# Upgrade Dilemma



## RxForB3 (Aug 24, 2012)

I'm thinking of upgrading.  Currently I have a t3i, 18-55 kit, 55-250 kit, 100mm f/2.8L macro, 50mm f/1.8, a Sigma "Bigma" 50-500, and temporarily a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 which is almost certainly being returned (too wide, and not fast enough).  Currently I'm most interested in landscape and macro shots and specifically REALLY interested in shots at night with stars and landscapes involved.  The t3i was sufficient until I got interested in the star shots.  It may work decently if I do multiple medium length exposures for star trails, but not for single exposure star trails or particularly for shots of individual stars.  At least, not to the degree I want it to.

I bought a Canon 5D Mark III body and took it out with the Rokinon lens.  I was in love!  But then I found/realized/remembered that my kit lenses would not work.  I had intended to sell the Sigma lens to help cover the cost of the Mark III.  If I sold that, and sold the t3i plus lenses (since they don't work), I'd just be left with the 50mm, 100mm, and possibly the Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 to replace the other Rokinon.  If I keep the Mark III, I won't be able to afford other lenses for quite a while (probably a year).  I could _possibly_ afford the Mark III plus the 24-105mm bundle, but that would be a stretch.

So...do I:

 1.  Keep the Mark III and do with just the 24, 50, and 100?  I REALLY love the increased ISO performance compared with the Mark II.  Like the feel, the built in electronic level, the easy in-camera HDR, the quick autofocus for those times I shoot my son (figuratively speaking), and just overall LOVE the camera.  Total: 3464 (Mark III) + 699 (Rokinon) = 4163

2.  Bite the bullet for the extra "kit" lens with the Mark III and try selling some of my other prized possessions from other hobbies leaving me with a 24mm f/1.4 for stars, 24-105mm f/4l, 50mm, and 100mm macro. Total: 4098 (Mark III, lens) + 699 (Rokinon) = 4797

3.  Go for a Mark II with the "kit" lens, and 24mm Rokinon.  Total: 2639 (Mark II, lens) + 699 (Rokinon) = 3338

4. Mark II with "kit" and a Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L.  Total: 2639 (Mark II, lens) +1599 (Canon 24) = 4238

5.  Stick with what I've got and just upgrade to a better lens until later.  Either the Rokinon or the Canon 24mm.  However, I'm really not pleased with all the noise in the t3i.  I managed some decent shots with the t3i + Rokinon 14mm, but not what I'd like.  The 24mm would allow more light, but not by THAT much.

6.  Some other option that one of you with your infinitely better knowledge of lenses/cameras can suggest.

Thanks for reading through the lengthy post, and I appreciate any suggestions you can give.  I would really hate to give up the Mark III.  I'm in love.  But I never gave the Mark II a chance, so who knows.  I figure lots of amazing photographs of stars have been made with the Mark II.  Surely I could be happy with that.  Maybe?


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 24, 2012)

For night shots I wouldn't really recommend the 5d2. It's focus system is pretty weak. 
How about the 7D? 
Your T3i is a great, capable camera. Really if you are wanting to upgrade? I'd think about waiting to see what the new Canon coming out is or keep the 5d3. As for what you sell to finance it. I really can't answer that. YOU are the only one that can value what your other hobbies are worth to you. 
Me? I am selling off everything I own and a few children to finance that 5d3, but that's me! That's what's important to ME.


----------



## RxForB3 (Aug 24, 2012)

Heh, thanks for the suggestions.  So you think the 7D is better for night shots?  I should be clear that most of my shots are night to the point that I have to manual focus if focusing is the issue between the 7D and 5D2...


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 24, 2012)

The 5d2 would be fine for you then. The 7D handles noise amazing for a crop sensor, but the 5d2 is a full frame. It is what it is. Do I think it's a whole lot better than the 7D. No. Not really. 
The 5D2 is a great upgrade from the T3i. I'd be disappointed after having the 5d3 in my hands, but that's me!


----------



## Derrel (Aug 24, 2012)

Night shots call for manual focusing in my book. Using either one's eyeballs, or Live View. Canon EOS bodies can use other brands of lenses via adapters, which is the way to get good wide-angle lenses for Canon...buy Zeiss or Nikon wide-angles and use those. They cost less, and are more affordable. If you want a camera that has the dynamic range to do the best landscapes, forget the 5D-III and go straight to the leader: Nikon D800. Sell the 100/2.8 macro, and forget 21 megapixels and pattern noise at ISO 200 in the shadows...go right to the LEADER....D800...higher MP count, far,far better file manipulation ability, better AUTO-bracketing system for HDR mutli-exposures, etc,etc. It is also $500 lower in price than a 5D-III. Your Canon kit zooms are basically worthless, and NOT worth worrying about...the Sigma could be sold. The macro lens will fetch a fair price. You're NOT going to lose very much by bailing on two kirt zooms, one lens, and a Siggy zoom...I would NOT let that lock me in to a system that is far,far behind in the segment you WANT to be optimized for...and right now, Canon's got squat

You wanna UPGRADE????????? Nikon D800. *DO an "upgrade"*, not a lateral two-step.


----------



## johndizzo (Aug 24, 2012)

+1 on the switch to Nikon for the D800 if your primary concern is doing landscapes. For anything else, stick with the mkiii as it is much more suited for all around shooting. 

For landscapes, the D800 flirts with medium format with regards to resolution and also has amazing dynamic range which canon doesn't touch for the time being. However, my personal belief is that for any other type of shooting that isn't either in a studio setting or landscapes, the mkiii is king. It is much more suited for shooting in dynamic uncontrolled scenarios which requires the speed, ergonomics and custom settings (C1 2 and 3) the Nikon doesn't have. 

Just depends on how you plan on shooting moving forward. 

Btw, focusing on the mkii, not even in the same conversation with the mkiii. Literally night and day.


----------



## RxForB3 (Aug 25, 2012)

Hm...I hadn't even considered a complete switch.  I tried to do some research on the comparisons between the D800 and 5D3 with regards to landscapes and night shots, but I didn't have much luck.  I only found one real comparison for landscapes and it ended up completely biased towards the 5D3 simply because he had problems with the Live View on the D800 trying to manual focus.  I did see evidence of better handling of shadows and dynamic range with the D800, but is that particularly beneficial for night shots when the ISO handling seems to be worse on the Nikon?  Can you point me in the direction of reviews that give me a better idea?

Also, it seems like if I bought the Nikon, any packages with a lens costs significantly more than the body, and indeed more than the camera/lens package for Canon.  I assume the Nikon is generally bought as just the body, and lenses separate?  In which case, what would be a starting set of lenses you'd recommend?  So far I'm not sold on the idea of switching to Nikon.


----------

