven't considered (a $1000 EF-S lens was a bit shortsighted of me as I have a hard time justifying FF given the investment).


To me, it sounds like you want to take some nice pictures, but are not really into photography. What I would suggest you is, go out and look for a good deal on an "older camera". The 600D and the 60D are the obvious choices here. Especially the 60D is on sale everywhere at extremly low prices. Sure, the 70D will come out soon (available in early summer maybe), but will you be more happy with it? You are coming from a 20D and used P+S for some time time, so every new DSLR is a big improvement. A lot of people in here will tell you, that the 18MP sensor of the 600D/60D/7D) is just not good enough, but hey, it is the same sensor who made these cameras some of the bests in their league 2-3 years ago.
I'm using a 350D, an I'm making some lovely pictures from my kids since they were born, I'm very happy with the pictures, and so are our friends with kids. When photographing kids, finding the right moment, is much more important than your equipment. 

Lens suggestion would be a 35mm f2 for the first 2-3 years, when the kids ar getting older and start to walk away further from you and run arround, then you need a fast tele; I use the 70-200 f4 IS which is great.


----------



## skfla (Apr 8, 2013)

I'm with the non-renting crowd but disagree with the 7D crowd also. If you were used to a 20D, & then a P&S, just pick up a refurb rebel direct from Canon & you will see a significant improvement in your shots. If you want video, the T3i (the digital zoom on that model is nice) is a fairly good deal. If mainly stills with some video, the T2i will be just fine. I also agree with picking up the 35mm f2. Put the rest of your money aside somewhere (and dont tell your wife!). If you still want a 7D later on, the price will drop even more once/if/when the 7D2 comes out & you might be able to pick up another prime lens or reasonable flash (with children, you'll need a flash-even with a fast zoom or prime-a refurb 430exii maybe?) with the money you save. Good luck & congratulations! sk


----------



## jaschas (Apr 8, 2013)

Wow. Thank you everyone for your well-considered, courteous replies. As a first-poster, I'm loving this community's well-reasoned arguments.

The sturdiness and size of the 7D have ultimately won me over. I'm a bigger guy and the camera just feels better put-together. I intend to use the remainder of my budget to go after some L glass (likely the 35 1.4) to build a foundation for moving to FF sometime in the future.

Thanks again everyone for your input.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 9, 2013)

jaschas said:


> Wow. Thank you everyone for your well-considered, courteous replies. As a first-poster, I'm loving this community's well-reasoned arguments.
> 
> The sturdiness and size of the 7D have ultimately won me over. I'm a bigger guy and the camera just feels better put-together. I intend to use the remainder of my budget to go after some L glass (likely the 35 1.4) to build a foundation for moving to FF sometime in the future.
> 
> Thanks again everyone for your input.



seriously I think you are making a mistake, it's a low light pig not much good past iso 1600 and that with heavy post processing and maybe 3200 at a stretch. not to mention the poor low iso IQ

I know there ia a big 7D fan club but seriously don't fall for it. The image quality is not good, it's one thing to defend something you own but to recommend someone buys it when it is comon knowledge to be severly flawed i just not nice.

the 6D is a much much much better choice, new borns need to stay in darker rooms when my lil girl was born i think 3200 would have been the lowest iso i was shooting at maybe a few down at 1600 if i was using the 85 f1.4 at these iso values the images out of the 7D are going to be very very below average with full frame they are great.

also get the sigma 35mm f1.4 its half the price of the 35mm L and its better too 

another option much better than a 7D would be a 5Dmk2


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 9, 2013)

To me, it sounds like you want to take some nice pictures, but are not really into photography. 

Go back to the OP's original post and reread it.
"I've shot with Canon cameras my entire life starting with an Elan back in the 90's. A few years back I went digital with a 20D and the FANTASTIC EF-S 17-55 2.8. The 20D body was destroyed a year or so ago and I've been making do with a Canon point and shoot since then.
"


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 9, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> jaschas said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. Thank you everyone for your well-considered, courteous replies. As a first-poster, I'm loving this community's well-reasoned arguments.
> ...



+1 with wickidwombat....many of us(including myself) had made this mistake :-\


----------



## preppyak (Apr 10, 2013)

skfla said:


> I'm with the non-renting crowd but disagree with the 7D crowd also. If you were used to a 20D, & then a P&S, just pick up a refurb rebel direct from Canon & you will see a significant improvement in your shots. If you want video, the T3i (the digital zoom on that model is nice) is a fairly good deal


Agreed, as someone who owns a 20D and 60D, the 60D is a very nice step up in terms of usability and user experience. And I much prefer the images. If the OP is a larger guy, a 60D would work better than a T2i/T3i, and the price difference is negligible anymore.

The AF on my 60D has no problem with moderate action sports, and I don't know of any baby under the age of 2-3 that moves faster than that. And I can't imagine you'll be taking your baby out in the rain, snow, wind, sand, etc...so, the real advantages of the 7D are wasted in that scenario. Personally, I'd save the $400 or so and get a nice lens instead


----------



## BrettS (Apr 10, 2013)

Additional $0.02... I was coming from a 30D... lots of time spent researching... decided upon 6D. Would have gone 5DIII, can afford to, but just could not justify the additional clams.

There have been many other good suggestions (e.g. new or used xxD). But in the end - take pictures. That's what it's all about. I'm sure that Ansel Adams would have been overjoyed with an EOS-10D.


----------



## TAF (Apr 10, 2013)

jaschas said:


> Sell the 17-55 making a 6d with the 24-105 kit lens in my price range



That is the approach I would take. You'll never regret going FF; the 6D is an excellent camera with great low light capability (think of all the birthday parties), and the 24-105L is a fine lens.

Since you understand that this is likely the only camera upgrade for a very long time, make the most of it.


----------



## bseitz234 (Apr 11, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> also get the sigma 35mm f1.4 its half the price of the 35mm L and its better too



Ignoring the body-choice stuff (I love my 7d, and have been quite happy with the IQ:$$ ratio, but I'm also usually in pretty good light), I would get behind this recommendation of the sigma 35 over the 35L. Sharper, great colors, reviews all say the AF is as good as the 35L (never used the canon, so can't comment personally), etc etc.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 11, 2013)

You have a budget of $2000 and you already have th 17-55 f2.8...... probably the best "normal" range EF-S lens Canon has ever built.

If you are going to go FF, there is no way you are going to get a body and lens that will deliver better overall performance than ANY current crop camera with the 17-55 and stay within your $2000 budget.... so the question is which crop?

Realisticly, IQ will be fairly close to the same from Rebel to 7D.... but when you go to 60D or 7D you get the shoulder display and controls.... very nice if you do not shoot in automatic modes. Go to the 7D and you get a far superior focus system. 

Personally, I believe that the ability to focus is far more important than ISO, dynamic range, megapixels, and all the other features and modes that cameras are choked with. You can't beat an in-focus picture with a sharp lens..... and that's what the 7D and the 17-55 will give you.... and it should only take half of your budget to do so.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 11, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> You have a budget of $2000 and you already have th 17-55 f2.8...... probably the best "normal" range EF-S lens Canon has ever built.
> 
> If you are going to go FF, there is no way you are going to get a body and lens that will deliver better overall performance than ANY current crop camera with the 17-55 and stay within your $2000 budget.... so the question is which crop?
> 
> ...



Keep in mind, when taking photo of baby PLEASE try to keep your shutter speed @ min 1/80. I prefer 1/125. 7D + 17-55 f2.8 lens indoor, you looking at 1600ISO here. And we all know how 1600ISO looks like for 7D :'( 

Unless the OP plans to get a flash and bounce it.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 11, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > also get the sigma 35mm f1.4 its half the price of the 35mm L and its better too
> ...


It's a shame when so many people that admittedly never have used the 35L is recommending 3rd party alternatives. I've myself never used the Sigma, but the 35L is a top notch lens. Not cheap, but it has a proven performance and quality record over 14 years which the Sigma doesn't.



Don Haines said:


> You have a budget of $2000 and you already have th 17-55 f2.8...... probably the best "normal" range EF-S lens Canon has ever built.
> 
> If you are going to go FF, there is no way you are going to get a body and lens that will deliver better overall performance than ANY current crop camera with the 17-55 and stay within your $2000 budget.... so the question is which crop?
> 
> ...


Completely agree. Not much to hesitate about.


----------



## bseitz234 (Apr 11, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



Never said it wasn't- the point is that sigma has caught up, and the Σ35 is now every bit a top notch lens, for $900 new...


----------



## rpt (Apr 11, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> as babys are not crawling that fast  and image quality is the same, why not buy a cheaper 550D (maybe used) and update later?
> 
> the AF from the 7D is more or less wasted on baby shots.
> 
> ...


The captions for your lovely pictures are:

*The first pic (lovely smile):*
*Yay! I am a star! Go on, don't stop. Keep it clicking...*

*The second pic (lovely expression):*
*Oh dear! He is doing that again! Why does he cover his face with that strange black thing and make those strange clicking noises?*


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 11, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > bseitz234 said:
> ...



I'm glad that Sigma has been able to supass a lens that was designed 15 years ago. It will put some (if not much) price pressure on Canon's 35L replacement, and that is a good thing. I also think that the 24-70 II will be the prime competitor to the 35L II. According to TDP, the 24-70 II at 35mm is better than the Sigma 35 at f/2.8, and I would expect primes to beat zooms when compared within the same generation.

It also remains to be seen how well Sigma can adapt when/if Canon decides to change how it does AF in future bodies. Some people have been caught with lenses that will no longer work with newer cameras. Is that risk worth the 28% cost difference (in the US)? That's up to the individual users. If I already didn't have the 35L, then I would definitely consider the Sigma. Given that I already have the 35L, the slightly better IQ of the Sigma does not compel me to switch (and incur the transaction costs). It will be interesting to see how Canon responds to Sigma's new offering because I can imagine that Sigma is taking a big bite out of the 35L's sales.


----------



## digitalride (Apr 11, 2013)

Before my second son was born I got a 60D and 18-135 and 50 1.8, and I'm very glad I did. If I were in your situation I would:

1. absolutely get a real flash that can be bounced. Natural lighting and wide apertures are great when possible, but especially after the kids are mobile a flash bounced off the ceiling is crucial
2. get a faster lens than 2.8 on crop - I think the shallow depth of field really makes a difference if you want your photos to look better than the average snapshot
3. go full frame - now is your chance! A 6D + 24-105 + 85 1.8 + 430 flash might be close to your budget if you sell your current zoom and shop wisely. If you had to leave something out maybe I'd leave out the 24-105 and add a 40 2.8 and then use a point and shoot for things where you needed other focal lengths. You're going to need a decent point and shoot anyways since you can't always lug the DSLR around, and if your DSLR can't autofocus in video (the 7D and 6D cannot) you'll probably want to just use your point and shoot for videos. I don't have much luck trying to focus manually with my kids moving around. 

That said, if you're selling your current zoom, you're really not tied to Canon. I would consider some other brands, the nikon/sony/olympus 16mp+ sensors do noticeably better that the Canon for high iso and dynamic range. I've got lots of ISO 1600 shots that are too dark or too grainy to print big and put on the wall, so I have to stick with ISO 800 and flash a lot. Most other brands also autofocus during video, which is nice with kids. Yeah, this is a canon board and the canon sensor isn't that bad, but for the same money I think you can do a little better than canon right now.


----------



## fosterscape (Apr 11, 2013)

Go get a 7D and enjoy it!!!!!!!!

I recently was deciding how to upgrade my camera on a limited budget. I had a Rebel XT and could not afford to go to FF, the 6D and even the older 5D Mark II were out of my price range. And waiting was not an option for any 7DMII or 70D.

So I picked up a used 7D for $850 about 2 weeks ago and it is great. With a 17-55 lens you should be all set.
I'm still working on getting a good EF-S lens for mine, right now I'm stuck with a 18-55 kit from my Rebel.

Sure there are better camera's out there, but for under $900 it was a huge upgrade to my camera kit.


----------

