How would you upgrade?

[nonac]

I am looking at two upgrade options, give me your thoughts on what you would do. I currently have one body, a 40d, which has served me well. Lenses: 28-135, 100 macro, 100-400L, 70-200L II. I do a wide variety of outdoor photography, landscapes, wildlife, birds, flowers, and macro shots. I do no "people" work of any sort. I am ready to uprade and here are the options I am considering.

1. Get a 5d Mk III with the kit 24-105L and keep my 40d as well.

2. Get a 5d Mk II with the kit 24-105 and a 7d body, sell my 40d.

I can do either of these for about the same amount of money right now.

I forgot to mention that I would be selling the 28-135 in both of these scenarios.

 

[expatinasia]

One advantage of having two bodies is so you do not need to change lens in the field as that takes time and there is a contamination risk. But this is mainly important to those that use them for work.

If your photgraphy is mainly a hobby, then I would take sell the 40D and see what you could get for your 28-135 and 100-400L.

Then get the camera which is right for you - whether it be a 7D or 5D Mark III with kit lens - and perhaps a new lens, or an extender for your 70-200L.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

Since the 5D3>>7D and 5D2 in almost every metric, i'd say (1) is the obvious choice.

 

[Drizzt321]

Since the 5D3>>7D and 5D2 in almost every metric, i'd say (1) is the obvious choice.

Unless you need to operate at very high ISOs, I'd go for the 5d2 & 7d for birding & wildlife. 5d2 will be great for everything else, since you can manual/live view focus while the 7d has a pretty decent AF system for the birds & wildlife. If you want it all in one camera, go for the 5d3.

Either one you get, I'd sell off the 28-135 in favor of the 24-105, or get something like the 17-40 for landscapes & a decent wide to normal zoom on the 7d.

 

[TTMartin]

If you go with #1, the only reason to keep your 40D is to have a back-up camera.
The 5D MkIII's extra mega pixels will more than offset the advantage of the 40Ds 10 mega pixel crop sensor.

edit: You might consider keeping the 28-135 on your 40D and making that your kick around camera.

 

[birdman]

I think we all roll these endless choices around in our head. I had the 40d, 7d briefly, and HAVE the 5d2 right now. I'm not thinking of upgrading to the 5d3 because I don't need fast autofocus for my landscape shots. And my next move might be out of the house (of Canon).

Actually thought about picking up used 40d a while back only for telephoto work & because I know it extremely well. Sometimes regret selling my 40d because it served me well and I would love the extra reach now and again. I would advise against selling a camera that has been paid for many years, because you simply gain very little extra coin when you get rid of it. Its already hit its bottom in resale value. For me, the 40d and 5d2 would be fine. If you DID get the 5d3, I can promise you (at $3,500 especially) that the 40d wouldn't see much use. What a decision many of us have to make. I have a 5d2 that is freaking immaculate (less than 8,000 actuations in 2 years!!). It's probably gonna be for sell soon. I posted a topic earlier about selling it. Anyway, there are a bunch of them out there for sale. i just happen to have one, too.

 

[ramon123]

I would go with the 5D Mark III kit option.

No debate in my eyes

 

[Albi86]

If you do not shoot people I seriously don't see what advantages a 5D3 might bring you, and I don't understand why everyone is advising you to get one. A 5D3 for birds and wildlife? It's a jape, I hope.

Get the 7D, it's probably all you need. Right now, though, I would wait for the new generation.

EDIT:

Also sell your 100-400 L and buy the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 + a Kenko 1.4x TC.
If you're into wildlife/birds photography, this is your holy grail.

 

[briansquibb]

If you do not shoot people I seriously don't see what advantages a 5D3 might bring you, and I don't understand why everyone is advising you to get one. A 5D3 for birds and wildlife? It's a jape, I hope.

Get the 7D, it's probably all you need. Right now, though, I would wait for the new generation.

EDIT:

Also sell your 100-400 L and buy the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 + a Kenko 1.4x TC.
If you're into wildlife/birds photography, this is your holy grail.

I can see the rational for using the 5DIII for birds/wildlife and sports. The extra shutter speed from using higher iso will get shots and dawn/dusk and under floodlights

Not sure that I would swap the 1D4 + 600 for a 7D+120-300 +1.4 - sounds like downsizing to me

 

[Wideopen]

I would go with the 5D Mark III kit option.

No debate in my eyes

+1 8)

 

[ramon123]

If you do not shoot people I seriously don't see what advantages a 5D3 might bring you, and I don't understand why everyone is advising you to get one. A 5D3 for birds and wildlife? It's a jape, I hope.

Get the 7D, it's probably all you need. Right now, though, I would wait for the new generation.

EDIT:

Also sell your 100-400 L and buy the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 + a Kenko 1.4x TC.
If you're into wildlife/birds photography, this is your holy grail.

I can see the rational for using the 5DIII for birds/wildlife and sports. The extra shutter speed from using higher iso will get shots and dawn/dusk and under floodlights

Not sure that I would swap the 1D4 + 600 for a 7D+120-300 +1.4 - sounds like downsizing to me

Brian, I'm sorry to say it, but 99% of times it seems to me that you only post for the sake of arguing. As in this case, your post is just confusing and adding nothing useful to the topic. It seems your only goal is to find (questionable) reasons to refute other people's opinions. Call it a subtle way of trolling, if you wish.

The 5D3 has nothing - and I mean nothing - of what a bird/wildlife camera is supposed to be. The 7D is much more suitable for this purpose and much cheaper. Denying it is just crazy.

No one here mentioned any 1D. We're talking about 5D3 vs 7D in one specific field of use. But anyway:

1D4 + 600mm f/4 IS USM 2 = 18000€
7D + Sigma 120-300 + Kenko TC = 4000€

What kind of comparison is this? What's the point of your whole post?

Take 10 deep breaths and then count to a hundred.

 

[briansquibb]

Brian, I'm sorry to say it, but 99% of times it seems to me that you only post for the sake of arguing. As in this case, your post is just confusing and adding nothing useful to the topic. It seems your only goal is to find (questionable) reasons to refute other people's opinions. Call it a subtle way of trolling, if you wish.

The 5D3 has nothing - and I mean nothing - of what a bird/wildlife camera is supposed to be. The 7D is much more suitable for this purpose and much cheaper. Denying it is just crazy.

No one here mentioned any 1D. We're talking about 5D3 vs 7D in one specific field of use. But anyway:

1D4 + 600mm f/4 IS USM 2 = 18000€
7D + Sigma 120-300 + Kenko TC = 4000€

What kind of comparison is this? What's the point of your whole post?

Call me crazy and then read the thread about using the 5DIII as a sports/wildlife camera

The 5DIII only loses out on 2fps
It loses on reach

It gains on high iso (for dawn/dusk shooting)
It gains on the better AF
It gains on IQ
It is more sympathetic to cropping

Perhaps I am not so crazy after all?

If you're into wildlife/birds photography, this is your holy grail.

Clearly you think it might be the holy grail for the low budget shooters - but there other cheaper which might be considered as good alternatives such as a used 7D+400 f/5.6 running in at $2000. The 1D4 + 600 combination is kit used by serious birders and therefore might be considered part of the holy grail

I am not arguing - just pointing out some facts and presenting an alternative view when I think it is appropriate.

 

[RLPhoto]

7D or a used 1d4. Both best for your wildlife shooting.

 

[Loswr]

Not sure that I would swap the 1D4 + 600 for a 7D+120-300 +1.4 - sounds like downsizing to me

Downsizing for someone who has a 1DIV + 600L to swap, but since the OP does not... Besides, real birders use the 800L. :

I am looking at two upgrade options, give me your thoughts on what you would do. I currently have one body, a 40d, which has served me well. Lenses: 28-135, 100 macro, 100-400L, 70-200L II. I do a wide variety of outdoor photography, landscapes, wildlife, birds, flowers, and macro shots. I do no "people" work of any sort. I am ready to uprade and here are the options I am considering.

1. Get a 5d Mk III with the kit 24-105L and keep my 40d as well.

2. Get a 5d Mk II with the kit 24-105 and a 7d body, sell my 40d.

How is your 40D in terms of AF and frame rate? If you're finding those features inadequate for birds/wildlife, I'd go 7D + 5DII. The 7D + 100-400 is a great combo for birds/wildlife, which I'm keeping after getting my 1D X.

Overall, while I think the 5DIII is much better than the 5DII as a 'general purpose' camera, for the subjects you list, I think the 5DII is just as good. Personally, if I didn't shoot people, I'd stick with my 5DII for landscapes/architecture and my 7D for birds/wildlife, and get a supertele prime (500/4 II) instead of the 1D X.

So...my vote goes to combo 2.

 

[briansquibb]

Not sure that I would swap the 1D4 + 600 for a 7D+120-300 +1.4 - sounds like downsizing to me

Downsizing for someone who has a 1DIV + 600L to swap, but since the OP does not... Besides, real birders use the 800L. :

8) 8) 8)Or the 600 +1.4 for that extra reach. I have used the 600 + 2x without issue for smaller birds at a distance. 8) 8) 8)

 

[RC]

...
1. Get a 5d Mk III with the kit 24-105L and keep my 40d as well.

2. Get a 5d Mk II with the kit 24-105 and a 7d body, sell my 40d.
...
I forgot to mention that I would be selling the 28-135 in both of these scenarios.

If I were in your shoes I think option 2 is better based on your shooting preferences. It doesn't sound like you would benefit that much from a 5D3 over the 5D2. A 5D2 to cover landscapes and a 7D for wildlife and birds seems like an excellent combo. I would put the money from the 28-135 towards a fast prime, 35 or 50 or maybe an ultra wide for your landscapes.

I'm hoping to be in similar situation within a year. Have my 7D and I'm planning to add a FF. I've got some time and I will be watching to see if Canon releases another FF option but if I had to purchase today (with limited funds), I'd go for the 5D2.

 

[crasher8]

I understand this issue as well. I have been frustrated with higher ISO issues on my 7D and as my style of photography has evolved I need reach and fps less and less. As a fine art photographer I would be foolish not to move to FF. But I do not need nor can I afford a 5D3, a refurb mk2 is within my reach, especially if I sell off my EF-S glass but with the tease of a entry FF body on the horizon I say you should wait along with me and see what develops.

 

[distant.star]

.
There really is no answer to your question since you haven't said what improvements you want. I presume by "upgrade" you mean or intend something better in performance or product.

Until you delineate your goals for this "upgrade," one option is really as good as the other.

 

[Halfrack]

So many options - what about just doing a 7D and the 24-105L for now? Grab them both used and see how you like them. The jump to the 5dmk3 will knock your socks off, and you'll get there, but do you need to do it now? Lots of rumors of a cheaper FF model, and if you're going the landscape route it may better suit you (or a 5dC). The 7D and the 100-400 will do your wildlife and birding very well. Keep the 40D until you get a replacement body.

I too suffer from gear lust, these moments will pass.

 

[wickidwombat]

I would go with the 5D Mark III kit option.

No debate in my eyes

+1 8)

+2 the 40D would still be a reasonable backup for the mk3