GEtting back into cameras, at a much cheaper price

[Qwagmire]

I had a 5DIII and loved it, but it was a lot of camera to carry or sit in the closet.  Im coming back but on a tighter budget and have been looking at 3 cameras:  The 7D2, 6D, and 70D.

I like taking nature/wildlife/museum (low light) pictures, my kids playing, occasional birding, with occasional sports (golf, car racing, etc)

I like the 6D because of the low light qualities.  We go to a lot of museums and in the past the 1D2N and 5D3 did well enough in the low light, but I always ended up with some darker pictures. 

The 7D2 looks like it would be better for my "sports" adventures, but I would lose some of the low light.

The 70D looks like similar enough to the 7D2 that I wont lose much and can grab a few lenses for the price difference.

Any thoughts out there?  At this point I'm leaning toward the 7D2, with the 70D and 6D following closely.   Or maybe the 70D/7D2/6D. 

Thanks for your thoughts!

[Bob Atkins]

Well, I have a 70D and a 6D and both are truly excellent cameras. I like the articulated LCD of the 70D and the touch sensitive screen, despite the fact that I've never really liked the idea of a touch screen. Turns out it's much easier to use in low light than the buttons and wheels and probably faster too. The 6D excels in image quality and the low light AF with the center zone is amazing.  It's also almost 6oz lighter than the 7D MkII. I don't have a 7D MkII (though I do have the 7D MkI) but from what I've read and a brief time handling one it looks like an amazing camera with the best AF system of any EOS and good low light ability.

I'd say that if you can only have one camera, I'd go for the 7D MkII especially if you want the best AF performance and it's in your price range. It does more things well than either the 6D or the 70D, though the 6D and 70D have some features that the 7D MkII lacks (but which you may not need or care about). The 6D has GPS built -  in for example and the 70D has the articulating screen.

Right now there are some really really good deals. You can get...

An EOS 6D + Pro-100 printer for $1299 after a $300 instant rebate and a $250 mail-in rebate. It's cheaper with the printer and the extra $250 mail in rebate than if you just  buy the body alone! http://www.adorama.com/ICA6DZ.html?kbid=12417

An EOS 70D + Pro-100 printer for $899 after rebates ($200 instant + $250 mail-in). Again it's cheaper ($100 less) with the printer than without it. http://www.adorama.com/Refby.tpl?refby=rflAID012417&sku=ICA70DZ

An EOS 7D MkII for $1699. With the following link you also get a 32GB memory card, a remote release, a holster case, a cleaning kit and a (not very useful but it's free) table top tripod. http://www.adorama.com/Refby.tpl?refby=rflAID012417&sku=ICA7DM2A

The 70D is the best bargain, the 7D MkII is the best all around camera and the 6D will give you the best ultimate image quality as long as you don't need high speed AF tracking, high speed continuous shooting and the 1.6x "lens multiplier" to extend telephoto reach.

The mail-in rebate info is here - http://www.adorama.com/pdfs/rebates/Canon_MIR_claim_form_28MAR2015.pdf

[Qwagmire]

With my 5D3 I always seemed to be wanting more zoom so the 7D2 makes sense in that respect with the 1.6 sensor.

Thanks again for your thoughts!

Now to go to the War Department my lovely wife for funding!   

[Qwagmire]

Not off the subject, but a curveball, where would you put a used 1D Mark 4 in this mix? 

A friend has a well used (165k clicks) 1D4 hes thinking of selling and mentioned he would let me have it for the price of a new 7D2.  He's looking to get a 1DX

[Bob Atkins]

Depends on if you are happy with APS-C. If so then the 7D MkII will give you better AF and 1.6x more reach than the 1D MkIV. For wildlife/sports etc. I'd go with the 7D MkII. The 1D MkIV would probably be better for studio work like portraits and for landscape work where the full frame sensor comes into its own. Remember that the 1D MkIV has a built in grip, making it considerably larger and heavier than the 7D mkII. The 7D MkII also has a built-in flash usable as a wireless flash control master, while the 1D MkIV doesn't have any built in flash and for wireless flash control you need a shoe mounted speedlite or flash controller. It would also come without a warranty and it sounds like it's been well used (165K). The 7D MkII has much better (dual pixel) video AF if that's important.

Personally, I think I'd go for the 7DMkII unless you are really lusting after full frame capability.

[Qwagmire]

Thanks again for your thoughts.  I had a 1D2N before my 5D3 so I know of the size/weight.   I'm not sure I want to go back to that size, and the 1D4 is 4+ years older technology.  But it was an opportunity that presented itself...

Still leaning toward a 7D2 or 70D, and I think I'm settling in on the lenses I want.  My trusty old G12 is still clicking along...

Happy Shooting!

[Qwagmire]

Finally settling in on 18-135 STM, 70-300 IS, and 35/2 to be added later for my basic lenses.  May toss in a 60 Macro later on as well.

Total weight savings over my old L glass in my pack?   3+ pounds

Image quality?  Probably suffers more from my skill than a change in glass   

[Bob Atkins]

I'd take the Tamron 70-300 VC over the Canon 70-300. It's usually quite a bit cheaper and it's as least as good as the Canon lens, possibly slightly better.

See http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_70-300_vc_conclusions.html

You might also want to consider the Canon 40/2.8 STM. Very small, very light, inexpensive and very sharp. It's a low cost alternative to the 35/2

[Qwagmire]

The Tamron looks great, I had an 18-270 before for single lens trips.  It did alright by me.  I was actually thinking of the 18-270 instead of the 18-135 and 70-300 and work around it from there.

I hadn't looked at the 40, but I like what I see.    Wife is on board, just need to decide what I want for the first lens, then work out from there.

[Qwagmire]

One last thing, besides clicking the link, is there a code to enter to make sure you get the credit at Adorama for the sale?

[Bob Atkins]

No, no special codes. I get credit if use the link. Thanks.

The superzooms like the 18-270 are certainly very convenient, but can't compete with lenses like the 70-300, especially at the longer focal lengths and at the edges of the image. Also, the 18-135 (and the 40/2,8) is an STM lens, which is better for focus  tracking when shooting video.

To save some money you might also look at the EF-S 18-55 STM lens. Even though it's a "kit" lens it's quite good for the $149 price. Maybe not quite as good as the 18-135 and with reduced focal length range, but it's $400 cheaper. Combined with the 70-300 it would give you a lot of focal length coverage. It's  unlikely you'll miss the 56-69mm focal length range (just substitute one step closer of further away for nearby subjects). The only issue is you might have to swap lenses more often than with an 18-135.

If you shoot video with the 70D, an STM lens will be something very nice to have. AF focusing and tracking is very smooth with STM lenses.

[Qwagmire]

Would a 24-70L f/4 be good for video? 

With a $200 rebate, 4 stop hybrid IS, and macro capability, it looks like it would be worth the extra money for the lens that would be on the camera 90% of the time and save me from spending $$$ on a macro later

[Bob Atkins]

The EF 24-70/4L IS USM is a very nice lens. Probably a little better then the EF 24-105/4L IS USM and about $300 cheaper right now. It's pretty good for macro work, with a 0.7x maximum magnification and the hybrid IS system. It won't be as sharp as a true macro lens, but it will be sharp enough for most people and sharper than most "close focusing" lenses. The only drawback I see is that it's not very wide on APS-C. The 24mm becomes an effective 38mm (in full frame terms) once the crop factor is taken into consideration.

Note that at 0.7x, the front element of the lens is only about 1.2" from the subject (see review below). This may or may not be a problem, depending on what you are shooting and how you are lighting it. A true 100mm macro lens might give you up to 6"

24-70 is probably a good range for video use. The USM motor is good - and the best/fastest for shooting stills - but STM motors will give smoother focus adjustment for video and are quieter because the STM motors focus continuously while the USM motors tend to focus in steps and so make a "clicking" noise on the video soundtrack. USM motors are made to focus from point A to point B in as short a time as possible. STM motors are also quick, but their focus speed can be slowed down and so avoid fast focus "jumps" when shooting video.

I reviewed the 24-70/4L and compared it with the 24-105/4L (for still photographs) here - http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_ef_24-70_f4_is_review.html