7D II vs SL1/100D?

[MJ]

Before I get lynched daring to compare these two bodies please consider this:

I learned DSLR photography on my reliable little SL1/100D, but I feel I somehow 'outgrew' this little gem...

What I like to photograph:
-(40%) Animals/Wildlife
-(25%) People/Street photography, available light, no flash
-(25%) Events/Music Concert photography, in dim-lit environments
-(10%) some still life landscape, architectural and sports

...some of my work is accessible via www.michaeljohannsen.com


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


The 7D's auto focus and fps of the larger body are both incredible. Also handling noise at higher ISO levels is better too, though I rarely dare to go beyond 800.

Given its size & weight, the 7D II is very similar to the 5D III, but that is a full frame camera.


What this boils down to: How much of an upgrade is the 7D II from a SL1/100D?

Is the 7D II really worth it if I already have a fair APSC-body, or am I better served with a 5D III?

 

[Maximilian]

Hi MJ!

I have no personal experience with the 7D2 but I own the 100D and the 5D3, so here I can compare.

I won't start a FF hymn of praise because I don't think this to be of any help here.
FF has advantages and disadvantages as APS-C, too. And you'll have to consider lenses and other things needed as well, too.

So I try look at the 5D3 not as FF body but as pro/enthuisast body compared to a 100D beeing an entry market body or (like mine) a compact second body.

Advantages of 100D:
+ size, weight => easier to carry, less intrusive
+ prize
+ easy use

Advantages of 7D2 or 5D3:
+ better reliability as of built, weather sealing
+ much better AF system, if you get used to it, but also more complex and not so easy to understand
+ higher fps, important only at fast motions or onetime situations
+ AFMA, important for big (open) apertures; you'll get the best out of your equipment - if you do it right

So...

What this boils down to: How much of an upgrade is the 7D II from a SL1/100D?

I'd say it'll be a lot esp. if you can benefit from the AF system. This will open a whole new word to you, IMHO.

Is the 7D II really worth it if I already have a fair APSC-body, or am I better served with a 5D III?

Not easy to answer, just take a look at all the FF vs. APS-C threads here and elsewhere.
And you must take into account what will be needed as secondary acquisition,
e.g. you already have a really good EF-S 17-55 f2.8 then you'll need at least a 24-105L if not a 24-70 f2.8 L II.
Or if you are used to 300 mm or more at APS-C for wildlife you'll be longing for 400 mm or more at FF - and that'll get expensive.

My conclusion:
- Make your thoughts of going FF or not.
50% people, street (low DOF) and concert (high ISO) point towards that.
But APS-C will do almost as well
If your heart's more at the 40% wildlife, maybe APS-C is the better compromise
- then think about the lenses you already have and you might/will need.

My advice to you (not knowing your equipment):
IMHO you should spend your money on good glass first and later get the better body.
(Of course don't buy EF-S if you're planning to go FF)
If you think, you already have all the lenses you'll need or can afford, please tell us as it makes a recommendation easier.

I hope this can help you.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

It's the kind of thing that can be seen in two ways:

The glass is half full of wine.
The glass is half empty wine.

Image quality can be as good in 7D mark ii in ISO1600, as you like in your SL1 in ISO800. It's not a huge difference, but in dark environments, can be the difference between a decent picture and a good shot.

For fast-moving objects, your hit rate should increase significantly with 7D Mark II.

If you are unsure about the size and weight, think about 70D, which would be a happy medium between your current camera and your desire to camera.

 

[turbo1168]

I know this isn't what you asked, however, might also consider the 6D, full frame without the 5d3 cost, also less $ than the 7D2. Not as many frames per second as the 5D3 or 7D2, but still much faster than the SL1. Low light performance blows the pants off the crop sensor cameras, quite pleased with mine so far. Downside is the autofocus system isn't as good as others, however I only use center point and recompose, so not an issue for me.

 

[Random Orbits]

It really comes down to cost. What is your budget and what lenses do you have for APS-C and FF?

It also comes down to how much the 7DII will cost you. You'll be able to use all your current lenses, have slightly better IQ, much better AF, dual card slots and access to C modes. Much has been said of the AF and advantages of AFMA on higher end bodies with fast glass, but I find the C modes so useful. It allows you to configure your camera quickly for the scenarios that you shoot often. Want a set of settings (AF servo, high speed continuous, back-button focus, auto ISO) for sports and another for portraits (spot AF, silent shutter)? If you have enough funds to only upgrade the body (and not lenses), then the 7DII is a good upgrade for you to improve your skills. You'll be able to use higher ISOs and take advantage of a better AF system. Using the 7DII to most of its capabilities will give you a lot more capability than the SL1.

 

[tomscott]

The difference between the 18mp and 20mp sensor in the 7DII vs the 100D is vast IMO.

Check out the little write up I wrote on your 5DSR Vs 7DMKII thread about the 7DMKII.

Im happy to shoot with the 7DMKII up to 4000ISO its sensor is IMO a huge upgrade and has really caught the 5DMKIII up.

Heres a shot I took at the weekend at 2000ISO

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

The AF system is incredible all cross type points sensitive to 5.6 and the points cover nearly the whole viewfinder so you can track things like no tomorrow my hit rate is much higher than my 5DMKIII. If your using any medium end zoom like a 100-400mm or a prime like the 400mm F5.6 this AF was made for them. Any lens with a max aperture of 5.6 its amazing. The 5DMKIIIs AF system was geared up to faster glass with sensitivity to F2.8 so if your using glass that isn't its not a quick.

The basis is that some cameras are better than others, if you shoot sports or wildlife 7DMKII, shoot portraits for DOF, wedding with crazy variable light, or low light shooting the 5DMKIII is the camera for you. If your shooting street then I would chose a smaller more discrete camera with a 35mm or 50mm focal length. For Landscape 7DMKII and 5DMKII will give you great results.

The 7DMKII is excellent in low light too, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot weddings with it although you don't get the same look as FF, its a great second camera.

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.

 

[wsmith96]

Could you describe the area's you feel that you've outgrown your SL1? This would help me to provide the appropriate feedback. Your SL1 is a very convenient size, but the 5D and 7D are both much larger and heavier. This may not be a big deal for you though.

 

[Don Haines]

MUCH better high ISO performance

MUCH better AF performance

The noise in the shadows is greatly reduced....

The extra controls and the shoulder display makes it a lot easier to get out of auto modes....

I really like anti-flicker when shooting indoors without flash.....

and don't forget weather sealing.... the 7D2 is built like a tank... this will help get you out in conditions where lesser cameras stay home where it is warm and dry.....

Cons: It is heavier and costs more

 

[StoneColdCoffee]

in short... Yes.

I had a SL1 for awhile. I was really excited about having a smaller camera that I could carry around like a point and shoot. After some use I realized that it was mainly a "daytime" camera. So basically anything you upgrade to will be better. the T family is great. My 5D2 was much better than it, so you could even go budget and do better. the 5D3's are really coming down as are the 7D2s. sounds as if you are leaning towards the 7D , so you have choices to make on lenses with the aps-c.
I also have a 6D. That is better than the 5D2 and I love it out at night astro (but probably not street at night for the focus). Ill get a 6D2 when it comes out. Also remember that along with the body is all the accessories. (battery grip, new flash in some cases, lens choices) The one nice thing has been the battery has stayed the same. And the 2800Mah ones from china have been great.
good luck, hope you get some great shots with the new body

 

[turbo1168]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[unfocused]

I can only speak to my experience with the 7DI, 5DIII, 70D and 7DII.

I've found the 7DII to be a huge upgrade from the original 7D (which has the same sensor as the SL1). I rarely shot the 7DI over ISO 800 and even at 800, I was disappointed in the results.

I bought a 7DII because I needed to shoot sports and have found it amazing (although I'm still learning the autofocus -- thanks for the link Tom Scott, btw.) I now use it for all sports and birding. I use the 5DIII for everything else. I can push the ISO on the 7DII up to very close to the same levels I can use on the 5D (ISO 1600, 3200 or if needed 64,000) and the results are very usable, even with cropping.

If you want noise-free images at those levels, it won't provide that. But the difference is the quality of the noise. Noise from the 7DII just looks better than it did with the old 18mp 7D sensor. It has a much more film-like quality to it -- like grain from Tri-X.

That, combined with the excellent autofocus and high frame rate has made it my go-to body for action shooting.

The summary of the three bodies I still have:

70D: Great for video. If you want high-quality video on a budget, the 70D with its touch and tilt screen and dual pixel autofocus, combined with the 18-135mm STM lens (which has special video stabilization at the wide end) is pretty stellar for the money.

7DII: Great for any kind of action. It is with good reason that many refer to it as an APS-C sensor version of the 1Dx.

5DIII: The workhorse, all-around camera that is great for high quality images in almost any lighting condition.

Any of these will be a noticeable upgrade from the SL1 and any of them can serve as your all-purpose camera giving you great images.

A lot of people push full frame, but much of that can be confirmation bias (having invested heavily in full frame equipment, they are hesitant to admit that the difference in quality is really rather small and only shows up at the extremes)

I use both and I wouldn't give up either. I can heartily recommend the 7DII as an huge upgrade in image quality from any of the previous generation of APS-C cameras.

 

[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.

 

[Big_Ant_TV_Media]

the SL1 cant give u these shots thats for sure
_W9A2583-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr
_W9A2416-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr
_W9A2351-1 by Bigz Ant, on Flickr

 

[derrald]

MJ,

Before I provide my 2 cents I guess my question is why do you feel you have outgrown the SL1?

I own the SL1 and it's made quite a few of salable images for me and it would help to know this.

The only thing I'll mention is that I own the 70D, 7D Mark II, 5D Mark II, and 5Ds R and they all have they're pros and cons. Dollar for dollar, however, the SL1 and 70D have provided the most profit for my expense.

 

[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.

 

[Don Haines]

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 have the Tamron 150-600 and it will AF quite well.

and yes.... talking about a £10000 lens for a budget shooter does not make much sense. If you are birding or after other critters, you can never have a long enough lens.... The ultimate in AFFORDABLE distance is one of the 150-600's (Sigma or Tamron) and a 7D2...

An example is this Dunlin, shot wide open at 600mm with a 7D2 and Tamron 150-600 (cropped to half size). At 14 times the price, a 600F4 would give you better feather detail.

 

[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 have the Tamron 150-600 and it will AF quite well.

and yes.... talking about a £10000 lens for a budget shooter does not make much sense. If you are birding or after other critters, you can never have a long enough lens.... The ultimate in AFFORDABLE distance is one of the 150-600's (Sigma or Tamron) and a 7D2...

An example is this Dunlin, shot wide open at 600mm with a 7D2 and Tamron 150-600 (cropped to half size). At 14 times the price, a 600F4 would give you better feather detail.

AF's fine for still subjects like you have posted but as soon as they start to move <40% hit rate at 600mm i shot multiple test runs, af mode 2 BB focus 1/2000th ai servo and found the results identical almost every time, at 400 its performs very well but you don't buy a lens like that to use cap it at 400mm. If the birds move horizontally and not too erratically its not too bad but barely any birds fly like that. It doesn't leave you much room to pic a good image in a sequence for artistic selection. Just written a comprehensive review of the Tamron I had in the third party section. It seems to AF, but not tak like a mm out, when it hits its amazing really impressive sharpness for still subjects but I found if your used to decent L glass the AF performance was a bit underwhelming especially when the aperture moves to F6.3 out of the parameters of the AF system. I was very happy with the sharpness but it felt so sluggish and you can't just pic it up and shoot you have to think about what your doing. With the Sigma its reaches F6.3 at 388mm making it the slowest of the bunch and the Tamron at 428mm. On a crop camera I found the tammy to be really soft too. you can get fantastic images from it but I much prefer the Canon lenses.

If bang for buck is what you want I wouldn't hesitate to recommend but if its BIF you shoot most I would push people in other directions. The 400mm Prime and MKII 100-400 is sharper even cropped but obviously you loose the resolution which is why the 7DMKII with either of the above is such a great combo. Add a 1.4x and it gets you nearly 900mm for those times in a pinch and its still sharper than the 150-600mm at 600mm on a 5DMKIII. The above image is a lovely pic but the Tamron with a crop body is soft.

Here is the thread if your interested
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27574.0

 

[Don Haines]

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 have the Tamron 150-600 and it will AF quite well.

and yes.... talking about a £10000 lens for a budget shooter does not make much sense. If you are birding or after other critters, you can never have a long enough lens.... The ultimate in AFFORDABLE distance is one of the 150-600's (Sigma or Tamron) and a 7D2...

An example is this Dunlin, shot wide open at 600mm with a 7D2 and Tamron 150-600 (cropped to half size). At 14 times the price, a 600F4 would give you better feather detail.

AF's fine for still subjects like you have posted but as soon as they start to move <40% hit rate at 600mm i shot multiple test runs, af mode 2 BB focus 1/2000th ai servo and found the results identical almost every time, at 400 its performs very well but you don't buy a lens like that to use cap it at 400mm. If the birds move horizontally and not too erratically its not too bad but barely any birds fly like that. It doesn't leave you much room to pic a good image in a sequence for artistic selection. Just written a comprehensive review of the Tamron I had in the third party section. It seems to AF, but not tak like a mm out, when it hits its amazing really impressive sharpness for still subjects but I found if your used to decent L glass the AF performance was a bit underwhelming especially when the aperture moves to F6.3 out of the parameters of the AF system. I was very happy with the sharpness but it felt so sluggish and you can't just pic it up and shoot you have to think about what your doing. With the Sigma its reaches F6.3 at 388mm making it the slowest of the bunch and the Tamron at 428mm. On a crop camera I found the tammy to be really soft too. you can get fantastic images from it but I much prefer the Canon lenses.

If bang for buck is what you want I wouldn't hesitate to recommend but if its BIF you shoot most I would push people in other directions. The 400mm Prime and MKII 100-400 is sharper even cropped but obviously you loose the resolution which is why the 7DMKII with either of the above is such a great combo. Add a 1.4x and it gets you nearly 900mm for those times in a pinch and its still sharper than the 150-600mm at 600mm on a 5DMKIII. The above image is a lovely pic but the Tamron with a crop body is soft.

Here is the thread if your interested
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27574.0

The 7D2 and the 150-600 is the budget way to get reach.... For another $1500 you can use the 100-400 version 2. My tests show that is superior to the Tammy even with teleconverter.... and at the shorter focal lengths absolutely no comparison. I found that the 100-400 version 2 will AF faster and more accurately.

When I got my Tammy, there was no version 2 of the 100-400 and the performance of it seemed to be on par with a slight IQ advantage to the Tammy, but Tammy all the way compared to the version 1 with teleconverter. The version 2 changes everything! If I were to buy now, I would forget the 150-600's and spend the extra money on the 100-400 version 2

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Actually the SL1 has impressed me even in action shooting situations. Is it as good as a 7D or 5D-caliber camera? No, but it hasn't prevented me from getting some really cool shots...

Having used both cameras, the biggest difference to me is the ability to customize the 7D focus system. If you do move up, expect a big learning curve...results definitely do not come immediately (at least that wasn't the case for me).