7D - buy now or hold off?

[EYEONE]

The 60D display is marginally better than the 7D. The 920k pixel displays are about as good as you can get.
I just came from a XSi with a 240k pixel display. The 7D is a thing of beauty. I think you are being a little too critical.

the more pixels the better cause it makes it easier to evaluate the sharpness of a picture. it's not only the pixels though: let's not forget the 7D's display is not 3:2 so it doesn't match its sensor size...

but yea, maybe I'm too critical. the 7D is a great camera for sure. it just didn't make sense for me, personally, to buy it. I will rather wait for the MK II.

Well, I understand that more pixels is better. I'm just saying that at 920k pixels the 60D's extra 100k pixels don't make much of a difference. I think it would take some serious peeping to tell the difference.

However, the aspect ratio is a valid point. I'm not sure why they haven't been matching the ratio of the sensor until now. I have a friend with a T2i and it's a nice feature.

All in all, both are fantastic screens.

[Fleetie]

My "focus" for the next year or two will be to accumulate some nice Canon glass to use with it. First stop will probably be the EF 24-70 2.8 L , or maybe the EF-S 17-55 2.8 , though more likely the former.

Unless you're planning on going FF very soon, from an optical standpoint I'd recommend the 17-55mm over the 24-70mm for the 7D.  Personally, I think 24mm on a 1.6xis not wide enough for a 'general purpose zoom' since it starts at 38mm FF equivalent, which isn't even wide angle.  On a crop body, the 17-55mm is sharper and has less CA than the 24-70mm (although it does have more barrel distortion at the wide end, and more vignetting wide open).  Also, even though the focal length is relatively short, I find IS to be a big help (for static subjects only, obviously).  However, if you plan to shoot a lot in the rain the 24-70mm definitely makes sense (as would the 241-105mm f/4L IS, which is what I added to my kit to use on the 7D in the rain, but I still used the 17-55mm much more often, at least until I got a 5DII).

Yes, I am really torn between these two lenses.

One the one hand:

    * Yes, I *do* want to own an L-series lens, partly "just because...". Shouldn't matter, but does.
    * I would often like to take just that "L" lens out, and so not worry if it rains. Both lens and body have water sealing.
    * I tend not to shoot wide-angle (at least at the moment anyway), so I'm less bothered about the 17-24mm range
    * I can take the "L" with me if/when I "upgrade" to FF in the (not very near) future
    * The "L" will, as you say, likely exhibit less vignetting on a crop camera like the 7D

Yet on the other hand:

    * You say the optical quality on the EF-S is higher - That is and should be a big, important factor
    * The EF-S has IS and the EF L doesn't (yet).
    * The EF-S is cheaper.

Taken together, all of those competing points create quite a dilemma!

Thanks for your thoughts!

Martin

[BennyJ]

    * You say the optical quality on the EF-S is higher - That is and should be a big, important factor
    * The EF-S has IS and the EF L doesn't (yet).
    * The EF-S is cheaper.

As an owner of the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM I can defintely recommend this lens. I think it's the best allround lens available for Canon crop cameras. Sure, you can use the EF lenses too but, as you said, due to the crop factor you can't really use them for wide-angle situations. I like the EF tele zooms though, they work perfectly on crop cameras and provide you with an enormous boost in focal length.

If you read some of the reviews about the 17-55, u'll notice that many people say it's actually an "L"-lens. It has UD lens elements, like the L lenses have, is very sharp and has a very good built quality, though it's not weather sealed. But in terms of optical quality, you get a really good lens which is also pretty fast.

So if you're not planning to go FF anytime soon, I would really consider going for the 17-55 as your "bread-and-butter" lens

[tombo]

Have been following this forum for some time and appreciate all the insightful  remarks.  Budget doesn't allow a FF body now so am looking to a 7d.  Old film guy coming back to photography, so am a bit perplexed with the whole crop frame vs. FF arguments.  Still I enjoy the dialog.  Love my Xsi, can't wait to replace my t1i.  Drooling over a 7d.  Hearty cheer for the 10-22, 17-55, and the 70-200 2.8.  Many will scoff, but have had great results using the kit 55-250 in my studio.

[archie.gsy]

I love my 7D and can highly recommend them. Full Frame has got its advantages of course and so has a cropped sensor.
It's a great camera and I feel good value for money.

My lenses consist of :

canon 10-22mm
canon 50mm f1.4
canon 15-85mm
canon 100mm f2.8L macro
tamron 18-270

Very happy with all the above lenses, and to be honest ive searched the net for reviews on them, some good and some not so good. Being fed up with making a decision on reviews I tried them out for my self, was happy with the results so got them.

The eos7D is above my needs and skills at the mo, so will be using this set up for some time to come.. 

[pbc]

I know this is a bit indulgent, but I have both the 17-55 EF-S and the 24-105L for my 7D. 

I use the 24-105 as my outdoor walk around lens, where the light tends to be better, so the F4 is not a problem and it has a slightly longer reach than the 17-55 when working in crowds where you can't get close to the action. The 24-105 being weather sealed, also is better in dust, sand and rain, so I don't have to worry about the camera filling up with muck.

I use the 17-55 for night and indoor shots where the F2.8 starts to help and I am less worried about the environmental factors.  Optically, the lens are fairly similar in real-world situations, so no real clear advantage either way.  It's expensive to have both, but I find the combination works well.  If I had to make a choice of one over the other, given that I tend to shoot more outdoors stuff, I went with the 24-105 first, but if you tend to shoot more indoor or are less worried about the environmental stuff, I would go with the 17-55.

[sunny]

I am also thinking of purchasing the 7D.  Someone wrote this as a con, and I was wondering if anyone  found this to be troublesome or annoying ?  Thank You        "  New AF system draws big, black rectangles as each AF sensor goes active — and they never turn off as you're trying to compose! These big, ugly, distracting rectangles don't go away until after you've taken your picture! This makes it difficult to see your subject's expression, or even your subject! "   

[EYEONE]

I am also thinking of purchasing the 7D.  Someone wrote this as a con, and I was wondering if anyone  found this to be troublesome or annoying ?  Thank You        "  New AF system draws big, black rectangles as each AF sensor goes active — and they never turn off as you're trying to compose! These big, ugly, distracting rectangles don't go away until after you've taken your picture! This makes it difficult to see your subject's expression, or even your subject! "   

I know where you read that quote. That guy...is no good. Don't listen to him.
As a 7D owner I can tell you that it is not a problem for me. They are not ugly or distracting. It's really no different than the 9 dots and squares on the xxxD and xxD line focus screens.

[FatDaddyJones]

The 7D's autofocus system is a thing of beauty, and nothing to be frightened of. You'll be hard pressed to fine a finer AF system, and it is fully customizable to your specific use... I tend to favor the center spot focus, and only see the one AF point when I use that function. If you're worried about AF points showing up when you're composing, maybe you should be looking at a different camera... point and shoot maybe?

[foobar]

Plus: the 60D is newer than the older 7D so you get a MUCH better display

Sorry, but that's just wrong. Have you actually ever compared the two (in real life)?!
The 7D's display has noticably better color rendition and much better glare reduction compared to the 60D's.

the more pixels the better cause it makes it easier to evaluate the sharpness of a picture. it's not only the pixels though: let's not forget the 7D's display is not 3:2 so it doesn't match its sensor size...

Yes, the 60D wastes less pixels by having a 3:2 screen, but as long as Canon hasn't adopted 3:2 for their high-end screens, the 7D/1D4 screen is still the best you can get on any Canon DSLR.

And if you really want to check for sharpness, you'll have to zoom in anyway. For a quick look at the picture, the difference in pixel density isn't really noticable.

7D - 640x480 (4:3) - 266dpi
60D - 720x480 (3:2) - 288dpi

For comparison: The older 3" screens had just 133dpi.

[vrinner]

I've just ordered me a 7D. I've had my 10D for a very long time and couldn't be happier with it. I actually had to convince myself that the 7d is better than my 10D and only after trying one out in the store was I convinced I needed to upgrade. I chose the 7D over the 60D because it feels and acts and feels like my 10D. The body, weight, feel, controls were all very familiar to me but the greatly increased FPS and video mode were really the only two things that made me take the plunge. I could care less about waiting for the MKII to come out as I'm sure this 7D will be in good service for the next 10+ years just like my 10D.

p.s. My kids will be happy that I got the 7D because now I'll let them use the 10D more 

[jcns]

couple of options.
1. Buy used 7d for about $1K now.  If current trend is any indication, 7D mKII will be much more expensive which would mean your used 7D won't lose much value. Sell the used 7D in a year and get the mkII.

2 .Another option is to buy a used 50d.  They go for about $500 now. 50d shoots 6.3 fps 7d=8fps, 60d 5.3 fps.
Used 50d's are likely to lose another $200-300 in value at most in the next year(I am guessing).

[ruuneos]

I bought 7D in Sep 2011, but now what you may want to do is:
 1. Get used 7D for about ~$1000
 2. Wait for sales to come around and get new one for ~1100-1200$
 3. Hold for 7D2 to announcement and price tag about $2500??

What I thought when I bought 7D was:
 - I know that 7D's upgrade is near about 12-6months (at the moment it's around 5-6months)
 - Going to use 7D still next couple of years and investing to L-lenses and after that 2-3years going to FF and probably change 7D to 7D2 or wait Mk3 to show up.

By the way folks, what you think is 7D2 having both mounts, EF as well EF-S.

[dlleno]

Have been following this forum for some time and appreciate all the insightful  remarks.  Budget doesn't allow a FF body now so am looking to a 7d.  Old film guy coming back to photography, so am a bit perplexed with the whole crop frame vs. FF arguments.  Still I enjoy the dialog.  Love my Xsi, can't wait to replace my t1i.  Drooling over a 7d.  Hearty cheer for the 10-22, 17-55, and the 70-200 2.8.  Many will scoff, but have had great results using the kit 55-250 in my studio.

+1 on that lens trilogy of 10-22, 17-55, and 70-200.  just add a 1.4x TC to the list!  I just sent my nearly five year old 17-55 back for its first repair.  $100 and she is back to new, so I'm happy.  I can't tell you how many times this lens has saved a picture, due to the IS.  remember that the equivalent FF FOV here is 27-88 mm, which is a very happy (useful) focal length range.  combine with f/2.8 and IS and we have a real winner. optical quality is, well, L-quality, you can read the reviews.  If this lens had a little better build quality and weather sealing it would have a red ring around it and cost $700 more

[Menace]

I had mine for two year and absolutely loved it! I mainly used 24-105 and 70-200 F4 and found the combination more than adequate for my needs. I recently went FF so these lenses will be with me for some time.

Get the 7d now and enjoy taking pictures rather than wait for a replacement. 7d will still be a great camera even when mark II comes out (whenever that may be)