mwsilver wrote in post #17882820
I agree. And further, this neurotic desire some people have to switch brands to constantly get the best implies the gear they got last year which took great images is suddenly crap because something new and better is on the market. The differences and improvements between camera to camera and year to year are far more subtle in everyday use than some will acknowledge. Some of these folks are probably gear heads rather than photographers. Buying and owning the best gear is really their hobby. Unless there is a specific reason for upgrading I don't do it. I had my 60D for 5 years before I updated to the 7D Mark II. I upgraded primarily for the the feature set, not the image quality.
This is kinda my feeling. I switched from Nikon early on because I didnt want a manual focus camera and my experience with Nikon's AF was that it was slow, noisy and rubbish. I flirted with switching back a few times (Notably before the 7D came out for the 16-85, 105 VR and the D300... three things Canon did not offer. Until the 7D announcement)
I genuinely considered going Nikon to upgrade my 7D this year, I was going to get a D610 and a set of lenses, There were solid reasons, Namely I prefer Nikon's 50mm f/1.4G to Canon's, Nikon has a lovely set of affordable f/1.8 primes, I prefer the colour black for my lenses (Sorry Canon, the White color is too attention grabbing for me half the time) and I felt the D610's AF system seemed better than the 6D. Oh and the lovely 200-500 VR. I was also allured by the price of some old Nikkors I wanted to own back when I shot Nikon that are now a lot less money
But I love my 100mm f/2.8L, and when I stop to think about it, Sod the 50mm f/1.4G when I could get a 50mm f/1.2L(And I already have the Sigmalux which isnt exactly a bad lens), and I'd genuinely be less likely to go for the f/1.8 primes when Sigma has lovely f/1.4 primes that arent THAT much more expensive, and if we're talking the 35, Canon has a 35mm f/2 IS which to me is more versatile.
Then it came down to the end question of whether FF is even the right call for someone who shoots a lot of macro and wildlife... The answer is.. Probubly not as much as people would think and I think I'd genuinely miss the option of a 8fps burst, So if Im sticking with a crop camera, while the D7200 and D500 are very very tempting, the 7D Mark II actually fixes most of my biggest complaints on the 7D
What complaints are those? The lack of a locking mode dial, because mine gets bumped every time it comes in and out of the camera bag or my messenger bag, The horrible position of DoF Preview and sure, id love less noise and more detail at 3200 and 6400... Guess what, the 7DII seems to do all of those things rather nicely, While also offering better build, sealing, better AF system and 2 extra megapixels (Those dont seem to matter, but it does look like the 7DII has slightly sharper/crisper output vs the 7D, the aggressive AA filter in the 7D always made me sad) the on-sensor phase detect AF is a plus as well for insect macros where i do frequently use the rear screen due to how i am positioned to shoot. So yeah technically the D500's rear screen is the bit that had me salivating the most but Im not about to ditch all my lenses for that.. Especially not my workhorse 100L