I am a photo enthusiaist with $1800 to spend on new gear. I am considering a Canon D6, a Canon 100-400 L, a Tamron 150-600, or wait until the Canon D7 Mark ii is released. I currently own a Canon D7, a Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-40 L, Canon 24-105 L, and a Canon 70-300 L. I like to shoot with a minimal of gear and usually shoot with only one lens - part of the reasons for the zooms. The video capabilities of a camera are of minor interst to me. Any suggestions?
What to Buy?
- Thread starter Ron in AZ
- Start date
You'd get more meaningful help if you would explain why you're considering a 6D, 7DII, and the lenses. What can't you do with the gear you have now ? Do you intend to just continue shooting what you're already shooting, but with newer/better gear, or are you looking to take on new challenges ?
Like takesome1 said, tell us what you shoot.
Like takesome1 said, tell us what you shoot.
Upvote
0
I would like a 7Dll. The only other Canon Cameras I would like to buy are the 5Dlll or the 1DX. Both are out of my reach
financially. I agree with CarlTN about relaxing and using what you have. There will be new cameras out this year and maybe one of them will be the one for you. I also would wait for a new 100-400 to come out before buying a new lens.
financially. I agree with CarlTN about relaxing and using what you have. There will be new cameras out this year and maybe one of them will be the one for you. I also would wait for a new 100-400 to come out before buying a new lens.
Upvote
0
Thanks for the input. Lots of subject matter interest me - landscapes, wildlife, people, concerts, birds, flowers, etc. Just whatever strikes my interest. My wife and I frequently hike in desert which offers lots of photo opportunities.
The question was raised - what can't I do with the gear I have now - really the only limitation I perceive is the reach of my lenses. I very satisfied with the 70-300 L that I have, but there are times when I would like to have a longer lens, especially for bird photography, thus the interest in a Canon 100-400 L or the Tamron 150-600. A couple of my friends have made the migration to FF cameras (Nikon) and are very pleased with the images they can obtain - thus the interest in the 6D.
I am leaning toward waiting and seeing what Canon releases later in the year, although I wonder if Canon will ever release a D7 Mark ii?
The question was raised - what can't I do with the gear I have now - really the only limitation I perceive is the reach of my lenses. I very satisfied with the 70-300 L that I have, but there are times when I would like to have a longer lens, especially for bird photography, thus the interest in a Canon 100-400 L or the Tamron 150-600. A couple of my friends have made the migration to FF cameras (Nikon) and are very pleased with the images they can obtain - thus the interest in the 6D.
I am leaning toward waiting and seeing what Canon releases later in the year, although I wonder if Canon will ever release a D7 Mark ii?
Attachments
Upvote
0
If reach is the biggest issue with your 70-300L and 7D, you'll be very underwhelmed by going for a FF camera. While it will function with a 1.4x TC, it's not meant to. It will only physically not foul beyond about 250mm, and as the resulting combo is f8, it'll only AF on a 5D3 or 1D X - so forget about the 6D.Ron in AZ said:
Buying a new body to give a wider field of view will not satisfy your need for a narrower field of view. Even a 7D mk II when/if it becomes available won't give you any more reach, although if it has improved resolving power, you could get away with tighter cropping. I'd say you need a new lens with more reach. Of the current range, the 100-400L is possibly the best budget offering from Canon, and the Tamron 150-600 might also be worth looking into, although the reviews indicate it loses some of its sharpness once you zoom in beyond 400mm.
Upvote
0
You've not mentioned anything which you find restricting with your 7D (not D7! The last time Canon put the D before the number on a DSLR was with the 2002 D60) - all you've mentioned that's limiting you is reach, which is a focal length issue. Just what are you hoping the mk II version will fix that you're currently limited by?Ron in AZ said:
I believe you'd be better off investing your money in lenses rather than bodies, unless there is a very specific reason for a body upgrade.
Upvote
0
rs - As the bobcat image shows, I can get good quality images from my D7. But I know that there are Canon cameras (D5) available that can provide better IQ. Do I need a better camera - no, but photography is my hobby and I can indulge myself a bit.
The low light capabilities of the D7 are good (see photo- ISO 6400, 1/50 at f/4.5), but from what I have read the low light capabilities of both the D6 and D5 are much better than the D7.
The low light capabilities of the D7 are good (see photo- ISO 6400, 1/50 at f/4.5), but from what I have read the low light capabilities of both the D6 and D5 are much better than the D7.
Attachments
Upvote
0
The 5D (not D5) and 6D (not D6) ranges are both full frame, whereas your 7D (not D7) is a crop camera. They both have a sensor which has a surface area 2.56 times bigger than your 7D. This gives 2.56x more light gathering ability from the same lenses, and 2.56x less enlargement when viewing/printing the images at the same size.Ron in AZ said:
In other words, the odds are all stacked in the favour of the larger sensor cameras when it comes to high ISO noise levels and fine detail. But the odds are stacked against larger sensors if you want to get serious reach without resorting to cropping, super telephoto lenses or fast telephoto zooms and TC's.
Don't get your hopes up about any game changer when it comes to image quality with a 7D mk II - it is extremely unlikely that any imminent crop camera will get close to current FF cameras in S/N ratio.
Upvote
0
Ron in AZ said:
Unless Canon has some amazing new technology up its sleeve, it seems highly unlikely that a 7DII, if released this year, would have significantly better image quality than your 7D; so that if you want better image quality from the lenses you have, especially in low light, it would make much more sense to me to get a 6D (unless you're frequently tracking fast moving things) - leaving aside the reach issue, your ff lenses will all take better photos on a ff body than they will on a crop body, and you may well get better results by cropping on a 6D to make up for the reach you're losing compared to the 7D (i.e., you will do the cropping manually rather than letting a crop-sensor do it for you automatically whether you like it or not).
As for the 100-400, its image quality isn't quite as good as the 70-300L, and the difference between 300 and 400 isn't that much - if you want significantly more reach, regardless of what body you get, it may make more sense to get the new Tamron (unless someone shows that the Tamron at 600 isn't any better than the 70-300 cropped, which could be the case, I suppose). Or if you want lots more reach, consider the Canon 50x superzoom point-and-shoot camera, which goes twice as far as the Tamron lens for half the money or less (see posts on this forum extolling its virtues in some contexts). Or consider adding a micro 4/3 body and a Panasonic 100-300mm lens (equiv. 200-600mm) - remarkably good image quality, and small and very light compared to the other equipment you're considering.
As you don't seem to be in any particular hurry, it might make more sense to, say, rent a 6D and see whether you agree that the ff lenses you have perform significantly better on it, and appreciate its superiority in low light (hard to imagine that you wouldn't, but who knows?).
Upvote
0
i dont really see the 100-400 being any point in this situation as its not going to give you a whole lot more than your existing 70-300L which is a stellar lens
really the tamron is probably going to be your best bet now for your extra reach at an affordable price
really the tamron is probably going to be your best bet now for your extra reach at an affordable price
Upvote
0
I mostly shoot indoor sports and events with a 70-200 f2.8L II. Last year, I made the jump from a 7D to a 5D3 primarily for the high ISO advantage. But, I found other improvements. Color depth was greatly improved, my images are sharper, and I can get smaller DOF with full frame.
My biggest concern was losing the extra reach of the crop body. But, I've found that my 70-200 is sharper on the 5D3, so sharp, I'd rather crop a 5D3 image than use the 7D -- at least with high ISO indoor shots. I think you will find that your 24-105 and your 70-300 will be far better lenses on the 6D than your 7D.
Renting a 6D is a good idea. Take some test shots with the same lens on both bodies to see if cropping the 6D image will make up for the "extra reach" of the 7D. Granted, there will be less pixel density, but I think you will find a sharper image.
The 7D has a better focus system than the 6D. If action is your primary subject, this may be an issue. If not, the 6D is a great option. My advice is not to wait for the 7DII. Either go 6D or wait until you can afford a 5D3. Don't overlook the Canon refurb store.
My biggest concern was losing the extra reach of the crop body. But, I've found that my 70-200 is sharper on the 5D3, so sharp, I'd rather crop a 5D3 image than use the 7D -- at least with high ISO indoor shots. I think you will find that your 24-105 and your 70-300 will be far better lenses on the 6D than your 7D.
Renting a 6D is a good idea. Take some test shots with the same lens on both bodies to see if cropping the 6D image will make up for the "extra reach" of the 7D. Granted, there will be less pixel density, but I think you will find a sharper image.
The 7D has a better focus system than the 6D. If action is your primary subject, this may be an issue. If not, the 6D is a great option. My advice is not to wait for the 7DII. Either go 6D or wait until you can afford a 5D3. Don't overlook the Canon refurb store.
Upvote
0
