# another what camera thread...



## Iain Sutherland (14 Aug 2013)

Hey all, ive just got back from a wedding in France and while there i borrowed my housemates 600D which i use for my tank images.  Having spent a little more time using id really like to get my own.  So the time has come to decide on what.

As my friend has the canon with a host of lenses it make sense to follow suit so lenses can be shared.
I have found the 600d with 18-55 lense for £489 which seems very reasonable but now ive been looking around a bit im wondering if it would be worth going for the likes of the 7D to future proof myself somewhat and save an upgrade 6-12 months down the line like my housemate now want to do?

7D comes in around £985 with a 18-120 lense so twice the price, would it be worth the extra £££??

Any opinions would be much appreciated folks


----------



## BigTom (14 Aug 2013)

The thing to bear in mind here is that most of the advantages of the 7D over the 600D boil down to things like ergonomics, build quality, weather sealing, autofocus speed, etc. Actual image quality will probably be very similar to the 600D the majority of the time. I'd always recommend getting a 'lesser' body and better lenses over blowing your entire budget on a body and kit lens. However, if you've cash to splash and getting a better body won't compromise your choice of lenses and other equipment down the line then there's no reason not to consider the 7D.


----------



## George Farmer (14 Aug 2013)

Hi Iain

I don't think you'll see any improvement in image quality from 600D to 7D. They're basically the same sensor. I'd choose the 600D. 7D is a more rugged beast with a great burst frame rate - ideal for birds and sports etc. For general stuff and aquatics the 7D offers no real advantage IMO.

In the longer term, I can't recommend going full-frame enough. The difference in overall IQ is incredible, and the real game changer is high ISO performance.

If you look at my latest scape in my Signature journal (black neons), that was ISO 3200. No noise whatsoever. 

High ISO means we can shoot with a good DoF, fast shutter speed - two essential factors for decent full tank shots unless you're using strobes or mega tank lighting.

So, my advice is to save for a used 5D2, or 6D with the savings you'll make from choosing the 600D over the 7D.

You won't regret it and you are at a standard now where you will reap the benefits.


----------



## George Farmer (14 Aug 2013)

Posted same time as Tom!

Definitely second the notion of investing in decent glass.


----------



## Aquadream (14 Aug 2013)

I have 600D and when it comes to aquarium photography is useless. Small sensor, a lot of noise on high ISO.
Look for something with a full frame sensor, even second hand.


----------



## BigTom (14 Aug 2013)

Aquadream said:


> I have 600D and when it comes to aquarium photography is useless. Small sensor, a lot of noise on high ISO.
> Look for something with a full frame sensor, even second hand.


 
I think that's a little disingenuous. With some gentle noise cleaning I can get good results at 1600 and 3200 with my GH2 which shows more noise than a 600D. While going full frame will undeniably give some improvements I'd suggest looking at the rest of your technique and post processing methods if you can't get useable images out of a 600D.

The 6D is very impressive, but even a 5DII wouldn't be a night-and-day difference at high ISO.

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review


----------



## jacaranda (14 Aug 2013)

You could go second hand and get a 40d body for ~£200 and spend the rest of your budget on some nice glass. (That's where the image quality is) If all you want to do is take nice pics and arnt fussed about the extra features (video mainly) then there is no point spending too much on a body. The xxd bodies feel nice in the hand they have a good build quality.


----------



## Spartacus (15 Aug 2013)

If your looking for second hand photography gear have a look at MPB Photographic - Buy Used Canon & Used Nikon Digital SLR Cameras, Lenses & More

They are a shop that offers gear at the condition stated if not higher with a waranty.

Have used them many times in the past buying and selling and have been happy.

I personally have a 5D Mark 2 and its a brilliant camera - Just need to work on my own skills lol 

Best wishes!


----------



## Aquadream (15 Aug 2013)

BigTom said:


> I think that's a little disingenuous. With some gentle noise cleaning I can get good results at 1600 and 3200 with my GH2 which shows more noise than a 600D. While going full frame will undeniably give some improvements I'd suggest looking at the rest of your technique and post processing methods if you can't get useable images out of a 600D.
> 
> The 6D is very impressive, but even a 5DII wouldn't be a night-and-day difference at high ISO.
> 
> Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review


 If you make small pictures noise cleaning maybe ok. But for large prints is useless. And for small pictures for the internet I have an old Sony 5.1M that works great. Iphone is even better.
My 600D even have sensor missalignment. I can never get the correct geometry out of my tank when the camera is placed right in the middle of it.
5DII makes images at ISO 1250 noise free where 600D can do that at 200 only. It seems to me way better option if one can afford it.


----------



## clonitza (15 Aug 2013)

Iain I'd wait for 70D that comes with a neat LCD autofocusing system that beats the crap out of the old point-wait-20s-to-focus-then-shoot system.



Cheers,
Mike


----------



## RolyMo (15 Aug 2013)

I shoot with a 30d and I have the kit lens and a prime 50 lens. 

Firstly Canon's colour representation are more pleasing to me. But it's not manufacturer  discussion. 

I agree with some of the previous posters it is the ergonomics. However condider the more heavier camera are you going to take it less because its bigger and more heavier?

Having shot for 12 years with that one camera and a number of weddings there are a few things that make difference. 

1. Knowing your camera. Being able to properly work it, knowing its nuances, how it's going to work in different situations so you can compensate is important. 
2. It's you that makes the difference. How you frame the shot wether you have a 600d, a 1d or even an iPhone. Understanding what you are shooting, the light conditions (the most important thing) and composition all make the difference. I sometimes get some stunning shots on my iPhone which suddenly get loads of likes on FB because of the composition. 
3. It's all about the glass. Well not quite because point 2 is more important. But having rented certain L (pro) canon lenses for weddings they add to the wow factor and produce a more aesthetically pleasing shots. The speed of the L lenses I hired allowed me to shoot indoors with no flash or light boxes etc. 
4. The first accessory I bought after the camera was a top mounted flash. I had great fun learning to shoot with that. Because learning about light is so very important. I love bouncing the flash into a ceiling which the illuminates the scene in say a dance floor and captures the subject but does not have the bleached white effect of front facing flash. You might want to consider a side bracket mounted flash if you are that inclined.  

I am no pro like some of the people on this forum, but having been the photographer at some weddings puts the pressure and makes you learn quickly.  

If you can get the body only and spend the money on a faster lens that is suitable for what you are shooting. Also buy a nifty fifty prime lens.  £40-50. This is fast lens can be used indoors without a flash and teaches you move around rather than reply on the zoom of a lens. 

My 30d is still a cracking camera but I take it our less and less because it big and heavy. 
Roly


----------



## RolyMo (15 Aug 2013)

Blimey sorry for all the bad grammar, incorrect words and spellings. Bad iPhone!!!


----------



## BigTom (15 Aug 2013)

Spartacus said:


> If your looking for second hand photography gear have a look at MPB Photographic - Buy Used Canon & Used Nikon Digital SLR Cameras, Lenses & More
> 
> They are a shop that offers gear at the condition stated if not higher with a waranty.
> 
> ...


 
I'd also recommend looking at second hand gear, but I wouldn't pay dealer prices; talkphotography forum has a good active members market, I've bought and sold plenty of stuff on there. http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/



Aquadream said:


> 5DII makes images at ISO 1250 noise free where 600D can do that at 200 only.


 
That simply isn't true. Here's a 100% crop from a 600D and a 5D2, both at ISO1600, after a similar amount of noise removal and sharpening.







Is one better than the other? Yes OK, slightly. Is there are a difference that anyone would notice unless explicitly pixel peeping? Not in the slightest.

For the difference in price, someone could buy a set of off-camera flashes, tripod, light boxes, and some very nice wide-aperture glass, all of which will make a 1000% bigger difference to the final images than what body it was shot with.


----------



## Aquadream (15 Aug 2013)

BigTom said:


> I'd also recommend looking at second hand gear, but I wouldn't pay dealer prices; talkphotography forum has a good active members market, I've bought and sold plenty of stuff on there. http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Well then my 600D must be faulty or a crap copy. I can never get pics at ISO1600 without noise. And a lot of it.
This is how I chose to buy the 600D in the first place, by looking at this very same images.
In reality however the studio tricks do not work with most folks.
Also these "similar" amounts of noise removal and sarpening do you have any idea how similar they are?
Because if what you say is true then what is the meaning of FF apart from wider angle of view?

The question is this.
Can we compare the 5DII and 600D at the same settings, ISO, shutter ect..., with the same lens, and then compare uncompressed, unprocessed samples of their shots and see if they are so similar at all.
I have the 600D for over 2 years by now and i know for sure that there can not be a comparrison, unless we attach a big pc to process the pictures.
But I am not talking about processing pictures in here. I am talking about the shear pleasure of taking pictures that have no need to be processed and still look very good.
Canon 600D CAN NOT DO THAT. Period.


----------



## BigTom (15 Aug 2013)

Aquadream said:


> Well then my 600D must be faulty or a crap copy. I can never get pics at ISO1600 without noise. And a lot of it.
> This is how I chose to buy the 600D in the first place, by looking at this very same images.
> In reality however the studio tricks do not work with most folks.
> Also these "similar" amounts of noise removal and sarpening do you have any idea how similar they are?
> ...


 

That's precisely the point of the dpreview sample images - to compare sensor performance equally. The above samples were taken from the full size, unprocessed RAW files that dpreview provide, and I processed them myself for noise and sharpening.

This was done just by using the colour and luminance noise sliders in Adobe Camera RAW converter (part of photoshop), then sharpened using unsharp mask in photoshop after cropping. All I did was move 2 sliders for noise reduction and afterwards 2 sliders for sharpening until I was happy with the balance between noise and detail.

It takes less than 30 seconds per image and requires very little processing power. It's just about the simplest and easiest bit of processing you can imagine; if you consider that too much work then I don't think digital photography is really for you.

It is certainly highly misleading to someone looking to start out in photography to claim that a current-generation sensor is unable to produce useable images at ISO1600/3200, even the entry level cameras are very good in this respective these days compared to a few years ago.

There is little difference between the 5D2 and the 600D after processing, partly because the 5D2 is using a previous generation of sensor, so the comparison is unfair in that respect; you would see a bigger difference if comparing the 600D and 6D. But a 6D costs £1450 for the body, compared to £350 for a 600D - that £1100 extra can buy you an awful lot of other equipment which will make far more of a difference.

If Iain can afford the extra then hell, no reason not to jump straight into full frame, but to claim he won't be able to get good results with a 600D, just because your technique is lacking is plain wrong.


----------



## Aquadream (15 Aug 2013)

BigTom said:


> That's precisely the point of the dpreview sample images - to compare sensor performance equally. The above samples were taken from the full size, unprocessed RAW files that dpreview provide, and I processed them myself for noise and sharpening.
> 
> This was done just by using the colour and luminance noise sliders in Adobe Camera RAW converter (part of photoshop), then sharpened using unsharp mask in photoshop after cropping. All I did was move 2 sliders for noise reduction and afterwards 2 sliders for sharpening until I was happy with the balance between noise and detail.
> 
> ...


 This is the thing. I am not a pro photographer. I am an amator. And as such I do not wish to be bothered with processing.
I do not aim for just useable images that will need to be pampered later. Of course there will be probably useable images at "250000 or 1000000 ISO" and so on and so forward.
So when you recommend any camera to anybody you should forget your point of view and ask those peeps if they would like a camera that will not need any post processing at all or if they would not mind messing with computers later.
Comparing cameras after a post processing is like comparing comfort of driving cars on the movie screen.


----------



## BigTom (15 Aug 2013)

Aquadream said:


> Because if what you say is true then what is the meaning of FF apart from wider angle of view?


 
Sorry, missed this bit.

There is more to a camera than it's sensor, and more to sensor performance than simple signal to noise ratio. FF will have better tonal range, dynamic range and colour sensitivity. You can see DxO charts for these here - DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

But you also need good lenses and excellent technique (both behind the camera and in post processing) to really make the most of these advantages, and as mentioned they come with a hefty price tag.


----------



## BigTom (15 Aug 2013)

Aquadream said:


> This is the thing. I am not a pro photographer. I am an amator. And as such I do not wish to be bothered with processing.
> I do not aim for just useable images that will need to be pampered later. Of course there will be probably useable images at "250000 or 1000000 ISO" and so on and so forward.
> So when you recommend any camera to anybody you should forget your point of view and ask those peeps if they would like a camera that will not need any post processing at all or if they would not mind messing with computers later.
> Comparing cameras after a post processing is like comparing comfort of driving cars on the movie screen.


 

Post processing technique is absolutely crucial to digital photography, in my opinion. It's also very easy to learn (there are a staggering amount of free resources online) and I also find I enjoy it.

But if you do not want to any at all, then that is obviously your preference and you will need to look at JPEG samples, not RAWs when comparing cameras. And because you will not be able to extract the most from whatever sensor your camera has then yes, you may struggle in some situations. But spending an extra £1000 to avoid 30 seconds per image processing? - you must be a richer man than me


----------



## Iain Sutherland (15 Aug 2013)

Apologies for the late reply guys, been busy after the time off followed by two powercuts, one for 2 hours and one for 6 so shrimp werent happy and required my attention, hopefuly all is well now.



BigTom said:


> The thing to bear in mind here is that most of the advantages of the 7D over the 600D boil down to things like ergonomics, build quality, weather sealing, autofocus speed, etc. Actual image quality will probably be very similar to the 600D the majority of the time. I'd always recommend getting a 'lesser' body and better lenses over blowing your entire budget on a body and kit lens. However, if you've cash to splash and getting a better body won't compromise your choice of lenses and other equipment down the line then there's no reason not to consider the 7D.


 
thanks for that tom, i figured the image quality wouldnt be a vast improvement (i guess the man behind the camera is what makes the biggest difference so need all the help i can get!) but was thinking that maybe the extra bells and whistles may be worth the extra, glass wise i have a good selection available from my housemate already and he is buying a couple of L series lenses in the near future,  I'm very lucky that he is so generous with his gear already.



George Farmer said:


> Hi Iain
> 
> So, my advice is to save for a used 5D2, or 6D with the savings you'll make from choosing the 600D over the 7D.
> 
> ...


 
cheers George, in all honesty i hadnt considered the 5d2 so will find some time to have a look around for them, quick google shows around the £1250 mark which is within the budget so well worth consideration.  Given my knowledge of camera tech its all very confusing at the moment so your advise and others is very welcome indeed.  I guess one of my main considerations, aside still quality is good quality movie abilities, im very grawn to macro pics and that i would like to buy once and not have itchy feet 12 months down the line, saying that i think the 5d 6d range may tick those boxes more that entry level models.



Aquadream said:


> I have 600D and when it comes to aquarium photography is useless. Small sensor, a lot of noise on high ISO.
> Look for something with a full frame sensor, even second hand.


 
Appreciate the opinion aqua, think that may be a little harsh as ive seen a lot of quality images from lower level cameras, even compacts. However the recommendation of full frame sensor is certainly worth a little more of my time to investigate.



jacaranda said:


> You could go second hand and get a 40d body for ~£200 and spend the rest of your budget on some nice glass. (That's where the image quality is) If all you want to do is take nice pics and arnt fussed about the extra features (video mainly) then there is no point spending too much on a body. The xxd bodies feel nice in the hand they have a good build quality.


Cheers jac but movie is a strong draw for me at the moment.  I'm also very nervous about second hand technology, especially fragile kit like a camera...

Roly, some great opinions there so thanks a lot and am under no disillusion that a better camera will make me a better photographer, only way to achieve that is taking plenty of pics and learn as much as possible from mistakes (of which there are plenty!)



clonitza said:


> Yes everybody does billboards these days Aquadream.  Stop complaining so much dude, you are getting really annoying.
> 
> Iain I'd wait for 70D that comes with a neat LCD autofocusing system that beats the crap out of the old point-wait-20s-to-focus-then-shoot system.
> 
> ...


 
This looks like an interesting proposition mike, i hadnt seen this until now so will be added to the list for comparision.  It certainly looks like a good addition.


As far as image processing goes, i find it astonishing and intriguing what can be achieved with a few tweaks.  In now way do i have much of a comprehension what most of it does or how to use it but am of the camp that it is an invaluable tool and something i would like to learn more about as i continue to try and develop my skills as a DSLR user.  Certainly a good amount of the wedding photos from my holiday on first look were far from impressive but having imported to photoshop im actually quite chuffed with some of them.

At the moment i thinking the 5D2 would tick a lot of boxes and provide all i could need for a good while, prices are pretty decent and reviews shining.  The trouble is that being entry level as i am its quite difficult to get my head around what is a pro and what is a con and its certainly easy to miss something that i may regret later down the line.

All your advise is very welcome folks and will all go a long way to helping make a decision.
You guys rock


----------



## RolyMo (15 Aug 2013)

Second the 5dmk2
But I have not kept abreast of Canon releases since then.


----------



## Aquadream (15 Aug 2013)

Iain Sutherland said:


> Appreciate the opinion aqua, think that may be a little harsh as ive seen a lot of quality images from lower level cameras, even compacts. However the recommendation of full frame sensor is certainly worth a little more of my time to investigate.


In the end of the day it all comes down to a budget and a target. How much one wants for their money and how much they can really get.
I personally got the 600D, because it can make farely good video, better than most camcoders can. When it comes to pictures I wish it was a FF, because the crop sensor of my 600D does not allow me to get the best out my manual Nikkor lenses.
However there is the Magic Lantern software that can help you achieve some little miracles with 600D if you are up for playing with it.
Good luck with your choise.


----------

