Camera Upgrade

[Kyle]

I'm looking to upgrade my current camera (Canon T3) to something that might help me further my photography. With the T3 I find that I am constantly bumping into it's lack of functionality which either causes me to miss a good opportunity or just makes it plain frustrating to do something outside of a simple shot. I know a new upgrade won't make me a better photographer but I feel that I've reached the limit of what the T3 can do it most cases.

Some of my current issues I have with the T3:
-Accidentally changing the mode I'm on just before I take a shot (there's no lock on the T3 mode dial)
-3 FPS and 3 frame buffer. Taking any more than 1 or 2 shots causes the camera to slow down and process. Makes it near impossible to get any good shots of anything moving.
-Low light performance. This is also dependent on my lenses since I don't have many fast lenses (Most are f/4-5.6) but I find I cannot use anything above 800 or the shots just have awful noise.
-T3 lacks many of the helpful shortcut buttons. Changing anything outside of shutter speed and aperture takes too long.
-Terribly slow autofocus and nearly useless autofocus outside of single point. I almost always just use the center point for autofocus since I just fight with it otherwise.
-Spot metering is almost useless at times. Often I see no real difference between shooting partial, center or evaluative. I know how the metering should work but it just doesn't seem to do much. Maybe I'm expecting too much out of it.
-Not weather sealed

I'm no expert yet but I think I know how to use the camera well enough and all of the listed features. It's (very) possible I am not doing something right. This is why I am looking for advice. I'm not looking for something to solve all these issues, just something to keep me going while I try practicing new types of shots.

Currently I mostly shoot Wildlife and Landscape (my 55-250mm is on my camera the most). I find I end up shooting in low light quite a bit but that may change in the future. I was initially looking into the Canon 70D but the recent announcement of the 7D mark II has peaked my interest. The 7D is apparently a great camera so I hope the 7D-2 will live up to that.

The problem is I don't know if I really need to spend the extra on the 7D-2. I was looking to take advantage of the preorder offer and get the 24-7 f/4L (I don't have any L lenses right now). At this point anything will be better and should help with at least a few of my frustrations (I'm not looking to fix everything).
Of course I'll consider other choices outside of the 70D and 7D-2 but those are my top. Any advice on this matter will help.

[Kodiak]

I'm looking to upgrade my current camera

I can recommend you only what I know… and I know only Nikon. Since this
is probably not what you want to hear, I send you my best regards! Good Luck.

[Kyle]

If a Nikon would fit my needs then I would switch. I'm not heavily invested in Canon right now so it wouldn't be too hard to switch. Overall I am happy with my T3 and Canon but I like to keep my options open.

[Geoff F]

The important question is - how much of your money can we spend? We are quite good at spending other peoples savings!

I'm undecided about suggesting a secondhand 40D or 50D and then getting seriously better lenses; or the current 7D and better glass. Or ditch the lot (some resale value) and change brands.

Either way, I would concentrate on upgrading lenses rather than spending a lot of money on a body.

I have a 7D and a 40D. Both would do what you want.

[Shadowman]

First thing I would have done after purchasing the T3 would be to acquire one of the Magic Lantern field guides, granted that will only get you so far but it does provide some shortcuts and how to's not found in the manual. Secondly, since you've had the camera for awhile and you can stew in your buyer's remorse with full fury, I'd do as you did and write down what's missing from the current gear, research potential replacements, and get out to the camera store (or a electronics convention) and give some of those units a field test. And third, take your time, don't rush out and get the latest release, make this next purchase count. Good luck.

[DanK]

I think it would help to clarify for us which of these are most important to you, since the whole package could be pretty pricey. From what you wrote, I am guessing that AF, FPS, and maybe controls are at the top of your list. If that's the case, and I were in your shoes and didn't want to spend a lot of money, I might consider taking advantage of the release of the new 7DII to buy a 7D Mark I cheaply. Brand new, they are now down to $999 at BH, and my guess is that you will be able to find them for less soon by shopping around. That would give you superb controls, good AF, and high FPS. The 40D/50D (I have a 50D) would be cheaper (used), but I think you might find the AF disappointing.

Re spot metering: don't be offended, but I doubt that is the camera. I had a cheaper, older Rebel at one point, and spot metering worked. You have to know what area the spot covers and aim it where you want it.

[Kyle]

Thanks for the info Geoff. Spending other people's money is always better than spending your own.
I thought of looking at a model like the 40D or 50D but I wasn't sure if I would be happy with either of those, I'll do more research on them but I'm sure they'd be great. I did manage to find a 7D on sale for $1160 which seems like a pretty good deal.
You're right the lens is more important, I'm just not sure I have enough for a camera and a great lens. Then it gets into what lens I should get, which is a whole other issue. (Would love the Canon 100-400 but it would likely eat all my funds.)

First thing I would have done after purchasing the T3 would be to acquire one of the Magic Lantern field guides, granted that will only get you so far but it does provide some shortcuts and how to's not found in the manual. Secondly, since you've had the camera for awhile and you can stew in your buyer's remorse with full fury, I'd do as you did and write down what's missing from the current gear, research potential replacements, and get out to the camera store (or a electronics convention) and give some of those units a field test. And third, take your time, don't rush out and get the latest release, make this next purchase count. Good luck.

No buyer's remorse. The T3 was an Xmas gift so I had no choice in the matter! It was the thing to push me to figure out how to properly use a camera which is what really got me into photography. I've been researching cameras for awhile and I don't intend to rush into such a large purchase (although part of me keeps saying "BUY BUY BUY"). I'll definitely check out the Magic Lantern field guide. Thanks for the advice.

[Kyle]

Re spot metering: don't be offended, but I doubt that is the camera. I had a cheaper, older Rebel at one point, and spot metering worked. You have to know what area the spot covers and aim it where you want it.

I'm not offended easily, especially if someone is just trying to help me. As I said in my post it's very likely that I'm not doing something correctly. I think I've got a good handle on most features and I understand metering, I am just not 100% sure on how to do it on the camera.
I assume that when on partial metering it meters at the auto focus point that is selected. I normally only use the center point for AF. I have seen it work bit generally it doesn't change the exposure too much. Maybe I'm expecting too much out of it?
I'll look up how it works for this specific camera.

As for my top priorities, I would say you're pretty much spot on. FPS, better controls and better/faster autofocus are probably my top 3. Everything else is just a nice to have.
Originally I was looking at the 7D vs the 70D but I figured I'd check out the 7D mark ii and get it if it was THAT much better. So far it looks like it will be better but not enough to justify the purchase over a cheaper 7D. I'm sure the price will drop even more than it already has once the new one releases.
I've definitely got a ton more research to do and some other models to check out. I appreciate the help, eh.

[NorthernFocus]

You've done a good job of identifying your current equipment limitations and how they affect your shooting. Most people just "feel" like they could do better with better gear. Definately if you shoot wildlife the fps, buffer limitations, and AF are potential issues. I'm a Nikon shooter so can't make any specific suggestions on Canon gear. But if you're considering a 7D why not look at the used market? Used camera prices really take a nose dive when the replacement models come out. Particular if you are on a tight budget it's a good way to upgrade without breaking the bank. And nowadays the latest and greatest DSLRs are only marginal improvements over the previous model.

[Kyle]

I'm not opposed to the used market, 2 of my lenses are used. I will do more searches to see if I can find some good deals on used.

[wtlwdwgn]

You might consider renting a body and lens to find one you like. Nothing like holding it in your hands and shooting to get a feel for how it will work for you. It won't be cheap but it's better than buyer's remorse. Some good deals out there on new 7Ds now that the Mark II is out. There have been good deals lately from Pentax on the K-3 and their weather resistant lenses too. Just my $0.02.

[inkista]

-Accidentally changing the mode I'm on just before I take a shot (there's no lock on the T3 mode dial)

You can also use this stuff called gaffer tape.

-3 FPS and 3 frame buffer. Taking any more than 1 or 2 shots causes the camera to slow down and process. Makes it near impossible to get any good shots of anything moving.

This could be your card write speed vs. the camera or how you have your file formats set. I was easily able to take bursts of three to five frames on my old XT (350D), which is a much older camera model. Or consider switching to JPEG or RAW if you're in RAW+JPEG mode. JPEG will let you machine gun a whole lot more. Think throughput.

-Low light performance. This is also dependent on my lenses since I don't have many fast lenses (Most are f/4-5.6) but I find I cannot use anything above 800 or the shots just have awful noise.

Avoid underexposing and pushing in post. Are you sure you're not underexposing in low light situations? Have you attempted to use a flash? Have you tried a fast prime?

-T3 lacks many of the helpful shortcut buttons. Changing anything outside of shutter speed and aperture takes too long.

This may be a reason to upgrade. But personally, I'm not often monkeying with my metering, burst, or white balance settings on a shot-to-shot basis, more on a shoot-to-shoot basis. And the flash button can be configured to change ISO. The shortcut buttons are nice, but not a have-to-have. To me, if it's not two-wheel control you want, then it may not be time to move.

-Terribly slow autofocus and nearly useless autofocus outside of single point. I almost always just use the center point for autofocus since I just fight with it otherwise.

Faster lenses, aiming for areas of high-contrast, and shooting in good light or with a flash AF assist could help with this. A better camera may not actually improve on this as much as you're thinking it will, particularly if you're using consumer-grade slow glass.

Spot metering is almost useless at times. Often I see no real difference between shooting partial, center or evaluative. I know how the metering should work but it just doesn't seem to do much. Maybe I'm expecting too much out of it.

Maybe you're not choosing the spot correctly. As someone else said--it always worked for me.

-Not weather sealed

Understand, to be fully weather-sealed not only the body, but also the lenses have to sealed, and the only models that really are weather-sealed in the Canon lineup are the 1-series pro bodies. The prosumer bodies have sealing, but it may not even really qualify as splash proof in some cases, despite the marketing claims. And the only lenses that are weathersealed are all Ls (although not all Ls are weather-sealed, either), and may still require a filter to actually be fully weathersealed.

Currently I mostly shoot Wildlife and Landscape (my 55-250mm is on my camera the most).

A non-USM lens could also be the other reason your AF is slow. For me, moving from a 75-300 III non-IS non-USM lens to an EF 400/5.6L USM actually speeded up AF acquisition for birds in flight far far more than moving from an 350D to a 50D did.

I find I end up shooting in low light quite a bit ...

Honestly? This is probably where most of your issues stem from, and are unlikely to be completely solved by another body. Every camera body tends to struggle more with AF in low light.

... The problem is I don't know if I really need to spend the extra on the 7D-2.

My judgment call? Upgrade your glass or (depending on what you like to shoot) get a flash and/or tripod before you upgrade the body. The T3 could be holding you back, but an 18-55 and 55-250 IS twin kit could be holding you back just as much. And money you spend on glass depreciates far more slowly and stays with you between camera body swaps. Unless you're a professional who needs these features to earn more money, chances are good that spending money on anything else in the system other than a body is going to last longer for you.

My XT cost me $800 new. It's now worth $0 and was long ago busted up into the Canon parts bins when it had a bad power board. I can no longer use it. The $1100 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM still works on both my 50D and my 5DMkII, and on the used market goes for roughly $1100 (a new one costs $1400 these days).

I would also caution you against going for an L lens just to get an L. I own three Ls. They're marvelous lenses. But they're a) designed for full frame, b) a lot heavier and bigger than non-L lenses, c) not a whole lot sharper than some of their gold-ringed USM counterparts, and d) really really expensive. Unless you plan to move to full frame within a year or so, you could be better served--particularly with walkarounds and ultrawides by the higher-end EF-S lenses, like the EF 15-85 IS USM, or the EF 17-55/2.8 than a 24-105L or 24-70L, respectively. You may also want to consider the venerable 17-40/4L USM which could be a good walkaround on your crop and an ultrawide on a full frame in the future. 24mm isn't particularly wide angle on a crop body.

[FootLoose]

Just to add to what Kathy said about FPS and cards, Kyle. I use a 600d (T3), too, and I generally get 5-6 RAW shots in a burst since switching to a faster card. I use Sandisk 16GB Extreme, Class 10, which have a 45mb/s write speed.

I generally use matrix metering and centre point focusing (focus and recompose as necessary) and I think I do ok - check a couple of my posts and decide for yourself about that. I did notice quite a difference when I bought better glass a few months back - the 70-300L because it was surprisingly cheap at the time. It is not fast glass (4-5.6) but it does perform better than the kit lens that came with it - the same as yours.

I have found the same problems with low-light performance: unbearable noise at higher ISOs.

Like you, I have been considering an upgrade and waiting to see if the 7DII lived up to the rumours. I think I will be waiting a while yet though, because while reports so far are enthusiastic I haven't heard much about the ISO and noise. I may yet go for the 5D.

[rpcrowe]

If money is tight... I tend to recommend that a person look into getting an older model, higher level camera than a new model lower level camera.

IMO, the Canon 7D is an excellent camera. I own a pair of them and love them to death! The 7D does everything that I need to do with a DSLR (note: I don't shoot video with my DSLR and I don't want an articulating LCD). Right now, you can get a refurbished 7D body from Adorama for $899 (U.S. Dollars) which is less expensive than the refurbished 7D body offered through Canon USA.

I have noticed less expensive refurbished cameras from Abe's of Maine and 42nd Street Camera. However, I don't have any experience with these companies and I have purchased a lot of items from Adorama and can recommend that vendor quite highly!

The 7D focus capability is super great! I have been so happy with my 7D cameras that I have not followed other models closely... I don't generally like the xxxD, the xxxxD cameras or the Tx cameras because they often require quite a bit of menu work to change the shooting parameters...

A camera really has to offer some mind boggling advantages to get me to even think of changing to a newer model. The advantages of the 7Dii are certainly not mind boggling...

I have never had my mode dial slip to an unwanted mode on any xxD or on my 7D cameras... I did, however have severe problems with a button changing shooting mode on the 350D camera. The button is located exactly where my thumb rested when shooting. Often I would take a shot, thinking I was in single shot mode and was actually inadvertently in the timer mode. That is operator error but it is also an ergonomic fault with the camera.

[Kyle]

Wow, thank you all for the great advice. I've got so much to research and think about. I'm definitely not going to go for the 7D2, or a new 70D.
I've been looking for used 7D and 70Ds. I think I would enjoy either but with the 7D2 out, the 7D is now cheaper than what I can find for the 70D. I also hear the 7D is a workhorse so I can hopefully stick with it for a long while. If I end up going for a new camera body I'll likely go for the 7D used. I'm going to take the time to try to overcome some of the issues with my T3. I could use a faster SD card, and I always just shoot on RAW only at the highest resolution. I don't often see a point to shooting any other way.

I'm definitely looking into new lenses. I may be able to afford 2 lenses if I get them cheap enough or a lens and a body. I know my current and very cheap 18-55 and 55-250 aren't serving me as well as they could.

The lens decision seems to be a much harder decision than the camera body. I currently have the kit 18-55 and the basic 55-250. I also have the 10-22 so I don't need a wide angle and I have the 50 f/1.8.

As I said I mostly shoot wildlife (mainly birds, waterfowl and deer). I find my 55-250mm is on my camera the most but I know a good basic zoom would be good. I know to get as close as possible but often it's not quite enough. A better zoom would be great though I've read that if you're not close enough for 250mm to be good then 300 or 400 won't be enough.
Originally I was looking into the 100-400 f4 but that's very expensive. I've looked up some good alternatives. So far my lens list to research would include:

Sigma 100-500
Canon 70-300 IS
Canon 15-85 IS USM
Canon 17-55/2.8 (Faster glass would be nice but I've read that this lens isn't a good as it should be for the price)
17-40 f/4 L USM

I think I'll get more use out of the zoom lenses especially since I have the 10-22.

[AB26]

Kyle. I use a 600d (T3),

Greg,

That is the Rebel T3i.

Kyle is using a T3 - the EOS 1100D. The very bottom basic Canon.

Kyle,

A used 7D! Will take you very far.

[DanK]

I agree with Kathy that better glass will probably help you more than a new body and that you don't need to buy L glass to get good glass. Even the best of Canon's EF-S lenses don't get the L label.

Re metering: in the OP, you said that spot metering doesn't work, and then later you wrote:

I assume that when on partial metering it meters at the auto focus point that is selected.

I doubt it. I recommend that you go back to the manual. I have never used a t3, but I very much doubt the metering tracks the AF point. It doesn't even do that on some of the expensive bodies. Also, "partial metering," in Canon parlance, is not spot metering. From what I have read (again, I have never used one), the t3 does not have spot metering. Partial metering is like spot metering in that it evaluates only the center area, but it evaluates a much bigger area. This should be shown graphically and with numbers in your manual. The only time you will see a really big difference between that and your other two modes (evaluative and center-weighted) is when the area you are metering is substantially different in luminance from the areas that you are not metering but that are captured by the other two methods. For example, if you have a backlit subject, spot metering, or partial metering (if the subject is large enough) will result in a brighter exposure. However, under many conditions, the results will not be very different. I have often forgotten to reset the metering mode and have had fine exposures despite not using the mode I had planned to use. Apart from the size of the areas involved, this has been the same principle since I first started using a camera with a spot meter (a Canon FTb) in 1971. A more expensive body would get you a smaller spot, but the basic principles will remain the same.

Also, one general warning about low light: digital has made it very easy to amplify the signal from the sensor (that is all higher ISOs do), compared to how difficult it was to push film in the old days. As a result, some people now think that cameras should produce great results even when there is inadequate light. They don't. A better camera will let you go somewhat higher, but near the top of the range cameras offer, the results are generally pretty noisy. That is true even with expensive cameras. I shoot with a 50D, which is a fairly noisy camera, and a 5D Mark III, which is not. I don't recall the technical reviews, and I have never done direct comparisons, but my impression is that the 5D3 gets me about 2 more stops before I start noticing noise if I look hard. (I try to shoot so that I don't need any noise reduction.) Perhaps it is a bit more. Don't get me wrong; that 2+ stop improvement is very handy. However, the bigger variable in controlling noise is lighting and control of exposure.

[Kyle]

Thanks for the info Dan.
I think that my problem with the metering is exactly as you said, the t3 doesn't have spot. Partial is as close as it gets and the area does seem to be quite large. I usually only use it when I am trying to capture a backlit animal. I try to expose for the animal (and over expose the rest) so I can fix it in post. The partial metering seems to be too big for the subject. It's very possible that a different body with actual spot metering won't have a small enough area to fix it.
I'll double check the manual to see if it can give me an idea on how big the partial area is.

[inkista]

... As I said I mostly shoot wildlife (mainly birds, waterfowl and deer). I find my 55-250mm is on my camera the most but I know a good basic zoom would be good.

Actually the 55-250 IS is a good basic zoom. You aren't typically going to get much faster or longer without going over the $1000 mark. (Unless you want to go vintage. You may be able to find a Sigma 400/5.6). The two lenses that are closest to affordable that you'll want are going to be the 100-400L IS (as you've already noted), and the 400/5.6L that I use. Sigma's 120-400, 150-500 and 50-500 HSM OS lenses are also good alternatives, but the Ls are a hair better on IQ, and 500mm lenses are hard to handhold, if you like tracking flying birds.

I know to get as close as possible but often it's not quite enough. A better zoom would be great though I've read that if you're not close enough for 250mm to be good then 300 or 400 won't be enough.

Actually, on birding forums and boards, most of us will say 400mm is the minimum you're gonna need. If you look at images from people who do a lot of birding images, they're typically going to be superteles of the 400mm+ variety, often with teleconverters. Yes, fieldcraft counts far more than a longer lens, but some birds are simply shy or very small, and we all like to avoid stressing them out to the point of forcing them to take off. And my keeper rate changed drastically moving from a 300mm zoom to my 400mm prime. Hell, I'm still cropping using my 400 (which is why using a prime isn't bad for me until I go to the zoo--most birds are still too far away a lot of the time to frame the way I'd like).

Originally I was looking into the 100-400 f4 but that's very expensive.

Actually, it's pretty reasonably priced, if you look at what Nikon's AF-S 80-400 VR costs. And you can often find it used or refurbished. But yeah, this is why I went for the 400/5.6 prime instead (and I regret that a little every time I go to the zoo :-).

For metering, I tend to use center-weighted for birding. And you may want to explore the option of setting up back-button autofocus. On your camera that would be C.Fn 7 (option 1 or 3).

[Geoff F]

Regarding lenses, Kyle.

With the Sigma did you mean 150-500? I have that lens and it is good for the money with plenty of extra reach but . . .

Quite long and heavy. Autofocus is slow, so can be tricky for birds in flight etc. But quality is quite good and the stabilisation is surprisingly effective. However, Tamron have now produced a 150-600 which gets good reviews and Sigma are about to produce a similar lens.

The previous comment about getting a prime lens like the Canon 400, plus a 1.4x converter when required is good advice for wildlife use. But not having a zoom may be limiting for other uses, as well as a fairly long minimum focusing distance. A decision which only you can make.

With regard to other lenses, I have the Canon 70-200 (the F4 version which is quite a bit cheaper than the F2.8) and it is an excellent mid length zoom. Also, I had a Canon 24-105 but had a few problems with it so I purchased the Tamron 24-70 F 2.8 for a general purpose shorter lens and so far, after one year, I have found it to be an outstanding lens. I did eventually get the 24-105 repaired and now use it as a 'rough use lens'.

Originally I had a Canon 28-135 lens and that served me well. A fairly decent lens for the price; I think it has now been replaced by an 18-135 ? Also the Canon 70-300 is good for the money. Or the L range version if you can afford it.

And then what about a macro lens for all that smaller wildlife . . .