Lenses or body

Hi all

Unusually for me I have a reasonable amount of money to spend, and I'm trying to work out the best way of disposing of it

When I don't have any I know exactly what I want, but now I have some, I'm torn

So, I'm not sure whether to go for a new body (I have a 500D now)

I'm looking at the 760D or the 70D (both have pros and cons)

Or a new lens (or 2) - 15-85 to replace my walkaround 18-135 (I have 10-20, 70-200 and 120-400) or a macro (60 or 90mm)

I can quite happily buy any one of these (even at the over-inflated prices here in Aus ), and may be able to stretch to 2, but that may be pushin it

If this were you, what way would you go?

Thanks

Paul

If second hand is fine, many people are starting to sell their 70Ds due to inevitable price drop once the 80D start to ship out.

You already have a wide selection of lenses, some of the can be improved but I think that the jump from a 500D to a 70D will have much more impact than swapping a zoom.

If you're looking for better image quality, one or 2 primes will deliver that and won't break the bank. On aps-c you can pick the pancake 24mm and 40mm f2.8 primes, and/or the 50mm f1.8 stm, all of which are fairly cheap lenses.

If you could buy a second hand 70D + one or two primes I'm pretty sure you'd be very glad with the results.

I hadn't thought about 2nd hand

That probably opens things up a bit more

I looked at the pancakes a while ago, and thought the 24 looked reasonable

Any idea when the 80D is due out?

From B&H

NEW ITEM - COMING SOON

Ship Time: Not available

Expected availability: March 27 2016

I live in Taiwan and here people have already started selling their 70Ds en mass.

BAK wrote:

Since my T1i is dead, I predict yours might die soon too, so the advantages of a new body might be important.

BAK

That's been in the back of my mind, which is why I'm torn, and that's why I included the 760D and 70D in my thoughts. If that wasn't a consideration, it'd be an easy choice for me

The 500D has been brilliant, for me, most of the time. It has limitations, but I have learned to work around them, or use them

I'm tending towards the body for now, but the thought of the 80D may make me wait a bit to see if I can afford that

If you can wait and your choice is between the 70d or 80d then you only need to think about how much money you want to spend.

It's a toss up with the 70d and T6s.  The T6s is a nice unit but more people seem to prefer the 70d.  Where I live I'd have to spend an extra $600 for the 70d over the T6s - not worth it in my opinion.  I found a great price for the T6s.  Tons of people have the 70d, not too many have the T6s

Which one are you leaning towards?  So wither wait and get the 80d or get one now and choose the 70d or T6s.  I think if you wait you'll get more test reviews on the 80d and you'll see if it's worth it or not, you might also see price drops for the other two cameras.  But if you're thinking new you might not find any new 70d's in a few months.

Christopher2222 wrote:

It's a toss up with the 70d and T6s. The T6s is a nice unit but more people seem to prefer the 70d. Where I live I'd have to spend an extra $600 for the 70d over the T6s - not worth it in my opinion. I found a great price for the T6s. Tons of people have the 70d, not too many have the T6s

Which one are you leaning towards? So wither wait and get the 80d or get one now and choose the 70d or T6s. I think if you wait you'll get more test reviews on the 80d and you'll see if it's worth it or not, you might also see price drops for the other two cameras. But if you're thinking new you might not find any new 70d's in a few months.

Thanks for summing it up so nicely

For me it's about $300 to $550 premium for the 70D over the 760D (body only). When I compare them (purely on specs) I see more benefit from the 760 in almost every area, but that may be because I am used to the 500D, so I see an improvement.

The pricing I'm seeing for pre-orders for the 80D put it over $1000 more than the 760D, and a good $700 more than the 70D.

Given this, I'm leaning towards the 760D, but (as always) there is a little bit of doubt there

Is there a replacement for the 760D on the horizon?

As with all things electronic, there is ALWAYS a replacement on the horizon... However, the T6s/760D represents a pretty big jump from its immediate predecessor, let alone from your 500D. Canon rarely make such significant jumps twice in a row within that line (although, in fact, the T1i/500D represents the "middle" stage of such a jump!)

While I *could* use an xxD, series body, having had both over the years (I started with the old EOS D60), I find the xxxD series tends to fit better in my relatively small hands (especially once I add a grip). With the upgraded AF and added controls that brought some of the xxD ergonomics into the line, for my purposes, the T6s won the day.

Woody W. wrote:

As with all things electronic, there is ALWAYS a replacement on the horizon... However, the T6s/760D represents a pretty big jump from its immediate predecessor, let alone from your 500D. Canon rarely make such significant jumps twice in a row within that line (although, in fact, the T1i/500D represents the "middle" stage of such a jump!)

While I *could* use an xxD, series body, having had both over the years (I started with the old EOS D60), I find the xxxD series tends to fit better in my relatively small hands (especially once I add a grip). With the upgraded AF and added controls that brought some of the xxD ergonomics into the line, for my purposes, the T6s won the day.

Thanks Woody

Based on your comments, and those from the others I was able to refine my criteria when searching for reviews and comparrisons, and I now think the 760D (T6s) is my best bet.

I appreciate the 70D and upcoming 80D have some advanced features, but I'm not sure I would make use of them, and therefore cannot justify the premium from the 760D to 70D, let alone the 80D

As I'm upgrading due to age, rather than anything esle, and the only contstaint I have found with the 500D is the number of RAW shots in a row before it stumbles, I don't feel like I will be settling for 2nd best with the 760D

Having said that, seeing the 80D is due for release in the next few weeks, I might wait and see if the 70D drops in price enough to make it a real contender, but if not, I will be happy with my decision

Lenses can come next time

Paul

pvicta wrote:

As I'm upgrading due to age, rather than anything esle, and the only contstaint I have found with the 500D is the number of RAW shots in a row before it stumbles, I don't feel like I will be settling for 2nd best with the 760D

Canon say the max. burst of the 500D is 9 at 3.4/s (page 214 of the manual), but the 760D is only 7 at 5/s (page 404), so while the 760D is faster it's buffer is actually shallower.

Let me chuck a quoll among the bandicoots... consider the 60D - dismissed by those who haven't owned one and don't know what a sweet camera it is, capable of 16 shots at 5.3/s, misses out on the fancy focus in Live View so not the best choice for video, but does have the articulated monitor and better user interface than the Rebels. Looks like you can pick up a nice one on ebay or gumtree for $450-500, vs $750-800 for a 70D. You could have a go with one for a while, see how you like the ergonomics and performance, then trade it on an 80D when their price has settled down.

Where are you? (I'm in Albany, WA.)

WilbaW wrote:

pvicta wrote:

As I'm upgrading due to age, rather than anything esle, and the only contstaint I have found with the 500D is the number of RAW shots in a row before it stumbles, I don't feel like I will be settling for 2nd best with the 760D

Canon say the max. burst of the 500D is 9 at 3.4/s (page 214 of the manual), but the 760D is only 7 at 5/s (page 404), so while the 760D is faster it's buffer is actually shallower.

This may be true - although it depends on your definition of shallower as the files are going to be bigger with the 760D.

It also depends on your usage of RAW bursts - if 3 frames a second is fast enough then the burst size can be much larger. And even at full speed you can take multiple full speed bursts with just a couple of seconds in between for the buffer to clear.

I must admit that I tend to shoot action with highest quality JPEG where the buffer size is not really an issue.

Exit10 wrote:

WilbaW wrote:

pvicta wrote:

As I'm upgrading due to age, rather than anything esle, and the only contstaint I have found with the 500D is the number of RAW shots in a row before it stumbles, I don't feel like I will be settling for 2nd best with the 760D

Canon say the max. burst of the 500D is 9 at 3.4/s (page 214 of the manual), but the 760D is only 7 at 5/s (page 404), so while the 760D is faster it's buffer is actually shallower.

This may be true - although it depends on your definition of shallower as the files are going to be bigger with the 760D.

Buffer depth is always measured in shots, not megabytes or megapixels.

It also depends on your usage of RAW bursts - if 3 frames a second is fast enough then the burst size can be much larger.

Some enthusiast and pro bodies have an adjustable (in shots/second) "Low-speed continuous shooting" mode.

And even at full speed you can take multiple full speed bursts with just a couple of seconds in between for the buffer to clear.

Yeah, sometimes it's about a number of shots, sometimes it's about how many seconds.

I must admit that I tend to shoot action with highest quality JPEG where the buffer size is not really an issue.

Yeah, the 450D was good, its large/fine JPEGs are small enough that you can shoot until the card fills or you flatten the battery.

WilbaW wrote:

Exit10 wrote:

WilbaW wrote:

pvicta wrote:

As I'm upgrading due to age, rather than anything esle, and the only contstaint I have found with the 500D is the number of RAW shots in a row before it stumbles, I don't feel like I will be settling for 2nd best with the 760D

Canon say the max. burst of the 500D is 9 at 3.4/s (page 214 of the manual), but the 760D is only 7 at 5/s (page 404), so while the 760D is faster it's buffer is actually shallower.

This may be true - although it depends on your definition of shallower as the files are going to be bigger with the 760D.

Buffer depth is always measured in shots, not megabytes or megapixels.

It also depends on your usage of RAW bursts - if 3 frames a second is fast enough then the burst size can be much larger.

Some enthusiast and pro bodies have an adjustable (in shots/second) "Low-speed continuous shooting" mode.

And even at full speed you can take multiple full speed bursts with just a couple of seconds in between for the buffer to clear.

Yeah, sometimes it's about a number of shots, sometimes it's about how many seconds.

I must admit that I tend to shoot action with highest quality JPEG where the buffer size is not really an issue.

Yeah, the 450D was good, its large/fine JPEGs are small enough that you can shoot until the card fills or you flatten the battery.

The 750D is also capable of shooting very large bursts with its 24 megapixel JPEGs (and also has a slower continuous shooting mode).

I'm not trying to make it sound as though its the ideal sports / action camera - I'd much rather have your 7D Mark II for shooting action - although I'd rather haul the Rebel on a long hike.

Exit10 wrote:

The 750D is also capable of shooting very large bursts with its 24 megapixel JPEGs (and also has a slower continuous shooting mode).

I'm not trying to make it sound as though its the ideal sports / action camera - I'd much rather have your 7D Mark II for shooting action - although I'd rather haul the Rebel on a long hike.

Sure, Paul has a problem with "the number of RAW shots in a row before it stumbles", and I'm just pointing out that he will have fewer with both current models.

And if continuous shooting speed is a concern don't forget a fast memory card.

The 760D supports UHS-1 SDXC cards and the best I've found so far is the SanDisk Extreme Pro 95 MB/Sec - and with the 32GB version for only about £21 its a pretty good deal.

WilbaW wrote:

pvicta wrote:

As I'm upgrading due to age, rather than anything esle, and the only contstaint I have found with the 500D is the number of RAW shots in a row before it stumbles, I don't feel like I will be settling for 2nd best with the 760D

Canon say the max. burst of the 500D is 9 at 3.4/s (page 214 of the manual), but the 760D is only 7 at 5/s (page 404), so while the 760D is faster it's buffer is actually shallower.

Just to compare apples to apples, the 500d transfers 599.4 MB shots frames per second and the 760d transfers 927.5 MB shots frames per second.

It is interesting to note that in a speed test that although the 70d does shoot faster bursts it will not capture more frames over 30 sec.

Using the SanDisk extreme pro 95Mb/s 32gb card tests show the 70d capturing only 46 RAW images
while the ......................................................................................T6s capturing ....... 85 RAW images

What this tells us, is that after the buffer is filled there is a longer wait period on the 70d (because of older technology) while it clears it's buffer than there is on the T6s

information found here http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/canon-70d/fastest-sd-cards/

Christopher2222 wrote:

It is interesting to note that in a speed test that although the 70d does shoot faster bursts it will not capture more frames over 30 sec.

Using the SanDisk extreme pro 95Mb/s 32gb card tests show the 70d capturing only 46 RAW images

So that would be like 15 shots in the first 2.1 seconds (7/s), and 31 shots in the remaining 27.9s (1.1/s).

while the ......................................................................................T6s capturing ....... 85 RAW images

Versus 7/1.4s (5/s), and 78/28.6s (2.7/s). Would you be better off using the 70D's 3fps mode? Unfortunately we don't have that data to hand, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Rebels got more shots in.

R2? Would you do a quick test for us?

What this tells us, is that after the buffer is filled there is a longer wait period on the 70d (because of older technology) while it clears it's buffer than there is on the T6s

information found here http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/canon-70d/fastest-sd-cards/

Yeah, good one. I would still have the 70D, here's why - I was shooting a grebe on a lake one day, trying to capture it diving into the water. There was no indication of when it would dive, and a dive is over so fast that I couldn't wait for it to start and I needed a high frame rate. So the only way to capture it was to start a high-speed burst and hope that the grebe would dive during the burst.

That's the general case for me - the thing that matters is how long I can shoot at a high frame rate, not how many shots or what rate I can get once the buffer fills. I think it's excellent that the latest Rebels give you a de facto low-speed frame rate that goes forever.

I know, it's the burst rate that matters.  I wasn't disputing that fact.  I only mentioned it was just interesting to note.  Indeed the fast burst rate of capturing the grebe in a dive is certainly needed (nice photos!).

Being just an interesting fact I can't currently think of any use, where one would require 85 shots as opposed to 46 shots in 30 seconds anyways.