Advice for future path please!

[AmazonOfExeter]

And yes, AmbientLight - gear acquisition syndrome is one I appear to be suffering from...just a lack of cash saves me from giving in too often!
I suspect next step is to sell what I can of anything and everything...start selling and stop drooling over new equip!
And thanks Northstar - slightly tricky to set it up accurately but good results when just right!

A last thought for now - are the Tamron 24-70, Sigma 24-105 or Tamron 90 macro worth looking at over their Canon alternatives - apart from legacy lenses I've always favoured Canons own...

[jasonsim]

Hi,

Definitely do not go with the 300mm f/4L IS.  I don't think it to be much better than the 100-400mm L IS that you already have.  If you are happy with the results from the 100-400mm L, then keep that.  If you are looking for something lighter and a bit sharper with new IS system, then perhaps consider the nice 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS.  If you think you need something faster (meaning larger aperture), I would think about the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.  Combined with the new version 3 teleconverters, I found no need to have a 100-400mm or 70-300mm.  I get excellent results using the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II lens.  My other main lens is the 24-70mm f/2.8L II.  Those two lenses (24-70L f/2.8L II and 70-200L f/2.8L IS II) cover most anything you care to shoot.  Of course to get the most out of them, a full frame camera would be ideal. 

Are you going to keep the 7D?  Will you be going full frame in the future?  If you have FF in your sites, then consider upgrading your lenses first starting with the two I mention above. 

If you need a fast prime, I would suggest a 50mm f/1.2L or holding out for the new Sigma 50mm Art lens. 

As others say, if you do lots of macro then get the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro.  It is the best macro for Canon and works well as a portrait lens. 

Hope this helps.

--Jason

[bholliman]

The Eos M was purely as a small form camera to take places where an slr was too big - although I take the 7D when I can, it is on the large side, but most of the compacts seem pretty poor in comparison to even the crops. Not really found a good, affordable alternative to an slr as a carry around.

I find the EOS-M to be a nice compact camera to carry when I don't want to carry a heavy DSLR kit or when a DSLR would be too conspicuous.  The M's IQ is excellent - as good or nearly as good as any Canon APS-C body, and the f22/2 and 18-55 lenses of very good quality.  It will never take the place of my 6D as my primary camera, but its great for what it does.  I ended up selling my 7D and S100 as the M replaced what I used both for (backup body, extra reach of APS-C and compact camera).

[FTb-n]

If noise from the 7D is limitting you, then now is the time to go full frame.  I though the 7D was the greatest camera made...then dove I into the full frame pool with a 5D3.  Now my poor 7D is neglected.  The 6D is quite tempting, but I shoot sports and wanted the focussing benefits of the 5D3.  Your wildlife adventures may dictate which of the two will meet your needs.

 As for lenses, I bought my 5D3 with the 24-105.  I don't understand all the written abuse this lens gets, my copy seems quite sharp and I love it's versatility - in both focal length and IS.  However, my most used lens is the 70-200 2.8 Mk II -- which I highly recommend.

With full frame, you get less noise, sharper images (with quality lenses), and deeper color latitude. (My 5D3 produces sharper images with my 70-200 than my 7D does.)   Given your current lenses, I would suggest full frame before another lens.  It's really hard to appreciate the IQ benefits of full frame until you get one.  You may look differently at lens options after buying a FF body.

If you do stick with crop bodies, then definately go fo the 17-55 2.8.

[AmbientLight]

If noise from the 7D is limitting you, then now is the time to go full frame.  I though the 7D was the greatest camera made...then dove I into the full frame pool with a 5D3.  Now my poor 7D is neglected.  The 6D is quite tempting, but I shoot sports and wanted the focussing benefits of the 5D3.  Your wildlife adventures may dictate which of the two will meet your needs.

 As for lenses, I bought my 5D3 with the 24-105.  I don't understand all the written abuse this lens gets, my copy seems quite sharp and I love it's versatility - in both focal length and IS.  However, my most used lens is the 70-200 2.8 Mk II -- which I highly recommend.

With full frame, you get less noise, sharper images (with quality lenses), and deeper color latitude. (My 5D3 produces sharper images with my 70-200 than my 7D does.)   Given your current lenses, I would suggest full frame before another lens.  It's really hard to appreciate the IQ benefits of full frame until you get one.  You may look differently at lens options after buying a FF body.

If you do stick with crop bodies, then definately go fo the 17-55 2.8.

I can only support what you wrote.

On a full-frame body many lenses you might want to neglect on a crop body suddenly become very useful pieces of kit. Not only the different frame size, but also the different resulting depth-of-field play a part here. You shouldn't overrate the amount of bashing some lenses have received, especially on this forum, where sometimes posters abound with criticism passing judgement on a very high product quality level. Although I can understand that, it can lead to a somewhat distorted view.

[AmazonOfExeter]

I think, given the various opinions expressed so far, that full frame is the way to go. Whether to keep the 7D or not would depend on what it's value could be and how much it got used after FF. 6D or 5D3 would depend on handling it seems - the gps has no real advantage for me, wifi possibly but then i'd be looking at dslr controller for connecting a tablet to the camera for control purposes.

On lenses, to keep the 100-400 in favour of a 300mm until at least a mk2 turns up or a 200-400 is within reach. The 17-40 to keep until tested on a FF - I did try a mk1 16-35 on my 20d, and it was nice but not sure the improvement is worth the extra cash.
The 28-135 and 100 to go in place of 24-105 and 100 IS macro, the 24-70 2.8 would be nice but that would be a case of waiting much longer - if that happened then fine....but...do I have that patience?!
I do wish there was an longer focal range like the 28-135 with good enough quality, but cest la vie!

Depth of field is obviously going to change - despite having used 35mm film EOS, it's hard to imagine the difference on an end result (DOF preview didn't give enough of the finished image feel which is part of the overall effect). Do you find the F4 on FF is as shallow as F2.8 on Crop?

Waiting to upgrade is hard - esp when Wex are offering the 5d3 plus 24-105 plus free grip for £2899 (it sounds a bargain if you say it quickly...)  and possibly a new printer at 1/2 price (separate thread about to start with that...) or the EOS M with free adapter and £50 cashback for £349...

Of those who have the EOS M, do you get useable results from it or do you always wish you'd used your FF body? (assuming you could have chosen, ignoring the fact that you might not have been able to have the FF to hand when taking a shot).

Thank you everyone once more for your opinions - helping me decide and avoid buyers remorse

[FTb-n]

I have the 17-55 2.8 for my 7D and it's a great lens.  It's sharp and the speed has opened up more low-light opportunities for me.

I haven't lost anything moving to the 5D3 and 24-105 f4 combination.  In fact , I've gained a little more flexibility in low light due to the high ISO advantage of the 5D3, plus the fact that the 5D3 is better at focusing in low light.  I do think the DOF is comparable between this combination and the 7D/17-55 combination.   (Neuro had a good explanation elsewhere on this site about how aperture and DOF compare between FF and crop.  If I recall, for similar focal length or image size, the 2.8 on crop compares to 4.5 on FF.)

I should note that when I really want shallow DOF to isolate the subject, I grab the 70-200 2.8.   I did this with the 7D and now with the 5D3.  The DOF is tighter with the longer focal length and tighter still on full frame.

As for low light, I've been tempted by the 24-70 2.8 Mk II.  But, the price and the lack of IS has scared me off.  For me, 70-200 is my workhorse focal range on the full frame body, so the need for the 24-70 isn't as great.  Still, there are times when I need more low light capability in close quarters.  For these times, I bought the 35 2.0 IS.  If rumors of a new 50 1.4 or 1.8 IS materialize, I may add that lens to my kit and feel pretty comfortable covering the light challenged events that I shoot.

Another note on compact cameras.  My preference is the S100.  It's cheap now and pocketable.  I can't justify spending more for a camera with better IQ, but still has the shutter lag that is indicative of non-SLRs.  If the camera won't fit in my pocket, I might as well grab a DSLR.  Even though I have a smaller 60D and the still smaller XT, when I want to travel light, I grab the 5D3 with the 40 2.8 pancake.

[Kiboko]

I've not personally ever been without a F/F, having changed from analogue (EOS 5) to F/F EOS 5D Mk I before a 5D MkII. But in parallel with the F/F set up I use for portraiture, studio work and landscapes, I also use a crop body for wildlife and sports. My long lenses are even longer, and no slower. I just don't see how I could cope without a crop body, (OK I do, I'd have to crop all my images!), so I'm on my bended knees hoping Canon will at long last perhaps this year bring out an up-to-date replacement for the 7D. To my mind that would please a lot of people and it would certainly satisfy me. No talk of big superzooms or 1DX, PLEASE! My wallet will cringe. The 7D is sorely in need of replacement, but WILL THEY, I wonder? I've been looking at Pentax and Nikon with a view to replacing the whole lot, - Pentax K3 offers 24 Mpx, weather-sealing, IS, and both the 60-250mm zoom and 300mm lenses are f4 rather than f5.6 as are my current 70-300mm and 400mm. Nikon has recently brought out a cracking 80-400mm f5.6 VR lens and combined with the highly rated 24mpx D7100, I reckon that would make a formidable combination. The only reason I'm hanging fire on my decision is to see if 2014 brings a 7D replacement, an image stabilised 400mm, or an update for the 100-400mm. If Canon don't update replace any of these items, I'm gone.  I don't want F/F (already have one, great for images where you don't WANT or NEED to be as close as conceivable - given the lenses you can afford and have at your disposal), I don't want small and light, I don't want gimmicks like folding screens, Wi-Fi, GPS, (or video for that matter but we'd better not go there). So for me, the 6D is NOT a viable option. Nor is hanging on to an outdated 7D when there's more advanced cropped sensor cameras out there. One thing Canon users like me might not be aware of by the way, (nor was I until I started looking at Nikon), is that on a F/F Nikon body, there is a crop function. This serves the same purpose as a physical crop of the image, it creates a 1.5 crop factor on a F/F body. You choose the magnification factor you want! Cropping the image reduces the pixel count of the image. But with a F/F D800 for example, (36mpx), using an 80-400mm f5.6 VR lens in what they call the DX (crop) mode, will provide a  24mpx image equal to a field of view of 120-600mm. The all-in-one answer! Sorely tempted!

[Hesbehindyou]

I don't want gimmicks like folding screens, Wi-Fi, GPS, (or video [...]).

[...]

on a F/F Nikon body, there is a crop function. This serves the same purpose as a physical crop of the image, it creates a 1.5 crop factor on a F/F body [...] Sorely tempted!

I wish the internet went back further - we'd have people scoffing at shutter buttons; "Why do they need a gimmick like a shutter button? They can just remove and reattach the lens cap when they want to expose the plate!"

You dismiss solid features that do something as gimmicks, but take a cropping mode (oooh, I can do a very limited crop in camera instead of in post!) and have that as your main reason for lusting after it :-P

Seriously though, the cropping mode looks great. I wish Canon had kept the 600D's video cropping mode, but they're certain to include a still-crop mode in a high MP FF body if just to stop Nikon having an extra tick on spec comparisons.

[Kiboko]

I knew saying that would be controversial! But neither the 5D MkIII nor the 1DX, (nor for that matter the 7D), have Wi-Fi, folding screens, nor GPS. Have you ever personally downloaded 600 images using Wi-Fi? I read a review yesterday comparing the 7D with the 70D and the 70D was scored down on it's folding screen because it was deemed to be a weak point should the camera be knocked. I had one on a G1X, I don't want another one. Were I to be assured that they cost me nothing I'd accept them free gratis, but the crux of the matter is, that although the unit cost is probably next to nothing once they become a standard feature, I'd prefer research and development to concentrate on IQ. Simples. We are being dictated as to what we should have by the manufacturers. Smaller cameras for one thing. It seems to me that given a successful camera, rather than develop it the manufacturers ditch it contrary to popular demand. 7D aside, the EOS 1D MkIV is selling second-hand at prices not far removed from when they were new, if you're lucky enough to find one. And it's not just Canon. Speaking to a couple of Nikon enthusiasts yesterday they were bemoaning the lack of a replacement for the Nikon 300S, which, so they said, was a similar serious piece of kit for sports and wildlife photography to the Canon 7D. It's a big "if" but if the Pentax K3 with it's weather-sealing, 24 mpx, 8 frames per second, magnesium alloy build, high ISO (51000ISO!), proves to be a stonker, how many people do you seriously think would be put off of it because it doesn't have a folding screen, Wi-Fi or GPS? Anyone's reasons for not buying it is likely to be because they're unsure of it, not being a Canon or Nikon, - one reason I'm wavering. Should Canon bring out a replacement 7D with a build quality/weather sealing of the outgoing model or better, higher pixel count, higher frame rate, better low light capabilty, less noise at high ISO, how many people are going to care a jot about the foregoing features if it's lacking them? How many people who want what I've just described are going to buy a D70 or a D60 because they've got them?

[Kiboko]

I ought to add that what Nikon offer is NOT "a limited crop in camera". The entire image in the viewfinder is altered, - cropped closer, - as you look through the viewfinder and take the picture. You get what you see. The same as when you look through the viewfinder of a cropped sensor camera, but this is with a F/F camera, giving you the choice of magnification when taking the picture!

[AmazonOfExeter]

Thank you FTb-n. It's nice to have an idea of how the depth of field changes, so at least with an F4 lens i'd be no worse off, if a little better. And a lens which is faster would be nice, but I'd probably be tempted by something a lot faster - although that seems to get a trade off in focussing speed, and for wildlife shots it needs to focus pretty quick as well as allow faster shutter speeds - but then I do seem to end up shooting at the worst possible light conditions...
i agree with you on the compacts - I don't want to spend too much, yet I want an excellent image - most of the cameras I've tried seem to give you compactness but at the cost of image quality - there doesn't seem an awful lot of point in spending a lump of money on something i'll always be disappointed by - the images have to be useable for prints etc. I may just look at one of the shock/waterproof cameras as an easy to carry one that can literally deal with the horrible conditions i'd not want to take an slr to!

Kiboko - I have tried Nikon as my friend has one, and while I like the images, the ergonomics are terrible, Canon bodies just seem to work better for me. The in camera crop doesn't bother me - I'd rather do it in PP so I have more choice over the crop. Crop in video would be a nice addition, or using the excess pixels to maximise the quality in low light - but I'm just starting to play with video and have a lot to learn! Folding screens would be nice, I don't like the weak point aspect but the flexibility would be nice - but I intend to get a tablet or smartphone and use dslr controller to give me a really large touch screen controller.

I'm happy to have little extras added that I don't use, so long as the bits I do use are the best they can be!

[Rienzphotoz]

I ought to add that what Nikon offer is NOT "a limited crop in camera". The entire image in the viewfinder is altered, - cropped closer, - as you look through the viewfinder and take the picture. You get what you see. The same as when you look through the viewfinder of a cropped sensor camera, but this is with a F/F camera, giving you the choice of magnification when taking the picture!

I shoot and have shot with Nikon cameras (D7100 & D610), and you definitely do not get what you see ... the view finder still shows the full view of the sensor, but you see an additional (irritating) rectangle in the view finder (still showing the full view outside of that triangle) and the final image of the in camera crop is what fits in that irritating rectangle. Nikon does offer a limited crop in the camera and it definitely is not "you get what you see".
Cheers.

[Kiboko]

You've described it more accurately than me, Rienzphotoz, and you're absolutely right. I'm a tad disappointed, but on the + side, I do think it's good that with a F/F camera, I can increase the magnification factor to that of a crop body if needs be. I can see many may think, what's the point, you can do it in post. The other thing I was told was that the Nikon cropped lenses (DX) lenses, can be used on the F/F bodies, (same applies re. cropped field of view in viewfinder). EF-S lenses become redundant if a Canon owner upgrades to F/F. I'm as yet undecided as to what I'm going to do with my rapidly aging gear, my post in response to the original enquiry I guess, is to emphasize that there are other viable choices out there.

[Valvebounce]

Hi Amazon Of Exeter
I bought a Samsung Tab2 7.0 purely for use with DSLR Controller, worked fantastic on 4.1.1 then came the update to 4.2.2 which broke the install, a full reset has got it working but it is a bit buggy and the Samsung now shows on DSLR Controller site as mostly not working. If you get a tablet for DSLR Controller and it works properly TURN OFF FIRMWARE UPDATES. I wish someone had told me this, I use I things a lot and they just seem to keep working so I thought Android would be as stable but no Samsung seem to have fixed that! I can't even roll back apparently!
Note I am not saying there is a problem with DSLR Controller, just on Samsung, I'm hoping they might be able to fix it
once I contact them and ask for help!

Cheers Graham.

I intend to get a tablet or smartphone and use dslr controller to give me a really large touch screen controller.

I'm happy to have little extras added that I don't use, so long as the bits I do use are the best they can be!