A new lens or camera?

I've always been under the impression that replacing a lens is better than a camera body.  Well, in researching my interest in purchasing a Canon 70-300mm Nano lens, I've been told that replacing my camera body (a T2i) would be the wise thing to do.  I have never really felt that my T2i has fallen short for me.  So this suggestion caught me a bit off guard.

Does this Nano lens technology require more than my T2i is capable of? I'm sure that my T2i is considered rather "ancient" by now.  But is it not capable of handling certain lenses because of that?

Your comments are anxiously awaited.

Thanks,

Bob

BobT wrote:

I've always been under the impression that replacing a lens is better than a camera body.

Hiya Bob.

Yes, in the olden days of film that was pretty sound advice. Most bodies had little more than a meter built into them back then. Maybe an auto mode or two in the really spiffed-up (transl: Advanced) ones.

Those days, consumer-grade lenses were pretty Iffy for the most part. The really good stuff with names like Zeiss or Leitz emblazoned on them cost about as much as the average household car. Ever wonder why there were so many ancient VW Bugs and AMC Gremlins on the road?

Fast-forward to this century, and Digital has completely altered that aged paradigm. Technology is moving so fast that a person really does stand to gain significant amounts of both Image Quality and Capability when upgrading their body even a single generation. Nowadays body and lens upgrades share about equal importance IMHO.

Fill in the gaps in your lens lineup, and stay (fairly) up-to-date with your bodies is what I'd recommend.

Well, in researching my interest in purchasing a Canon 70-300mm Nano lens

Your 55-250 STM is a pretty capable lens already. You'd gain a little reach, and a bit of AF speed. Not much else. Plus your 100-400 II is way better than either of those. Unless you're planning on selling both...

I've been told that replacing my camera body (a T2i) would be the wise thing to do.

With your lens lineup, that's what I'd do. Myself I usually skip a generation in between upgrades, but in all honesty I always regret not having upgrading Sooner each and every time. Upgrading not only improves capability, but also improves the enjoyment and overall experience. I'm sitting here happy as a clam with my M5 in hand.

I have never really felt that my T2i has fallen short for me. So this suggestion caught me a bit off guard.

Well that's in fact the million dollar question. If you find little desire/need of a body upgrade (with the types of shooting you like to do), then you've basically answered your own question.

"Know Thyself."

Good luck in your quest Bob!

R2

Thanks, R2.  I always enjoy (and respect) reading your comments.  But what sorts of image improvements might I expect if I were to upgrade bodies?  I'm currently OK with my T2i's fps rate, and 18 mpxls.

And then how far up the "upgrade" line must I go to see a difference, and what will the differences be?  Remember, it's the finished product that I care about....a lot more than the physical process of getting there.  I guess I'm trying to talk myself into NOT upgrading bodies, yet by still using a T2i it's obvious such an upgrade has been a while.

Bob

BobT wrote:

Thanks, R2. I always enjoy (and respect) reading your comments. But what sorts of image improvements might I expect if I were to upgrade bodies? I'm currently OK with my T2i's fps rate, and 18 mpxls.

And then how far up the "upgrade" line must I go to see a difference, and what will the differences be? Remember, it's the finished product that I care about....a lot more than the physical process of getting there. I guess I'm trying to talk myself into NOT upgrading bodies, yet by still using a T2i it's obvious such an upgrade has been a while.

Bob

I agree with R2.. your lens lineup is quite sufficient, and a newer body would add considerably better AF, DR, improvements to the back screen (to include touchscreen), and improvements with the Digic sensor processing (not to mention a much more modern sensor).

The T2i is no slouch though. It was made beyond what its numbers would otherwise suggest. But, cameras like the SL2, T7i, 77D, 80D will offer some rather substantial upgrades to the T2i.

BAK,

I kinda like your thinking.  My "ancient" T2i has not disappointed me much, and I would have never even thought of up grading the camera until a couple folks mentioned that maybe I should, and that it will make "a world of difference".

Concerning my cash flow?  It's pretty much a case of having to sell some gear in order to purchase other gear.  I could part with my hefty 100-400 Mk1 "L" lens and purchase the 70-300 Nano, however.

Bob

BobT wrote:

BAK,

I kinda like your thinking. My "ancient" T2i has not disappointed me much, and I would have never even thought of up grading the camera until a couple folks mentioned that maybe I should, and that it will make "a world"L" lens and purchase the 70-300 Nano, however.

Bob

A new camera will get you lots of new features you may or may not find useful to help you get shots. IQ will be a bit improved but it won't be a drastic improvement. If the features of your T2i are working for you and you don't feel you are missing something then go for a new lens.

Course that's just my opinion....

I went from a 600D (which is basically your camera, but with a fold out screen) to a 77D over the summer. I did notice a big difference in IQ, but that was mainly down to the lens (18-135 nano vs 18-55 IS 2 on the 600D). The main improvements on the camera come from the usability, making it easier to get the shots I want.

But if you don't feel your 550D is limiting you, I would just get more lenses.  From what I have seen on this forum, it is generally newer bodies which have problems working with older lenses, rather than the other way round.

After giving this some additional consideration, I'm really hard pressed to find fault with my 550D.  Where it might fall short are probably areas where I don't need it anyway.  So for now, I'm staying put with the "old relic".  In fact, I think that I'll also stay put with my MK1 version of 100-400 "L" lens, too.  The MK2 would be really nice to have.  But I have trouble even considering spending that sort of money on that lens.  (My wife's sensibility must be starting to get to me.)

BobT wrote:

Thanks, R2. I always enjoy (and respect) reading your comments. But what sorts of image improvements might I expect if I were to upgrade bodies? I'm currently OK with my T2i's fps rate, and 18 mpxls.

And then how far up the "upgrade" line must I go to see a difference, and what will the differences be? Remember, it's the finished product that I care about....a lot more than the physical process of getting there. I guess I'm trying to talk myself into NOT upgrading bodies, yet by still using a T2i it's obvious such an upgrade has been a while.

Bob

Back at ya Bob.

As others have mentioned, these new sensors (and Digic processors) can yield significantly higher image quality, which can then be used to shoot at higher ISOs, print larger pictures, crop further into images, or spend less on (telephoto & macro) lenses.

Whether or not any of this would be useful to you depends on what you shoot, how you shoot it, and what your output requirements are.

But I think you've got that pretty well figured out already (kudos!).  Sounds like you'd be better off spending the money on something that would make an appreciable difference somewhere else.  Maybe even a Workshop or Trip? 

Happy shooting to you!

R2

BobT wrote:

I've always been under the impression that replacing a lens is better than a camera body. Well, in researching my interest in purchasing a Canon 70-300mm Nano lens, I've been told that replacing my camera body (a T2i) would be the wise thing to do. I have never really felt that my T2i has fallen short for me. So this suggestion caught me a bit off guard.

Does this Nano lens technology require more than my T2i is capable of? I'm sure that my T2i is considered rather "ancient" by now. But is it not capable of handling certain lenses because of that?

Your comments are anxiously awaited.

Thanks,

Bob

i'm still with a 550D (T2i) as well. The new 77D is the first new camera that I have been considering upgrading to. Digital horizon, some higher resolution (you can crop a bit more), better DR, AF with f8 (i.e. you can use a 1.4x teleconverter with an f5.6 lens). Flip and touchscreen probably handy for macro.

But so far, the 550D is fine.

photonius wrote:

Flip and touchscreen probably handy for macro.

Absolutely.  Plus I find it indispensable for candids.  Not to mention video (if that's your thing).

R2

R2D2 wrote:

photonius wrote:

Flip and touchscreen probably handy for macro.

Absolutely. Plus I find it indispensable for candids. Not to mention video (if that's your thing).

I actually almost never use the flip/touch screen on my 80d.....but for the odd time that I do it's handy.