7D - Worth Buying ???

[sagittariansrock]

How about a 5D II? You can pick one up now for £1200 at some places, and the rest of the money you were going to spend on 5D III you can get yourself a nice lens.

I love my 7D, I dont have a problem with noise performance. i think that problem manifests itself with people who try to crop images down to 1/4 frame and expect it to be noise free.

Actually if I am going Full frame  then I will try to go all the way    --- As I mentioned in my last reply if every thing goes as per plan I can afford 5d MK3 (even 1DX) + good lens by 2013 2nd half   --- 
So I think it will be wise to pass on the MK2

I wouldn't let great be the enemy of good. IMO, it would make far more sense to invest in the cheapest FF you can buy since that will:
1. Be a huge improvement in IQ over the 600D
2. Be more appropriate for fashion and product photography as well as landscapes
3. Will give you enough practice with relearning the focal lengths by the time you get your 1Dx or 5DIII.
My 2 cents.

[tortilla]

Note:  Main area of photography fashion/product + some event/indoor and occasional Wild life.

My doubts are like what are the things I will gain in 7D – other than 
Better Focusing system           [+++]
High FPS                                  [++]
Great Build                               [ + ]

You also will get AFMA, better viewfinder, better controls and more customizing options. Shooting with the 7D is definitly more fun than with the 600D - but you probably won't get better images.

As for FF: I suppose you usually shoot fashion and product with off camera flash and ISO 100 or 200 - so you will not gain a huge difference when going FF - it's rather a question of the lenses you use. Indoor events is a different stoy, FF is a big advantage here, compared to crop.

[K3nt]

If the deal is as good as the OP says, then go for it. The added functionality and speed of the 7D alone are worth it. IQ-wise it is on par with the 600D, slightly better. I have very little issues at high ISO. Yes, it takes some post processing work to get it looking at it's best but even 6400 can look alright.

This is ISO 4000 and unless you look at it at 100% and over, it's fine... to me at least.


Picture from Ballmaster Open 2013 by K3ntFIN, on Flickr

[Don Haines]

Neuro always points that you don't need APS-C for the extra "reach" if you won't print big, because you can crop images from, say, your 5D3.

Will not print large but
I am bit skeptical on this part " you can crop images from, say, your 5D3."

I didn't believe Neuro either.... so I did a comparison a year ago with a 5DII and found that it was a tossup depending on lens quality and lighting... and I found differences in "reach" to be marginal and in good light you had to pixel peep to tell the difference. In poor light, there was no comparison.... the 5D2 was immediatly visually superior on uncropped images.

Since then, the 5DIII has come out and by all reports works better than the 5DII.

[captainkanji]

I upgraded from the 7D to the 6D. The 7D is still great, but I needed high ISO performance for events, and the 6D does not disappoint.  In low light, it basically becomes a 1 point AF DSLR, but that one point grabs focus like a tractor beam  . For my style, FF is the way to go.

[sagittariansrock]

Neuro always points that you don't need APS-C for the extra "reach" if you won't print big, because you can crop images from, say, your 5D3.

Will not print large but
I am bit skeptical on this part " you can crop images from, say, your 5D3."

I didn't believe Neuro either.... so I did a comparison a year ago with a 5DII and found that it was a tossup depending on lens quality and lighting... and I found differences in "reach" to be marginal and in good light you had to pixel peep to tell the difference. In poor light, there was no comparison.... the 5D2 was immediatly visually superior on uncropped images.

Since then, the 5DIII has come out and by all reports works better than the 5DII.

One point though: Cropped (zoomed in) view on your viewfinder is sometimes more useful for accurate focusing. The 7D VF isn't as big as the 5DIII, but still (100% of 1.0x APS-C vs 100% of .71x FF).

[bratkinson]

As a former 35mm slide shooter eons ago, I knew I'd eventually move to full frame from my 'starter' 30D.  I upgraded to a 60D for more megapixels as I sometimes do rather tight cropping...ie, changed my mind from when I took the shot.  Low light with the 60D at church functions (usually without flash) was a challenge, even with my 16-35 f2.8L ii and the 24-105.  I tried a 24-70 L a year ago, but just too darned heavy for these old hands and no IS, so it was sold.  While I found wide-open with the 135 L gave me enough light for reasonably fast exposures, but with the 24-105 I use mostly, it was either slow exposures or moving to the "uncomfortable ISO" speeds over 1600.  I opted for slow exposures and dumped a lot of pix with subject movement as a result.  As far as 24-105 distortion, Lightroom corrects it with a single click.

So, "feeding the need" for better ISO, I went to the 5D3 just before Christmas.  What a difference!  ISO 5000 and up is no problem!  For me, the 5D3 is the ultimate solution to low light!  Handheld shutter speeds 1/125 and faster are a joy.  And even at f8 or smaller for DOF, the results are still outstanding!  But when I want the ultimate low light, thin DOF, the 135 L wide open wins hands down!   

So, based on my 60D experience with the same sensor as the 7D (and perhaps better firmware?), if the OP has the money, go for the 5D3.  The 6D ain't no slouch, either!

[sun216]

@K3nt

Wow thanks for the info ... I am still deciding  ---
May be by end of this week

[sun216]

I upgraded from the 7D to the 6D. The 7D is still great, but I needed high ISO performance for events, and the 6D does not disappoint.  In low light, it basically becomes a 1 point AF DSLR, but that one point grabs focus like a tractor beam  . For my style, FF is the way to go.

What about the AF

[bholliman]

I upgraded from the 7D to the 6D. The 7D is still great, but I needed high ISO performance for events, and the 6D does not disappoint.  In low light, it basically becomes a 1 point AF DSLR, but that one point grabs focus like a tractor beam  . For my style, FF is the way to go.

What about the AF

I have both a 7D and 6D.  The 7D autofocus is of course better, but I find the 6D AF good enough for 95% of the things I shoot.   That said, I don't do much wildlife or sports photography, mostly kids/family, landscapes and event photography.  The 6D AF is fine for almost everything except for fast and erratically moving subjects.

[CTJohn]

I upgraded from the 7D to the 6D. The 7D is still great, but I needed high ISO performance for events, and the 6D does not disappoint.  In low light, it basically becomes a 1 point AF DSLR, but that one point grabs focus like a tractor beam  . For my style, FF is the way to go.

What about the AF

I have both a 7D and 6D.  The 7D autofocus is of course better, but I find the 6D AF good enough for 95% of the things I shoot.   That said, I don't do much wildlife or sports photography, mostly kids/family, landscapes and event photography.  The 6D AF is fine for almost everything except for fast and erratically moving subjects.

I just bought a 6D, keeping my 7D which I've used for a couple years.  I still love my 7D and will use it for rapid focus and extra reach.  I also think at 800 and under ISO the images are fine.  What I've found with the 6D (only a couple weeks use) is that the ISO performance is amazing.  At 6400 the noise is probably equivalent to 800 on the 7D, but the noise is not as unattractive - not sure what the difference is...

The 6D seems to produce a richer image color wise as well. 

I love both cameras!