# Do you REALLY need a new camera?



## Richard8971 (Jan 5, 2012)

I started digital photography with my trusty Canon A40 (2MP) back around 2001/2. I have always wanted to get into photography since I was a kid and my cousin was into Canon AE-1P's and film. Film was always "out of my reach" so I never sought it out.

After my first digital PAS (point and shoot) I upgraded to the Canon A80 (4mp) and loved it. In 2009 my wife and I decided to take the plunge and bought our first DSLR, a Canon T1i. We loved it. However, our biggest problem was we started "fighting" over who got to use it when. That is when I found a really nice, lightly used Canon Xti (for $350.00) in 2010 and started using that so my wife could use the T1i. I realized that I loved the XTi, but wanted faster FPS. The logical step up was the 40D. I bought one about a year ago and LOVED it. It ended up needing repairs and I replaced it with the 7D (long story....) 

Honestly? After using the Xti for almost a year and then upgrading to the 40D and then 7D... I find myself really missing the Xti. Why???

To the point? The XTi was bullet proof in taking photos. If you were off in one way or another taking photos, one click and you always got the perfect shot! Even after taking pics with the T1i, 40D and now 7D, some of my best pics are with my XTi!!! I have found that the 40D and 7D tend to be more "touchy" with settings and I find myself having to "relearn" my camera all over again.

Am I saying that the 40D and 7D are rotten cameras? Not at all! They have "personalities" that need to be learned and mastered. What I am saying is that some of my best photos came from my "old" trusty XTi a 10mp camera that has been replaced by several camera bodies. It's a great camera. 

Glass is better than camera body, hands down. If you think you need to upgrade your camera body, take a look at your lenses first. If you don't have good glass, I bet you will end up disappointed with your new camera as well. Taken from an old friend who I shoot with every now and then. "Learn the equipment you have and learn it well. You will find yourself 'out-shooting' everyone who thinks they need the 'latest and greatest' camera"

Truth is, a 10mp photo taken with a good lens is just as good as a 18mp photo taken with the same good lens. Guys, I am not taking about blowing up a photo to 40 x 30 or whatever. I am taking about good 'ole 8 x 10 and 11 x 14's. (maybe even 16 x 20) You know, REAL WORLD (non "pro") photos??? Come on, how many of us REALLY _print _  photos over 11 x 14's??? 

Even so, my XTi did great photo prints (with good glass) up to 20 x 30. 

Attached are a couple of photos from my XTi with good glass as an example.  (BTW, they were compressed a bit (20%) for upload here. They may have lost a bit of detail in the jpeg compression!)

D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 5, 2012)

I buy new bodies to gain capabilities that I value. My 5D MK II has low light capabilities that let me take images in low light that my 7D can't handle, but my 7D has better autofocus that lets me lock onto fast moving subjects.

If a body comes out that is substantially better in very low light or has a lot better DR, I can use it. I upgraded from my 30D to a 40D because I wanted to tether my camera in my studio for product photography. The time savings paid back in short order.

If your existing camera meets your needs, there would certainly not be a reason to buy a new one, but in my case, my existing cameras do not do everything I'd like them to do, so I make do until something better comes out. If it doesn't, I'll just wait until something does.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Jan 5, 2012)

5D MK II for low light + 7D for fast AF = 1DX? (Assuming the real life tests live up to the hype.) 

Upgrade in order?  I guess if the conditions you use each camera for are separate (low light need vs. fast AF need) , you are still good to stay with two bodies at a significant cost savings over a 1DX.


----------



## pwp (Jan 5, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I buy new bodies to gain capabilities that I value.
> If your existing camera meets your needs, there would certainly not be a reason to buy a new one, but in my case, my existing cameras do not do everything I'd like them to do, so I make do until something better comes out.


+1 Well put.
Sometimes "Upgraditis" gets hold of you and hardware becomes more important than the core business of taking great photos. If you can see a function on a new release that you can integrate into your shooting style that will give you a creative or professional edge, then definitely get the Visa card out and tick the "buy" box.

I know a cashed up amateur who seems to get his hands on every 1-series body that has ever existed before anyone else on the block. Interesting APS-C bodies are too tempting to miss out on owning. No L lens is out of his $$ reach. In 12 years I've never seen a photo of his that was anything more than a test or pixel peeping exercise. 

For him it's almost valid. Cameras are his hobby, not photography. And he can afford it. 

It takes all kinds...

Paul Wright


----------



## bigblue1ca (Jan 5, 2012)

pwp said:


> In 12 years I've never seen a photo of his that was anything more than a test or pixel peeping exercise.



 ???


----------



## scottkinfw (Jan 5, 2012)

Well put.

Any new camera/technology will have a learning curve. Sensors are excellent these days, and it is usually advisable to think glass before a new camera.

Not being rich, I buy a new camera when my old one is somehow limiting my ability to improve,or there is a feature that is a must have. That said, it is an exciting time for new bodies and lenses.

Your photos are excellent, keep up the good work.

sek



Richard8971 said:


> I started digital photography with my trusty Canon A40 (2MP) back around 2001/2. I have always wanted to get into photography since I was a kid and my cousin was into Canon AE-1P's and film. Film was always "out of my reach" so I never sought it out.
> 
> After my first digital PAS (point and shoot) I upgraded to the Canon A80 (4mp) and loved it. In 2009 my wife and I decided to take the plunge and bought our first DSLR, a Canon T1i. We loved it. However, our biggest problem was we started "fighting" over who got to use it when. That is when I found a really nice, lightly used Canon Xti (for $350.00) in 2010 and started using that so my wife could use the T1i. I realized that I loved the XTi, but wanted faster FPS. The logical step up was the 40D. I bought one about a year ago and LOVED it. It ended up needing repairs and I replaced it with the 7D (long story....)
> 
> ...


----------



## dr croubie (Jan 5, 2012)

pwp said:


> Sometimes "Upgraditis" gets hold of you and hardware becomes more important than the core business of taking great photos.



Guilty.

Although I'm still definitely more into lenses than bodies.
I started with my "do-it-all" EFs15-85 and 70-300nonL when I bought my 7D (first slr, second digital, fourth camera ever if you count back to my 124-film kodak instamatic). Together, they covered a damn-big focal-length range, probably the best you can get in a 2-lens kit without going the 100-400 or a sigma/tamron super-zoom or two.
Then came the 50/1.8ii. And the lensbaby. And then the lensbaby accessories and optics, the wide-angle and telephoto adapters. Then the Pentacon Six and Kiev 88 and tilt-adapter, and one of almost every Zeiss and Arsenal lens for them. And the skink-pinhole (which i really just don't use that much, probably should get it out more). Then the 70-300nonL wasn't good enough, so sold it and got the L-version. Next up, the samyang 35/1.4, the ef 85/1.8, the Takumar 50/1.4 for the affordable low-light-trinity, add to that the 430EX. Now it's just $2 trick-filters from china via ebay to mount on my lensbaby, as a kind of "withdrawl" from trawling ebay each day for good deals (star filters or soft-focus anyone?).

But now, I think i'm spent. There's nothing left, really (although as soon as I get a job i'm dropping my first Grand on a CF tripod, head, arca-swiss plates and L-bracket), but for lenses that are way too expensive (8-16mm, ts-e24, 200-400, 400 f/2.8, 100L macro and MP-E 65 are on the list behind 1DX and winning the lottery).

But for everything i've bought, even the ones i've dropped $10 on ebay as first bid and ended up winning, nothing overlaps (with the exception of the Takumar 50/1.4 replacing my niftyfifty).
On the bodies though, i'm set. I bought the 7D so I wouldn't need to upgrade for a while, it's only 16 months old, it's got at least that much life in it again, it's not getting replaced until it dies (although it may get a FF sister at some point). There's no other body that i'd need that wouldn't overlap the 7D except a FF, the only advantages of which are the über-shallow DOF for portraits I don't take, UWA can be covered by a new lens these days, low-light would be nice but I just don't use it that much. So no, I don't really need a new camera (although there's a Kiev 88CM calling out to me somewhere...)


----------



## smirkypants (Jan 5, 2012)

This is really unfair. There are quite a few pros on this board, and let me tell you every bit of low light performance in that church or every bit of dynamic range on that cloudy day shooting the game helps the keeper rate go up.

Also, there are lenses that I never would consider using now indoors that I might consider if what they say about the 1DX's low light ability is true, or better a few years down the line when the 1DX2 comes out. Now I would never think about using a 70-300 f4-5.6 backstage at an event, but sometimes I would really like a tight candid shot from relatively far. A 300 prime at an indoor event is ridiculous, so as of right now I'm stuck because 5.6 in low light just doesn't cut it. The technology just doesn't exist to get clean shots in low indoor light from relatively far with a lens that I can run around with. A sensor that can see what I see in low light would be money to me.

You are correct, though, any digital camera can take beautiful pictures of stationary objects outside on a sunny day.


----------



## pwp (Jan 5, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> You are correct, though, any digital camera can take beautiful pictures of stationary objects outside on a sunny day.



You're right. We have all been touched by rapidly emerging iPhoneography.

I'm seeing plenty of exquisite little images across all sort of media shot and post-pro on iPhone. 

It's a highly creative and fast growing niche a bit like Holga or Lomo art. As we approach the super crisp noise free perfection of 5DII/III and 1D4/1DX there is a totally valid creative backlash which is manifesting some truly beautiful , spontaneous work most recently from iPhone (some heavily apped work) and Holga/Lomo etc shooters.

Personally I shoot for low noise & tack sharp, but definitely tip my hat to the better iPhone/Holga/Lomo artists.

Paul Wright


----------



## Viggo (Jan 5, 2012)

I'm a little like Jeremey Clarkson here. This might be a little out there. Check out 3:01 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QunqcDxP3Mw&feature=relmfu

This is my reason for buying the 1-series. I don't do sports all day long, I don't shoot in caves. I hate to go out in the rain. But if I see an image that needs to be taken, I need my camera to do that, no matter what. I use my camera for personal images, I hardly ever do any paid stuff, or shoot for others. I just want the best in every situation when I need to capture a moment. So do I NEED the mk4?... Yes, because although (if we look past pure IQ) I could shoot many of my images with a 5d or a 7d, but the ride just isn't the same, the feel isn't the same, and those cameras never feel like they work together with you, they are limited, and you have to argue with them. But with my mk4 it's like a butler, an extension of my brain , I ask it to so something ridicolous, like shooting my son running in very poor light, no flash please, and it says, "is that all Sir?" (in a british accent of course) and gets the job done, no fuzz, just done...


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 5, 2012)

Viggo said:


> I'm a little like Jeremey Clarkson here. This might be a little out there. Check out 3:01 in this video:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QunqcDxP3Mw&feature=relmfu
> 
> This is my reason for buying the 1-series. I don't do sports all day long, I don't shoot in caves. I hate to go out in the rain. But if I see an image that needs to be taken, I need my camera to do that, no matter what. I use my camera for personal images, I hardly ever do any paid stuff, or shoot for others. I just want the best in every situation when I need to capture a moment. So do I NEED the mk4?... Yes, because although (if we look past pure IQ) I could shoot many of my images with a 5d or a 7d, but the ride just isn't the same, the feel isn't the same, and those cameras never feel like they work together with you, they are limited, and you have to argue with them. But with my mk4 it's like a butler, an extension of my brain , I ask it to so something ridicolous, like shooting my son running in very poor light, no flash please, and it says, "is that all Sir?" (in a british accent of course) and gets the job done, no fuzz, just done...



+1 - the 1D4 shoots better than the 7D with better iso, af, noise, metering and gets very close on IQ to the 5DII

I love the 1D4 - as you say, it takes care of the technical bits leaving you with just the decisions about the content. Manual mode with auto iso is just awesome! The 1D4 with the 70-300L is my walkabout configuation.


----------



## dr croubie (Jan 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I love the 1D4 - as you say, it takes care of the technical bits leaving you with just the decisions about the content. Manual mode with auto iso is just awesome! The 1D4 with the 70-300L is my walkabout configuation.



70-300L on my 7D is my most used configuration, and I love it for those reasons too. 1D4 is still my wishlist-upgrade, something tells me i'd cream myself if i ever got one...


----------



## NotABunny (Jan 5, 2012)

Do I REALLY need? No, but I still haven't seen the camera that will let me do (without constant compromise) the photography that I like.

If a camera would let me do photography at ISO 25600, I could even use my 70-200 F4 and 1/200s in average lit indoor rooms to take properly exposed photos (that would not lose quality due to the necessary exposure increase in post).

Sure, my 85 F1.8 lens gives more choices about the ISO range, but it's not a zoom or L lens. (Plus, the DOF is just too slim in many cases.)

In addition, current autofocus and autoexposure, on my 40D anyway, are bad (for candids).


----------



## samthefish (Jan 5, 2012)

I think some people are interested in technology for its own sake, like another poster said it's a valid hobby though it may seem strange. One analogy I'd draw is the overclocking community on PC's. Long ago gamer's would tweak their computers to try to get better frame rates on games. Now there is a whole community that's constantly doing game "benchmarks" but rarely (if ever) playing the games themselves! Constantly upgrading. Quad SLI Rigs running 3D Mark in an endless loop... Ask any of those guys and they'll insist they really "need" the latest video card.

I enjoy action photography so better AF and higher usable ISO are always interesting. I've shot some Lax games at dusk and you're always making a compromise with shutter speed / ISO, even with fast lenses.

SamTheFish


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 5, 2012)

Yes, I really do need a new camera! Canon told me so! Maybe that new shiny G1X... It's the newest thing, so it's got to be had! ;D

Seriously, though, I actually do not need a new camera... but would like a 7D mk II when it comes out, or a 1D ASP-C...


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 5, 2012)

Do you really need a new camera? 

That is suggestive.

My progression, at least the the DSLR range has been T2i to 5D MKII. 

Did I need the 5DMKII? For me, yes. Huge difference in capabilities and IQ. The t2i did well, but things pop more with the 5DMKII.

For me, I probably have one more body to go, which will likely be the 5DMK III, but probably a year or two after it has been out and the price has dropped. Only thing I would like more out of the 5DMKII is a little more ISO and a better AF. 

Other route I have been considering may be to go to a 1DSMKIII down the line, which I believe gives me both of those, but is also double the price tag, if not more than what I paid for my 5D MKII.


----------



## willrobb (Jan 5, 2012)

I really needed my 5D when I went from my 30D when I was first getting into digital. The FF capabilities and improved IQ really made a big difference to my work. Then when the 5DmkII came out it made sense for me to progress to that, the higher ISO, the (still) great IQ, the sensor cleaning, all of it made my life easier, my photos beter and my clients happier. Then came a 7D for a while which served it's purpose with faster AF, really good FPS, but I was disappointed with IQ (I make A3 sized prints for portrait/wedding clients and by that size I was noticing a difference) so I got another 5DmkII. So now I have a new 5DmkII (2 months old) as my main camera and my 2 year old 5DmkII aa my back up. I'm very happy with that set up and I'm in no rush to upgrade until my old 5DmkII gives up the ghost. I'd like a 1DX, or a fabled 5DmkIII if it had amazing specs, but to be honest I don't need them so I'll upgrade when I have to.

Side note, the most successful photographer I know (clients like Time, Business Week, National Geo, Marie Claire) shoots with a 1DsmkII and a 5D classic. He only has about 4 lenses and hasn't bought a new lens for more than 7 years....I like to get new gear, but most of the time you can get by perfectly well with what you already have.


----------



## katwil (Jan 5, 2012)

I upgrade only to overcome the limitations I encounter with my current gear, not what might be possible with the latest model.

I have owned six bodies in the last six years, starting with a 20D and XT combination (both used). The XT has since been passed along to an aspiring young photographer and the 20D converted to infrared. The three bodies in my rotation all play a roll. The 40D is ideal for daytime sports due to its fast fps and the extra reach I get on my lenses compared with FF. The 3Ti works well for mixing video and still work, and the 5D mk II gets the rest of the work. I do sometimes scratch my head about my XS, but it’s good enough for an around-the-house camera. Other than the XS, yes, every upgrade has filled a need in my hobby.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Jan 5, 2012)

You can build a house with a hammer and handsaw. Do you really NEED the latest Bosch or Dewalt pro-tools? The whole boating industry is built on convincing owners that all of their problems would be solved if they had a hull just TWO feet longer. The ski industry promises that you'll turn easier, go faster and have more fun if you buy the latest Head or Rossi equipment... Don't rain on everyone's parade by talking about "need". ;D

BTW, completely off-topic but is _"There is no spoon"_ a Klosterman quote?


----------



## Viggo (Jan 5, 2012)

wellfedCanuck said:


> BTW, completely off-topic but is _"There is no spoon"_ a Klosterman quote?



Matrix... 8)


----------



## cezargalang (Jan 5, 2012)

sorry for being off topic here:

Hey all, i'm on this dilemma atm, been shooting for 2 years, amateur. I have a T1i, and in love with landscapes, and with what im getting out of the camera is fine. Many tell me that its a wonder using FF for landscapes, and gave it thought. Is it worth selling my T1i to get a 5D classic? it's all i can afford, but already have a EF lens for landscape. 

Please don't rage ;D


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 5, 2012)

cezargalang said:


> sorry for being off topic here:
> 
> Hey all, i'm on this dilemma atm, been shooting for 2 years, amateur. I have a T1i, and in love with landscapes, and with what im getting out of the camera is fine. Many tell me that its a wonder using FF for landscapes, and gave it thought. Is it worth selling my T1i to get a 5D classic? it's all i can afford, but already have a EF lens for landscape.
> 
> Please don't rage ;D



I believe you would be very pleased with the IQ improvements - I did when getting one alongside a 50D.

However it is old technology so many of the later improvements are not there

- small, low res screen
- no liveview
- no screen based adjustments


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 5, 2012)

I upgrade my gear when i feel there is something I need to do that my current gear cannot do and cannot overcome... For instance going from the 30d to 50D, more MP, liveview, MA adjust, more intuitive menu and interface, etc... From 50D to 7d, Flash commander, much better sensor (IMHO, yeah yeah there are a few who will argue with that one), level built in, MUCH BETTER AF... I refused to get rid of my 7d when I got my 5d2... as they are more of a tandem... 7d when i need the build, speed, and precision, and 5d when I want optimum IQ and low light. When the 5d3 comes out, if I see a beautiful love child of the 7D AF and commander and 5d IQ, both my cameras could be on the chopping block to finance that purchase...


----------



## distant.star (Jan 5, 2012)

What I really need is a Bugatti Veyron.

Sometimes when I go to pick up a pizza, especially in winter, it's not hot enough when I get it home. If I could go 200 mph, that would solve the problem.

And after the Veyron, I'll need a 1Dx to take a picture of it -- and the steaming hot pizza.

My needs may be different than yours. See manufacturer warranty for details.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 5, 2012)

distant.star said:


> What I really need is a Bugatti Veyron.
> 
> Sometimes when I go to pick up a pizza, especially in winter, it's not hot enough when I get it home. If I could go 200 mph, that would solve the problem.
> 
> ...



Hahaha +1 Damn right


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 5, 2012)

distant.star said:


> What I really need is a Bugatti Veyron.
> 
> Sometimes when I go to pick up a pizza, especially in winter, it's not hot enough when I get it home. If I could go 200 mph, that would solve the problem.
> 
> ...



A $2,000,000 car and a $1400 camera, seems like a fair comparison to me :


----------



## Bluesmachine (Jan 5, 2012)

I've been pondering if I need a new camera for the last few days. I'm obviously waiting for the 5DmkIII to be released as I want to upgrade from the 60D, which I only upgraded to as I was unhappy(ish) with the 30D. I've been sitting back and looking at what I actually do currently, and it looks like upgrading would actually mean I'd have to buy at least two lenses to upgrade the focal length. NOT CHEAP! A want of full frame would realistically cost me around £4-5000!

I'm starting to slowly resign myself to sticking with the 60D and just getting a new 24-70 when (if) it's released, and waiting on that lottery win for a body.


----------



## aeturnum (Jan 5, 2012)

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. You can make do with really terrible equipment and get amazing results. Most of the famous pictures in history were shot using technology that is, in most way, inferior to entry-level DSLRs today. You can produce good results using anything.

When you get nicer equipment, the chance that any given shot will be a "keeper" goes up. The average quality of "keepers" also improves. There are very few (if any) tasks that you must buy an expensive camera to accomplish. That does not mean you don't need better equipment. What percentage of shots can you afford to miss? Imagine you have two (fictional) lenses that are identical in every way, except that one is one stop faster. The faster lens is clearly preferable - it gives slightly more flexibility. There are no guarantees, but you can tip the odds in your favor. 

How much a one or two stop improvement (or a one-two fps increase) is worth to you is a question that has to be decided on an individual basis. If you spend all day shooting still figures on sunny days, you probably don't care what camera you're using. 

That all being said, equipment capabilities will go to waste without experience. With the two lenses described above, the second lens is only better if you use the lower f-stop (assuming equal sharpness at equal apertures ofc). The better you understand your equipment, the better you'll be able to use it.

So - do you REALLY need a new camera? To me, it's a question that doesn't make a lot of sense. A better question is how much better / easier / more successful will a new camera make your photos and how much are you willing to pay for it?


----------



## distant.star (Jan 6, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > What I really need is a Bugatti Veyron.
> ...





If you can get me that 1Dx for $1400, I really DO need THAT!!!


----------



## Fleetie (Jan 6, 2012)

On the plus side, you can keep the pizza warm on the smokin' tyres when the Veyron has been screaming along at its top speed (most recent version, IIRC) at 267 MPH !

Back to the subject : I'm fine to keep using my 7D for a few months yet, while I build up my rainy-day fund to where I want it to be, and then after a bit longer I'll have about enough for the 5D3, if the same ever appears, which I think by that time it will have.

Until then I'll keep using my 7D as first camera; I feel I should have it as such for at least 2 years, which period will expire on 30th April 2012. So it's all fine, for me. I'll wait a bit. I tend to shoot long anyway, so the crop of the 7D doesn't hurt a bit.

If the 5D3 is high-MP and poor-ISO-noise, I'll save for longer and have to get the oversized (for ME) 1DX. I'll do it if I have to.


Martin


----------



## te4o (Jan 6, 2012)

All is relative, no doubt I don't need a camera at all to survive, but it is a source of personal expression, and intriguing beauty with technical aspects attached. If I feel more need for expression I look for a new model: I am like thousands of other shooters waiting to get onto the full frame train.
So, how is a new camera justifiable ? : I have my 40D maxed out with off-camera RC 580II, fast CZ primes, fast 70-200, postprocessing the maximum out of its RAWs, stitching, stacking, NRing ... - often I feel limited in IQ, ISO range, DR, colour range etc... I organically started feeling the need for a good FF with video so that I can increase my personal expression. 
I am lucky I can borrow a 5d2 from a friend for special occasions and travel (he doesn't need it really). That's why I haven't bought one yet. "I am not that rich to afford cheap cameras..." But I am very curious what amount of IQ real life improvements will the next generation semi-pro FF bring - hopefully their release is before June - I am expecting my second filius then...


----------



## bigblue1ca (Jan 6, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> When the 5d3 comes out, if I see a beautiful love child of the 7D AF and commander and 5d IQ, both my cameras could be on the chopping block to finance that purchase...



Yes, that would be a great blend and I'd snap one up in a instant. But, I question if we'll see this from Canon? I can't help but think if they did release such a camera it would undercut their 1DX sales; or would they cripple it like they did with the 5D2. 7D AF, 5D IQ, and 3 FPS. :


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 6, 2012)

Need? No. Want? Yes Please!

It's a lot of fun to play with new toys! Sure, I agree with most of the previous sentiments. Don't automatically expect a new camera to make you a better photographer blah blah blah. But, it's a lot of fun to think about buying new gear, checking out Canon Rumors to see what's coming out, and picking up the occasional new lens or body to see what they can add. I'm sure most people who visit this site would have a dream list of things to buy. I can't see anything wrong with that.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 6, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> Need? No. Want? Yes Please!
> 
> It's a lot of fun to play with new toys! Sure, I agree with most of the previous sentiments. Don't automatically expect a new camera to make you a better photographer blah blah blah. But, it's a lot of fun to think about buying new gear, checking out Canon Rumors to see what's coming out, and picking up the occasional new lens or body to see what they can add. I'm sure most people who visit this site would have a dream list of things to buy. I can't see anything wrong with that.



As with every rule there are exceptions. Moving to a 1d4 gave me full Manual with Auto ISO and good pictures at high ISO. Suddenly I was getting the pictures that my eye saw - so the content improved

The same with the move to the 5D and 5DII for weddings etc - suddenly the IQ significantly improved (yes I already had gone the L route )

My move to Digital from film improved things as I was suddenly able to experiment in a reactive environment - the shoot, view, change loop - so the pictures pushed the boundries and improved again.

So I would say that new kit can improve your photos - but only if it provides function/IQ that was holding you back.

Obvious if you need that function then you need the kit.

PS Am thinking of getting 16-35f/2.8 and 24-70f/2.8 to cover a week long Dickens festival for which I will be the offical tog. 

The 16-35 will go on the 1d4 (suspect this will be the most used)
The 24-70 will go on a 7D
My 70-200 f/2.8II on the 5DII

Does this sound about right for what will be essentially a flash free intimate set of events?

I dont expect to change lens in an event, I might slip the 135f/2 on the 7D for some events (makes a good short f2 tele)


----------



## ereka (Jan 6, 2012)

Well, I'm currently using a roughly six year old 1DMkII and it's OK but looking decidedly 'old technology' compared to current models, especially the 1Dx. I'm pretty sure upgrading to a 1Dx wouldn't improve my basic photography technique but it sure would open up new possibilities.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Jan 6, 2012)

I don't _need_ a 'new' camera. That is why I am happily living with the 6 year old 5D.

I do _need_ a 2nd body for work, and there are times when I _need_ better ISO performance.

I'll probably get the 5D MKII to fill these purposes. I know the 5D MKIII hasn't even been released yet, but I already know I don't _need_ it as the MKII fits the bill.

Do I _want_ a 1DX? - Hell yes.

Do I _need_ it - No.


----------



## Richard8971 (Jan 7, 2012)

I mainly posted the question just to get everyone talking. I drool over the rumors and camera's I do not have and want (I.E. 5D mkII). Just about ANY Canon, or camera for that matter (film or digital) will take a great photo.

You know??? It is _amazing_  what we can do with what we have and can live without until they come out with something new. THEN all of a sudden, our lives change and we wonder how we lived without it all this time!  (Think about this one guys... I mean really.) 

To me? Buy what you can afford, go out take photos and learn your equipment, no matter what it is and have FUN! Even if you are a pro and this is how you make your money I have only one thing to say to everyone...

"Find something you love to do, and you'll never work a day in your life" (Author questionable, given to Harvey MacKay) I believe this 110% in everything I do.

D


----------



## distant.star (Jan 7, 2012)

There's a rumor going around that Oprah is going to buy everyone who participated in this post a 1Dx.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jan 7, 2012)

distant.star said:


> There's a rumor going around that Oprah is going to buy everyone who participated in this post a 1Dx.



CR3


----------



## akiskev (Jan 7, 2012)

From the hobbyist point of view I totally agree with Richard8971 (topic starter). 
I find entry level bodies fine for my type of shooting, which includes landscapes, people, wildlife and motorsports.
I am tempted to buy a 7D but I think I can wait for the mkii version. I hope I will have the money to get one when it comes out 

If I were a pro, I'd surely go for a 1D-5D combo or something like that..


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 7, 2012)

akiskev said:


> From the hobbyist point of view I totally agree with Richard8971 (topic starter).
> I find entry level bodies fine for my type of shooting, which includes landscapes, people, wildlife and motorsports.
> I am tempted to buy a 7D but I think I can wait for the mkii version. I hope I will have the money to get one when it comes out
> 
> If I were a pro, I'd surely go for a 1D-5D combo or something like that..



As a hobbiest I am going the for 1D4, 1Ds3, 5DII combo as I dont really need the 1DX as soon as it is released. Much more interested in buying some good glass - I think 24-70 and 16-35 are top of my list.


----------



## akiskev (Jan 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> akiskev said:
> 
> 
> > From the hobbyist point of view I totally agree with Richard8971 (topic starter).
> ...



Ok my bad. 
When I said Hobbyist I meant that "I don't have the money to get a 1D-5D model"


----------



## bycostello (Jan 7, 2012)

mostly not... most think that a better camera makes them a better photographer, where the money would prob be better spent on training


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > Need? No. Want? Yes Please!
> ...



I would forget the 24-70
the 16-35 on the 1D4 and the 70-200 on the 5D2 will cover everything, if you really want to carry the 7D around to i would put a fast prime on it
I would consider borrowing or hiring another 5D2 with an 85mm prime f1.2 canon or f1.4 sigma on instead of the 7D though. I absolutly love my 5D2 sigma 85mm combo


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 7, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > PS Am thinking of getting 16-35f/2.8 and 24-70f/2.8 to cover a week long Dickens festival for which I will be the offical tog.
> ...



I have just bought a 1Ds3 and the two 7Ds are being sold. 

Perhaps this would make it?:

70-200 on 1Ds3
85 f/1.8 or 135 f/2 on 5DII
16-35 on 1D4 (could try my 17-40 to see if it works before buying)

Also have the 24-105 so could try that in 24-70 mode to see it that is the right length as well

Thanks for the suggestions - Brian


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



if you are prepared to lug 3 cameras around i would totally go with that setup
the 16-35 on APS-H is awesome you get 20-48mm effectively you will use it alot and it is super sharp use the 17-40 to check you ranges but the sharpness of the 16-35 is in another league. I think you will end up using the 85 most often for portraits and the 70-200 would be used mainly at the longer end for candid sniper shots. i also have the peak designs capture system on a thinktank belt which i can lock my modified l brackets into for the camera i'm not using, so for long shooting it really helps take the load off your shoulders even using a double rapid strap. saves you back bigtime!


----------



## erda (Jan 7, 2012)

Currently have a 30D along with 17-40L and 70-200L F4. Am planning a motorcycle trip though Wyoming and Colorado this summer. Was thinking about adding an ultra-wide angle (either Canon or Tokina). 
And in keeping with this thread, was also contemplating a different body. A 5D would save me from having to buy that ultra-wide! So, is my old 30D up to the task or ...?


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 7, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



The 17-40 is very sharp between f/8 and f/11 - ideal for landscapes - but soft wide open, so not good for portraits

At the moment I am using the 70-200 f/2.8 II a lot on the 5DII for portraits - proving very good

I use a Black Rapid double strap for carrying. Will get another strap for body #3 - thanks for reminding me ;D


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 7, 2012)

http://www.peakdesignltd.com/

these are what i have modified and mounted on the think tank belt, with my modified RRS L brackets and black rapid TR-1 mounting points i can clip the cameras to belt to secure them without removing the rapid strap, it gives total protection against the cameras swinging and hitting something and redundancy on both systems if anything fails. i can also take any camera off by simply uncliping the strap and pop the l-bracket onto the tripod in portrait or landscape. it really works well especially when you are shooting for 10 to 12 hours straight with multiple cameras


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 7, 2012)

erda said:


> Currently have a 30D along with 17-40L and 70-200L F4. Am planning a motorcycle trip though Wyoming and Colorado this summer. Was thinking about adding an ultra-wide angle (either Canon or Tokina).
> And in keeping with this thread, was also contemplating a different body. A 5D would save be from having to buy that ultra-wide! S, is my old 30D up to the task or ...?



A 5D would certainly mean no ultawide as the 17-40 would be it. The 70-200 will also become very usefull for landscaped too - it is tack sharp - perfect for manual focus.

If you are talking of a 5DII then your photos will definitely improve as it has liveview - enabling accurate manual focussing


----------



## mitchell3417 (Jan 8, 2012)

I upgrade if I have to. I don't see needing to anytime soon. Right the IQ and fast AF of the 7d is all I can afford. I love having the fast AF because I take a lot of pictures of babies and toddlers. If my needs change, then so will my camera. But I am completely satisfied with the 7d.


----------

