7D2 worth if from a 60D

As others have said, glass. Sell your 70-200 F4 and add some money and pick up the 70-200 2.8. If you are always shooting fast action, you don't even need IS. Given the funds available, I recommend the IS though. The 7DII is going to provide very little in IQ for the money based on what you are shooting.

Yes, I absolutely got everything and then some out of my 60D but I couldn't believe the difference from the 7D2.. The AF is wicked quick, 10FPS is amazing and so is the buffer if you're using RAW or Jpeg.

I'm sure other camera's can get sharp photos, but I've never literally focused onto a drivers eyeballs as he was flying by at 120mph..

http://i.imgur.com/Vjy​n7vz.jpg

Photograph is too large to embed, so I posted the direct link.

-eric

The 7D II's AF system is miles ahead of the 60D, if you're shooting fast-moving sports, you will love the 7D. Yes there is a steep learning curve but just spend a little time reading the manual and watching the Roy Winston videos and practicing with it, you'll have no problems.

I am most likely going to pick up the Tamron 70-200f2.8 and keep my 70-200 for travels since its lighter. AF and FPS really isn't an issue for me. It would be nice to have better but the 60D handles everything for me easily. Faster glass seems to be the top vote so I'll look into that. I'll have to go to a local camera stroe and see how heavy the canon one is and see if its worth selling the f4 for funds for the f2.8 canon version or keep the f4 and pick up the tamron.

I still take great photos with my 60D. I won't give this camera up. Pretty solid machine.

The 60D is a great camera and I love it but I just want better low light performance. Not that the 60D can't handle it, I just want more. Faster glass should solve that issue for me.
I was looking at canon refurbs but the 70-200f2.8 mark 2 is never in stock.

The tamron's a pile of dungheap. At least my experience autofocusing with two corporate copies of the 70-200 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 on a 5D3. The 7D2 is worth if you shoot sports. Otherwise, go full frame for the same money.

idkdc wrote in post #17618676
The tamron's a pile of dungheap. At least my experience autofocusing with two corporate copies of the 70-200 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 on a 5D3. The 7D2 is worth if you shoot sports. Otherwise, go full frame for the same money.

I have a tamtom 70-300 that is quite sharp....

I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and I love it. Built solid, focuses without issues, and quite sharp.

I won't do full frame yet. I don't have anything wider then 50mm for full frame. And I happy with crop sensors so far.

Like I said before, it won't be till towards the end of the year to pick up something and its down to the Tamron or Canon Refurb. If I see canon Refurb in stock, I'll go for it. If not then Tamron.

Frodge wrote in post #17618901
I have a tamtom 70-300 that is quite sharp....

They're sharp but the AF speed is slow.. I used the 70-200 2.8f at Monster Jam once, never had so many throw away photos in my life.. I could've manually focused faster with better results LOL.

If I were looking for a telephoto zoom and couldn't afford the 100-400ii, I'd keep an eye out for a used Canon 70-300L. I've seen them in the $800s lately... I paid $1400 for mine and still love it. I have the 100-400ii but I still can't bring myself to sell mine. I loaned it to my son a few weeks ago, so someone else can appreciate it.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #17619402
If I were looking for a telephoto zoom and couldn't afford the 100-400ii, I'd keep an eye out for a used Canon 70-300L. I've seen them in the $800s lately... I paid $1400 for mine and still love it. I have the 100-400ii but I still can't bring myself to sell mine. I loaned it to my son a few weeks ago, so someone else can appreciate it.

+1 on the 70-300L, I just picked up a "like new" one for a great price!

The problem with the 70-300 is the f5.6. I think f2.8 is my option for low light sports. That is what in aiming for. The 70-300 or even the 100-400 would be great for outdoors but not for night games. It will be tough.

I would also concentrate on some pp technique. There is a sticky around here somewhere that shows how well the files clean up, and I think the op used a 60d at the time.

Frodge wrote in post #17619685
I would also concentrate on some pp technique. There is a sticky around here somewhere that shows how well the files clean up, and I think the op used a 60d at the time.

60D files at ISO 6400 clean up nicely, if I do everything right. I'd still rather field the 6D in that kind of lighting. The 6D throws excellent JPG files at 6400. I finally boxed up my 60D and put it in the closet. It doesn't get used anymore. Gotta shoot in lousy light? Full frame and fast primes, my friends.