Upgrading..500D maybe

[Dave McCormick]

I have saved up money and in a few weeks I am thinking of upgrading my camera. I currently have a Canon 400D and was thinking of getting the new 500D. Just thinking if I did decide to do this, what I could do with my old camera. I got it in Currys and does anyone know if they would do a trade in? The camera works fine, the mirror and sensor just need a clean and a new rubbery bit over viewfinder needs added as mine broke. I can give in my CF cards too since the 500D takes SDHC cards.

I have my 400D, 18-55mm Lens and two CF cards (4GB and 1GB) I would like to exchange.

I have seen the specs of the 500D but does anyone know how good it actually is? I would like to get it with the 18-55mm IS kit and I don't need the other stuff as I have a 4GB SDHC...might get a 16GB one just to be safe. Got a mono and tripod and a carrying bag, a remote for camera and my Sigma 105mm which I assume will fit this camera also? WOuld I need to get a new remote (this one is wireless)

[Gruditch]

Hi Dave, as your only likely to get a couple of hundred tops, for your 400D, if I were you, I would keep it by as a spare. Very frustrating when your left camera-less.

The niche that the 400D had in the Canon line up, kind of ended with the 400D. The 450D ran at the same time as the later 400D's, and was more expensive. So as the 500D has replaced that, you should rightly expect to get a significant upgrade in a 500D.

I haven't used a 500D, but I have the same 15mp sensor in my 50D, which I would describe as, fantastic, but unforgiving. You will get lots of upgrades with the 500D, like a larger higher res viewing screen, live view, movie mode, Hmm. Dave if it is a toss up between a new camera body, or that birding lens your were looking for, nothing against the 500D, but I know where I would spend the dosh.

Gruditch

[eccles]

Post deleted. See later post.

[eccles]

Post deleted. See later post.

[Dave McCormick]

I had a better idea and go with what I was thinking a long while ago and get a lnes for birding. My camera is good for what it is, and I don't need a video function, I have a HD video camera already for that. I will have about £700 to spend and because I live beside Strngford Lough, I see a lot of birds, and the owls/birds of prey and others here too. What would be good lens fot this? I thought about Bigma but ideas? I'd rather not have a mirror lens as you might know why.

I'll be set then, have a wildlife lens, a landscape one and my Sigma for insects.

[Gruditch]

If you were to get a replacement camera, then Eccles is right, you won't go far wrong with a 40D.

However if we are back to the birding lens, look for a used Canon 100-400 IS, or a Canon 300 F4 IS, IMO both better than the Bigma.

Gruditch

[eccles]

Post deleted. See later post.

[Gruditch]

It has been reported that there are one or two "not very sharp", 100-400's out there, but obviously the vast majority are fine. As Lisa has a 300 F4, and I have a 100-400, I have had extensive use of both. The the 100-400 has the versatility of being a zoom, plus it has an extra 100mm, but I guess the 300 F4 wins out in weight, price, build, sharpness, even with the x1.4 on, and it's just a bl@@dy nice lens to use.

Unfortunately Canon are yet to put IS on the 400 F5.6, yet the 100-400, and 300 F4 both have fantastic IS. I'm a bit of a lazy git, and don't like using a tripod for general wildlife, so I personally wouldn't consider the 400 F5.6.

Gruditch

[eccles]

Post deleted. See later post.

[Gruditch]

I would imagine that with the 100-400, you must allow for the vast number of lenses out there. When you get a few bad reports on a relatively rare lens, the Canon EF 400mm f/4.0 DO IS USM, for instance, then it is wise to steer well clear.

I've only ever known one person, who wasn't totally happy with his 100-400, and as you say, he of-loaded it on e-bey.

Getting used camera equipment, and sometimes even new camera equipment, can be a nightmare, that's why I now spend the extra, and use the high street shops.

Gruditch

[Markulous]

I use the 100-400mm and 300mm - like the push-pull of the zoom (for simultaneous zoom/manual focus) and the prime for the quality. We wanted to get another zoom and in the end went for the new(ish) Sigma 150-500mm and have to say I really love it and prefer it over the 100-400mm. Partly the extra reach but also the extra stops (1-2) of it's OS and the sensible lens strap (no more carrying the camera 'nose down') - and then there's the price: half the cost of the Canon! OK, the zoom ring is a bit stiff, it's heavier (but being easier to carry more than compensates for that), the build quality is not up to Canon's (but I take pretty good care of my lenses) and the IQ? Well, I reckon it's maybe not quite as good wide open at the long end - but definitely not far off. Now dumping the Canon 1.4x TC as it'll only fit a few Canon lenses for a Kenko 1.4x (said to be equally good and fits all my lenses)

Insofar as upgrading your camera, I'm with the majority and would suggest a 40D (probably the best value camera around on a quality/cost basis) as you'll get no appreciable advance with a 500D

[Gruditch]

No Mark, reminds me of that Sigma 170-500 that Lisa had, yuk.

I did see an add for a Sigma 135-400 EX DG. I don't know much about that lens, I can only imagine it was briefly about before the 120-400 DG OS.

http://www.surreyphotography.co.uk/sigmalist.htm

It may lack OS, but it's a DG and with EX glass it should be OK, at 350 quid it's quite cheep. Anyone seen any old reviews on it.

Gruditch

[eccles]

Post deleted. See later post in thread.

[Gruditch]

Eccles, I do wish you would stop hijacking every photography tread with this anti Canon nonsense.

Gruditch

[Markulous]

No Mark, reminds me of that Sigma 170-500 that Lisa had, yuk.

Oh? You've tried it? OK, the OS is relatively noisy, zoom ring is stiff and build is less than spectacular (but perfectly acceptable!) but a small price for better reach, close to equal image quality, 1-2 stops better OS, a sensible carry strap than the Canon 100-400mm (and the AF is at least as fast - a welcome surprise even if not a priority for me). And HALF the price!

It doesn't have live view or movie mode

I regard that as a massive plus! I really don't want to pay the extra for "toys" I won't use, especially as priority is not given to what I consider much more important: image quality and noise reduction. But then I do think Canon is playing up to the marketing hype of more MPs and "extras" - hopefully a temporary aberration (it may sell them more cameras but I know a significant number of pros defecting from Canon to Nikon) as from a business POV I'm currently committed to Canon

[eccles]

Post deleted. See later post.

[Hamearis]

Eccles
are you on commition?
Ham

[Dave McCormick]

I was thinking and I know it might not be great for birds becasue of one thing and another, and I do like taking videos, but my video camera has problems focuing and its not great as I thought it was and I know not everyone likes the idea of videos on a DSLR, but how does the canon 500D and Canon EF-S 18-200mm IS lens seem? I know it might not be as long for some birds, but anyone know what the lens as like? Does anyone know how far in feet different lens sizes can zoom to? I still have about 2 weeks or so to think about this, so I am not set.

[Gruditch]

I know not everyone likes the idea of videos on a DSLR,

I went into the camera shop a while back, where the staff were all looking a bit bemused, some guy had just bought a 2 and a half grand, Canon 5D MK2 lens kit, for the movie mode.
They pointed out the 300 quid camcorders, that give far better quality movies, but he would not be dissuaded.
When they told this same story to the salesman from, I think Panasonic, he said, the guy was not as mad as he seams, and went on to say that, all camcorders in time, will be using CF cards, and as the cards get quicker, the quality of movie will improve. So if it's movies you want, I think your crazy, but go for the 500D.

The Canon EF-S 18-200 IS

I did have to do some research on this lens for someone, also had a quick play with one. It's a consumer lens, not brilliant, not rubbish, you get what you pay for, it's OK. Not much of a review I know.

Oh? You've tried it? OK,

I had a go with one at Falconry centre, looking back that old 170-500, probably wasn't that bad. Especially as I didn't have much of a clue, how to get the best out of a DSLR at the time.

not anti-Canon. Rather, it's pro-everything. OK, I'll be honest, it's pro-Sony.

Your continuing brand knocking Eccles is very tiresome, not to mention a little sad. What I find even sadder, is that some people who used to enjoy contributing to these photography threads, and have tones of knowledge to share. Have told me that they will no longer post it the photography threads, because they are fed up with all your B@@@ S@@@.

Gruditch

[eccles]

It has been suggested that in this and previous posts I have been too confrontational when talking about particular camera brands. Seeking to correct this, I have deleted my previous entries in this thread. Please accept my apologies for the resulting discontinuity that the deletions have produced.

By way of redress I will try to address the original request by Dave McCormick, which is that he has about £700 to spend and asks what UKB members suggest he spends it on, originally suggesting an upgrade from his current Canon 400D to the newer 500D.

Firstly, when seeking to improve or expand your photography you have to ask yourself where the deficiencies, if any, lie.

Don't like the handling of the camera:
This is probably the most difficult to address. You may grow into a camera's quirks and foibles with familiarity, but if you have large hands, you may never be able to comfortably handle a small camera body such as the 400D. In such cases changing to a 500D, which is also small, won't improve things very much. In such an eventuality, since Dave has only the kit and macro lenses it might be that a complete change in mount may be considered. This is why getting down to your local camera shop to try the alternatives is important when upgrading, and especially when purchasing from scratch as once you've bought into a set of lenses then you're going to want to stay put.

Missing features:
The 400D lacks spot metering. But unless there are repeated serious problems with exposure in difficult lighting then adding spot metering may be a nice-to-have but in practice will give little additional benefit.
The 400D doesn't have movie mode or live-view. I have little desire for either of these and cannot really say whether they're worth having or not. Apparently, live-view uses contrast detect AF which is accurate but slow. It could have uses in studio or set-piece macro work. An exception is the A3xx models from Sony. These use a secondary sensor for the screen image, bypassing the need for contrast detect AF. Such a system has advantages of speed of AF but lacks image zoom capability to check for fine focus. Useful in conjunction with the flippable screen for low or high framing but of less use for macro/studio.
It is down to personal preference whether you want movies from a DSLR. I have no idea whether it's any good or not on the 500D. Could be handy for a short video of a butterfly in flight so I can see it might have its uses.
The 400D *only* has 10mp. Rest assured, 10mp is plenty.

Unsharp pictures:
Unsharp pictures can be the fault of an AF system, inadequate shutterspeed, poor camera/lens quality or overcropping.
If you're continually missing focus, then a camera upgrade *may* help, but I suggest a move to semi-pro/enthusiast level rather than a higher level consumer model would give greater benefits. Such models include the Canon 40D or 50D, Nikon 300D and Sony A700. The 40D and A700 are at Dave's price point and since Dave already has his macro lens in Canon mount the 40D is a logical choice.
Inadequate shutterspeed is down to light availability, and a discussion about iso and noise is a subject in itself. The pro-sumer Canons have a reputation for good noise control at high iso. If your camera/lens combo doesn't have some form of image stabilisation and you currently shoot hand held, you could find a monopod will improve your hit rate substantially. Denise uses a Canon 400D with Sigma 150 macro on a £20 Jessops monopod, a very portable set up. I have never seen her use a tripod. Check out her competition entries.
Knowing already that Dave has a very sharp macro lens, it is unlikely that optical quality is a cause for concern, at least when using this lens, so we can discount this. As already suggested, the 400D has plenty of pixels, and although there is a big jump from 10mp to 15 with the 500D you may be disappointed with the relatively small improvement in resolution that you actually get. And don't forget the extra CPU processing needed, particularly if shooting raw. If your PC is getting a bit long in the tooth all those extra pixels may end up requiring another few hundred pounds worth of PC upgrade to cope.
If you're overcropping, either get closer or get a longer lens. You can get away with a higher crop level by shooting raw. More on this later.

Missed shots.
Continuous shooting speed is the province of the higher level pro-sumer and pro DSLRs. If you want to be able to fire off shots in rapid succession in order to get that bird in flight just *so* then consider 40D/50D D300 A700.

Can't get close enough or can't get enough of the scene in:
The first calls for a telephoto lens, the second a wide angle. Only one thing I can suggest here, when buying glass choose carefully and buy the best you can afford. It will most likely outlast several camera bodies. OEM lenses are more expensive than independents. In part you're paying for the name but for the most part it's money well spent as OEM lenses hold their value more, are more reliable and, with a few exceptions, are optically better. Prime lenses perform better than zooms.
For telephoto, you may think for birding that a fixed telephoto lens limits you and that a zoom is better. For the most part birds are far from accommodating in allowing you to get close, and you will use a telezoom at the long end, having to crop the final image to frame the target adequately. The proportion of times I have used my 70-400 zoom at less than 400mm is probably less than 10%. A prime lens will take a teleconverter with a lower quality hit. This is partly because the prime's maximum aperture will often be higher and better able to take the one or two stop hit that a teleconverter takes. Also, zoom lenses can be complex, and a teleconverter sometimes just messes up the high degree of optical tuning needed to make them work. Suitability is highly dependent on the zoom concerned with some zooms being designed to take a teleconverter. Others will not. From what I've seen, most birders use 400mm focal length as a minimum reach, either from a 400mm or bigger prime or zoom, or a big aperture 300mm with teleconverter.
I am not experienced in wide-angle photography. My 18-70 kit lens is adequate for the little landscape photography that I do.

Going back to the raw vs jpeg thing, this is the single best way that you can improve your pictures. If you shoot jpeg then you are wasting precious image quality, and once you've taken your picture the lost quality cannot be recovered. The more you crop your image, and the more you push up iso for low light shots, the more that raw files have going for them. They can be converted to tiff, another lossless format, to which noise reduction software can be applied. And the chances are, the only cost will be the extra space needed on your PC. I keep a low-res jpeg image with each raw file that I archive, knowing I can retrieve the original from the raw data.

So in short assuming the handling of the 400D is ok and Canon is the mount of choice:

Need movies/live view - get 500D
Need more photo range - get more glass
Need faster shooting speed - get 40D (check handling in a shop as it's a bigger body)

This has been a bit of a marathon post, but I hope it's of some use to Dave, or anyone else.

Mike.