Recommendations wanted please

[gold4c]

Hi, need some advice on my next purchase. I have a 7D and feel really comfortable with using it but find it a bit restrictive with lenses. Would I be wise to go to 7D II or go for a full frame. If a full frame is recommended I can not afford newest so second hand a bit older about $1K.
Cheers

[Hawthy]

Hi. I don't understand what you mean by the 7D being "a bit restrictive with lenses" nor how shifting to a 7D II would help. They are both APS-C cameras and would use the same lenses with pretty much the same result. If you change to a full frame camera, I doubt that you would be able to use your APS-C lenses with the full frame DSLR. Buying all new lenses will add considerably to the cost.

[ameerat42]

...I have a 7D and feel really comfortable with using it but find it a bit restrictive with lenses...

Hi. I don't understand what you mean by the 7D being "a bit restrictive with lenses" nor how shifting to a 7D II would help...

Same here. This point needs to be explained, or we'd be only guessing

In addition, say why you feel the need for an "upgrade" from the 7D, line, include what it is you
photograph.

[ricktas]

Agree with the above. You have joined as a beginner, yet professional photographer use 7D's.

I am unsure why you feel upgrading is going to make your photographic results better.

[Tannin]

Hi Gold4c. I'm not sure quite what you mean by "a bit restrictive with lenses", but I can tell you about the differences between the 7D and the 7D II. Essentially, the 7D II offers much cleaner results at middle ISOs (say around 800 to 1600). I guess the high ISO results are better too, but no-one in their right mind would use a 7D Mark 1 at anything over 1600, and the 7D II's 1600+ range is best avoided if you can.

The original 7D was an amazing camera in its day, with great handling, excellent speed, high resolution, and a particularly fine focus system - one good enough to stand comparison with the best even today. The one thing it really lacks is clean results at moderate and high ISOs. It's great at 100, fine at 200, good at 400, borderline at 500, and no good at all from 800 ISO on. If you don't need the higher ISOs and are happy to shopot at 100, 200, and 400, a 7D II upgrade will be of only moderate benefit to you as it does pretty much the same things the Mark 1 does. Yep, it does nearly all of them a little bit better, but the old Mark 1 is still a very fine camera indeed.

Most likely, your best policy is to start buying lenses which will suit both your current 7D and the full frame camera you are going to get one day in the future.

[gold4c]

Hi, thank you for your informative kind reply. After more research I can answer a few reasons why I want a MII. A gps is one but the main problem I am having is I can't use a x 2 adapter as my 70 - 200 Canon lens has a square white symbol, so it is my lens that is a problem there. I have been loaned a 300m lens and the quality of images were very poor and after much research found information that the MI can not support this lens but MII can. I shoot fungi, birds, orchids, waterfalls and general scenes in Tasmanian forests. Some times light is a chellenge but if I buy a lens for my MI camera to have more light that still doesn't fix the lack of gps or that I can't still use the 300m lens for bird photography eg birds of prey in the open. Hope that explains my original question a bit more. Cheers

[Tannin]

Cheers Gold4c. I don't know anything about which models have GPS as it's a feature I've never used and haven't paid attention to. (Some of my cameras have it and some don't, but I don't know which ones.) You have got that covered anyway. Be aware that GPS does chew through your battery life a bit. That's no show stopper, just something to watch out for.

A 2.0X converter is really only useful on an f/2.8 lens or faster. Use of a 2.0X on an f/4 lens is generally unsatisfactory. I don't know anything about square symbols but I'm guessing that your 70-200 is an f/4 model, so a 1.4X converter would be practical, but a 2.0X is to be avoided. A 1.4 on a 70-200/4 gives you 280/5.6, which is certainly usable (with either camera) but too short to be much good for birds. What model 300mm lens do you have on loan? It doesn't sound very promising, and I wouldn't be rushing out to buy a new body on that account.

For more reach, yes, you can buy a body that auto-focuses at f/8 (such as the 7D II) and push your lenses hard (e.g., with a 2X teleconverter) but your results are pretty much guaranteed to be poor and your satisfaction very low. You can't short-cut your way to extra reach. If you want it, you just have to get a lens that is designed for the task. Adapting a shorter lens generally doesn't work well. I'd be looking at a Canon 100-400. The now-discontinued older Mark 1 version is quite cheap now second-hand and it's an excellent lens, well worth owning. (The current Mark II is truly superb, but close to $3000 last time I looked.)

What lens are you using for your fungi and waterfalls and so on?

[Gazza]

Hi, thank you for your informative kind reply. After more research I can answer a few reasons why I want a MII. A gps is one but the main problem I am having is I can't use a x 2 adapter as my 70 - 200 Canon lens has a square white symbol, so it is my lens that is a problem there. I have been loaned a 300m lens and the quality of images were very poor and after much research found information that the MI can not support this lens but MII can. I shoot fungi, birds, orchids, waterfalls and general scenes in Tasmanian forests. Some times light is a chellenge but if I buy a lens for my MI camera to have more light that still doesn't fix the lack of gps or that I can't still use the 300m lens for bird photography eg birds of prey in the open. Hope that explains my original question a bit more. Cheers

A couple of quick solutions if you're not ready to spend the cash right at this moment.

• Jump on the web and do a quick search for your 2X extender and the problem you're having and you'll find that you can tape over a couple of the pins then you're back in business. I reckon it was the first two from memory, but, do your own research.
• Turn the GPS on within your mobile and take a quick reference shot for those locations you need info for.

I realise they're not ideal solutions, merely a temporary/cheap fix for now.


Cheers -

[gold4c]

Thank you, great info on iso, so far I have it set on 100 but occasionally have upped it in difficult situations in forests but not over 800. Yes I will go for a fast 100 to 400 lens for birds and go from there. Thanks again

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you for that info, I am using the phone gps trick already and am happy to keep doing that. My biggest frustration has been mediocre sharpness in low light so a new lens is the best option for now. I do love my 7D and it will shine again with a fast 100 to 400 lens.
Cheers

[gold4c]

Hi, thanks for your detailed reply. I am using my 70 to 200 lens for most of my images atm. I have a 50mm prime that I use for still life inside for minerals, skulls with light painting etc. The advice on a 100 to 400 lens is the way I will go and maybe a 1.4x depending on results. It is a Sigma 50 to 500mm 1.4-6.3 loaned lens not a 300, sorry, it's been nearly 2 years since I had it out at vintage bike racing at Winton Vic. I might give it another go but I did read from a google search that the 7D is not compatible but the 7DII is. Thank you again for your detailed advice, I appreciate your time and helpful advice.}

[gold4c]

Sorry my main use lens is CANON EF-S 18-200 3.5-5.6

[Cage]

I'm a Nikon shooter so I won't comment on cameras, but I will suggest you have a look at lens offerings from Sigma and Tamron.

They both offer excellent lens in various configurations, generally giving about 90% result wise for about 50% of the price. I was a brand snob until I bought a Sigma 150mm f2.8 Macro a few years back. Boy did that lens change my perceptions . My current Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Sport stacks up very well against the Nikon offering.

Just an alternative line of thinking to build your lens collection.

[Tannin]

Good point made by Kev. In the old days, you had to ask a few questions about Sigma and Tamron products. They could be excellent value, or they could be cans of worms. Mostly, they were OK. But more recent products from those manufacturers have been generally very good, some have been outstanding. We should also mention Tokina in this context. Tokina lenses tend to be a bit old-fashioned, but I mean that in a good way: as a rule they are conservative, competent, decently priced, and very solidly built.

It is worth checking on particular models regardless of which manufacturer you are considering. Some lenses are better regarded than others. Some are outstanding, most are pretty good, and there are still a few doubtful ones. (I say that about all the brands, Canon and Nikon no less than the third-party makers. They all have hits and misses - but competition and modern manufacturing methods being what they are, you'd be a bit unlucky to get a crook lens these days. Even ten years ago, things were different.)

[gold4c]

Thank you. I will check out 3rd party lenses too, a second hand Canon 100 to 400 is looking good atm. Cheers