Dilemma: Need new body by May 1st (7d alternatives/successor timeline?)

[wickidwombat]

Wow. Thank you everyone for your well-considered, courteous replies. As a first-poster, I'm loving this community's well-reasoned arguments.

The sturdiness and size of the 7D have ultimately won me over. I'm a bigger guy and the camera just feels better put-together. I intend to use the remainder of my budget to go after some L glass (likely the 35 1.4) to build a foundation for moving to FF sometime in the future.

Thanks again everyone for your input.

seriously I think you are making a mistake, it's a low light pig not much good past iso 1600 and that with heavy post processing and maybe 3200 at a stretch. not to mention the poor low iso IQ

I know there ia a big 7D fan club but seriously don't fall for it. The image quality is not good, it's one thing to defend something you own but to recommend someone buys it when it is comon knowledge to be severly flawed i just not nice.

the 6D is a much much much better choice, new borns need to stay in darker rooms when my lil girl was born i think 3200 would have been the lowest iso i was shooting at maybe a few down at 1600 if i was using the 85 f1.4 at these iso values the images out of the 7D are going to be very very below average with full frame they are great.

also get the sigma 35mm f1.4 its half the price of the 35mm L and its better too

another option much better than a 7D would be a 5Dmk2

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

To me, it sounds like you want to take some nice pictures, but are not really into photography.

Go back to the OP's original post and reread it.
"I've shot with Canon cameras my entire life starting with an Elan back in the 90's. A few years back I went digital with a 20D and the FANTASTIC EF-S 17-55 2.8. The 20D body was destroyed a year or so ago and I've been making do with a Canon point and shoot since then.
"

 

[Dylan777]

Wow. Thank you everyone for your well-considered, courteous replies. As a first-poster, I'm loving this community's well-reasoned arguments.

The sturdiness and size of the 7D have ultimately won me over. I'm a bigger guy and the camera just feels better put-together. I intend to use the remainder of my budget to go after some L glass (likely the 35 1.4) to build a foundation for moving to FF sometime in the future.

Thanks again everyone for your input.

seriously I think you are making a mistake, it's a low light pig not much good past iso 1600 and that with heavy post processing and maybe 3200 at a stretch. not to mention the poor low iso IQ

I know there ia a big 7D fan club but seriously don't fall for it. The image quality is not good, it's one thing to defend something you own but to recommend someone buys it when it is comon knowledge to be severly flawed i just not nice.

the 6D is a much much much better choice, new borns need to stay in darker rooms when my lil girl was born i think 3200 would have been the lowest iso i was shooting at maybe a few down at 1600 if i was using the 85 f1.4 at these iso values the images out of the 7D are going to be very very below average with full frame they are great.

also get the sigma 35mm f1.4 its half the price of the 35mm L and its better too

another option much better than a 7D would be a 5Dmk2

+1 with wickidwombat....many of us(including myself) had made this mistake :-\

 

[preppyak]

I'm with the non-renting crowd but disagree with the 7D crowd also. If you were used to a 20D, & then a P&S, just pick up a refurb rebel direct from Canon & you will see a significant improvement in your shots. If you want video, the T3i (the digital zoom on that model is nice) is a fairly good deal

Agreed, as someone who owns a 20D and 60D, the 60D is a very nice step up in terms of usability and user experience. And I much prefer the images. If the OP is a larger guy, a 60D would work better than a T2i/T3i, and the price difference is negligible anymore.

The AF on my 60D has no problem with moderate action sports, and I don't know of any baby under the age of 2-3 that moves faster than that. And I can't imagine you'll be taking your baby out in the rain, snow, wind, sand, etc...so, the real advantages of the 7D are wasted in that scenario. Personally, I'd save the $400 or so and get a nice lens instead

 

[BrettS]

Additional $0.02... I was coming from a 30D... lots of time spent researching... decided upon 6D. Would have gone 5DIII, can afford to, but just could not justify the additional clams.

There have been many other good suggestions (e.g. new or used xxD). But in the end - take pictures. That's what it's all about. I'm sure that Ansel Adams would have been overjoyed with an EOS-10D.

 

[TAF]

• Sell the 17-55 making a 6d with the 24-105 kit lens in my price range

That is the approach I would take. You'll never regret going FF; the 6D is an excellent camera with great low light capability (think of all the birthday parties), and the 24-105L is a fine lens.

Since you understand that this is likely the only camera upgrade for a very long time, make the most of it.

 

[bseitz234]

also get the sigma 35mm f1.4 its half the price of the 35mm L and its better too

Ignoring the body-choice stuff (I love my 7d, and have been quite happy with the IQ:$$ ratio, but I'm also usually in pretty good light), I would get behind this recommendation of the sigma 35 over the 35L. Sharper, great colors, reviews all say the AF is as good as the 35L (never used the canon, so can't comment personally), etc etc.

 

[Don Haines]

You have a budget of $2000 and you already have th 17-55 f2.8...... probably the best "normal" range EF-S lens Canon has ever built.

If you are going to go FF, there is no way you are going to get a body and lens that will deliver better overall performance than ANY current crop camera with the 17-55 and stay within your $2000 budget.... so the question is which crop?

Realisticly, IQ will be fairly close to the same from Rebel to 7D.... but when you go to 60D or 7D you get the shoulder display and controls.... very nice if you do not shoot in automatic modes. Go to the 7D and you get a far superior focus system.

Personally, I believe that the ability to focus is far more important than ISO, dynamic range, megapixels, and all the other features and modes that cameras are choked with. You can't beat an in-focus picture with a sharp lens..... and that's what the 7D and the 17-55 will give you.... and it should only take half of your budget to do so.

 

[Dylan777]

You have a budget of $2000 and you already have th 17-55 f2.8...... probably the best "normal" range EF-S lens Canon has ever built.

If you are going to go FF, there is no way you are going to get a body and lens that will deliver better overall performance than ANY current crop camera with the 17-55 and stay within your $2000 budget.... so the question is which crop?

Realisticly, IQ will be fairly close to the same from Rebel to 7D.... but when you go to 60D or 7D you get the shoulder display and controls.... very nice if you do not shoot in automatic modes. Go to the 7D and you get a far superior focus system.

Personally, I believe that the ability to focus is far more important than ISO, dynamic range, megapixels, and all the other features and modes that cameras are choked with. You can't beat an in-focus picture with a sharp lens..... and that's what the 7D and the 17-55 will give you.... and it should only take half of your budget to do so.

Keep in mind, when taking photo of baby PLEASE try to keep your shutter speed @ min 1/80. I prefer 1/125. 7D + 17-55 f2.8 lens indoor, you looking at 1600ISO here. And we all know how 1600ISO looks like for 7D :'(

Unless the OP plans to get a flash and bounce it.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

also get the sigma 35mm f1.4 its half the price of the 35mm L and its better too

Ignoring the body-choice stuff (I love my 7d, and have been quite happy with the IQ:$$ ratio, but I'm also usually in pretty good light), I would get behind this recommendation of the sigma 35 over the 35L. Sharper, great colors, reviews all say the AF is as good as the 35L (never used the canon, so can't comment personally), etc etc.

It's a shame when so many people that admittedly never have used the 35L is recommending 3rd party alternatives. I've myself never used the Sigma, but the 35L is a top notch lens. Not cheap, but it has a proven performance and quality record over 14 years which the Sigma doesn't.

You have a budget of $2000 and you already have th 17-55 f2.8...... probably the best "normal" range EF-S lens Canon has ever built.

If you are going to go FF, there is no way you are going to get a body and lens that will deliver better overall performance than ANY current crop camera with the 17-55 and stay within your $2000 budget.... so the question is which crop?

Realisticly, IQ will be fairly close to the same from Rebel to 7D.... but when you go to 60D or 7D you get the shoulder display and controls.... very nice if you do not shoot in automatic modes. Go to the 7D and you get a far superior focus system.

Personally, I believe that the ability to focus is far more important than ISO, dynamic range, megapixels, and all the other features and modes that cameras are choked with. You can't beat an in-focus picture with a sharp lens..... and that's what the 7D and the 17-55 will give you.... and it should only take half of your budget to do so.

Completely agree. Not much to hesitate about.

 

[bseitz234]

also get the sigma 35mm f1.4 its half the price of the 35mm L and its better too

Ignoring the body-choice stuff (I love my 7d, and have been quite happy with the IQ:$$ ratio, but I'm also usually in pretty good light), I would get behind this recommendation of the sigma 35 over the 35L. Sharper, great colors, reviews all say the AF is as good as the 35L (never used the canon, so can't comment personally), etc etc.

It's a shame when so many people that admittedly never have used the 35L is recommending 3rd party alternatives. I've myself never used the Sigma, but the 35L is a top notch lens. Not cheap, but it has a proven performance and quality record over 14 years which the Sigma doesn't.

Never said it wasn't- the point is that sigma has caught up, and the Σ35 is now every bit a top notch lens, for $900 new...

 

[rpt]

as babys are not crawling that fast and image quality is the same, why not buy a cheaper 550D (maybe used) and update later?

the AF from the 7D is more or less wasted on baby shots.

and when the 7D MK2 is released or the 70D you can still decide if you want to upgrade.

the 550D and kit lens is quite good for baby shots:

The captions for your lovely pictures are:

The first pic (lovely smile):
Yay! I am a star! Go on, don't stop. Keep it clicking...

The second pic (lovely expression):
Oh dear! He is doing that again! Why does he cover his face with that strange black thing and make those strange clicking noises?

 

[Random Orbits]

also get the sigma 35mm f1.4 its half the price of the 35mm L and its better too

Ignoring the body-choice stuff (I love my 7d, and have been quite happy with the IQ:$$ ratio, but I'm also usually in pretty good light), I would get behind this recommendation of the sigma 35 over the 35L. Sharper, great colors, reviews all say the AF is as good as the 35L (never used the canon, so can't comment personally), etc etc.

It's a shame when so many people that admittedly never have used the 35L is recommending 3rd party alternatives. I've myself never used the Sigma, but the 35L is a top notch lens. Not cheap, but it has a proven performance and quality record over 14 years which the Sigma doesn't.

Never said it wasn't- the point is that sigma has caught up, and the Σ35 is now every bit a top notch lens, for $900 new...

I'm glad that Sigma has been able to supass a lens that was designed 15 years ago. It will put some (if not much) price pressure on Canon's 35L replacement, and that is a good thing. I also think that the 24-70 II will be the prime competitor to the 35L II. According to TDP, the 24-70 II at 35mm is better than the Sigma 35 at f/2.8, and I would expect primes to beat zooms when compared within the same generation.

It also remains to be seen how well Sigma can adapt when/if Canon decides to change how it does AF in future bodies. Some people have been caught with lenses that will no longer work with newer cameras. Is that risk worth the 28% cost difference (in the US)? That's up to the individual users. If I already didn't have the 35L, then I would definitely consider the Sigma. Given that I already have the 35L, the slightly better IQ of the Sigma does not compel me to switch (and incur the transaction costs). It will be interesting to see how Canon responds to Sigma's new offering because I can imagine that Sigma is taking a big bite out of the 35L's sales.

 

[digitalride]

Before my second son was born I got a 60D and 18-135 and 50 1.8, and I'm very glad I did. If I were in your situation I would:

1. absolutely get a real flash that can be bounced. Natural lighting and wide apertures are great when possible, but especially after the kids are mobile a flash bounced off the ceiling is crucial
2. get a faster lens than 2.8 on crop - I think the shallow depth of field really makes a difference if you want your photos to look better than the average snapshot
3. go full frame - now is your chance! A 6D + 24-105 + 85 1.8 + 430 flash might be close to your budget if you sell your current zoom and shop wisely. If you had to leave something out maybe I'd leave out the 24-105 and add a 40 2.8 and then use a point and shoot for things where you needed other focal lengths. You're going to need a decent point and shoot anyways since you can't always lug the DSLR around, and if your DSLR can't autofocus in video (the 7D and 6D cannot) you'll probably want to just use your point and shoot for videos. I don't have much luck trying to focus manually with my kids moving around.

That said, if you're selling your current zoom, you're really not tied to Canon. I would consider some other brands, the nikon/sony/olympus 16mp+ sensors do noticeably better that the Canon for high iso and dynamic range. I've got lots of ISO 1600 shots that are too dark or too grainy to print big and put on the wall, so I have to stick with ISO 800 and flash a lot. Most other brands also autofocus during video, which is nice with kids. Yeah, this is a canon board and the canon sensor isn't that bad, but for the same money I think you can do a little better than canon right now.

 

[fosterscape]

Go get a 7D and enjoy it!!!!!!!!

I recently was deciding how to upgrade my camera on a limited budget. I had a Rebel XT and could not afford to go to FF, the 6D and even the older 5D Mark II were out of my price range. And waiting was not an option for any 7DMII or 70D.

So I picked up a used 7D for $850 about 2 weeks ago and it is great. With a 17-55 lens you should be all set.
I'm still working on getting a good EF-S lens for mine, right now I'm stuck with a 18-55 kit from my Rebel.

Sure there are better camera's out there, but for under $900 it was a huge upgrade to my camera kit.