KenjiS wrote in post #17849568
First i think you're being unnecessarily abrasive about all of this
Second, I think you have absolutely zero clue about me so here, let me go over a few things
As I said, I've shot the 7D since 2009, Before it came out, I ran a 30D, Before that, I ran the EOS 3, and before that, I had a Nikon N70 and a selection of mostly manual focus Nikon-mount glass I could get at a good price. Been doing this for a bit over 10 years now, Im not new to this, Not one bit.
I have shot the 5DII, Its lovely, but the AF stinks, You know how i know it stinks? I rocked the 30D for a few years too. I got THAT right when it came out as well, and the AF system in the 30D is roughly equal to the 5DII's system. I missed plenty of shots because the 30D Herp-derped focus, did not track, something went between points, or there simply was not a point where I needed it. It was abysmal compared to the EOS 3. This is not "analysis by paralysis", this is me simply looking at what i did not like about what i owned, and seeking to rectify it in a new product. Sure, I can shoot around, work around the limitations, what have you, does not mean that i enjoy that nor does it mean i should "put up with it"
Before the EOS 7D was even announced I had a list of what I wanted from a new camera, and that list was simple, I wanted my EOS 3 back. I wanted the fast, reliable autofocus, that worked constantly, accurately, and left me free to concentrate on other aspects of crafting an image, That gave me 45 whopping points to precisely choose what i desired in focus. Canon was not offering this, along with several other items I wanted (Namely a 24-105 equivalent for crop sensor and a macro lens with image stabilization, Both things Nikon was offering at the time) which had me on the fence of switching brands over it.
In one day, Canon announced the 7D, 15-85 and 100L, I bought the 15-85 as soon as it was available (In fact i was one of the first people on this forum with it, I wrote a very long review on it) a month and a half or so later i grabbed the 7D and then finally the 100L a couple months later. I do not "wax hypothetical" or go "paralysis by analysis". I simply was seeking some insight and advice from those who had switched from the 7D to one of the mirrorless systems, i wanted to know how they compared AF, and i most of all was hoping to find shooters that work in similar subjects, Perhaps some who owned some of my glass to compare. I ended up quite a few pages back dismissing the idea of switching, instead deciding to focus on a smaller lighter supplement that can fit in my messenger bag and go everywhere with me, Keeping the 7D and my EF Glass as a dedicated shooting system.
I find it laughable you advocate switching my 7D and suggest a ton of lenses, not one of them a true macro lens (I did research the Vivitar, its a lovely lens, especially the close focus variant which admittedly does 1:2) but this does not change a simple fact: I do not want to manually focus all the time anymore. Given a huge percentage of what i shoot is macro, thats a big problem, Additionally as i shoot macros handheld, I find the IS on the 100L to be very helpful. Carrying a tripod around is a pain in the rear and very limiting in composition choice in my experience, Which is why I dont do it.
My joints cant do racking a MF Macro anymore and even with an electronic viewfinder, i find manually focusing a lens difficult, I prefer to focus on composition and what my subject is doing, Tweaking my camera position to get a light in just the right spot, or quickly snapping a photo of something before he moment is gone. I cannot MF that quickly, I prefer a good solid AF system that can nail focus. I also completely hate the 28mm focal length, as i've learned from numerous 28-xx zooms, 24 is far better to me but even still not something i think id invest in a dedicated prime for. Oh, and I wouldnt bother with a 50mm f/1.8 really, the difference between 50mm f/1.8 and say, a 30mm f/1.4 on my 7D is not terribly big in terms of depth of field. If I was going to full frame, id pretty much want to go for f/1.4 primes. Autofocus ones at that.
I do shoot wildlife, specifically birds, I used to shoot a heck of a lot more of it before selling the 100-400 off (Which I actually quite regret, I never felt the optics were up to snuff on the 7D but i regret not shipping it to Canon to see if they could realign it or something) I do so with my 70-200 f/4L and a 1.4x Kenko TC, the TC is nice, but it does noticably wreck sharpness, additionally it really borks tracking sometimes, Its not a bad solution, but its not the solution I want, I very much want to trade off my 70-200 f/4L IS for another 100-400 or perhaps a 300 f/4L IS.. Id probubly have done so last year had i not spent a large chunk of it ill.
Again, the 7D's AF is useful not just for sports/action, it tracks insects very well, can track a moving flower, or slight variations from my breathing or various other things, I've found it to be an immensely helpful tool in many situations. Same with the 8fps burst rate for insects or birds that are flying and moving around rapidly. It works in pretty much every lighting ive used it in, and done so with a high rate of accuracy.
Is the 7D perfect? No. Would I buy a 7D2 Now? Probubly not, as there are other, less expensive cameras with a similar feature set (Nikon's superb D7200 comes immediately to mind) at the time, the 7D was what was available that ticked the boxes. I bought it in 2009, I've shot thousands of images on it, its been through rain, snow, sleet, hail, ice, mud and all sort of other things and still fires and works 100% perfectly. Its done superbly well, and I think something you miss is that I am not terribly keen on selling it, because I still feel it does a great job.
The a7 is not a replacement for the 7D to me, Simple as that, in terms of image quality i have zero question it would nail the 7D to the curb, and it should. But we're talking a system, E-mount has no long wildlife lenses. I see zero point in buying a "compact" a7 and slapping a gigantic 150-600 zoom + Converter on it on top of it, that defeats the point of the a7 and will lead to a massively unbalanced combination. Not to say the a7 has no potential place in my system, but best case id be looking at the a7 + 35mm f/2.8 Sonnar, Used probubly about $1200. Not too shabby I suppose, Except the only macro for the a7 is the 90mm OSS, Which is completely missing my criteria of "pocketable" and now i've added another $800+ to the cost, Im over $2000 now for a bunch of used kit i have to be concerned with being covered in perfume/cleaners or something else im allergic to. I'm not terribly fond of the a7's grip either (I prefer the a7 II's better controur)
Sony also does not have a 24-105 equivalent walkaround for the a7. Basically every lens i genuinely use constantly? The a7 lacks a equivalent to. I do not want to carry 2 lenses (The 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/4) Nor do i want a superzoom. If I'm paying $1000 for a 50mm lens, I'd love it to be an f/1.2, not an f/1.8. Convert Canon/Nikon lenses over? You're defeating the point of the small body to me.
So if i go full frame, it will be a used 5D Mark III, or maybe a D610/D750, Not an a7, But thats not for a while now. I ruled the a7 out a long time ago for that reason. The E-mount glass does not cover my needs, and there is zero point to me converting glass to it that would work better on a different camera. the a7, at best to me, would be the a7 and the 35mm Sonnar, and that is it.
As for back and forth on the a6000 vs the m4/3 system? Simply put, it was the sensor and knowing how APS-C renders stuff with various apertures vs a better selection of lenses and lower cost. I went with the glass because one of the lenses i really wanted for my tiny walkaround setup was a very compact macro, m4/3 has that in the Macro-Elmarit 45mm, Sony does not really have one of those that doesnt duplicate another focal length (the 35mm f/3.5, coupled with the 35mm f/1.8 id likely get as the primary prime for it)