7Dii or 100-400II?

Triplexbee wrote in post #17394314
Well I have now returned from Japan the proud new owner of............ Nothing.

Couldn't make up my mind. God damn it!

I am so tempted by the 5d3 that it has prevented me buying anything. I need to get my hands on one, probably by renting one, to see if I can live with the reach loss.

Will keep post updated if I can get my finger out of my butt and take action

You are not alone ! After reading this and similar topics, I started to think about 5DM3, instead of 100-400ii and 7Dii.
I am still not sure how it will visibly improve IQ though. There are lots of high enough quality 7D pictures around, super sharp bir pictures etc.
If someone is willing to explain or show samples I am really interested in following the post.


Do
I will keep my existing 7D for wildlife and use 5DM3 for portraits, home studio and street photography. Full frame pictures are always shining !
But wait, can't 7DM2 do the same thing at "fairly" high quality?
Loop

I have made my final decision!

Dug up a few extra spondoolies and am replacing both my Mk1 100-400mm and 7D mk1 and replacing them with their mk2 versions. Also going for the 1.4x iii converter.

My final decision was based on the fact that I am almost 100% a wildlife photographer and I couldn't bring myself to give up on the crop factor reach benefit.

Only sad news is my supplier of photographic gear is out of stock of the lens right now.

I will be adding some shots to the relevant threads when I get snapping with the new gear.

Have you tried Allen's Cameras yet? I'm not sure where you reside but if in the US, they had a couple of them two weeks ago. That's where I ordered mine. I got tired of Amazon stance: pre-order: not yet released.

Should really update my profile information, I am in the UK.

Have been told to expect delivery, mid February. Just enough time for me to change my mind. Sigh.

Two weeks... give or take a few days. You'll love both of them, if my experience is any indicator.

AlanU wrote in post #17365508
ae1,

If you go the 5dmk3 route you'll see a drastic difference in IQ and most importantly you'll be completely blown away that you can shoot at incredibly high iso.

Now you must purchase full frame compatible lenses......this will start to add to the expense in jumping in the full frame body.

I started to think about moving to FF after this topic, and I did. 5DMK3 is in today.
Now what ? A wide angle zoom. But which one ?

I threw caution to the wind and a lot of pound notes and took delivery of both 7D2 and 100-400mm mk2.

You only live once right?

Sun has been out for a grand total of 2 hrs since I got them though. fml!

Triplexbee wrote in post #17428158
I threw caution to the wind and a lot of pound notes and took delivery of both 7D2 and 100-400mm mk2. You only live once right? Sun has been out for a grand total of 2 hrs since I got them though. fml!

That might be for the best ! Coffee, and the manual. Then, when the skies clear.... go tear 'em up !
Congrats on your new toys, good choices. I wish you many hours of delightful distraction.

Triplexbee wrote in post #17428158
I threw caution to the wind and a lot of pound notes and took delivery of both 7D2 and 100-400mm mk2.

You only live once right?

Sun has been out for a grand total of 2 hrs since I got them though. fml!

Awesome

AE-1 wrote in post #17427991
I started to think about moving to FF after this topic, and I did. 5DMK3 is in today.
Now what ? A wide angle zoom. But which one ?

tough call....

After playing with a lot of lenses and buying a 24-70Lmk2..... I look no further for a killer mid tele zoom. The images from 24mm to 70mm are only f/2.8 but the quality is without a doubt like using a prime. Other 3rd party zooms are very good but the micro contrast of the canon mk2 zoom still trumps them in overall image quality and AF accuracy.

Bottom line is if you print your images the differences are not that critical. However looking at the full res images there's definitely a difference.

AE-1,

The new 16-35 f/4L IS is probably the best value/performance combination right now. Unless you really need an f/2.8 and then there's the older 16-35 f/2.8L.

I have the older 17-40 f/4 that I use for some landscapes. Stopped down to f/8 or f/11 it is fairly good when I need it. I have a number of other things to upgrade before I go to the 16-35 f/4L IS in my landscape kit.

Triplexbee,

I don't think you'll be disappointed. The 7d2 and 100-400ii has opened up new possibilities for me. I'm having a blast. The sun will come back out eventually and you'll be amazed at the results of your new combo.

I have been out in the garden, shooting anything as you do when new gear is involved and I can tell already that I am going like what these can achieve.

Jim K
Thanks for the suggestion. I was thinking about Tamrom 24-70 and Canon 24-70 mark I, but I think 16-35 fits my needs better.

I need a wide angle zoom for landscape, architecture and city photography (all are new to me after years of wildlife-bird photography).
I have already started searching the lens sample topics. I have 2.8 obsession but for this focal range and purpose I think shallow DOF is not so important.