5D mk 2 or 1D mk 3/4? Need help !!

[wheelhot]

At this point right now, I know it might hurt u and I apologize but this is what I can say is forget your dream about getting a 5D Mark II or a 1D Mark 3/4 and instead get a real nice FF glass first before upgrading to a FF camera, get a 17-40 f/4.0 first or something and learn more about photography, your camera and the different kind of lenses and only then in a couple of years time upgrade to a FF (after you have a couple of FF lens and you feel the need of a FF camera)

Cause even if you have a 5D or even a 1D, I honestly feel that it will be too overwhelming for you cause judging by your questions, it seems you don't really understand a lot of things and getting a 5D or 1D will confuse you even more.

I got a friend who owns a D40 and her dad owns a D300s, she played a bit with the D300s and felt it was too overwhelming for her and ended up prefer the D40 for now.

 

[joelypolly]

I'd take other peoples advice in this thread and get some Glass before considering upgrading to a new body.

Using the kit lens + a 50 1.8 and looking to upgrade to a 1d or a 5d is... somewhat like getting a 60 ton tank and getting a single horse to pull it. You're not going to get very far.

No to put you down but your "HDR" photo looks just like another HDR photo generate by a HDR application.

 

[xPAULx]

I'd take other peoples advice in this thread and get some Glass before considering upgrading to a new body.

Using the kit lens + a 50 1.8 and looking to upgrade to a 1d or a 5d is... somewhat like getting a 60 ton tank and getting a single horse to pull it. You're not going to get very far.

No to put you down but your "HDR" photo looks just like another HDR photo generate by a HDR application.

About my HDR , what u mean?
x

 

[Phrasikleia]

About my HDR , what u mean?
x

I think it's safe to say he's seconding what Compuwar had to say. If you missed that post, I suggest you go back and give it some consideration. His critique of your HDR photo is very constructive and is articulated quite well. HDR can amount to an empty wrapper if it's not used judiciously.

My own advice to you would echo what the others have said: lenses will advance your photography much further than a new camera body. And any gear you purchase will only ever enable what you are ready to envision and capture, so keep on studying, practicing, and seeking out critiques.

 

[El Cabong]

About my HDR , what u mean?
x

I think he's saying it's indistinguishable from any other run-of-the-mill HDR photo where an HDR application is used in an attempt to magically transform a mediocre photo into a decent one.

In other words: not good.

You might consider spending that loan money on some (more?) photography classes before blowing it on gear. The person with the apparently cryptic critique also made the point that putting cheap glass on a good camera would be like making a horse pull a 60 ton tank. Well, putting good gear in the hands of a person with limited ability (no offense) is like trying to make a horse operate a 60 ton tank.

 

[joelypolly]

And we all know what happens when horses operate 60 ton tanks.... lol.

In regards to whats "wrong" with your HDR. There isn't really anything wrong it just doesn't really have anything going for it. There doesn't really appear to be a subject or emotion the photograph is trying to bring up. What is suppose to draw my eyes? The small pond in the front or the sea in the back or maybe the rocks? With the use of HDR everything is very colourful but as a result nothing really stands out.

Personally if I was editing the photo I might have tried to make the pond area + reflection the subject in the photo and tried to tone the colours/saturation of the other areas down but that might be a little bit difficult due to the composition of the photo.

HDR is just another tool that should be used appropriately but like the old saying "when you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail". Don't fall into the trap of doing that. Always consider carefully first what it is you want the viewer to see/feel.

 

[peskaa]

As somebody who did a BA(Hons) Photography I can safely say that equipment is not the key to success - you can throw 10k into equipment and still take awful photographs. We shot most of our work on old film cameras, home-made pinholes and lower end digital systems.

Further, you can't just upgrade the body, you have to upgrade the whole system including the lenses. I wouldn't put anything but the best on my 5D Mark II or 1D Mark III, and I have invested far more in lenses than in the bodies themselves. Basically, if it doesn't have a red ring on it, I don't use it (with a few exceptions, obviously).

You're shooting with Canon's entry level camera, with their entry level lenses. By buying a 1D Mark IV or a 5D Mark II you're going to achieve only one thing - a hole in your wallet. You need to invest in the lenses first, and then finally move up in the body stakes - but do it in stages.

Pick up a good mid-range zoom (ie: 24-70 f/2.8L USM) first. Use it, get the best out the lens and the 1000D - you can get bloody good results out of that camera and a quality lens if you know what you're doing (I bought my partner a 1000D last year and I use it with a 50mm f/1.2L quite a lot).

Once you're doing that, add a wide angle and only then think about a new body in the mid-range series (50D, 7D).

 

[Phrasikleia]

Regarding the "feel" of your 1000D: one easy upgrade you might consider would be the purchase of a battery grip. The BG-E5 grip will make the camera feel more substantial and easier to grip onto. It makes taking verticals handheld much easier (no need to jack one elbow up in the air), and it gives you faster access to settings when shooting in that orientation. Best of all, it's a relatively inexpensive upgrade to your kit.

One more thought: if you're in the buying mood, you should also consider the purchase of a sturdy tripod, if you don't have one already.

 

[fiercetiger224]

Try buying some L glass first. The 17-40mm f4L should be your first thing to get, since it's fairly wide on a crop body for shooting architecture, HDR, etc. If you want to go wider, the 10-22mm will be your best bet, although the problem lies in that it'll only work on EF-S bodies. You'll be surprised at that quality that you'll be getting vs your kit lens, and even your 50mm f1.8. The 50mm that you've got is a POS, since it's an entry line 50mm.

Don't buy a new body until you've grasped photography to its fullest.

 

[Troglodyte]

Try buying some L glass first. The 17-40mm f4L should be your first thing to get, since it's fairly wide on a crop body for shooting architecture, HDR, etc.

The 17-40 is a good lens and very reasonably priced - you can pick it up for around £400-£450 second hand and there's quite a few to choose from. Combined with the 70-200 f4L you'd have a pair of lenses with excellent IQ for relatively little money. I went for the 17-55 f2.8 though which is more expensive and won't work on full frame cameras. It is however sharper, faster, has IS and a better range. In any event should you want to go full frame you can sell it.

 

[Edge100]

I agree; I started on a 10D with a 17-40 ƒ/4L, and I learned a lot on that combo. Note that the 17-40 is 27-64 on a crop sensor body, which is pretty close to 24-70 zoom, which to me is the perfect focal length for a walkaround zoom.

Once I had outgrown the 10D, I moved up to a used 1DmkII, which is my current body. I'm looking to add a second body just because I need one for event and portrait photography, but, to be honest, I could live with the 1DmkII for a long time, especially when coupled to the good glass I've invested in (17-40, 24-70, 70-200 f/4, 50/1.4).

 

[CrackedButter]

As somebody who did a BA(Hons) Photography I can safely say that equipment is not the key to success - you can throw 10k into equipment and still take awful photographs. We shot most of our work on old film cameras, home-made pinholes and lower end digital systems.

Further, you can't just upgrade the body, you have to upgrade the whole system including the lenses. I wouldn't put anything but the best on my 5D Mark II or 1D Mark III, and I have invested far more in lenses than in the bodies themselves. Basically, if it doesn't have a red ring on it, I don't use it (with a few exceptions, obviously).

You're shooting with Canon's entry level camera, with their entry level lenses. By buying a 1D Mark IV or a 5D Mark II you're going to achieve only one thing - a hole in your wallet. You need to invest in the lenses first, and then finally move up in the body stakes - but do it in stages.

Pick up a good mid-range zoom (ie: 24-70 f/2.8L USM) first. Use it, get the best out the lens and the 1000D - you can get bloody good results out of that camera and a quality lens if you know what you're doing (I bought my partner a 1000D last year and I use it with a 50mm f/1.2L quite a lot).

Once you're doing that, add a wide angle and only then think about a new body in the mid-range series (50D, 7D).

My friend just graduated with a First for his BA and for his major project he shot with a Holga and a Mamiya 67. His best images came from the £30 Holga while his Mamiya setup cost £1000. He admitted it too, so I then suggested he sell the Mamiya and body a second Holga body instead!

His website is here: http://conoroleary.com/splash the project is titled "Out of Sight out of Mind." Knock yourself out.

 

[epicwelshman]

OP - you've been given a lot of fantastic advice, yet I notice that you only seem to reply to those posts that critique your work.

Obviously you're under no obligation to take any of this advice. If you're dead set on blowing $3,000 - $5,000 purely because you don't like your 1000D, fine. But at least thank your fellow forum members for taking the time to listen to you, to try to help you, and to try to help you understand exactly what you might need.

 

[RedDragon870503]

OP - Check out a refurb 40D and save the rest for some glass. You will be blown away by the difference between the 1000D and the 40D.

IMHO, the 50D is not worth the extra cash and the 5D and 1D something you only buy when you feel limited by the xxD series not the xxxD or xxxxD series.

 

[OreoCookie]

Basically, if it doesn't have a red ring on it, I don't use it (with a few exceptions, obviously).

That contradicts what you've said earlier. A red or golden ring on a lens is not at all necessary for good pictures. Very often there are lenses from third-party manufacturers that offer similar or in some cases better optical and mechanical quality than the `original.' And there are lenses that cannot get a red ring regardless of the quality of the optics (e. g. Canon's 17-55 mm f/2.8, crop lenses cannot be professional). And there are quite a few cases where `normal' lenses might be better suited, e. g. because they are smaller or lighter.

 

[peskaa]

That contradicts what you've said earlier. A red or golden ring on a lens is not at all necessary for good pictures. Very often there are lenses from third-party manufacturers that offer similar or in some cases better optical and mechanical quality than the `original.' And there are lenses that cannot get a red ring regardless of the quality of the optics (e. g. Canon's 17-55 mm f/2.8, crop lenses cannot be professional). And there are quite a few cases where `normal' lenses might be better suited, e. g. because they are smaller or lighter.

Hence I said with a few exceptions, which you even quoted.

 

[mahood]

As somebody who did a BA(Hons) Photography I can safely say that equipment is not the key to success - you can throw 10k into equipment and still take awful photographs. We shot most of our work on old film cameras, home-made pinholes and lower end digital systems.

Seconded. The best upgrade I made to my camera was the component behind the viewfinder (me). Take more photos, join a local club and get some experience in different styles, lighting, and just some honest feedback. My photos are many times better since I started talking to people about what I was doing right and wrong.

Further, you can't just upgrade the body, you have to upgrade the whole system including the lenses. I wouldn't put anything but the best on my 5D Mark II or 1D Mark III, and I have invested far more in lenses than in the bodies themselves. Basically, if it doesn't have a red ring on it, I don't use it (with a few exceptions, obviously).

Maybe overkill, but a fair point - glass makes more difference, and the limiting factor in my setup is the lens, not the body. When I am shooting in a studio with my 400D and kit lens, I can see I am now taking MUCH better pictures than I was the first time out - and no hardware has changed. That said, my friend with the 1DmkIII and 25-105 F/4L may take 'crisper' pictures, but until you blow them up to the size of a house you really can't tell. The limiting factor in the quality of my photos is still me.

You're shooting with Canon's entry level camera, with their entry level lenses. By buying a 1D Mark IV or a 5D Mark II you're going to achieve only one thing - a hole in your wallet. You need to invest in the lenses first, and then finally move up in the body stakes - but do it in stages.

Pick up a good mid-range zoom (ie: 24-70 f/2.8L USM) first. Use it, get the best out the lens and the 1000D - you can get bloody good results out of that camera and a quality lens if you know what you're doing (I bought my partner a 1000D last year and I use it with a 50mm f/1.2L quite a lot).

Next on my wish list is the 24-105 F/4L IS - I am at the stage where it'll be worthwhile. But I've been shooting for two years with the kit lens (plus a cheap EF-S 55-250 zoom, and the nifty fifty) and a year with regular exposure to a team of pros, and I'm only just learning where the physical limits to my hardware are.

Mark

 

[turugara]

Seconded. The best upgrade I made to my camera was the component behind the viewfinder (me). Take more photos, join a local club and get some experience in different styles, lighting, and just some honest feedback. My photos are many times better since I started talking to people about what I was doing right and wrong.
Mark

This is easily the best upgrade ever. I'm a fine arts student at my university and because most of my prints are usually 43" x 28" or larger, I saw the kit lens limitation to my 500D in a hurry. Unless you print at a very large size, there's really no rush to upgrade until you believe you are ready.

 

[CrackedButter]

I was listening to Scott Bourne today on TWiP and he said something like this:

"99% of all lenses are better than 98% of all photographers."

 

[pdxflint]

Some of you have offered some decent advice, but is it necessary to be as condescending as some of you guys are being? Remember, we've all been there one way or another, at one time or another, and fellow photographers can either encourage... or easily discourage. Maybe lighten up just a bit, and take a slightly "friendlier" tone with a fairly inexperienced photographer...
-It's just a thought...

No offense meant to anyone... just expressing what I picked up on while reading this thread.