7d vs t3i

I now th comparison seems say enough, I am selling my t3i to a friend and am knowing im getting a much better focusing, weather sealed, "heavier" dslr, but also 2 years older...

Still worth the upgrade?

Sports and child photography along with coral reef (fish) as to why the fast AF is what I desire...

Obviously you have more research to do. Stick with your T3i.

Staszek wrote in post #13894042
Obviously you have more research to do. Stick with your T3i.

I agree. Sadly, it's too late, it looks like he's already got a deal worked out with his friend and merely posted this so he would have confirmation that he's doing the right thing.

I don't think you're doing the right thing...unless you NEED to change your body...don't change it. Or, maybe you just want a 7D and want to justify it...in which case, you don't need us. You're the only one you have to sell that idea to (and maybe your wife if you're married).

You should have looked at glass first, by the way...

Your current glass isn't:
- Long enough for sports (generally you'd want at least a 70-200 for that)
- Fast enough for children (Generally you'd want something that goes down at least a stop or two lower than your current line-up)

The 7D won't change any of those things...as for being weather-sealed. It's not. Certainly not to the degree that the 1D is. In fact, I remember a post from a guy a while ago on here who said a single drop of sweat went onto his 7D, got in just the right way and pooched it. One in a million chance, for sure, but it highlights that you can't really 100% count on the 7D's weathersealing.

I haven't done it yet & am checking to see if I am making a solid decision...

Am I better with the t3i?

SouthFlorida_Tron wrote in post #13894114
I haven't done it yet & am checking to see if I am making a solid decision...

Am I better with the t3i?

Yes you are. It sounds like you're just starting out in photography, and the T3i is a very capable body...I mean let's be honest, how often are you planning on shooting outside in the pouring rain?

As for the AF...yeah, it might be faster in the 7D, but I don't think it's faster enough to justify the upgrade in your situation. I'd spend the extra $$$ on glass, at this point. A 50 1.4 will go a long way with shooting kids (especially indoors) and a 70-200 2.8 will come in handy for sports...those are what I'd be looking at right now if I were you

I sold my 50 1.4, thought it was long for my style, looking into the sigma 30 1.4, but keepnreding threads about focus issues, perhaps save for a wide,fast L?

Staszek wrote in post #13894042
Obviously you have more research to do. Stick with your T3i.

Pretty cryptic answer...the OP asked for opinions and this is yours?

I'd like to help, but I'm not really familiar with the T3i - other than it has the same (or very similar) sensor. But a sensor isn't all there is to what makes a camera work. From what little I know about this, the 7D has different circuitry - someone wrote an analogy (not sure how accurate) that compared the two as being similar to two computers with the same processor, but different mother boards. The 7D having the ability to get more out of the sensor than the T3i.

Again, this is not something I am qualified (or care about enough) to 'research" - but what I do know is the T3i is a smaller camera (if that matters - for some the ergonomics are important) -The 7D is far better in build quality, it has two Digic IV processors, it has a vastly better focusing system and it will shoot at 8 FPS - how important any of this is depends on each individual.

Also as I think was mentioned in the OP, the 7D is quite well weather sealed - (despite what was implied in another post above) - in fact better than any current Canon SLR other than a 1D class camera (including the 5D2 which is a more expensive camera).

Is the 7D worth the cost difference? That can only be determined by each individual.

Size and weight are also more suitable for different people. Some like the smaller and lighter Rebel size cameras, and others - especially those with larger hands will prefer the larger and heavier 7D. The battery used in the 7D also has a much greater capacity, plus a chip that gives a real time reading of how much "juice" is left - which is a useful feature.

In my opinion (for what it's worth) - if the T3i is being bought as a camera to learn with, that would make more sense than spending the money on a 7D. I agree that money is always better spent on good lenses than on bodies that will likely seem old and obsolete in a relatively short time - good lenses, good tripods, good lighting equipment should hold up for decades if not a lifetime.

The digital SLR craze is like nothing I have ever seen in over 55 years of using cameras and over 40 years of using 35mm SLR cameras. I don't think a small fraction of those who are buying (and constantly 'upgrading") dSLRs have as much interest in learning how to use them as they do in having the latest high-tech gadgets. (Maybe this is just an impression I get from reading threads on this web-site???).

Anyway, there's no right or wrong decision re: which camera is right for any particular buyer. The 7D is the right camera for some, the T3i is better suited to others.

The age of the camera is not a factor as far as I can tell. The 5D2 is older than either and it does it's job in many ways much better than the brand new Nikon D800 - which is what? Five years newer? (something like that) - The Nikon has a better focusing system, but at high ISO settings doesn't come close to the Canon 5D2 - So for faster and more accurate focusing, the new Nikon would seem a better choice. For overall image quality the 5D2 would seem the more obvious choice. If someone made a living doing portraits, or was adept at locking focus and recomposing (if necessary) the focusing system of any camera would be adequate.

For action sports, for photos of birds in flight, the 7D would be a better choice than the 5D2 - let alone the T3i.

All depends on the person and what they use the camera for.

Well said, thanks for that.... I'm not really in a rush to ditch my t3i. But an opportunity came about where a friend would snag my t3i and I could upgrade now that I'm familiar with using a camera.

But maybe I'm better off saving for say a 24mm 1.4L II and or eventually a 70-200 (when I said sports, would be occasionally a heat game (if they even allow that lens with a spectator lol....

Continued advice?

Just in case you are wondering, here are the two cameras by the numbers according to DXO Marks testing. Pretty close if you ask me. Close enough that IQ alone probably wouldn't have me moving from one to the other. http://www.dxomark.com …/619|0/%28brand​2%29/Canon

However, as I have a 5DII and a 550D, I can say that the ergos on the xD bodies are much better. The other issues as well would weigh heavy for me. The 550D lacks a PC sync port, something I use often on my 5DII. The lack of a thumb wheel to control aperture makes it a bit more cumbersome (the T2i is IR converted so gets used exclusively in M mode), the fact that the iso on the 550D is in full stops instead of 1/3stops is annoying, lack of a top panel LCD, SD instead of CF. There are plenty of things about a Rebel that would make me consider moving up if it was my primary camera.
That being said, the Ti line of Rebels are pretty darn capable, if I was between selling a T3i to upgrade to a 7D or buying a new lens, some flash equipment, etc, it would be a tough call.

First and foremost...look back at your pictures and see what focal length and what aperture you're using the most. If you find that you're using the max aperture quite a bit, then you need faster glass. If you find that you're using the widest of the wide setting...then you might need a wider lens.

Before jumping into a 24L II (big chunk of change), look at your EXIFs...if most of your shots are in the 30-50 range, and you found 50 to be too long, look at a 30/35mm prime.

As for Sigmas...yeah, they're a lottery, but most people love them once they're sent in for calibration...if you don't mind that extra bit of hassle (or if you score a sharp copy used) I see no reason why you shouldn't look at Sigmas.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #13894223
Just in case you are wondering, here are the two cameras by the numbers according to DXO Marks testing. Pretty close if you ask me. Close enough that IQ alone probably wouldn't have me moving from one to the other. http://www.dxomark.com …/619|0/%28brand​2%29/Canon

However, as I have a 5DII and a 550D, I can say that the ergos on the xD bodies are much better. The other issues as well would weigh heavy for me. The 550D lacks a PC sync port, something I use often on my 5DII. The lack of a thumb wheel to control aperture makes it a bit more cumbersome (the T2i is IR converted so gets used exclusively in M mode), the fact that the iso on the 550D is in full stops instead of 1/3stops is annoying, lack of a top panel LCD, SD instead of CF. There are plenty of things about a Rebel that would make me consider moving up if it was my primary camera.
That being said, the Ti line of Rebels are pretty darn capable, if I was between selling a T3i to upgrade to a 7D or buying a new lens, some flash equipment, etc, it would be a tough call.

While I agree with most of what you said, I hate, hate, HATE that on my 5D I can't change the ISO to jump in full stops (on my 1D3, I have it set up in such a way). For one, I love that I can double or quadruple my light sensitivity in ONE or TWO clicks instead of 3 or 6 (and hoping that I didn't do 5 or 7 by accident), also, I've seen tests that show that using third stops in ISOs degrades image quality...so I wouldn't put that down as a negative for the Rebel.

Perhaps I'm over thinking all of this at the moment and am just trying to label myself as a "big boy" slr owner lol. But ideally id love to save $ on testing out a sigma 30mm 1.4 to save up for another L. I love these red ring beauties. My 100mm L is amazing.

Delija wrote in post #13894148
.........
.........
..........
............
In my opinion (for what it's worth) - if the T3i is being bought as a camera to learn with, that would make more sense than spending the money on a 7D. I agree that money is always better spent on good lenses than on bodies that will likely seem old and obsolete in a relatively short time - good lenses, good tripods, good lighting equipment should hold up for decades if not a lifetime.

This is quite true. I currently have two FD lenses that are in exceptional shape and still deliver images every bit as sharp as when they were new. People still buy some of the old Canon rangefinder lenses and convert them to work with Leica (the 50 .95 pulls over 3k when they pop up). Compared to digital camera bodies, glass is for life.

This is a gear forum.