Which DSLR should I upgrade to?
I currently own a Canon T1i (500D) but am looking at switching to a full-frame body. I would consider myself and aspiring professional at best, but really want to do more with photography (hence the want to upgrade). And i'm not glued to Canon for any reason other than the fact that I'm used to the way their cameras handle, their interface, etc. I don't own any lenses other than the kit lens anymore so sticking with Canon for existing lenses isn't relevant.
I've primarily been looking at the Canon 5D Mark II vs. Nikon D700, or the Canon 5D Mark III vs. Nikon D800. Of course i'd like to spend less money if I could since I ain't made of the stuff, but still.
The main problems i'm having with deciding is the fact that with the first comparison, the D700 has ultimately the same image quality as the Mark II but has a better AF system (and i'm bad at focusing most times so the help would be great). Other than that, the functions of both seem to be relatively equal.
And with the second (and more expensive) comparison, the image quality of the D800 seems to blow the Mark III's out of the water, and it looks a good $400 cheaper.
tl;dr, can anyone tell me what higher end DLSR body to upgrade to from a Canon T1i, regardless of brand?
The Canon v Nikon debate is for sheeple.
Not interested. Do what you want. It's your money.
"… Is the fact that with the first comparison, the D700 has ultimately the same image quality as the Mark II… "
Sorry, but that's not correct. Not even close, in fact. The 21MP sensor of the 5D Mk II provides *considerably* better resolution than the 12MP sensor of the D700. The D700 has a *slight* edge in dynamic range, but it's only a fraction of a stop.
I'm heavily invested in Canon; in my opinion, the 5D Mk II's image quality outshines anything before the D800. After having it for a month, I reached the conclusion that I wouldn't be at all disappointed if no other camera were ever made, it's that good. Yes, the AF is the same as the previous model -- but unless you're doing full-time sports, it's more than adequate and has never been an issue for me.
That said, were I to start "fresh" now, I'd get a Nikon D800. Despite a few technical glitches (mostly software) with the first release of it, it's absolutely amazing. I had a chance to take some shots with a D800 a friend had, and I was very impressed.
Of course much of this comes down to personal opinion… But if it were me, I'd be deciding between the 5D Mk II/III and the D800. The D700 wouldn't even be in the running.
Do you own any good lenses? The body may be a pricey buy, but it is a single shot. I have spent way more on glass than I have on my camera.
If you like how your Canon handles, stay in the Canon family. The differences between the two systems becomes an issue of splitting hairs. Yes, one camera is going to be a winner over the other when the testing is done, but the margins of victory will be small.
Instead of upgrading your camera. Buy a really good lens. Get a Canon L series lens. It will do more for your photography tan an upgraded body. The camera is important, but unless you need burst speed or are doing huge enlargement, even an old T1 still is fine. But if all you have are mediocre lenses, then you are just going to be taking large MP images through the same mediocre glass.
Lenses have a lot more to do with the image quality than the camera body. The kit 18-55mm is average at best. I suggest you buy more lenses, starting with the 50mm f/1.8. You will be blown away by this lens, compared to the kit lens.
Depending on what else you want to shoot, get a decent telephoto lens, macro lens, wide angle lens. This will give you many more options than a new body.