Upgrade body or lens?

uncreative · May 15, 2011

Current gear:
20D
EF-S 17-85IS
EF 50mm 1.4
EF 70-300 DO
580EX flash

I'm considering upgrading to a 60D or getting a 17-50 2.8 lens. I'm mostly taking snapshots of the kid, dogs, random pretty scenes. Any opinions?

Overfocused · May 15, 2011

If you aren't having any discontentment with image size, I'd get the glass for sure.

Pupator · May 15, 2011

What is it that you're trying to improve? Is there something you want to be able to do that you currently cannot? A type of picture you want to take but aren't having any success with?

uncreative · May 15, 2011

those are good questions pupator. i like the idea of video on the 60D. the better focusing would increase my keeper rate on moving objects, i assume. other than that, I think i have it in the back of my head that a new body will provide some sort of missing 'pop' to my photos.

on the other hand, i think that having a faster lens in my most used focal length would lead to better photos, solely due to being able to control the DOF.

as far as image size, 99.9% of my photos go on the web, and the .1% that i've printed look good enough to me.

1scrappychic · May 15, 2011

I wasn't a fan of the 17-50...so I'd opt for the 60d.

ThatCanonGuy · May 15, 2011

17-50 or 17-55? The 17-55 is Canon, much better than the Tamron or Sigma 17-50s. Since the 17-55 is about the price of a 60D, I'll assume you meant 17-55. A 60D would definitely be better than a 17-50.

So.. 17-55 vs 60D. If it were me, I'd probably go for the 60D. But it depends. A 17-55 will get you that "pop" you're talking about more than a 60D will. Lenses are more important than body, but the 60D is such an improvement over the 20D. That's a tough decision. You're going to have to decide between flip screen, slightly better autofocus, and HD video (sounds like it'd be nice for you) or better glass, which results in faster autofocus, sharper photos, and creamier bokeh. The 60D has the flip screen. However, if you're mostly putting your shots on the web, you probably don't need 18mp. But, that HD video is nice...

Tough decision indeed!

ziggy53 · May 15, 2011

uncreative wrote: »

those are good questions pupator. i like the idea of video on the 60D. the better focusing would increase my keeper rate on moving objects, i assume. other than that, I think i have it in the back of my head that a new body will provide some sort of missing 'pop' to my photos.

on the other hand, i think that having a faster lens in my most used focal length would lead to better photos, solely due to being able to control the DOF.

as far as image size, 99.9% of my photos go on the web, and the .1% that i've printed look good enough to me.

A large portion of images that lack "pop" also lack proper lighting and proper image processing. Most cameras that have an anti-alias filter in front of the image processor "require" appropriate post-processing and sharpening to create a snappy image, but insufficient or inappropriate lighting may make any image rather lacking.

A large aperture lens, like your EF 50mm, f1.4 USM, can create better separation between subject and background and that too can help "pop" the subject if used appropriately.

The 20D and EF 50mm, f1.4 USM combination is perfectly capable of creating images with "pop" so if that's a consistent problem then you may need to consider a lighting solution for the problem and possibly some post-processing too.

Autofocus is improved in the 60D over the 20D but I believe that the 40D and 50D have either the same AF section as the 60D or a very similar AF section. The 50D and 60D also both have the same image processor, the Digic IV, and that can have an impact on the AF performance, however the 40D is still a very competent camera with regard to AF. I do love my 40D and I have no plans to replace it anytime soon.

uncreative · May 16, 2011

i went through a handful of pics that i've taken this year with the exif data hidden and picked out the ones i really liked. turns out they were almost all taken with the 50mm. the runners up were taken with the canon 17-55 that i borrowed.

so that settles it for now, i am going to buy glass. i'll work on composition and lighting until the 20D stops working, and then revisit. it seems like glass has a much higher resale value as well, so if i discover that the new lens does nothing for me, i can likely resell it without significant loss.

thanks for the help everyone.

ziggy53 · May 16, 2011

uncreative wrote: »

i went through a handful of pics that i've taken this year with the exif data hidden and picked out the ones i really liked. turns out they were almost all taken with the 50mm. the runners up were taken with the canon 17-55 that i borrowed.

so that settles it for now, i am going to buy glass. i'll work on composition and lighting until the 20D stops working, and then revisit. it seems like glass has a much higher resale value as well, so if i discover that the new lens does nothing for me, i can likely resell it without significant loss.

thanks for the help everyone.

Sounds like a plan.

clap

chrisjohnson · May 16, 2011

I second Ziggy.

The fact that you don't mention your 70-300 DO as a great lens makes me think technique is the number one problem. This is a difficult lens to use compared to the 1.4 50mm and a specialized and expensive piece of kit.

Maybe an even better use of cash would be a photographer course. Sorry if you think I am being patronizing but gear is not usually the problem and you have a good camera and a couple of good lenses already. Until you know exactly why you want to buy better kit it is smart to learn how to use the kit you have better. At least this is my philosophy.

uncreative · May 16, 2011

i think thats a good advicegolden...err...balls. i don't use the 70-300 much, its just not a focal range i have much use for right now. but i was given the gear that i have, and thats why i have it.

i think that i understand the basics of photography from reading online, etc, but whenever that viewfinder comes to my eye its like i've had a lobotomy. i'm going to try a class at the local community college to try to hammer in some concepts.

Matthew Saville · May 17, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

A large portion of images that lack "pop" also lack proper lighting and proper image processing...

Amen!

Made this image in 2004 or 2005, on a ghetto D70 and a $140 Sigma 70-300 that was literally a few weeks away from zooming itself into two separate pieces:

Made this image on the same D70 and an almost as cheap Nikon 24-85 kit lens:

Made this image on a 2003 model Olympus point and shoot:

Having said that, I still don't recommend "wasting" money on cheap gear,

. Get the best you can afford, and if you can barely afford the cheapest, maybe keep on saving. But you get the idea...

=Matt=

puzzledpaul · May 17, 2011

As with many other ppl around who know how to use what they've got to best advantage, Mark shows it's more than possible to get excellent results with supposed 'lowly' gear (Panasonic FZ50) + odds 'n ends

pp

http://beingmark.com/macro-illustrated/

Upgrade body or lens?

Comments