What's The Difference?

[buttongerald]

Good day folks,

I couldn't think of a title that summed it up better than that, without making it some massive sentence. So forgive me!

I've been an amateur photographer for nearly 10 years. I'm a graphic artist by trade, so I know my way around the software, but not around the hardware so much. My wife and I have started doing more together in the way of photography and she wants to continue to expand this with more equipment. In the last 4 months we have purchased 2 brand new lenses for our camera. We have a Canon Rebel T7, and alongside the stock lens we have a 50mm Portrait lens, and a 75-300mm zoom lens. Let me say, I am blown away by the 50mm lens, I had no idea the impact on quality going beyond the stock lens would have. This leads me to my main reason for making this thread and asking..

What is the major difference in the bodies of the camera? As I mentioned, we have a Rebel T7, which we love, prior to this we had a T3 which saw a lot of use and love as well, but what are the advantages of upgrading outside the Rebel line to say the 90D or higher? I should add that we already shoot in RAW, just to put that out there. I am asking this mainly for my wife, although a new camera body isn't on the table just yet, as we plan on purchasing some lighting equipment and a better tripod next, it won't be far off. She is also looking at more lenses, but only ones from Canon currently.

I have a few friends who are photographers, but a lot of them are busy in the summer months with vacations and weddings so I figured I would ask some fellow Mac users this time.

Thanks!

 

[macsound1]

Biggest feature specifically for Canon between Rebel and xxD series is more buttons and the top screen.
The ability to make exposure, shutter speed, ISO and fstop adjustments on a non-lit dedicated display is 100% why I shoot with this camera.
It also shows you your exposure indicator so you can, without holding the camera to your eye, see if you've generally chosen the correct exposure.
Comparing the two, the xxD models always have better processors as well so faster burst images and faster buffers to offload to the SD card.
Also rebel bodies arent water resistant or made of mostly of metal. So just overall build quality.

To list the rest of the differences in the 90D's favor:
Touch screen, Better screen, Flipy screen, Way more focus points.

This part I didn't know until I looked it up, the xxD use the most ubiquitous battery on the planet, so common that companies use them to power LED lights and LCD displays, the LP-E6.

 

[jz0309]

Good day folks,

I couldn't think of a title that summed it up better than that, without making it some massive sentence. So forgive me!

I've been an amateur photographer for nearly 10 years. I'm a graphic artist by trade, so I know my way around the software, but not around the hardware so much. My wife and I have started doing more together in the way of photography and she wants to continue to expand this with more equipment. In the last 4 months we have purchased 2 brand new lenses for our camera. We have a Canon Rebel T7, and alongside the stock lens we have a 50mm Portrait lens, and a 75-300mm zoom lens. Let me say, I am blown away by the 50mm lens, I had no idea the impact on quality going beyond the stock lens would have. This leads me to my main reason for making this thread and asking..

What is the major difference in the bodies of the camera? As I mentioned, we have a Rebel T7, which we love, prior to this we had a T3 which saw a lot of use and love as well, but what are the advantages of upgrading outside the Rebel line to say the 90D or higher? I should add that we already shoot in RAW, just to put that out there. I am asking this mainly for my wife, although a new camera body isn't on the table just yet, as we plan on purchasing some lighting equipment and a better tripod next, it won't be far off. She is also looking at more lenses, but only ones from Canon currently.

I have a few friends who are photographers, but a lot of them are busy in the summer months with vacations and weddings so I figured I would ask some fellow Mac users this time.

Thanks!

There are spec differences, eg how many frames per second, sensor resolution and many more ... go to Canons website and check the specs for the models that you are interested in

Canon DSLR Cameras: EOS Digital Cameras | Canon U.S.A, Inc.

Shop our selection of DSLR Cameras. Explore specs, colors, and more from Shop Canon Business U.S.A., Inc. to find the right product for you.

www.usa.canon.com

There is also a build quality difference, Rebel are entry level, others have generally better build quality, waterproofing and such.
Just be aware of sensor size, Rebel is APS, I have a 6DII which is full frame, so if your lease are EF-S - they won't work on a full frame sensor, they might fit, but they are designed for a smaller sensor

 

[macsound1]

On the topic of APS-C vs full frame, I'm someone who always wants more reach. A 300mm on a full frame just won't cut it for me and I've never been unhappy with the images from my APS-C 80D or 60D.

 

[jz0309]

Let's be clear about something, a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens, whether your have a full frame or a APSC size sensor, the difference is that the "crop factor" (I believe it is 1.6 for APSC) changes your viewing angle, meaning you see what you would see if you have a 480mm lens. APSC does NOT turn your 300 mm lens into a 480mm lens.
See below for an excellent write up on this topic

Understanding Crop Factor

There is a great deal of confusion surrounding crop factor, and it is particularly difficult to explain, but let’s give it a try, shall we? Before we dive in, let me dispel two vicious rumors related to crop factor that are circulating through the photography (Internet) world today: Crop...

www.bhphotovideo.com

 

[mollyc]

I shoot Nikon, not Canon (but started with a Canon 30D and moved to a 5D Mark II before switching to Nikon). In general better bodies typically have a better sensor, which allows a higher ISO before you start to notice noise, better auto-focus, and generally better ergonomics/button placement.

Full-frame cameras (not the Rebel or 90D) offer better low light performance because the sensor is larger than the APS-C in the lower end cameras. Full frame also makes it easier to shoot wider, so if you are someone who prefers wide-angle, then full frame is a better bet.

I always encourage people to ask themselves where they feel limited by their current gear and what would make their shooting experience better. For some it's more reach (crop makes sense), for some it's a better quality of bokeh (full frame makes sense). Some need low light capability (full frame). Some need frames per second (usually but not always better on crop).

Don't buy a new body just because it's new, especially when starting out and learning. But a new body because your existing one is limited and you can't do specific things. ?

 

[Ledgem]

In one word, features, and not all of them relating to image quality.

Buttons on the camera (which can make adjusting various settings a lot faster and easier) and things like speed at which autofocus locks autofocus and the size of its buffer for burst-shooting are some easy examples. Weather sealing is another differentiator many companies use between entry-level and higher-end camera gear (both lenses and bodies), so you don't have to worry as much about shooting in dusty or wet conditions.

Canon and some other camera companies also utilize sensor size as a differentiating factor. In general, a larger sensor will give you less image noise across all ISO settings, you will have increased dynamic range, and it will give you a more shallow depth of field for the same angle of view (which can be a double-edged sword, especially if you don't buy into the current "make everything blurry" craze).

But there's no such thing as a free lunch. I shoot with an Olympus (which has a sensor smaller than your Canon does) as well as with a Fujifilm GFX-line camera (which has a larger sensor than Canon's largest sensor). While the Fujifilm at ISO 6400 looks like the Olympus at ISO 1600, I have lenses with ultra-wide apertures and can shoot at them with the Olympus, enabling me to get away with a lower ISO; I don't have those on the Fujifilm and even if I did, the depth of field would be so unusably shallow that I'd never be able to shoot with it, anyway, and would need to stop down the aperture, which would raise the ISO again. If I blind myself to which camera I shot with (not looking at settings and file names), I routinely mistake my Olympus photos for the Fujifilm. There is a definite difference when editing photos; there's more flexibility with the Fujifilm files, but that's not to say I never get burned highlights or unrecoverable skies with it. And of course, sensor size is not some force of nature; my modern-day Olympus outperforms noise and dynamic range of the much larger sensors from years ago. Technology marches forward.

For image quality, lenses are probably the highest-yield change you can make. Sensors are very important, too, but I would not make it the only reason to make an upgrade - unless, perhaps, you're using a digital camera from about 10-20 years ago

 

[buttongerald]

I want to give a big thank you to everyone who has taken the time to leave a response and give some input. I really appreciate it.

The main reason I made this thread is to pass on information to my wife. I also want to assure most people here, this is not a thread to gather whether or not "more money equals more better". There are no current plans to upgrade away from the T7. We have only had 1 year now ourselves and are very happy with it, however as my wife does more and more shoots with her friends and continues to read up on techniques and tips to improve, she does express interest in going beyond an entry level body next time around.

I know that a lot of it, and this is something so many people look beyond, is that a camera is a tool, what matters most of the time is the individual using said tool. While yes, exceptions can be made, for example my Abu Garcia fishing rods will undoubtedly do much better on the ponds than some cheap, $15 Wal-Mart rod and reel, the cost and quality of a tool mean nothing unless you know how to use it.

I've been doing the photography thing as a hobby for a decade with the Rebel cameras, and I love them, but next time, next time I/We are going a wee bit higher.

Right now my wife is doing shoots with friends to gain some knowledge of it all, while reading up on the side how to improve. It's been a TON of fun for us to do this together because we don't share many interests or hobbies, and now we finally do.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

A new body would be for advanced features, like larger buffers for burst shooting, more customizable buttons and dials, and maybe a newer/better sensor. I'd say that if you don't really know what a new body would offer, it might be too soon to upgrade. I feel like the body you chose should be suited to your preferred subject matter. I didn't start out shooting nature (and I've had a camera of some kind for about 20 years), but now it's what I shoot the most, and my gear is a reflection of that.

As you've already discovered, better glass can yield noticeable gains in quality and flexibility. A good fast prime will not only offer more quality, but it typically offers much better low-light performance over a kit lens due to a wider aperture. Better lenses is usually a good place to start, so it's good to see that's what you're doing now.

 

[Fishrrman]

If you're going to stick with Canon, look at the R-series of cameras.

That's the future.

 

[Fravin]

I used to be a Canon shooter. Now i shoot with Fujifilm's.

But I know very well the differences between Canon's cameras. And none of you could answer OP's question.

Whats the difference?

The Rebel line is designed to be an indoor camera. It has the same sensor and processor used in the XXD line. So I should expect the same image quality. But the similarities stops here. The XXD cameras are more robust, designed to be used in heavy workload, this is related with its internal and external attributes.

The XXD has more rigid ans robust exterior material. It's simply metal vs plastic. So Rebel's ones will be lighter.

The Rebel isn't supposed to be in outside. It lacks weather seal. The XXD cameras will have seals, as stated before.

The XXD will have more buffer and faster memory. This would provide you more shots until the images are processed and written in the card. You will be able to shoot more pictures after the cameras becomes stuck.

The XXD cameras will have a brighter viewfinder. This is because Rebel cameras uses a set of mirrors instead a prism. In XXD Cameras, there will be a pentaprism that will provide you a brighter feedback.

And finnaly, the battery pack. The Rebel's ones will handle less charge and will over heat quicker than XXD's ones.

Usually, changing the camera body won't provide you better images, but will ensure you new boundaries. My suggestion is to keep the rebel for a while and get more lens.

I would suggest the Canon 35mm and 10-18mm.

 

[Clix Pix]

If you're going to stick with Canon, look at the R-series of cameras.

That's the future.

I agree with this; mirrorless is the current direction in which photography is going, and mirrorless cameras offer some advantages over DSLRs. Definitely check out Canon's and other camera manufacturers' mirrorless offerings and see if that might not be a better move forward since you're just getting started with all of this anyway. Camera gear is expensive, and when one buys a camera body he or she is also buying into a full system of lenses, accessories, etc. No point in spending money on another DSLR camera body and the lenses which would work with it and then a year or so down the road wish you'd put that money into a mirrorless system instead!

 

[Apple fanboy]

The one question I’d ask is what do you shoot. What do you want to shoot. Added features like high frame rate are not really going to be useful if you shoot landscapes. Or eye detection.
It’s time to upgrade a camera body when it no longer does something that a newer one does that you would like it to. But whatever you choose, all ICL cameras are good these days.

 

[macsound1]

Let's be clear about something, a 300mm lens is a 300mm lens, whether your have a full frame or a APSC size sensor, the difference is that the "crop factor" (I believe it is 1.6 for APSC) changes your viewing angle, meaning you see what you would see if you have a 480mm lens. APSC does NOT turn your 300 mm lens into a 480mm lens.
See below for an excellent write up on this topic

Understanding Crop Factor

There is a great deal of confusion surrounding crop factor, and it is particularly difficult to explain, but let’s give it a try, shall we? Before we dive in, let me dispel two vicious rumors related to crop factor that are circulating through the photography (Internet) world today: Crop...

www.bhphotovideo.com

While it's true that this is technically a crop that allows an APS C to feel longer with the same lens than a full-frame, it's lossless- that is - I'm not losing any quality of the lens by utilizing this crop. In fact, some full-frame lenses look even better on an APS C than a FF because usually the crappy part of the glass is on the outside edges, which is cropped out...

 

[macsound1]

If you're going to stick with Canon, look at the R-series of cameras.

That's the future.

While sure, mirrorless has its advantages, as a "pro" photographer, nothing beats having a viewfinder work 100% of the time, even with a dead battery. You can frame up shots, focus and view what you're going to shoot because your viewfinder is "real".
Sure with an EVF you can "see" what your shot will look like after it's taken, but if you're really good at taking photos, your job is to make a great shot and rely on your metering and AF to make sure the shot is in focus and properly exposed.
Trying to rely on your eye on a sunny day to be able to judge exposure is truly impossible and shouldn't be attempted.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I have both types of Canon cameras (SLR, and mirrorless). My advise to the OP is to only buy EF L lenses (not EF-S), and to learn all the functions of the camera at hand. If he wants a camera with more features, he can continue using the same EF L lenses with any of the Canon DSLR cameras presently produced.

I am still using a Canon 7D, and a 5D II, and will continue using then for years to come. I also use a Canon R6 (mirrorless), which by the way works quite well with the EF-L lenses (adapted) that I have been using on the 7D and 5DII.

Trying to keep-up with the latest and greatest is not going to make you a better photographer nor produce better images. What it will do is to rob a portion of the time needed to learn the camera at hand.

 

[ssmed]

On the topic of APS-C vs full frame, I'm someone who always wants more reach. A 300mm on a full frame just won't cut it for me and I've never been unhappy with the images from my APS-C 80D or 60D.

That depends a little – I have a Nikon D500 (APS / 20.9 MP) and a D850 (FF / 45.7 MP). The FF wins in every way, except portability and weight. Nikon don't make a APS dSLR with that size of sensor and the focus speed is much better for birding.

 

[ssmed]

Trying to keep-up with the latest and greatest is not going to make you a better photographer nor produce better images. What it will do is to rob a portion of the time needed to learn the camera at hand.

So true. AND having the camera with you at all times.

 

[Ledgem]

While sure, mirrorless has its advantages, as a "pro" photographer, nothing beats having a viewfinder work 100% of the time, even with a dead battery. You can frame up shots, focus and view what you're going to shoot because your viewfinder is "real".
Sure with an EVF you can "see" what your shot will look like after it's taken, but if you're really good at taking photos, your job is to make a great shot and rely on your metering and AF to make sure the shot is in focus and properly exposed.
Trying to rely on your eye on a sunny day to be able to judge exposure is truly impossible and shouldn't be attempted.

I can't think of many advantages to an OVF at this point. To the two that you mentioned:
1) if your battery is dead, you're not taking photos even if you can see through the viewfinder.
2) Not only can you see what your photo will look like before the photo is taken, you can see what it'll look like before, too. Your eye has a greater dynamic range than the sensor, and now you can see through the EVF if you'll likely be burning highlights or losing shadows before you even press the shutter, and can adjust the exposure accordingly. Takes a lot of guesswork out.

Advantages to the EVF?
1) You can magnify through the EVF. Huge advantage for manual focus.
2) You can use a "shimmer" or coloration effect to contrast edges. Again, manual focus aid. (People who are skilled in manual focus are likely using cameras with large OVFs; my cameras were always fairly tiny, and I'd guess I just am not very good at it either, but these have made it much easier for me.)
3) Not all camera manufacturers support this, but some cameras allow you to slow the EVF refresh rate to gain an even exposure in dark conditions. It's essentially night vision. It's too dark for autofocus and it can even be so dark that you have a hard time seeing what's in front of you, but you can still manually focus. (Pair it up with #1 or #2 for best effect - this is how I got a bunch of shots of my children sleeping when they were babies, without waking them up.)

Speaking of sleeping baby photography, another benefit relating to EVF is totally silent photography because there's no mirror to get out of the way of the sensor. It's not a direct EVF usage benefit, though, so I don't list it above. And it doesn't stop there - there are a whole host of other advantages brought on by changing to mirrorless, but again, they don't all directly relate to the EVF.

The only theoretical downside to the EVF is that there's increased battery drain. I was immensely worried about that when I first switched over to a mirrorless camera. But after a few years of making the change, I can tell you that it really doesn't matter. Sure, I'm a bit more aggressive about switching the camera off, and I take note of whether the IR sensor to activate the EVF is likely to be triggered by another part of my body. But I still carry the same number of batteries as I did before, and I still swap them out just as infrequently as I used to - maybe even less frequently than I used to, although it's hard to say if that's due to battery improvements with time.

 

[macsound1]

I have both types of Canon cameras (SLR, and mirrorless). My advise to the OP is to only buy EF L lenses (not EF-S), and to learn all the functions of the camera at hand. If he wants a camera with more features, he can continue using the same EF L lenses with any of the Canon DSLR cameras presently produced.

I am still using a Canon 7D, and a 5D II, and will continue using then for years to come. I also use a Canon R6 (mirrorless), which by the way works quite well with the EF-L lenses (adapted) that I have been using on the 7D and 5DII.

Trying to keep-up with the latest and greatest is not going to make you a better photographer nor produce better images. What it will do is to rob a portion of the time needed to learn the camera at hand.

You can also get "regular" EF lenses, doesn't have to be the EF L.

 

[macsound1]

I can't think of many advantages to an OVF at this point. To the two that you mentioned:
1) if your battery is dead, you're not taking photos even if you can see through the viewfinder.
2) Not only can you see what your photo will look like before the photo is taken, you can see what it'll look like before, too. Your eye has a greater dynamic range than the sensor, and now you can see through the EVF if you'll likely be burning highlights or losing shadows before you even press the shutter, and can adjust the exposure accordingly. Takes a lot of guesswork out.

Advantages to the EVF?
1) You can magnify through the EVF. Huge advantage for manual focus.
2) You can use a "shimmer" or coloration effect to contrast edges. Again, manual focus aid. (People who are skilled in manual focus are likely using cameras with large OVFs; my cameras were always fairly tiny, and I'd guess I just am not very good at it either, but these have made it much easier for me.)
3) Not all camera manufacturers support this, but some cameras allow you to slow the EVF refresh rate to gain an even exposure in dark conditions. It's essentially night vision. It's too dark for autofocus and it can even be so dark that you have a hard time seeing what's in front of you, but you can still manually focus. (Pair it up with #1 or #2 for best effect - this is how I got a bunch of shots of my children sleeping when they were babies, without waking them up.)

Speaking of sleeping baby photography, another benefit relating to EVF is totally silent photography because there's no mirror to get out of the way of the sensor. It's not a direct EVF usage benefit, though, so I don't list it above. And it doesn't stop there - there are a whole host of other advantages brought on by changing to mirrorless, but again, they don't all directly relate to the EVF.

The only theoretical downside to the EVF is that there's increased battery drain. I was immensely worried about that when I first switched over to a mirrorless camera. But after a few years of making the change, I can tell you that it really doesn't matter. Sure, I'm a bit more aggressive about switching the camera off, and I take note of whether the IR sensor to activate the EVF is likely to be triggered by another part of my body. But I still carry the same number of batteries as I did before, and I still swap them out just as infrequently as I used to - maybe even less frequently than I used to, although it's hard to say if that's due to battery improvements with time.

I think my biggest advantage of Optical is when it's sunny outside. You have to get a really good eye cup and get your face against it to block out the sunlight with an EVF.
You can get really good at holding the camera a tiny bit away from your face and still be able to see what you're shooting with optical.
With an EVF, you'd have to adjust the diopter, otherwise you'd just see enlarged pixels.

Also, again, optical forces you to learn how to use the meters instead of trusting your eyes. I understand zebra and that's great sometimes but when you're taking shot after shot, having zebra enabled obfuscates something you might be ok being overexposed, but you end up under exposing everything because you can't see past the zebra.

 

[Ledgem]

I think my biggest advantage of Optical is when it's sunny outside. You have to get a really good eye cup and get your face against it to block out the sunlight with an EVF.
You can get really good at holding the camera a tiny bit away from your face and still be able to see what you're shooting with optical.
With an EVF, you'd have to adjust the diopter, otherwise you'd just see enlarged pixels.

Also, again, optical forces you to learn how to use the meters instead of trusting your eyes. I understand zebra and that's great sometimes but when you're taking shot after shot, having zebra enabled obfuscates something you might be ok being overexposed, but you end up under exposing everything because you can't see past the zebra.

I don't know... I live in the tropics, and I don't need to cram the camera to my face to see the EVF. I honestly can't recall the last time I couldn't see my screen due to bright sunlight, and that includes times when I've used the flip-out screen instead of the EVF (which is how I usually shoot video with my camera). I can't always make out the fine details with the flip-out screen in bright sun and I wouldn't want to manually focus in that scenario, but the EVF has always been perfect. I also don't have my camera set to perform any weird shading of contrast or highlights in my EVF; basically, what I see in the EVF is what I get, although you can usually recover some highlights and pull up some shadows in post-processing. But it's nice to know that it's an option. I do magnify the view regularly when manually focusing.

That said, I've shot with a grand total of four mirrorless cameras, three of which were made by Olympus and one of which was made by Fuji. I also do not wear glasses. I'm stating my own experiences, but I can't tell you that every single camera manufacturer offers a perfect EVF experience. If someone says otherwise and they shoot with a different camera, I'd believe them. What it comes down to for me, though, is that there were a lot of fears that I heard and shared before I made the jump to mirrorless, and looking back now, it sort of makes me chuckle. It was not the huge paradigm shift that we thought it might be, and if anything, it has provided a number of benefits.

Basically, if you're not in the mirrorless pool yet, don't be shy about dipping in - the water feels about the same as you're used to, it's just quieter.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

You can also get "regular" EF lenses, doesn't have to be the EF L.

True. But now that Canon is producing RF lenses, one can buy "some" used EF L lenses at a great price. L lenses are of the best quality.

Now on the mirrorless versus DSLR cameras, there are some advantages with each, but to me it makes no difference to switch from one to the other. The main differences depend on what features you want. For example, the electronic shutter in the mirrorless cameras is a lot faster than a lot of DSLR cameras. On the R6 it is around 20 fps, and 12 fps on the mechanical shutter, but to me 8 fps is plenty fast.

That aside the top of the line and now older DSLR, the Canon EOS-1D X Mark III DSLR Camera is extremely fast, and costs at least twice as the Canon mirrorless and new R5. A disadvantage of mirrorless cameras is that both the electronic viewfinder and the screens consume a lot of power. This is not the case with most DSLR cameras.

This is the mechanical shutter speed of the 1D X Mark III: up to 20 continuous fps of 20.1 MP frames (RAW) x 1,000 frames non stop. You press and hold the shutter release, and it just goes though all the frames until the card is full, or until it has reached 1,000 frames.

 

[Clix Pix]

Sports, bird and wildlife shooters are the ones who really appreciate fast continuous frames-per-second, of course, and some have been holding off on going mirrorless until recently now that mirrorless manufacturers like Sony and Canon have come out with powerful, fast bodies. I imagine there will be a lot of mirrorless Canons and Sonys at the Olympics alongside the DSLRs that have still got a good reputation for speed as well.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Sports, bird and wildlife shooters are the ones who really appreciate fast continuous frames-per-second, of course, and some have been holding off on going mirrorless until recently now that mirrorless manufacturers like Sony and Canon have come out with powerful, fast bodies. I imagine there will be a lot of mirrorless Canons and Sonys at the Olympics alongside the DSLRs that have still got a good reputation for speed as well.

Of course there will. It’s all sponsored! Especially given where it is this year.