Dummies Guide to an Upgrade please

[HelenClaire]

OK for the last 5 years I have been shooting with my trusty 450D. I now feel I need to upgrade to something that has a little more capability. My main interests are wildlife, landscapes and low light. I am thinking a 6D. Thoughts anyone? Now for the really dumb question as I'm not that savvy with lenses. I have 2 kit lenses that came with the 450D (EFS 18-55mm and EFS 55-250mm) which have served me well, aswell as a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro. Will these fit the 60D or will I need to buy new lenses? If so what would people recommend for landscapes and wildlife close ups? Though probably after buying a camera body I'll have to wait until I can save up for the lenses to go with it :D

[Tannin]

Cheers Helen,

6D would make a wonderful camera for you, no doubt about that. However, the only lens you have that will fit onto it is your 90mm macro (which will act like a 55mm macro on the camera you are used to). Neither of your kit lenses will work with, or even fit onto your 6D. There are several lenses you might consider replacing them with. Well more than several, lots! The obvious choice, and quite possibly the best, though there are many good choices, would be a 24-105/4L, which can be remarkably reasonably priced if you buy it as a kit with the 6D. That will give you something similar to what you'd get with a 15-85 on your 450D. The perfect replacement for your 55-250 would be either a 100-400 or a 70-300L, but we are talking serious dollars now. I'm not sure what there is in cheaper longish lenses for full-frame, but not a lot. With longer lenses, especially with the extra resolving power of a full frame sensor, poor quality stands out like the dog's proverbials and they don't even make too many cheapish, longish full-frame zooms, let along sell them in any numbers.

[Mark L]

You also say,

Will these fit the 60D or will I need to buy new lenses?
So is it the 6D or 60D you're looking at Helen?
The lenses you have will work on a 60D. Low light? 60D works okay at higher ISO depending on the photo. Cropping can bring out some noise. This has half the photo cropped out at 800ISO with no noise reduction applied ...

108584

It should be better than what you're used to.
If you mean the 6D, refer to Tony's advice.:)

[HelenClaire]

Thanks Tony,

This has helped a lot. I am planning to keep my 450D and the lenses as I love this camera to bits, so I can always keep using this camera for zooming until I can afford something bigger and better (if ever!).

When you say that on the 6D my 90mm macro will act more like a 55mm, does this mean I can get closer to my subject? Or does it mean something else?

Also when you mentioned the 24-105/4L, what is the 4L bit? For landscapes what is the widest lens you can go to or rather what is the best size lens to get the most of the scenery in?

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Mark L;1229068]

So is it the 6D or 60D you're looking at Helen?


Thanks Mark, Am thinking of the 6D. If Im going to upgrade I might as well do a proper job of it.

[arthurking83]

.....

When you say that on the 6D my 90mm macro will act more like a 55mm, does this mean I can get closer to my subject? Or does it mean something else?

.....

it will appear to be a much wider angle lens compared to what you were used too on the crop camera.

You can't get closer than it allows you too, so the minimum focus distance(MFD) is the same for both cameras.
It's just that on the 450D, the image looks more zoomed in.
Depending on pixel density differences, this is only an illusion.

If you do end up with a 6D, as you will no longer have any general purpose lenses, consider the Sigma 24-105/4 OS as a general all round lens to begin with.
Apparently a stellar lens in many ways, and not overly expensive compared to the alternatives.
~$800-900. some have it in the low 800's, others in the higher 800's.

[gaze]

6D is a pretty huge leap from a 450D and one that will end up costing you lots of money in lenses etc. I wonder whether a 7D might be an option. You can pick them up very cheaply at present, and they are an excellent body. In a lot of ways, they are suited to wildlife photography more than the FF given the extra reach you get with the lenses and they are very capable for landscapes. Low light is a bit dependent on if you want higher shutter speeds - ie push the ISO up. The FF camera will do this better and with less noise than the 7D, but that being said, it is no slouch by any means in that department. I have both a 7D and a 5D and I have no intention of getting rid of the 7D... I use it with a 100-400 for wildlife all the time.

Just a thought....

[MissionMan]

I'd be inclined to agree on the comments above. Replacing the lenses is going to be costly so going for full frame is going to cost quite a bit, not withstanding that you will lose the crop which will impact your wildlife photos.

I'd recommend going for a non-full frame body, progressively upgrading the lens over the next year or two and then go for a full frame once the lenses are already up to the task.

[Albertang]

As others have said, moving to full-frame will be quite costly. You'll need to buy new lenses.
If you want to keep your current lens, getting APS-C like 70D seems to be a better idea.

When you said you want more capabilities, what are the things that you found lacking in 450D?
Have you considered of getting new lenses instead? Maybe an ultra-wide angle lens like Tokina 11-16mm?

[Tannin]

When you say that on the 6D my 90mm macro will act more like a 55mm, does this mean I can get closer to my subject? Or does it mean something else?

On a 6D, your 90mm macro lens will still be a 90mm lens - 90mm is 90mm. However, because of the different camera, the camera-lens combination will seem quite different. When you look through the viewfinder and frame a shot, the picture you see will be wider. (And brighter - full-frame cameras have wonderful viewfinders!) If fact, when we do the maths, it turrns out that the picture you will see looking through the 6D viewfinder with the 90mm lens is the same as the picture you see today looking through the 450D viewfinder with a 55mm lens. (Well, brighter and a bit more detailed, but essentially the same thing.)

Can you get closer to your subject? For normal pictures, yes. For example, taking a portrait you will need to stand closer to get the same head and shoulders framing. But if you are using the 90mm lens for actual macro work (flowers and bugs and so on), you might not be able to get closer, perhaps because you are already at the minimum focus distance, perhaps because the front of the lens is so close to the subject now that it shades the light, or simply because your subject flies away. To get a lens that acts together with the 6D the same way the 90mm lens acts on a 450D, you'd need a 150mm macro - and yes, they are available but the price and weight will not please you!


Also when you mentioned the 24-105/4L, what is the 4L bit? For landscapes what is the widest lens you can go to or rather what is the best size lens to get the most of the scenery in?

The "4" indicates that it's an f/4 lens. Unlike your 18-55 which has a variable maximum aperture between f/3.5 (at 18mm) and f/5.6 (at 55mm), the 24-105 has a maximum aperture of f/4 at any focal length. The "L" indicates that it is one of Canon's famous L Series lenses. These are (at least in theory, and usually in practice too) the best lenses Canon make. L Series lenses are usually of very good optical quality, mostly quite expensive, have excellent ring USM focus motors (USM focus motors are usually very fast, very quiet, more reliable, and more accurate than stepper focus motors like the ones in your current lenses) and are always built very solidly so they last for years and stand up to abuse that would wreck many cheaper lenses. Some people think that there is something uniqiue and magical about "L glass" (as they call it). There isn't. They are lenses much like every other lens, but generally very good quality ones. Most of Canon's best lenses are in the L Series. As a rough rule, Canon make three categories of lens: the cheapest ones (like your two zooms), then the mid-range (such as the 10-22 and the 15-85), then the L Series. The best of the mid-range Canon lenses are near enough as makes no difference to the quality of the L Series ones. Third party lenses (Tokina, Sigma, and Tamron are the best-known ones) vary in quality in similar ways.

Some people think that you need the widest possible lens for landscapes. Nonsense! You can (and should!) use whatever lens the shot demands, and while ultra-wides can be great when used with care (landscape composition with an ultra-wide is hard!), telephoto length lenses - say a 70-300 - are every bit as useful, and normal lenses (something like a 24-70 or your 18-55) are the most used of all.

The Canon 17-40/4L is a great value wide-angle lens for full-frame cameras like the 6D. It's very cheap for an L Series lens, optically good, well made, and takes a standard 77mm filter thread (which many other full frame wides don't). But your first choice should be a normal lens, something functionally equivalent to your current 18-55. I recommended the 24-105/4L because it is lovely and wide (a lot wider on a 6D than your 18-55 - 24mm on a 6D gives the field of view you'd get with a 15mm lens on the 450D); it is image stabilised (a very useful feature); and at 105mm for the long end it is also just about as long as you can go in a normal zoom lens without sacrificing quality. It is reasonably priced for such a good quality item too. Your main alternatives would be the Sigma 24-105 (the same excellent optical quality, heavier, a little bit bulkier, uncommon 82mm filter thread, and $200 dearer), and the new Canon 24-70/4L, which I don't know much about. There is a 24-70/2.8 as well, but it doesn't have IS and it is mega-expensive.

[William W]

Two points:

1. If you buy a 6D, then I also advise to carefully consider buying a "standard zoom" for that new camera format. I concur with Tony that the EF 24 to 105 F/4 L IS USM is a very good choice for a standard zoom lens on a 6D.

2. BUT - you mention that your subject interests are "wildlife, landscapes and low light": all these genres can be addressed by an APS-C format camera. Whilst the 6D is an excellent value for money camera I advise that you do need to understand and then articulate some very good reasons to CHANGE Camera Formats, especially as you list "wildlife" as the genre which first interests you. Understand that (for example using a 70D or 7D) and an EF 300/4L (about $1600 for an excellent lens that is a bit longer that the 250mm zoom lens that you presently have) you would require near a 500mm lens to frame the wildlife, the same in your viewfinder, if you were using a 6D.

WW

[geoffsta]

HelenClaire. Which ever camera you decide on, there are other choices other than Canon lenses. Consider other brands like Sigma or Tamron, which are is some cases just as good as the canon, and at a lot better on the hip pocket.
If you do buy the full frame, make sure that your first lens is an all rounder. And stick with that lens until you are confident with it. During that time, put a few dollars in the bank each week, to save for your next purchase. By then you'll have an idea what you want. And it wont hurt as much.


Any full frame lens, expect to pay around $1,000. Wildlife, serious sport and that type of photography, $2,000 - $5,000. It's a lot of money for a hobby. But then again buying a caravan for $30,000 - $80,000 that you might use twice a year is less value for money. And a lot less fun.

[Kym]

When you say that on the 6D my 90mm macro will act more like a 55mm, does this mean I can get closer to my subject? Or does it mean something else

It means this: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showlibrary.php?title=Indexes:Appendix_D_-_Full_Frame_vs_APS-C_DX_crop_factor_w_example

And this diagram is the key to enlightenment on the subject :D In the diagram the focal length does NOT change!
90mm is always 90mm... But the crop does change, i.e. the field of view.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/technical/Lens1.png


I also agree that Sigma and Tamron make some superb lenses, eg. the Sigma 10-20 wide and 105/2.8 macro; and my Tamron 28-75/2.8 are all excellent pieces of glass.

[Tannin]

Very seldom that I disagree with William, but here is an instance.


you mention that your subject interests are "wildlife, landscapes and low light": all these genres can be addressed by an APS-C format camera. Whilst the 6D is an excellent value for money camera I advise that you do need to understand and then articulate some very good reasons to CHANGE Camera Formats, especially as you list "wildlife" as the genre which first interests you.

You are keeping your 450D and, for wildlife, the 450D isn't terribly different to a 7D or a 70D. You'd gain a bit with either of those two, but nothing earth-shattering, and the 6D makes a perfectly decent wildlife camera. For birds, a 7D would be better, but most other wildlife is well-suited to a 6D and a 100-400 (or indeed pretty much any camera with that same lens, or a good 70-300). For landscapes, nothing substitutes for that wonderful detail resolution of a full frame camera. I happily use my APS-C cameras for landscapes, but only when my larger format cameras are not to hand. And for low light, there is no comparison. Any of the full frame cameras (6D, 5D III, 5D II, 1DX) is vastly superior to the APS-C units in low light. The sensor is much bigger so it has a lot more light falling on it. It's that simple. In low light, bigger isn't just better, it's much better. Note that the 7D is worse in low light than your 450D. (Yes, I have owned and used both.) I believe that the 60D and 70D are somewhat improved in this regard, but obviously not anywhere near the full frame models.

[Kym]

Obviously a 35mm sensor will catch roughly twice the light as an APS-C in an overall image sense due to the double area.
But at the pixel level it does not matter.
I.e. If you crop the image to APS-C size then the 35mm sensor is the same as the APS-C sensor (assuming same pixel pitch [pixels/mm2] and technology).
Experiment, get some dark electrical tape and mask off your 35mm sensor to APS-C size and see ... :p

Let say you have a 500mm lens and use two cameras a. 35mm sensor and b. APS-C to take a picture of a little bird (Blue wren) at f/8 and 5m distance in the same light.
You crop the 35mm image to APS-C dimensions.
Guess what? The printed images both have the same noise and other characteristics.

[Tannin]

Quite so Kym, however as I read it this is not the question before us. Your point applies to focal length limited photography - i.e., birds and not much else. In all other types of photography - anything where you are not forced to make big crops because you can't fill the frame with your subject, it doesn't apply. Bigger sensors are much better in low light, so much better that the differences between between different makes and models of camera become trivial by comparison.

[HelenClaire]

A huge thank you to everyone who has taken the time to offer me advice. Much appreciated :D

Gaze - Yes it is a huge jump from a 450D to 6D but so was going from a basic point and shoot to the 450D 5 years ago. I debated long and hard back then but have never ever regretted my choice. I have explored and mastered all that the 450D can offer and now am hankering for more challenge. I know that it is skill that makes the photographer not the camera, but after looking at the 6D I am eager to have a much greater ISO range, a full frame sensor and all that it brings to a photo (clarity and colour) as well as an opportunity to explore HDR.

Tony - Thank you so much for explaining the lenses. Reviews Ive read on the 24-105/4L are very promising. They come as the kit lens with the camera and from what I can see it works out cheaper to buy it this way rather than separately. Also thank you for your sensibility. I will still have my 450D for wildlife. I was heartened to hear it is not that much different to a 7D or 70D.

Kym - Thankyou for your diagram. For a visual learner it spoke volumes. I also understand what you mean with the cropping and that there is not that much difference in quality.
Anyway I now am a bit wiser and have lots to consider :umm:

[William W]

You are keeping your 450D and, for wildlife, the 450D isn't terribly different to a 7D or a 70D. You'd gain a bit with either of those two . . . For birds, a 7D would be better, but most other wildlife is well-suited to a 6D and a 100-400 . . .


Points taken and agreed.

I didn't note the fact of keeping the 450D - my error.

Thanks for picking that up.

WW

[William W]

Let me expand on exactly what was my error and what I am correcting from my previous:


I didn't pick up on the fact that you were keeping the 450D (post #4, second sentence).

Therefore, my basic premise was: for 'wildlife', that IF you bought any 135 Format Camera (aka 'Full Frame' camera), you would NEED to buy a new telephoto lens to get the coverage (the Field of View - FoV) that you presently have with your 55 to 250.

Negating what lenses might or might not be suitable for the shooting distances and the wildlife subjects that you choose, when you bought that "new lens", whatever lens you choose, it would effectively be LESS in terms of FoV, by a factor of 1.6, on you new camera COMPARED TO using that new lens on any APS-C camera.

Note that the examples of the 70D, 7D cameras and 300/4L IS lens were ONLY examples to explain the point above and NOT necessarily suggestions as to 'the best' for your specific "wildlife" uses, as we don't know exactly what "wildlife" means for your situation and under what condition you shoot 'wildlife'.

Obviously, if you buy a 6D and considering the fact that you are keeping your 450D you can still choose to use the 55 to 250 lens to get the narrow FoV for 'wildlife'.

Further ANY new lens that you subsequently choose to buy, (note - NOT must buy), provided that new lens is an 'EF Mount' Lens, it could be used on either camera.

WW

[gaze]

Gaze - Yes it is a huge jump from a 450D to 6D but so was going from a basic point and shoot to the 450D 5 years ago. I debated long and hard back then but have never ever regretted my choice. I have explored and mastered all that the 450D can offer and now am hankering for more challenge. I know that it is skill that makes the photographer not the camera, but after looking at the 6D I am eager to have a much greater ISO range, a full frame sensor and all that it brings to a photo (clarity and colour) as well as an opportunity to explore HDR.


Don't get me wrong, you will love your full frame. I made that leap about a year ago (7D to 5D) and have zero regrets. It opens up the low light area brilliantly and the focusing... well, it's a quantum leap better. As long as you understand you won't have the same magnification for smaller wildlife... that's the only real "downside". One thing I did find.. I used to "primarily" use my 24-70 on the 7D but now I find I almost always have the 70-200 on the 5D. That's probably more about the type of photography I mainly do (I suppose you would call it "environmental portraits".. bands, musicians etc) but you may find your previously favourite lens doesn't quite fit any more. I do like the concept of the 24-105 though and think that would be a brilliant choice for an allrounder. Tempted to trade my 24-70 in on it.

[Unbound]

... I know that it is skill that makes the photographer not the camera...


That is true enough, but the results from using better gear can be very encouraging and inspiring if your present camera is causing you frustration.

- - - Updated - - -




... I know that it is skill that makes the photographer not the camera...


That is true enough, but the results from using better gear can be very encouraging and inspiring if your present camera is causing you frustration.

[Roosta]

Hi HelenClaire,

Here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/) is a great site with more info and reviews directly aimed at us (Canon Users)

You should be able to research plenty on there.

Basics here, Buy EF lenses, and they'll fit on both Bodies, Full Frame or APS-C crop bodies. EF is the way to go for flexibility.

[Tannin]

Good points from all above. Picking up on one of them, EF lenses when you have two or more different-sensor-size bodies (e.g. 450D and 6D): this is a great thing as for practical purposes you get two lenses for the price of one.


My 35/1.4, for example, is a very nice fast wide angle lens on my 5D II, and a very nice normal lens on my 50D. If I only had (say) the 5D II, I'd need to shell out for something like a 50/1.4 as well as the 35.
My 100-400 is great for birding on the 7D, but turns into a brilliant long landscape lens on the 1D IV or the 5D II.
My sweet little 60mm macro, apart from actual macro duties, doubles as a fastish mild telephoto general-purpose prime on the 50D (ideal for portraits and I love using it for landscapes too) and I've lost count of the number of times I've wished it wasn't an EF-S lens because I'd use it a lot on the bigger sensor cameras as a general-purpose normal prime ... but I can't because it's EF-S only.


When I did an outback Queensland trip a couple of years ago and my one and only general-purpose zoom (the 24-105) died, I was able to continue the trip with perfect satisfaction by mixing and matching two or three primes with two or three different bodies, thus covering pretty much every focal length. (The only real loss was not being able to use the 60 macro on the 5D II.)

Anyway, my point is that having two different bodies (or in my case, three different ones, 'coz the 1D IV is APS-H or 1.3 crop) lets you do all sorts of interesting things with even quite a small lens collection. Of course, your lenses must be EF lenses (not EF-S) for this to work.

[Wynny]

Thank you HelenClaire for starting this post and to all the people who have posted the very useful responses. This has been good for me as well as I am currently in the process of deciding which way to go when I upgrade my 600D and at the moment the choice seems to be 6D or wait if there is an announcement soon on the 7D replacement.

On the surface my choice may seem easier as I do mainly landscape including in low light so the 6D would seem the obvious way to go. I accept that if I go this way I will have to replace my EF-S lenses but the thought of selling my beloved 10-22mm is holding me back. I want to be sure that a lens such as the 17-40 L will be an able replacement so I am scouring review upon review and will still have to go through a grieving process should I go full frame.

[gaze]

17-40 f4L is a brilliant lens and more than the equal of the 10-22 in image quality. You will be anything but disappointed with this on a FF Canon...

[Tannin]

I feel your pain, Wynny. I love my 10-22, always have. Plus I have a wonderful little 60mm macro which I will miss for its own sake and also because it was a present, and possibly worst of all, the Tokina 10-17 fish for which there is no full frame equivalent of any kind. (Canon's fisheye zoom is a sad joke of a thing. What were they thinking?)

For several years now I have stuck with my old 50D, essentially just to use those lenses. I've looked over and over again at the 17-40/4, the 16-35/2.8, and the two Tokinas (16-28/2.8 and 17-35/4), and also the Sigma 12-24. Like you I have finally more-or-less decided on the 17-40, largely for bargain price, very useful range, 77mm filter thread the same as all my other lenses, and not least size and weight. I plan to get one when I replace the 50D with the 5D II and replace that with either a 5D III or possibly the 5D IV if it is out by then. By then, the 17-40 will probably have itself been replaced - if I am any guess, by a lens which is optically superior, might just have IS, and will most certainly cost vastly more.


Gaze, thankyou for that comment about the 17-40: I feel better about the prospect of abandoning the 10-22 after that.

[William W]

. . . (Canon's fisheye zoom is a sad joke of a thing. What were they thinking?)

Why, specifically?

Thanks,

WW

[Tannin]

That's maybe a bit far off-topic for this thread, William, though I'd be happy to discuss it elsewhere. Suffice to say that the design is brain-dead and if you gave me one I wouldn't find room in my bag for it.