1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

New Canon DSLR.....which one?

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by nantucket66, 12 Sep 2013.

  1. nantucket66

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 25 Jun 2005

    Posts: 1,011

    I used to own a 400D, had a couple of lenses, standard kit 18-55mm, 50mm 1.8 and the 24-105mm. However I sold all of this to a friend about 3 years ago and have been without ever since. Fast forward to today.....we're expecting our first baby.

    I want to buy another Canon (baby not due until the end of February, no mad rush to buy next week or anything, as long as we have it by January).

    The question is which one? The range has obviously changed and am unsure what's what.

    600D/700D/60D/70D?

    It's pretty much going to be for baby, family days out etc. The 6D and 7D are more than I want to spend.

    Will start with a good all round IS II lens plus the 50mm 1.8 and add others as and when I feel the need.

    Ideally I'd like something better than the 400D was (using the 50mm 1.8 as an example lens as I used to have one).

    Thoughts?
     
  2. ajf

    Mobster

    Joined: 30 Oct 2006

    Posts: 2,979

    Location: Worcestershire, UK

    If it was me I'd go for the new 70D.
    Reviews are very favourable, the new AF system is supposed to be excellent and the video features are also more advanced than any of the others which would potentially be useful if you want to record the early years of your baby.
    You also get the more general 'pro' customising and layout over the xxxD range.
    I got a 600D last year as a replacement for a 350D and in hindsight really should have gone for the then current 60D.

    Not sure what lenses others would suggest but I would look at the 24-105 F4 IS. Very good quality, useful range and the advantage of IS. Mpbphotographic have several used at good proces.
     
  3. Janesy B

    Caporegime

    Joined: 19 Apr 2008

    Posts: 25,564

    70D + EF-S 17-55 f/2.8.
     
  4. a1ex2001

    Capodecina

    Joined: 14 Mar 2005

    Posts: 14,019

    Location: Here and There...

    If it was me I'd go Nikon at the minute with a clean start.

    Beyond that what ever you go for look second hand you will get alot more camera for your money the 40D is an absolute bargain second hand and would leave you plenty of money for some quality glass like the Canon 17-55mm f2.8.
     
  5. theheyes

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 17 Jan 2007

    Posts: 8,945

    Location: Manchester

    Do you want video?
     
  6. CGrieves

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 25 Oct 2002

    Posts: 1,995

    Location: Sarf Lahndahn

    If buying new, 70D is what I'd go for if you're happy with a crop sensor. Going forward, I'd try and stick to f2.8 zooms if it were me, there are quality general purpose zooms available for not ridiculous cash.

    If you're looking secondhand, then as mentioned the 40D is a bargain. I'd pay the extra few quid and get the 50D though (I own both bodies). No video though unless you install Magic Lantern on the 50D (which is easy), but it has no mic.
     
  7. 413x

    Capodecina

    Joined: 13 Jan 2010

    Posts: 22,287

    Location: Llaneirwg

    I would have gone nikon too if my partner wasn'taalready committed to canon
    The 70d is 400 more than the 60d, if you don't need video af I can't see why you would get it over the d7100 if you are restarting
     
  8. An Exception

    Soldato

    Joined: 8 Aug 2010

    Posts: 6,443

    Location: Oxfordshire

    If I was starting out again (and on a budget) I would actually get an Olympus OMD E-M1 or E-M5 or a Fuji XE1.

    If I was starting again now personally though, I would be tempted with a Leica M 240 but I would likely wait for the full frame NEX that is just around the corner. The leaked lenses on offer are a bit of a disappointment though (35mm 2.8), but you could get the voigtlander 35mm F1.2ii while waiting for a decent Sony option.
    Tbh I'm not sure how long DSLR's have left for the non telephoto shooters.
     
    Last edited: 13 Sep 2013
  9. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 31,493

    I'm surprised you would go for a m4/3 system with your DoF desires?


    TBH, the larger sensored/FF DSLRs is proably the place to be for wide-normal fats primes for every day shooting.
    Smaller sensored cameras really make more sense for the telephoto crow - a 400mm f/2.8 is just obscene in every way


    Mirrorless so far really makes sense for the casual shooters and those that want to go light. I love my e-pm2 when going fast and light in the mountains but when I want to do something serious there is just no comparison. And if a mirrorless camera has a larger sensor then ihaving a smaller body just makes less and less sense because the lenses get bigger and bigger.
    Most of the complaints of the mirror-less cameras is that they just get really unbalanced with bigger lenses.

    Although i do see the appeal of an RX1 type camera for street work I don't see why you would be interested in such a thing for wedding work?

    And it is a brave call claiming that DSLRs, in form factor, have a limited lifetime. For sure the mirror will go at some point but cameras the size and weight of the D800 to D4 will still be around as long as the sensors are that big. 3 years ago the mirrorless crowd were prediction that mirror less sales would swallow up most DSLR sales by now. The reality sales quickly levelled and are now dropping, while DSLR sales are increasing. Olympus and Panasonic have massively cut sales forecasts and growth expectations. Canon have seemingly given up on Mirrorless (some lenses and M cameras models wont even be sold in the US or Europe!) and the Nikon 1 is hardly much healthier. Nex sales are also much reduces from earlier Sony predictions.

    http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/mirrorless-problems-continu.html

     
    Last edited: 13 Sep 2013
  10. An Exception

    Soldato

    Joined: 8 Aug 2010

    Posts: 6,443

    Location: Oxfordshire

    I know, it's the only thing stopping me dumping all my dslr gear now. If oly released a larger ff equivalent to the e-m1 I'd swap.

    The RX1 is appealing/tempting but not something I would use professionally, or even buy.

    Add the following to an RX1 style body though, and it would be a different story.
    -Same contrast AF & phase AF as E-M1
    -Same 5 axis IBIS as E-M1
    -Fast way to change focus points
    -Nice big EVF

    Personally I doubt I'll still be shooting DSLR's by the time the D900 is released.
     
  11. --- Z ---

    Hitman

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 907

    Location: Andover, Hampshire

    Well, here is my thought.

    Starting new and you want it for baby and family stuff. You relly want soemthing small and light, so why not the new Canon 100D - its the smallest of it class, and then look at say a 17-40 f4 lens, great combo and light as well (i know the lens will be a little heavy but you cant have it all)
     
  12. An Exception

    Soldato

    Joined: 8 Aug 2010

    Posts: 6,443

    Location: Oxfordshire

    Better off with olympus omd with a couple of fast primes.
    Or Fuji for that matter with a 35 1.4
     
  13. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 31,493

    Canon 100D is nice but why on earth would you pair it with the 17-40mm f/4.0??? Slow aperture, heavy and short zoom range, makes no sense on a crop at all when you have the following:

    Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
    Sigma/Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
    Canon 15-85mm f/5.6 IS

    and the grand daddy of them all, Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8!
     
  14. nantucket66

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 25 Jun 2005

    Posts: 1,011

    Thanks for the comments - still keen on the Canon route, but will take a proper look at the others mentioned.
     
  15. reygjabla

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 2 Mar 2009

    Posts: 1,653

    Location: London

    Buy a second hand 5D Mark II or better still get a 5D Mark III and a 24-105 F4 IS tandem. That will sort you for a long time.
     
  16. a1ex2001

    Capodecina

    Joined: 14 Mar 2005

    Posts: 14,019

    Location: Here and There...

    Trouble is they'd have to redisgn every single lens and they'd instantly loose the size advatnage they gain from the current sensor sizes. With full frame everything just needs to be bigger unfortunately otherwise i'd be in agreement that the days of the slr are numbered.
     
  17. An Exception

    Soldato

    Joined: 8 Aug 2010

    Posts: 6,443

    Location: Oxfordshire

    Yeh it would be bigger than current m4/3, but mirrorless FF will still be a good amount smaller than DSLR FF, just look at Leica lenses, although I know they don't have AF though, but then sensor focusing will give you AF while still keeping the lens small. Let's see how big the FF nex is in a couple of weeks.
     
  18. a1ex2001

    Capodecina

    Joined: 14 Mar 2005

    Posts: 14,019

    Location: Here and There...

    Interesting times ahead certainly, it will be interesting to see what size they can bring top qulality fast full frame AF primes down to. Like you say small full frame primes are possible the Leica stuff and the old OM fit primes certainly proove that but we've never seen anything with a 1.4 aperture and AF that is small!
     
  19. MichaelHo

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 19 Jan 2006

    Posts: 1,242

    Location: London, UK

    I'm in the same situation as you nantucket66. Have 400D from years ago, I havent had much time for photography over the past 2 years but now have a young family and would love to capture moments with good quality photos.
    I was toying to get 5diii but recently read about Olympus OMD EM1 with their new 12-40 2.8 lens. You should have a read about it might suit your needs.
     
  20. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 31,493


    You keep claiming mirror less lenses can be made smaller than DSLR for the same senor size but I just fail to see that being true for most lenses. You can't just break the laws of physics nor ignore empirical evidence.

    The size and weight of a lens of a function of the image circle, focal length and aperture. Flange distance doesn't directly impact lenses except for lenses with a focal length shorter than the flange distance which need to be retro-focus designs with a little added complexity. The flange distance on Canon and Nikon DSLRs is 44mm & 46.5mm, which is partly why 50mm lenses can be made so small. Mirrrorless cameras have a flange distance at around 18mm, the Samsung is 25mm. The Leica M-mount is 28mm.

    For lenses longer than the flange distance then there is absolutely no size advantage. You want a 100mm lens then the front element will be around 100mm from the sensor. In fact, if the flange is shorter then for longer lenses like you 85mm prime the lens will have to be made physically longer and hence heavier.

    Even for lenses wider than the flange there isn't a huge saving for many lenses. Ultra wide angle lenses will always be complex designs.. Larger sensors do simplify some aspects of UWA lenses but the larger image circle largely negates that.

    Then there is the evidence, just look at the Sony NEX lenses compared to the Alpha lenses for APS-C.
    Sony E (NEX) 18-55mm: 62 x 60 mm, 194g (small win for NEX)
    Sony A 18-55mm: 70 x 69 mm, 210g

    Sony E (NEX) 50mm f/1.8: 62 x 62 mm, 202g Nex is heavier)
    Sony A 50mm f/1.8 DT (FF lens): 70 x 45 mm, 170g

    Sony E 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3: 76x99mm, 524g
    Sony AF DT 18-200 F3.5-6.3 73x85.5mm, 405g (Massive win for the Alpha)




    There is no physical reason why most lens design will be smaller for a mirror less camera, and in fact for most lenses they will have to be made a little bit longer to compensate for the shorter flange distance.

    In fact one sees that with the 18-20mm, the NEX version has to be longer to maintain the same focal length.

    A 35mm prime might be able to be made smaller for a mirrorless FF but that would be about it.


    Looking at Leica lenses is just misleading because they don't auto-focus and are based on older simpler designs. If you look at the longer lenses then they have absolutely no weight saving at all: the 135mm is 450-500g for a measly f/4.0 (f/3.5 some models). In comparison the Nikon 135mm f/3.5 is 409g. Similar build quality, same lack of AF, basic physics dictating that both lenses are about the same size and weight despite the Leica having a shorter flange. There was even a Nikon 135mm f/2.8 made unitl 2005 that was 435g, so you can have a stop faster, at least double the weight of glass in the front element and the same or lighter weight lens.

    Lets look at the 50mm f/1.4, Leica weighs in at 335-460g depending on metal (alu vs brass), The Nikon, 290g in plastic. The Leica is 54x53mm, the nikon 73x54mm. The extra width of the Nikon down to the autofocus motors.

    OK,OK, plastic vs metal, Lets look at the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AI-S in solid brass, no auto focus. 40mm long by 63mm wide and the weight... 248g. SO How has the lack of mirror and shorter flange helped the Leica, not at all really. Coincidentally the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AIS is a nice example of what a simple lens design looks like, the total distance from sensor/film to front of lens is an exact 50.5mm. Funny how a 50mm lens needs to be 50mm or more from the sensor;)


    And then there is the simple economics of the fact. Lets say Nikon dumps the mirror (something that will definitely happen sooner or later). Do they ditch their entire line of F-Mount lenses starting from nothing, or simply keep the flange distance the same and maintain their f-mount with full compatibility to all lenses. Thom Hogan suggest the D5 could be mirrorless, and it makes a sense a sports camera drops the clunky mirror. Do you honestly think Nikon would do anything other than maintain the same mount?

    And even if they did shorten the flange distance to have a shallower camera and have to redesign the entire lens line up. Why do you think they wont take the current lenses and just extend the barrel, want an 85mm f/1.4 for Nikon short flange mount, simply add 15-20mm of plastic around the base of the 85mm G lens and off you go, no added cost, cheap redesign, use all the same old component.


    And then look at the Canon 100D. It is truly tiny and light (400g) yet maintian the entire mirror and OVF. Ditc the mirror and you can save a chunk of space and knock another 70g or more format he camera and still maintain the same EF-S mount with the same flange distance.


    Bottom line:
    Mirrorless is the future but don't expect smaller lenses, or even small bodies at the pro line - ergonomics alone means that larger bodies are desirable for larger lenses. When Canon and Nikon shift to mirror-less they wont be changing their mount, especially Nikon. If you want small lenses get a camera with a smaller sensor that allow lenses with a smaller image circle.