Upgrade from a Canon 600D

[Milan Deo]

Hey guys I'm thinking of upgrading from my 600D. I've got a budget of $1500, so im stuck on either a 5D Mrk ii or a 7D. I'm not sure if its worth the extra doh going for the full frame or to get the 600D - I shoot motorsport and and lots of cars and landscapes so I'm thinking that the better focus of the 7D will be more valuable to me in the sense of quick and accurate focusing at the track. I think the 600D and the 5D Mrk ii have the same 9 point focus and single cross point autofocus compared to the 7D's 19point?

[Tannin]

Tough decision!

The 5D II has vastly better image quality, especially at high ISOs, where it really shines. It's gem of a sensor.

The 7D has an outstanding focus system - never mind how many AF points, that's not important, it's the speed and accuracy and tremendous flexibility and all-round usability that counts. Contrast with the 5D II which has the worst AF system of any digital camera I have ever owned. (Quite a few.) It's not "the same" as your 600D, it is markedly inferior. It hunts and dithers and makes mistakes, and all of that only when you can actually manage to lay a focus point over the subject - the 5D II was rushed out to meet a production deadline and the AF system was lifted from some other Canon model: the 9 AF points are absurdly close together, so it's not a whole lot better than a centre-point only arrangement. You will find yourself missing shots and forever focusing and recomposing. It's a complete pain in the backside. I have owned two different 5D IIs and they are exactly the same: it's a design issue.

But when you do get the beast focused at last - and it often takes quite a bit of mucking about, don't expect it to just take a couple of seconds - the result is pure bliss: at low to medium ISOs, as good as anything from any camera made today, including ones more than five times the price, and still way, way better than anything you have experienced so far at 3200 ISO.

Jeckyl and Hyde? Sure is!

I use my 5D II for landscapes, where the AF problems are just really, really annoying, not actually deal-breaking. If I was doing motorsport or birds, I'd use my ID IV, failing that the 7D, failing that the 50D, failing that my partner's 40D, failing that your 600D if I could borrow it, or even my old 20D if it still worked. Only then would I turn to the 5D II - all of those others just mentioned have better focus systems.


.... But that sensor .... images to sacrifice the body part of your choice for. Magic big, clear viewfinder too.

The 7D doesn't offer that wonderful sensor, of course, and it's best to keep it to ISO 400 and below, but it is in all other respects a wonderful camera. Tough, responsive, more-or-less waterproof (within reason), fast, brilliant AF system (complicated and you have to learn how to use it properly, but superb once mastered), best viewfinder on any 1.6 crop camera made - it's got the lot. I use mine often, it's my #2 birding camera (for use when the 1D IV is otherwise occupied) and also does any other random duties as required. It's a much better all-round multi-purpose package than the 5D II, but (of course) it can't get close to that silky clean 5D image quality anytime the light is less than perfect.

Tough choice? You bet!

Your obvious alternatives are the 6D (think 5D with a real AF system), the 5D III (think superb in every way except price) and ... well .. then there are the pro models, which are just about perfect but mega-mega-expensive. Also the 60D and 70D, both of which are very fine cameras with good AF and (so I believe) excellent IQ.

But what about lenses? What do you have already? That might decide us.

[TimCz]

AF will definitely be better on the 7d than on the 5dmk2 - but IQ on the 5d will be better. They have a really nice clean image, whereas even though the 7d has a nice image also, its just not on par with the 5d. Another option to consider is the 6d - has amazing IQ, the center focus point is very accurate (and I think from memory is canons current best at focusing in low light - something like -2 or -3 EV) - so you'll lose a lot of focus points and frames per second.

A 6d is be a brilliant landscape camera, motorsports it would do well, but prob not as good as a 7d.

If you're patient (very patient knowing canon) they may bring out a new 7dmk2 in the next year. It has been rumored for a long while though.

[Roosta]

What lenses do you have and are looking to use for motorsport? Are you a burst shooter? If so, I wouldn't touch the 5D Mk2
I wouldn't rule out a good second hand 1D body.. Should get a good 1D 111 for that money.

What Tony Said..

- - - Updated - - -

AF will definitely be better on the 7d than on the 5dmk2 - but IQ on the 5d will be better. They have a really nice clean image, whereas even though the 7d has a nice image also, its just not on par with the 5d. Another option to consider is the 6d - has amazing IQ, the center focus point is very accurate (and I think from memory is canons current best at focusing in low light - something like -2 or -3 EV) - so you'll lose a lot of focus points and frames per second.

A 6d is be a brilliant landscape camera, motorsports it would do well, but prob not as good as a 7d.

http://www.canonrumors.com/category/...on-7d-mark-ii/

If you're patient (very patient knowing canon) they may bring out a new 7dmk2 in the next year. It has been rumored for a long while though.

Try this.

http://www.canonrumors.com/category/...on-7d-mark-ii/

[Tannin]

^ 1D III would be brilliant! More than capable of a bit of landscape work too - don't let that low MP count fool you. Some examples here: http://tannin.net.au/browse.php?firs...9&sort_by=zoom

[Milan Deo]

In terms of lenses I've currently got a Sigma 17-50 F2.8, a Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6, Canon 50 F1.8 and the two standard kits lenses, I'm planning on getting the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC (once i get rid of my mac), If I go full frame then i would replace the 10-20 and 17-50 with a 24-70 F2.8.

I was looking at the 1D mark iv (used) but thats like double my budget haha might as well get the 5D mark iii.

I hardly do low light shots ( mostly static ) and when I do i have 4 speedlites with me. So as long as the body is good till iso800 it doesnt bother me as i'm still a hobbyist.

I've considered the 6D, isnt the 7D focusing system a tad better for motorsport?

- - - Updated - - -

^ 1D III would be brilliant! More than capable of a bit of landscape work too - don't let that low MP count fool you. Some examples here: http://tannin.net.au/browse.php?firs...9&sort_by=zoom

I was considering the 1D mark iii, but I wasnt too sure about the IQ from the lower MP ? I ocassionally organise 28"x17" canvas prints for friends - would the lack of MP be visible on there? How much more would a 1DS Mark iii be?

[Tannin]

Cheers Milan. Those lenses will cost you a fortune to upgrade for full-frame! You will also pay a fortune for a used 1D IV. They don't make them anymore but the out-of-production Mark IV is nevertheless the best all-round sport and wildlife camera you can buy at any price. (Nikon may or may not have something just as good, I don't follow their stuff as closely.) When I bought mine you could still get them new (just) and I went out of my way to have a Mark IV over the (in my view, along with that of many sport togs) inferior new ID X, which lives in a bit of an unhappy no-mans-land between the old sport and studio Canon pro body lines.

Having just (more-or-less) said that I don't like the low pixel density of the 1D X, I'm going to almost contradict myself and say that the 1D III's 10MP is plenty. Sure, I like the 16MP 1D IV even better, but I was always happy with the 1D III IQ - like the old Nikon 12MP full-framers which people still love, it demonstrates that quality ain't just megapixels: the depth and richness of the Mark III was a bit of a legend.

I'm guessing that you'd pay maybe $3000-$4000 for a Mark IV in good nick (just a guess) and a fair bit less than half that for a Mark III. 1Ds IIIs still go for a small fortune, alas. The 1D II and 1Ds II I'd give a miss to - their controls are weird and very awkward, plus they miss out on a lot of modern must-have features, such as self-cleaning sensors.

But given your lenses, I reckon I'd be looking at a 1.6 crop body. The cost factor is just too much of a barrier. 7D or 60D or 70D? I haven't used the two new models, only the 7D, so I can't comment in detail, except to say that you can count on better AF than you have now with any of the three. How much better I don't know. (I can only compare the 7D to others I have owned myself, such as the 450D, the 40D, and the 50D.) But given that the 7D's greatest (almost only) weakness is poor to middling high ISO noise, it sounds like the front runner for your needs. Always been very happy with mine.

But be sure to chat with people who have used both 7D and 60D/70D, 'cause there might be a lot more to the question I don't know about.

[Milan Deo]

Ended up with the 7D, not disappointed at all! Cheers for the input guys Going to break in the camera tonight will post up photos tomorrow

[Fedgrub]

Nice work! The 7D is a great camera. I think you'll be happy with it.