Help Choosing Camera and lens

[gtx1060=value]

Im an amateur photographer but i've just been using an old cannon rebel t2i for the past few years with the generic lens it came with and another one that came with the package - my budget is around 500 dollars canadian - used is preferable as i don't need best stuff from this gen but rather really good cameras from before - location is Mississauga so toronto craigslist and kijiji - or, for brand new, around 800 bucks canadian - would prefer cannon but if there are better options with better sensor pls tell me - i don't really have a max budget but id rather not just go buy a eos 5d mark iii

[Electronics Wizardy]

Id pick up a 50 1.8 from cannon. Failry cheap fun lens.

 

Also consider a 10-18 from cannon probably aroudn 400 cad and great cheap ultrawide.

[gtx1060=value]

1 minute ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Id pick up a 50 1.8 from cannon. Failry cheap fun lens.

 

Also consider a 10-18 from cannon probably aroudn 400 cad and great cheap ultrawide.

not looking for lens but rather a new camera 

[Electronics Wizardy]

1 minute ago, gtx1060=value said:

not looking for lens but rather a new camera 

that camera is fine. a new body won't take any better photos, but a better lens will.

[gtx1060=value]

1 minute ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

that camera is fine. a new body won't take any better photos, but a better lens will.

i know it's fine - but i want something with a better sensor - better recording quality (takes 2nd place after picture quality) - lens i can spend money on later - but mainly looking for a new camera - i have a budget but this isn't like a thing where i try to get the best value by buying new lens - i literally just want a new camera

[Electronics Wizardy]

1 minute ago, gtx1060=value said:

i know it's fine - but i want something with a better sensor - better recording quality (takes 2nd place after picture quality) - lens i can spend money on later - but mainly looking for a new camera - i have a budget but this isn't like a thing where i try to get the best value by buying new lens - i literally just want a new camera

How much is something like a used 60D going for in your area?

 

 

Image quality is about the same though. I have a 30d and a 7d and you can't really tell the difference.

[gtx1060=value]

1 minute ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

How much is something like a used 60D going for in your area?

 

 

Image quality is about the same though. I have a 30d and a 7d and you can't really tell the difference.

well my t2i is dying thats the issue - i really just can't use it anymore - and do understand this - my budget is very flexible - i can afford maybe up to 1 grand - do you feel like it's more worth it to invest in a 5d mark 3 now or just buy a 700 bucks camera used to last for a couple of years to hone my skills

[Electronics Wizardy]

1 minute ago, gtx1060=value said:

well my t2i is dying thats the issue - i really just can't use it anymore - and do understand this - my budget is very flexible - i can afford maybe up to 1 grand - do you feel like it's more worth it to invest in a 5d mark 3 now or just buy a 700 bucks camera used to last for a couple of years to hone my skills

no real using getting a really nice camera.

 

Id probably get the best cacnon x0D you can, so a 60d, 70d, or 80d.

[gtx1060=value]

1 minute ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

no real using getting a really nice camera.

 

Id probably get the best cacnon x0D you can, so a 60d, 70d, or 80d.

ok thanks - what about lens - mostly architecture - you know - still life shots - i'd like to have one lens for stills and another for recording - any recommendations?

[Electronics Wizardy]

1 minute ago, gtx1060=value said:

ok thanks - what about lens - mostly architecture - you know - still life shots - i'd like to have one lens for stills and another for recording - any recommendations?

Do you like zooms of prime

 

About how wide.

 

cacnon 10-18 is a very nice inexpensive ultra wide(nice and sharp)

 

35 f2 if you want a midrange normal prime. Failry sharp at f4 and above

 

Zooms are nice, but unless your buying canon L glass a prime will look much better for the price.

 

 

[gtx1060=value]

1 minute ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Do you like zooms of prime

 

About how wide.

 

cacnon 10-18 is a very nice inexpensive ultra wide(nice and sharp)

 

35 f2 if you want a midrange normal prime. Failry sharp at f4 and above

 

Zooms are nice, but unless your buying canon L glass a prime will look much better for the price.

 

 

ok got it - thanks - will ask you for more info when i buy my camera 

[xQubeZx]

Have you seen the newly announced 77D? Its basically a scaled down 80D. It lacks some higher level features as weather sealing, and more physical buttons and such. But the sensor is to be the same. It sounds like a pretty good camera imo for sligtly less than a 80D. 

 

But tbh, if you want something better than your t2i I would stay away from the rebel lineup and look at cameras like the 70D and upwards. Personally I find anything older than a 70d to be a waste because of the old sensor. Even the 70D has a very inferioe sensor if we are talking how high of a usable iso compared to the newver models as the 80d. Just imagine hoe much worse the 60d is then. 

 

You could look for 70D or 7D mark ii's, 80D and maybe the new 77D imo. 

[xQubeZx]

Can also mention that the 6d is quite cheap used if you would be interested to move into full frame

[gtx1060=value]

10 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

Can also mention that the 6d is quite cheap used if you would be interested to move into full frame

literally best used camera i can buy - i mean i would just go buy a cannon eos 5d mark 3 - but that's way too advanced for me

[cc143]

If you mostly shoot architecture, the 6d might not be that bad an idea. The 5d3 does have some stuff over it obviously, but you don't need the better AF system, glass screen, dual memory cards or higher burst rates for that. 

 

I think that might actually be a better decision than a 70D and it will certainly last you a while if you choose on in good nick. 

 

As far as lenses are concerned, the 50 1.8 is a great run and gun lens on FF. The issue with the 6d is you can't use EF-S lenses, so for an ultrawide, the cheapest you could get I think is the 17-40mm L, which should be ~$300 used?

 

The other option, which is cheaper than a 5d3, significantly, but has its drawbacks, many of them, is the a7ii. Good thing is you don't have loads of glass, however, I'm not sure its worth it spending so much. 

 

 

[xQubeZx]

1 hour ago, gtx1060=value said:

literally best used camera i can buy - i mean i would just go buy a cannon eos 5d mark 3 - but that's way too advanced for me

I would go with the 6D then. Its a great camera even though its sligtly older. The sensor is good and the body is robust and feels nice in the hand. The only drawback is the AF capabilities but if you don't shoot that many action stuff there will be no problem imo. 

 

For lenses, as already said the 17-40 f/4 is a nice L glass lens. Personally I would skip the 50 1.8 and go straigt to either a 50 1.4 85 1.4 (85 1.8) or 35 1.4 depending on what you preffer most. However the 50 1.8 is really cheap but a used 1.4 makes more sense to me as I like the very deep dof. 

 

Used 70-200 f/4 are quite cheap too at around $400-500

 

You won't be able to use your old EF-S lenses on the 6D but its a very nice entry into fullframe to learn and then later on picking up a 5D series camera when you feel the need for a higher end body. But really as an amateur the 6D is nice and its better to invest in glass as it has a higher resale value, especially L glass. 

[gtx1060=value]

what about things my ef lenses can fit on, what good cameras would those be, there will be some sports/action shots but very minimal - mostly still shots

1 hour ago, xQubeZx said:

I would go with the 6D then. Its a great camera even though its sligtly older. The sensor is good and the body is robust and feels nice in the hand. The only drawback is the AF capabilities but if you don't shoot that many action stuff there will be no problem imo. 

 

For lenses, as already said the 17-40 f/4 is a nice L glass lens. Personally I would skip the 50 1.8 and go straigt to either a 50 1.4 85 1.4 (85 1.8) or 35 1.4 depending on what you preffer most. However the 50 1.8 is really cheap but a used 1.4 makes more sense to me as I like the very deep dof. 

 

Used 70-200 f/4 are quite cheap too at around $400-500

 

You won't be able to use your old EF-S lenses on the 6D but its a very nice entry into fullframe to learn and then later on picking up a 5D series camera when you feel the need for a higher end body. But really as an amateur the 6D is nice and its better to invest in glass as it has a higher resale value, especially L glass. 

 

[cc143]

3 hours ago, gtx1060=value said:

what about things my ef lenses can fit on, what good cameras would those be, there will be some sports/action shots but very minimal - mostly still shots

 

What EF lenses do you have? Are they only EF-s lenses? then only APS-C Canon dslrs, eos xx0d and x0d series. But if its only for the 18-55 don't bother, they are 5 a penny used, great for a first lens, but just that. 

 

The 6D's AF system is bearable although archaic. The 70D does have a better one, and the 80D's dual pixel AF thing is also quite nice I hear, especially for video. 

 

The 50 1.4 is a good lens, but its old in the tooth now and is notoriously soft at wider apertures. It should be due for an upgrade soon... The latest 50 1.8 however, is surprisingly good for its price from the little time I had to play with it. A good middle ground is the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art, but its quite expensive.  

 

The 85mm 1.8 I also hear great stuff about, I'd also like to get one at some point, It would definately be top of my list if I was doing more portret studd the 50mm 1.4 and 24-105L don't cover me. 

[gtx1060=value]

3 hours ago, cc143 said:

What EF lenses do you have? Are they only EF-s lenses? then only APS-C Canon dslrs, eos xx0d and x0d series. But if its only for the 18-55 don't bother, they are 5 a penny used, great for a first lens, but just that. 

 

The 6D's AF system is bearable although archaic. The 70D does have a better one, and the 80D's dual pixel AF thing is also quite nice I hear, especially for video. 

 

The 50 1.4 is a good lens, but its old in the tooth now and is notoriously soft at wider apertures. It should be due for an upgrade soon... The latest 50 1.8 however, is surprisingly good for its price from the little time I had to play with it. A good middle ground is the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art, but its quite expensive.  

 

The 85mm 1.8 I also hear great stuff about, I'd also like to get one at some point, It would definately be top of my list if I was doing more portret studd the 50mm 1.4 and 24-105L don't cover me. 

ok lets say i have a 800 dollar (1100 CAD budget) camera body, 2 lenses, one for stills one for action/filming - what should i get?

[xQubeZx]

3 hours ago, gtx1060=value said:

ok lets say i have a 800 dollar (1100 CAD budget) camera body, 2 lenses, one for stills one for action/filming - what should i get?

You won't be getting a full frame then. A used 6D is about $800. And you would want another $800 for two good lenses. You can get away with less if you find some cheap ones. 

 

For a good APS-C camera you could look at the 7D mark ii (forget about the mark i, its very old) other than that, a 70D or 80D. 

 

Nice lenses for that would also be a fast prime of some sort (1.4 or 1.8) and a general zoom that is equivilent to a 24-70. (Best is a constant aparture one at f/4 or f/2.8 if you can afford) 

[xQubeZx]

May I ask what lenses you have though? As the APS-C bodies can use your old lenses. 

 

The 18-55 is a good start lens, but imo when you start to get more creative or looking for more it quickly feels either not sharp enough but imo, mainly not fast enough as its aparture is quite slow at 3.5-5.6 ish. Lenses are expensive though so if you already have some good glass it maybe is good to stick to an APS-C body instead of moving to fullframe as that would cost some to reinvest in good glass

[cc143]

Why not just get the 6d used and a 24-105 IS, I believe they also have made a non L version to go with the 6d after a while, although I would just go with a used 24-105L tbh. That covers both the categories you described and should be within your price range if you go used. It is not an ideal setup, but I would prefer it from the alternative, save for some very specific uses namely wildlife and sports.  

 

If you'd like to go new with this, the best thing I could think of is a 750D with a wide EF-S lens such as the 10-22mm, thats the only thing that should fit your budget, especially in canada buying new...

[xQubeZx]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

Why not just get the 6d used and a 24-105 IS, I believe they also have made a non L version to go with the 6d after a while, although I would just go with a used 24-105L tbh. That covers both the categories you described and should be within your price range if you go used. It is not an ideal setup, but I would prefer it from the alternative, save for some very specific uses namely wildlife and sports.  

 

If you'd like to go new with this, the best thing I could think of is a 750D with a wide EF-S lens such as the 10-22mm, thats the only thing that should fit your budget, especially in canada buying new...

Agree with this, one more used option could be a 7D mark ii and a fast prime to go with it. 

 

And the 24-105 could be changed for a 24-70 if you want a slightly sharper lens. 

[cc143]

55 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

Agree with this, one more used option could be a 7D mark ii and a fast prime to go with it. 

 

And the 24-105 could be changed for a 24-70 if you want a slightly sharper lens. 

Not on APS-C, 24 is too long on crop. Also, the 24-70 is quite a bit more expensive, even used. 

 

On APS-C, I'd go with the 17-55 f2.8, its amazingly sharp and has constant aperture. Also, the 3.5(x1.6) is quite narrow. The 2.8 certainly is an improvement.  

[xQubeZx]

28 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Not on APS-C, 24 is too long on crop. Also, the 24-70 is quite a bit more expensive, even used. 

 

On APS-C, I'd go with the 17-55 f2.8, its amazingly sharp and has constant aperture. Also, the 3.5(x1.6) is quite narrow. The 2.8 certainly is an improvement.  

The 24-70 was intended if he was to go with FF. On a cropped body a 17-55 f/2.8 would be the most narrow zoom I would go with. Personally I'd rather have a 15 or 16mm at its widest for it to be equal to a 24 on FF. 

 

And 2.8 zooms on cropped bodies are quite well priced imo. Sigma has some but I haven't seen it in person really but it seems to be well priced.