Rolling with a 30D and want to upgrade

[justalive]

So I bought my first dslr back in april. The Canon 30d is a great camera but I think I want something with a little bit more power. I crop a lot of my photos and find that they get pretty pixelated (maybe this is just my inexperience) and think I might need some more pixels in my camera. I was looking at the canon 5d mark ii and its a bit pricey, besides I don't have the lenses to really put the full-frame to good use. I was looking at either the 50d or 60d or 7d any recommendations? The price being a major factor (since my wife probably would not like seeing me spend 2500 on a new camera).

[dlambert]

Well, you're right on the horns of a dilemma, there. I upgraded from the 30D to the 40D, and if I had it to do all over again, I'm not sure I wouldn't make the same choice again. The 50D has some nice improvements relative to the 40D, but it's not a huge leap. The jump to the 60D is a little bit weird, too -- it's a big jump in some areas (sensor, processor), but a step back in others (build quality, "prosumer" features).

I'm not sure that "landscape" tells us too much about what limitations you're running into, but "I crop a lot" does. At the risk of derailing your upgrade plans, it's possible that you might be better-served getting a lens that's more suited to your work so you don't have to crop in the first place (a good lens could also improve sharpness). Do you have any examples showing what you're running into (be sure to include lens info and EXIF).

[ceremus]

If you have the budget for it, it's hard not to recommend the 7D. If you're on a tighter budget the 60D is a pretty good option also, as long as you don't mind missing a few of higher pro features from the 7D; Higher fps, more AF points, lens microadjustment, etc.

[inkista]

This is just me, but instead of looking at upgrading the body, have you considered getting a longer lens? Or learning to get closer to your subject?

If you're cropping all the time, the problem to me seems to be more one of focal length and/or working distance, not sensor resolution.

Besides, lenses depreciate slower and last longer in your bag than a camera body. As witnessed by the fact that you want to upgrade in less than half a year....

[justalive]

I think you are right. I only have a 50 mm 1.8 lens. I'm looking at the 24-70mm L lens or 24-105mm L lens. I really only do portrait photography and rarely landscape so I'm leaning towards the 24-70mm...this is an expensive hobby....

[dlambert]

Am I losing it? I coulda swore I read "landscape" in your original post......

Anyway, the 50mm f/1.8 isn't a half-bad portrait lens -- primes tend to be pretty good for portraits because you can move yourself or the subject to frame the shot the way you want. In fact, I did some pretty decent portraits of my son w/ my 30D and that lens -- definitely no issues with pixelation when the shot was framed correctly.

[justalive]

The problem I come into is when I'm doing post processing in Lightroom I see after the fact cool framing options for the photos. It would be nice when I crop them, the picture doesn't get pixelated. I probably should learn how to frame my shots better but again sometimes you don't think of them till later.

[inkista]

Just remember that just because it only takes a split second to push the shutter button doesn't mean you have to do all the composition work in your head that fast. You can go slower, at a more deliberate pace, so that you actually take a few seconds or minutes to consider the background and framing of the subject BEFORE you take the shot. The big difference between snapshots and photographs is thinking time.

I'd actually recommend not going for a wallet-busting L for portraits, unless you plan on doing event photography as much as portraiture with those lenses. I'd say consider the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM or the EF 100mm f/2 USM. These are both $400-ish lenses, faster and more accurate on autofocus than the 50/1.8 II, and very very nice portrait glass.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by inkista

I'd say consider the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM or the EF 100mm f/2 USM. These are both $400-ish lenses, faster and more accurate on autofocus than the 50/1.8 II, and very very nice portrait glass.

What, no 135/2?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

What, no 135/2?

If he'd mentioned wanting a 70-200 f/2.8L, I'd have gone there. But as he wanted the 24-70 or 24-105, and he's on a crop, I figured it might be too long.