Yep, I think this question has been asked quite a number of times, just thought I should ask based on what I need. I'm currently using a (close to) 4 year old 550D, so I was thinking it was time for me to upgrade. I am now choosing between upgrading to either a 7D or 5D mark II (mark III is pretty out of my price range for now, so hopefully no one suggests the mark III instead).  I'm leaning quite heavily towards the 7D, because I'm really very happy with how my current crop lens is serving me quite well for basically every single purpose I use it for, be it portraits, landscapes or even the occasional sports photography like the cheerleading competition I did last week. And also I just bought a cropped aspherical lens which I haven't really gotten around to playing around with, and I'm rather reluctant to sell it without using it much. Upgrading to another crop body like the 7D would allow me to keep all these and save me the trouble of upgrading lenses together with the camera. But there's the issue of the 7D and 550D having the same sensor, I feel like I will be upgrading just for better functionality and build.  On the other hand, the 5D mark II obviously will have better image quality, but it's the thought of upgrading my lenses together with the camera that turns me off, it just feels like extra cost on top of the already more expensive 5D mark II, which I don't think be able to afford (the lenses, not the body). The only EF lens I own is the 50mm f1.8, which isn't flexible enough for my needs.  For the record, I do mainly travel-type photography and some cosplay portraits whenever there are conventions. Anything else is based on what I feel like shooting at that time. My current main lens is the Sigma 18-200mm, which I really love due to its versatility, I feel like there's nothing I can't take with this lens.  One of my ideas was to upgrade to the 7D first, then slowly phase out my crop lens and introducing FF lenses to my inventory, then make the jump to FF when I think I need another upgrade. Do you guys think this is a good idea, or should I make the direct jump to FF? My priority right now is actually cost, because I'm not really working as of now so I have no income, but its the allure of higher image quality in the 5D II that's giving me a headache. Any advice would be welcome here. Thanks a lot in advance.
122618
Today I own a Digital Rebel XSi and the only EF-S lens I have are those that came in the kit.  I've been reading a lot trying to decide for my next body, but oh boy, what a tough decision!  I'm between the 5D Mark II and the 7D.  Among the type of pictures I plan to take are:   Portraits; Landscape/Nature Pictures at parties and other environments in low light condition.   Should I go 5D Mark II or 7D?  Updated for clarification:  "the only EF-S lens I have are those that came in the kit." does not mean I only have the kit lens. It means my investment in EF-S lenses is limited to those that came in the kit. Besides the kit lens, I do also have a  and a . Neither of which are EF-S lenses.  I also have a .  I have found that under some situations where I can't use the speedlite, I have already maxed out shutter speed, aperture and ISO settings on my XSi. That's the reason for wanting to upgrade to a body that offers better ISO and performance under low light conditions.
43682
I am primarily an amateur photographer but I do take small jobs from time to time.  I'm looking to upgrade my equipment but I'm not sure if I should be spending money on my body, glass, or both.  I have two common issues that I'd like to improve.   I shoot a lot at ice rinks and find that even in servo mode I get a lot of shots that are slightly out of focus.  I try to keep the AF target on face masks but many shots will come out focused an inch or two off (ears, hands, etc).  I'm shooting F/1.8-F/2.8 to get action stopping shutter speeds so you can really tell when the focus is even a hair off.  I don't know if this is a limitation of my camera, lens, or the human operator. Most of my paid work is indoors shooting candids where a flash is inappropriate.  I feel like I need to use a higher F-number to get more subject in focus but I usually can't do it without upping to ISO 3200 unless I'm using a flash.  By the time I clean up the high ISO noise in Camera Raw I end up with an image lacking detail.  So far this hasn't been a big problem because the photos are typically used in magazine prints only an inch or two wide but it's still driving me nuts.   Here is the equipment currently in my bag:   Canon Rebel T2i Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II (no IS)   Collecting dust, came with my old Rebel XTi.  Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS   Purchased with my T2i.  This is my workhorse lens but I'm disappointed with the soft images it produces at higher focal lengths.  Stopping down makes the images acceptable but that's not always an option.  My eyes want more contrast and color but considering how inexpensive this lens is I can't really complain.  Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM   This was purchased with an older camera and doesn't get used much anymore.  The images are too soft beyond 200mm and the AF seems sluggish.  Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM   I am extremely happy with the images I get from this lens.  I use it indoors all the time and also paired with extension tubes for some macro work.  Some of my best ice hockey images have been from this lens even though I didn't have sports in mind for this lens.    My initial plan was to upgrade to a 60D or 7D body but after doing some reading it occurred to me that I might invest in better glass first.  I'm unsure of what will help improve focusing, image quality, high ISO shooting, etc.  Maybe it's a new camera, new glass, photography lessons, or a little of everything?  I'm looking to keep my next round of purchases under $3,000 and am willing to trade in some of my used equipment to offset costs.  Would anyone care to make a recommendation?  I'm looking at the EOS 60D and 7D bodies.  Not sure if the 7D is overkill for my needs.  I'm also looking at the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens to be my new workhorse but I'm concerned that it may not be wide enough on an APS-C body and the lack of IS might be an issue.  There's also the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM but I'm thinking it wouldn't be wise to spend all my budget on that lens right now (or maybe not?).
19067
I just picked up photography a few months ago as a hobby (not planning to go professional at all), but will be getting good gear and glass over time. Right now I have a T3i, which I'm considering upgrading to a 7D or probably a used 5d Mk II next year.  For my next lens purchase, I'm considering a 70-200 L lens, I'm just not sure which one to go for.  I'm deciding between the 70-200 2.8 L with no IS, or the 70-200 f4 L with IS.  My thinking is the following:   While I do not plan to photograph weddings or anything like that, I do plan to use the lens to take pictures of my kid on school plays over the years, so I'm guessing the 2.8 would be useful there? He's not on school yet, but I hear flash is not allowed there? How would the f4 fare in such situations? I have the 18-135 kit lens with IS...I turned off the Image Stabilization on the lens, and was able to take decent pictures handheld with not-so-fast shutter speeds (1/15, 1/20's), although I do NOT have a good pulse. Would being able to do this translate well to using the 2.8 with no IS? Most of the shooting with the 70-200 will probably be done outside..just that case of shooting plays or a concert or too.   So..what should I do? Anything I'm not considering?
66172
I'm looking to buy a new camera. I've looked at  and decided that mirrorless is right for me. But what next?   What should I be looking for when shopping for a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (and what should I not be concerned with)?
116808
Hello recently I went to best buy and played with a Nikon B500, it was great. I was able to focus on the smallest things, close or far, zoomed all the way in and all the way out. So I went on the internet and found out that the B700 shoots in raw so I got it instead thinking it was better. Only I cant get it to focus on anything close up, weather in macro or not after like 25% zoom it no longer focuses on anything no matter what settings I put it on leaving me to think that I should have gotten the cheaper B500. It may not shoot in raw but at least it would be usable. I am fairly new to photography I had a friend with much more experience come over and try to figure it out. He told me that my camera has a range that it is able to focus on. Only the cheaper B500 focused on things way more zoomed in and with the camera much closer to the object so it doesn't make much since to me. So my question is why wont my camera focus on macro shots (weather in macro or not)?
14794
I am new to photography. I have Canon 1000d (with 18 -55 mm lens). My basic interest is wedding photography.  I am planning to get a prime and a telephoto lens. So, my dilemma is:   Should I go for 50mm f/1.8 or 50 mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8 For a telephoto zoom... should I consider 55-250mm IS??   kindly suggest.  ps: Please note that I am mainly interested in shooting weddings....
32771
I am looking to buy a CANON 28mm 1.8 EF lens. I found an offer, significantly discounted, of a lens with small scratches on the front element.   The offer is very tempting. Here is a photo posted by the seller:    The scratches will probably affect my photos a bit. But how much exactly? Does anyone have experience with a similarly scratched lens?   I am an amateur and hobbyist, and I don't make money from my photography. I would use this lens as a 'normal' on my 60D, mostly for taking portrait photos of my family. I am getting this one because of the aperture (1.8), and I would be using it wide open most of the time.
73436
This is my first question in /photography. I'm a very amateur photographer, doing things wrong and by eye with lots of trial-and-error all the time.  I currently own a reflex Nikon D70 my uncle gave us after he bought a better one. It has some nice settings, and he bought a a Nikkor 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 zoom lens for it. It behaves nicely, but it's getting old (it has those old cartridges before SD cards existed) and every new charge takes longer than the last.  I'm planning to upgrade to a better camera, and there are some neat offers on a nearby superstore (MediaMarkt), this one catching my eye:  Sony DSC-H400 63x, Sensor Super HAD 1/2/3 CCD 20.1MP -> for less than 300€ taxes included  I don't have any type of extra information aside from that, all I can get from the official site is clinical data from other cameras that I suspect it's not 100% accurate, and there's no photography expert on the store to ask.  The common things I use my D70 for are: taking pictures of scenery (castles, towns, forests, waves hitting rocks, etc...), nearby (&lt;5m) persons and objects, and well, things where I want to save a memory in digital format, not for professional purposes at all.  Being that my objective is to have a decent, good-zooming (superzoom looks awesome), amateur (but with manual settings) camera, is this Sony a good replacement? Will I miss any features? Is there any better, similarly-priced alternative you know of?  Basically, I want to know whether I will get better quality photos than I currently do, given the examples, with any averagely-priced bridge camera similar to that Sony, and if it's worth it.  examples of current camera results  Full zoom-out of town at night, bad quality I know; notice the pink blur at the left.    Maximum zoom on that pink blur from almost the same spot:    Daylight, cloudy, modified with Adobe Lightroom, scenery:    Same day, same beach, different settings:    Same day, same beach, rocks:
40389
I am new to dslr's and got a nikon 3000 with 18-55 lens as a gift.  I already see some limitations with the lens for walking about or on trails.  So my question is being new should I go with a 55-200 or 55-300 or is there another step before I go with a telephoto lens.
19515
I basically decided on a whim (from reading this site, talking to some friends, and always admiring great photos) that I want to get into photography.  Are there disadvantages to starting out with a prosumer camera like the Nikon D7000? I know stuff will be more expensive, but will there also be greater frustration or complexity?  (I am the kind of person who tries to find reasons to justify the extra cost even when I know deep down that it's not necessary...)
6015
This week I've read two news stories about two different camera lenses that can magnify things that are very far away.  The first is the , which is a point-and-shoot camera that costs $600, has an 83x optical superzoom lens ("the same field of view as a 2,000mm lens on a full-frame camera"), and lets you see the craters of the moon.  The second is the , which weighs 36 pounds, costs $180,000, and can take portraits of people a half mile away.  A non-photographer might ask, "Why would somebody spend their life savings on a gigantic telescope of a lens when you could take far away pictures with a handheld camera for 1/300th the price?"  Well, I am basically a non-photographer, and I would like to ask that question. What does the big one give you that the little one doesn't provide? I understand that small changes in lenses can make a big difference in size and price, but this seems to be of a different scale entirely.   What is going on with the optics of the lenses that makes the small one able to be so small and the big one have to be so...big?   I'm trying to get a basic intuition for what makes lenses different, and I realize I don't understand enough about how lenses work to even know how to compare these apples and watermelons.
71844
Say you are using a crop body, and you have both 50mm/1.4 USM and 85mm/1.8 USM lens in your bag. Now, you want to take a portrait where there is adequate light and space, and you have decided to take the shot at f/2.2.   Now I want to know which lens will be good to use to take such a shot, and why.
11616
Some flagship-level smartphones today come with excellent cameras, at least for their own use-cases. Sometimes you don't really need more than that in most of the photos you'll shoot, and thinking about a "better" camera experience isn't an easy task if you already have a "good enough" smartphone camera sensor.  However, I am looking to "upgrade" my photographical experience, without spending too much on high-end equipment and lenses, but at the same time without going for cheaper quality models that modern smartphones might actually beat in some cases.  Finding the right balance is not an easy task, you might look at a photo and say, "My smartphone shoots better than this", or look at another photo and think, "It does look better, but I don't see much of a difference to justify the price", and today's world of modern standalone cameras is not small, it certainly has many different models, which is why I've come here to ask, is there any camera model that satisfies or at least comes very close to my requirements? I am aware that I might be vague, and some photography professionals may perhaps request much more details than what I've offered you, but I hope you understand the gist of what I'm trying to say, even if I cannot express it well in words.  I have looked at mirrorless/MLIC models, but I'm not sure if they're the right type for my use case.
38994
I bought Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 Contemporary DG OS HSM Lens for my Crop Sensor Canon 1300D.  What I've noticed is that it gives me max aperture of f5.6 at 600MM instead of f6.3 and f4.5 at 150mm on my Canon 1300D.   Please provide your views. Here's the link to the pic with Metadata–
6426
I currently live in the Canon ecosystem, but really like the look of the Sony a7S. But before I switch I want to know just how well I'll be able use use my old EF-mount lenses on my new a7S.  How well do the mount adapters perform?  Are there any converters that would allow me to use my old EF lenses with 100% of the original functionality (auto-focus, IS, EXIF data, etc)?  I would not normally ask, but this isn't the sort of thing I can try out in the store.
113074
I have a D700 which I'm not planning to replace at this point in Nikon's product cycle.   I'll porbably buy the D800's successor.   Not because I don't like the D800 (especially its usability improvements around focus mode switching and Live View, which don't seem to have attracted much attention) but because I can't justify the cost when there are too few things the D800 does that the D700 doesn't.  Anyway, although I'm keeping the D700 for now, I'm planning to buy a wide-angle prime so that I end up with this in my bag:  D700, SB-800, 105mm micro, 50mm, wide-angle.  I need to choose a wide-angle lens.   The 14-24 is a great lens, but too big for me to routinely carry it.   So I'm going to buy a wide-angle prime.   However, I don't want to buy a prime now that turns out to be disappointing on the replacement body I eventually buy.  As for focal length, the 35mm is a lens I could like but it's too close to the 50mm for me to seriously consider buying it.   Hence I'm looking at the 20mm - 28mm focal length range.   Which Nikon primes have sufficient micro-contrast to work well with bodies with a finer pixel pitch at full frame (I'm going to assume for the sake of the discussion that that is what the D800 successor will be like: FX, high resolution)?  I'm going to assume that the 24mm f/1.4 is going to be among the suggestions, and in fact Nikon points it out in the technical guide for the D800 as being suitable for use with the D800E.   It's heavy and expensive so I worry that in practice I'd leave it behind with the 14-24.   So I'm interested in my other likely options.     Budget is important for recommending the right choice.   But I'm pretty flexible for a reason: new lenses will be launched between now and the launch of the D800's successor.  So maybe the right approach is to buy something less expensive now and upgrade later to some not-yet-existing lens. The principle I'm going to operate on is that I'm OK with buying a lens now, that's actually not suitable for the D800's successor at up to €400.   I'd just sell if that seems like the right thing to do, and not worry about losing some of its value on the re-sale.   On the other hand, if I'm going to spend more than €500 I don't want to plan to replace the lens.  My planned uses are principally travel photography, interior shots, architecture, some environmental portraits.  What do you say?
76633
I would like to know whether it is possible to photograph moon without any flaws with a canon EOS 550d..   Also to get an image of the moon as close as the following image, what kind of equipment(lens,etc) is need to be used with the 550d Body