Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hey,

Currently i have a 2 year old Canon Rebel with the kit lens and an extra battery,

I wanted to upgrade my camera to a mid-end SLR. My budget is from 500 to 600. What camera do you u think i should go for. I was thinking doing between nikon or cannon. i have no lens to tie me down to the two yet but the price is a major factor- im a university student so i dont want to break the bank.

Thanks for your help.

One question to ask yourself, what are you going to be able to achieve by going with a slightly newer body? If you struggle to find an answer, might be better to save your money and stick with what you have now and use that money instead for better glass.

This is the best piece of advice you can get.

Unfortunately, for $500-600 you will be looking at a lower end model like the Canon Rebel XS or XSi or Nikon D3000 unless you get a used body. To me a mid-end body would be the Canon 7D or Nikon D300s which are closer to $2,000.

Mike

Just from the little bit of info you posted you have no good reason to upgrade a 2 year old body other than wanting something new. With the budget limit you have right now you'll just end up buying the exact same thing you have except that it is 2 years newer but not exactly better.

DSLRs have become something that folks want to upgrade every time a new model has been released. Like cell phones, Macs, iPods, etc., just to get the 'latest and greatest'.

Yeah that's very true

But from my experience if you upgrade to a much better model then you will avoid the temptation longer I had the Rebel XT and decided to upgrade to the 40D and have been very happy for more than 2 years now. So if you do decide to upgrade I would recommend that you upgrade to a higher end model like the Canon 50D or Nikon D90.

Since you said you only have the kit lens, I would think getting a longer lens to see if you enjoy that kind of photography might be an option, and it will generally fall into your budget for longer zooms than the 18-55 kits.

I'm going to use that logic to explain why I upgraded from a 20D to 5Dmk2.

by that logic, everyone should get the 1DsMkIII

+2 to lenses....The biggest improvement comes from lenses.

I've just upgraded my XSI with 2 L lenses, now I can shoot at ISO1600, I bet you know what I mean

Going from the 18-55/3.5-5.6 to a 35/1.4 or 30/1.4 will give you greater improvement of image quality vs upgrading to only a slightly better body.

That's a 3 stop improvement in low-light and the difference btwn shooting iso 3200 vs iso 400.

I don't see any $500- body out there that can give you a 3 stop improvement.

You'll never go back to non-L lenses after you mount a 35L onto your camera.

^ True for me as well!

Sure, yet my point was that it's not the body limiting the use of high iso speeds due to unreal noise in amateur grade DSLRs, it's the lens glass quality that gets you details, which the sensor in the body doesn't have to guess anymore. Don't forget that with 1.4 you only get a very shallow depth of field, which also reduces details in areas out of focus. ISO and aperture work together, not against each other, it's the photographer who has to make a decision

At that point price becomes a big factor.

actually a better strategy would be to 'buy once, buy well'. Of course, I'm exaggerating when recommending that we all get 1DsMkIII. But, for intermediate beginners, people who have owned compact cameras before and have exhausted its capabilities, it is surely quite a waste to buy the cheapest entry level camera, only to have to buy something better when the entry level dSLR becomes a limiting factor in about a year.

Of course, the 'art' snobs will say it's not the gear that counts, but the technique. And to an extent I agree, but it's hard to carve a statue in marble if all you have is a butter knife.

Getting back to the OP's question, I think for a $500-600 budget, he's probably better off saving that money for something. That alone isn't going to get you a nice L lens, maybe a used L lens, only one I can think of is a 17-40L and even that, it's still a bit more than $600.

yeah, for that kind of money, he'd be better off buying a flash or two, and/or picking up some accessories to bring that flash off-camera.

wait. do we know what kind of photography he does?

What are you shooting that requires you to upgrade and spend the money?

Do you need to upgrade because you need a faster AF? More FPS? Better high ISO IQ?

If your answer is no to all the above then you don't really need to upgrade.

Actually, your post was sufficiently vague that you could be arguing anything.

I'm still not sure what your argument is at this point.

I am sorry, all I said was get a decent lens instead of new body

Alright,

Well i think i may purchase a lens first and then see where it takes me. The kit lens shows alot of limitations so i want to upgrade it.

I am also having a problem with my camera- i am having 3 faded dots- in the same places appear on my pictures. I have a feeling that this is on the sensor but am not sure- how do i go about resolving this problem.

As for the lens i would like one that is able to zoom a decent amount because i take photograph of people a fair but at family functions and all. However, since i will only be able to purchase one lens would like it to be used here and there for some landscape- but it doesnt need to be a wide zoom- more so though i am looking for a lens that has decent zoom and something that will make me like my rebel even more.

1) Clean your sensor. Many ways to do that. Hit the search button.
2) Used 17-55 IS on craigslist.

if you're looking for a lens, for that money, it is hard to find something that is a zoom lens that will make you like your camera more. Even something like the EF-S 15-85

It'd have to be a pretty beat up used 17-55 to fit his budget

Unfortunately what you're looking at is considered a super telephoto lens, like Canon's or Sigma's 18-200. You get great flexibility with this particular lens but image quality is sacrificed across the entire range.

What lens do you have right now? 18-55 kits lens?

The 18-200 may be the lense you're looking for. Don't know what kind of IQ it produces on the Canon side. The Nikon's 18-200VR is an all around lense that produces great images and is awesome for general photography.

this quote needs to be embroidered onto a pillow and sold by the masses.

i too, have always agreed that 'the photographer' can only go so far.