Originally Posted by Conspiracy
oh you know me so well
until now i had no clue that i know nothing about cameras and make everything up and sit online posting on forums all day.
thanks so much you have changed my life for the better
i am now enlightened.
on a side note. i see you unblocked me for the 2nd or 3rd time now
thats love right there. you have an e-crush on me. sorry but im already taken
p.s. comparing 7D to 5DmkII is like red apples to green apples. yeah they are both canon cameras. one is older than the other but in the end they are not the same type of camera and really cant be compared and more research would tell you this
why you keep coming back to the 5Dmkii to justify the 7D or 60D as superior shows that no research will teach you the truth about these cameras. you need to physically use them in the real world to understand how they work. because of your lack of using any of these cameras, the ability to read specs does not make you qualified to compare them.
upgrade your 450D to a newer camera before you start advising about stuff you dont full understand.
450D is fine for what I do right now......I know people that shoot high quality weddings with only 400D's......I'll be grabbing two 60D body's sometime in the future though after I get a 70-200 2.8. A better body won't help me when it comes to advice as research and understanding cost vs gains is all that I need. Full frame is slightly different than crop factor DSLR but not as big as you make it out to be.
I'd even go as far as to say the 60D is overkill for the OP's father........a used 400D should be good enough or even a used 450D or T3 with kit lens as understanding lighting is the most important thing in photography and if you don't understand lighting you have a lot of reading, testing, shooting, and training to do as you can have a mkiiii with L glass yet someone with a 20D can produce higher quality images than you just because they understand lighting alone as when you get down to it all that photography is, is lighting.
The 60D/T4i are superior to the mkii when it comes to cost of high quality fast glass compared to the full frame and when it comes to auto focusing capability's.....that is all. That is all I've been pretty much saying.
You can get a 60D system with a 17-50(55) 2.8, Sigma 70-200 2.8 all for around $2,300 brand new where as a mkii system will run you around $5,000 brand new......the OP has a budget do you think it would make much sense for his father to put out $5,000 for a mkii system with a 24-70L & 70-200 2.8 or a 60D with a better focusing system, no banding, and just as high quality glass for less then half of the cost of the full frame system?
Photography is a lot like music....a musician can spend $6,000 on a guitar and $6,000 on an amp but he will still sound like crap if his skills are not adequate either way......yet a very good musician will still sound amazing with a cheap $100 Fender Squire and a cheap $100 amp.
I do not believe that there is a point in investing in a full frame system until your skills are adequate to the point where you can produce professional results consistently, you understand lighting at a professional level, you have your own style developed, and you understand composition & posing (if shooting people) at a pro level and when you pick up the camera and shoot something you don't even have to think about it as you have a trained eye already and know how and what to shoot.
All that a better camera/system will do is enhance the crappy pictures that someone takes much like how a better guitar/amp will only enhance the crappy playing of a crappy guitar player.....Edited by Mwarren - 11/14/12 at 6:39pm