# Canon eos 550D



## Jace Green (Jan 10, 2016)

hi, my friend is asking me about the price of a 2nd hand Canon EOS 550D with kit nowadays, cause someone's trying to sell him one for about 300$ or more, is this the right price? And cons and pros of this camera... Thanks...



NonPhotographer but willing to learn here


----------



## wyogirl (Jan 10, 2016)

It's is a Canon Rebel T2i which is an older camera. I shot with one for a long time and just this year upgraded.  I have some very nice images from that camera. It doesn't handle high ISO very well. I'm not sure about that price but it seems like it's probably fair if it's with a lens.


----------



## DB_Cro (Jan 10, 2016)

No idea about the price (I'm not in USA), but you can check images you can make with it on my flickr/500px linked below.
With a good lens, it'll shoot way above people think possible.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 10, 2016)

For this price you can get a brand new Nikon D3300 which is 10 times the better camera then the old used one you friend is offering you.


----------



## DB_Cro (Jan 11, 2016)

10 times?  
Don't overdo it.

It's better in low light/high ISO but it's not a big difference by any means. 
A beginner, especially using the kit lens wouldn't notice any differences between the two for the first 10.000 shots.

But yeah, I'd pick the D3300 between the two too.


----------



## Didereaux (Jan 11, 2016)

If the lens is worth at least $100 it is a fair buy.  The going price on the body seems to be around the $200 mark.  I too shot with one of these and as has been said before its low light/high ISO qualities are not the best, but in normal circumstances it wil produce excellent quality photos with any good lens.  It also has some fairly advanced customizing features that you won't find on the low end Nikons.

here is a shot taken with a 100-400 IS L lens.





and this one is done by my son with a 55-250mm lens ( I gave the camera to him rather than sell it...it is that good)


----------



## goodguy (Jan 11, 2016)

DB_Cro said:


> 10 times?
> Don't overdo it.
> 
> It's better in low light/high ISO but it's not a big difference by any means.
> ...


Sorry you are right I exaggerate a bit here  but I do disagree, the low light of the D3300 is significantly better then the EOS 550D, camera I had before the D5100 was pretty good in low light and the D3300 feels better then it by a 1/3 of a stop and probably even slightly more so I think even a novice will feel the difference.


----------



## beagle100 (Jan 12, 2016)

goodguy said:


> DB_Cro said:
> 
> 
> > 10 times?
> ...



I use to shoot Nikon, now Canon .... Canon has better image quality  (and depending on the model, better "low light" capability !)

and that original 100-400 is a 'killer'


----------



## goodguy (Jan 12, 2016)

beagle100 said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > DB_Cro said:
> ...


Respectfully disagree with you both DXO and I agree that Nikon has the edge when it comes to low light performance and Dynamic Range in same equal models.


----------



## beagle100 (Jan 12, 2016)

goodguy said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...



respectively disagree with you, * Canon* has better* image quality *and  is the choice of professionals
but I agree amateurs can use any camera


----------



## goodguy (Jan 12, 2016)

beagle100 said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > beagle100 said:
> ...


Oh boy, I will leave this at that, this is childish and pointless and really saying pro use only Canon is silly and wrong.
I know more then few pro's and some use Nikon and some Canon, all agree both tool will do the job nicely.
Skills is the key and everything else is a tool.


----------



## beagle100 (Jan 12, 2016)

goodguy said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...



yes, even a $100 camera can "do the job" !
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless


----------



## Joe_Photo (Jan 17, 2016)

Back on topic:  A 550D with 18-55 EF-S kit lens in good to very good condition is averaging about $250-300.  There are higher priced offers out there but hard to say if that's a better quality used item or an optimistic seller.  If the 55-250 EF-S kit lens is included you are probably closer to $350-375.  That's not saying that the 55-250 is a $50 lens but rather that this is an older model on kit glass.  As others have pointed out, for a modest additional investment you could be into a newer brand/model fresh out of the box.

I can't speak specifically to how it compares to a Nikon equivalent but I own the 550D and will give you my opinion based on firsthand use.

It is a very capable and convenient interchangeable lens DSLR.  Small size but with a lot of functionality.  Great for vacations, sight seeing, etc.  Overall image quality is very good for what it is.  Within the limits of its design and the kit glass its a great camera.  My two biggest complaints are for poor high-ISO/low light performance and poor focus on moving subjects.  

I do a lot of pet photography for rescue and for various reasons that requires me to go without flash.  Without flash or good ambient light there is only so far you can go with the ISO of the camera and a max aperture of 3.5 on the kit lens while keeping shutter speed fast enough to avoid motion blur.  The result is I find myself in situations where at best my images are way underexposed or at worst completely unusable.  The 50mm 1.8 helps to a degree but its still limited in low light.

The other issue I experienced was its inability to fast focus on moving subjects.  I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and say some of the problem was/is human error but the reality is it has a small number of cross type sensors which translates into it having a harder time focusing on moving targets.  

I've had mine for 4-5 years and probably for the first three I was satisfied.  After that my skills started to exceed the capabilities of the hardware.  I could probably keep using it with faster glass but decided to use my dissatisfaction as an excuse to make the jump to full frame.  I'll keep the 550D in my bag but I suspect it isn't going to get near as much use as it once did.
I have had mine for 4-5 years now.
I have had mine for 4-5 years now.
I have had mine for 4-5 years now.

In summary, if the price it under $300 and it seems to be in good shape and fully operational go for it.  Anything too far above $300 its a tough sell knowing that there is an exponential increase in capability coupled with a modest additional investment if you go new.


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 28, 2016)

Avoiding the part where the thread is descending into the "my dad can beat up your dad" argument.  I don't particular care what brand name is stamped on the body.  That aside... there are some things that haven't been asked nor offered.

The camera manufacturer's will rate a useful life on the shutter.  For most Canon "Rebel" series cameras, (such as the Canon EOS Rebel T2i / a.k.a. 550D) that value is 100,000 actuations.  So you'd want to know how heavily used the camera is and it'd be great if you could get the actual shutter count.

Canon does not have any menu that reveals the shutter count (Canon service will tell you what the count is if you send a camera in for service, but the camera doesn't report it on any menu and no utility supplied with the camera reports it either).   Asking the seller to mail the camera to Canon service just to retrieve the shutter count is a bit much.

There are, however, 3rd party utilities that will fetch this information.  Dire Studios makes a utility called (oddly enough) "Shutter Count" and it sells for less than $5 (not sure how much it actually costs -- but it's cheap).  They offer both a Windows version and Mac version.

Next... what's the lens situation?  

The camera usually comes with a kit lens which is the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II.  It's slow to focus but is otherwise optically fine (I once had one of these lenses).  I also had the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II... but I was never particularly fond of that lens (I gave mine away to a relative.). 

The next question is... what does your friend want to do with this camera?

Because if the answer is "taking photos in the middle of an afternoon on bright sunny days"... then honestly... ANY camera will do a fine job.  But if your friend wants to shoot indoor sports... or nighttime sports... then lighting is a problem and suddenly lens choice becomes very important (sports photographers spend crazy amounts of money on lenses not because they WANT to... but because they HAVE to if they want to get the shots).  Also, factors such as continuous shooting speed become important considerations (more expensive bodies shoot faster).

I don't worry about things such as which camera body has 1/3rd of a stop better ISO performance or 1/3rd of a stop better dynamic range, etc.  I've been around too long and know about the trickery that vendors play with such things, I don't trust DxO (they're like Consumer Reports... I think they suffer from delusions of adequacy and aren't nearly as competent as some people seem to think they are).  More to the point, if 1/3rd of a stop of performance is a make or break thing for you, then you're already in trouble.   Skill, lighting, and lenses are far more important (and fetch you more bang-for-your-buck) then the camera body.


----------

