6D to 7DII?

I asked this in another forum so I apologize for posting again if you read this there. I have a Sony A7II and the 6D and since both are full frame I have been thinking about selling the 6D and getting the 7DII. The way I see it is the 7DII will give me better focusing and reach for my 70-300L and maybe eventually selling the 70-300 and getting the 100-400 II. Is the 7D II still having focus problems?

A vast majority haven't had an af issue and still don't. The odds are greatly in your favor for getting a good working body.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17835912
A vast majority haven't had an af issue and still don't. The odds are greatly in your favor for getting a good working body.

Agreed. Seems like the focus issues were mostly within one or two of the original batches to leave the factory.

7DII is absolutely my favorite "little Canon" to go with white guns. It is the first non 1D I've kept in nearly 10 years.

id10t wrote in post #17835845
I asked this in another forum so I apologize for posting again if you read this there. I have a Sony A7II and the 6D and since both are full frame I have been thinking about selling the 6D and getting the 7DII. The way I see it is the 7DII will give me better focusing and reach for my 70-300L and maybe eventually selling the 70-300 and getting the 100-400 II. Is the 7D II still having focus problems?

It won't give you any better reach, it will however decrease your field of view. And this is not to restart this age old argument once again. I'm simply stating my own experience when I put my newly purchased 70-200 f2.8 on my 600D. The field of view was just not acceptable to me which is why I got the 6D. You have to decide this for yourself.

id10t wrote in post #17835845
I asked this in another forum so I apologize for posting again if you read this there. I have a Sony A7II and the 6D and since both are full frame I have been thinking about selling the 6D and getting the 7DII. The way I see it is the 7DII will give me better focusing and reach for my 70-300L and maybe eventually selling the 70-300 and getting the 100-400 II. Is the 7D II still having focus problems?

owning the 7D2 is all about FPS and tracking - if you need that, then you need a 7D2 or a 1Dx

If better focusing is your primary concern, what about changing the 6D out for a 5D3? More money obviously but used 5D3s are going for very reasonable prices lately.

Would give you the better focusing you need, then if you need more reach than your 70-300 provides, get the 100-400 later.

OP, as hinted at by saea501, a cropped sensor does not really give you better reach. It uses less of the glass in front of the sensor so a so-so lens may appear to perform better. It also reduces the amount of DOF seen.

I also agree with Vertigo1 about the 5D3 and am toying myself with getting a 5D3 to replace my original 7D.

saea501 wrote in post #17835952
It won't give you any better reach, it will however decrease your field of view. And this is not to restart this age old argument once again. I'm simply stating my own experience when I put my newly purchased 70-200 f2.8 on my 600D. The field of view was just not acceptable to me which is why I got the 6D. You have to decide this for yourself.

Landscape/Portrait -or- Sports/Action? If it's the former, I'd stick with the 6D otherwise, go for the 7DII. If it's a little of both, I'd go with the 7DII.

stevewf1 wrote in post #17841086
Landscape/Portrait -or- Sports/Action? If it's the former, I'd stick with the 6D otherwise, go for the 7DII. If it's a little of both, I'd go with the 7DII.

This. The focusing system used in the 7D2 is outstanding, and for me this model is a great choice. For the times when the camera is on tripod and there is plenty of time, the 6D is great. Until a camera is developed that does everything perfectly; fast moving subjects, High ISO, Low light, high FPS, fairly affordable, the 7D2 is a very good choice for a do-all selection. In my ideal world, I'd like both, and may try to add a 6D later this year. For now, very happy with this one.

saea501 wrote in post #17835952
It won't give you any better reach, it will however decrease your field of view. And this is not to restart this age old argument once again. I'm simply stating my own experience when I put my newly purchased 70-200 f2.8 on my 600D. The field of view was just not acceptable to me which is why I got the 6D. You have to decide this for yourself.

TonyKInTexas wrote in post #17841084
OP, as hinted at by saea501, a cropped sensor does not really give you better reach. It uses less of the glass in front of the sensor so a so-so lens may appear to perform better. It also reduces the amount of DOF seen.

I also agree with Vertigo1 about the 5D3 and am toying myself with getting a 5D3 to replace my original 7D.

An APS-C sized sensor with approximately the same number of pixels, will resolve far more small detail at the sensor than one based on 35mm film. In a focal length limited situation this higher resolution will result in more pixels on any specific subject. If the pixel counts are exactly identical then the smaller APS-C sensor will record 2.56× as many pixels on any specific target. As long as the lens resolution is sufficient to match the sensor resolution, and most current quality lenses have sufficient resolution to outresolve current sensors (if that wasn't the case the camera manufacturers would not need to use AA filters on sensors) then the higher resolution of the sensor will always be an advantage.

With a 600mm lens I find that maybe 50% of my images actually need to be cropped to use only a 15×10mm area of sensor in order for the subject to fill the frame. I don't actually care how big the sensor is in this situation, as long as it will put the maximum number of pixels possible on the subject. If I were using an old 20D (my backup body) I could upgrade to any of the approx 22 MP FF bodies and I would get pretty much the same number of pixels on target. So in that situation no the "crop" format offers no advantage. On the other hand I could look at the 7DII or any of the other 18-20 MP crop cameras and they offer upwards of twice as many pixels on target compared to the 22MP FF bodies.

Admittedly there is a FF option that will match the crop bodies, the 5DS cameras have approximately the same linear resolution as the 18 to 20 MP crop bodies, so you can match the crop bodies for resolution, they do have very good AF systems too. The main issue for a lot of people with those bodies is frame rate and buffer depth. Being almost twice the price of a 7DII is also a big drawback for some.

Given the cameras that the OP is starting with, any of the 18 MP plus crop bodies are going to offer a significant 2× or better increase in total number of pixels on the subject, with the same lenses. That is a significant gain in resolution. To match that gain over the 300mm he has, using a Canon lens on the 6D would require the use of the 500mm f/4 L, or similarly expensive lenses with converters.

So if you are FL limited, and also want an excellent AF system, virtually identical to that in Canon's top of the range 1Dx, combined with high frame rate and good buffer depth, the 7DII would seem to be the best choice available from Canon, and maybe from any manufacturer. As seems to be clear from a careful examination of the facts, there is no general AF problem with the camera. It's just a system that takes some learning to understand and master. If you don't make the effort to do that it will disappoint. I'm sure that if Canon sold the 1Dx at around £1000 that there would be an awful lot of complaints about the AF, and other systems from inexperienced buyers who expect a camera costing that much money to just do it all for them. If I were in a situation that I could afford a new 7DII I would go out and buy one tomorrow without hesitation, knowing that the chances of it being faulty in any way would be very low.

Alan

OP, a noobie's take on things. I went from a T3i to the 7D2. I haven't shot other Canon models.
I chose the 7D2 for AF system, buffer depth, frame rate and onboard GPS. I am a wannabe BIF shooter.

After just over a year with the 7D2 I have come to the following conclusions:

The supposed superior AF system has not improved my success rate very much. Could be me or it could be my camera.

Buffer depth is good. Camera doesn't slow down at all for my average burst rates

10 fps way too fast 99% of the time. I have slow speed set to 5 fps. That is the 99% of the time

GPS is not really sensitive enough. Looses signal a lot.

So, really evaluate what you are missing then make a decision. In the end my two grand didn't buy me a lot. (If I don't count a lot of reading on the POTN forums).

Rod

I have both the 7Dii and the 6D. I use the 7D for birds and the 6D for everything else. the 7Dii has superior focusing for moving critters while the 6D has better image quality, lower noise and better low light performance.

RodS57 wrote in post #17841514
OP, a noobie's take on things. I went from a T3i to the 7D2. I haven't shot other Canon models.
I chose the 7D2 for AF system, buffer depth, frame rate and onboard GPS. I am a wannabe BIF shooter.

After just over a year with the 7D2 I have come to the following conclusions:

The supposed superior AF system has not improved my success rate very much. Could be me or it could be my camera.

Buffer depth is good. Camera doesn't slow down at all for my average burst rates

10 fps way too fast 99% of the time. I have slow speed set to 5 fps. That is the 99% of the time

GPS is not really sensitive enough. Looses signal a lot.

So, really evaluate what you are missing then make a decision. In the end my two grand didn't buy me a lot. (If I don't count a lot of reading on the POTN forums).

Rod

I made the same move, with the same cameras. The T3i is a great choice for many things. It's focusing system didn't work for BIF. The 7D2 took much longer to learn than I expected, but I now find it is everything I wanted and expected. When it didn't work for me in the beginning, I questioned the camera. After keeping at it, I found the problem was me. Trying not to sound condescending or anything, keep at it. This is a fantastic fast action camera. It WILL do what you want.

NCSA197 wrote in post #17841645
I made the same move, with the same cameras. The T3i is a great choice for many things. It's focusing system didn't work for BIF. The 7D2 took much longer to learn than I expected, but I now find it is everything I wanted and expected. When it didn't work for me in the beginning, I questioned the camera. After keeping at it, I found the problem was me. Trying not to sound condescending or anything, keep at it. This is a fantastic fast action camera. It WILL do what you want.

No issues. You're not being condescending at all. I just tried to point out that maybe the OP doesn't need the bells and whistles on the 7D2. The same way I'd like a Ferrari that does 300 mph but in the here and now a 4x4 pickup makes more sense

Rod

The focus problems on the 7DII were a combination of a few defective bodies and a very sophisticated AF system that takes some time to learn. There were also some active threads here that made it seem like the problems were much more widespread than they actually were. Also some Tamron and Sigma lenses will convince you there is something wrong with the camera when, in fact, the lens just doesn't focus as accurately or quickly as a Canon lens and the 7DII AF is so good makes the lens' focus weakness obvious. FEAR NOT!!

I regularly use a Tamron 70-300 VC which is about the same size as the Canon 70-300L. It is quite long on a 7DII but it's biggest advantage is that it is small enough to be thrown in your bag and be there when you need it. I've had a 100-400 MKII on loan from Canon and it is a spectacular lens. It is extremely sharp and focuses VERY fast and accurately. But it is quite large. It probably won't fit in your bag or pack so you will need to take it along as an extra bag. It's size also tends to mean, for me at least, that when you use it you will probably want to limit yourself to subjects for which it is appropriate. You won't want to change it very often.

I have a 70-300L coming on loan from Canon and I intend to compare how it fits into my work as compared to the 100-400. I expect it to be much like my Tamron only with better IQ and much better AF.

As to the 7DII, the image files will surprise you. They are much more flexible than those from previous Canon crop bodies. The high ISO is excellent and they can be cropped very severely - which also effects your lens choice with the 70-300 and 100-400. The RAW files may not look very good but good PP can produce fantastic results.

Hope this all helps. I think you will love the 7DII. The lens choice will be more personal but those are both really good lenses. Enjoy!