Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Upgrading from 1000D : 550D or 50D or 60D or 7D?

S

soamz

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jun 20, 2010
705
8
Orissa, India
Hi..
Im using a 1000D right now and photography is just my hobby.
Lens owned : Canon 50mm f1.8 , Sigma 70-300mm APO DG, Canon 18-55mm IS.

It serves all of purpose. Just need to upgrade the body.

My Subjects : Wildlife, Birds (A LOT) , Moving cars, Indoor Portraits , Indoor ceremony, Product photography indoor, still cars, landscape, beaches (A LOT) and outdoor portraits(A LOT), Sunrise and sunset, etc.


So, I have shortlisted the Canon 50D, 550D, 60D and 7D.

7D is totally out of my budget, but if its a good deal with my existing lens collection, then I can become a street beggar to get this . Not sure, if the 7D will work the best with the Sigma 70-300APO DG or not, as I have heard people saying, for 7D and up, we need L lenses to do good.

50D is getting out of my list,as I have heard, it doesnt perform well on high ISO and low light. Only thing, I love in it its metal body and ergonomics.

60D : I was expecting a lot from it, but stupid Canon shattered everything by making it plastic body and with lower fps that 50D even.

550D : It comes in my budget and I think, it can perform with my existing lens collection..


====================

So, now I need suggestions from you guys, that if 550D is going to perform perfect for the above subjects mentioned or should I start begging for 7D ?
 
Dont want to buy an used thing..

Need a new body, as Im going to use it for next 4-5 years.

And I cant think of full frame right now, as Im just a amateur photographer and not at all at a professional level .
 
I have the 50D. And i love it. My mother even dropped it accidentally from around 1meter off the ground on concrete and only had 1 little scratch thats barely visible. Not counting the 7D the 50D has the best burst rate of the others you mentioned.
I would've got the 7D if i had the money but it was like 500-600euros more here in serbia. Either way i highly recommend the 50D if you don't want to beg for the 7D. The downside is you don't have video recording on the 50D.
Also go to the shop and try the cameras. Because the weight is really different and the sizes to. So you maybe go for the 550D for the smaller body.
I recently got the 70-200L f2.8. That + battery grip on the 50D is quite heavy :)
 
Thanks bro for your reply.

But 50D doesnt perform well on high ISO and also no video.

I need something like all in one..
 
If you need video and nothing else, and the other options don't seem worth the money to you/are beyond your budget, then go for the 550D and save up for better lenses for birding and lighting equipment for portraits.

I don't see why you need high ISO performance for most of what you shoot, though, unless you're restricted to available light for your indoor stuff.
 
The Super Rebel/550XL (60D) does not have many advantages over the normal rebel (550D). They both lack micro adjust, they both do video, they both have 18 MP, they both have a 9 AF points, they are both plastic. The only advantages that the 60D has is more advanced metering, cross type AF points and size.

Get the 550D and take the money saved to get a flash and a better beamer to help with your bird photography.
 
Thanks bro..
Your post just made me strong!

I also think the same ..
Canon should have called the 60D as 600D, rather than a 60D.

I was expecting it with all the features of 50D, but Canon just betrayed.

Full of Win said:
The Super Rebel/550XL (60D) does not have many advantages over the normal rebel (550D). They both lack micro adjust, they both do video, they both have 18 MP, they both have a 9 AF points, they are both plastic. The only advantages that the 60D has is more advanced metering, cross type AF points and size.

Get the 550D and take the money saved to get a flash and a better beamer to help with your bird photography.
Click to expand...
 
550D or 60D.

everyone who thinks a 60D is just a glorified 550D obviously thinks a 30D is just a 350D, or a 40D is just a 450D. it makes no sense. period.

and while I'm here, there's nothing to question about plastic's durability. Rebels have been dropped while skydiving without shattering to pieces.
 
toxic said:
everyone who thinks a 60D is just a glorified 550D obviously thinks a 30D is just a 350D, or a 40D is just a 450D. it makes no sense. period.
Click to expand...
Obivously. I guess you are not counting the number of professional photographers who value the extra stability a magnesium alloy body gives them and not having to worry about sending in every lens they want to use for calibration if they happen to be out in the field without access to an authorized Canon service point.

Beyond that, there is also the quote from a Canon official saying that they will meet the mass-market demand for smaller, lighter DSLRs.
and while I'm here, there's nothing to question about plastic's durability. Rebels have been dropped while skydiving without shattering to pieces.
Click to expand...
Rebel or Rebels? I doubt all of them would be as lucky as the one that is always talked about.
 
With the subjects you describe, it sounds to me like you're after an xxD camera, specifically for the higher number of frames/sec & the more advanced autofocus.

Personally, I shoot a lot of the stuff you mentioned with a 40D, & I'm perfectly happy with it. If you're not making huge prints (bigger than A3) then it should do everything you need, and you should be able to find factory refurbished cameras like this one with a one year warranty without too much trouble for a lot less than a new 50D or 60D.

The 50D is a fine camera too; it's pretty much a 15mp version of the 40D. Of course there is more pixel-level noise than the 40D as it has 33% more of them, but when final images from the two cameras are compared at the same size there's less than 1/3 stop of difference between the two.

If you need video then the 60D is pretty much your default camera...
 
Personally, I would ditch your lenses and get better glass. A new body alone won't get you that much better IQ. I just don't see the point in a new body with entry level glass. No offense. If you need lighting fast AF, you will probably need fast glass to match, as well as fast focusing lenses...
 
HBOC said:
Personally, I would ditch your lenses and get better glass. A new body alone won't get you that much better IQ. I just don't see the point in a new body with entry level glass. No offense. If you need lighting fast AF, you will probably need fast glass to match, as well as fast focusing lenses...
Click to expand...
Seconded, any camera benefits from good lenses.

You can start by replacing your 18-55 mm kit lens by, say, Tamron's 17-50 mm f/2.8 and then get a macro lens and an external flash. You could also think about getting a fast ~30 mm prime lens.
 
HBOC said:
Personally, I would ditch your lenses and get better glass. A new body alone won't get you that much better IQ. I just don't see the point in a new body with entry level glass. No offense. If you need lighting fast AF, you will probably need fast glass to match, as well as fast focusing lenses...
Click to expand...

Surprised it's taken this many posts for this piece of good advice to come up. While the 1000D is basic entry level, upgrading to better quality lenses will do a lot more to improve your photos than getting a new camera body right now and bolting on your existing lenses. Especially as there is not a camera body out there that jumps out at you as being particularly appealing and ticks all the boxes for you. A lot of what you like to photograph - portraits, products, landscapes won't benefit from a camera with a high burst rate fps slightly puzzled why you would even mention that in one of your posts.

I think you will notice a much bigger improvement in sharpness of photos and speed of focus if you invested in something like a Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS USM (or non-IS if this is out of budget). As you do a lot of indoor photography portraits and products, you don't really need to shoot at high ISOs if you can mount camera on tripod and use a slower shutter speed and/or wider aperture. It might also, as has been suggested, be worth investing in and learning how to use a flashgun (I am assuming you don't already have one) a Speedlite 430EX is not expensive and coupled with a reflector disc will greatly enhance portraits and product photography. Indoor photography at events etc will be better if you are allowed to use and know how to control flash rather than rely on ramping up the ISO.

Money is always a finite resource for most of us, sometimes you need to think a little laterally to work out how best to get more out of your photography. In most cases, unless you're working with an ancient body, investing in lenses is better than investing in a new body. I'm still using my 450D but couple it with L lenses (24-105mm f/4 L and a 70-200mm f/4 L) - by comparison a friend started with a 450D, then upgraded to a 500D and then upgraded to a 550D with a Tamron 28-300mm f3.5 - 5.6 lens (or something) photos taken with new bodies are no better and often worse than those taken with my old 450D but with better lenses.
 
HBOC said:
Personally, I would ditch your lenses and get better glass. A new body alone won't get you that much better IQ. I just don't see the point in a new body with entry level glass. No offense. If you need lighting fast AF, you will probably need fast glass to match, as well as fast focusing lenses...
Click to expand...

My taughts too.
 
Since the OP mentioned video, maybe this is the place to ask something that I have wondered about for a while: relevance of ability of a DSLR to shoot video. If you're buying a serious (or reasonably serious) camera for digital still photography, why would its ability to shoot video be a factor in your decision?

If you're serious about shooting video, wouldn't you buy a dedicated video camera? And if you're not, isn't the HD video in, say, an iPhone enough?

I can see that other things being equal (including cost) it's a nice-to-have but otherwise it's a gimmick IMHO. Or am I wrong about that - do people on here actually use the video function on their DSLR?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back