# 50d, 60d or 7d



## jbags (Nov 19, 2011)

Hi everyone.                                                                                                                                                                              I plan to buy an aps-c dslr soon and plan to buy the tokina 11-16 f2.8 and the canon 50mm f1.8 II along with it.So here are my options, a used canon 50d with ~7000 actuations for ~$600, a new canon 60d which I can get my hands on for ~$800 or a new canon 7d which I can purchase for ~$1300-1400                                                                                  Video is not important to me, however I have use for the ir flash and remote control featured on the 60d and 7d                 I am also on a budget. I shoot mainly nature photography, but I do some sports as well.                                                                                                                                                          Ps. I am upgrading from a canon g11 and would like to skip the rebel series (more room for growth)!                         Thanks all!


----------



## Overread (Nov 20, 2011)

For sports and general nature photography (at least on the wildlife side as opposed to landscape and still life) your lens selection is very limiting indeed. I assume that investment in longer lenses is something you've got in mind for a latter purchase not too far off? You mention growing space, but remember that whilst higher level bodies provide more growing space, that they can't replace good lenses. You see bigger gains in image quality putting money into higher level glass than you will putting the same money into higher level bodies. 
I've no idea of your long term plan, but do keep a mind that long glass - in the 300mm+ lengths which are typically needed for wildlife are not cheap and good long glass gets very expensive very quickly. Meanwhile indoor sports will be putting different demands on you in needing large aperture lenses in some shorter focal lengths. 
Again a lot of this depends on your overall longer term purchase plan. 


On the bodies front alone a few thoughts:

1) The AF on the 7D is the best of the three by a long shot it also offers more customisable options which can fine tune its performance; although straight out of the box performance is good enough to start with before you confuse yourself getting into the controls. 

2) The 60D isn't an upgrade of the 50D, whilst they share the same name the 50D line was broken into two parts by canon - upper part of the 7D and lower part of the 60D; thus some features such as AF micro adjust and build quality are lacking on the 60D as compared to the 50D and 7D. The only real strengths the 60D has are its flippy LCD screen and its video control options (things like manual audio recording) which are not present on the 7D (and the 50D lacks video totally). 

3) Flash IR remote - this is a good feature to have, but personally I think a set of radio remotes is far more versatile overall and means that you're not limited to direct line of sight between the units. A cheap pair of radio remote units won't set you back far and there are a few brands on the market which are reliable enough for general use without problems - then at a latter date you can move up to something more serious like the Pocket Wizard series. 


So I would say if you can afford it go for the 7D - it is the most expensive, but it also suits your needs the best. However if saving for the 7D is going to significantly impact your lens purchases then a 50D would give you a more budge friendly option that is still more than good enough to grow into and provide room to develop whilst also letting you invest more into a quality lens selection.


----------



## mangtarn (Nov 20, 2011)

this is what sports look like on the Canon EOS 60D





http://www.flickr.com/photos/21001168@N06/6368224107/


----------



## jbags (Nov 20, 2011)

Eventually, I will buy either a 70-200 f2.8L or a f4L, however, a longer range zoom or telephoto will have to wait a little while. I was thinking of using the 50mm prime as a mid-range telephoto since on an APS-C format camera it becomes around ~82mm. The tokina will cover my landcape shots and eventually a 70-200L will take the place of my longer ranged zoom and the 50mm will become a portrait lens. Until I get a dedicated macro lens, I may just be using the 50mm with extension tubes or my old g11. Also, I take it that you don't recommend the 60d. What about the 63 zone metering and the slightly better iq due to the newer sensor? Would you reccomend any cheaper long range Zooms or telephotos for the short term, The EF-75-300 perhaps? I understand that it is a "slow lens" and that i will not be able to use it for indoor sport photography, but is it worth the little bit of extra cash? Thanks for your advice.


----------



## Overread (Nov 20, 2011)

The 50mm will give the same field of view as an 80mm lens, but that is only when comparing against a fullframe (35mm) field of view, remember that the G11 has a smaller sensor by far and thus and even larger crop factor than the APS-C bodies. 

As for the 60D its not that I don't recommend it, any of the 3 bodies are more than enough to start with and each offers a lot of growing room; I just pointed out that its not quite the same as full upgrade to the 50D that the name might imply. 

On the subject of cheaper zoom lenses I'm afraid I don't know the performance of these well enough to give a good answer; saving your money for longer to get the proper lenses would be the best policy, rather than investing bits here and there in weaker options; however that has to be tempered against time. If its going to take you a very long time to save up then a cheaper option early on at least allows you to shoot during that time.


----------



## jbags (Nov 20, 2011)

Ok, thanks. I might as well get the 50d, the tokina, the 50mm and a 75-300, sigma or used telephoto (prime) which will add up to around 1400. Sometime next year I will upgrade.


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 21, 2011)

Welcome to the forum.
Where in our great province are you from?

The 60D is a hard one to recommend, but for only a $200 difference over a used 50D, I'd be tempted to go with the newer (and more modern) 60D.  If you are going to go with a used camera (to save money), I'd look for a 40D if you can get one around $400.  

The reason the 60D isn't a favorite, is mostly because (as mentioned) it isn't really a true 'upgrade' from the 50D.  Canon re-aligned the XXD series with the 60D and made it more 'rebel-like'.  So when compared side by side, the 50D feels like a more professional camera.  But, now the 60D is halfway between the T3i and the 7D, so it's just where Canon want's it.  

Another reason I'm a little weary of the 60D (and even the 7D) is the high mega pixels APS-C sensor.  Most lenses won't be able to truly take advantage of the high resolution sensor and image quality just doesn't seem to be that much (if any) better than something like the 40D or 50D.  
I know a very good wedding photographer here in Edmonton.  He owns & uses a 1Ds mkIII, but he's tell you that his favorite camera is his 40D.  He even prefers it over the 50D, which he had & sold.  

Now, with all that said, I've seen several 60Ds in the classes I teach and it's not that bad.  I think the articulating screen is much more that just a gimmick and it has a good feature set.  I haven't been able to really see the image quality first hand, but that shouldn't be hard to Google.

The 7D is obviously the best camera you listed.  As mentioned above, the AF is heads and shoulders above the other options...but that may or may not be an issue for you.  Honestly, it may be over complicated for many users.  

Quick point of clarification.  I don't think the 7D (or 60D) etc. uses IR to control a remote flash.  It uses pulses from the built-in flash.  This is the same way that the 580EX communicates with remote 'slave' flashes.  The only IR in Canon's wireless system is the ST-E2 unit.  It's a flash 'Master' without having a flash of it's own.  

As for the lenses, if you can save money on the body and put that into lenses, that will usually give you the best kit.  But it's up to you.  Buying something cheap, while planning to upgrade later, is usually a more expensive option...unless you can find some cheap used gear.  

If you're interested, I recently upgraded to full frame, and am selling off most of my EF-S (& similar) lenses, as well as a couple cheap 'full frame' lenses as well.  Including a couple telephotos.  Check the Buy & Sell section.


----------



## jbags (Nov 21, 2011)

What advantages would the 40d have over the 50d. Here in Calgary, there is only a small difference between the two. (around $100). For updated pricing, the 60d is $975, the 50d is about the same, the 7d is 1375 and the 40d is around $500


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 22, 2011)

I think that the 'advantage' of the 40D over the 50D, besides price, is that is has less mega pixels.  That goes against typical thinking....but the idea is that on an APS-C sized sensor, 15 mega pixels is getting to be too much.  Many photographers have said that the idea number for these sensors is 8-10 MP.  The 20D came out in 2004 with 8.2 MP....which was a high number at that time....but that camera was probably one of (if not thee) best mid-level DSLR for a long time.  The 30D was basically a 20D with only minor upgrades.  The 40D was a significant upgrade 2007, getting much faster, a much bigger screen, new processor and adding two MP, up to 10.  
The 50D seemed to come out pretty quickly after the 40D, with a big jump in MP, up to 15.  I believe it had a newer processor as well.  The comment that I seemed to hear most, was that the image quality wasn't improved from the 40D, even though it had the next generation of processor/sensor.  But considering that it added 50% more MP...keeping the same image quality could be considered an advancement.  

So, like I mentioned earlier, if the difference between a 40D and a 50D is $200, then I'd go with the 40D.  But if the price difference is less than $100, I'd probably go with the 50D.  I think that a 40D for $400 would be a good deal...I think $500 is too much, unless it's in mint condition and maybe comes with a lens etc.
A *new* 60D for $800 would be really tempting, but for $975, it's a much harder choice.


----------



## jbags (Nov 24, 2011)

So I'm buying a canon 50d that I found in town for $500 with only 2500 actuations (haven't picked it up yet!). Any suggestions for telephoto/zoom lenses since I have saved some $$?


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 25, 2011)

What type of shooting will you be doing with a telephoto lens?  (sports, wildlife?)  
What is your budget for it?


----------



## jaomul (Nov 25, 2011)

Just to add, the screen on the back of the 50d is nicer and it does have micro adjust for lenses (a feature I never have and hope to never use). There is some say that the image quality on the 40D is better and it fares better with noise, but I am sure that these differences are small so I think the newer model is the way to go. As for telephoto lenses I have the EF-S 55-250mm and its cheap, but is very good in daylight but may be a bit slow in tricky situations. I think your getting a good camera for the money and usage it has, thats almost new


----------



## jbags (Nov 25, 2011)

I will be using a longer lens for sports photography as well as wildlife. (not too much on the indoor side.I am thinking about the EF- 70-200mm f4L but am worried about it not having IS as I will be shooting off tripod frequently.Should i go for it or save up for one with IS?


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 25, 2011)

If you are going to be shooting sports, then I'd suggest saving up for the F2.8 version, rather than the IS version of the F4. (about $100 more, according to B&H).
IS is certainly a great feature, but it won't do anything to help you freeze the motion of a moving subject.  It only helps to prevent blur from camera shake.  

For pure quality for the price, the F4 (no IS) is hard to beat at around $700.  It seems absurd that the IS version is $1200.  Hard choice.

You might also consider Sigma or Tamron.  Tamron has a 70-200mm F2.8 for about $700 and Sigma has one with F2.8 and OS (their version of IS) for $1400.  (B&H).

A great wildlife lens that has great image quality, is the 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 L IS.  It's expensive at $1600, and it's an old(ish) push-pull type zoom....but the quality is excellent.  Not so great for sports as the max aperture is only F4.5-5.6.

There are plenty of lenses in the 70-300mm range.  Canon has a couple that start at less than $200, plus similar options from Sigma & Tamron.  These ones aren't great, but there are versions with IS, OS & VC.   Besides being better because of the stabilization, they seem to have better overall quality.  They do cost more, of course.  
I think it's probably fair to say that generally, the 70-200mm lenses are far and away better than the 70-300mm lenses.


----------



## jbags (Nov 25, 2011)

Ok, I know that this does not relate to my first post, but what is the function above "ON" on the power switch on the canon 50D for? I looked in the manual, but it did not help me out much. Does anyone know what it does?Thanks


----------

