# advice appreciated



## ATC (Aug 7, 2013)

I am currently looking at buying a new camera body and lens. 

Long Background: I started my photography interest in the 60's while in Japan with the military. Good place to start anyway! started with a Canon 35mm rangefinder, doing mostly black and white stuff in the base photography labs. Got out of most photography through college and career, except for family snapshots and vacations with 35mm SLRs from Canon, and one Yashica SLR.

Moved to digital Rebel not too long after they came out, and have graduated slowly to a 40D w/ Tamron 18-270 PZD for vacations, etc. Occasionally I attempt some "artistic" things and take photos at some sports car races. I also have the opportunity to take wildlife shots of deer, hawks, hummingbirds, coyotes, etc. the 1.6 factor helps here! I do enjoy some macro also.

I hope to make photography my main retirement hobby (along with autos). I know the basics pretty well but understand I need lots of practice and some more studying in the digital world.

I am leaning towards a 7D (or 7Dii) with the 18-135 kit lens, and keeping the 40D / Tamron also. I know the Tamron is not in the same class as most lenses discussed here, but I use it mostly just for playing around wildlife and sports cars. I would hope to add better glass later, but don't know what yet.

The problem is that the 6D (and 5Diii) looks awfully nice to me also, but would require some expensive glass. Full Frame sounds wonderful, but may not be the best for me.

I have very little interest in video, hence the 70D, while nice, loses some appeal me.

Am I off base? I am very interested in opinions of those of you with experience in more serious photography. TIA


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 7, 2013)

I'd wait a little longer for the full reviews of the 70D. If its not much better, then a used 7D will be another choice.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 7, 2013)

ATC said:


> I am currently looking at buying a new camera body and lens.
> 
> Long Background: I started my photography interest in the 60's while in Japan with the military. Good place to start anyway! started with a Canon 35mm rangefinder, doing mostly black and white stuff in the base photography labs. Got out of most photography through college and career, except for family snapshots and vacations with 35mm SLRs from Canon, and one Yashica SLR.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, you are off base. 

FF bodies are much more forgiving of lens flaws, and you will get more resolution from a given lens using FF at the same distance to subject and same settings. If you are focal length limited, than a crop body might be better for that situation.

A 6D plus a 24-105mmL will astound you, and cost less than a 7D MK II body alone. There are some bargain prices out there. Play with the DXO tool and compare the lens test results against different bodies. Note that FF bodies produce much better results.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM/(camera)/836/(cameraname)/Canon-EOS-6D


Your 40D is excellent, and you can use the 24-105mmL on it as well and get much better IQ than the Tamron lens, just not as wide a zoom range.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 7, 2013)

I don't think it's true that going FF requires expensive lenses, even if it may be true that for any given lens type spending more will yield better results; but to the extent that's true for FF, it's also true for crop sensor bodies. I also suspect, though I haven't tested this personally, that a lesser quality lens will yield better results on a FF camera than it will on a crop camera. Right now, your main problem is that if you bought a FF camera you wouldn't be able to use your Tamron lens on it; you would have to buy a new lens (or three). And there's no inexpensive FF equivalent of your Tamron. There are, however, some inexpensive primes and longer zooms you could use, all of which would likely give you better results on FF than you're currently getting (Canon's cheapest lenses, the 50 1.8 and 40 2.8, both work well on FF and will, it seems safe to say, take noticeably better photos than your Tamron zoom). Given how low the prices for a 6D can be in the US right now, I can see how you might be tempted. There's a lot you could do with, say, a 6D + 40mm + an inexpensive 70-300 zoom (Canon or Tamron), and it won't cost much.

But as you seem to be in the US and aren't in a hurry, you may want to experiment a little by renting - try, say, a 6D with a less expensive lens or two and compare that to the results you're getting now. If you like taking photos in low light you may be pleasantly surprised.... Or for your purposes you may not see a big enough reason to upgrade the camera body at all.


----------



## ATC (Aug 8, 2013)

Thanks everyone. I appreciate the 6D comments. I have no trouble keeping the Tamron on the 40D to use for extra long wildlife shots. Not worth much for a trade or sale anyway.

The 6D with the 40 or 50 and 70-300 sounds interesting. As does the 6D with 24-105 and 70-300.

7D (7Dii) with 18-135 and 70-300 sounds good also. That's my dilemma. 

I suppose between the two, the 6D would result in better photos, and not a lot of cost difference. I am retired, so cost does matter. 

- Thanks again -


----------



## michael6liu (Aug 8, 2013)

You would love 6D, it is quite an advance from a crop sensor camera, at least IQ wise.
No experience with 24-105 but that focal range is theoretically a killer, not to mention the price is as sweet as it can get right now.


----------



## ATC (Aug 8, 2013)

Thanks michael6llu, Your comments mean a lot since you have both the 6D and 7D.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 8, 2013)

sdsr said:


> I don't think it's true that going FF requires expensive lenses, even if it may be true that for any given lens type spending more will yield better results; but to the extent that's true for FF, it's also true for crop sensor bodies.



I think the reason people say that FF requires more expensive lenses is that for many focal lengths, the cheapest angle-equivalent lens on FF is an L lens that costs several times as much as the EF-S lens.

EF-S 10-22: $760
16-35: $1700

EF 70-300: $200
EF 100-400: $1500

Now to be fair, for the most common crop-body lens, the 15-85/17-85, the angle-equivalent 28-135 is pretty cheap, but the lens creep will make you *quickly* want to replace it with a 24-105, IMO. It just feels like a really cheaply made lens.

And as mentioned previously, there's nothing in FF that can replace the 18-135, much to my chagrin, except the jaw-droppingly large and expensive 28-300L or the discontinued 28-200....


----------



## CR00 (Aug 8, 2013)

You should go for 6d with 24-105L kit if your budget allows and you don't have to worry that you wish you have a FF camera or 7d will do. If you are not in a hurry and limited budget, keep your eyes open and you should be able to get a 6d with 24-105L kit for ~2K by the end of this year from a Canon authorized dealer. You also could get a refurbished Canon 70-300 IS. At the right time, Canon was selling it for <$300 included shipping and tax. It's not as good as 70-300L, but it's 1/3 of its price and great IQ for the money. Good luck.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 8, 2013)

FF is not necessarily more forgiving of lens flaws, and you do not get more resolution from a lens on FF. You cannot compare lens test results across sensors or formats, and this is noted at both DxO and photozone.de. (It's also why photozone.de typically has a rating scale next to the raw numbers.)

APS-C demands higher center sharpness but literally crops out the sides and corners. FF doesn't demand as much center sharpness but will capture any ugly flaws at the sides/corners, including vignetting. Therefore which is more forgiving depends entirely on the lens.

Overall...

* Out of camera FF images will be sharper with higher contrast. After processing...or with proper camera style settings...this disappears. (Put another way, given sensors of equal MP, FF doesn't have a real resolution advantage, but it does have a sharpness/contrast advantage. As long as the image is clean this is something that can be processed away.) 

* FF will have less noise with greater detail and color retention at high ISO. There is no processing this away.

* With proper processing, there's nothing to differentiate 24" prints from crop and FF at ISO 100-800. At higher ISOs, large prints from FF easily pull away. At 8x10 it's still a wash through about 3200, then FF pulls away.

* FF has a better selection of fast wide primes and T/S lenses. (Though Sigma's new 18-35 f/1.8 will nullify some of this advantage.)

* APS-C has a lower cost selection of superb UWA zooms and, to a lesser extent, general zooms.

* For telephoto a given FoV is cheaper on APS-C. Put another way, APS-C puts more pixels on target. However, this is almost a non-issue with today's sensors. I only see a crop advantage here if I'm cropping even further into the image and printing large. If I'm cropping a 7D file to 9 MP then that means for the same FoV a FF file would be down to 3-4 MP and it can't compete. But if you're just cropping a 6D image to the equivalent APS-C view for a bit more telephoto reach, the IQ is still excellent. It's not often you have to go much deeper into a file. (If you do, you probably need a longer lens.)

The 7D is still decent at 3200 and usable in a pinch at 6400. The 6D is decent at 25600 and usable in a pinch at 51200. I don't see a real advantage at lower ISOs, but at high ISO Canon's current FF sensors rock. BUT...you mention wildlife and racing. Unless it's nearly dark I grab the 7D for any action, no question.

I guess it comes down to which you think you will value more: action or low light. (Unless of course you just want to spring for the 5D3 and have both.)


----------



## bholliman (Aug 8, 2013)

ATC said:


> 7D (7Dii) with 18-135 and 70-300 sounds good also.



I would avoid the Canon EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 lens. I owned this lens for a few months and while the zoom range was nice, its sharpness was poor and there is lots of distortion. The newer STM version of that lens is better, but still not good in my opinion. See the sharpness comparison to the EF-S 15-85 (one of Canon's best EF-S lenses) using The Digital Pictures lens tool:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=678&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=675&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

I agree with the others here in recommending at 6D/24-105 kit. 6D image quality is really excellent and it handles nicely. I started my DSLR journey with a T2i (550D), then bought a 7D and eventually a 6D. I sold the T2i, but still have the 7D but it just sits in storage 99% of the time. The 6D is nearly perfect for what I shoot: landscapes, family/kids, portraits and travel.

As others have recommended, renting a 6D maybe with at 24-105 lens for a weekend is relatively inexpensive and would give you a good idea of what the camera is capable of and aid your decision making process.


----------



## neni (Aug 8, 2013)

7D & 18-135mm? That's what I started with. Good camera, not so good lens. To be honest, it's my least used lens. I've heard very good things about 24-105 and, now that you can find them at interesting prices in certain markets (but not in the Brazilian one, unfortunately  ), I wouldn't think twice. Why not buying the 6D (of which I've been hearing wonders as well) and the 24-105? You could then save for a few months and get a 70-200 f/4 IS (the non IS, as I can tell you, can be a bit limiting in terms of handheld shots in not so good light  ). That and a prime, say 50mm f/1.4 or the 85 f/1.8, they're cheap and quite good. These are just my two pennies


----------



## Vossie (Aug 8, 2013)

Regarding the 6D vs 7D comparison: these cameras are very different and will appeal to very different uses (7D: faster FPS, faster AF, crop factor --> better for fast moving and distant objects vs. 6d: much better ISO performance, higher pixel count, FF --> better for still objects and difficult lighting situations (incl indoor use)).



RLPhoto said:


> I'd wait a little longer for the full reviews of the 70D. If its not much better, then a used 7D will be another choice.



I would recommend that as well. The 70D may offer better ISO performance than the 7D (which is almost 4 yrs old now). The 70D may actually be a nice compromise between some of the 7D strongpoints (AF, FPS) and the 6D strongpoints (ISO, MP). (+ you may not shoot video now, but you may start to like it in the future)


----------



## Northstar (Aug 8, 2013)

ATC,

IMO...if this is going to be a retirement hobby that you're going to spend some time on over many years, then forget the cheap zooms and spend a little more....like someone else wrote, wait on the 70d reviews to come, from what i have read, it sounds like it could be awesome camera...and you can keep using your tamron

Also, take this opportunity to invest in a prime lens like the 40mm or 85mm 1.8 and be prepared to be "wowed". The shorty 40 for $150 will give you all the IQ you need.


----------



## niteclicks (Aug 8, 2013)

I am about the same point in life and similar life experience. I wanted full frame for larger wide field prints and the better low iso performance. I still use the 40d everyday, everyone in the house knows how to use it to get those one time shot of the grandbabies and the onboard flash is handy. The 6D was not out yet so I went with the 5DIII and have not been disappointed. The photos from it at 3200 are pretty close to what my 40d gave me at 800. If you find your self backing up or not getting the shot without flash full frame my be what you want. 
I never would have been able to get this shot with the 40D.


----------



## ATC (Aug 8, 2013)

Thanks all, Some very interesting advice. I am in no hurry, so will mull this over awhile. 

I do not want to start a FF vs Crop body issue, I like the advantages of both.I may just continue to use the 40D for what it is, and also get a 6D for what it is. Thanks again.


----------



## Bruce 101 (Aug 8, 2013)

> _The newer STM version of that lens is better, but still not good in my opinion. See the sharpness comparison to the EF-S 15-85 (one of Canon's best EF-S lenses) using The Digital Pictures lens tool:
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=678&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=675&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0_



Wow I hope you are wrong about the newer version of the 18-135 still being a weak lens - since I just ordered it!

In looking at the digital picture review I notice that although the 15-85 is a bit sharper at 24mm as you say, but - to me - they (the 18-135 STM and the 15-85) appear nearly the same at 50mm and 85mm.

Obviously, you tend to get what you pay for, but these two lenses seem quite close to me. Plus, the 15-85 does not have STM.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Aug 8, 2013)

I am glad to see that others mentioned the 6D & 24-105 combo. They are also correct in saying that you will be amazed at the difference. Since you mentioned that you have some time, I would recommend signing up to the canonpricewatch.com website. When I'm about to purchase an item, I always check the current prices listed on the canonrumors price watch page, but I also sign up for an email update from canonpricewatch. If you want only new gear the 6D for $1500 sounds amazing, but if you don't mind used or refurb (which is how I purchase about half of my lenses and 3/4 of my camera bodies), then I would sign up, and pick one up when the price hits your goal.

Regarding the camera choice:
I've owed a rebel (t1i), and currently work with the 60D, 7D, and 5Dii. I am by far the happiest with the FF for a multitude of reasons, I like the 7D, but honestly, it suites my needs about as well as my 60D. Again, since you already have a crop frame that you plan on keeping, I would look into a FF 6D or used 5Dii (or 5Diii if you're feeling spunky). The combo of FF and 1.6 can open many doors when you start adding more lenses.

Regarding the lens choice:
Like others, I would not recommend the 18-135, however, I would also not recommend the 70-300. I know many have had great success with both, and though I can only speak for the 70-300 having owned it, the lens never performed for me regarding image quality, speed, accuracy, etc. I may have had a bad copy, but I didn't hesitate to sell it. the 24-105 should be plenty wide enough on the 6D and fairly narrow on the 40D. If you need something faster for low light, you can pick up a 50 1.8ii or 1.4 for not too much. 

I hope this helps, and have fun!

Cheers,
-Tabor


----------



## bholliman (Aug 8, 2013)

Bruce 101 said:


> I hope you are wrong about the newer version of the 18-135 still being a weak lens - since I just ordered it!
> 
> In looking at the digital picture review I notice that although the 15-85 is a bit sharper at 24mm as you say, but - to me - they (the 18-135 STM and the 15-85) appear nearly the same at 50mm and 85mm.
> 
> Obviously, you tend to get what you pay for, but these two lenses seem quite close to me. Plus, the 15-85 does not have STM.



I just looked lens comparison tool at TDP again and read the 18-135 STM review. I retract my earlier statement. The 18-135 STM looks like a big upgrade from the non-STM version and a good option for APS-C owners. 

I owned the non-STM version of the 18-135 for several months and was unhappy with it. I never owned the STM version, but borrowed one for a weekend from my brother. I wasn't real happy with the sharpness of those pictures either, but it might have been an AFMA issue with that particular lens and my camera body. I was using it on my 7D and didn't take the time to test AF accuracy. The STM lens copy tested by TDP looks pretty sharp and distortion is well controlled. Bryan Carnathan had the following comments in his review:



> "In the case of the 18-135 STM, these results show very impressive performance. Performance rivaling a favorite lens of mine - the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens."
> 
> "I still prefer the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens for general purpose uses not needing a wide aperture (typically stopping action in low light and creating a strong background blur). As of 18-135 STM review time, the price of the 18-135 STM is approaching the price of the 15-85 (though, again, the 18-135 STM is a better value in the with-DSLR kit)."



Full review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-STM-Lens-Review.aspx



Bruce 101 said:


> Plus, the 15-85 does not have STM.



STM isn't much of an advantage unless you have a camera body optimized for it. Just the T4i and T5i that I'm aware of, maybe the SL1.


----------



## Bruce 101 (Aug 8, 2013)

> STM isn't much of an advantage unless you have a camera body optimized for it. Just the T4i and T5i that I'm aware of, maybe the SL1.



I checked with B&H and the literature - the SL-1 is optimized for the STM lenses as well.

My 18-135 STM arrived today and it is actually quite impressive. Have not tried it for video (where, of course, the STM matters) but am looking forward to doing that.

Will compare the 18-135 STM to the 18-55 STM (both on the SL-1) and decide which one to keep.


----------



## ATC (Aug 8, 2013)

Bruce101 reminded me that I do also have a new SL-1 that I bought for my wife to use. It's cute.

I do have access to it. Ha


----------



## Bruce 101 (Aug 8, 2013)

> Bruce101 reminded me that I do also have a new SL-1 that I bought for my wife to use. It's cute.



Indeed it is, with IQ rivaling that of the 7D!


----------



## bholliman (Aug 8, 2013)

Bruce 101 said:


> > STM isn't much of an advantage unless you have a camera body optimized for it. Just the T4i and T5i that I'm aware of, maybe the SL1.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good to know on the SL1. I've been thinking about getting one for my wife to replace her aging P&S.

18-135mm is a nice focal range, almost an all-in-one zoom. I prefer 15mm (24mm full frame equivalent) to 18mm on the wide end, but 18 is wide enough for most uses. Thanks for raising the question on the 18-135 STM, I am better informed now than I was this morning.


----------



## sdsr (Aug 8, 2013)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> Regarding the lens choice:
> Like others, I would not recommend the 18-135, however, I would also not recommend the 70-300. I know many have had great success with both, and though I can only speak for the 70-300 having owned it, the lens never performed for me regarding image quality, speed, accuracy, etc. I may have had a bad copy, but I didn't hesitate to sell it.



There does seem to be either inconsistent performance amongst copies of the Canon 70-300 non-L or different tolerances for its failings; either way, I thought the copy I had was good. The reason why I recommended it was largely because I was trying to come up with a couple of lenses that would provide a very inexpensive substitute for the OP's Tamron superzoom while also providing, on a 6D, superior image quality to what he was used to. I agree, of course, that if funds permit, a 6D kit is the safest recommendation, but 105 on FF isn't very long, especially for someone coming from 270mm on crop!

For instance, right now you can buy a 6D body for $1500, a 40mm for $200 (or $150 when it's on sale) or a 50mm 1.8 for $125 new full price, plus a refurbished 70-300 from Adorama for $375; i.e., body + 2 lenses for c. $2000. Whether the OP would find that useful would depend on what focal lengths he typically uses, of course..... Wasn't the 6D + 24-105 kit recently absurdly cheap from B&H? Chances are it will be again before long.


----------



## ATC (Aug 9, 2013)

sdsr, 

The 6D, 24-105, then 70-300 later is what I am thinking right now. Still have the 40D, Tamron if I need the reach. I really am thankful for all of the suggestions. This forum has been a terrific help to me.


----------



## Pi (Aug 9, 2013)

The 7d (or non-existent 7D2) and the 18-135 is a rather extreme combo, IMO, a waste of a body, in a way. With that lens, you should get a Rebel.

BTW, good advice here about going with the 6D. The 6D and the 24-105 will beat just about everything you can get from a crop camera at this FL and speed, including expensive primes. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3


----------



## Bruce 101 (Aug 9, 2013)

> The 7d (or non-existent 7D2) and the 18-135 is a rather extreme combo, IMO, a waste of a body, in a way. With that lens, you should get a Rebel.



Have you actually shot with the 18-135 STM?

Yes, I would much rather have the 24-105 (and I do) as a walk-around (though it really isn't wide enough on a crop like a 7D), due to its build and a number of other factors, but from a pure IQ, I don't see a huge difference from the 18-135 STM vs. the 24-105 on a crop such as the 60D.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=809&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2


----------



## Pi (Aug 9, 2013)

Bruce 101 said:


> > The 7d (or non-existent 7D2) and the 18-135 is a rather extreme combo, IMO, a waste of a body, in a way. With that lens, you should get a Rebel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



IMO, the 24-105 is the wrong lens on crop. 

The advanced AF capabilities and the fast fps of the 7D are kinda wasted on a slow zoom like the 18-135. What would the 7D give you _with that lens_ over a Rebel? Are you going to shoot sports at 80-135/5.6?

BTW, the recent Rebels would give you _better_ IQ than the 7D from purely IQ standpoint.


----------



## Bruce 101 (Aug 9, 2013)

> IMO, the 24-105 is the wrong lens on crop.
> 
> The advanced AF capabilities and the fast fps of the 7D are kinda wasted on a slow zoom like the 18-135. What would the 7D give you with that lens over a Rebel? Are you going to shoot sports at 80-135/5.6?
> 
> BTW, the recent Rebels would give you better IQ than the 7D from purely IQ standpoint.



Hard to argue with any of that.


----------



## ATC (Aug 12, 2013)

After re-reading the advice here many times, I want to thank Tabor Warren also for the input. I think the direction he, and others, recommend is the way I will go. Great input by everyone.

Still not an easy choice between bodies and lenses. It's great that we have so many choices tho!


----------



## ATC (Aug 17, 2013)

ATC said:


> Thanks all, Some very interesting advice. I am in no hurry, so will mull this over awhile.
> 
> I do not want to start a FF vs Crop body issue, I like the advantages of both.I may just continue to use the 40D for what it is, and also get a 6D for what it is. Thanks again.



Exactly what I did. Pick up 6D, 24-105 & 70-300 in the morning. Thanks again!


----------



## ATC (Aug 20, 2013)

Thanks very much to the folks that recommended the 6D/24-105 to me (sdslr, Tabor Warren amoug others). 

After just a few days of owning the camera, I am amazed at the difference the full frame has made so far. I have only shot landscape and indoors (with no flash), but the low-light performance is a knockout. 

Now, if I just had a little ability - - -


----------



## Northstar (Aug 21, 2013)

ATC said:


> Thanks very much to the folks that recommended the 6D/24-105 to me (sdslr, Tabor Warren amoug others).
> 
> After just a few days of owning the camera, I am amazed at the difference the full frame has made so far. I have only shot landscape and indoors (with no flash), but the low-light performance is a knockout.
> 
> Now, if I just had a little ability - - -



congrats....6d and 24-105, you're set...an awesome combo!


----------

