Chicken or Egg

[tyredout2]

What would you do , buy a new 7D and use with a 18-55 IS Kit Lens 55-250 mm IS lens & Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 or keep the 450D lenses and add a 70-300 mm F4-5.6 L IS USM.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Vertigo1]

Glass before body. The 7D needs good glass to show its best.

 

[Blasted]

Glass first.

 

[POAH]

neither buy a Sony slt 77 lol

7D ain't great IQ wise

 

[Jackwow]

As above your current lenses aren't good enough to match with a 7D.

The 70-300 mm F4-5.6 L IS USM is a superb lens and in a different league from the rest of your lenses but as you've already got a 55-250 which is meant to be pretty good then I'm not sure this would be your best choice.

Now a 70-300 mm F4-5.6 L IS USM on a 7D would be (is) awesome.

 

[Jackwow]

7D ain't great IQ wise

Why do people post this crap? :shrug:

 

[BacktotheFuji]

I had the 70-300mm IS on my 60D and wasn't impressed. Not particularly sharp wide open and flat colours. IS works well though. I'd be tempted to get the 7D with the 55-250mm and get the extra reach that way.

The alternative is to keep the 450D and match it with a 70-200/4L and a 1.4x TC.

 

[tyredout2]

Glass before body. The 7D needs good glass to show its best.

Glass first.

As above your current lenses aren't good enough to match with a 7D.

Sort of what i thinking , thanks for the advice chaps.

The 70-300 mm F4-5.6 L IS USM is a superb lens and in a different league from the rest of your lenses but as you've already got a 55-250 which is meant to be pretty good then I'm not sure this would be your best choice.

Now a 70-300 mm F4-5.6 L IS USM on a 7D would be (is) awesome.

I'd sell the 55-250 if i get the 70-300 , 7D & the 70-300 was the plan keep the Sigma but not sure i can stretch that far.

Cheers

Steve

 

[tyredout2]

I had the 70-300mm IS on my 60D and wasn't impressed. Not particularly sharp wide open and flat colours. IS works well though. I'd be tempted to get the 7D with the 55-250mm and get the extra reach that way.

The alternative is to keep the 450D and match it with a 70-200/4L and a 1.4x TC.

Was the the new L series , by all accounts it's a great piece of kit ??

I did look at the 70-200 but i'd probably need the IS so therefore might as well go for the 70-300 L series.

Cheers

Steve

 

[odd jim]

neither buy a Sony slt 77 lol

7D ain't great IQ wise

Why would you want to go from Canon to an SLT Sony with an EVF???

7d has great IQ. There isn't a DSLR out there with poor IQ.

 

[tyredout2]

Why would you want to go from Canon to an SLT Sony with an EVF???

7d has great IQ. There isn't a DSLR out there with poor IQ.

I've always had Canon , can't really see that ever changing , i don't seem to get on with other makes...

Cheers

Steve

 

[HoppyUK]

The old 'glass before body' is a bit of a film mantra, where the camera did nothing for image quality apart from hold the film. With digital, you need both.

If you put your current lenses on a 7D, you will see an improvement in image quality. Not much, and mainly in the centre of the frame at mid-range apertures where lens sharpness is highest. But it will be there.

On the other hand, a quality lens will 'probably' show more improvement, over more of the frame, at a wider range of apertures. Depends what you're comparing really.

Of all the things a 7D will do for you, the improvement in image quality is probably not top of the list but there's a heck of a lot more to it over a 450D. Priority though is always to get the best lens for the job, with the right focal length.

 

[tomqh]

Go with the 7d and feed your epeen.

On a serious note, the 7d has a huge number of benefits over the 450d (ISO, image resolution, AF, lcd, top lcd, fps, buttons/rear dial, feel, robustness...) the list is long. your current lenses are far from poor, and will produce great photos on the 7d. I think you will notice more difference with the body upgrade than the lens in this case.

What is lacking for you in the current setup?

 

[POAH]

Why do people post this crap? :shrug:

cause it's true. too many pixels with canons current sensor technology is not great. the 7d is a noisey camera

 

[woof woof]

I can't really explain why but I find the use of the word "glass" extremely irritating. They're lenses for Gawd sake. :bang::bonk:

 

[POAH]

Why would you want to go from Canon to an SLT Sony with an EVF???

7d has great IQ. There isn't a DSLR out there with poor IQ.

no one said poor

 

[Kerioak]

I upgraded my lenses before the bodies and have never regretted it. If you get a new body and then find the lenses don't live up to it you will be disappointed, whereas if you get top quality lenses by the time you want to upgrade, the camera you would have bought will still be good but others will have come out in the meantime that you may hanker after, whereas good glass should last you forever.

 

[odd jim]

cause it's true. too many pixels with canons current sensor technology is not great. the 7d is a noisey camera

Really? No noisier than any other crop, and has absolutely superb high iso.

 

[Jackwow]

I had the 70-300mm IS on my 60D and wasn't impressed. Not particularly sharp wide open and flat colours. IS works well though. I'd be tempted to get the 7D with the 55-250mm and get the extra reach that way.

He's referring to the L version of the 70-300, not the version you're presumably referring to.

 

[tyredout2]

Go with the 7d and feed your epeen.

On a serious note, the 7d has a huge number of benefits over the 450d (ISO, image resolution, AF, lcd, top lcd, fps, buttons/rear dial, feel, robustness...) the list is long. your current lenses are far from poor, and will produce great photos on the 7d. I think you will notice more difference with the body upgrade than the lens in this case.

What is lacking for you in the current setup?

I hardly ever use the 18-55 since getting the 17-70 , i was looking for an upgrade on the 55-250 the L series.

The old 'glass before body' is a bit of a film mantra, where the camera did nothing for image quality apart from hold the film. With digital, you need both.

If you put your current lenses on a 7D, you will see an improvement in image quality. Not much, and mainly in the centre of the frame at mid-range apertures where lens sharpness is highest. But it will be there.

On the other hand, a quality lens will 'probably' show more improvement, over more of the frame, at a wider range of apertures. Depends what you're comparing really.

Of all the things a 7D will do for you, the improvement in image quality is probably not top of the list but there's a heck of a lot more to it over a 450D. Priority though is always to get the best lens for the job, with the right focal length.

The original plan was to get a 7D and the 70-300 at the same time , but it doesn't look like that will happen now so the choice is body or lens . seems the lens option is the prefered option so far.

Cheers

Steve

 

[POAH]

Really? No noisier than any other crop, and has absolutely superb high iso.

not as noisey as the current range of sony sensors.

high ISO not as good as what the 40D was - lot more NR applied to images = softer shots.

 

[odd jim]

not as noisey as the current range of sony sensors.

high ISO not as good as what the 40D was - lot more NR applied to images = softer shots.

Are you for real?

High iso is a million miles better than the 40d!!!!!!

Iso 3200 on the 7d is cleaner than iso 800 on the 40d. It's in an entirely different league.

 

[POAH]

the NR is more aggressive on the 7D hence why you might think it is cleaner. shadows are full of chroma noise and jaggies.

if you really think the 7D at iso 3200 is better than the 40D @ 800 (two stops) you have some serious eye problems.

Are you for real?

High iso is a million miles better than the 40d!!!!!!

Iso 3200 on the 7d is cleaner than iso 800 on the 40d. It's in an entirely different league.

 

[odd jim]

the NR is more aggressive on the 7D hence why you might think it is cleaner. shadows are full of chroma noise and jaggies.

if you really think the 7D at iso 3200 is better than the 40D @ 800 (two stops) you have some serious eye problems.

Thanks, but I had my eyes checked last week and they're still 20/20.

I was lucky enough to have a 40d, 50d and 7d to test for an entire week.

I shot all 3 at the same venues at the same time, doing real world testing at indoor show jumping events, and believe me, when I say the 7d was better at high iso, I mean it. It was night and day between the 40d and 7d. It's nothing to do with NR as I was shooting RAW.

I wonder if it might have something to do with a better sensor, the better hardware, bette software and duel digic 4 processors amongst many other enhancements?

Have you tried both under identical conditions?

 

[BacktotheFuji]

He's referring to the L version of the 70-300, not the version you're presumably referring to.

Whoops, you're right, I mis-read the original post. Apologies!

 

[POAH]

sensor in 7D has more pixels thats it, duel processors only speed up the processing of the images not make them better.

feel free to post up some of these raw files you have so I can see for myself what you mean. I'm really interested to see the two stop better IQ from the 7D FPMSL.

Thanks, but I had my eyes checked last week and they're still 20/20.

I was lucky enough to have a 40d, 50d and 7d to test for an entire week.

I shot all 3 at the same venues at the same time, doing real world testing at indoor show jumping events, and believe me, when I say the 7d was better at high iso, I mean it. It was night and day between the 40d and 7d. It's nothing to do with NR as I was shooting RAW.

I wonder if it might have something to do with a better sensor, the better hardware, bette software and duel digic 4 processors amongst many other enhancements?

Have you tried both under identical conditions?

 

[odd jim]

sensor in 7D has more pixels thats it, duel processors only speed up the processing of the images not make them better.

feel free to post up some of these raw files you have so I can see for myself what you mean. I'm really interested to see the two stop better IQ from the 7D FPMSL.

Why would I post the raw files up, I don't need convincing, lol! (not that I keep large raw test files from almost 18 months ago!)

You really are showing your ignorance if you think the only improvement Canon made to the 7d sensor over the 40d sensor is more mp!

But I'd still like to know what experience you have of shooting high iso with a 7d, if at all, as you're so adamant?

And as another side note, the 50d was better at high iso than the 40d at 800 iso and above as well...

 

[POAH]

well you thinking the 50D was better at high ISO than the 40D pretty much sums it up. no point in trying to discuss this matter with you further if you have that opinon

Why would I post the raw files up, I don't need convincing, lol! (not that I keep large raw test files from almost 18 months ago!)

You really are showing your ignorance if you think the only improvement Canon made to the 7d sensor over the 40d sensor is more mp!

But I'd still like to know what experience you have of shooting high iso with a 7d, if at all, as you're so adamant?

And as another side note, the 50d was better at high iso than the 40d at 800 iso and above as well...

 

[odd jim]

well you thinking the 50D was better at high ISO than the 40D pretty much sums it up. no point in trying to discuss this matter with you further if you have that opinon

You're mad...

I forget why Canon make improvements and upgrade their ranges, to make them inferior, lol!

50d 1600 iso is better than 800 on 40d, and still useable at 3200 iso. That's why out of the three I chose the 50d.

You clearly havnt a clue, let alone actually used these bodies at high iso so you're right, no point in discussing it further.

 

[bobtee]

well you thinking the 50D was better at high ISO than the 40D pretty much sums it up. no point in trying to discuss this matter with you further if you have that opinon

been following this discussion and think your playing devils advocate, just for the sake of it.this can get tiresome

 

[BacktotheFuji]

The 60D shares the same sensor as the 7D and is definitely cleaner than the 40D at high ISO. And of course it's way better at ISO 3200 as it isn't just ISO 1600 pushed. I've owned (briefly) a 500D with the same sensor as the 50D, and it was good at high ISO. The 60D is clearly better though with less noise.

 

[menthel]

neither buy a Sony slt 77 lol

7D ain't great IQ wise

Rubbish. I think that your opinion is in the minority on this one.

 

[odd jim]

been following this discussion and think your playing devils advocate, just for the sake of it.this can get tiresome

He's (POAH) not playing devils advocate, he's spouting rubbish about kit he's never even used, and knows very little about.

 

[tyredout2]

Well it's certainly been interesting reading ...i think i looks likely to be a new lens and wait a while to cobble together enough for the 7D , had sort of decided on the 70-300 but that won't take a TC so would it be better to go for the 70-200 F4 IS and add a TC later , F2.8 IS is to far out of reach.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Vertigo1]

Well it's certainly been interesting reading ...i think i looks likely to be a new lens and wait a while to cobble together enough for the 7D , had sort of decided on the 70-300 but that won't take a TC so would it be better to go for the 70-200 F4 IS and add a TC later , F2.8 IS is to far out of reach.

No experience of the 70-300L (though surprised to hear it's not TC-compatible), but the 70-200 F4 IS is a staggering lens and takes the 1.4x TC well.

 

[tyredout2]

No experience of the 70-300L (though surprised to hear it's not TC-compatible), but the 70-200 F4 IS is a staggering lens and taxes the 1.4x TC well.

Does the IQ drop off much with a TC fitted to the 70-200 ??

 

[Vertigo1]

It's certainly noticable but not a major drop at all. I think the 2x is far more noticable, and obviously costs you another stop.

(And 'taxes' should read 'takes', obviously )

 

[D-pearce92]

With the 70-200 f4.0 you can use a 2x tc but you wont be able to autofocus unless your using a 1 series camera,

 

[Jackwow]

No experience of the 70-300L (though surprised to hear it's not TC-compatible), but the 70-200 F4 IS is a staggering lens and takes the 1.4x TC well.

A few points to consider:

even with the 1.4x you still don't get the same reach as the 70-300 and you lose the 70 focal length (which becomes ~100),

the 70-200 when fitted with the 1.4x becomes an f5.6 at all focal lengths, whereas the 70-300 varies from f4 to f5.6, and

if you buy the Canon 1.4x III then the 70-200/1.4x combination is significantly more expensive than the 70-300.

 

[tyredout2]

A few points to consider:

even with the 1.4x you still don't get the same reach as the 70-300 and you lose the 70 focal length (which becomes ~100),

the 70-200 when fitted with the 1.4x becomes an f5.6 at all focal lengths, whereas the 70-300 varies from f4 to f5.6, and

if you buy the Canon 1.4x III then the 70-200/1.4x combination is significantly more expensive than the 70-300.

Thanks for that , think i'll probably get the 70-300 it gets some good write ups and saves on the expense of getting a TC as well.

Cheers

Steve