Skip Navigation

Best Camera Body

Travel Forums Travel Photography Best Camera Body

  • 1
  • 2

Last Post

1. Posted by Ishmael. (Budding Member 4 posts) 7y

Hey guys!

Here goes my first post:

I'm wondering what the best Canon camera body is for travel and street photography. I'm currently shooting with a 2-year old Canon 350D and a Canon 24mm-100mm IS L series Lens....

I know technique is vastly more important, but it seems like 8.1 megapixels just isnt enough to produce high quality, sellable images. Is this a correct assumption? I cant afford a 5d Mark II so I was thinking about the 500D...or perhaps one of the professional series bodies.

Any advice as to what I should get would be greatly appreciated!

2. Posted by Sander (Moderator 4930 posts) 7y

There's areas of professional photography where megapixels are one of the criteria which are looked at, but I wasn't aware that street and travel photography was amongst them. If selling photos is your goal, I very much suspect it's not the camera holding you back. 10% of professional photography is taking the photo; the remaining 90% is marketing.
So, rather than shelling out money for a better camera, I would first investigate putting that money into marketing yourself better. A professionally designed website or portfolio, maybe taking a marketing course, something like that is likely to have more impact per dollar spent than a different body.

So, no, I don't think your assumption that the 350D isn't capable of delivering quality is correct.

That said, there is a large group of people who do see the 350D as an entry level camera, and will not take you seriously with it, which means you'd have to work that much harder to convince them. A 500D wouldn't be any better in that regard; it's just the updated version of the same, and unless you're printing at poster size or are dealing with stock agencies which have minimum megapixel requirements, no one is going to be able to tell the difference in output.
A Canon 40D or 50D would have that 'problem' to a much smaller degree, and should have actual real benefit to the upgrade in terms of build quality, versatility with the control it offers, and probably its focusing behaviour. So if you have your mind set on getting a new camera, I'd go for that, and if the 50D is too pricey, I would still recommend a 40D over a 500D.

(Implicitly assumed in all this is that your photography skill is up to par and that you're taking shots which should be sellable.)

3. Posted by Ishmael. (Budding Member 4 posts) 7y

thanks for the response; ok my last question in that regard would terms of focusing and image quality, do the 40d and 50d deliver much higher quality than the 350?

4. Posted by Redpaddy (Inactive 1004 posts) 7y

You'd need megga-perfect eyesight to see the difference.

5. Posted by Ishmael. (Budding Member 4 posts) 7y

so is it worth spending that money on a new lens instead, or what? im leaving for a three week trip into Borneo soon and I'de like to make some upgrades (for the first time in 3 years) before I leave.

6. Posted by Redpaddy (Inactive 1004 posts) 7y

I say - spend the money on something else more useful.

7. Posted by Sander (Moderator 4930 posts) 7y

Quoting Ishmael.

thanks for the response; ok my last question in that regard would terms of focusing and image quality, do the 40d and 50d deliver much higher quality than the 350?

I honestly don't know, as I'm not a Canon shooter.

I do know that when I did a similar upgrade on the Nikon side of things (from a D70 to a D200), I was beforehand really hesitant about if it would be worth the money, and if I would notice a difference. And if you put images from the two cameras side by side, most of the time you would be hard-pressed to tell which one was taken which camera, as they're both excellent under regular conditions. (Under difficult conditions, you can tell; high ISO performance would be better, and dynamic range would be larger.) But I never regretted the upgrade, as the new camera did make a difference by allowing me to take shots which I would've bungled with the old camera. The D200 is a more professional camera, which is less focused on making things easy for me, and more focused on helping me get the job done. Focus acquisition is swifter, control is greater, all the little details which I need to be there... are there. (And I can only assume equivalent things hold for Canon. Where's Jase007 when you need him anyway?) :)
Are these kind of improvements worth the hefty premium you pay for it? Some people would say "no - spend the money on something else more useful" without any hesitation, before proceeding to try and talk you into a $100 point and shoot camera as an alternative. ;) ;)
I say, it depends on your personal situation. For me, it was worth it. For you...? Well, you're the most qualified person to make that decision. Maybe go to a camera store or two and hold this camera in your hand, see what additional controls it offers for which you need to go into the menus now. Or find someone who has a camera in that range (even a 20D or 30D would do to give you an impression) and see if you can borrow it for a day.

8. Posted by fabyomama (Respected Member 560 posts) 7y

I don't know how well the Canon is on batteries, but I'd almost certainly add at least a couple extra regardless.

I'd look at a flashgun too. Boring, I know. :(

edit: ...but if you really want to get something sexy ... then a wider lens? ;)

[ Edit: Edited on 18-May-2009, at 05:31 by fabyomama ]

9. Posted by Redpaddy (Inactive 1004 posts) 7y

What is happening here.... Photographs of a holiday, or "2009 picture of the year??"
Just be warned, competitions have been won recently with digi-compacts!!

10. Posted by s96024 (Full Member 106 posts) 7y

Did a dslr fall on your head and hurt you as a child or something?