# Upgrade from Canon 500D



## cfaulds (Jul 17, 2010)

So I have a Canon 500D at the moment, and was wondering what the best upgrade from it would be.

I was thinking either the Canon 7D or 5d mark II, the 7d for more action photography, and 5d mark II for more landscape/portrait photography.

I don't really know anything about Nikon either, so is there a better alternative?

Please approach this as if you havent already got a camera (I'm not looking to upgrade... Im simply just wondering and this could help someone else out)

Thanks


----------



## KmH (Jul 17, 2010)

I depends what type of photography needs to be done, and the budget available for the upgrade.

The "best upgrade" would be to the approrpiate 1D series camera.


----------



## subscuck (Jul 17, 2010)

You're already aware of the the capabilities of the two cams you've mentioned, so first off, decide what you'll be doing more of, portrait/landscape or action. Second, realize that either of these will require an upgrade in glass to get the best out of them, and EF-S lenses aren't going to work for the 5DII.


----------



## cfaulds (Jul 17, 2010)

subscuck said:


> You're already aware of the the capabilities of the two cams you've mentioned, so first off, decide what you'll be doing more of, portrait/landscape or action. Second, realize that either of these will require an upgrade in glass to get the best out of them, and EF-S lenses aren't going to work for the 5DII.



Are you saying use the L-series?

The lens I currently have (signature), are they good lens'?

1d series is too expensive for someone like me who just does photography as a 'hobbie' though probably more of a 'passion'


----------



## Derrel (Jul 17, 2010)

The Nikon D700 would be my suggestion for pro-level autofocusing and robust build, but with a price lower than a Canon 1D series body. It would be a good camera for action and portraiture, since full-frame is best for portraiture, and the autofocus system Nikon has in the D700 is quite capable. The Canon 7D is a nice camera in the 1.6x APS-C size sensor, but it does seem to have a lot of problems with the lenses Canon currently has...the sensor is small and the pixel density is so high that it shows every flaw in lenses mounted to it, and Canon cannot yet do in-camera chromatic aberration reduction like Nikon can, so, the 7D's 17.8 MP sensor puts you right back at needing absolutytely top-shelf L-series lenses to leverage that small sensor.

I dunno...there's a lot of cameras on the market. Only you can decide what you want to optimize for--portraiture or action, FF vs 12.6 or 1.5x, etc,etc.


----------



## pbelarge (Jul 17, 2010)

Derrel said:


> The Canon 7D is a nice camera in the 1.6x APS-C size sensor, but it does seem to have a lot of problems with the lenses Canon currently has...the sensor is small and the pixel density is so high that it shows every flaw in lenses mounted to it, and Canon cannot yet do in-camera chromatic aberration reduction like Nikon can, so, the 7D's 17.8 MP sensor puts you right back at needing absolutytely top-shelf L-series lenses to leverage that small sensor.
> 
> I dunno...there's a lot of cameras on the market. Only you can decide what you want to optimize for--portraiture or action, FF vs 12.6 or 1.5x, etc,etc.


 
I have recently purchased the 7D. One of the benefits will be if one has access (such as LR3) to the lens correction feature. With a mouse clik, a lot of those issues are greatly reduced if not eliminated. There is even manual control that allows more control of the corrections.

I will say that until yesterday, I have only shot with the L lenses on my 7D. Yesterday, I shot with a non-L lens so lets see what the "mouse clik" is able to do. 


In regards to the camera choice....you will have many cameras to choose from and them finally come to a conclusion as to which one you chose. I will say that either Nikon or Canon is a great choice.


----------



## cfusionpm (Jul 17, 2010)

pbelarge said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon 7D is a nice camera in the 1.6x APS-C size sensor, but it does seem to have a lot of problems with the lenses Canon currently has...the sensor is small and the pixel density is so high that it shows every flaw in lenses mounted to it, and Canon cannot yet do in-camera chromatic aberration reduction like Nikon can, so, the 7D's 17.8 MP sensor puts you right back at needing absolutytely top-shelf L-series lenses to leverage that small sensor.
> ...


This is most definately true. LR2 was already decent at this (fixing CA issues), but LR3 makes it so much easier. I own a 7D with only one L lens (and three non-L lenses). I still get minor CA issues shooting super bright contrasty scenes at wide apertures, but it's fixed with one mouseclick in LR3. I'm sure Darrel has probably read about this issue very much but has never actually used a 7D in practice.

That said, the only real worthwhile upgrade on the Canon side of things would require a replacement of most of your lenses. The 7D because it will yeild only mediocre results with entry level lenses and the 5DII because the EF-S lenses won't even mount properly. It depends on how much you want to spend.  Either path will be pretty expensive.

With the 7D, its easy to suggest a 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but the new EF-S 15-85 is also very good. The 5DII would shine with either 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 IS.  One of the many 70-200L lenses would do well on either.


----------



## sovietdoc (Jul 17, 2010)

I have a 500D as well and I've decided that my next upgrade will be a full frame camera.  7D is just not worth it in my opinion as it's the same thing except with more bells and whistles. 

I guess it depends on what you're shooting though?


----------



## cfusionpm (Jul 17, 2010)

I edited my post above while you posted that.... But anyway, yes it highly depends on what you are shooting. If you are shooting fast action, sports, or require quick AF, twice as fast burst rate, and a longer reach out of lenses, the 7D is vastly better than the 5DII. But the 5DII has the adantages of a big full frame sensor, huge resolution, and better low light ISO performance. After using someone elses 5DII to try and shoot low light, close action though, I got absolutely furious at the slow, nearly-useless AF (it probably didn't help that I had the terrible-to-focus 50mm f/1.2). But for controlled studio settings, the 5DII is vastly better than the 7D. I made my choice based on my needs.

That being said, the D700 from Nikon seems to be a jack-of-all-trades camera. Unlike Canon, who focuses their higher end cameras in a specific direction (speed or studio), Nikon sticks down the middle for all cameras except the D3s/D3x. Not to say which is better or worse (and I still wish Canon made a full-frame speed camera), but just something to be aware of.  That may fit your needs better than a more specialized camera.


----------



## subscuck (Jul 17, 2010)

cfaulds said:


> Are you saying use the L-series?
> 
> The lens I currently have (signature), are they good lens'?
> 
> 1d series is too expensive for someone like me who just does photography as a 'hobbie' though probably more of a 'passion'


 
You don't necessarily have to go all the way up to L lenses. Canon makes some prosumer (mid grade) glass that comes very close to L glass for much less money. $400-$600 range. Sigma and others also make some great glass at a fraction of the cost of L glass. What you have is consumer glass, and it's really not that good.


----------



## cfaulds (Jul 17, 2010)

Well I have taken more landscapes/family photos (portraits) than action shots, but I do like my action shots. I think my next camera will be the Canon 5D mark II - I feel giddy just thinking about it.

But Im only 17 and Ive already spent just over £1000 on my camera gear!

But if I sell all of it (Both my lenses are ef-s except for the 50mm. So if i sell all that, then i will only have to pay around £1000 for the camera (only.. !))

However, I would then just be stuck with a 50mm, and even though its a very good lens (and only £80!), it doesnt give me much flexibility and so I would have to buy another lens costing a few hundred more.

I got my 500D at xmas this year, and so next year, how much dyu think the 5d mark II will be? rough guess.. AND they may release a new camera which may be a better option


----------



## subscuck (Jul 17, 2010)

cfaulds said:


> Well I have taken more landscapes/family photos (portraits) than action shots, but I do like my action shots. I think my next camera will be the Canon 5D mark II - I feel giddy just thinking about it.
> 
> But Im only 17 and Ive already spent just over £1000 on my camera gear!
> 
> ...


 
OK, now knowing all of this, here are my suggestions. Do you really *need* a pro cam like the 5D, or is it just gear lust?

Second, keep the cart behind the horse and learn everything you can with your 500D, and upgrade your glass along the way. *When *you can justify the expense of a prosumer or pro cam, you'll have the glass *and* the experience/skill to use it to it's fullest. Great glass will also bring out the most in your Rebel.


----------



## cfusionpm (Jul 17, 2010)

^Having learned that, I'll have to agree. You can get some great shots out of a Rebel/xxxD with good lenses and/or good technique. I had a Rebel XTi (400D) for several years and took some great shots with it. I only upgraded once I learned the limitations of that body and what I wanted my camera to do within my budget.


----------



## cfaulds (Jul 17, 2010)

subscuck said:


> OK, now knowing all of this, here are my suggestions. Do you really *need* a pro cam like the 5D, or is it just gear lust?
> 
> Second, keep the cart behind the horse and learn everything you can with your 500D, and upgrade your glass along the way. *When *you can justify the expense of a prosumer or pro cam, you'll have the glass *and* the experience/skill to use it to it's fullest. Great glass will also bring out the most in your Rebel.



Definately more 'gear lust' haha

I definately agree with you here. I was getting a bit excited earlier :lmao: but my 'great glass', do you mean the L series? Im guessing my current glass is kinda average?

Would an L series lens make a big difference? And in what way?


----------



## subscuck (Jul 17, 2010)

^ Again, you don't necessarily need L glass. Canon's got some great prosumer glass that is vastly superior to the EF-S lenses and any of their other consumer glass. Your 50mm 1.8, however, is very good optically, but has problems in other areas. Sigma's 35 and 50mm 1.4's are exceptional lenses, rivaling or exceeding L glass in some areas at a fraction of the price. Tamron and Tokina also make some great glass, tho I personnaly don't own any. At some focal lengths or ranges, L glass might be the best option, but not always. Decide what you want for lenses, do your homework on them, then ask people here for suggestions/opinions.

Better glass will give you sharper pics SOOC, as well as better color and contrast, less CA, distortion, etc. Bokeh will also be creamier, but at that price range, all lenses have great bokeh.


----------



## Ryan L (Jul 17, 2010)

You need new lenses not bodies, you are using kit lenses...even though the 55-250 isnt technically kit. Even the 28-135 IS is a big upgrade from the 55-250. The 50D is a great camera, I actually just bought one for a heck of a deal this week. I had an XSi and was using L glass on it with great results. Witht he 50D, the colors are much more vivid out of the camera, AF is far superior, and I love the fps compared to the XSi...getting off subject. I would highly suggest you get more glass before you even think of getting a new body. Your glass is what makes I would say 75% of the difference maybe more maybe less, but point is I would say glass not body.


----------



## cfaulds (Jul 17, 2010)

Thanks for the advice!

Im now (excitedly) looking for 1 'prosumer' lens which I can use for general use, more wide angle than telephoto... Like a 'walk-around' lens.

I'm thinking either the:

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM = £820

or

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5 - 5.6 IS USM = £280

Is the 24-105mm worth the extra £550? It is an L-series after all, but still, what do you think?

For me personally, I dont think im ready to spend that much for a lens as I dont quite have the skills to compensate it. Anyone had any experience with either of them?

Thanks!

Also, is the 28-135mm a prosumer lens? Would it provide better image quality than my current lens (signature)? - Do you think I need a lens of this focal length?


----------



## Ryan L (Jul 17, 2010)

I use the 28-135mmm as a walkaround lens all the time. I really like it for the price, I think it's an great lens. On the other hand the 24-105 is an outstanding lens....but I would probably suggest the 28-135mm. You will know when you outgrow your equipment and it doesn't sound like your there yet.


----------



## cfaulds (Jul 17, 2010)

Yeah I agree with you Ryan.

2 Questions:

1. Would the 28-135mm have better image quality than the 18-55mm kit lens?

2. Would the Canon 70-300mm f/3.5 - 5.6 IS USM have better image quality than my current 55-250mm?


----------



## Ryan L (Jul 17, 2010)

cfaulds said:


> Yeah I agree with you Ryan.
> 
> 2 Questions:
> 
> ...


 
1. Yes in my opinion the quality is much much better than the 18-55.

2. I can't comment on the 70-300 IS as I haven't had it. I have had the non IS version, and didn't like it at all. I would suggest looking at a few reviews. They usually offer comparisons, or google 55-250mm IS vs 75-300mm IS. I am sure there are some out there.


----------



## subscuck (Jul 17, 2010)

cfaulds said:


> Yeah I agree with you Ryan.
> 
> 
> 2. Would the Canon 70-300mm f/3.5 - 5.6 IS USM have better image quality than my current 55-250mm?


 
They don't even compare. The 70-300 is the type of non L I was referring to. It's a very nice lens, about $550US. It would absolutely blow away the 55-250. It will, however, create a coverage gap between 55 and 70mm.


----------



## sovietdoc (Jul 17, 2010)

I am excited to wait for 60D later this year.  I hear interesting things about that cam.


----------



## oldmacman (Jul 17, 2010)

I fretted about the 24-105 but it is a spectacular lens. Provides sharp images and controls CA very well. People are always selling these used because:
A) they couldn't decide on the 24-105 4L or the 24-70 2.8L
or
B) they overbought for their skill level
or 
C) it came as part of a great kit deal on a higher end camera and they are looking to make a little back on the body price.


----------

