I’ve been going back and forth lately on my future direction for photography, and I’m finding it almost impossible to come to a decision. I decided to put some of my thoughts down in black and white to see if it helps.
The question: Crop, or Full-Frame?
That’s it in a nutshell. After the explosion of photographic joy that was the Olympics in Vancouver I’ve been thinking about some new equipment. However there are three ways I could go:
Option 1) Upgrade to a 5D Mark II with the 24-105 lens, selling the 40D, 28-135 and 10-22;
Option 2) Upgrade to a 7D/15-85 kit, selling the 40D and the 28-135 lens to absorb some of the cost;
Option 3) Stick with my 40D, add a new lens.
Option 1: Upgrade to a 5D Mark II
The 5DmkII is a full-frame camera, meaning that I’d have to sell my favourite lens (the Canon 10-22) as it doesn’t fit. Well, there are various hacks you can do to get some partial use out of it but I’m not interested in doing that! I’d start off with the 24-105L, which is equivalent to a 15-65 or so on a crop body, so I wouldn’t completely lose the wide end. Picture quality would of course be stellar, and for the vast majority of my photography in the last couple of years, the 5D is perfect – my output is dominated by landscapes, portraits and the like. In addition, most of the pictures I took during the Olympics were sunrise/twilight/night shots at high ISO (1600 on the 40D) and the ability to go with longer exposures and have a much cleaner output is very attractive.
However the autofocus system is outdated and the continuous shooting speed is low, and I’d lose a significant amount of pixel coverage with the 100-400 for telephotos. When I lived in Texas I was starting to get somewhere with my airshow photography and it was the primary reason I bought an SLR in the first place, but the 5D is definitely not the right camera for that. I could always keep the 40D but the best plan would be to sell it to recover some of the cost. I can only go to one airshow per year while living in Vancouver anyway and it’s not even (photographically) that great though.
I’d love the image quality, low-light capabilities, and awesome full-frame camera system (viewfinder, weather-sealing) but can I live with the fact that it’s just not a general-purpose piece of equipment, and there would be some things I just wouldn’t use it for?
Option 2: Upgrade to a 7D
The 7D is another crop camera. It’s effectively brand-new and probably won’t be replaced or superseded within a couple of years (by Canon, anyway!), whereas the 5D is likely to be replaced in that timeframe. It has a brand-new autofocus system, although that does seem to be a cause for some concern in various forums. I could use my current 10-22 lens for wide-angle, and keep the reach I’m used to with the 100-400. I could use it for bird and airshow shots, and it’d work for landscapes and portraits too, though not at as high a level of quality.
However, there’s bound to be a full-frame camera one day that’s affordable and would be as general-purpose in terms of continuous shooting and autofocus as the 7D, but by investing further into APS-C I’d be making it more difficult to make the switch. Right now I only have one EF-S lens to get rid of… what will it be like after a couple more years? And finally, the lower maximum ISO setting and noise levels at low (and even normal) ISOs are a worry.
Option 3: Keep the 40D, get a new lens
When someone posts to photography forums looking for advice on what to spend their money on, they’re often advised to “buy more or better glass; a good lens lasts forever but bodies will be upgraded constantly”. This is clearly good advice. Clearly however people need to upgrade their cameras at some point otherwise we’d all still be using 10Ds from 2003.
But let’s say I stay strong for now and keep my 40D; what, then, do I buy? The 15-85, an excellent lens with a more useful range than either my 10-22 or my 28-135, but it’s an EF-S which would be further cementing me to the crop line of cameras. Or something like a 24-105, which is a great focal range for full-frame but not so good for crop? One hole in my current lineup is a good macro lens. The 100L IS 2.8 is a great lens but at over $1000 CAD it’s not cheap. Cheaper alternatives exist but they lack IS or are, again, EF-S.
So, there’s my dilemma. I don’t have to do anything right away, of course. My unstated option 4 is to do nothing. But if YOU were in this situation (and you actually read this far!), what would you do, and why? Let’s say for the sake of argument that cost isn’t a factor. I’d appreciate some input!
#1 by Justin on March 9th, 2010 - 10:23 pm
Personally I’d go with option 4 -> option 3. The Olympics were a great boon to our photography, but the key is to keep it up, first and foremost. Like you said to me before, a new camera is not going to improve your photography – you are going to improve your photography. Your photos looks great and I haven’t ever thought “if only he had more megapixels” or “man, that denoise looks awful”. I’d spend money on new glass if you find something appropriate, maybe keeping in mind the crop/full frame factor to keep your future options open. Bodies depreciate quickly, whereas if I stick with cropped bodies I could see myself keeping the lenses I have for many years (adding a wide angle at some point)