Is the 7D worth it?

[98kellrs]

Well it's tax time and I'm looking to get some new gear with my rebate. I'm budgeting around $2000 for gear, software, cards etc and I am tossing up whether it is worth upgrading from my 600D to the 7D.

I mainly shoot motorsport and sport so the 8fps would come in real handy, but at the same time (I think) my 600D has the same 18mpx CMOS sensor, and Digic 4 processor as the 7D:confused013. My photos through the Sigma and nifty fifty lenses are coming out great, nice and sharp with very little missed details. Besides the extra fps, more AF points, and build quality are there any features of the 7D which would make it worth upgrading to?

My other option is to upgrade my standard zoom kit lens to a EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM which would cost a fraction less than the 7D and would be a massive step up from the kit lenses (18-55mm & 55-250mm) I currently use in terms of IQ.

Any advice would be greatly appriciated! :o

[kiwi]

Lenses are always, well almost always than bodies

I'd go the 24-70

I don't think fps particularly important for motorsport

[Tannin]

vastly better focus system - nothing to do with more points, it's all about speed, configurability, and accuracy. Chalk and cheese.
robust build
vastly superior ergonomics - two wheel systems beat one-wheel systems hollow
just an all-round quality camera


Nevertheless, I'd go for the lens every time. Nothing trumps good glass.

[davearnold]

I upgraded from a 450D ( no video and 12.5mp) to a 7D, even if I had a 500D, I don't think I would have, spend the money on more quality glass, and maybe a 580Ex flash.

I would consider maybe the 17-55 F2.8 EF-S lens over the 24-70L lens.

[Scotty72]

Agree with the bird...

Assuming your 600D is working great - glass is a better investment.

Besides, depending on usage, you'd naturally need a new body in a few years anyway :)

[Ozspeed]

I've used the 40D with my L lens and in low light the 40D just doesn't cut it, anything over ISO 400 produced grainy images. Images are great but I found the poor low light performance was the main reason for my upgrade.

Since buying the 7D I can see the IQ has improved and it has given me more flexability with more AF points and HD video. Its just a sensitive camera that takes a little getting used to. There are a lot of extre features on the 7D which make it worth the buy.

BUT in saying all that, I'd get the lens of your choice first. :)

[fabian628]

You can also try a used 1d mk 3.
look at the 7D used price, I think it is definately worth $1200-1300.

[Tannin]

Hmmm:

Just get better glass: 2 votes
The 7D is great and really nice to own - but get better glass anyway: 2 votes
Informal (no idea what this post is recommending): 1 vote


I make that four and a half to zero in favour of nice glass. :)

[kipp]

i've just bought my first L series lens and have a 7d, go the lens.

[98kellrs]

Its just a sensitive camera that takes a little getting used to.

Yeah I've read a few things about the sensitivity of the AF system on the 7D, and I think for the time being I need to learn to use the body I have.

I have tried to stick to the glass before body philosophy and it seems to prevail again :), I'm tossing between the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and the EF 24-105 f:4 L IS US but I think I'd like the bigger aperture over the extra focal length, and from the reviews I've read the 24-70mm looks a tad sharper in most areas. Thanks for the reassurance everyone! I knew I should have just gone with my gut rather than asking dumb questions :rolleyes:

[Speedway]

I upgraded from the 400D to the 7D, but I upgraded to better glass first and would say glass first, body second, also the sensor is not the same even though both are 18mp.
Keith.

[rowdy23]

lenses are very important, as they last for ever if well looked after.

the 7d is the best crop body on the market imo..
out performs some full frames in terms of lack of noise..


get some L series lenses l first though...

[Art Vandelay]

Before you settle on the 24-70 or 24-105, go back through your past shots and see if 24 is wide enough for what you do.
Some like it, others don't. personally I don't 'only' having 24 on a crop body..
If you want wider than 24, don't discount the 17-55. Regardless of having no "L" in it's name, it's easily the best all round short zoom for a crop body, (and it has IS where the 24-70 doesn't). Image quality is up there with the 24-70 or 24-105. If anything, I'd back the 17-55 to have the edge over them in sharpness, and just down a wee little in contrast, though not noticable after PP.

[Old Skool]

Other thought is Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 non VC lens. I have this and really nice & sharp and value buying. Then couple that up with Canon 200mm F2.8 L lens. I use that for Sport & motorsport and a beautiful lens. You'll be able to get both within your budget, shop Hong Kong and you'll have change for a flash unit as well.

[fabian628]

Other thought is Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 non VC lens. I have this and really nice & sharp and value buying. Then couple that up with Canon 200mm F2.8 L lens. I use that for Sport & motorsport and a beautiful lens. You'll be able to get both within your budget, shop Hong Kong and you'll have change for a flash unit as well.

:th3:

[ricktas]

Any camera is only 'worth it' if the person behind it knows how to get the most out of it. A 500D used to its limits by a good photographer, is better than a 7D used by an clueless idiot! So choose wisely and then learn to make your camera work for you.

[Arg]

You said your photos are coming out great, so there is your answer. Change nothing.

You have the latest model camera, so should not be looking for an upgrade for at least 2 generations (3-5 years), unless you have consistent photographic evidence that your kit is letting you down AND you know it is your kit not your self AND you know exactly what aspect of your kit is letting you down AND you know for sure that the alternative kit under consideration solves the issue to a significant degree. :th3:

[Pine]

The 24-70 lens should be your first upgrade and then later get the 7D.

Both are simply great :th3:

Regards

[Redback51]

If you've got the money and you don't REALLY need a body upgrade, good glass is the way to go. I would have thought that something longer than 70mm would be better suited to sport shooting tho'. Cheers :food04:

[98kellrs]

If you've got the money and you don't REALLY need a body upgrade, good glass is the way to go. I would have thought that something longer than 70mm would be better suited to sport shooting tho'. Cheers :food04:


You said your photos are coming out great, so there is your answer. Change nothing.

I probably should have been clearer, my long-range motorsport shots are coming out great, so I know the camera can perform well with decent glass, albeit with low fps. However, I have no decent glass below 100mm making close-ups (MotoX), pit lane, and general automotive shots pretty average with my kit lens. That's my main motivation for gettting the 24-70mm. :th3:

[Tannin]

I think your key consideration, 98k, is whether regard image stabilisation as a useful thing. If you do, then consider:

17-55
15-85
24-105
Sigma 17-70


If you don't, then you probably need speed as a priority, and you would consider:

17-55
24-70
Sigma 17-70 (maybe)


Note that some lenses appear on both lists.

[fabian628]

I have no decent glass below 100mm making close-ups (MotoX), pit lane, and general automotive shots pretty average with my kit lens. That's my main motivation for gettting the 24-70mm. :th3:

If you are after shallow depth of field and good IQ you could try a standardish prime like sigma 30 or canon 35mm. f/2.8 on crop body does not give very shallow depth of field, f/1.4 would be much better suited to this :)

[KeeFy]

If you do motorsport. Get a better lens. 70-200 or a 100-400L.

The 600D is more than capable.