Canon 7D upgrade from 50D (1 Viewer)

Would I be wasting my money if I got a 7D to replace my 50D to match my 100- 400mm lens?

I can't justify spending £5K on another lens.

thanks

Chas

That's a tough one. I used a 50D for a year before upgrading to a 7D, and I've had that for around 9 months. The 7D is the superior camera, without doubt, adding improvements to spec and/or performance in every department imaginable. However, for the birder, some of those improvements are moot, and when coupled to a slow, unsealed, slightly soft, zoom lens I think it is hard to realise some of the other benefits. Also your shooting style will influence whether or not you find certain features important.

For my purposes the advances in AF performance and customisation are the biggest single reason to upgrade, but then I do use mine to shoot a lot of action, including BIF. I also like the 3 stop meter, since I often meter highlights at +3 and to do that with a camera with a 2 stop meter is a pain in the tits. The viewfinder is nice too. In all other respects, while there are some nice to have features, I certainly don't find them to be a big draw over the 50D. OK, high ISO performance is improved, but how often do you shoot at over 1600 ISO? If I'm shooting in conditions like that I would usually not pick up the 7D, prefering either my 1D3 or 5D2 instead. I don't use video. I don't care at all for 8 FPS vs 6.3. The battery life is longer, but it was never a problem in the 50D. I don't use the off camera wireless flash control, although I thought I might, and I don't make use of the level, since that hardly seems useful for an "action" camera. For landscape and architecture I'll use my 5D2 thank you very much. I do make use of the 7D, 1D3 and 5D2, but if I had to wave bye bye to one of them it would be the 7D.

I think all you can do is figure out where you feel the 50D is falling short, and whether the 7D will close the gap for you. Whether the cost to change is good value is down to personal opinion. I don't think anyone else can tell you what represents good value for you.

Same feelings for me as well though I went from the 40D to the 7D. The 7D is better specified but that only matters if you are going to make use of the features.

I mainly use my equipment for bird photos and I like to use the HD video for short video clips for which the level is a very useful feature. There's nothing worse than taking a video with the skyline or water line at an odd angle and it's so much easier to use the level than doing it by eye.

Live view is much better set up on the 7D as well requiring just one button to operate which I think it the same as one the 50D but was via the menu on the 40D. The 10x mangnification is a real boon for manual focus when using live view/video and teleconverters. I hardly used the 40D on a tripod but it's about 50/50 at present with the 7D.

A plus for me is the better autofocus with true spot focus which picks out birds in flight a little better though to be honest as time goes by I'm finding I use manual focus more often just as I did with the 40D.

At lower ISO I find the 40D is a better performer. I use it at ISO400 as standard which I find is a little too grainy with the 7D which I use at ISO200 though as Tim says at higher ISO's results are pretty good due to the noise reduction setting.

Image quality is about the same. The 40D is a very good performer in this area as is the 7D though I find it much easier to consistently obtain sharp images with the 40D.

For me if the 40D had HD video that would still be my main camera now. I recently had to send in my 7D for repair and meanwhile went back to usnig the 40D - the only features I missed were the larger LCD and the HD video.

I must admit that I'd be inclined to think of obtaining or replacing the lens first - maybe consider the 400mm prime - it will give no extra reach on it's own but is very sharp wide open and you can make use of teleconverters to gain a little more reach for little extra expense.

Tim and Ian,

many thanks for taking the time to give such excellent replies.

Would a tele converter be a sensible addition for me ?



thanks


Chas

I've used my 100-400 with a teleconverter a few times, including with my 50D. Results can be very good, but to be honest I think it's only worth adding if you are shooting a static subject and making use of a decent tripod. I don't think that hand holding a 560mm f/8 lens that won't AF properly is a recipe for stellar results. Add in a tripod and Live AF and that situation changes.

With my 7D I have not once bothered to use it with the teleconverter, but all the same arguments would apply, just a little bit more so since the slightly increased resolution is only likely to make any problems with focus, shake, blur or diffraction more obvious. Remember the 7D is diffraction limited at f/6.3, so the mathematicians say, so starting out with an f/8 lens that isn't razor sharp probably won't accomplish as much as you would wish.

By the way, here is a 100% crop from my 50D with 100-400 and Kenko 1.4X at 560mm, 1/400, f/8 (wide open) and 100 ISO, shot from a tripod using Live AF. It's an old shot, which I've shown before, but I rarely use the teleconverter these days, and then only with my 1D3. I think it's a pretty decent effort, and I'm not sure that a 7D would improve the result.

A very decent result with the 100-400 + teleconverter.

I've had the odd decent result with a teleconverter and 100-400 but my experience is that it's better suited to use with a prime lens. I've not used a teleconverter with the zoom lens for several years now as for me the results were too inconsistent.

Rather than buy one to use with the zoom I'd be inclined to borrow one even if just for a few shots next time you meet someone with one in a hide. I've lent mine a few times to fellow birders just so they can try it for themselves. That way you can get an idea of the results first.

Thanks for your replies gentlemen.

I guess the secret is get up close, good camouflage, stealth and patience in abundance, and my present humble equipment will do the job very well !

thanks again

Chas

With respect to the difference in pixel density, you'd need to get ~10% closer with the 50D in order to place as many pixels on the subject, so that's edging to 9' instead of 10', or 27' instead of 30'. In my opinion it's really not that big a deal, but getting closer and projecting a larger image of the subect onto the sensor should pay dividends no matter which camera you use. The more you can fill the frame, the better.

The reason I prefer the 1D3 and 5D2 over the 7D is entirely down to the size of the sensor and the quality of the pixels. In all other respects the 7D wipes the floor with the 5D2, and in several areas it beats the 1D3 as well. But when it comes to IQ the larger sensor area trumps most everything else, so long as I can make good use of it and not end up cropping huge chunks of it away.

That's why, despite all the bells and whistles offered by the 7D, it is still an APS-C body, and that constrains the IQ that can be obtained. It's better than the 50D at higher ISOs, but below 1600 ISO I'm not sure it is any better than the 50D at all, and without the glass and skills to make those few extra pixels count for something, they don't add much value in any case. In fact I don't think that when coupled with a 100-400 zoom lens they add much at all, full stop. I think I'd be happier with the 7D (for my 100-400) if it did have a lower pixel count. Even then 1D4 has only 16MP, and that's with a much larger sensor, making the pixel density equivalent to a 40D. Why does the 7D have 18MP? Other than marketing, I really don't know. I'm sure for the fast prime users they may make some sense, but you still have to ask why the 1D4 has fewer pixels and an even lower pixel density, or more importantly, why does the 7D have more?

Thanks Tim, you certainly know your stuff.

cheers

Chas

Well, I have my opinions, but I'm not sure that everyone would agree with them.

I popped out today to take a few photos at the local bird reserve and, knowing I'd be severely focal length limited, I chose to take the 7D. I didn't take a lot of shots, as there was nothing about anywhere near reach, but I tried my best to get something reasonable. Anyway, here are 100% crops of a couple of static bird shots from a tripod and a couple of hand held flight shots. These are unedited except WB and crop.

The results are reasonable, although even at 100 ISO there is visible noise in the OOF areas. At 200 ISO the noise is plain to see in the smooth paintwork of the plane. Of course, these things could be improved with editing, but this is what Lightroom made of the raw files SOOC. Anyway, I have no complaints about the results here, but I raise the question whether they are any better or worse than a 50D might have managed. As mine is now sold I cannot perform back to back tests. I might add that for the shots of the plane these are the cherry picked best examples from a series, as is the heron. A few other examples were softer and others equally sharp, but that does raise the point that in my hands (or tripod), and with the 100-400 lens, it is not easy to realise full value from the 18 megapixels. Of course, when you really nail it - Wow! - but when you don't the camera sure makes that clear.

p.s. I should probably add that while I did consider the "value" element when upgrading to the 7D from my 50D it really took a bit of a back seat to the technical superiority and feature set of the 7D. Quite simply I wanted the best performance I could get in a body that was lighter and more compact than my 1D3, which for casual photography, including vacations, can be a bit of a brute to lug about. The 1D3 does also make lens options a little awkward for general purpose shooting. The 17-55 won't fit. The 24-70 becomes rather long and the 100-400 seems comparatively short. All things considered I thought the price of admission was fair, especially considering how close it got me to the AF performance of the 1D3. Has it improved my results significantly, compared to the 50D? Probably not. Do I think packing 18MP into an APS-C body is a good idea for an "action" shooter? No. Is my slow zoom lens holding back the camera? Quite possibly. Am I? More than likely.