I've had my 7D II for approx. 4 years now. and I have pushed several Hundred thousand images thru the lens and buffers. I have had to have the shutter replaced as well as a power supply issue. Now I am getting a Err 06 auto censor clean failure and I was able to get option turned off. With the demise of the 7D line what suggestions would the EOS community give about replacement? Get another 7D? hold out for a 90D? or limp along until a New Sports EOS R hits the market. Change brands?
What should I replace my 7D II with?
- Thread starter ronaldbyram
- Start date
Same dilemma. It is a headache. My 7D II also has a lot of use and has some flaws. Buy an 80D as a backup body for a trip to Ecuador but the AF is much lower and not having the jostick for the quick change of AF points makes the 80D a bad tool that can not in any way replace the 7D II. A 90D as it is rumored will not be an option so I will wait for my 7D to die definitively and I will see where I go, I suppose the nikon d500 will be the only option.
Upvote
0
Hi Ronald!
First of all I feel for you that the cam broke down.
Does that mean, you have no spare and are in a hurry to get something new?
Second, you didn't tell us anything about your gear/lenses, so I would think about changing brands only if I hadn't invested much in lenses.
Thirdly, it would help us to know what you're normally shooting. Depending on that one could decide if staying at APS-C or switching to FF would be the better choice. Again, lenses already available have an inpact on decissions/recommendations.
If you then can tell us, how much you liked the 7D2 and the Canon UI and what you find bad, this would round up the picture to give you an honest and helpful advice.
First of all I feel for you that the cam broke down.
Does that mean, you have no spare and are in a hurry to get something new?
Second, you didn't tell us anything about your gear/lenses, so I would think about changing brands only if I hadn't invested much in lenses.
Thirdly, it would help us to know what you're normally shooting. Depending on that one could decide if staying at APS-C or switching to FF would be the better choice. Again, lenses already available have an inpact on decissions/recommendations.
If you then can tell us, how much you liked the 7D2 and the Canon UI and what you find bad, this would round up the picture to give you an honest and helpful advice.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
If you are happy with the 7DII, why not replace it with another 7DII?
MPB has an excellent condition used one for $839. Others are available from KEH or on e-Bay. Canon has refurbished for around $1,130 (I think that is too much), which comes with a one-year warranty, just like a new body.
At this stage, prices have pretty much bottomed out, so if you buy one now, even if you only use it for two-three months, you aren't likely to lose much. If Canon kills the 7D, the existing bodies are likely to hold their value for the next several years. If they surprise everyone and release a new model, you will be paying an early adopter's premium for the next six months to a year for the new model, so it makes sense to sit tight with a good used body until things shake out.
MPB has an excellent condition used one for $839. Others are available from KEH or on e-Bay. Canon has refurbished for around $1,130 (I think that is too much), which comes with a one-year warranty, just like a new body.
At this stage, prices have pretty much bottomed out, so if you buy one now, even if you only use it for two-three months, you aren't likely to lose much. If Canon kills the 7D, the existing bodies are likely to hold their value for the next several years. If they surprise everyone and release a new model, you will be paying an early adopter's premium for the next six months to a year for the new model, so it makes sense to sit tight with a good used body until things shake out.
Upvote
0
new crop body 7Dii, new (used) 5diii or 5div. Backup body until new announcements, consider a T6/T7 as a stopgap and later use for video. Good luck.
Upvote
0
I had something like that in mind, too.
But with more information from the OP this advice could become more precise.
Upvote
0
Mine is still going strong and will not be replaced until they release something better.
Upvote
0
I have been thinking over the same issue for well over a year now: what to do if (we now know: when) Canon does not bring out a capable successor for my 7D Mk II. The last 2 years, 2 people from my photo club went from the 7D and 7D Mk II to the Nikon D500. Since then I have done a lot of comparing in identical situations (shooting airplanes standing shoulder-to-shoulder) and have seen that the D500 is a lot more capable than the 7D Mk II. But ... that only shows in specific situations.
When the lighting is good and the subject's contrast is okay and the subject does not move erratically, there is only a limited difference.
But when the lighting is dull, and when the subject has not much contrast and in particular when the subject moves erratically, the AF-system of the D500 is noticeably better than that of the 7D Mk II. Just comparing the specs is nice, but you actually need to see where and when the D500's higher specs matter.
The D500's sensor is also quite a bit better than the sensor of the 7D Mk II. The DR is 1.8 stop better at low ISO. Again, in perfect lighting that does not matter. But this becomes noticeable when you need to correct for e.g. too deep shades or a bit overexposed skies in post processing. Many on this forum keep repeating that DR is of no importance for a capable photographer - implying that canon does not need to improve on that feature.
In my experience that can be true only when you can control the lighting. Usually, in action phoography that is not the case. I have seen quite a few times where my photos after post processing (for correct aircraft color and exposure) had a bleakish sky, whereas the photos taken with the D500 still showed a blue sky. And also I have had quite a few situations where after post-processing the shadow side of the plane on my photos was very dark and without much detail (otherwise noise would become apparent), whereas the photos from the D500 could be made to show some detail and better colors.
An important reason to disregard the Nikon D500 could be that is quite a bit more expensive than the 7D Mk II. And comparable lenses from Nikon also are more expensive. So if it has taken a long time to buy the lenses you need from Canon, than changing brand to Nikon may be no option.
For myself, I will wait what the "90D" will be like. I do not expect too much, because if the AF of the "90D" and in particular if the degree it can be customised would de the same as the 7D Mk II, Canon would have named it 7D Mk III ................
When the lighting is good and the subject's contrast is okay and the subject does not move erratically, there is only a limited difference.
But when the lighting is dull, and when the subject has not much contrast and in particular when the subject moves erratically, the AF-system of the D500 is noticeably better than that of the 7D Mk II. Just comparing the specs is nice, but you actually need to see where and when the D500's higher specs matter.
The D500's sensor is also quite a bit better than the sensor of the 7D Mk II. The DR is 1.8 stop better at low ISO. Again, in perfect lighting that does not matter. But this becomes noticeable when you need to correct for e.g. too deep shades or a bit overexposed skies in post processing. Many on this forum keep repeating that DR is of no importance for a capable photographer - implying that canon does not need to improve on that feature.
In my experience that can be true only when you can control the lighting. Usually, in action phoography that is not the case. I have seen quite a few times where my photos after post processing (for correct aircraft color and exposure) had a bleakish sky, whereas the photos taken with the D500 still showed a blue sky. And also I have had quite a few situations where after post-processing the shadow side of the plane on my photos was very dark and without much detail (otherwise noise would become apparent), whereas the photos from the D500 could be made to show some detail and better colors.
An important reason to disregard the Nikon D500 could be that is quite a bit more expensive than the 7D Mk II. And comparable lenses from Nikon also are more expensive. So if it has taken a long time to buy the lenses you need from Canon, than changing brand to Nikon may be no option.
For myself, I will wait what the "90D" will be like. I do not expect too much, because if the AF of the "90D" and in particular if the degree it can be customised would de the same as the 7D Mk II, Canon would have named it 7D Mk III ................
Upvote
0
Here's a question for those more technically adept than me. I shoot sports, the default setup being a 1DX with 70-200 f/2.8II and a 7DII with 300 f/2.8II which gives a handy, though sometimes too long 480mm equivalent focal length.
Like the OP, my very high mileage 7DII is up for replacement and I'm wondering which way to go.
How does the image quality compare between a 7DII file vs a 1DXII file cropped to x1.6? While anecdotal and perceptual answers are useful, a proper technical response would be great.
There seems be plenty of low mileage pre-owned 1DX II's coming onto the market for increasingly better prices, so that's really looking like a viable way to go for a 7DII replacement. And a WAY better body to boot.
-pw
Like the OP, my very high mileage 7DII is up for replacement and I'm wondering which way to go.
How does the image quality compare between a 7DII file vs a 1DXII file cropped to x1.6? While anecdotal and perceptual answers are useful, a proper technical response would be great.
There seems be plenty of low mileage pre-owned 1DX II's coming onto the market for increasingly better prices, so that's really looking like a viable way to go for a 7DII replacement. And a WAY better body to boot.
-pw
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hey Gang, sorry I didnt reply sooner. My primary shooting(oops am I allowed to use that word now adays?) is sports photography. I do have a older 70D and a 60D as backup. But I do like to photograph Rodeo's and in the winter migrating birds. I have numerous lens. like the 70-200 MK II and 24-105 MK 1. the a 150-600 and wide angle. and some sigma art lens
Upvote
0
1DX II file cropped to x1.6 is only around 7.8Mb large. If that was not a limitation for you, then I would be considering 1DX II.
for indoor sports - definitely 1DX II due to much better high ISO file quality it affords. i would say about 1.6- 2 stop high ISO advantage. depends how you look at it.
for outdoor sports - i just shoot with ef 100-400 II and it works out well for my applications.
Upvote
0
The other thing to consider is the subject size in the frame - in many wildlife situation you are focal length limited and the subject is small in the frame which is where the Nikon D500 AF starts to show benefits, especially against complex backgrounds. In sports (in my experience) I am fortunate enough to have the subject relatively large in the frame and in those situations (from what I understand) the D500 AF has fewer advantages.
Also, above ISO 800 the DR of all major makes is pretty much the same.
My choice would be to get a second hand 7D2 from a reputable dealer and it should come with a 6-month or 12-month warranty
Upvote
0
I have the 7D2 and the 1Dx2 - the 7D2 has the obvious advantages in resolution in good light and even up to ISO 3200 the 7D2 holds up against the 1Dx2 pretty well. However, I was surprised how little I noticed the difference in resolution after processing - the quality of the 1Dx2 raw file is (to quote one review) 'gorgeous'.
However with AF, the 1Dx2 is definitely superior especially when using 2x extender and when the using f8 lens (f4 lens with 2x or f5.6 lens with 1.4x).
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 91053
Guest
Naturally the 1DX2 would be my preferred choice - but they are pricey!
Have you considered the 1DX Mk1? Currently I use a 7D2 and 1DX (Mk1) and for the majority of the time the 1Dx is the better camera by a significant margin. Note I am very focal length limited as Canon do not currently make a longer lens than the one I have. Yet, despite the lack of pixel density and wider field of view it outperforms my 7D2 in all but ideal conditions. As to the AF? It is a no brainer the 1DX is just better - a lot better.
The 1DX Mk1 is not silly money these days - just food for thought?
Have you considered the 1DX Mk1? Currently I use a 7D2 and 1DX (Mk1) and for the majority of the time the 1Dx is the better camera by a significant margin. Note I am very focal length limited as Canon do not currently make a longer lens than the one I have. Yet, despite the lack of pixel density and wider field of view it outperforms my 7D2 in all but ideal conditions. As to the AF? It is a no brainer the 1DX is just better - a lot better.
The 1DX Mk1 is not silly money these days - just food for thought?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
