Confused! Upgrading my camera.....Advise Pleasssssssse

[92101media]

One other slightly less expensive option to consider might be the Canon 60D. It has the same sensor as the Canon 7D, and most of the same features & capabilities as the Canon 7D. At $900 for the Canon 60D vs. $1600 for the Canon 7D, it's probably the performance value bargain in the lineup. I have both the Canon 60D & the Canon 7D, and don't notice much difference between the 2 in practical use. One significant advantage that the Canon 7D has over the Canon 60D is the ability to perform AF micro adjustment, which can be useful if some of your lenses and body are at opposite ends of the tolerance spectrum.

Given your stated use, I also recommend sticking with an APS-C sensor for the moment, as the 1.6x crop factor will give you the extra telephoto reach over full frame that will be useful for sporting events where the subject might not be  that close, and an APS-C body is also lighter than a full frame body. If you can afford to hold onto your old Canon 40D body, that is something worth considering, as you can mount whichever lens you are less likely to use for a particular situation on your old body, so you can switch back & forth between bodies without having to swap lenses in dynamically changing shooting conditions. It also serves as a backup in the event you need to send one or other body in for service or cleaning.

The Canon 60D will still offer several useful upgrades over your older 40D e.g. almost double the resolution (useful for cropping), 2 stops better light sensitivity, better AF, much higher resoultion flip-out screen useful for evaluating photos, video capability etc. This chart breaks down some of the differences:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_40D-vs-Canon_EOS_60D

One other lens you might want to consider is a 50mm prime lens. On a 1.6x crop factor APS-C body, a 50mm lens works out to be equivalent to an 80mm lens on full frame, which is a focal length that works well for portraits. With the wide aperture that usually accompanies prime lenses, when shot wide open you should be able to get some nice creamy portraits with good bokeh. Canon's 50mm f/1.8 is pretty plasticky as far as build quality goes, but is inexpensive & provides good results. Canon's 50mm f/1.4 & Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 are also good & better built than Canon's 50mm f/1.8, but are quite a bit more expensive, so you may want to buy the Canon's 50mm f/1.8 first to see if the focal length works for you & is something that you would actually use.

But, honestly, the thing that is likely to allow your photos to improve the most is getting to know the features & capabilities of either your old and/or new camera better. The sooner you can move from full auto to shutter priority and/or aperture priority and/or full manual mode, the sooner you are likely to be able to capture the photos with the look & feel that you want. Different people learn differently, so you need to figure out what combination of methods works best for you. Examples are: just experimenting, reading online forums, reading magazines, watching video tutorials, participating in local photo workshops etc. Finding the time can be a challenge if you have kids, but the results should prove worthwhile, and understanding the basic concepts & operation is something that you only have to do once.

[briansquibb]

One other slightly less expensive option to consider might be the Canon 60D. It has the same sensor as the Canon 7D, and most of the same features & capabilities as the Canon 7D. At $900 for the Canon 60D vs. $1600 for the Canon 7D, it's probably the performance value bargain in the lineup. I have both the Canon 60D & the Canon 7D, and don't notice much difference between the 2 in practical use. One significant advantage that the Canon 7D has over the Canon 60D is the ability to perform AF micro adjustment, which can be useful if some of your lenses and body are at opposite ends of the tolerance spectrum.

Given your stated use, I also recommend sticking with an APS-C sensor for the moment, as the 1.6x crop factor will give you the extra telephoto reach over full frame that will be useful for sporting events where the subject might not be  that close, and an APS-C body is also lighter than a full frame body. If you can afford to hold onto your old Canon 40D body, that is something worth considering, as you can mount whichever lens you are less likely to use for a particular situation on your old body, so you can switch back & forth between bodies without having to swap lenses in dynamically changing shooting conditions. It also serves as a backup in the event you need to send one or other body in for service or cleaning.

The Canon 60D will still offer several useful upgrades over your older 40D e.g. almost double the resolution (useful for cropping), 2 stops better light sensitivity, better AF, much higher resoultion flip-out screen useful for evaluating photos, video capability etc. This chart breaks down some of the differences:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_40D-vs-Canon_EOS_60D

One other lens you might want to consider is a 50mm prime lens. On a 1.6x crop factor APS-C body, a 50mm lens works out to be equivalent to an 80mm lens on full frame, which is a focal length that works well for portraits. With the wide aperture that usually accompanies prime lenses, when shot wide open you should be able to get some nice creamy portraits with good bokeh. Canon's 50mm f/1.8 is pretty plasticky as far as build quality goes, but is inexpensive & provides good results. Canon's 50mm f/1.4 & Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 are also good & better built than Canon's 50mm f/1.8, but are quite a bit more expensive, so you may want to buy the Canon's 50mm f/1.8 first to see if the focal length works for you & is something that you would actually use.

But, honestly, the thing that is likely to allow your photos to improve the most is getting to know the features & capabilities of either your old and/or new camera better. The sooner you can move from full auto to shutter priority and/or aperture priority and/or full manual mode, the sooner you are likely to be able to capture the photos with the look & feel that you want. Different people learn differently, so you need to figure out what combination of methods works best for you. Examples are: just experimenting, reading online forums, reading magazines, watching video tutorials, participating in local photo workshops etc. Finding the time can be a challenge if you have kids, but the results should prove worthwhile, and understanding the basic concepts & operation is something that you only have to do once.

With all respect the AF of the 60D is not significantly improved on the 40D and certainly not in the league of the 7D

The 24-105 and the 70-200 covers all bases so the introduction of a 50mm adds very little. If you are considering low light then perhaps the longer 100f2 would work (within the budget)

[Dylan777]

I am in need of advise on a new camera.  I was currently looking at the 7D.  Would love the 5D lll but just can't justify for being so inexperienced at this time and not sure FF makes sense for my current needs.

A full frame always makes sense, and it would love the lenses you already have (particularly the 24-105L and the 70-200 - you could take amazing portraits with great bokeh!)

If i were you, i'd probably get a 5D mark II (new or used), since 5D3 is expensive and you by your own words are still a beginner. 5D2 has a basic set of good tools to any photographer, and isn't overwhelming even to those just stepping out of the green box.
Then again, the 5D3 would be much better for those sports you mentioned, since it has the far superior AF. (or so i would assume - never actually used a 5D3) (though 5D2 would also mostly do the job just fine.)

Oh, and i would also keep the 40D as backup and probably later upgrade it to 7Dmk2 - crop (extra reach) and af of both 40D and the 7D are advantages when shooting sports compared to 5D2. If i went with the 5D3, i would sell the 40D and just lose the crop factor advantage.

5D II AF is not that good - taking picture of kids running around or playing sports will be difficult.

7D might be better choice - but again, you shooting with GREEN Mode. AF system will be much better, but more complex.

If I'm you- I would keep 40D and spend more times shooting outside green mode. Start shooting with Tv and/or Av mode. You will enjoy your 40D more.

[briansquibb]

5D II AF is not that good - taking picture of kids running around or playing sports will be difficult.

7D might be better choice - but again, you shooting with GREEN Mode. AF system will be much better, but more complex.

If I'm you- I would keep 40D and spend more times shooting outside green mode. Start shooting with Tv and/or Av mode. You will enjoy your 40D more.

Lets get this straight - the OP wants to shoot sports, animals and children. The OP is a comparative novice so to get the best results she will need the camera that does it best for her.

To meet the OP's stated requirements then good AF is needed. The 40D, 50D, 60D, 5D and 5DII have comparatively weak AF. The 7D and 5DIII have good AF, so to meet the AF requirement we have a choice of 2 cameras. The budget constraints that the OP has indicated narrow that down to the 7D.

Contrary to common belief the 7D AF is not complex - it just has a couple of extra choices and out of the box with a couple of minor options set will give excellent results for this level of camera.

The OP has two significant lens, the 24-105 and the 70-200 f/2.8 so has a wide range covered and with the 70-200 f/2.8 got good low light capability.

I strongly support the OP's direction, it is logical and gives headroom for improvement over the next few years without changing equipment

[elflord]

With all respect the AF of the 60D is not significantly improved on the 40D and certainly not in the league of the 7D

The 24-105 and the 70-200 covers all bases so the introduction of a 50mm adds very little.

What about the "bases" that are faster than f/4 and shorter than 70mm ?

[92101media]

One other slightly less expensive option to consider might be the Canon 60D. It has the same sensor as the Canon 7D, and most of the same features & capabilities as the Canon 7D. At $900 for the Canon 60D vs. $1600 for the Canon 7D, it's probably the performance value bargain in the lineup. I have both the Canon 60D & the Canon 7D, and don't notice much difference between the 2 in practical use. One significant advantage that the Canon 7D has over the Canon 60D is the ability to perform AF micro adjustment, which can be useful if some of your lenses and body are at opposite ends of the tolerance spectrum.

Given your stated use, I also recommend sticking with an APS-C sensor for the moment, as the 1.6x crop factor will give you the extra telephoto reach over full frame that will be useful for sporting events where the subject might not be  that close, and an APS-C body is also lighter than a full frame body. If you can afford to hold onto your old Canon 40D body, that is something worth considering, as you can mount whichever lens you are less likely to use for a particular situation on your old body, so you can switch back & forth between bodies without having to swap lenses in dynamically changing shooting conditions. It also serves as a backup in the event you need to send one or other body in for service or cleaning.

The Canon 60D will still offer several useful upgrades over your older 40D e.g. almost double the resolution (useful for cropping), 2 stops better light sensitivity, better AF, much higher resoultion flip-out screen useful for evaluating photos, video capability etc. This chart breaks down some of the differences:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_40D-vs-Canon_EOS_60D

One other lens you might want to consider is a 50mm prime lens. On a 1.6x crop factor APS-C body, a 50mm lens works out to be equivalent to an 80mm lens on full frame, which is a focal length that works well for portraits. With the wide aperture that usually accompanies prime lenses, when shot wide open you should be able to get some nice creamy portraits with good bokeh. Canon's 50mm f/1.8 is pretty plasticky as far as build quality goes, but is inexpensive & provides good results. Canon's 50mm f/1.4 & Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 are also good & better built than Canon's 50mm f/1.8, but are quite a bit more expensive, so you may want to buy the Canon's 50mm f/1.8 first to see if the focal length works for you & is something that you would actually use.

But, honestly, the thing that is likely to allow your photos to improve the most is getting to know the features & capabilities of either your old and/or new camera better. The sooner you can move from full auto to shutter priority and/or aperture priority and/or full manual mode, the sooner you are likely to be able to capture the photos with the look & feel that you want. Different people learn differently, so you need to figure out what combination of methods works best for you. Examples are: just experimenting, reading online forums, reading magazines, watching video tutorials, participating in local photo workshops etc. Finding the time can be a challenge if you have kids, but the results should prove worthwhile, and understanding the basic concepts & operation is something that you only have to do once.

With all respect the AF of the 60D is not significantly improved on the 40D and certainly not in the league of the 7D

I will admit that AF point selection & working on exploiting the superior AF capabilities of the 7D over the 60D is something that I don't currently make the most of. Though I shoot full manual, I mostly use the auto AF point(s) selection and/or the center AF point selection with the half-shutter & recompose method. I need to allocate some time to get more familiar with the AF capabilities of both the 60D & the 7D, so I can get the best use out of each of them.

 

The 24-105 and the 70-200 covers all bases so the introduction of a 50mm adds very little. If you are considering low light then perhaps the longer 100f2 would work (within the budget)

50mm is not covered by the 70-200 zoom. Yes, sometimes 70mm on 1.6x crop can work perfectly fine for portraits, however occasionally there isn't much room or it's not desirable to back up. The 50mm f/1.8 is 2 1/3 stops faster than the f/4 of the 24-105, though admittedly the bokeh produced by the 5 aperture blades of the f/1.8 is not as pleasing as the 8 blades of the f/1.4 version, that is a full 3 stops faster than the f/4 of the 24-105.

However, I will agree that (with the exception of some wide & some tele) the combo of the 24-105 & 70-200 cover the mid-wide to mid-tele range pretty well & are great quality, and should be a great setup to cover a large number of shooting conditions & situations. So the OP could hold off on the 50mm until later & examine their EXIF data to see whether the 50mm is something that would suit their shooting style & conditions well.

[pj1974]

The OP states the 2 first sports are 95% daylight, I think the 24-105mm and 70-200mm are ok lenses for that. A 7D definitely offers signficant improvement over the 40D, specifically in both a more powerful, faster, and flexible AF system, as well as increased FPS.

The other areas (eg children at play) - can be done by both 40D and 7D, but again a definite advantage in 'tricky situations' to the 7D.  I have a 7D and know it's capabilities and advantages very well compared to other cameras, as well as it's limitations.

Reading the OP's post carefully... where he states the types of photos wanting to be taken, I only see one really 'challenging' area where the current lenses might not be suitable: "Cheer (indoor)".  As I'm from a country where "Cheer" is not a big part of our sporting culture (I'm Australian) - I'm taking it to mean 'cheer-leading'.  I would NOT recommend the 50mm f1.8 as suitable because
a) it's AF is slow slow slow (and in my opinion not accurate / consistent enough)
b) the bokeh can be undesirably 'busy'
c) it might not be the right focal length (I'm guessing a 85mm to 135mm more suited).

That's my take on it. Although the 7D doesn't have the same image quality as a full frame, the sensor's 1.6x crop factor advantage can help cover more 'sports' needs from a focal distance perspective.

Definitely the MOST important thing for the OP is to use his camera a lot more, practising using Av/ Tv, and getting to know the AF (of either 40D or 7D). If he's wanting to improve keeper rate, I'd get a 7D as the first step, then perhaps a 85mm f1.8 for 'cheer' if the 70-200mm isn't up to the task in low light.

Best wishes.

Paul

[CanineCandidsByL]

I'll jump on the "7D for you bandwagon". If you're willing to buy used, the prices are probably as good as they will be until a replacement is released.

However if your not in a hurry, consider taking the equipment you haven't used and force yourself to use it for a two or three photo sessions lasting at least an hour each.  There are various sites that put up "assignments" for people to work on. Pick ones that you can use your equipment on, even if it isn't the best use of it, and see if you like it before you see it off.

[briansquibb]

The OP states the 2 first sports are 95% daylight, I think the 24-105mm and 70-200mm are ok lenses for that. A 7D definitely offers signficant improvement over the 40D, specifically in both a more powerful, faster, and flexible AF system, as well as increased FPS.

The other areas (eg children at play) - can be done by both 40D and 7D, but again a definite advantage in 'tricky situations' to the 7D.  I have a 7D and know it's capabilities and advantages very well compared to other cameras, as well as it's limitations.

Reading the OP's post carefully... where he states the types of photos wanting to be taken, I only see one really 'challenging' area where the current lenses might not be suitable: "Cheer (indoor)".  As I'm from a country where "Cheer" is not a big part of our sporting culture (I'm Australian) - I'm taking it to mean 'cheer-leading'.  I would NOT recommend the 50mm f1.8 as suitable because
a) it's AF is slow slow slow (and in my opinion not accurate / consistent enough)
b) the bokeh can be undesirably 'busy'
c) it might not be the right focal length (I'm guessing a 85mm to 135mm more suited).

That's my take on it. Although the 7D doesn't have the same image quality as a full frame, the sensor's 1.6x crop factor advantage can help cover more 'sports' needs from a focal distance perspective.

Definitely the MOST important thing for the OP is to use his camera a lot more, practising using Av/ Tv, and getting to know the AF (of either 40D or 7D). If he's wanting to improve keeper rate, I'd get a 7D as the first step, then perhaps a 85mm f1.8 for 'cheer' if the 70-200mm isn't up to the task in low light.

Best wishes.

Paul

Hurrah - someone else read the OP's requirements

[katwil]

After taking about 1,500 shots at spring training this year I’m very happy with my decision to pick up a used 35-350 f/3.5-5.6 L.  On my 40D it gives me remarkable reach and is versatile if I want to zoom in a bit.  Of course it’s utterly useless with indoor lighting on a 40D.  I purchased my copy for around $1,100, but I’ve seen them selling anywhere between $1,000-$1,400.  For the few indoor shots you take, an 85 f/1.8 will give you 136mm reach on the 40D.  That combination would compliment your current kit nicely and fall within your budget.

[4D]

After a year of waiting for for new models I upgraded to a 7D from a 350D a few weeks ago and wish I had done it sooner. The autofocus is superb and alone worth the money.

My wife, who is also a greenbox shooter, also loves it and now gets about 90 percent of shots in focus, including difficult running dogs, compared to less than  half with the 350D, although I guess the 40D focus is better than the 350D.

It is very easy in these forums getting drawn into technical nitty gritty between cameras that create minimal difference to amateur photographers. From my experience with wife and daughters, good autofocus trumps everything, because no matter how good a sensor is, if the shot isn't in focus it is useless, even with all the latest PP.

Some here say the 7D IQ is a bit soft, but last week there was a post by jrista explaining that good quality glass, which you have, is important on higher pixel density cameras like the7D because they basically magnify the lens imperfections. I can see the difference between my superb 70-200f4 L and Sigma 17-70, which is why I am deciding what lens to buy next.

I could have afforded to get a 5DIII, and even though I have made money from photography in the past, the 7D is a much better value for money package relative to the 5DIII, and the $2000 saved now will probably get you great FF in 2-3 years time when you have advanced your skills to justify one.

 

[Rjsehm5]

Wow...lots of fabulous information!  Thanks to everyone who has taken their time to give an opinion....it helps a lot.  Please keep them coming.

I took out my 70-200 for my daughters 8U Softball game and yeah....definitely different shooting with max reach of the 70-200 vs 70-300.  The quality is superior and I was still shooting as the sun went down which can't be done with the 70-300 but ouch on the reach.  Looking at the pics made me realize....although I like the thought of a FF my needs scream Crop.

Still leaning towards the 7D.  I would say 90% came back with keep my 40D as a back up....wish I could but I really can't.  Hope I don't regret that later.

Would you believe I shot in raw for the first time today:)  and in manual mode:)  I feel like I am in a honeymoon phase again with photography. 

Again, thanks to everyone for helping and please KEEP THEM COMING