Am I the only one?

Looking at how much the used price of the 7D has dropped has cured me from wanting to upgrade mine to the new 7D2. It looks like I could only get about $400 for mine. I only use the 7D as a dedicated wildlife body when I bring along two bodies, so it only gets used for 2-3 trips per year. For everything else, I use a 5D3. I was considering upgrading before our Yellowstone trip in late summer, but now think I'll just "muddle through" with my 7D. For the little amount I use the 7D, I cannot justify spending over $1K to upgrade.

Patbil10 wrote in post #17440457
Whenever I get the urge to upgrade, I go see the 5DC image sample threads and I'm always impressed by the images coming from this so called "old" camera. Doing this immediately puts out the flame to upgrade. If I'm honest with myself and avoid gear lust, there's no reason for me to upgrade my current gear for many years to come.

I think the technology has arrived to the point where improvements will be minor and practically impossible to tell the difference in real world use. Those "differences" become a little more apparent in lab test and 100% cropping of images....but none of that is real world use.

I shoot weddings, family and events and I'm extremely please with the results I get from my current roster of cameras/lenses...I can't see that changing anytime soon !

I think we all agree that IQ is not a major reason for upgrading. I had no complaints about the images my 5Dc put out, as long as I could keep the ISO at 800 or lower. At 1600 it was no better than my 60D. Above 1600, I could get more out of the 60D. My reason for adding the 6D was that I found myself wanting more than my 60D could deliver at 6400. 60D files at 6400 MUST be properly exposed and individually worked to get the best out of them. I can shoot my 6D JPG at 6400, if I so desire. Big improvement there. My 6D also introduced me to fast(er) primes. Going from f/5.6 on the 60D to f/2 or so on the 6D is one GINORMOUS leap in noise performance. And all of that introduced me to natural light shooting, indoors. Learning to get the most out of my 6D is an ongoing experiment. That said, I can't tell the difference between the 60D, 5Dc, or 6D when shooting at low ISO. They all look really good. IQ was not the reason for my upgrade.

Scott M wrote in post #17440476
Looking at how much the used price of the 7D has dropped has cured me from wanting to upgrade mine to the new 7D2. It looks like I could only get about $400 for mine. I only use the 7D as a dedicated wildlife body when I bring along two bodies, so it only gets used for 2-3 trips per year. For everything else, I use a 5D3. I was considering upgrading before our Yellowstone trip in late summer, but now think I'll just "muddle through" with my 7D. For the little amount I use the 7D, I cannot justify spending over $1K to upgrade.

Ditto. I'll keep my 60D and give it to my grandson when he is 12, or throw it away when it breaks, before I sell it for $400. I can't buy a good P&S (G16, S120, SX60) for that. As long as I'm keeping the 60D, I may as well keep the 15-85. I know from one of my other threads (7D, 1D3, or Keep 60D) that I am not getting all the performance my 60D is capable of. As long as I'm not maxed out with one body, what is the point of buying another? This summer, I'll work on MY performance.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17439379
Hey, although I am not in CO, UT, or ME, I am one of those weirdos that like it! For me, the colder the better, as far as outdoor photography is concerned. I just love the look of snow and frost!

Guess you're not doing too much golfing these days.

You like the cold ?! You should come to Ottawa as it's -25c ! We've had 44 days this winter where the high never went above -15c.

Patbil10 wrote in post #17440588
You like the cold ?! You should come to Ottawa as it's -25c ! We've had 44 days this winter where the high never went above -15c.

And you live there voluntarily?

I love natural lighting:

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17440597
And you live there voluntarily?

It is home. Perhaps one day "home" will be much further south !

Patbil10 wrote in post #17440588
You like the cold ?! You should come to Ottawa as it's -25c ! We've had 44 days this winter where the high never went above -15c.

It was -26F in some areas around here this morning -- that's -32C for you. The outside temp gauge on my car only hit -18F on my morning commute -- that's -28C.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17440557
I am not getting all the performance my 60D is capable of. As long as I'm not maxed out with one body, what is the point of buying another? This summer, I'll work on MY performance.

That makes as much sense as anything I've read for a long time - an excellent philosophy that anyone would benefit from adopting!

Patbil10 wrote in post #17440588
You like the cold ?! You should come to Ottawa as it's -25c ! We've had 44 days this winter where the high never went above -15c.

That would be awesome! At least your snow and hoar frost don't melt away a day or two after forming. In my experience, on clear days, hoar frost usually melts away whenever it goes above 10 or 12 degrees F. That means that when we are lucky enough to get heavy hoar frost overnight, by 10 or 10:30am, it has already melted off. The beauty is so short-lived. How disheartening!

I'll bet in your temperatures, when the vegetation gets frost or snow on it, it stays there for weeks at a time, without ever melting off. It must be perpetually beautiful!

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17440767
That would be awesome! At least your snow and hoar frost don't melt away a day or two after forming. In my experience, on clear days, hoar frost usually melts away whenever it goes above 10 or 12 degrees F. That means that when we are lucky enough to get heavy hoar frost overnight, by 10 or 10:30am, it has already melted off. The beauty is so short-lived. How disheartening!

For all I care you can take all our snow in Boston! 100" in less than 30 days, and the temp never went about 25F.

Patbil10 wrote in post #17440457
Whenever I get the urge to upgrade, I go see the 5DC image sample threads and I'm always impressed by the images coming from this so called "old" camera. Doing this immediately puts out the flame to upgrade. If I'm honest with myself and avoid gear lust, there's no reason for me to upgrade my current gear for many years to come.

I think the technology has arrived to the point where improvements will be minor and practically impossible to tell the difference in real world use. Those "differences" become a little more apparent in lab test and 100% cropping of images....but none of that is real world use.

I tend to disagree. The IQ jump from a crop camera to FF was considerable. The low light handling improvement from the 70D to the 6D is sizable. I still keep my crop camera, but it is used to wildlife only - with a long telephoto. I sold all my crop lenses (except for the 18-200 that my wife would not part with). Technology does offer measurable improvements, even though it is, of course, the skills of a photographer that is the biggest factor.

Lbsimon wrote in post #17440866
For all I care you can take all our snow in Boston! 100" in less than 30 days, and the temp never went about 25F.

Oh, c'mon! 100" of snow and a whole ocean to push it into? Really? (jk, ) North Central Indiana averages 66" of snow every year to Boston's 43". Our record cold snap was, IIRC, 11 days where it never got above ZERO. It's all what you get used to.

I am sure someone from Montana will be along momentarily to tell us they get 66" of snow and subzero temperatures in May!
(They can keep it!)

Come back in July for tales of heat and humidity.

I have to take everyone's word for the IQ of FF over a crop camera. For what I shoot, I need to stay with the 7D2.

I could afford a FF camera, but I couldn't afford the birding lenses I would need to replicate the field of view I enjoy now. There is a huge jump in price from a 100-400 ii to one of the super telephoto: $2K to over $10k.

At the moment, over 90% of my stuff is wildlife or birds. The 15-85 works fine for landscapes... and the 100L macro works very well on a crop camera.

Lbsimon wrote in post #17440871
I tend to disagree. The IQ jump from a crop camera to FF was considerable. The low light handling improvement from the 70D to the 6D is sizable. I still keep my crop camera, but it is used to wildlife only - with a long telephoto. I sold all my crop lenses (except for the 18-200 that my wife would not part with). Technology does offer measurable improvements, even though it is, of course, the skills of a photographer that is the biggest factor.

I think the point is that the 70D is not significantly better than the 60D, and the 6D is not significantly better than the 5Dc, at comparable settings. If the shooter spends a lot of time at ISO 400 and less, the only noticeable difference between crop and fullframe is DOF.

I've been shooting MF and full frame since the 1970s. I was amazed by ISO 1600 on my XSi. Let us not forget from whence we came.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17440905
I think the point is that the 70D is not significantly better than the 60D, and the 6D is not significantly better than the 5Dc, at comparable settings. If the shooter spends a lot of time at ISO 400 and less, the only noticeable difference between crop and fullframe is DOF.

I've been shooting MF and full frame since the 1970s. I was amazed by ISO 1600 on my XSi. Let us not forget from whence we came.

Actually, while there was not much improvement from T2i to let's say T5i to 60D, the 70D offered an noticeable improvements. But the point taken, I agree that within the category there is not much of a difference. However, the more modern cameras allow you to get better pictures under more difficult conditions, e.g., low light.

The XSi was my first camera with autofocus. I got my first camera, all manual, no exposure metering, no AF, not even an automatic reading of the film ISO, in 1963. All the post processing was done at night in a single bathroom in the apartment when the parents were asleep. You've come a long way, baby!

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17440896
Oh, c'mon! 100" of snow and a whole ocean to push it into? Really? (jk, ) North Central Indiana averages 66" of snow every year to Boston's 43". Our record cold snap was, IIRC, 11 days where it never got above ZERO. It's all what you get used to.

I am sure someone from Montana will be along momentarily to tell us they get 66" of snow and subzero temperatures in May!
(They can keep it!)

Sorry, can't relate! We get zero snow and temperatures never drop below 40F here. 70F now...