is it upgrading or downgrading?

choudhrysaab · August 14, 2011

I currently have Canon 40D and Canon 24-105mm IS L lens. I purchased these because I was thinking of getting into professional photography but I suppose that's not my calling therefore I didn't quit my day job. Now that I don't really need such expensive lens since I'm just a hobbyist so I'm thinking I should sell my current setup and purchase the new Canon 60D with 18-200mm IS lens. Its got more bells and whistles than 40D with a Digic4 processor and I can also shoot 1080p videos with it as well. Not sure if going from current setup to 60D will up an upgrade or downgrade as I'm upgrading the body but downgrading the lens.

What do you guys think?

puzzledpaul · August 14, 2011

I'd have thought the answer largely depends on what sort of photography you want to do?

The only bit of your kit that I personally have direct experience of using is the 40D - which (altho 'old') is still a capable cam.
Personally, I'd never get rid of decent glass - as you'll always see the difference and invariably lament letting such items go - altho' there are many Canon shooters around who'd be more than willing to relieve you of the the 24-105 for a song

Why not use the gear you've already got to its maximum extent for a while longer, take note of focal lengths used the most / types of pics liked the most / enjoyed taking etc ... and review the situation later?

The video aspect is a red herring imo ...

pp

Dogdots · August 14, 2011

I have the 40D and the 24-105 and love my combo. I use it all the time. The camera nor the lens never let me down. There is better out there to buy, but if your just doing it as a hobby .. it's a great combo in my opinion.

paddler4 · August 14, 2011

If you aren't going to do video, why bother? You have a good camera with an excellent lens. And glass generally matters more than body, assuming the body is decent (which yours is)

ThatCanonGuy · August 14, 2011

It's downgrading. You will notice that your pictures are not as sharp, contrasty, etc. They won't be as "good." The only reason to get the 60D is if you really want to do video. And others here have said that it's no substitute for a camcorder. For basic video recording you'd be better off just getting a camcorder.

The 18-200 lens is a huge step down from the 24-105. You'll be very disappointed. The 40D is over 1 fps faster than the 60D as well, it's got a metal body, and it's intended for a higher market. It's a downgrade as well.

puzzledpaul wrote:

Why not use the gear you've already got to its maximum extent for a while longer, take note of focal lengths used the most / types of pics liked the most / enjoyed taking etc ... and review the situation later?

This.

choudhrysaab · August 14, 2011

Thank you guys for replying and I can certainly see the points you have made.

Question: Am I fully utilizing my 24-105 lens seeing how there's a crop factor on my 40D?

ThatCanonGuy · August 14, 2011

choudhrysaab wrote: »

Thank you guys for replying and I can certainly see the points you have made.

Question: Am I fully utilizing my 24-105 lens seeing how there's a crop factor on my 40D?

Well, what do you like to shoot? If you're doing portraits, street photography, maybe some sports, etc., then you should be fine. If you do lots of landscapes, the you probably want to go wider. However, that 18-200 will get you wider at the cost of image quality... it won't perform nearly as well from 24mm to 105mm as your current 24-105 does. Two very good wide-angle options are the 10-22 (crop sensors only) and the 17-40L. There are also wide angle primes like the 20mm 2.8.

So it depends on what kind of shooting you do.

choudhrysaab · August 14, 2011

Thanx ThatCanonGuy! Really appreciate the help here.
When I purchased the 24-105 lens, I was thinking of getting into wedding photography but as a hobbyist I'm into landscape photography. That's where I'm losing the width and the crop factor doesn't help either.

ziggy53 · August 14, 2011

Landscapes are really possible with any focal length lens. "Vista" landscapes are what many folks think of when they just say "landscapes" and there is a good selection of super-wide-angle lenses that are appropriate for single image vista landscapes on Canon crop 1.6x cameras, like the Canon 40D.

I have a 40D and I like to use a Sigma 10-20mm, f4-5.6 EX DC HSM for single-image vista landscapes.

For even more detail consider using a stitched panorama of several images. The Canon EF 24-105, f4L IS USM is very well suited for stitched panoramas on the 40D. You can achieve almost any level of detail as well as almost any level of field-of-view (FOV) using the stitched panorama approach. (This is primarily for scenes with no movement within the scene itself.)

Dogdots · August 14, 2011

choudhrysaab wrote: »

Thanx ThatCanonGuy! Really appreciate the help here.
When I purchased the 24-105 lens, I was thinking of getting into wedding photography but as a hobbyist I'm into landscape photography. That's where I'm losing the width and the crop factor doesn't help either.

I use my 24-105 a lot for landscape. Granted I lose something, but I'm able to live with that. I do have the 10-22 too and love that lens.

Matthew Saville · August 15, 2011

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here and say that yeah, you could be a lot happier as a hobbyist landscape photographer if you got yourself a 60D and some different lenses. Personally for outdoor adventure / "vista" photography, I'd recommend the 15-85mm Canon lens, it's pretty dang awesome how they've managed to cram a ~24-120mm lens into EF-S. Compare the two lenses' tests here:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/11

If you ask me, the 15-85 is WAY more practical as a walk-around lens for random adventures, and a 24-105 is unnecessary overkill for a crop-sensor shooter unless they really need the L build quality for shooting in a downpour, or bumping against rocks and things. Or even if you're not a National Geographic photographer doing a story on tornadoes or haboobs, (google it, sickos!) ...pros in general still need L quality lenses so that they can shoot with them day in and day out, reliably, and just toss them in their bag without worrying if the lens gets jostled a bit. If you take decent care of your gear, than even a Canon "kit" zoom will last you a long time, and deliver amazing results.

Anyways, I too am a wedding photographer whose hobby is landscapes and adventures. Personally for me, the ideal kit for this would be a Nikon D7000 and the Nikon 16-85, (since I'm a Nikon shooter) ...which is practically the EXACT equivalent to the Canon setup I just mentioned.

So there you have it. Dump the ancient 40D and overkill 24-105, you'll be quite happy. You can even still shoot portraits etc. casually or professionally here and there too of course, all you'd need is maybe a couple f/1.8 primes or something. Or for misc. events you could get the venerable, un-equalled by Canon, Sigma 50-150 2.8. That's a formidable crop-sensor "event photojournalism" lens to be sure; I prefer it much more than any 70-200 2.8 cause those are so dang heavy and oversized, especially when shooting around kids who can be easily intimidated.

I wouldn't recommend shooting a wedding as the lead, paid pro with just a 60D however, of course. I can really only recommend at least one full-frame camera and at least one reliable backup, if you plan to shoot a wedding. It's just the responsible, professional thing to do. I'd consider the minimum for shooting a wedding to be a pair of 7D's, or a 7D and a 5-series. Sure, someone with tons of experience could easily get the job done with a pair of 60D's, but that would be because of the tons of experience, NOT because of the camera.

Good luck, and happy shooting! I'm always glad to meet a fellow photographer who loves landscape photography more than weddings or portraiture, we seem to be a rare breed. Everyone in my professional circles seems to be ALL about weddings and portraits, such that they barely have any photographic hobbies at all. That's so weird to me!

Anyways take care,
=Matt=

Brett1000 · August 15, 2011

choudhrysaab wrote: »

I currently have Canon 40D and Canon 24-105mm IS L lens. I purchased these because I was thinking of getting into professional photography but I suppose that's not my calling therefore I didn't quit my day job. Now that I don't really need such expensive lens since I'm just a hobbyist so I'm thinking I should sell my current setup and purchase the new Canon 60D with 18-200mm IS lens. Its got more bells and whistles than 40D with a Digic4 processor and I can also shoot 1080p videos with it as well. Not sure if going from current setup to 60D will up an upgrade or downgrade as I'm upgrading the body but downgrading the lens.

What do you guys think?

the 60D would certainly be an upgrade
http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/01/lab-test-canon-60d?quicktabs_1=2#quicktabs-1
but for the lens consider a zoom like the Sigma 17-50 2.8

choudhrysaab · August 16, 2011

Thank you very much for your reply Matt since that was the answer I was looking for. I take great care of my equipment and when I used the Canon kit lens (18-55mm) with my XT and XSi I was pretty happy with the result. I do have the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens for my portrait shots and Sigma 70-200mm lens for zoom purposes. Lugging around 40D with 24-105mm does tend to take a toll on my neck (since they're both so heavy). Maybe once I'm able to sell this kit I might just end up getting the 60D with 15-85mm lens. The only reason why I was opting for 18-200mm lens was because its one in all deal. Obviously I know that there are distortion issues at 200mm but since I'm not really selling my shots so I don't think it'll be too big of a deal for me. I can always crop out the distorted area of the shot (if its really noticeable).

Thanx again to all who took the time out and read the issue and replied to it.

NeilL · August 16, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here and say that yeah, you could be a lot happier as a hobbyist landscape photographer if you got yourself a 60D and some different lenses. Personally for outdoor adventure / "vista" photography, I'd recommend the 15-85mm Canon lens, it's pretty dang awesome how they've managed to cram a ~24-120mm lens into EF-S. Compare the two lenses' tests here:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/11

If you ask me, the 15-85 is WAY more practical as a walk-around lens for random adventures, and a 24-105 is unnecessary overkill for a crop-sensor shooter unless they really need the L build quality for shooting in a downpour, or bumping against rocks and things. Or even if you're not a National Geographic photographer doing a story on tornadoes or haboobs, (google it, sickos!) ...pros in general still need L quality lenses so that they can shoot with them day in and day out, reliably, and just toss them in their bag without worrying if the lens gets jostled a bit. If you take decent care of your gear, than even a Canon "kit" zoom will last you a long time, and deliver amazing results.

Anyways, I too am a wedding photographer whose hobby is landscapes and adventures. Personally for me, the ideal kit for this would be a Nikon D7000 and the Nikon 16-85, (since I'm a Nikon shooter) ...which is practically the EXACT equivalent to the Canon setup I just mentioned.

So there you have it. Dump the ancient 40D and overkill 24-105, you'll be quite happy. You can even still shoot portraits etc. casually or professionally here and there too of course, all you'd need is maybe a couple f/1.8 primes or something. Or for misc. events you could get the venerable, un-equalled by Canon, Sigma 50-150 2.8. That's a formidable crop-sensor "event photojournalism" lens to be sure; I prefer it much more than any 70-200 2.8 cause those are so dang heavy and oversized, especially when shooting around kids who can be easily intimidated.

I wouldn't recommend shooting a wedding as the lead, paid pro with just a 60D however, of course. I can really only recommend at least one full-frame camera and at least one reliable backup, if you plan to shoot a wedding. It's just the responsible, professional thing to do. I'd consider the minimum for shooting a wedding to be a pair of 7D's, or a 7D and a 5-series. Sure, someone with tons of experience could easily get the job done with a pair of 60D's, but that would be because of the tons of experience, NOT because of the camera.

Good luck, and happy shooting! I'm always glad to meet a fellow photographer who loves landscape photography more than weddings or portraiture, we seem to be a rare breed. Everyone in my professional circles seems to be ALL about weddings and portraits, such that they barely have any photographic hobbies at all. That's so weird to me!

Anyways take care,
=Matt=

Oh dear!

The message sometimes never gets through! "Professional" images are not made with "professional" gear, they are made by great photographers (and image developers). Anyone who pushes the latest product in the photography gear market as a promise of "professionalism" is way off. Maybe they are just always looking for an excuse. If you get an inside look into what professionals are doing these days to stand out from that big (in many ways "big") mass of their peers you'll discover that their "secrets" lie not in the *Ds or D*s etc (which they ALL possess, de rigueur, and which they ALL immediately abandon to get the big promises of new gear as soon as it appears) but in their post production creativity - with software!

By what inverted sympathetic magic process, Matt, do all professional wedding photographs of a year ago become unprofessional on the instant of the appearance of this year's new gear? Really, Matt, this is not the devil's advocate, this is the devil! Yes, I know you qualify with "Sure, someone with tons of experience"... etc, but put up against "It's just the responsible, professional thing to do." (ie have the latest top end gear at a wedding) it doesn't ring sincere or convincing to me - it's kind of confused.

The kinds of assertions you make do really great photographers and image developers a disservice, I believe. I have said, and demonstrated, a number of times in these forums, that in recent years one of the main improvements made in new gear has been in in-camera *software*. And whatever in-camera software can do so can anyone do without any gear at all!

I love new gear, but I am also realistic enough to know that because I don't tote medium format - and if you really want to be "responsibly professional" that's the weapon! - doesn't mean that I can never take, or *make*, a professional image. I have begun to attract attention among my own little community for the images I am making - with my prehistoric 40D and collection of beautiful glass. The truth is I am gradually catching up to the potential in this fine gear, and in myself as a photographer and image developer. Putting a *D or a D* in my hands would not hasten that growth along or immediately improve the quality or saleability of my images. They would make some shots a bit easier, sure, and extend the space for my future growth, when I could in turn try to match their potential. But keepers are keepers, and great images are great images, and don't become un-keepers and un-great, "un-professional", when the market sneezes!

Neil

ThatCanonGuy · August 16, 2011

@ choudhrysaab: I did think of a reason to go with the 60D... the extra resolution comes in handy for landscape use. It allows more room to crop too. Not to say that the 40D won't cut it; both the 40D and 60D are just fine for landscapes. And Ziggy is right, not all landscapes are really wide. I remember I shot some landscapes last year with my 70-200.

Brett1000 wrote: »

the 60D would certainly be an upgrade

Uh, yes, in some cases, but not in all. For example, metal body and fps. And here's an interesting tidbit: Canon put the same remote socket in the 60D as they put in the Rebels. With the 50D and before, it was the high-end remote socket found in the 1/5/7-Series. Now it's the Rebel one. I'm not saying it's bad, just that Canon intended it for a slightly lower market.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

Dump the ancient 40D

Ancient, eh? I guess that's a subjective term

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I wouldn't recommend shooting a wedding as the lead, paid pro with just a 60D however, of course. I can really only recommend at least one full-frame camera and at least one reliable backup, if you plan to shoot a wedding. It's just the responsible, professional thing to do.

NeilL wrote: »

By what inverted sympathetic magic process, Matt, do all professional wedding photographs of a year ago become unprofessional on the instant of the appearance of this year's new gear? Really, Matt, this is not the devil's advocate, this is the devil! Yes, I know you qualify with "Sure, someone with tons of experience"... etc, but put up against "It's just the responsible, professional thing to do." (ie have the latest top end gear at a wedding) it doesn't ring sincere or convincing to me - it's kind of confused.

He didn't say the "resposible, professional thing to do" was to "have the latest top end gear"! He said it was to have at least one FF camera and at least one reliable backup. That statement could include a 1Ds Mark I from 2002 and a D30 from 2000! And it is. It is responsible and professional to want to give your clients better image quality (which FF provides over APS-C) and to have a backup. Like he said, it would not be responsible to use just a 60D, (which happens to be the latest top end gear). Also, FF provides more flexibility for that software thing you mention.

NeilL wrote: »

Putting a *D or a D* in my hands would not hasten that growth along or immediately improve the quality or saleability of my images. They would make some shots a bit easier

Not just make some shots a bit easier, they would make some shots possible. Try tracking an F1 car coming at you with a Rebel and a kit lens (I hope you're good at manual focusing!). People would not buy an OOF image. If you used a 1D with a fast-focusing lens, it would immediately improve the quality and saleablilty of your images (provided that you used it correctly).

Don't get me wrong, I believe the 40D and 60D are both equally capable cameras, each best suited to their own tasks, and each very capable of doing the task that's best suited to the other. I don't think Matt is saying that it's unprofessional to have a 40D. It would be unprofessional to go into a wedding with only a 40D, same with the 60D (or any camera for that matter). Increasing your chance to get important shots, or making it easier/possible to get better shots, is professional. If the latest and greatest increases my chance of getting more/better keepers, then it's professional to buy the latest and greatest. Likewise, if buying the latest and greatest would decrease your chance, then it's more professional to stick with the gear you have. Would you hire a photographer who says, "I have old gear, and new gear could make my shots a bit better, but it's mainly the photog, so I use older gear," or one who says, "I know it's mainly the photographer, but the newer equipment can help me take somewhat better shots for you. That's why I use it"?

choudhrysaab · August 16, 2011

People who say its not the equipment, its the photographer or vice-versa need to realize that both the photographer and the equipment go hand in hand.

As ThatCanonGuy mentioned, you need good equipment to do certain type of photography but then again if the photographer is anything like me then regardless how good his equipment is, he's still gonna end up having all OOF shots. And just like that a great photographer with mediocre quality equipment will also have trouble trying to achieve his goal.

NeilL · August 16, 2011

TCG what is impossible for a photog to get is not relevant. What a photog *does* get is relevant, and what a photog *does* get is what people hire or not hire for! In my experience, people don't consider hiring you because of your gear, but because of how much they like the photographs you do, and how your service fits their needs, including their budget. I doubt that you, Matt or I would be 100% accurate picking the exact gear that was used for most great photographs, especially when, as I said, those photographs are great precisely NOT mainly because of the gear, but because of what the photog does with the gear and with the image in development!

For weddings, I agree that images need to be capable of being successfully enlarged, so gear must be capable of delivering that at some basic level.

When gear begins to limit you, prevents you from growing, then is the time to check the field. I haven't reached that point with my 40D, and the thought has not crossed the mind of anyone I have done photographs for! I have commented in the past that I believe new tech will "grow you", but I really do mean new tech, not necessarily a new camera model.

Neil

ThatCanonGuy · August 16, 2011

NeilL wrote:

When gear begins to limit you, prevents you from growing, then is the time to check the field.

Yes... if your old gear is not limiting you then there's no need to upgrade.

TCG what is impossible for a photog to get is not relevant. What a photog *does* get is relevant, and what a photog *does* get is what people hire or not hire for!

I agree. Sometimes newer equipment can make what you do get, better. Or turn "don't get" into "do get." Sometimes newer equipment won't do that, and when that's the case there's no reason to upgrade.

I doubt that you, Matt or I would be 100% accurate picking the exact gear that was used for most great photographs, especially when, as I said, those photographs are great precisely NOT mainly because of the gear, but because of what the photog does with the gear and with the image in development!

I certainly wouldn't. I would rather have a good photog and lousy camera than a lousy photog and good camera. But both contribute to the final image. Put a beginner and an experienced pro side by side, give them each a 1Ds3, and the pro will take the better image 99% of the time. Now take two equally talented pros, give one a 1Ds3 and one a point & shoot, and the one with the 1Ds3 will take the better image 99% of the time.

For example, last year I took an image that won an award in my town's photo contest/show. It was a fast subject, and I wouldn't have been able to get it with my old camera. Upgrading did have benefits for me. But if I had $5000 in my pocket and my 1DII wasn't limiting me at all, I would have no reason to buy a 1DIV.

I think we agree... both photog and gear are important, but photog is more important.

NeilL · August 16, 2011

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Yes... if your old gear is not limiting you then there's no need to upgrade.

I agree. Sometimes newer equipment can make what you do get, better. Or turn "don't get" into "do get." Sometimes newer equipment won't do that, and when that's the case there's no reason to upgrade.

I certainly wouldn't. I would rather have a good photog and lousy camera than a lousy photog and good camera. But both contribute to the final image. Put a beginner and an experienced pro side by side, give them each a 1Ds3, and the pro will take the better image 99% of the time. Now take two equally talented pros, give one a 1Ds3 and one a point & shoot, and the one with the 1Ds3 will take the better image 99% of the time.

For example, last year I took an image that won an award in my town's photo contest/show. It was a fast subject, and I wouldn't have been able to get it with my old camera. Upgrading did have benefits for me. But if I had $5000 in my pocket and my 1DII wasn't limiting me at all, I would have no reason to buy a 1DIV.

I think we agree... both photog and gear are important, but photog is more important.

Sure!

D

And it's to my point that the guys running that photo comp (congratulations on your success!) didn't afaik draw a line making some photos eligible or ineligible for the gear that was used, or didn't check if you had been a "responsible" entrant by using the "best" gear available! Nor did they disqualify you because of the infinite number of photos impossible for you to do!

Neil

Matthew Saville · August 16, 2011

Okay, a few things:

First, I'm glad that the OP took my advice the "right" way. And to respond regarding the 15-85 versus an 18-200, it is simply this- I am more of a wide angle, landscape shooter than a telephoto wildlife shooter, so 15mm is WAY more exciting to me than 200mm. If you prefer wildlife more than landscapes, then maybe the 18-200 is in fact a better "walk-around" lens for you!

Second, to NeilL:
I did not intend to give the impression that you're not a pro if you don't have the latest and greatest. God knows, I sure as heck can't afford to upgrade every time a new camera comes out! I'm the guy who bought a used D700 well after it came out, and I'll buy a used D800 well after it comes out. My POINT, was more about reliability, and the bottom line for me in that respect is that I would prefer not to TRUST something as important as a wedding to "just" a 60D. I could do it, but I'd rather not do it every weekend, all year. The reason I wanted to make this point was, the OP talked about their love of landscape photography versus their interest in professional wedding photography. I just wanted to make it clear that while I'd love to have a 60D and the 15-85 for adventure / landscape photography, I would not consider it a "workhorse" setup for a pro to use as their main camera every single weekend. I'm sure you can agree with that.

Thirdly- Money is for spending, and it feels a lot better when we have extra money to spend on our hobbies, instead of just paying bills every month. So, if photography is your hobby and you've got money saved up, then yeah I think it's perfectly acceptable to jokingly call your 40D "ancient" and dump it for the latest and greatest. Regardless of one's skill level, even. Just because an older camera is still totally capable, doesn't mean it isn't FUN to upgrade. As long a the photographer remembers that indeed THEY are more important than the camera they use, all is well.

So, once again, I'm voting for a 60D and 15-85. The 60D would give great results and performance with a few newer useful features compared to the 40D. (although if wildlife and speed is really your main thing, I'd rather get a 7D) On the other hand, the 24-105 is a full-frame, pro-grade lens that is built for rugged, rough use on a full-frame body. Thus, I believe it to be overkill for the OP's uses, and even downright impractical considering he is into landscape photography and using a crop sensor. a 15-85 is built solidly enough that if well-cared for, it will last almost forever and deliver incredibly sharp results. At a fraction of the price / weight, if I am not mistaken.

Good luck!
=Matt=

NeilL · August 17, 2011

Hi Matt, I like your clarification!

Yeah, I spend money on photography, but - probably like you - very carefully, and after I've cut through the hype!

I like wide, too, for all kinds of things, better than long, in general. I have the 14mmL, and it does a beautiful job on the 40D, though often I'd like to stretch it just a bit wider!

I also have the 24-105mmL, and it is just the most versatile glass I know, and my copy knocks my sox off everytime with sharpness and overall IQ!

The 40D has a potential disadvantage for weddings vs the 5DII in its ISO performance. But of course with skill and planning and extra light where possible it's not a deal breaker. As far as reliability-robustness the two are on a par. I have yet to be convinced that the extra pixels of the 5DII, both in FOV and resolution, is *critical*.

Neil

choudhrysaab · August 17, 2011

Hopefully I'll be able to sell my kit soon and get the Canon 60D with 15-85mm lens for a decent price. I might just wait till Christmas time since that's usually the time for good deals.

Thanx again everyone! I really appreciate all your help.

rhommel · August 17, 2011

just wondering, why not get 7D instead of 60D? it's a couple hundred $ difference

great to see u here choudhrysaab

choudhrysaab · August 17, 2011

Rhommel - how you doing buddy? long time no talk.
lol - i'm trying to get away from "professional" photography equipment as it's not really needed since I'm just a hobbyist. I don't wanna get any Rebel series either now since I've experienced with mid-range camera and it's capabilities.
Thanx for your reply

puzzledpaul · August 17, 2011

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

For example, last year I took an image that won an award in my town's photo contest/show. It was a fast subject, and I wouldn't have been able to get it with my old camera. Upgrading did have benefits for me. But if I had $5000 in my pocket and my 1DII wasn't limiting me at all, I would have no reason to buy a 1DIV.

I think we agree... both photog and gear are important, but photog is more important.

Our local newspaper ran a photo comp in conjunction with a national photographic retailer.

One of the comments posted on the paper's site after the winning pic was announced had a section which started

"Perhaps next year the Mercury could also include a winning category for a photo taken on a non professional standard camera?"

... and went on to finish with

"... it would also be encouraging to think that winning pictures could just as easily be taken on a camera costing under a hundred pounds as one costing several thousand."

Makes me wonder if this individual was aware that several winning pics in the annual BBC/Countryfile photo comp have been taken with a PnS cam.

pp

Mistabernie · August 17, 2011

If you really wanted to step up, you could always go for a refurbished 7D in the Canon Loyalty program for ~$80 more than the (non-rebate) price of the 60D Body. 40D -> 7D would be a much better upgrade than 40D -> 60D, but if you're not overly concerned about video or the swivel screen, then I'd keep the 40D for the time being and wait for the next round of Canon stuff to come out (if saving money is also a goal).

Also, with the above, while the gear is nice, if there aren't actual reasons for improving the quality of your gear (such as a body improvement for handling low light/noise/etc, better focusing, etc) then try to avoid changing up. I won't lie, as an ex-professional musician and hobbyist - slowly-turning-pro photographer, I've had tons of bouts of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) and I still do, but I'm doing everything in my power to keep these instincts under control.

travischance · August 28, 2011

choudhrysaab wrote: »

Thank you guys for replying and I can certainly see the points you have made.

Question: Am I fully utilizing my 24-105 lens seeing how there's a crop factor on my 40D?

I too own the 24-105 & if I could only have one lens, that'd be it. I used it for most applications with my 7D & like previously stated, the image quality, sharpness & contrast are excellent. While I've moved to using mostly primes lately, I still love this lens & would recommend to anyone! If you find that it's not wide enough, take 5 or more steps back, recompose & shoot....

is it upgrading or downgrading?

Comments