Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I started out in digital photography with a Canon 40D DSLR back in 2008. I really enjoyed the camera, and brought for it a battery grip and a 580 EXII flash, along with one expensive lens (70-200 F4L/IS). My goal from the beginning was always to upgrade to full frame eventually, and I did - sort of.

Last year I bought myself a 5D MKII with the 24-105mm lens. While I enjoyed the image quality alot, I couldn't help but realize that the AF precision and speed were dinosaur-like, and completely unfit for a camera like the 5D MKII, which has a great sensor for low light. In many ways, my 40D was a better camera, with the exception of image quality. I was unhappy with shelling out so much money for a compromised camera, so I returned it.

Since then, I bought myself a Sony NEX 5N, which I have been very happy with, and although not the sharpest for image quality, it produced more great photos because of its portablity and greater ease in composing photos. I quite enjoyed composing with the touch-enabled display, which not only showed me how my shots will look, but also lets me tap to focus. This camera was great value for the money. I also bought an adapter for it to adapt my three canon lenses for the occassional use.

Now, I am at crossroads because I am not sure which direction to go with my photography gear. Is it more worthwhile to invest in a full frame DSLR, or to keep building my NEX kit and using relatively inexpensive lenses adapted for it?

For the full frame DSLR route, I know the EOS 6D is out, but I am not very impressed with it compared to the D600. However, it probably is not a wise choice to switch to Nikon just for this, although it also won't be the end of the world because I only have 1 kit lens (17-85mm), one 50mm F1.8, and one 70-200mm F4L/IS, and one 580 EX II speedlite.

At the same time, compact interchangeable lens cameras are getting more popular, and the price points are much more accessible, allowing me to upgrade the camera body more frequently. I have been eyeing a NEX-7 for a long time, but never bought one because the NEX-5N has even better ISO performance. I am sure the next iteration will be stellar though.

It would be nice to hear what you guys think about all this, and which route I should take with my gear.

Can't make a recommendation if you don't tell us what you're doing with your gear. Maybe open a museum and put them on display?

Ditto on what Delsorbo said.

You never did say why you wanted to go full frame?

I had a 40D as well. Wasn't too crazy about it's low light performance, but a still a solid camera.

Sounds to me like you're already convinced you want a compact system of some sort and are just looking for external confirmation for justification. A dangerous point in there is your apparent need to "upgrade the camera body more frequently." I have no desire to start doing that more frequently. Perhaps your post is a mishmash of your thoughts on gear, which is fine, but it does make it sound like, as the gentlemen above have posted in a way, you need to assess what your photography goals are beyond buying cameras more often. You seem to be concerned about ISO performance yet the fastest lens you have is also your cheapest, and while it has it's charms... yeah. Having good high ISO performance is a great thing, being able to let lots of light get to the sensor is a pretty good thing too. No matter what system you go with good fast glass is always good fast glass. Bodies eventually, relative to the new, are no longer good. (yes I know, flawed but look past that for the point as it relates here)

You've used a 6D? What about it didn't impress you?

I can't blame him for that, as I agree, it's an unimpressive camera in spec. I have no interest in it. Maybe if it were $1600 I'd grudgingly look at it before plunking money down on the overpriced 5DIII. The 7D is still the best overall Canon camera for less than $3k. Says a lot about a 4 year old camera and a little bit about Canon's recent releases.

Ditto what others have said. OP hasn't even said what about the focusing system on the 5D Mark II wasn't working for him as it relates to what he shoots. For example, while the focusing system isn't great that happens to not affect the type of shooting I mostly do one bit at all.

It's perfectly fine if you want a smaller system. The current crop of interchangeable lens small sensor setups are definitely intriguing and are improving very rapidly. You don't *have* to have a DSLR to be even a "serious enthusiast". However, as others have stated, you should think about what qualities are important for you in a camera and use that to drive your decision point.

l have to agree with the focusing system of the 5D mkII. It sucks. The diamond shape is horrible for focusing on anything but the middle of the frame. And other than spot focusing on the centre spot is iffy when using a shallow DoF. Further it causes lenses to hunt a lot.

Having said all that I still love the camera body and there are ways to work around it.

With the 5D you have obstacles but can create fantastic images. Sure, with some systems like the OP has you don't have those obstacles, but you can't create fantastic images either. If you care more about ease of use then the 5D is overkill anyways. If you care about putting the effort in to learn about photography and getting awesome images then the 5D is a great camera.

I can't speak to Canon specifically, being a Nikon shooter - but I agree about the question as to 'what is your intention to shoot with the camera'. This will dictate what kind of system you may end up with....

Sell your Canon lens/stuff and build your Sony gear .. you know you want to.

@ Serendipity - Sony does have great gear, and excellent Zeiss lenses to match. Technologically (translucent mirror, continuous AF in video mode, high resolution EVF), I think they are doing great things that Canon/Nikon seem to not worry about so much. However, it's hard to ignore that Canon/Nikon has a great system of lenses already established. Plus, the third party support for gear is much greater at this point.

I did not like the 5D II because the AF system is absolutely abysmal for a DSLR its price. It focuses both slower and less accurately than my 40D in many low light conditions, rendering the inclusion of a high ISO high megapixel sensor somewhat pointless to suit a diverse number of shooting conditions. I loved the image quality of the 5D II, but I am not willing to part with that much money for a crippled camera because of Canon's marketing strategy... This makes me appreciate Nikon gear alot more now, because they do not severely cripple a camera's features to make it fit a certain rank in their lineup. Case in point is the 6D vs. the D600. I don't remember all the specs, but to start, D600 has a 100% viewfinder, a much better AF system, and is priced exactly the same as the Canon but with much more features.

My original frustration is with owning too many systems. In a sense, I don't want to invest anymore in gear until I decide which system I want to build most of all. I am by no means a professional, but I do enjoy photography alot and also love technology just as much. My other reason for the original post it that my friend will be visiting Asia soon, which presents an excellent opportunity to acquire some new gear at "bargain" prices.

What are your thoughts?

As an aside - I have been trying to sell a Panasonic GH2 that I bought for my folks earlier last year, with next to zero shutter count (387) because they prefer their DSLRs. Somebody offered me $600 despite my list price of $770, including some sob story about them losing their job recently. Even out of mere principle, I would not lowball myself that much to sell an essentially brand new (and still excellent) camera. Anyway, I may as well buy it from my folks and keep it to use with some excellent M4/3 lenses, or destroy it for my own amusement, haha

Definitely think opening a museum should be your next investment. You can charge people money to look at your goods to fund buying more goods. Then you don't even have to worry about selling anything.

What is that supposed to mean?

Some people over-think simple issues. Do you need us to recommend which flavour ice cream you should buy too?

Rum raisin.

Mint Chocolate.

Sounds like your trying to find yourself and letting camera features take you for a ride. The magic of photography is not dependant on how often you upgrade or what spec sheet has more green highlights at the end of a review.

Both 40D and 5D2 are nice cameras. If the 5D2 isn't enough for you, your probably doing something wrong.

In summary:

6D doesn't have 100% viewfinder! It's a POS!!!!!!!

5D2 can't focus! All shots ever taken with a 5D2 are OOF!!!!!!

D600 doesn't have ISO 51200 or 102400. Horrible camera.

40D is better than all of them.

Most people already gave you their opinion which you're choosing to ignore. You seem to be stuck on all sorts of technical rhetoric which may not even have bearing on what you shoot. You still haven't said what you're actually shooting and what your needs are. Your conclusion though seems to be that there is something wrong with every camera (including the 5D mk II which thousands of pros have had no trouble using in a variety of shooting conditions, btw). You're stuck in some sort of weird analysis paralysis.

Frankly, I don't think you're really interested in helpful advice. You're interested in discussing merits and flaws of various cameras.

All this.... for cat photos!

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12443

I'm reminded of a recent encounter I had with a photographer who was selling all his Canon gear because he needed the FPS of a D3....to shoot weddings. There are many that have certain perceptions of what gear is required to do certain things. While, again, I don't disagree with the assessment of the 6D, (product/specification placement vs development) I am sure it's not a bad camera at all. It's also kind of amusing that the 5DII has become a benchmark for a poor camera in some ways (I know I've been guilty of doing it on occasion) when really it was a tremendously successful camera for many very good reasons and continues to be a good camera. While it does not have the best AF available there are still a plethora of amazing images that have been and are taken with that camera.

As for the OP, I haven't used a 5DII in low light but I do know that it's focus accuracy in low light is better than the 7Ds. This has been documented by many people. I have not seen either camera directly compared to the 40D but I admit skepticism that it's better than either. What lens was used when you tried this low light focusing on the 5DII? Same conditions when you compared with the 40D?

Until you explain what you shoot and how you are limited by the limitations of gear no photographer will recommend gear for you with any seriousness. You have asked questions in a way that say to us the answers you're going to get are of no consequence because you don't appear to be able to appreciate the information. This could be simply a communication issue. Sometimes the advice one asks for isn't the advice they actually need.

In listing your dissatisfaction with Canon you fail to mention anything about lenses, except how great the Zeiss stuff is and it's certainly not bad but the best Zeiss stuff has mounts for both Canon and Nikon as well. While their body releases have either been too expensive or lackluster the lens releases recently are excellent. I think Canon, arguably, has the best lens line up right now. The 70-200MkII is the current undisputed lens in that range, the new 24-70 MkII, copy variance aside, is touted as the sharpest AF zoom available. On the macro side the 100L is neck and neck with the Nikon 105VR in sharpness with slightly better IS. And the non L macro is no slouch. The MP-e 65 for really serious macro work - who else has a lens like that? Then there's the iconic 85L - yes it's not the sharpest at 1.2 but we've all seen stunning images at 1.2. The ultra sharp and creamy 135L. Tremendous lenses even with their flaws. Add two incredible Tilt Shift lenses (the new MKIIs) that are unbeatable at their price point and all the high end telephotos which are all very highly regarded. I fail to see Canon as a poor system to invest in. If you can't attach any of those lenses to a 5DII and get good shots sell your gear to me cheap because it must be broken and take up another hobby - and I mean that for anyone, not just the OP.

Oh! It's for shooting cats, well then, you need a Canon 1D X. Anything else would be uncivilized.

Seriously do you know how hard it is to focus on fur? It drives the focusing computer nuts

As someone on this board once said to me at one of the meets in general regards to equipment (not my pictures)

"Your pictures are really good. You must have a great camera!"

"Your cooking is really good. You must have a great stove!"

It may not always be the equipment, but how it is being used.

I wonder how the old photography masters did it without auto focus and even having to calculate their own exposure. Witchcraft i tell ya, witchcraft. lol.

If you are satisfied with the Sony system- keep using it. Every camera system is going to have its pros and cons- but as some of the others have said, it depends what you are using the system for- and what compromises you are willing to make.

I have a portable film system which I use quite a lot (because I can always have it handy/bring it anywhere and it is a joy to shoot with). I also have a Canon system (with the 5dMk2) which I use when i want to shoot digital- and when I don't need to rely on the autofocus system (I rarely use autofocus anyways) and when I can use particular lenses that I don't have for my compact system (longer lenses, Tilt/shift etc.). I like having both and use both.

If you aren't using it or don't see yourself using the kit - get rid of it (maybe a DSLR just isn't for you)- but perhaps it might make sense to maintain both if you can afford it. Your interests in photography may evolve as well- if there are things you want to try, you might find that the DSLR might be more suited than the Sony down the line.

It boils down to what you can afford and what you use it for. Having GAS has nothing to do with any of this

It's tough to concede that the 5DII was probably the best full frame camera for his needs/budget AFTER he returned it due to it's poor AF. So, naturally, it's not easy to take advice telling you to re-purchase the same camera. As for the 5DII's issues, I've heard about them; but this camera was the go-to camera for an overwhelming number of Canon wedding photographers for a number of years. If they can figure out how to work with it, I'm sure you can figure out how to get it to focus on your cat.

That being said; after all these posts, the OP has still not expressed his photographic intentions or showed any work that might help us give him educated advice. The truth of the matter is, with today's FF cameras, there is no ONE camera that suits an amateur photographer. Most amateur/hobbyist photographers want to be good at everything; from weddings, portraits, sports, fashion, landscape to cats and newborn photography. Unfortunately Nikon and Canon are JUST starting to get into the consumer FF game with the D600 and 6D. These cameras are AVERAGE at everything by design, so that they appeal to amateur/hobby photographers. Besides those two cameras, all other FF cameras are probably particular to a certain type of pro photographer. High MPX and slow shutter D800 for landscape and fashion, Average MPX and fast shutter D4 for News and Sports.

Good for a laugh although I'm not sure how it will help the OP : http://youtu.be/LApO_BDRE8M?hd=1

Probably why there are sarcastic comments.