To Upgrade or Not...or Lens Instead?

[NJGuy3]

Hi everyone

Looking for some advice...

I purchased my first dslr, a Canon Rebel T1i, back at the beginning of 2011...I've had it since and still enjoy using it. Recently I began thinking about upgrading and trying to justify it. I'm most interested in the Canon 70D. I've noticed that a refurbished body can be had for just under $900.

Will this be a worthwhile upgrade and will I see great improvements over my existing camera? I'm aware of the specs and features of the 70D vs my T1i. I figure that the handling of higher ISO and faster frames per second would be the biggest gains.

In all honesty, there's still some features on my T1i that I may not have used yet. I have the book 'Understanding Exposure' which has helped me and I'm still learning things as I go. Unfortunately I don't get out and shoot as much as I'd like to.

I consider myself an amateur photographer. I shoot plenty of Disney which includes everything such as food, indoor/outdoor shows, parades, landscapes, fireworks and dark rides.

Also, I tend to post process most of my photos using Lightroom and Topaz software. For the most part, almost anything that I post online and/or print has been post processed.

I should add that my wife purchased a Canon SL1 body last year, which she uses for vacations and leisure. I've used it quite a few times and enjoy using it.

My other thought is...would I benefit more from purchasing a new lens such as the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM instead of the 70D body?

My gear consists of:
Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM
Rokinon 8mm Ultra Wide Angle f/3.5 Fisheye
Vello Battery Grip
Remote shutter release
Black Rapid Strap

Thanks in advance!

If it helps with suggestions, etc., check out my flickr page below.

 

[havoc315]

Is your primary goal to increase straight out image quality at the light levels you already were using, is your primary goal to get more low light capability, or is your goal to simply get more advanced tech for faster frame rate, better video and other gadgets. (There is nothing wrong with enjoying the tech aspect of a camera.. photography is fun. While "serious photographers" may look down at the gadgetry aspect, it is part of the fun for many of us photographers who may also be serious as well).

In terms of overall image quality -- The 70D would be a nice step up from your older Rebel, but it will be pretty comparable to the SL1.

So if you are primarily concerned with improving IQ and/or low light performance specifically, then ask yourself whether it is worth upgrade to the SL1 image quality.

If you are primarily concerned with improving IQ, at your existing low light performance... Then the best way to do it is with a really good lens. A lens will make more difference than camera body to get sharper images.

If you are putting an emphasis on low light performance... the 70D will be a nice step up from your camera, about the same as the SL1. Upgrading the lens would help also, but your 50/1.8 will remain your best lens for low light.

If you are primarily interested in getting a more modern tech-filled camera, then go for the upgrade. Live view is much better on the 70D.. you will get a faster frame rate, flip out screen, etc. All those things are useful and they can indirectly improve your photos, by making it easier to get the photo. They will not directly impact IQ as much as a lens.

 

[NJGuy3]

I feel that at times I wish I could push the ISO further but it begins to get noisy when it's upwards of 1600-3200.

There have been situations I wish it shot off more frames per second to capture certain events.

I did notice that photos taken with the SL1 tend to have more color/move vivid and image quality compared to my T1i. I have the settings set the same way so is this the newer processor/sensor giving it the advantage? Are there

I've been happy with the 9 points of focus...but haven't had a camera with more than that so I guess I don't realize what I'm missing unless I had it. Same applies for the flip-out screen...I don't have one now but it may benefit me if/when I do I have one.

My prime lenses tend to focus faster and compensate for certain low lights situations but would be nice if the camera itself can assist with my other lenses.

I guess part of the reason I'm thinking of upgrading is just having that 'itch' for a new camera. It's funny because I'll watch a friend of mine buy new bodies before ever completely learning the previous one and he shoots a lot using the 'pray & spray' method!

 

[Frantasmic]

Try one of the less expensive L lens. The 24-105, 17-40, the lowest priced 70-200 f4 lens, and the 135 f2.0 are within reach of the price quoted for the 70d. Lenses make a great deal of difference and you will use them when you do upgrade your camera

 

[manqvu]

To OP, I can't tell you what to do, but in case you weren't already aware, canon now has the 70D refurb on their site for $767. I noticed you quoted a price of about $900. This lower price may or may not effect your decision. Good luck

 

[firemanchip]

For what it`s worth I upgraded from a T3i to a 70D and I couldn't be happier. I`m also using it with fast glass and that makes for a really good combo.

 

[havoc315]

It sounds like you want a new camera, not a lens. If that's what you want, go for it.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Maybe it's just me, but I've owned about every Txi there's been and now happily own both a 70D and a 6D.

Here's the deal. Fast glass is always the best answer, except in this case. He has decent glass. Could it be better? Sure. Couldn't it always!

He's going to gain 2 magnitudes (minimum) in ISO capability, IMO. That's 2 stops. That's a LOT. He's going to get better and faster focus. He's going to get a higher resolution RAW. He's going to get video and if my recollection serves me, my T1i didn't even do video. He's also going to get a LOT more in upgrades too much to mention. The SL1 is a toy. If you're going to upgrade, upgrade.

The 70D is a helluva machine. In a perfect world, I'd buy both (more glass + the camera) but I have to disagree with the concensus here. I think a new body is the first step, especially if he buys it body only and uses the difference in the kit price as money applied to another fast lens in a few month.

That and $5 will get you a venti at Starbucks.

 

[jamez2014]

If your going to get any glass for a crop body get the canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS it's an amazing lens and the IS on its pretty incredible for any low light situations, if your thinking of a lens upgrade go for it over the sigma 17-50mm IMO well worth the extra. The rule I have always been told is get the best glass money can buy and leave the camera till later, Google a site image resource you can download full red samples at different ISO etc and you can visually see the difference from the body you have to a 70d, and tbh I think you will be surprised that the difference won't be that large. But also look at the 60d it's still a very good camera that can be had for a lot less money. HTH

 

[Skywise]

If your going to get any glass for a crop body get the canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS it's an amazing lens and the IS on its pretty incredible for any low light situations, if your thinking of a lens upgrade go for it over the sigma 17-50mm IMO well worth the extra. The rule I have always been told is get the best glass money can buy and leave the camera till later, Google a site image resource you can download full red samples at different ISO etc and you can visually see the difference from the body you have to a 70d, and tbh I think you will be surprised that the difference won't be that large. But also look at the 60d it's still a very good camera that can be had for a lot less money. HTH

This, definitely. If you're looking for better IQ, dollar for dollar you'll get a bigger jump with the 17-55f2.8 lens then you will upgrading to the 70D.

(Although I understand perfectly going for that new camera "smell" )

I started out with an Xti and a 24-105 EF lens (thinking I'd upgrade to FF someday in the future) not realizing at the time that with the crop lens factor that I was shooting closer to 50mm on that lens then 24 and it wasn't until I was playing with the kit lens a few months later that I suddenly realized that I had a much wider FOV with the 18-55 kit lens then the 24-105. A little internet research later and I had given myself a true crash course in EF-S vs. EF (I was a real photography novice). I sold the 24-105 and went with a Tamron 18-55F2.8 that was designed with the crop factor in mind. It was a decent lens and I shot with it for about a year but the colors I got with it were always muted (like I was shooting through a tinted lens) so I upgraded to the Canon 17-55 f2.8 and... WOW... there was a night and day difference in the IQ. I was taking shots that made me look like a seasoned pro. I picked up the 10-22 and those two stayed in my bag for the next 4 years as I upgraded to a T2i (for the newer sensor) and then a T4i (for the stereo mic).
Last year, I went to DW for the first time in years and took the camera along to video the fireworks (I had done alot of videoing of other nightlife so I thought I'd have a good handle on it.) I got good video of Wishes but I had to really push the post processing to get rid of the video noise. So much so that I ended up crunching out some of the details.
I had planned a solo trip for Christmas and wanted to video Holiday Wishes but was concerned that I was going to run into the same problem and I felt that I had pushed the equipment as far as I could. I ended up selling the whole kit and kaboodle and got a refurb'd 6D with the 16-25F2.8II. Let's just say they're not lying about the low light capabilities of that camera. My Holiday Wishes recording was fantastic, very little noise but not as good as it could've been as the brighter fireworks got washed out at points as the camera fought to compensate for the lighting. I was aware of the same problem with the Canon Rebels and normally dialed down a few settings to resolve that but I was still feeling out the 6D and left most of the settings at default. I went back for SWW this summer and nailed the fireworks show for it. (I still ended up crunching the video a bit to better highlight the colors but I didn't have to and I kept hemming and hawing about which way was really "better")

 

[photo_chick]

There isn't a huge gain to be had with the 70D over the T1i as far as ISO goes IMO. I had the 50D (same IQ as the T1i) and shot professionally with it for a good 5 years. You put L series glass in front of that sensor and it really ups the camera's image quality. Getting sharper images SOOC because of the glass and good focus will do wonders for the appearance of noise.

As far as a faster burst rate... I'm not a spray and pray shooter. I anticipate my shots more, even when shooting things like dance that move pretty fast. Because of my shooting style burst rates have never impressed me.

I replaced my 50D with a 6D and yes, it was solely for the ISO performance at 6400 and higher. I shoot a lot of hand held low light work. And yes, that's been worth it. But it's also a much larger gain than you will see with the 70D.

My advice, ditch the entry level zooms and invest in some high quality glass.

 

[Frantasmic]

My advice, ditch the entry level zooms and invest in some high quality glass.

I agree; I just wasn't as succinct. Rent a 24-70 or 70-200 and see what that does in your current camera

 

[bob100]

But also look at the 60d it's still a very good camera that can be had for a lot less money. HTH

I agree with some the other posters, upgrading your lens will get you the most bang for the buck but if you shoot sports or action shots the older 60D at $400 is also pretty good

Canon 60D
ISO 6400

(with a little help from NI)

 

[NJGuy3]

First off...thanks for taking the time to give me the proper advice. I feel I still have much to learn with every photograph I take, but I enjoy every second of it.

There are some cool features & benefits I'd gain with the 70D...such as 2 stops of ISO and faster focus. I had given thought to the 60D but would it be a worthwhile upgrade and gains in ISO as the 70D? Video is not my priority.

I have considered a full frame body, such as the 6D, but a much greater budget comes along with that including new lenses, being I won't be able to use most of my current ones.

Being I'm only across the river in NJ...I'll take a ride to B&H and try out some 'L' glass and/or the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 so I can experience the higher IQ that I could possibly gain with my current camera body. While I'm there I'll check out the 60D, 70D and maybe a 6D bodies to compare the gains I'll get from a body.

I'll keep you posted on my decision. I truly appreciate the info everyone shared with me and will consider everything said when I decide to upgrade.

 

[mom2rtk]

If you are considering a new lens, the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is where you need to be. That lens is remarkable. If you move quickly you might still be able to get a good deal here. Be sure to put in the code.

One thing to remember is that good glass holds value. I just upgraded to the 6D and I need mostly new glass. But the old stuff held its value pretty well.

 

[runninlow3]

Go check out that lens!

 

[NJGuy3]

Thanks for the advice and info!

 

[WilsonFlyer]

If you are considering a new lens, the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is where you need to be. That lens is remarkable. If you move quickly you might still be able to get a good deal here. Be sure to put in the code.

One thing to remember is that good glass holds value. I just upgraded to the 6D and I need mostly new glass. But the old stuff held its value pretty well.

Most everyone agrees that if that lens weren't an EF-S lens, it would be an "L" lens. I own one and I concur. IMHO, there isn't another lens in the EF-S line that gives as much bang for the buck as that lens does. It's my walk-around on my 70D about 40% of the time at WDW. The other is my kit 18-135. I give up the stops but am willing to to gain the reach. It's a balancing act, but there's not taking away the fact that the 17-55 2.8 is arguably the best lenses Canon makes for a crop, especially for the money.

 

[KCmike]

Good luck on your decision and look forward to your updates. I check out your flickr page and you are a wonderful photographer.

 

[NJGuy3]

Sounds like the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is the way to go...would you say that it's vastly superior to the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM?

Thanks for the compliment & for taking the time to check out my flickr page, KCmike!