As much as I love the 7D2 I am getting rid of it.

View_Finder wrote in post #18279285
Your scenario is virtually identical to my experience. Went all in with the Bronica ETRSi system (which I still own) around 1988/1989 and sold all my Canon equipment (A-1's & FD lenses). But bought some Contax rangefinders when the kids came along. I was a slow/late convert to digital.

I'm definitely moving through a lot more equipment at a faster pace than during those years.

The equipment these days are so much more versatile/flexible/pow​erful and in so many more hands that it boggles my mind sometimes. Manufacturers must have sold so few cameras back in the film era in comparison. The emphasis was on film technology back then. Since digital equipment is both camera and "film", it makes sense that we all tend to go through bodies faster. Whatever the cost of the digital bodies, I'm always reminded how much film would have cost me over the life of an analog body. Good times ahead!

I still have two ETRSi bodies and a bevy of lenses, all to serve professional uses of cameras. The Olympus gear did not go away, it was retained for non-photographic vacations, although I did take a number of vacations that had photographic primary purpose, on which the Bronica gear went with me. I never sold off the Olympus, because it represented a 'different tool, for different purposes'...you don't sell your screwdriver because you have a wrench!
I still have my first film SLR...it was $160 when new, with normal lens. And finally, about 3 years ago, I just acquired the object of my teen camera lust while paging thru photography magazines, the Beseler Topcon Super D, which was a totally unattainable $420 back when gas was $0.30 per gallon and median annual US household income was $6500!

Back in the 1970s, putting 100K exposures thru a body was unheard of, even in the lifetime of a camera... 100K = nearly 2800 rolls of film, with processing and printing...I don't recall cost of color back then but guessing $10 total cost for all that would mean $28000 in film and processing...over 3 entire years of median family income, in 1968 ($8632). So in the 9 year period in which the Nikon F2 ruled the world before the F3 launch, it was unlikely that the body would be worn out by an average consumer, as it represented $2800 annual film+processing expense, still close to 20% of the median US family income in 1975 ($13800). Now folks do 25k shots in a single year.

logiclee wrote in post #18280422
Correct, if you need the faster burst speed and AF system of the 7D2 for sports and wildlife then the 80D will not do.

If 7fps and the 45point AF is sufficient for your shooting then the 80D offers more functionality (Especially for video) and a better sensor,

The extra money for the 7D2 will also get you dual card slot and better weather sealing.

You buy whatever suits your needs. For some the 80D will be the better camera even if it was the same price, but for others the 7d2.

Choice is good and I'm sure the 7D3 will end the argument.

Lee

Time will only tell. I'm assuming if the 7dmk3 is coming out it will be an attempt to match the Nikon D500. Not much faith in this happening because at this moment Canon cannot even match Nikon's D750 with the comparable Canon 6D line.

Also the 7dmk3 will have to improve the massive pig size 4k video.

AlanU wrote in post #18280488
Time will only tell. I'm assuming if the 7dmk3 is coming out it will be an attempt to match the Nikon D500. Not much faith in this happening because at this moment Canon cannot even match Nikon's D750 with the comparable Canon 6D line.

Also the 7dmk3 will have to improve the massive pig size 4k video.

Match the D500 in what way, precisely?

pknight wrote in post #18280491
Match the D500 in what way, precisely?

Please note I'm a Canon shooter.....but the D500 crop is a potent beast. high iso and dynamic range of the D500 is something to talk about vs the aging 7dmk2.

If you were not brand loyal and wanted a crop dslr I think the D500 is one of the "better" sports camera's. Definitely a step up from an aging 7dmk2.

If your talking full frame the aging D750 is a massive jump in performance than the 6d.

For my uses even my X-t2 has many features that I can use as well as better high iso performance than the 7dmk2.

Everyone has different applications so it's understandable to have different gear from individual to individual.

AlanU wrote in post #18280508
Please not I'm a Canon shooter.....but the D500 crop is a potent beast. high iso and dynamic range of the D500 is something to talk about vs the aging 7dmk2.

If you were not brand loyal and wanted a crop dslr I think the D500 is one of the "better" sports camera's. Definitely a step up from an aging 7dmk2.

If your talking full frame the aging D750 is a massive jump in performance than the 6d.

For my uses even my X-t2 has many features that I can use as well as better high iso performance than the 7dmk2.

Everyone has different applications so it's understandable to have different gear from individual to individual.

This is what happens when companies release models on different schedules. What the D500 does is largely irrelevant to me, as I am not about to switch back and forth between camera systems as these staggered product releases come and go.

I have yet to run across a situation where somebody could look at a print and tell me what camera it was shot with.

AlanU wrote in post #18280508
Please note I'm a Canon shooter.....but the D500 crop is a potent beast. high iso and dynamic range of the D500 is something to talk about vs the aging 7dmk2.

If you were not brand loyal and wanted a crop dslr I think the D500 is one of the "better" sports camera's. Definitely a step up from an aging 7dmk2.

If your talking full frame the aging D750 is a massive jump in performance than the 6d.

For my uses even my X-t2 has many features that I can use as well as better high iso performance than the 7dmk2.

Everyone has different applications so it's understandable to have different gear from individual to individual.

I believe that the 7dMKII matches up nicely with the Nikon D500.Think about it for a moment-both shoot 10FPS,the Nikon buffer is deeper but really how much do you need?I've never maxed mine out so to me a moot point.Swivel screen?I have a swivel screen camera and honestly never use it and especially would never use it on a sports camera.High ISO-pretty even really,Nikon has a slight edge but not that much,lots of internet tests on this one.
4K video on a sports camera,me I never use video on any of my camera's,some might but considering Nikon's video focussing sucks is it really better than 1080 with DPAF?
Dynamic range,OK Nikon stomps up here but ONLY below ISO 400ish at ISO 400 to ISO 3200 where I shoot alot it's not that big a difference.Autofocus?N​ikon has a lot more points but as a sport shooter at least me I mostly use the center point and only occasionally use a wider point.
I'd love to get a Nikon D500 but I don't believe the "on paper" superior specs would translate in real world improvement in my sport shooting.

Wilt wrote in post #18280433
I still have two ETRSi bodies and a bevy of lenses, all to serve professional uses of cameras. The Olympus gear did not go away, it was retained for non-photographic vacations, although I did take a number of vacations that had photographic primary purpose, on which the Bronica gear went with me. I never sold off the Olympus, because it represented a 'different tool, for different purposes'...you don't sell your screwdriver because you have a wrench!
I still have my first film SLR...it was $160 when new, with normal lens. And finally, about 3 years ago, I just acquired the object of my teen camera lust while paging thru photography magazines, the Beseler Topcon Super D, which was a totally unattainable $420 back when gas was $0.30 per gallon and median annual US household income was $6500!

Back in the 1970s, putting 100K exposures thru a body was unheard of, even in the lifetime of a camera... 100K = nearly 2800 rolls of film, with processing and printing...I don't recall cost of color back then but guessing $10 total cost for all that would mean $28000 in film and processing...over 3 entire years of median family income, in 1968 ($8632). So in the 9 year period in which the Nikon F2 ruled the world before the F3 launch, it was unlikely that the body would be worn out by an average consumer, as it represented $2800 annual film+processing expense, still close to 20% of the median US family income in 1975 ($13800). Now folks do 25k shots in a single year.

It sure was an expensive hobby/craft/art/profes​sion back then!!!

I had a motor drive on my A-1's which zipped film along at 5fps. I bulk-rolled my film but still never shot more that 3~4 frames at a time. To keep costs down, I processed all my B&W and E6 film. I printed both in my darkroom. Speaking of which, I still have my darkroom and enlarger - why?!!!! LOL. Ah the sweet aroma of chemicals and waiting around for about 20 minutes of drum agitation just to produce one color print .... everyone should have to experience that

pknight wrote in post #18280576
This is what happens when companies release models on different schedules. What the D500 does is largely irrelevant to me, as I am not about to switch back and forth between camera systems as these staggered product releases come and go.

I have yet to run across a situation where somebody could look at a print and tell me what camera it was shot with.

Irrelevant to many. However Canon should take note of it's competition and start pushing it's R&D a little harder. Now that the 1.3 crop sensor is a dead product canon should be emphasizing better performance with the 1.6 crops. There's a reason it seems many wildlife shooters purchased Canon FF for maximizing IQ over the 7dmk2.


The D500 has raised the bar for crop sensors. It's a matter of time when mirrorless bodies can be fully 100% equiv to existing DSLR bodies for action. For my use I appreciate what the fuji X-t2 and 80d does for me.

Print is a photographer's best friend My photos I took with my XTi rebel at 10MP produced great images in print

AlanU wrote in post #18280721
Print is a photographer's best friend My photos I took with my XTi rebel at 10MP produced great images in print

I agree about prints. I have large, heavily-cropped prints from an XT on my wall, and nobody would question it if I claimed they were from a 5DIV. However, JPEGs of the same images look just as good at web resolutions. People don't share full-sized RAW files so their audience can pixel peep at 100%. When I upgrade my camera body, it is because the newer model might help me better acquire the images I am after in terms of AF, vibration control, FPS, etc. Given the high quality of all sensors being used today, about the only IQ issue that interests me is high-ISO noise and, from what I read here and elsewhere, there is no disadvantage to the 7DII compared to the D500 in that regard.

I got into digital photography, after using an AE-1 for many years, at a time when Nikon was still using CCD sensors. The Canon CMOS sensors were king of the hill, so I went that direction. Nothing since then has made as big a difference as the move from CCD to CMOS. Although, I must admit that in terms of prints I am not sure that I could pick CCD images from CMOS images at that time, once they were on paper.

There is a point where the size of a print shows the weakness of the resolution of the JPG image.

I posted this example: https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18276909

This is from a 4.5Mpx image vs a 20Mpx image, where I crop out a section from both, then print as 8x10 or 11x14. There is clearly a difference in print quality between the two. So a crop from an 8Mpx XT (assuming Canon) vs something from the 5D4 is going to show differences in larger prints. However in that case, the 5D4 cropped to an APS-C yields a 12Mpx version compared to the 8mpx, so cropping the same from both might require a larger print in the end than my example above (where I used the same sensor format for both). ISO differences, sharpness, etc will be part of that equation as well.

Uprezzed low resolution images start to look like paintings at some enlargement factor. My general rule of thumb is that my upgraded camera should have at least 40% more resolution after equalizing the FOV between the new camera and the old camera, that is where I start to see differences in print. When one has to be resized roughly 200% to match the other, the visual results suffer.

So prints from an XT or XTi vs a 7D/7D2, yes upgrade. If trying to upgrade from a 50D, then only upgrade based on other features and improvements in IQ/ISO, and not on resolution.