DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon 70D to Canon 7D Mark ii - worthy upgrade?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 22 of 22, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/01/2017 02:53:04 AM · #1
I have a little bit of G.A.S and am considering upgrading my Canon 70D to go along with a recent ebay purchase of a Canon 100-400 mark ii (I have the mark i but previously rented the mark ii and I found it to be quite a lot better).

I was considering the Canon 7D mark ii - which appears to have better AF and weather proofing and will also allow me to use an 1.4 extender with the 100-400 (with caveats)

Just wanted to sense check this decision? I have no interest in switching to mirrorless as I am really happy with Canon - Alexkc please ignore this bit:)

The Canon 80D also looks like a potential contender and has some features the 7D Mark ii doesn't have like WIFI and Articulating Screen.

I have a Canon 6D that I am very happy with indeed but wanted to put together a good combo for wildlife shots (Canon 100-400 mark ii + ????)

Thanks

Paul

09/01/2017 10:16:48 AM · #2
Do it. The 7D Mark II I tried for an hour and thought it was really cool. I would have gotten it hands down over the Sony mirrorless if it wasn't for the noise that I have with cannons. It was a very exciting camera and I liked it much more than my 7D Mark 1. So if you're not going mirrorless, I do it in a second. I'll post more later but have to go into work now
09/01/2017 10:44:50 AM · #3
The 100-400mm II is awesome. Interested to know what don't you like about it paired with 6D.
09/01/2017 10:52:41 AM · #4
Originally posted by skewsme:

The 100-400mm II is awesome. Interested to know what don't you like about it paired with 6D.


It works great with the 6D - however a crop sensor would make it even longer which is useful when photographing Deer.

Also I believe a 7D Mark ii or 80D would let me use a 1.4 extender with it - albeit with some caveats
09/01/2017 10:54:40 AM · #5
Originally posted by vawendy:

Do it. The 7D Mark II I tried for an hour and thought it was really cool. I would have gotten it hands down over the Sony mirrorless if it wasn't for the noise that I have with cannons. It was a very exciting camera and I liked it much more than my 7D Mark 1. So if you're not going mirrorless, I do it in a second. I'll post more later but have to go into work now


Hey that sounds great Wendy - I am not too picky about noise (Yet!) so it sounds like a great decision to get one. I will sell the 70D and the Mark 1 100-400 to fund it.

I would be interested to know if the mirrorless camera has lived up to all your expectations. I hope it has. I am sure it is the sensible decision but I do love the form of the Canon cameras and can still handled the weight
09/01/2017 11:00:26 AM · #6
Just for the record, the "crop sensor" is exactly that: the lens doesn't get any longer, you're just cropping in. You can do that with your current 6D: just CROP the image and you'll get very similar results. As for the extender, you can use it also on the 6D with some caveats...
09/01/2017 12:18:15 PM · #7
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Just for the record, the "crop sensor" is exactly that: the lens doesn't get any longer, you're just cropping in. You can do that with your current 6D: just CROP the image and you'll get very similar results. As for the extender, you can use it also on the 6D with some caveats...


Ah I hadn't thought about it like that... Light bulb moment.

So there doesn't seem any good argument to get a 7D Mark ii now apart from better AF. Wallet will be happy - and the Canon Mark IV is out of my ball park
09/01/2017 02:29:37 PM · #8
Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Just for the record, the "crop sensor" is exactly that: the lens doesn't get any longer, you're just cropping in. You can do that with your current 6D: just CROP the image and you'll get very similar results. As for the extender, you can use it also on the 6D with some caveats...


Ah I hadn't thought about it like that... Light bulb moment.

So there doesn't seem any good argument to get a 7D Mark ii now apart from better AF. Wallet will be happy - and the Canon Mark IV is out of my ball park


The focus was great. The fps is great.

And if that's the case, bear, why did you say I wouldn't be happy with full frame??
09/01/2017 02:37:43 PM · #9
Wendy I was just wondering the same question while washing the dishes. Why would you not be better with full frame for wildlife photography?
09/01/2017 02:38:17 PM · #10
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by FromDaRock:

You know, you could probably upgrade to a used 5D Mark III for your budget. I did just that last November, and I see people selling them all the time, since many people have upgraded to the Mark IV.

You would love the AF on it, works the same as the 7D but with way more focus points.

If Wendy goes Full Frame she's gonna lose a LOT of reach in wildlife shooting. Sony's new APS-C sensors are so danged good I'm not sure it's a worthwhile trade for her...
09/01/2017 02:39:35 PM · #11
At work, on break, posting from phone, so sorry for the multiple posts. That last one was from my forum regarding full frame vs cropped vs mirrorless.

Did I misunderstand and buy the wrong camera? :(

Message edited by author 2017-09-01 14:39:52.
09/01/2017 03:07:33 PM · #12
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Just for the record, the "crop sensor" is exactly that: the lens doesn't get any longer, you're just cropping in. You can do that with your current 6D: just CROP the image and you'll get very similar results.

Another way to conceptualize it ... when you have a "focal-length equivalent" value on a crop sensor, what you are really getting is the same field of view of the longer lens, not any additional magnification...
09/01/2017 05:43:09 PM · #13
Originally posted by vawendy:

And if that's the case, bear, why did you say I wouldn't be happy with full frame??

It has to do with mindsets and eyesight. For you, personally, I believe the APS-C sensors are so much better than they used to be that you're getting equivalent quality to a cropped FF with what you just bought. And on the APS-C camera with the large screen on the back, your poor eyesight is less of an issue.

Paul, on the other hand, already HAS a FF body with an excellent sensor, so he doesn't NEED to "fix" anything right now.
09/01/2017 09:52:49 PM · #14
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by vawendy:

And if that's the case, bear, why did you say I wouldn't be happy with full frame??

It has to do with mindsets and eyesight. For you, personally, I believe the APS-C sensors are so much better than they used to be that you're getting equivalent quality to a cropped FF with what you just bought. And on the APS-C camera with the large screen on the back, your poor eyesight is less of an issue.

Paul, on the other hand, already HAS a FF body with an excellent sensor, so he doesn't NEED to "fix" anything right now.


I'm still confused, and wanting to figure this out while I still have the option to switch in the next couple of weeks.

After the conversation here, and results such as this from Outdoor Magazine, I thought there actually was more of a reason to get the cropped sensor if wildlife is your real passion.

Telephoto reach is the most important requirement for wildlife photography, bringing you close to subjects without disturbing them. While full-frame cameras are in some respects superior to APS-C models, for wildlife photography, the magnification factor of a smaller sensor enhances telephoto reach. For example, comparing a 20-megapixel full-frame camera with a 20-megapixel APS-C camera, the APS-C model will give you approximately 1.5x magnification of your lensí focal length, making a 400mm lens equivalent to a 600mm lens. Keep in mind that this is only true if youíre comparing two cameras with the same resolution, as a full-frame image from a higher-resolution camera can be cropped for a similar result.

The Sony a7 and the a6500 have the same resolution, same size, same aspect ratio, etc. I'm not getting more reach from it?

True, it will be more more handy for me to view the cropped sensor result while shooting than zooming in the FF, but the eyes actually will get better. The sucked big time until about a year ago, and I assume that's why I'm not liking the 7D anymore. Because the noise that I saw before my eyes were fixed was acceptable. Now it's painful.

The eye problem now is because of a torn retina and a lot of blood floating around. Next week they're sucking the jelly out of the eye, and that should fix the bad left eye problems. So 20/20, but need readers. At this point, the screen on the back is really kind of a crummy screen. I'm using the viewfinder to chimp as well as shoot, because the screen is not very bright at all in sunlight, and though smaller and weirder to get used to, it's much easier to chimp through the viewfinder.

So with all that. Should I be thinking the a7 instead of the a6500? It's actually cheaper. But the biggest thing is to get the best quality that I can get at the moment. I want to be able to take the wildlife shots and be able to zoom into 1-1 and have a usable image. I used to be able to do that with the 40D. Seems rare with the 7D.
09/02/2017 12:01:27 AM · #15
Wendy, here's the thing of it: one reason FF cameras take such gorgeous images is that their sensors are simply larger. Now, if it were the case that sensors were made by attaching photoreceptors evenly to a large sheet of glass, so to speak, and then individual sensors of various sizes were cut out of that sheet in different sizes, then there would be literally no difference between the cropped image out of a FF compared with the same image from the APS-C. With me so far? I could effectively turn my FF into an APS-C just by taping off my viewfinder to the right (smaller) size and then cropping to that point in post.

But it isn't that simple, because the sensors are NOT identical in how the photoreceptors are applied etc. Nowadays, you see point-n-shoot cameras, with MUCH smaller sensors than APS-C, touting their 20mp resolutions. And there are EXCELLENT FF cameras that have little more than 20mp resolution. Megapixels themselves aren't a meaningful measure of anything. Tiny sensors with a lot of mp are using tiny, tiny photoreceptors and jamming them close together. When you do that you get interference and noise. FF sensors with the same mp rating use larger photoreceptors and they have much less interference and noise. This is a dumbed-down description, but it's the gist of the thing.

Now, Sony are world-class sensor-makers; many other manufacturers use Sony sensors. The camera you have bought has a VERY good APS-C sensor, state-of-the art. You're good to go. There is nothing to be gained by using FF for your wildlife work unless you are prepared to spend a fortune on longer glass to get the same reach without cropping. If you used your 400mm on my camera then cropped it down to show what you see on your camera, the differences, if any, would be negligible. You're good to go, girl!

Paul, on the other hand, already HAS a very nice FF camera, the 6D. The camera he's talking about buying, frankly, ain't all that in my opinion. So what he gets by cropping his 6D should be at least as what he gets off that other camera. See what I mean? The move he's talking about making isn't a meaningful improvement for him.

ETA: If I were as into wildlife as you are, the Sony you are using is probably the Sony I'd be using... But I'm a landscape kinda guy, and FF is made for landscapes. Plus I've been shooting FF all my life, in film, so I'm very intuitive with the apertures, focal lengths, DOF, all that stuff. It was a relief to move up from APS-C for that reason. And my camera phone (which I love and which has amazing quality) drives me CRAZY because the teeny-tiny lens is a constant f/1.7, and the DOF is more or less infinite :-)

Message edited by author 2017-09-02 00:05:32.
09/02/2017 04:15:42 PM · #16
The Ultimate Guide to Crop Factor -- got this article (with pictures) which elaborates just a bit on what Bear says ...
09/02/2017 08:21:25 PM · #17
Ok. Thanks guys. I'll keep trucking along.

But I was ready to hit Jeff yesterday. He said I'm using a point and shoot.

I'm maintaining it's not a point and shoot. It's not an slr. What the heck is this thing?
09/02/2017 08:49:44 PM · #18
If it's a mirrorless then it's an "SL" -- a single-lens camera, or maybe a "dSL" if you want to be clear that it's digital and/or confuse them into thinking you're suddenly talking about the phone company ... ;-)
09/04/2017 03:15:21 AM · #19
Thank you Robert, Paul and Wendy for your advice. I had always been under the impression a crop sensor camera was the best for Wildlife photography and had never really thought much more about it. Loads of websites appear to recommend it - but on reflection that may be due to other factors rather than the idea of multiplying the zoom factor.

My plan had been to have my 6D as my main camera and then replace my 70D with a better crop sensor camera to use with the 100-400 but from what I understand from this thread - I would be better getting another 6D as my backup camera as it will be superior to any Canon crop sensor that is currently available and a similar price to a 7D Mark ii. (I would be interested to know why Robert does not rate this camera as I read great reviews about it).

BTW reason for not just keeping the 70D - it doesn't appear to play well with my 100-400 mark i (haven't received the mark ii yet so not sure how that will fare). Also since getting the 6D I find the image quality from the 70D is just nowhere near as nice as the 6D - not sure if that is psychological or human error or purely a technicality. I was quite happy with the 70D before I got the 6D:)

Anyway your replies have been really helpful. Thank you.

09/04/2017 08:41:57 AM · #20
Originally posted by P-A-U-L:

Thank you Robert, Paul and Wendy for your advice. I had always been under the impression a crop sensor camera was the best for Wildlife photography and had never really thought much more about it. Loads of websites appear to recommend it - but on reflection that may be due to other factors rather than the idea of multiplying the zoom factor.

My plan had been to have my 6D as my main camera and then replace my 70D with a better crop sensor camera to use with the 100-400 but from what I understand from this thread - I would be better getting another 6D as my backup camera as it will be superior to any Canon crop sensor that is currently available and a similar price to a 7D Mark ii. (I would be interested to know why Robert does not rate this camera as I read great reviews about it).

BTW reason for not just keeping the 70D - it doesn't appear to play well with my 100-400 mark i (haven't received the mark ii yet so not sure how that will fare). Also since getting the 6D I find the image quality from the 70D is just nowhere near as nice as the 6D - not sure if that is psychological or human error or purely a technicality. I was quite happy with the 70D before I got the 6D:)

Anyway your replies have been really helpful. Thank you.


If you're getting another one anyway, I'd get the cropped sensor just to have both options.

Anyway, I only tried the mark ii for about an hour, like I mentioned, but I was extremely sad to see it go. The tracking was so much better than my 7D. And the FPS are soooo much better than the 6D: 10 fps vs 4.5 fps. While wildlife isn't about the fast shooting, it certainly helps! You still have to time the shot well, but you increase your odds of getting lucky significantly.

Just a thought.

If you're spending that much already -- to to lensrentals.com and rent one. It's worth investing a bit to make sure.

Message edited by author 2017-09-04 08:43:51.
09/04/2017 10:43:22 AM · #21
I have the 5D2, and last year bought a 7D2 specifically for wildlife photography. I have used them both on the same trips, as I find it usefl to have each mounted with a different lens (makes it all a bit heavy, mind). The 7D2 is great - love the speed of autofocus and the multiple AF points, together with the ease of changing your chosen point. Noise is reasonable, not as good as the 5D2 at the higher end ISOs, but perfectly acceptable to me. For wildlife, where I need to change settings by feel, without taking my eye from the viewfinder, the 7D2 wins hands down.
09/04/2017 12:07:22 PM · #22
Originally posted by SaraR:

I have the 5D2, and last year bought a 7D2 specifically for wildlife photography. I have used them both on the same trips, as I find it usefl to have each mounted with a different lens (makes it all a bit heavy, mind). The 7D2 is great - love the speed of autofocus and the multiple AF points, together with the ease of changing your chosen point. Noise is reasonable, not as good as the 5D2 at the higher end ISOs, but perfectly acceptable to me. For wildlife, where I need to change settings by feel, without taking my eye from the viewfinder, the 7D2 wins hands down.


Thank you SaraR - I respect your opinion as I love your wildlife photography. Interesting you say the 5D2 is better at higher end ISOs as I was thinking the 5D Mark iii may be a good option - I can pick one of these up on Ebay for not a lot more than the 7D Mark ii. It seems like a very good camera too.

[DECISION MADE - 5D Mark iii is the replacement for the 70D]

Message edited by author 2017-09-05 09:56:48.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/12/2017 02:27:24 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2017 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/12/2017 02:27:24 AM EST.