Which camera to upgrade too?

[djrtbrahma]

I currently have a Canon Rebel XS. I am currently looking to upgrade my camera to a more professional setup. The lenses I have are the "Nifty Fifty" and EF-S 55mm-250mm. I shoot a lot of sports for the school I teach at. I shoot indoor volleyball/basketball, football, tennis, and track. The main features I am looking to improve with an upgrade is faster continuous shooting for sports, improved/faster autofocus or focus points, improved picture quality (sharpness), and improved low light shots. I have been looking at the Canon 60D, but have read that there is not a huge difference between the 60D and the T2i or T3i. I would love to see some comparisons between the two and hear from people who have used these two cameras.

Are there any good websites that compare the two with actual photos taken by the cameras and break down the performance?

Also would it be worth saving the money to get a 7D or get the 60D and a good low light lense like a 85mm f/1.8 for indoor sports?

[tlake55]

Both the 60D and the 7D are similar...when I was shopping I was looking at the 7D and the salesman actually had me looking at the 60D as an option. I went with the 7D (and VERY glad I did, AWESOME camera). One thing you might want to do is go to the store and hold both of them..the 7D is definitely bigger and heavier, someting that you may want to consider??..I personally like the bigger, heavier body. The 7D does have a higher burst rate, it's weather sealed (but then to be most effective the lens also needs to be weather sealed), has 100% viewfinder coverage (60D 96%), has DUAL digic 4 processors (60D single digic 4 processor), 19 point AF system (60D 9 point AF system). The 60D has the swivel screen (pretty cool...I had that feature on my point and shoot), same 18MP, same ISO ability. I was debating between the two..I really liked the swivel screen and wasn't sure if I needed the faster fps of the 7D, but I really wanted the 7D. I shoot sports and speedy little kids so I wanted something fast. The features of the 7D seemed to make it a better build, faster, and heftier..I just liked it better. So if you NEED the extra features and/or they are worth the $700 price difference, then go with the 7D. In the past I have had my mind set on something and went with the lesser of the two and ended up being disappointed..so I went with the 7D, that I had initially wanted, and have been VERY pleased..EXCELLENT camera

Comparison:
Canon EOS 60D Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Also, instead of a camera upgrade have you considered a lens upgrade?..or are you planning on both?..could be pricey

Lens suggestion..the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS USM is awesome for sports/action and indoor/low light photography; however, the version I is about $2100 (used $1800) and the new Mark II version is about $2500 new. This lens gives you a little more versatility...with sports the people are moving a lot, the zoom can be handy as opposed to a fixed/prime lens?

Hope this helps

[Michael_2010]

My first dSLR was the Canon Xsi and I wrestled with many of the same questions you are considering now. I finally went for the 7D, for a variety of reasons. It's a great camera with lots of options I have not even explored yet. It is a good bit heavier than the 450D and more complicated to use. The image quality between the Xsi and 7D is negligible in most instances. I'm told the big difference would show up in prints, but I rarely print any of my shots. The lens is what makes the biggest difference with IQ, imo.

I also have the EF-S 55-250mm and I've never been very happy with that lens. My copy has always been a little soft and it doesn't matter which body it is on. Several days ago I got the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens, because Amazon had it on sale. Once again that was a tough decision. I like that focal range and looked hard at the 70-300mm DO and the L series. Read a lot of bad reviews about the DO and its price was getting very close to the L glass. Anyway, I finally decided the EF would be a decent upgrade from the EF-S and would better suit my budget. So far I am very pleased with the IQ of the lens. It is also light enough for handheld shots, while on the move. Just got a Kenko 1.4x TC yesterday to extend the reach of the 70-300mm and it looks promising thus far, but I've only taken a couple of test shots. Will give it a better test drive over the weekend.

I should add that I am just a hobbyist (maybe an obsessed fanatic) and what is an acceptable IQ for me is a little different than what a pro would want to publish. Good luck with your decision. I know how tough it can be and how exciting a new piece of gear is, when it lives up to your expectations. And, of course, there is the other side of that coin....... lol

[inkista]

This is just me, but if you can only afford either a body or an L lens, get the L lens. You want a 70-200 f/2.8L for the indoor sports more than you want a 60D or 7D. The body really won't make as much difference as the lens in this situation.

I used to shoot birds in flight with a Canon XT (the same 7-pt. AF system that's in your XS). My keeper rate took a quantum leap up when I went from the el-cheapo 75-300 III to the 400/5.6L USM. It did NOT take a quantum leap when I switched from the XT to the 50D.

Burst rate only helps if you can time your burst in the first place.
AF zones only help if you have a lens that's fast enough to AF lock in time for the shot.

And, overall, bodies are far more disposable than lenses. The money you spend on glass will last you longer than the money you spend on bodies. And the 60D is substantially different from a dRebel, just as it is also substantially lower-end than a 7D. Whether you need all the bells and whistles of a 7D is up to you and how much you can afford on gear. But I'd far rather have a XS with a 70-200 f/2.8L USM IS II than a 7D with 55-250 IS or non-L 70-300 IS USM for indoor sports.

That's just my opinion.

[Michael_2010]

One of my flickr contacts uses either an XT or an XS and has an extraordinarily good photostream. I will check tonight and see what lenses are being use with that body. I also know a pro that works for one of the local television stations and he uses the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L almost exclusively for still shots of concerts, etc. He also uses one of the full-frame bodies, but that ain't the point.

Like inkista says, a good piece of glass will still be a good piece of glass when you get around to upgrading the body.

[inkista]

One more thing. Everybody says that the 5D Mk II is not a fast-action camera, and it isn't. The 4 fps is too slow, the AF system unsophisticated. It's made to be a studio camera or landscape camera. Really.


Canon 5D Mark II. EF 135mm f/2L USM. iso 400, f/2, 1/2500s.

If your timing is good, your lens is fast, and you know what you're doing, the camera may matter far less than you think.

[Michael_2010]

I guess I should have mentioned that I already had one L lens before I got the 7D. It is by far my most reliable performer on either body. Unfortunately, the world comes in sizes that don't all fit into 24-105mm, so I recently picked up something with more reach without breaking the bank. Kinda hope Canon will come out with a new 100-400mm L that isn't as heavy and doesn't have that push/pull business going on then I will upgrade. We will see...... we will see.........

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Michael_2010

... Kinda hope Canon will come out with a new 100-400mm L that isn't as heavy and doesn't have that push/pull business going on ....

I believe that would be called the EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM.



But yeah, everyone wants at least the IS to get upgraded on the 100-400L. It's not unlikely, given how they've been tearing through and upgrading so much of the supertele glass in recent years.

[Michael_2010]

I thought long and hard about that EF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, but just couldn't pull the trigger. I just didn't think it would give me the reach I ultimately want. The DO version was only a couple of hundred bucks cheaper and I really didn't read many good reviews about that one. So, I went for the consumer grade EF 70-300mm just to get the reach for now and it is a pretty good lens for the money given the right conditions. Much, much better than my EF-S 55-250.

[inkista]

Yup, the 70-300 IS USM is a very nice lens and was a serious design improvement (and price increase) over the 75-300 III IS it replaced. But some folks did have complaints about it, which is where the L comes in; it's considerably sharper than the non-L. From most of the reviews I've read, it's at the same quality level as the 100-400L, only with better IS and no push-pull. And it's smaller. But given that it costs as much as a 100-400L, you do want to know which of those two you really want if you're going to drop that much cash. For birding, it's no contest: you want 400mm something fierce.

The DO is a much older and completely different lens, whose primary purpose was to be smaller and more compact than a big white L. The 70-300 DO is not, however, the best in class. I think the use of a DO design was a lot more successful in the 400mm f/4 IS USM DO, which is beloved of those who need big long fast glass, but have to haul it up into the Himalayas to shoot snow leopards or something.

One thing to keep in mind with the non-L telephotos; you're generally going to get sharper results if you stop the lens down at least one full stop from wide open. This was definitely true of my 75-300 III, and I suspect is also true of both the 55-250 IS and the 70-300 IS USM.