350D (Rebel XT) up to 7D?

Hello all, new to these forums.

I bought my 350D back in May 2006, and since then haven't seen a need to upgrade the body. Have instead spent the cash on a few decent lenses and a flash unit - none of which have been bad buys.

I'm now starting to seriously look at upgrading the body, but not sure where to go. I'm sorely tempted by a second-hand 7D (budget and justification won't stretch to a new one), but I'm wondering what difference I'll see between the two.

I'm only a hobbyist and my main subject is photographing my young daughter, or small groups at family gatherings etc. Most photos are printed 7x5, but the occasional gem gets blown up to 16x12.

I've got quite big hands, and the 350D has always been a bit of a squeeze, with my right pinkie flapping at free air when shooting. I can live with that, but a physically bigger body is highly desireable.

My main beef with the camera is the low-light performance. I try to avoid ISO 800 wherever possible and ISO 1600 is for emergency use only. I do have Adobe LR 3.6, which does a good job of correcting noise, but with "only" 8MP, by the time you've cropped a little and then smoothed over the noise, I feel like it's a little pointless owning my 24-105 f/4L.

What would I gain by moving from a 350D to a 7D? Would a new 60D be a better bet (bearing in mind the need to move to SD cards from CF?).

I can't afford a FF body (unless we're talking about a 5D classic), and to me that doesn't seem to be a sensible step.

I moved from a 350d to a 7D, everything is a LOT better. Its a huge upgrade.

Handling and ergonomics, MASSIVE improvement.
LCD - MUCH better.
Autofocus, insane amount better
At least 2 stops of noise improvement and over twice the resolution

Everything I wanted improved on the 350d the 7d done it with spades.

Go for it.

BTW this is effectively ISO 6400 (3200 pushed a stop),m processed with neat image at the time.

RD, that is a bitchin' shot!!!

The best change IMO though is the 100% pentaprism viewfinder. The 350d viewfinder is horrid in the extreme, and its the key thing your using all the time.

Oh that and live view...

I own (and still use) an XT, and just upgraded from a 50d with a 7d. The only reason I went to the 7d was it's superior autofocus (I shoot birds in flight, it's great for that and other action.) If I were shooting the sort of stuff you are, I'd have stayed with the 50d. I think you'd be very happy with the 60d, and if you don't need video you might even want to consider a used 50d - and it uses CF cards.

I upgraded from the XT to the 7D, but my friend has a 60D and I've used it too.

If you're not going to be shooting action, need the 8 fps or the full metal construction, I'd say go for the 60D.

The main improvement will be the ergonomics (which are superb, I did add a grip to balance my 80-400 OS better, anything smaller doesn't really need a grip unless you have really big hands). The big LCD and viewfinder are great, as you can see better what you're taking, and you can see what you've taken. With the XT you can see if you got a photo, but can't really see if it's that good, the 7D lets you see much more detail.

The move from CF to SD might not be much of a factor. If you shoot RAW, cards smaller than 8GB are almost a joke, as most files will be around 18-20 MB, doing the math, a 2GB card is good for 100 photos or so (I have a bag full of 2GB cards that are rarely used, unless I plan on using more than 1 4GB card on the XT -my backup camera or the one with the normal/wide lens if I'm at an airshow or fly-in), now, if you don't shoot too many photos or already have large CF cards, then you won't have to invest.

I realise rumours are rumours but there could be a 70d in the next couple of months with the same if not better noise performance as the 650d, which I believe is better than the 7d with all of the ergonomic features of a prosumer body... You might be able to afford one of these new?

RobDickinson wrote in post #14928656
I moved from a 350d to a 7D, everything is a LOT better. Its a huge upgrade.

Handling and ergonomics, MASSIVE improvement.
LCD - MUCH better.
Autofocus, insane amount better
At least 2 stops of noise improvement and over twice the resolution

Everything I wanted improved on the 350d the 7d done it with spades.

Go for it.

I agree! Switched from 350D to 7D already 2,5 years ago and still love it. I still remember how I was in doubt between the 550D and 7D. I'm so happy that (my wife.. ) decided to go for the 7D. You will not regret the investment.

However, the 60D sits now in between and could be a solid alternative if you don't need the FPS. And no one knows when/if there's going to be a 7D mark II.

I followed the same path 350D to 7D, I still have and use the 350D from time to time, nice small and light. The 7D is an awesome camera and thoroughly recommended, though as others have said a 60D may be an alternative for you. The focusing systemand options on the 7D is superb, but do read the manual.

I did the 350D/XT switch to a 7D also, and what's said above by others is absolutely true - the 7D feels like it was specifically made for my hands (you'll have to try one to see how it feels to you), the control layout is great, it's a very responsive camera, great autofocus, very good high-ISO capability (about a stop or so behind the 5DII, which is very good performance for a 1.6 crop sensor camera). On the other hand, a 60D might also be perfectly fine for what you want to do, its main deficit in my mind being lack of a microadjustment function for lenses. If I were you, I'd go with whichever camera I could get the best deal on, unless you find that there are features exclusively on one or the other (such as microadjustment) that are important to you.

The 7d is leaps and bounds better than the 350 in every Way, shape and form, for all the reasons mentioned here. If you can swing the money, go for it, you will not regret it.

RobDickinson wrote in post #14928656
I moved from a 350d to a 7D, everything is a LOT better. Its a huge upgrade.

Handling and ergonomics, MASSIVE improvement.
LCD - MUCH better.
Autofocus, insane amount better
At least 2 stops of noise improvement and over twice the resolution

Everything I wanted improved on the 350d the 7d done it with spades.

Go for it.

BTW this is effectively ISO 6400 (3200 pushed a stop),m processed with neat image at the time.

I went from a Rebel XT -> 40D -> 7D, and agree with everything Rob said.

I recently went from xTi to a 60D and couldn't be happier. I couldn't justify the extra expense for a 7D for my shooting personally(mostly travel/landscapes and family stuff), but I really love the 60D. Noise performance is so much improved. I've done iso 3200 and ended up with pretty clean images after post processing in Lightroom.

The 60D is also larger and has that important top panel for changing settings. I've noticed that shooting manual is so much easier with the 60D compared to the Rebel because of how easy it is to change settings and focus points with that nifty rear wheel/joystick.

I wasn't sure if I would care either way on the flip out rear screen panel, but I do enjoy it when I'm using the tripod or for family shots when I want to be in the picture too (makes it easier to use timer or remote when you can see the screen on how the image will be composed by flipping it around to face the front.)

I think either camera you choose you will love the upgrade!

garciarf wrote in post #14929131
I upgraded from the XT to the 7D, but my friend has a 60D and I've used it too.

If you're not going to be shooting action, need the 8 fps or the full metal construction, I'd say go for the 60D.

I can't see me having a need for 8fps - I barely use continuous drive on my 350D as it stands. The 350D is my first and only dSLR, and I've found the construction of it adequate, apart from some of the surface paint. What does full metal construction give you anyway?

garciarf wrote in post #14929131
The move from CF to SD might not be much of a factor. If you shoot RAW, cards smaller than 8GB are almost a joke, as most files will be around 18-20 MB, doing the math, a 2GB card is good for 100 photos or so (I have a bag full of 2GB cards that are rarely used, unless I plan on using more than 1 4GB card on the XT -my backup camera or the one with the normal/wide lens if I'm at an airshow or fly-in), now, if you don't shoot too many photos or already have large CF cards, then you won't have to invest.

Good point - I've only got 1 x 4GB and 2 x 2GB CF cards at present. I always shoot RAW, which results in 7-8MB files and somewhere around 425-450 images on the 4GB card. I could probably live with 200 images per card, but would prefer more room. I'll ignore the SD/CF aspect for now as it looks like I'll need to buy new memory cards regardless of the choice. Compared to a 60D/7D, they're pretty cheap anyway.

RobDickinson wrote in post #14928679
The best change IMO though is the 100% pentaprism viewfinder. The 350d viewfinder is horrid in the extreme, and its the key thing your using all the time.

Oh that and live view...

Agreed about the 350D viewfinder... I wear glasses permanently (no dioptre adjustment gets near to correcting my eyes!) and it's pretty poor.

I find that with glasses, I can't see all of the frame and read the status display at the bottom - it's impossible to read the "shots till buffer full" figure and watch what's going on in the scene. Or use the light meter.

Also, just yesterday, the eyecup retaining clips gave up the ghost and now it slides on and off the viewfinder at the slightest of touches. That reminds me... must order a replacement...