Pixel Peeper = Txi or 60D instead of 7D?

Here's my conundrum... I am outgrowing my XSi for the sports photography I've been doing. In order of necessity from an upgrade, I'd like better ISO range/performance, fps, and AF. Naturally, all of these things are encompassed in the 7d and should, in theory, be the answer to which I should purchase next. However, in being the OCD pixel peeper I am, I'm not certain the 7d is something I could buy and not end up being irritated by its naturally softer images. If all sensors (thus image quality) of this family are equal (is this true or is one actually better than the other(s)?), then I'm thinking that I might just invest in one of those as my XSi has forced me to become pretty good at sports action photography using only center AF point and its inferior (to many others) AF system.

What do you think? All opinions welcome, if they are constructive. At this point, I'm just having trouble justifying the cost of a 7d if I can easily make do with a lesser priced option that has the same, or better, image quality for pixel peepers like myself.

Fligi7 wrote in post #12298188
Here's my conundrum... I am outgrowing my XSi for the sports photography I've been doing. In order of necessity from an upgrade, I'd like better ISO range/performance, fps, and AF. Naturally, all of these things are encompassed in the 7d and should, in theory, be the answer to which I should purchase next. However, in being the OCD pixel peeper I am, I'm not certain the 7d is something I could buy and not end up being irritated by its naturally softer images. If all sensors (thus image quality) of this family are equal (is this true or is one actually better than the other(s)?), then I'm thinking that I might just invest in one of those as my XSi has forced me to become pretty good at sports action photography using only center AF point and its inferior (to many others) AF system.

What do you think? All opinions welcome, if they are constructive. At this point, I'm just having trouble justifying the cost of a 7d if I can easily make do with a lesser priced option that has the same, or better, image quality for pixel peepers like myself.

if your primary interest is sports photography what would be the lesser price option? 60D, 50D? with the 50D you wouldn't gain anything with ISO performance but the FPS, buffer, AF would be better

Fligi7 wrote in post #12298188
I'm not certain the 7d is something I could buy and not end up being irritated by its naturally softer images.

This is a myth I almost bought into, I am glad I stuck with the 7D and learned the proper was to use it and the images it produces.

Fligi7 wrote in post #12298188
I'm just having trouble justifying the cost of a 7d .

This is probably more of where your problem resides. The expense of the 7D. I have seen it before, people in buying mode will often times try to talk down the more expensive option in order to make the more affordable option appear to be better.

I have to tell you, I have been shooting Canon exclusively since 1972 or thereabouts, might actually be 1973 as I think in 1972 I had a Yashica rangefinder.

As for DSLR's I have owned the 10D , 20D, and 40D before upgrading to the 7D.

Man the 7D, I have to admit it humbled me. I mean it was the first camera where I had to actually read the manual and do some research on using it. Was it worth the effort? Heck yeah it was.

The day I bought my 7D, I had no real idea it existed. I was going to the camera store to pick up a 5DII because it had HD Video. The clerk told me the 7D also had HD Video and was $1,000 less. I played with a 7D a bit and took it home with me. Little over a year later and I picked up a second 7D.

MONEY ? ? ? ?
You have to set a budget and be firm in what you set. The go and buy the best camera your budget will allow. If that camera is not up to the standard that you desire then maybe now is not the time to make that purchase, and you should save up and wait to get what you really want.

If I had to choose between the 50D and 60D, I would go with the 50D.

.

If you have the cash then 7D.

If you want the swivel screen 60D

If you want a cheaper DSLR but still good fps, then 50D.

All of the 18MP sensors have moderately soft photos SOOC, it's just something to take care of in PP. The 50D is certainly a very compelling option if you want an upgrade but not the price.

Get the 7D, The images it produces are by no means soft (I do admit they need post process sharpening, like all images, from all cameras, ever, Simply set it a hair stronger in your preferences and you're good to go...but the images SOOC are by no means "soft" i always thought they were a good deal sharper than my 30D in fact)

Have a 100% crop mate

I really appreciate the insight, all.

Watt100 - All of the Tx xxD series would be cheaper than the 7d. I just wasn't sure if they were worth it for what I'm seeking here. I'm not set on cheaper just because it would be cheaper, rather entertaining cheaper options if they might better suit me.

harcosparky - I know what you are saying about the myth of softer images, so I have been looking at every sample image regarding this that I possibly could in order to make my best attempts at weeding out hearsay versus facts. It sounded like softer images were simply a result of the larger sensor (makes sense) but then claims still exist that some of these cameras with the same sensor produce better images. This is where I got a bit lost as I couldn't find much to dispel or confirm this. If it is just a matter of more sharpening in PP to get just as crisp of an image as my XSi then that is great. I just have nothing to go on but what people are saying. My budget is accommodating. If I find that a 50D is best for me now, I'd buy it. If I find out that a 5dMk2 would be better for me than a 7d, I'd simply wait longer to save up and just buy that. It's less a matter of budget and more a matter of what best suits what I do as a not-for-profit hobby. I can say, however, that anything above the price of a 5dMk2 just isn't in the cards for the near future.

RHChan84 - I couldn't care less about a swivel screen as that would be useless for me. It's not really about the cash as I'm willing to pony up for the 7d if it's the actual proper next step for me.

Sp1207 - That sounds right about inline with what the consensus is here.

KenjiS - Thanks for that photo. That looks pretty sharp. Perhaps I should post what I consider a sharp photo from my XSi for you all to compare objectively.

Name: IMG_4749
Date: 3/20/11 12:50:53 PM PDT
Camera Model: Canon EOS 7D
Lens: EF70-200mm f/4L USM
ISO: ISO 200
Focal Length: 154mm
Exposure Bias: 0 ev
Aperture: ƒ/4
Shutter Speed: 1/400
Flash: Flash did not fire
White Balance: Auto White Balance
Exposure Program: Aperture Priority
Metering Mode: Pattern
Exposure Mode: Auto Exposure
Focus Mode: Auto Focus
Profile Name: Adobe RGB (1998)
Pixel Size: 3443 × 4552 (15.7 MP)

HTTP response: 503

Those photos do look great. I wonder what the disparity is when others are posting pictures that do look soft. Are they simply not doing proper PP?

Me thinks the hard core pixel peeper (I'm one too) is more likly to be satisfied by choosing great glass than worrying about which 18mp sensor it goes in front of.

I am right there with you. The problem, however, comes when I'm doing indoor sports photography and required 1600 or higher for proper exposure at fast shutter speeds. This is the only reason I'm considering an upgrade. As it stands now, 1600 is the limit and doesn't look so great.

Fligi7 wrote in post #12299117
Those photos do look great. I wonder what the disparity is when others are posting pictures that do look soft. Are they simply not doing proper PP?

I think most complaints are summed up like this:

-Improper PP, the 7D needs a little extra sharpening in PP to bring out the most due to its stronger AA filter

-Bad glass, the 7D demands good glass

-Poorly calibrated lenses, IE not checking for front/back focus issues

-Using the tool wrong, IE not reading the manual and learning to use the different focus modes correctly, or using WAY too slow a shutter speed, the 7D will test your technique as much as your glass

-Simply just picking the wrong tool, I will admit one thing, the 7D sucks for landscapes in my opinion, its not "terrible" but its not quite to the level of my 30D in terms of IQ with landscapes..and shooting down at f/11 and that is not its strongest suit either due to diffraction, But these are not a 7D problem, its just the nature of the beast, and you can certainly use it for those subjects, its just not the best for it...its like using a Ferrari to haul a shed from home depot...Sure you can, but...its not the best tool for the job is it?

From the sounds of it, You should be very happy using a 7D

Fligi7 wrote in post #12299237
The problem, however, comes when I'm doing indoor sports photography and required 1600 or higher for proper exposure at fast shutter speeds.

You sound like a good 7D candidate then (also a fast glass candidate).

This thread has done two things for me:
1. I probably do not want a 7D as my next DSLR purchase.
2. I probably do want a 7D eventually, even though I could work with it if I do decide to get one.

I'm back at ground zero, but it is a better ground zero. Thank you.