Dilemma: Need new body by May 1st (7d alternatives/successor timeline?)

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If you want to capture images of a baby with minimal lighting, get a 6D... This would be a better choice.

That's silly. Why wouldn't one improve the lighting instead?

Why? Did you read what he wants? Do you think that maybe using a flash in a babies eyes is the best way to go?

OP
"My first child is due on the first of May and I want to document his early months with a DSLR."

I stand by my recommendation. A child is not going to be running around in his first few months, or years, and blinding him with bright lights would not be the way I'd treat my child.

 

[Dylan777]

If you want to capture images of a baby with minimal lighting, get a 6D... This would be a better choice.

That's silly. Why wouldn't one improve the lighting instead?

Why? Did you read what he wants? Do you think that maybe using a flash in a babies eyes is the best way to go?

OP
"My first child is due on the first of May and I want to document his early months with a DSLR."

I stand by my recommendation. A child is not going to be running around in his first few months, or years, and blinding him with bright lights would not be the way I'd treat my child.

+1....therefore I voted 6D + 50 f1.4 for indoor low light shots or tammy 24-70 f2.8 due to $2000 budget. Sell everything else that he currently own.

please DO NOT get P&S as RGF recommended :'(

 

[Random Orbits]

If you want to go with the 7D, get one refurbed or used. A refurbed 7D on the shop.usa.canon.com site is currently 1020 + tax. With the rest of the money, you could get a fast prime and/or a flash. The 7D has AFMA, which is almost a necessity for getting the most out of fast primes. The 7D's AF is nice when the baby becomes a toddler and starts running all over the place. If you buy at 1000, then you won't lose much selling it in a couple years, if you decide to upgrade then.

A 6D will allow you to shoot cleaner at higher ISOs but the AF is worse and the 6D costs more. It is really up to you as to which format would be better given how you intend to use the equipment.

 

[noisejammer]

I don't think you will see any new cameras before the end of April... I expect the 70D at the end of June (in time for holidays) and the 7D2 - if there ever is such a thing - in late October. This means your selection space is limited to what's available now.

@Freelancer - My recommendation on the 7D is that it's a wonderful camera - at the current price you get a great deal for your money. Sure, you could spend a couple of hundred dollars less and get a 550 or 600 but the user interface and versatility of the 7D gets my nod.

@OP My take is that the 7D is such a huge upgrade from a 20D, image quality will not be your limiting factor. Be aware that it's a more complex camera to set up, so you need time to get it right. If this is your route, do not delay.

How about looking to see whether you can get a 7D under the Canon Loyalty Program? If you have a broken (or even not broken) Canon P&S Camera, you can get quite a lot of credit on a refurbed SLR.

On full frame...
The often underappreciated point is that the upgrade to ff can be a lot more than the cost of your camera body and your first lens. The 24-105 L is a great lens but it's a stop slower than the 17-55, so any benefit you had with the noise performance disappears because you use higher ISO. To see a real improvement, you'd be looking at a 24-70/2.8 and that would probably drive your budget a bit far. If you decide to go for a 6D, you will also need to think about a flash.

I don't recommend strobing a baby - just about anything will startle them - but you will probably want to think about a light panel or at least a reflector. Of course, a reflector will work for both crop and ff, so it's something you might consider chasing down anyway.

 

[Random Orbits]

A 6D will allow you to shoot cleaner at higher ISOs but the AF is worse and the 6D costs more.
The 7D's AF is nice when the baby becomes a toddler and starts running all over the place

you guys really need a 7D AF for toddlers?
to be honest i think that is the typical exaggeration made on forums like this.

years ago even the 450D i had was perfectly fine for photographing my little niece while playing.

Not for the first year or two, but it does become increasingly useful as the kids get older. I had a 20D until last year, and yes, I got some great pics when my kids were born until they were 2 and 4, but AI servo on it was bad and I lost a lot of pics (more than I got). 3-4 year olds also start getting into organized sports (i.e. soccer or gymnastics) and active birthday parties. Plus once you bring a DSLR to a party or family gathering (esp. with older kids), others will ask you take pictures, and the better AF comes in handy.

The other main reason for recommending the 7D is for its AFMA. A rebel or a 60D won't have it, and it really does allow one to explore shallower DOF photography. Slapping on the 35L onto my 20D was revelatory even though I already had the 17-55, and it got better once I got a body that had AFMA.

 

[AJ]

If you want to capture images of a baby with minimal lighting, get a 6D... This would be a better choice.

That's silly. Why wouldn't one improve the lighting instead?

Why? Did you read what he wants? Do you think that maybe using a flash in a babies eyes is the best way to go?

OP
"My first child is due on the first of May and I want to document his early months with a DSLR."

I stand by my recommendation. A child is not going to be running around in his first few months, or years, and blinding him with bright lights would not be the way I'd treat my child.

Contrary to popular belief, flash does not injure babies.

 

[BrettS]

Given what you've posted, my suggestion would be 6D + kit 24-105 if you can swing it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

A 6D will allow you to shoot cleaner at higher ISOs but the AF is worse and the 6D costs more.
The 7D's AF is nice when the baby becomes a toddler and starts running all over the place

you guys really need a 7D AF for toddlers?
to be honest i think that is the typical exaggeration made on forums like this.

years ago even the 450D i had was perfectly fine for photographing my little niece while playing.

+1

I used a MF Canon FTQL with ASA25 film for my first baby. There was absoultely no AF in site back then.

 

[raptor3x]

I've shot with Canon cameras my entire life starting with an Elan back in the 90's. A few years back I went digital with a 20D and the FANTASTIC EF-S 17-55 2.8. The 20D body was destroyed a year or so ago and I've been making do with a Canon point and shoot since then.

My first child is due on the first of May and I want to document his early months with a DSLR. Given my ownership of EF-S glass (really only the 17-55... my other Canon glass is cheap and left over from pre-DSLR days) I think APS-C is probably the way to go; but it bothers me to go after a 7d with its successor just around the corner.

Any thoughts or angles here? I'd only like to spend $2000 and need to do it pretty quickly. I'd like some reassurance that purchasing a 7d at the very twilight of its existence isn't complete folly or maybe an alternative approach I haven't considered (a $1000 EF-S lens was a bit shortsighted of me as I have a hard time justifying FF given the investment).

Buy a used 7D off of FM or PotN, should run you about $750-850; then sell it when the next round of cameras come out. Will probably end up costing you ~$100-150 for several months of use. Way way way better than renting. Also, don't get rid of the 17-55, that lens is fantastic and if it weren't for the fact that I needed a weather sealed normal zoom I would have had a hard time giving it up on the move to FF.

 

[9VIII]

If you shop around the 6D can be had well within your budget (http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/04/canon-eos-6d-body-1629-via-ebay/). If you want something cheaper, and almost as good in low light, a used 5D2 can be had for even less.
My focus is wildlife(and macro) so the 7D2 will probably be my main camera for a while (I'm on a rebel right now), but if you're focusing on close up shots a full frame camera would be best (by a wide margin).

 

[Don Haines]

If you want to capture images of a baby with minimal lighting, get a 6D... This would be a better choice.

That's silly. Why wouldn't one improve the lighting instead?

With a nice powerfull flash you could get a lot of pictures of babies crying...... and irate spouses....

Get a couple of lightstands..... bounce the lights off the ceiling.... or walls... or whatever... just don't set them up like you are interrogating a prisoner or we go back to the pictures of babies crying and irate spouses. You cand get different colors of bulb for more natural light than the ordinary incandescent bulbs.

 

[jd7]

Let me throw in an idea from left field - how about selling your current gear and getting ... an Olympus OM-D E-M5 and two or three lenses?

Now, I know this is a Canon forum but before anyone says I'm trolling, hear me out.

Firstly, I've used Canon DSLRs for the last 10 years and I currently have a 7D and a collection of lenses. I think Canon make great cameras, but I'm trying to focus on they type of photography the OP wants to do and his budget.

Now, from what I've read (and the little time I've spent playing with a friend's OM-D), here's what you'd get with the OM-D
- much smaller and lighter - likely to be a real advantage if you're out of the house and already weighed down carrying all the things necessary for looking after a baby
- probably a bit cheaper, taking into account lens prices
- good build quality with weather sealing - don't think you'd be losing anything there
- an AF system which seems to be pretty good except for tracking fast moving subjects - which sounds like the way the 6D's AF system (and the 60D's too really) is often described - I suspect quite good enough at least until the child is old enough to be running around playing sports
- IQ which may be a lot closer to that of a 7D - and perhaps even a 6D/5DIII(?) - than many of us who are invested in the Canon system would like to admit!

An OM-D plus Panasonic 25 1.4 and Olympus 45 1.8 (remember the OM-D has a 2x multiplier for 35mm equivalent field of view so that's a 50 and 90 in 35mm FOV terms) would be well within the OP's budget without counting the money he'd get selling his 17-55. The Olympus 75 1.8 and Panasonic 12-35 2.8 are other options to consider. Plus the Olympus 40-150 4.0-5.6 is fairly cheap and gets good reviews (and compare it with the price of a Canon 70-300 4.0-5.6!). And the OM-D has in-camera lens stabilisation so IS isn't an issue.

Do a Google search for OM-D v 5DIII comparisons - I expect you'll find it an interesting read, if nothing else. To give an example, have a look at: http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/blog/olympus-omd-vs-canon-5d-mkiii-nature-photography/
I don't know anything about that photographer beyond what is on her website, but it gives you an idea of the sort of things a Google search can turn up.

I've been considering selling my Canon gear and making the switch to an OM-D because of the lighter size/weight (I'm feeling a bit sick of lugging around a backpack full of heavy camera gear, especially when I'm hiking), but I like doing some action photography so I'll stick with the 7D for now. The size/weight of the OM-D is very appealing though, given the IQ is still pretty good.

For what it's worth, if the OP wants to stick with Canon, I agree with the others who've said the choice is between getting a 7D (and keeping the 17-55), or selling the 17-55 and getting a 6D. In my opinion, the price point of the 7D, plus its ergonomics and build quality, makes it a more appealing package than a Rebel or 60D (although I do know very happy 60D owners). As for the 6D, I haven't played with one so I only know what I read, but it sounds to me like the only real advantage it would have over an OM-D is IQ but that advantage may be smaller than you first expect, in which case the question is whether size/weight/price of the OM-D is enough to compensate. Perhaps a critical factor here is how often the OP will shoot in dim light? It seems the IQ advantage of a 6D (and to a lesser extent a 7D) over an OM-D will be increasingly apparent as the light gets dimmer.

 

[wickidwombat]

Thanks for your comments. To address the "wait" flavored responses (either by renting or buying an interim body), realistically, this is my best window to deploy capital towards gear. The Mrs. buys the fact that we should get something before the kid comes... anything after that may be a tougher sell .

Assuming I can't wait for the next generation, I'm seeing two options:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Spend around $1000 on a slightly used 7d and keep the 17-55 freeing up around $1000 to invest in prime glass
[*]Sell the 17-55 making a 6d with the 24-105 kit lens in my price range
[/list]

I like the "sturdiness" of the 7d and that I can reuse my CF cards etc... and don't really know a lot about the 6d. Maybe the question really is: current generation entry level FF versus last generation top-line aps-c with ultimately pretty equivalent glass.

option 2

the 6D and 24-105 will serve you well

I highly recomend getting the 40mm f2.8 pancake too
this lens on a 6D or 5Dmk3 is great for taking pics of new borns
in low light. the 5Dmk3 and the 40mm were my most used lenses when my daughter was fisrt born

 

[greger]

I went from a 40D to the 7D. My 17-85 F4-5.6 that came with the 40D works fine on the 7D. I like my 7D so much that
when the new cameras come out they had better have great improvements for me to have Camera Envy. Buy a 7D now
so you'll be ready when your child is born. With your F2.8 you'll be able to take pics of baby without flash. you will probably have to set the white balance manually. I shoot mine on auto white balance except when using flash at 250 TV.
I haven't shot under Fluorescent lighting yet. Even if you upgrade when the new cameras come out you may get a good trade in value with a 7D. Good Luck!

 

[pj1974]

My first suggestion is also for you to get a 7D (you can get very decent prices even for a new 7D now - or better prices for a used / refurb 7D). I upgraded from a lesser model Canon DSLR, and the 7D's AF is vastly superior to any Canon XXXXD, XXXD or XXD- particularly when you know how to use the 7D's AF to it's limit. And the 7D's IQ is notably superior to your former 20D's.

While an infant (often a barely moving or sleeping baby) doesn't require great AF... by the time they are 1.5 to 2, they can move much more, so the 7D's AF will be handy. For indoors / dimly lit, the 17-55 f/2.8 can do a lot - though possibly the 35mm f/2 IS USM would be my choice of 'pure low light' (great IQ wide open, USM AF and the mature 4-stop IS). While a flash might not 'damage' a baby's eyes permanently, I wouldn't take a photo with a bright flash in their eyes, purely from a "caring for the baby's emotions" factor.

My 2nd suggestion is for you to go with something from a 550D to 700D. And get a good prime (eg the 35mm f/2 IS USM). Get a 7DmkII only if you really need it as an upgrade, when it's price is lower (eg 6 months or more after it's released).

All the best. And I mean that particularly for your family and caring for the precious gift of a child.

Paul

 

[archiea]

I've shot with Canon cameras my entire life starting with an Elan back in the 90's. A few years back I went digital with a 20D and the FANTASTIC EF-S 17-55 2.8. The 20D body was destroyed a year or so ago and I've been making do with a Canon point and shoot since then.

My first child is due on the first of May and I want to document his early months with a DSLR. Given my ownership of EF-S glass (really only the 17-55... my other Canon glass is cheap and left over from pre-DSLR days) I think APS-C is probably the way to go; but it bothers me to go after a 7d with its successor just around the corner.

Any thoughts or angles here? I'd only like to spend $2000 and need to do it pretty quickly. I'd like some reassurance that purchasing a 7d at the very twilight of its existence isn't complete folly or maybe an alternative approach I haven't considered (a $1000 EF-S lens was a bit shortsighted of me as I have a hard time justifying FF given the investment).

I was also a 20D digital virgin. It's always great to hear the longivity of that camera. IMHO, the current xxD line went the route of being more rebel like, with the 40D being the last true xxD camera by canon. It's not so much the IQ as much as the button layout. The current xxD (like the 60D) ditched the circular dial in exchange for the rebel buttons:

From left to right its a rebel, then 60D and to the right is the 7D. See how the 60D looks more like a rebel, and the 7D looks more like your 20D?

You do have a few options: you can get a used rebel now to save some dough to, push to later a more serious camera purchase. However, as a former 20D user, and a current 7D and 5D mark iii user, I would say that the 7D would feel more like an upgrade from the 20D vs the other aps-c options.

Worried about a new 7D coming out? Don't worry, the current 7D is a SUBSTANTIAL upgrade to our 20D. Even if it were near EOL, you would be getting tremendous value. Second, expect a new 7D mark ii to cost more, if only because it's new. You could get a refurbished 7D for $1020!
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_260463_-1

You could get it refurbished for even less at adorama and no tax:
http://www.adorama.com/ICA7DR.html

Why a 3 year old camera? It's a mature platform, it even has a v2.0 firmware with many added features like more buffered raw shooting and audio lvl control when shooting movies. It shoots 8fps and has an af system light years ahead of the 20D. You will get photos of your baby as a toddler that you would have missed. Period. Its also more rugged, full magnesium body, shutter durability and some weather sealing. I think it's a lot of value even as a three year old camera. Take the money you saved and get the canon f1.4 50 mm prime as your "portrait" lens. I've shot a lot of family babies with the 7D and f1.4 50 mm combo. It's fast and you get amazing bokeh?

The only other heads up is that the latest rebels do use the newer 40mm pankcake and a newer Efs 18-55mm lens that features canon's new Movie servo AF. This allows the comparable camera to af while shooting a movie. If you see that a lot of movie making is in your future, consider those cameras.

Good luck and congrats on new family!

 

[archiea]

You reminded me why I spent so much $$$ into DSLR...it's well worth it

With your budget, I would go 6D + 50 f1.4. The IQ on FF is so much better. 50 f1.4 is sharp from f1.8 to f2. Get more L lenses when you ready.

Goodluck

I agree with this as far as a FF solution. However since you are headed to cash-strapped baby land, I'd get the kit version of the 6D with the f4 24-105. Excellent zoom range. F4 will keep you dof in check while the camera's excellent high Iso will allow you to shoot in indoor light. Your next lens should be the f1.4 50mm and possibly the f1.8 85mm.

 

[aj1575]

Any thoughts or angles here? I'd only like to spend $2000 and need to do it pretty quickly. I'd like some reassurance that purchasing a 7d at the very twilight of its existence isn't complete folly or maybe an alternative approach I haven't considered (a $1000 EF-S lens was a bit shortsighted of me as I have a hard time justifying FF given the investment).

To me, it sounds like you want to take some nice pictures, but are not really into photography. What I would suggest you is, go out and look for a good deal on an "older camera". The 600D and the 60D are the obvious choices here. Especially the 60D is on sale everywhere at extremly low prices. Sure, the 70D will come out soon (available in early summer maybe), but will you be more happy with it? You are coming from a 20D and used P+S for some time time, so every new DSLR is a big improvement. A lot of people in here will tell you, that the 18MP sensor of the 600D/60D/7D) is just not good enough, but hey, it is the same sensor who made these cameras some of the bests in their league 2-3 years ago.
I'm using a 350D, an I'm making some lovely pictures from my kids since they were born, I'm very happy with the pictures, and so are our friends with kids. When photographing kids, finding the right moment, is much more important than your equipment.

Lens suggestion would be a 35mm f2 for the first 2-3 years, when the kids ar getting older and start to walk away further from you and run arround, then you need a fast tele; I use the 70-200 f4 IS which is great.

 

[skfla]

I'm with the non-renting crowd but disagree with the 7D crowd also. If you were used to a 20D, & then a P&S, just pick up a refurb rebel direct from Canon & you will see a significant improvement in your shots. If you want video, the T3i (the digital zoom on that model is nice) is a fairly good deal. If mainly stills with some video, the T2i will be just fine. I also agree with picking up the 35mm f2. Put the rest of your money aside somewhere (and dont tell your wife!). If you still want a 7D later on, the price will drop even more once/if/when the 7D2 comes out & you might be able to pick up another prime lens or reasonable flash (with children, you'll need a flash-even with a fast zoom or prime-a refurb 430exii maybe?) with the money you save. Good luck & congratulations! sk

 

[jaschas]

Wow. Thank you everyone for your well-considered, courteous replies. As a first-poster, I'm loving this community's well-reasoned arguments.

The sturdiness and size of the 7D have ultimately won me over. I'm a bigger guy and the camera just feels better put-together. I intend to use the remainder of my budget to go after some L glass (likely the 35 1.4) to build a foundation for moving to FF sometime in the future.

Thanks again everyone for your input.