Looking for New Canon DSLR - Is Age a Big Deal?

H

harley76

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Everyone,

I am looking to get back into photography properly after quite a few years out. I sold most of my kit around 4 years ago. At that time I had a 450D and a bunch of mid-range lenses.

I was recently fortunate enough for a relative to give me their old Canon 20D with a couple of lenses including a near mint condition 70-200 f/4 L. I've quickly found the limitations of the old sensor in the 20D and using the 70-200mm at full length has lead to nothing bit disappointment, largely due to often dark photos majorly lacking in sharpness. Or when they are bright, they are still not sharp when cropping a little. Given the age of the 20D, I am probably expecting a bit too much. This has however reignited an old passion.

I like shooting cityscapes and nature with occasional motorsport (rally). Typically still targets, but in low light or from far away...expect the rallying of course!

Here are my thoughts...and yes, I know it's quite a big range in terms of price!

90D - The latest in the range..but I remember holding an 80D a few years back and being very disappointed with the feel of it. The 90D reviews are not really grabbing me, but I am happy to be proven wrong. What's all this fuss about jpegs and noise? Will a typical user notice?

7D Mk2 - Still seems a very good option. However, the age concerns me, but the reviews are still strong.

5D Mk4 - For years, I've wanted a 5D. The body price would be workable - however my concern is that the biggest investment will be in glass. Plus, making that change up to full frame is going to mean some pretty serious lenses to get the most out of it, and I am concerned that I'd be left disappointed and need to invest a whole lot of money to really get the most out of it.

To go with my 70-200, I would likely get myself a 1.4x extender and in addition I would want another L lens, but realistically that will be another f/4 (f2.8 going to bump things up a bit too far); and the 24-70mm is what catches me the most (though I would be curious to hear opinions of the optical quality compared to the 24-105mm f/4 L too). I'd also happily consider a Sigma or other brand with comparable optical quality if the price is better (or better quality for the same Canon price!)

So I would be really curious to hear thoughts and if anyone is in a similar position - investing quite a bit of money in 4-5 year old tech is something I'd seldom do; but if its still up at the high end of the market, then no worries. My gut is the 7d2 and a nice bit of L glass for walkabout, but the price seems high for something that will celebrate it's 6th birthday this year.

I tried a mirrorless camera - didn't really like it. While it may be the future, I still want to look down a viewfinder.

Long post I know, but what is photography without detail? :)

Thankyou!
 
harley76 said:
I was recently fortunate enough for a relative to give me their old Canon 20D with a couple of lenses including a near mint condition 70-200 f/4 L. I've quickly found the limitations of the old sensor in the 20D and using the 70-200mm at full length has lead to nothing bit disappointment, largely due to often dark photos majorly lacking in sharpness. Or when they are bright, they are still not sharp when cropping a little. Given the age of the 20D, I am probably expecting a bit too much. This has however reignited an old passion.
Click to expand...

Hi and welcome :D

This bit does worry me as you should be able to get sharp and well exposed pictures with a 20D, so that needs looking into.
 
As others have said, definitely double check your 20D settings. They should be razor sharp, not dark and blurry. For example, these pics below were on the Canon D30 (launches in 2000 ;) ) with a canon 70-300.... (taken in 2020 not in 2000, but you get the idea)

CRW_1005.JPG
CRW_1004.JPG
 
Yep - do the full reset thing (ISTR it's a menu option to do a factory reset / reset to defaults) then try it in benign conditions (shutter speed faster than the focal length, decent light - I'd probably go for green box mode too just so the camera should take a technically sound picture)
 
As others have said I would first look into why you're getting the photos you're getting. Dark photos are due to wrong exposure, which suggests user error not understanding how to get the correct exposure. Also, you can get sharp photos with a 20 year old compact camera so again, I'd be questioning why you're not getting sharp images. Maybe camera shake? If you could post some examples then we could help further. The reason that I say all this is that you can go out and spend £2k on a camera and still get dark blurry images.
 
Yes agree with everyone that your 20D should still be capable of taking decent properly exposed shots
But if you do go for an upgrade I can recommend the 7D2 for wildlife photography and I would have thought it’s good for motorsports too as the autofocus on moving objects is excellent
 
woof woof said:
Hi and welcome :D

This bit does worry me as you should be able to get sharp and well exposed pictures with a 20D, so that needs looking into.
Click to expand...
andrewc said:
70-200 L is a cracking lens and should be razor sharp throughout the lenses range. Camera doesn't have exposure compensation dialled in?
Click to expand...
I had a 30D, which is not much different to the 20D, and I got really good, correctly exposed and sharp results from my 70-200 f4L (non-stabilised) lens.
 
7D Mk2 - Still seems a very good option. However, the age concerns me, but the reviews are still strong.

5D Mk4 - For years, I've wanted a 5D. The body price would be workable - however my concern is that the biggest investment will be in glass. Plus, making that change up to full frame is going to mean some pretty serious lenses to get the most out of it, and I am concerned that I'd be left disappointed and need to invest a whole lot of money to really get the most out of it.

Tough choice between these two but I think I'd go 5D IV if I shoot landscape and portraits mostly and 7D if it's action, motorsports etc

But the best used glass you can afford , the ownership cost is the difference between buying and selling , buy right and that can be free

There are times when I've had £4000 in lenses but if I needed the money I could cash them in , only had a problem with one bought used out of maybe 30 or more
 
wack61 said:
the ownership cost is the difference between buying and selling , buy right and that can be free
Click to expand...
Excellent advice. I've long lost sight of the number of cameras and lenses I've owned but I've generally broken even because I seldom bought new.

I've always preferred well used equipment because most people don't want it and therefor it's cheap. But here's the thing: when I've part exchanged well worn equipment against other well worn equipment, I've achieved some remarkable deals. The dealer often wants rid of the kit I'm buying and takes the view that any turnover is better than no turnover. (I worked in a camera shop about 50 years ago so I know this is how at least some think.) Buying and selling through Ebay, etc can actually make you a profit!
 
jerry12953 said:
The 5d4 can be had for almost peanuts now. Try HDEW!
Click to expand...
Just to make the OP aware, HDEW are grey importers.

£1500’s not my idea of peanuts though :eek:;)
 
Thankyou all for the pragmatic suggestions! With regards to the shots it appears I did not really explain properly and overly-summarised. It's not that they are under exposed or blurry (or at least, not as a result of say setting shutter speed too high) but rather sometimes just seem dull. I think the main issue however is that I am perhaps expecting too much from cropping for subjects that are a bit too far away for the 200mm lens, and the picture lacks the detail I would expect from a more modern sensor after cropping (mainly it is at this point when I am zooming in digitally that I've had the issue). However, it sounds like I should get a bit more practice in (lovely shots Stickytape! Curious as to how close you were in the first shot? That is more bokeh than I was expecting I'd be able to get with a f/4!)

I have also been trying in green box mode and there isn't a notable improvement.

I am curious to hear about the use of an extender with the 70-200mm. A little research says that using a 1.4x extender effectively turns it into a 98-280mm f/5.6 lens

With regards to the kit, the point about buying and selling is actually really good and something I'd also considered. Actually when I sold my gear last time round I got almost all my investment back as I'd bought some stuff used to start with. Since the prices seem relatively stable for now at least, that option would be good. It would however be frustrating to take the plunge and then see release details of a new model in the range, but I guess that's the case with anything.

For the 7d vs 5d thing, it's getting all the right kit to go with a full frame if I went down that route, where it rather feels like I could get a 7D2 body and a good used 24-70mm II to go with my 70-200mm and be done...for now anyway!

Thanks all for taking the time to reply. I probably should not expect to just pick up a camera and lens combo I've never used and instantly get the same results I used to get when I was out taking pics all the time - point noted!
 
jerry12953 said:
The 5d4 can be had for almost peanuts now. Try HDEW!
Click to expand...

Thanks. Yes I have been looking at HDEW and Panamoz. Given their new prices are not to dissimilar to second hand elsewhere, I am not terribly concerned about grey imports for what I'd be buying here. Indeed it's seeing the 5d4 at this price that's made the decision harder, but the full frame point I made earlier is more of the issue I think.
 
harley76 said:
Thankyou all for the pragmatic suggestions! With regards to the shots it appears I did not really explain properly and overly-summarised. It's not that they are under exposed or blurry (or at least, not as a result of say setting shutter speed too high) but rather sometimes just seem dull. I think the main issue however is that I am perhaps expecting too much from cropping for subjects that are a bit too far away for the 200mm lens, and the picture lacks the detail I would expect from a more modern sensor after cropping (mainly it is at this point when I am zooming in digitally that I've had the issue). However, it sounds like I should get a bit more practice in (lovely shots Stickytape! Curious as to how close you were in the first shot? That is more bokeh than I was expecting I'd be able to get with a f/4!)

I have also been trying in green box mode and there isn't a notable improvement.

I am curious to hear about the use of an extender with the 70-200mm. A little research says that using a 1.4x extender effectively turns it into a 98-280mm f/5.6 lens

With regards to the kit, the point about buying and selling is actually really good and something I'd also considered. Actually when I sold my gear last time round I got almost all my investment back as I'd bought some stuff used to start with. Since the prices seem relatively stable for now at least, that option would be good. It would however be frustrating to take the plunge and then see release details of a new model in the range, but I guess that's the case with anything.

For the 7d vs 5d thing, it's getting all the right kit to go with a full frame if I went down that route, where it rather feels like I could get a 7D2 body and a good used 24-70mm II to go with my 70-200mm and be done...for now anyway!

Thanks all for taking the time to reply. I probably should not expect to just pick up a camera and lens combo I've never used and instantly get the same results I used to get when I was out taking pics all the time - point noted!
Click to expand...
Ahh that sheds a different light on it. Yes heavily cropping will degrade image quality, and the degradation will depend on several factors such as how well the lens resolves detail, MP count, light etc etc.

All things considered equal a FF camera will crop better than APS-C, BUT an APS-C gives you more reach in the first place due to the crop factor of the camera. If you’re finding you’re having to crop a lot with the 70-200mm I would suggest a longer lens is a better option than a new camera.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
I don't have a personal comparison between these two but going back a generation the 5d3 was a much better camera in most respects than the 7d1.
Click to expand...
The 5D3 was/is a cracking camera and the 5D4 takes it to the next level. It’s a camera capable of just about everything and at£1500 it’s a great bang for buck.
 
snerkler said:
The 5D3 was/is a cracking camera and the 5D4 takes it to the next level. It’s a camera capable of just about everything and at£1500 it’s a great bang for buck.
Click to expand...

This largely sums up the dilemma. However I keep reading that if you have to ask about going to full frame, you probably don’t have all the facts/are not ready, and that the step up or more than just “the next model up”

That said, the fact I already have the 70-200mm glass makes it a more attractive option. I’d likely get the 24-70mm f/4 regardless of which body I choose. So the overall difference price wise is about 500 quid.

Asked in another way though - based on the above and my planned lenses, which would I get more out of?
 
harley76 said:
This largely sums up the dilemma. However I keep reading that if you have to ask about going to full frame, you probably don’t have all the facts/are not ready, and that the step up or more than just “the next model up”
Click to expand...
You could argue that about any upgrade you have questions about. But isn’t that why you’ve come on here, to ask and learn and then make an informed choice?

That said, the fact I already have the 70-200mm glass makes it a more attractive option. I’d likely get the 24-70mm f/4 regardless of which body I choose. So the overall difference price wise is about 500 quid.

Asked in another way though - based on the above and my planned lenses, which would I get more out of?
Click to expand...
IMO the 5D4 is considerably better camera than the 7D2. However, as I’ve mentioned earlier you will get even less reach with the 70-200mm on the 5D4 than the 20D and 7D2 meaning you will have to crop even more. The 70-200mm actually gives you the effective focal length of 112-320mm on the 20D and 7D2 due to the 1.6x crop of these cameras. On the 5D4 it is as it says on the tin, ie 70-200mm
 
So if you're expecting to use long telephotos for eg bird photography, then the 7d2 might be the better bet. But going back to my 7d1/5d3 dilemma, I got much better results with a 5d3 and cropping than with the 7d1. High ISO performance comes into it and the 5d3 was much better in that respect.

Otherwise the 5d4 is your (more expensive) friend.:)
 
jerry12953 said:
So if you're expecting to use long telephotos for eg bird photography, then the 7d2 might be the better bet. But going back to my 7d1/5d3 dilemma, I got much better results with a 5d3 and cropping than with the 7d1. High ISO performance comes into it and the 5d3 was much better in that respect.

Otherwise the 5d4 is your (more expensive) friend.:)
Click to expand...
If you crop the 5D4 to give you the same effective reach as the 7D2 it will give you an 11.9mp image. Many factors will then come into play as to which will look better at this point, but it's fair to say that at this point the 7D2 'should' have more cropping potential.
 
What will be your main subject, birds, sports or general?
 
snerkler said:
If you crop the 5D4 to give you the same effective reach as the 7D2 it will give you an 11.9mp image. Many factors will then come into play as to which will look better at this point, but it's fair to say that at this point the 7D2 'should' have more cropping potential.
Click to expand...


The biggest factor for me was using higher ISO's. The 7d1 was awful in this respect, so cropping a 5d3 file was a much better option.

I can't compare the 7d2 and 5d4 from personal experience but I imagine there would be an equivalent difference?
 
jerry12953 said:
The biggest factor for me was using higher ISO's. The 7d1 was awful in this respect, so cropping a 5d3 file was a much better option.

I can't compare the 7d2 and 5d4 from personal experience but I imagine there would be an equivalent difference?
Click to expand...
Can't say for sure, but I'd say probably not if going by this. Don't forget, the 5D4 will show more noise than this if cropping as cropping makes the noise more apparent.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.1273693298797901&y=-0.9861072664359862

Screenshot 2020-05-03 at 14.59.43 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
jerry12953 said:
I'll take your word for it........
Click to expand...
That’s a dangerous thing to do :lol:

I don’t know for sure, but going by those the 7D2 is a big step up from the 7D, and the 5D4 doesn’t look as big a step up from the 5D3.

I‘d still choose the 5D4 though (y)
 
This has certainly turned out to be a very informative discussion!

The points around ownership cost are really valuable so thanks for sharing that insight.

One thing I’m curious about - is there any quality difference between the 24-70 vs the 24-105 or is it purely focal length? (f/4 L in both cases)
 
jerry12953 said:
I'd go for the 105. It's a great "standard" lens and was rarely off my 5d3 for years, The extra reach can be really useful.
Click to expand...

I second that lens. I have one and its a fantastic all round lens with superb sharpness!
 
harley76 said:
Thankyou all for the pragmatic suggestions! With regards to the shots it appears I did not really explain properly and overly-summarised. It's not that they are under exposed or blurry (or at least, not as a result of say setting shutter speed too high) but rather sometimes just seem dull.
Click to expand...

I still think this needs looking into :D as 20D whole pictures and even crops shouldn't necessarily be dull.

Are you shooting raw or jpeg?

It's a while since I had a 20D now but it was an earlier camera and in those days cameras didn't necessarily produce vibrant images straight out of the camera, not like a point and shoot might. If raws they needed processing and if jpegs they needed the settings tweaking in camera.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
I'd go for the 105. It's a great "standard" lens and was rarely off my 5d3 for years, The extra reach can be really useful.
Click to expand...
Me too. I did. As @jerry12953 says - rarely off the camera... 2 reasons in fact - to put the nifty 50 on for startrails & wide field astro and to put the 70-200 on for more reach
 
Hanley said:
The 5D Mark IV is an amazing camera, for the same price though you could look at the EOSR, have you considered that?
I have both and since I got the R I rarely pick up the 5D MArk IV.
Click to expand...
I didn't realise the EOS R had dropped in price so much, it's actually cheaper if you compare e-infinity prices, the EOS R is £1348 with adapter. TBH that would be my choice over the other two. I'd choose it over the 7D2 just because I like the advantages of FF such as DR and noise. But there are several reasons why I'd choose it over the 5D4:-

Arguably the future moving forward
Wider AF coverage
Better buffer
Flip screen
EVF (preference but the quality of EVFs are getting so good now that the pros outweigh the cons for me)
Faster frame rate (just)
Better low light AF, down to an insane -6ev :eek:

The only cons of the EOS R are the single card slot and having to use adapted glass unless you want to pay a lot of money for lenses. That being said, the EF to EOS R adapter is pretty thin so not going to alter the balance much,
 
snerkler said:
I didn't realise the EOS R had dropped in price so much, it's actually cheaper if you compare e-infinity prices, the EOS R is £1348 with adapter. TBH that would be my choice over the other two. I'd choose it over the 7D2 just because I like the advantages of FF such as DR and noise. But there are several reasons why I'd choose it over the 5D4:-

Arguably the future moving forward
Wider AF coverage
Better buffer
Flip screen
EVF (preference but the quality of EVFs are getting so good now that the pros outweigh the cons for me)
Faster frame rate (just)
Better low light AF, down to an insane -6ev :eek:

The only cons of the EOS R are the single card slot and having to use adapted glass unless you want to pay a lot of money for lenses. That being said, the EF to EOS R adapter is pretty thin so not going to alter the balance much,
Click to expand...

Agree. I bought my EOSR from E-Infinity, their prices are just too good compared to the UK. I bought the EOSR and 3 RF lenses and saved literally thousands.
The only time the EOSR has felt disappointing compared to the Mark IV is when I was doing a cross country running event, could have done with a slightly higher burst speed as they were jumping in puddles.

But at the moment my Mark IV spends most of its time sitting on the shelf looking at me wondering why it isn't being used. :ROFLMAO:
I just love the look, feel, and overall experience of the EOSR.
 
Last edited:
harley76 said:
I am curious to hear about the use of an extender with the 70-200mm. A little research says that using a 1.4x extender effectively turns it into a 98-280mm f/5.6 lens
Click to expand...
On an APS-C crop sensor (like the 20D or 7DII) the "crop factor" of 1.6 makes the 70-200 appear like a 112 to 320 mm lens.
The addtion of a 1.4x convertor further increases this to produce an effective focal length of 156 to 448 mm.
Without taking the crop factor into account (i.e. Full Frame) the 70-200 with the 1.4x convertor gives a true focal length of 98 -280mm with a loss of 1-stop exposure.

If you want to go full frame the 6DII offers a substantial saving over the 5DIV with very little loss of IQ, just fewer AF points and slight loss of operational speed, but you can still use it for action shots. The 6DII is outstanding in low light conditions.
 
Hanley said:
Agree. I bought my EOSR from E-Infinity, their prices are just too good compared to the UK. I bought the EOSR and 3 RF lenses and saved literally thousands.
The only time the EOSR has felt disappointing compared to the Mark IV is when I was doing a cross country running event, could have done with a slightly higher burst speed as they were jumping in puddles.

But at the moment my Mark IV spends most of its time sitting on the shelf looking at me wondering why it isn't being used. :ROFLMAO:
I just love the look, feel, and overall experience of the EOSR.
Click to expand...
Ahh yes I thought the EOS R had 8fps but that's with AF locked :(
 
I suppose in these gas days it's rather pointless suggesting that the above image quality critisisms of the 20D should really be looked at before spending quite a wedge of money on new kit?

For dynamic range, limited ISO and resolution a 20D can't live with modern kit but within its limitations it's certainly capable of being used to produce vibrant sharp pictures which should stand up to heavy cropping for screen use and reasonably sized prints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top