7D II vs SL1/100D?

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Images from any digital camera will be very close when you have good lighting, and reasonably still subjects. The high end cameras excel under difficult conditions like poor lighting, or rapidly moving subjects.

FF has its points, and a 7D MK II has its points.

As always, the skill of the photographer makes a huge difference.

 

[pwp]

I also had an SL1 for a while. It's seriously compact size and weight made it a compelling travel/trekking camera choice. And it was fine for that.

But it was ultimately a disappointment. It got on-sold because for me it was just that little bit slower to use than 5D3 and 1-Series bodies that I'm so accustomed to. The tiny size, fewer or buried controls and just nine AF points meant I was missing shots... maybe by just seconds, but a miss is a miss. A 7DII will have none of these disadvantages with it's full and familiar controls and a ripper of an AF system. Go for it.

Just to be clear, this is not to disparage the SL1 in any way, I think it was a brilliant and significant release from Canon and will be a perfect choice for a lot of photographers. For the way I work it just didn't ultimately deserve to retain a place in my bag.

-pw

 

[bholliman]

The problem with the 6D idea is that the whole point of shooting FF is for the DOF and for the added sensitivity in low light. So if your shooting low light and shooting large aperture lenses to let more light in, focus recompose is a complete waste of time. You can't accurately focus recompose with anything less than F3.5, the DOF is so small that a couple of mm will send the item you want in focus out of focus so its such a hit and miss thing. Maybe for still subject but add any movement and the likelihood of a hit is so small. Focus recompose really is an antiquated way of focusing now we have the 61 and 65 point AF systems makes creative shooting so much easier.

Tom, while I agree with 95% of your comments (the 7DII is an excellent camera and a significant upgrade over the SL1), I think you are being a little rough on the 6D and its auto focus. I've owned a 6D and some fast glass for nearly 3 years and have never had any difficulty achieving perfect focus with really shallow DOF's. Both with the center AF point and the non-center points (that are quite good in all but very low light). Sure the 6D is not an action camera, but it's very capable of achieving accurate focus for slow moving or still subjects and properly handled can nail focus on some more rapidly moving subjects as well.

 

[Otara]

I have the 7D2, 6D and 100D.

I think a 70D makes much more sense if you're just wanting a better 'all rounder' crop camera. If you dont know exactly why you want a 7D2, in my view its probably overkill and the spare money is better spent on lenses if you havent already got everything you'd like..

Im assuming full frame is off the table in the first place. Knowing your current lenses would probably useful in regards to whether its worth considering.

 

[tomscott]

The problem with the 6D idea is that the whole point of shooting FF is for the DOF and for the added sensitivity in low light. So if your shooting low light and shooting large aperture lenses to let more light in, focus recompose is a complete waste of time. You can't accurately focus recompose with anything less than F3.5, the DOF is so small that a couple of mm will send the item you want in focus out of focus so its such a hit and miss thing. Maybe for still subject but add any movement and the likelihood of a hit is so small. Focus recompose really is an antiquated way of focusing now we have the 61 and 65 point AF systems makes creative shooting so much easier.

Tom, while I agree with 95% of your comments (the 7DII is an excellent camera and a significant upgrade over the SL1), I think you are being a little rough on the 6D and its auto focus. I've owned a 6D and some fast glass for nearly 3 years and have never had any difficulty achieving perfect focus with really shallow DOF's. Both with the center AF point and the non-center points (that are quite good in all but very low light). Sure the 6D is not an action camera, but it's very capable of achieving accurate focus for slow moving or still subjects and properly handled can nail focus on some more rapidly moving subjects as well.

Fair enough maybe a bit harsh I'm sure it focuses fine when the points are over the subject. My main comment was about focus recompose, if your subject is in the middle its fine but as you recompose you change the plane of focus so much more difficult to nail focus.

When pretty much every current AF system is more advanced than the 6D I don't think I would recommend one just because its full frame, the camera is the sum of its parts not just a sensor and with so many better less antiquated AF systems on the market it would be pushed to recommend. We've all shot that 9 point af system over the years and I would say 99% of us were glad to get rid of it. Even the entry level rebels have a better system the only one still on the market with 9 is the 100D.

It might be a bit of a step up and a learning curve but the 61 and 65 points are much more advanced and much more useful for all photographic situations, meaning you could use either for anything as long as you have the reach.

 

[candc]

the 7dii is a specialty bif camera. for that it's great, the buffer and frame rate are really important. the larger body handles well with big lenses.

 

[FEBS]

Hi MJ,

I read from your data that 60% of your photography for sure needs FF (available light, dim light, landscape). The other hand, you do photograph also wildlife/animals. I have both FF and APS-C cameras. However, the only good advice I can give you is, you need for sure FF for the 60% mentioned above. The 5D3 is really a fabulous camera. When I first got the 7D and the 5D3, the 7D really stayed on the shelf. For my last safari, I prepared very carefully what I wanted to take with me. I wanted 3 cameras, one short range, one for 300 and another one for 600mm. It ended up on all FF. How hard I tried, I could always see the difference between the 5D3,1Dx and the 7D2. So the 7D2 stayed at home. You can crop much better on the FF then on APS-C. The 5D3 will really give you photography a big boost. So for that reason, I would choose the 5D3. I know the 7D2 has much better spread in AF points, but this point only can't beat the 5D3.

Your point exactly is that you have access to a 600mm a £10000 lens... were talking about spending £800-£1500 on a camera... the average photographer doesn't and 400mm is about as close as it gets for optimal quality as the 150-600s past 400 have a max aperture of 6.3 so don't af so well. So the crop gets you a lot closer without too much of a penalty. Also not everyone likes to travel as heavily laden like that. Therefor Full Frame is ideal for everything as long as you have the reach, with a 5DMKIII if you crop down to 600mm it doesn't give you a lot of pixels to play with... 10-12mp? and has even less on the subject. 400mm on FF isn't really that brilliant for birding, for larger animals its ok. The point is you can never have enough reach. Big bird photographers like Arthur Moris swear by the 7DMKII as your 600 with a 1.4 is racking out to 1344mm 2x for 8 focus is nearly 2000mm gets you close to things you otherwise wouldn't be able to.

I have actually found myself the other way round since getting the 7DMKII, my 5DMKIII for wildlife has been on the shelf. I think the IQ is very good especially with good glass and the ISO range up to 4000 is really very usable. The 7D files have a nice grain and much less colour noise than the 5DMKIII.

I did not write this down from the fact that I use a 600mm. When I go hicking, and don't want to have a lot of gear with me I take 3 lenses: 16-35f4, 24-70 2.8II and 100-400II and one camera mostly 1Dx, but I have no problem to take the 5D3 if I want to reduce the weight by 0.5kg. For the rest 1.4 extender and 600RT. With that set I really can do everything and that is mostly payable by most photographers over here. I never will take my 7D2 as only camera. The FF, yes even a 6D, is so much better.

The OP mentioned all his interest areas for which I concluded that he really needs a FF for low-light, dim-light and landscape situations. The APS-C can not beat the FF right now for this. Also the possibility to go really wide is present with the FF, what he might be missing with the APS-C. It's not correct that the 7D2 with 1.4x and 100-400II give you a 896mm against a 560mm for a FF like 6D or 5D3. I did see a lot of discussions in the past over here that the crop do give you a 1.6 reach factor as supplement against the FF. Theoretical this might be true, but in practice the difference is much, much smaller. In practice, I do get more then max. 1.2 for having the same IQ. And for that reason is a FF much more versatile, and for sure the 5D3 with 6fps and a very good AF system.

Besides the OP already owns a crop, so I stay convinced that starting up with a FF will really increase his photography output.

I don't want to say anything bad about a 7D2. It's a very nice camera, but for sure not for everyday use. Give the 7D2 action (sports or wildlife) and he is doing a great job. For all the rest the OP mentioned, a FF would be much better, and as he only wants to add one camera besides his SL1. The supplement you get from the 7D2 against the SL1 is much smaller as from the 5D3 against the SL1. That's the reason I advised FF and not another APS-C.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

After reading this entire thread to this point, I'll go with my first gut answer...

Consider a 6D or 5D3 FF and slowly buy good glass. The 6D / 5D3 are bargains now. You already have a APS-C SL1 body and that is a great versatile camera. (I own one too, I use it for lightweight hiking.) I agree that the SL1 is great but it works best in good light. So get a second body that compensates for the SL1's weaknesses. For 60% of what you shoot, the 6D/5D3 would really open up your creative world. Those would be limited wide lenses, low light, etc. However, if you don't want to go FF or you shoot a lot of action, then just get a 70D. I own a 7D2 and I've owned two 70D bodies as well and the only reason I use the 7D2 is because I got a good deal on it and I need the de-flicker in dark gym lighting. Otherwise, I'd probably still be shooting with the 70D.

Grow slowly, build your glass and enjoy the process. Resist the temptation to go into heavy debt trying to buy your way into better photography.

 

[Luds34]

The problem with the 6D idea is that the whole point of shooting FF is for the DOF and for the added sensitivity in low light. So if your shooting low light and shooting large aperture lenses to let more light in, focus recompose is a complete waste of time. You can't accurately focus recompose with anything less than F3.5, the DOF is so small that a couple of mm will send the item you want in focus out of focus so its such a hit and miss thing. Maybe for still subject but add any movement and the likelihood of a hit is so small. Focus recompose really is an antiquated way of focusing now we have the 61 and 65 point AF systems makes creative shooting so much easier.

My 7DMKII was £800 bargain.

Maybe my inexperience showing then. Fastest glass I (we) have are a 50 1.8 STM and a 85 1.8 USM, both of which I am having great success getting consistently accurate focus, the 24-105 obviously isn't as critical. My wife has a 70D and I usually turn hers to center spot from her zone settings. Personally I like the control of where I am focusing using center spot at this time, however that is likely to change as I gain more experience. I ordered a 7D2 Saturday actually, not sure what I will be doing with it yet. Was going to be an upgrade for her but she isn't sure she wants it for lack of wi-fi, touch screen and swivel.

You must be a talented shooter.

Even with 61 points I miss the eye focus and catch the eyelashes every once and a while because of how thin the DOF is.

What are you shooting? Like I said if you are shooing still subjects its not so bad. But even so if you are shooting wide open at 1.8 and moving the camera off centre you are changing the plane of focus depending how you move it. At F4 and above its not so noticeable but even F4 on full frame is quite narrow. Trying to shoot a portrait with this method for example could quite easily go from having the eye in focus to it changing to in-between the nose and eye even meaning the focus area isn't tak. At F2.8 on full frame the dof you get is so small that its very hard work to get accurate consistent results. With a crop camera its more forgiving as a 1.8 would be the equivalent of 2.8 but even so its a shallow area to nail the focus.

Impossible to shoot a moving subject with focus recompose, being able to track with zones makes so much more creative flexibility as your not limited to keeping the subject in the centre. or shooting wider so you can crop it later to make a more compelling composition.

It is possible obviously but the newer systems make it vastly easier to use. You will see when you start using your 7DMKII its a huge upgrade even on the 19 point in the 7D. Although it may not be as accurate as the 7Ds AF is geared up for F5.6 lenses being all cross type F5.6 and sone F2.8 dual cross type point in the centre. The 5DMKIII has 41 cross type at F2.8+F4 and 6 dual cross type F2.8. 21 cross type at F5.6.

Heres the guide book
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjABahUKEwjgjtvMx-DIAhWIWxQKHQYmB18&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brochures.canon-europe.com%2FgetFile.php%3Fproductid%3D9090&usg=AFQjCNFiLJ0qDQ7r2mGNybFr9PgswkSevw&sig2=N1MI0DaTPoSgO17EOY98JQ&bvm=bv.105841590,d.d24

I sopped using 9 point af systems years ago and have been using the 61 point since it was introduced. Just put the point where you need it and your pretty much sorted they configured around the rule of thirds and ensure accurate focus.

All good stuff Tom, and I cannot wait for a 6D2 with more focus points etc. Just keep in mind though that focus and recompose is not a black and white thing, there are factors at play. I realize it is playing with fire to focus and recompose with fast glass, but with the 6D I do it quite often (mostly because the outside focus points suck and are not in the right place anyway) because that is the best we (us 6D owners) got.

Anyway back on topic I just want to point out that the distance to subject is a huge factor along with the angle/degree of the recompose. As long as we are not talking close up head shots and the recompose is slight enough, one can be fine to do so more often then not. Is one always going to be able to get rule of thirds composition, of course not. But in many cases, you can at least get the head out of the very center of the frame.

I read a wedding photographer blog one day and was astounded by his hard rules/advice. One was, he never shot a male at shallower then f/4. Are we talking full body shot or a head shot? Makes a world of difference. Heck, I'll recompose at f/1.4 with a 35mm or 50mm lens as long as I got enough distance to my subject. Getting close and shooting a cute baby face? You are going to bet I focus on the eye and click the shutter ASAP with no movement what-so-ever.

 

[ksgal]

I have a 7DII and the ONLY thing I wish for - sometimes - is shallower dof. The camera is phenomenal.

IF you didn't do as much wildlife, then the 5D3 is a no brainer. There are some portrait applications where I find the 7DII has an advantage over my 5DII.. and vice versa. But again, this weekend, there were times the 9 point AF was far too limiting, and the shutter sync far too slow and the decision has been made to sell the 5DII and get a 5DIII.

So... What glass do you have? If you are limited in lenses, then it is obvious to choose the 7DII for now, and add the extra money to buying better lenses.

If you lens collection is stellar, including 2x converters, and already have the reach for wildlife then getting the 5DIII is probably the right choice.

If you only shoot center point, and don't need / use the outer points, then the 6D comes into play.

Some of this is personal preference, I've moved beyond center point, recompose on my portraits, and there are times I need more than 5fps.. the 7DII is certainly the flagship for the crop line, and you'll pry mine out of my cold dead hands. The only reason to buy a 5DIII is the 5DII isn't doing what I need it to, and switching to Sony isn't practical (or less expensive) But there is no harm in trying or renting either camera ahead of time before you make a purchase.

 

[tomscott]

Hi MJ,

I read from your data that 60% of your photography for sure needs FF (available light, dim light, landscape). The other hand, you do photograph also wildlife/animals. I have both FF and APS-C cameras. However, the only good advice I can give you is, you need for sure FF for the 60% mentioned above. The 5D3 is really a fabulous camera. When I first got the 7D and the 5D3, the 7D really stayed on the shelf. For my last safari, I prepared very carefully what I wanted to take with me. I wanted 3 cameras, one short range, one for 300 and another one for 600mm. It ended up on all FF. How hard I tried, I could always see the difference between the 5D3,1Dx and the 7D2. So the 7D2 stayed at home. You can crop much better on the FF then on APS-C. The 5D3 will really give you photography a big boost. So for that reason, I would choose the 5D3. I know the 7D2 has much better spread in AF points, but this point only can't beat the 5D3.

Your point exactly is that you have access to a 600mm a £10000 lens... were talking about spending £800-£1500 on a camera... the average photographer doesn't and 400mm is about as close as it gets for optimal quality as the 150-600s past 400 have a max aperture of 6.3 so don't af so well. So the crop gets you a lot closer without too much of a penalty. Also not everyone likes to travel as heavily laden like that. Therefor Full Frame is ideal for everything as long as you have the reach, with a 5DMKIII if you crop down to 600mm it doesn't give you a lot of pixels to play with... 10-12mp? and has even less on the subject. 400mm on FF isn't really that brilliant for birding, for larger animals its ok. The point is you can never have enough reach. Big bird photographers like Arthur Moris swear by the 7DMKII as your 600 with a 1.4 is racking out to 1344mm 2x for 8 focus is nearly 2000mm gets you close to things you otherwise wouldn't be able to.

I have actually found myself the other way round since getting the 7DMKII, my 5DMKIII for wildlife has been on the shelf. I think the IQ is very good especially with good glass and the ISO range up to 4000 is really very usable. The 7D files have a nice grain and much less colour noise than the 5DMKIII.

I did not write this down from the fact that I use a 600mm. When I go hicking, and don't want to have a lot of gear with me I take 3 lenses: 16-35f4, 24-70 2.8II and 100-400II and one camera mostly 1Dx, but I have no problem to take the 5D3 if I want to reduce the weight by 0.5kg. For the rest 1.4 extender and 600RT. With that set I really can do everything and that is mostly payable by most photographers over here. I never will take my 7D2 as only camera. The FF, yes even a 6D, is so much better.

The OP mentioned all his interest areas for which I concluded that he really needs a FF for low-light, dim-light and landscape situations. The APS-C can not beat the FF right now for this. Also the possibility to go really wide is present with the FF, what he might be missing with the APS-C. It's not correct that the 7D2 with 1.4x and 100-400II give you a 896mm against a 560mm for a FF like 6D or 5D3. I did see a lot of discussions in the past over here that the crop do give you a 1.6 reach factor as supplement against the FF. Theoretical this might be true, but in practice the difference is much, much smaller. In practice, I do get more then max. 1.2 for having the same IQ. And for that reason is a FF much more versatile, and for sure the 5D3 with 6fps and a very good AF system.

Besides the OP already owns a crop, so I stay convinced that starting up with a FF will really increase his photography output.

I don't want to say anything bad about a 7D2. It's a very nice camera, but for sure not for everyday use. Give the 7D2 action (sports or wildlife) and he is doing a great job. For all the rest the OP mentioned, a FF would be much better, and as he only wants to add one camera besides his SL1. The supplement you get from the 7D2 against the SL1 is much smaller as from the 5D3 against the SL1. That's the reason I advised FF and not another APS-C.

I agree with what your saying from a professional stand point and would do the same, also didn't realise he had a crop camera already.

That being said current gen crop sensor is much improved, and does make me think have you really used one thoroughly to have such a poor opinion of it!??

At the end of the day the current FF cameras will give you about 2 stops on the current 7DMKII that wasn't the case with the older 18mp and also the 70D as the 7DMKII is better than the 70D although having the same MP. That being said I've been shooting mostly at 2000 and 3200 with it and the grain is lovely IMO no colour noise which is so nice to see, annoys me no end with the 5DMKIII.

To prove a point heres an image I took at the weekend with the 7DMKII with 70-200mm and a 2x so 640mm and its about a 60% crop at 2000ISO.

Wren, Martindale Valley, Ullswater, Cumbria by Tom Scott, on Flickr

If that doesn't improve how good it is I'm not sure what will. It was heavily overcast and was sheltered under trees, barely any light. On a 5DMKIII with the same gear it would be a 100% crop 4-5mp final output image.

FF will always beat crop because of physical size and light gathering availability. The 7DMKII is certainly impressive compared to previous gen, I have 40Ds which I bought 2 of about 7 years ago, then bought a original 7D to replace and thought the 7 was awful and sold it within a few weeks because it was so disappointing. I then bought the 5DMKIII when it came out and swore I wouldnt never go back and never looked back, then the 7DMKII came out and I had to get one and have really been impressed with it.

In an ideal world having both is great, you need the right tool for the job, but to say you wouldn't take a crop camera out for normal shooting is a bit strong, I would agree because you/we have the choice, I would use my 5DMKIII for most subjects even sports and wildlife but the 7D has the reach and speed over the 5D. I usually use both I would have a lens on crop and one on FF and use both one with a wider and one with longer, have done for years. For 95% of people it is a huge amount of camera and from a pro perspective is a great all rounder, I don't think its not good enough for work I do and wouldn't hesitate to use it if my 5DMKIII wasn't available for any reason.

I don't find the crop factor much much smaller at all. I shoot motorsport and wildlife and find it very useful getting more pixels on the subject and means less crop, bigger prints. At 560mm on FF with the 1.4 you limited to one AF point and F8 focusing, with the 7DMKII you have all available at F5.6 and 640mm and in a pinch you can use the 1.4 to get 896mm. I have been out testing both side by side and the 7D gets you significantly closer with the same lens with minimal penalty. DOF for wildlife is always helpful and the crop has that on its side too which is often overlooked. F5.6 isn't ideal for low light wildlife images but at the same time gives you the equivalent of F9 on FF, so if you add that to FF you will be shooting an extra stop in ISO. You can get lovely images with shallow dof but to get a whole subject in focus with FF can be a challenge in low light.

With the 1DX and 5DMKIII using 400mm your forever cropping for birding and wildlife which is why most pros who use the 1DX use big whites with extenders so they don't have to crop (especially for wildlife not so much for sports) 18mp doesn't give much room to crop and make large prints but with the big lenses its not an issue. For most people 400mm just isn't long enough, unless your in a blind or your skills of approach are incredibly good. Cropping a 400mm into 600mm is a fairly substantial crop and yes the light gathering is better but there are less pixels on the subject. Its a fine line that all have to decide on.

Fortunately we both have the ability to choose and obviously youve got the 1DX too so it always makes the 7D last choice. The pro bodies are made for the long lenses and most that can afford the pro bodies will already have the lenses. In this case the best way to get reach and speed is the 7D.

The fact is the 7D is a huge amount of camera for the money for a fraction of the price of a FF camera, it has all the benefits of the 5DMKIII just without the very high ISO capability. The 7D is also half the price of the 5DMKIII and 1/6th the 1DX. The 7D is pretty much king of the crop as an overall package atm.

If it were me and I had to start again with a budget, I would head straight toward the 5DMKIII and buy the best lenses I could afford because its the best all rounder Canon make, then as money goes I would add a 70D because its a great camera for the price, if the budget stretches more I would buy a 7DMKII without hesitation. In an ideal world for the OPs situation both FF and crop would prove useful but it also depends whether your making money shooting, if you are great buy both and your work will have much more option and allow shooting in more situations with less compromise.

If not then 70D is great alternative.

 

[AlanF]

Tom, as usual I agree with everything you write. But, one drawback of the 70D is that it doesn't have the spot AF of the 7DII that is so useful in selecting a small bird against a crowded background. I traded in the 70D when the 7DII came out driven by annoyance of the lack of spot AF.

 

[Sportsgal501]

I picked up an SL1 over the summer because I got a good deal on a used 24mm prime lens f/2.8 IS USM and wasn't getting the results I wanted from my 40D or 50D.
Better picture quality than my (compact) Canon G16 and Fuji X10 for when I want to carry something light.
But if I had to take one (cameras I own so far) for a quick assignment it would be my Pentax K-5IIs

I've taken a few action sports shots with it and as long as you know what you shooting,I've captured great photographs with the SL1.

Get the Canon 7D Mark II if you have outgrowned the SL1 but keep it for those days you want to carry something light.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I picked up an SL1 over the summer because I got a good deal on a used 24mm prime lens f/2.8 IS USM and wasn't getting the results I wanted from my 40D or 50D.
Better picture quality than my (compact) Canon G16 and Fuji X10 for when I want to carry something light.
But if I had to take one (cameras I own so far) for a quick assignment it would be my Pentax K-5IIs

I've taken a few action sports shots with it and as long as you know what you shooting,I've captured great photographs with the SL1.

Get the Canon 7D Mark II if you have outgrowned the SL1 but keep it for those days you want to carry something light.

I've considered a Pentax from time to time for more rugged / weather resistant gear. What are your thoughts on it? I haven't ever jumped because I don't want to build another system from scratch. But I'm still intrigued, esp since some of the controls/features looked pretty cool. There is definitely a strong Pentax following out there.

 

[greger]

Get the 7Dll. I looked at your pics on your website. I like the pic of the Heron in flight as well as your other pics. The
7Dll will be really good for BIF. I am not interested in Full Frame as crop gives me the extra reach I want. Good luck on making your choice.

 

[Sportsgal501]

I picked up an SL1 over the summer because I got a good deal on a used 24mm prime lens f/2.8 IS USM and wasn't getting the results I wanted from my 40D or 50D.
Better picture quality than my (compact) Canon G16 and Fuji X10 for when I want to carry something light.
But if I had to take one (cameras I own so far) for a quick assignment it would be my Pentax K-5IIs

I've taken a few action sports shots with it and as long as you know what you shooting,I've captured great photographs with the SL1.

Get the Canon 7D Mark II if you have outgrowned the SL1 but keep it for those days you want to carry something light.

I've considered a Pentax from time to time for more rugged / weather resistant gear. What are your thoughts on it? I haven't ever jumped because I don't want to build another system from scratch. But I'm still intrigued, esp since some of the controls/features looked pretty cool. There is definitely a strong Pentax following out there.

Hi Rusty!
I started with a Ricoh 35mm back in high school so I still have a few old lens that can fit the pentax just have to use 'em in manual.
It's as durable as you can get,there are a "few" weather resistant Pentax lens but I believe it shines with its legacy lens on the k-mount.

Only issue it has is the auto focus which is not on par with Canon,Nikon, Sony as far as tracking so even with the 7.5 FPS if you have no understanding of the action your shooting instead of relying on your own expertise,it can leave you fit to be tied.

Although the K-3 or K-3 Mark II is a few notches better.

It's my assignment camera but after playing with the Olympus OMD E5 Mark II all weekend at Photo Plus Expo,I will be trading the last two Canon bodies taking up space and a couple of lenses around the black Friday sales week for it.

 

[MJ]

As requested, my current lenses are the following:

APSC -EF-S 24mm f2.8 STM (Pancake), my main walk around lens, love the FoV, size/weight...
-EF-S 55-250mm IS STM, my super discrete telephoto, great for smuggling into concerts 8)

FF -EF 40mm f2.8 STM (Pancake), on crop not my favorite FoV, but acquired to supplement my 24mm pancake on an eventual full frame body.
-EF 100mm f2.8L IS Macro, used seldom, but always happy with the photos and its relatively compact size + weight
-EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, my very first serious photographic acquisition, even though not as often used anymore since the introduction of...
-EF 100-400mm L II, my main wildlife lens, usually without teleconverter (have both 1.4 & 2x)


Previously owned, now sold lenses:
-18-55mm kit lens (very useful at the beginning to get your feet wet and test out stuff)
-85mm f1.8 USM (nice, compact lens but the CA on my unit really annoyed me)

Possible/future lens investment IF I deceit to go fullframe is a speedlight and 35mm f2 IS or 35mm f1.4L I or II, depending on the prices


...as you can see I definitely followed the good old rule of buying quality glass first ;D



-------------------------------------
WOW!

I'm blown away by the friendly, great tips and input of everybody! This is really a unique forum of creatives, professionals and tech savvy people alike!

------------------------------

From here are responses concerning comments on page one:​

@Maximilian:
Thank you for your input and thoughts!!!
I really like your setup of a 5D3 and SL1 as second body. That kind of gives you the best of both worlds. Thank you also for your experiences on both of these as well!

@ajfotofilmagem:
Yes, the 70D looks like a nice option, but I'm afraid I wouldn't perceive it 'that much of an upgrade' from my current SL1. I'm ready to be blown away
...and that approx. 1 stop better of the 7D II also sounds tasty.


@turbo1168:
Yes, The 6D is a very neat camera I just tested this weekend
Though the autofocus system (except for center) is underwhelming - being used the 9point system...
Having just recently learned about 'back button focusing' - a great skill to acquire!!! - the limited AF does now not seem so unattractive anymore, even if sometimes would require a bit more of proper technique than the fancier AF systems and a spray 'n pray approach other cameras might invite.
I really like the 6D for its weight and GPS (WiFi is neat, but I didn't get to test that one) for I was lucky enough to borrow this camera paired with a 35L (version 1) is capable of some darn good images!


@Random Orbits:
Hmm.... Budget...
If I would come across the chance of buying a refurb 5D III at 1,525 USD - I would bite the bullet and just get that one with my last savings. Unfortunately I missed that sale frenzy over at the Canon online shop the other day (see canonpricewatch).
Otherwise for a 6D/7D I'd be willing to pay <900 USD, but would be also willing to wait a little for such prices to arrive.
Since I don't currently own a single CF card I'd likely hold of on investing in those whether Canon will still implement them in their upcoming camera generation.
The C-modes seem to be a really nifty thing! I could definitely see a wildlife/bird setup, one for discrete street photography and one for lowlight/party photos... Great stuff!


@tomscott:
Thanks Tom, Will check out your post over at the other thread as well! That picture surely looks clean at IS 2000.
I didn't know that focus/recompose with >f3.5 is so difficult, but makes sense...
For some reason I feel that a combination of 7D II / 5D III would also be a killer combo - but at WHAT PRICE?!

@wsmith96:
Size/weight wise this little camera is fantastic! My lenses all outweigh my camera body, except for the two pancakes
The area I'd like it to be better is general image quality, handling low light and snappier AF... which to me kind of sounds like 5D III.
For wildlife I often find myself still being reach-limited with the 100-400 II on crop, but everything above that is incredibly outlandish priced for now

@Don Haines:
I agree to all of your points and also have to add that the 6D I tested also seemed like a pretty well built camera!
The larger bodies are heavier but ergonomically (for my large hands) also very comfortable to handhold with a medium-sized prime.


@StoneColdCoffee:
You are right, all the additional accessories like batteries, grips, casings and flashes (for the full frame models) is not to underestimate. Gosh!


@turbo1168:
Though lot of professionals consider a swiveling touch screen, GPS + WiFi as something that belongs into a consumer/enthusiast level body, but I wish those features were present in the higher end bodies (7D, 5DIII as well). And that little pop up flash on the 7D also makes a valuable asset at times IMHO.


@unfocused:
Thank you for your shared experience. Especially interesting sound the 7D II noise handling...


@FEBS:
I kind of have the feeling that both APSC + FF together is better than an 'either one solution' in my special case (60/40)


@BigAntTVProductions:
I agree on the first picture since that one is a lot to handle for the AF, but the other two I'm not so sure... though I have to say I still have to learn a lot about portrait photography - especially using strobes and external flash/light.


@derrald:
Hi Derrald, The area I'd like it to be better is general image quality, handling low light and snappier AF... which to me kind of sounds like 5D III.
I looked at your beautiful landscape work and imagine your 5DIII has been around with you for a while.
And what you say about SL1 having a fantastic price/performance ratio I totally agree. Especially paired with proper glass and technique this little 'sleeper' of a camera is able to do quite some damage!


....responses to comments from page 2 & 3 will follow soon!

 

[Maximilian]

As requested, my current lenses are the following:

APSC -EF-S 24mm f2.8 STM (Pancake), my main walk around lens, love the FoV, size/weight...
-EF-S 55-250mm IS STM, my super discrete telephoto, great for smuggling into concerts 8)

FF -EF 40mm f2.8 STM (Pancake), on crop not my favorite FoV, but acquired to supplement my 24mm pancake on an eventual full frame body.
-EF 100mm f2.8L IS Macro, used seldom, but always happy with the photos and its relatively compact size + weight
-EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS II, my very first serious photographic acquisition, even though not as often used anymore since the introduction of...
-EF 100-400mm L II, my main wildlife lens, usually without teleconverter (have both 1.4 & 2x)

With this setup of lenses (compliment, well picked) of course my comment on geting good glass first is obsolete.
So now it's up to you to decide, if and which camera suits your purposes best.

The only thing for you to keep in mind is to look at good camera kits, e.g. the 5D3 together with the 24-105L.
I'd personally miss such a allrounder lens. If you have your eye on a 24-70L II then of course better go for that.

Have fun with whatever will be your decission

 

[Random Orbits]

@Random Orbits:
Hmm.... Budget...
If I would come across the chance of buying a refurb 5D III at 1,525 USD - I would bite the bullet and just get that one with my last savings. Unfortunately I missed that sale frenzy over at the Canon online shop the other day (see canonpricewatch).
Otherwise for a 6D/7D I'd be willing to pay <900 USD, but would be also willing to wait a little for such prices to arrive.
Since I don't currently own a single CF card I'd likely hold of on investing in those whether Canon will still implement them in their upcoming camera generation.
The C-modes seem to be a really nifty thing! I could definitely see a wildlife/bird setup, one for discrete street photography and one for lowlight/party photos... Great stuff!

You've got great glass, so either 7DII or 5DIII will be great choices. I've been using the 5DIII for a few years, and it's a great camera. I just picked the 7DII during the refurb sales glitch for 871 based on the hearty recommendations of AlanF and TomScott. I'll be using it primarily in good light for kids soccer and to serve as a backup. I do wish that I had the camera this past summer while we were up in Maine. There was a pair of loons with two baby chicks that sat on the mother's back. I had the 5DIII + 1.4x + 100-400 II and it still wasn't enough to avoid the severe crop. Having choices is good!

 

[Zanken]

I think that you should keep the SL1 for discrete shooting and sneaky concerts, and pickup whatever body your budget will allow. A second hand 7D goes for fairly cheap - even better if you have friends, borrow one and see if you are happy with the image quality of the older gen model.

In other news, the thought of a 100D paired with a 100-400L is making me giggle.