Is it really an upgrade if....

....you lose features?

I'll provide and example. Recently, I owned both a 7D and a 5D II. The 5D II had nice images with better sharpness and noise handling. However, the 7D beat it in almost every other single category. The dial wheel on the 5D II felt cheap. So did the spiked wheel near the shutter. The 7D felt much better in my hands and was more responsive. By upgrading, I'd also give up perceived reach. My 300 prime is at 4@480mm (INVALID EMAIL) on the 7D. To even reach 420 on the 5D II, I'd need the prime and TC, and I've be at 5.6.

In the end, it didn't feel like a $1000 "upgrade". Yes, the sensor was superior. But I'd have to go backwards in some areas to move forward. I'm not sure if that's ever an "upgrade".

The same applies to this Sigma 8-16 I'm looking at. Awesome lens with amazing reviews. However, it can't use filters. If I "upgrade" my 10-20 to the 8-16, I lose an important component of my photography--using a CP for wide angle shots of water scenes. So is it really an upgrade?

Anyway, something to think about. Sometimes the best move we make, is none at all.

If it improves your images, its an upgrade. If not, its a change.

If your goal is to have "features" then buy features (whether you need them or not). If the goal is better image quality, then buy something that gives you better image quality.

Sort of a "Duh..." isn't it?

It all becomes more complicated when you have both items in your hand.

Mike55 wrote in post #13908991
It all becomes more complicated when you have both items in your hand.

The two bodies are market segmented for different purposes. Only you can decide which one meet your needs better. There are options that do both, but at a significant increase in cost.

True. I did sell the 5D II. Great camera, but it didn't work out.

I just "upgraded" from a 30D to a T2i. I certainly lost some features, but still consider the added resolution, and better high iso an upgrade.

Neither one (7D to 5D or 8-16 to 10-22) is an "upgrade", IMO. They are both simply changes, made because one is not the right tool for the job at hand; like choosing a flat-head screwdriver to remove philips head screws. It CAN be used for the job, but a matching screwdriver makes the task much easier.

An upgrade would be the 70-200 2.8L IS MkI to the 70-200 2.8L IS MkII, where you have the same tool for the same job, but one is made from better materials and the systems have been improved.

I recently switched from nikon to canon My D300 had more features than my 5D but the image quality is far superior on the 5D (I do miss nikons AF) If I used the features I would miss them and it would not be an upgrade BUT I am the type of person that shoots on M in Raw and that is about it as far as features for me, so it was an upgrade. So your question is it an upgrade? the answer It depends on what you are looking for? (don't you love it when people answer a question with a question?? )

FWIW, most people consider a full sensor an upgrade over a crop sensor; not the opposite.

Upgrade for your needs, not the features. I sold my 7D because I used my 5DII more, it suited me better.

TheBrick3 wrote in post #13909078
FWIW, most people consider a full sensor an upgrade over a crop sensor; not the opposite.

I do to. But many more things go into a camera than just a sensor.

Mike,

I want say congrats for getting your issues with your 7D all worked out. You seem more hmmmm relaxed now. From your other thread, it looked like an arduous endeavor. Anyway, just wanted to say I'm glad for you that it's resolved now.

Kim

Thx. It was quite an annoying issue to say the least. It is sorted though for the most part. The prime still needs to go back to Canon for the new grinding noise, but no big deal.

When working properly, the 7D is a very good camera.

Look at the age difference between the cameras you're comparing.