7D Mark ii replacement

[drmikeinpdx]

I would give the 90D a try. It's not a big investment and the jump in image quality from the 7D2 is huge. 9 frames per second is pretty good. I've had excellent results with mine, but haven't used it for sports or birds, so can't comment on AF tracking ability.

Dual card slots would be nice for pro use, but I haven't had a card fail in over a decade, so it's not really an issue for me.

 

[Michael Clark]

The question for Canon is not how well the 7DII sold in the past. The question is how well a 7DIII would sell in the future. Apparently for Canon, the answer is not well enough.

I still think it is more a question, for both Canon and Nikon, of whether the profits generated by a 7D Mark III or D510 and the lenses those users would buy would be more or less than the profits generated by full frame "pro grade" sports/action cameras and the longer focal length wide aperture lenses those users would be forced to buy to get the same "reach".

A 7D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III costs less than $4K.
A 1D X Mark II + EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II costs around $12K for the same angle of view and f-number.

 

[Michael Clark]

I would give the 90D a try. It's not a big investment and the jump in image quality from the 7D2 is huge. 9 frames per second is pretty good. I've had excellent results with mine, but haven't used it for sports or birds, so can't comment on AF tracking ability.

Dual card slots would be nice for pro use, but I haven't had a card fail in over a decade, so it's not really an issue for me.

The jump in image quality is almost all below ISO 400, which is not where the 7D Mark II is normally used for sports and action. Mine lives at ISO 3200 when shooting under the lights, and at ISO 3200 the difference between the 90D and 7D mark II is 0.09 stops DR. The 90D AF system is not much better than the 80D AF system from which it is derived. The 7D Mark II AF system is better for tracking fast moving subjects than the 90D.