Ready to upgrade to my Canon Digital Rebel XT Camera…What Next?

2 Comments

1. Modulus says:

   June 9, 2010 at 2:41 am

   You have several options, all of which depend primarily on your budget.

   From what you have stated concerning enlargements, you’re looking to make a move to a camera with more megapixels. Unless you are withholding some information, I’m assuming you’re not very invested in Canon equipment, so I’ll try my best to recommend cameras from other brands too.

   If you are looking for more megapixels, your best bet may be the Canon Digital Rebel XTi, the successor to your current camera. It offers 10 megapixels, which could be enough to see an improvement in your enlargements. It is available for around $650 (See link 1). You can get the body only since you already have the standard 18-55 lens.

   Also worth considering on the Canon front is the upcoming successor to the 8-megapixel 30D, which is supposed to be unveiled near the end of the month. Most speculation seems to state that this model (the 40D) will probably have the same 10 megapixel sensor as the XTi, but it will have the perks that the XXD series offers over the XXXD series, like a more robust body, higher frames-per-second measures, and so on. So, if you want an upgrade over the current construction of your XT, wait a month or two, and watch websites like Link 2 in my sources for more information.

   I don’t think that you’ll go for the next bodies I’ll mention because you seem to be after value, but if you want an even bigger megapixel boost, you could consider the 5D (12 megapixels) or the 1Ds Mk II (16 megapixels), but those retail for around $2,600 and $7,000 respectively.

   So, that covers the Canon front. Another company to consider is Nikon. The counterpart to the Canon Rebel XTi is the Nikon D40x, a 10 megapixel camera that retails for about $700 with the starter lens (Link 3). I won’t debate between the two, but the catch with the D40x includes the fact that it only has 3 autofocus points, which could be limiting to you, and it only supports autofocus on Nikon’s newer lenses. (See the specifications tab on Link 3 for more details)

   The other Nikon camera that is 10 megapixels is the D80, which corresponds to the 30D from Canon. It offers more autofocus points than the D40x and supports all Nikon lenses, and offers a more robust body, but at a premium ($875 new, link 4).

   There are other companies to consider, but I won’t go into extensive detail about them, but here are some models to consider:

   Olympus offers the Evolt E-510 ($850) and E-410 ($715) that are both 10 megapixels.

   Pentax offers the K10D (~$800).

   Sony’s Alpha series (A100) also has 10 megapixels.

   As far as which camera body to choose, I can’t tell you. I have been shooting Canon for a long time, and if you wish to stick with Canon, I would seriously consider the XTi or the upcoming 40D. If you buy one of those, you can always keep yout XT as a backup, and you can use the lens you have now on both cameras. This way you could potentially expand into other venues, such as weddings.

   Now to address lenses…

   I’m not sure what you mean by "up close" portraits in terms of headshots, head/shoulder shots, etc, so for this matter I will assume you’re primarily working with headshots and head/shoulder shots. Generally, a prime lens (one with a fixed focal length unlike your 18-55, which is a zoom lens) is considered to have better sharpness and overall image quality than a zoom because there aren’t as many moving parts. Canon and Nikon both have a wide range of prime lenses (and zooms as well, which I will go over) that could suit your task.

   For head and shoulder shots, I would consider either a 50mm prime or an 85mm prime. The budget lenses for Canon lie in the 50mm f/1.8 ($80) and the 85mm f/1.8 ($340), links 5 and 6. The 50mm lens is one of Canon’s cheapest lenses, and it shows; the lens is made of plastic and feels cheap, and the autofocus is noisy and a little slow, but that shouldn’t matter in the studio. The 50mm 1.8 does shine in image quality, especially when you stop down to around f/2.8. As a result, it’s one of Canon’s best budget lenses, and can do headshots as well as head/shoulder shots with ease.

   The 85 f/1.8 is more expensive primarily due to its enhanced build (metal, not plastic) and the addition of Canon’s USM focusing motor, which is faster and more quiet than the 50. Since it is a longer focal length, this lens would primarily be used for headshots, although if you have enough distance to the subject, you could presumably use it for head and shoulder shots. This would also accomplish your goal of getting closer.

   If you really still want a zoom lens, you may have some difficulty finding lenses with optical image quality similar to the 50 and 85 and low aperture without forking out significant amounts of cash. For example, you could look into the 70-200 f/2.8 lens, but that retails for about $1,100. Since it sounds as though you’re on a budget, I would strongly suggest looking into the prime lenses to supplement your current zoom.

   As far as if you want to get physically closer to your subjects (like within a few inches of a bug or insect), you’ll want to look into extension tubes. Extension tubes are placed between the camera lens and body, and allow you to focus closer than you usually could. One set you could look into would be the Kenko set in link 7. Although they will not work with your 18-55, they will work with any Canon EF lens, and will allow you to focus much closer. They retail for about $170.

   So in summary, I think your best bet would be to upgrade to a newer Canon body, and add some prime lenses to enhance your portraits. Although prime lenses are not as flexible as your zoom, the added image quality will be well worth it.

   ****EDIT FOR YOUR NEW QUESTIONS****
   If you are doing weddings next month, then your lens situation gets a little more sticky. You DO need a zoom lens for flexibility (pics at the reception, during the ceremony, etc), but you also need the prime lens for portraits of the parties, and so on. You’ll also need things like an external flash, extra memory cards, and so on. I personally have shot weddings with the 18-55, a 50 and 85mm, and my 70-200 f/2.8, and it has worked perfectly.

   Yes, primes does mean you would need to change lenses occassionally, depending on the shooting situation. That’s why I would suggest getting the 50mm f/1.8. It’s cheap, so if you find you hate primes, you haven’t wasted a whole bunch of money on it. 50mm is also still flexible in my opinion, and it’s my mainstay for head and shoulder shots. But with primes, I think the extra optical quality is well worth it.

   Thinking further on your zoom situation, here’s what I would consider. Sigma and Tamron both have a 17 or 18-50mm f/2.8 lens out right now that are actually receiving some good reviews, and are relatively affordable (I want to say around $400?). Now, they might not stand up to say, the Canon 24-70, but if you’re looking for an entry-level 2.8 zoom, then that would work. Pair that up with a prime or set of primes like the 85 1.8 and maybe even the 50 1.8, and you could have a good setup for portraits and weddings. Unless you are standing at the back of the church, I doubt you would need anything beyond 85mm.

   Well, since the 40D is vaporware, and the specs haven’t been finalized, it’s hard to predict what you would need between that and the 5D. The 40D will retail (based on past trends) for about $1,500, so you’re looking at a $1,000+ price differential.

   As far as megapixels go…if you’re printing at 16×20, you want to maintain a decent dpi (dots per inch) level to ensure adequate detail. When I print big, I try to make sure I have about 150dpi or higher…this usually makes it so that when viewed at a "usual distance", it doesn’t look too pixellated. So, taking that and then multiplying it by the required dimensions, at 16×20 you’re looking at a 2400×3000 minimum resolution. If you go higher to 200dpi, you’re looking for 3200×4000.

   Assuming the 40D inherits the 10mp XTI sensor, it will kick out a 3888×2592 picture at full res, so flipping the dimension to compare, it looks like a 10mp picture will easily print 16×20 at 150dpi. On the other hand, the 12.8mp 5D would be able to swing a 16×20 at 200dpi, more or less. Basically, on megapixels alone, the 5D wouldn’t theoretically sweep the rug out from under the 40D with the assumptions above.

   Honestly, I would say wait and then go for the 40D. Yes, the 5D is full-frame, so the sensor is larger, and it has stellar high-ISO performance. However, with full frame comes a few consequences…on a full frame sensor compared to a cropped sensor like the one in the XXD series, without going too technical, your depth of field, especially at brighter apertures like f/1.8 will be much smaller. That is, a picture taken at f/4 on a XXD camera will have more of the image in focus than on the 5D. With portraits, depending on what you’re going for, this may or may not be a problem…to get the desired depth of field, you’d need a smaller aperture than on a XXD camera, and a smaller aperture = slower shutter speeds = increased need for flash and/or ISO boost.

   Another consideration is that full frame sensors are "full" for a reason…they expose the "full" flaws of any of your lenses. Full frame sensors record basically everything the sensor "sees" at exposure time while cropped sensors like the 40D crop a little around the edges before recording, so some of the more troublesome areas for lower quality lenses, namely the corners and extreme edges of the photo, are cropped out. In other words, a picture with the 50 1.8 on the 40D may not look as spectacular on the 5D because of the extra part of the photo that is being recorded. This could then lead to the need for more expensive lenses to get a similar result to what you would get on the 40D.

   Also, the 5D requires full-frame lenses, meaning you wouldn’t be able to use the 18-55, which is an EF-S (cropped sensor only) lens. The 5D only accepts EF lenses. So, your lens choices may be slightly restricted, and since the 5D will expose more of the "flaws" of cheaper lenses, you might be frustrated with the image quality if you can’t afford the "L" series lenses.

   Now, I’m not discrediting the 5D- it has stellar, amazing image quality and beats the XXD series when it comes to high ISO shots, but for your application, I would take the 40D and spend the extra cash on lenses.

   Basically, as long as the 40D has a 10mp sensor or better, you will get awesome 16×20 shots. Yes, you may need a noise reduction program like Noise Ninja to get high ISO results similar to the 5D, but I doubt the image quality difference would be so drastic that someone would say "that wasn’t taken with a pro camera". So, between the two, I would say get the 40D when it comes out, but that’s just my opinion. Hope this helps.
2. vienna2001 says:

   June 9, 2010 at 2:41 am

   No matter how much you spend on digital, it will still look like digital.

   Google Hasselblad 500C and look at the images.

   A used 500 with normal lens ($1000 or less) will blow $10,000 worth of Canon gear into the weeds.

   Go look.