Sell my 7D Mark II and get A7III plus adapter?

I have a gripped 7DII that I bought for the extra reach over my 1Dx. I find myself shooting the 1Dx almost exclusively though because the photos are just that much better in my view. Does it make sense to anyone else to dump the 7DII given the limited use in favor of a more full featured A7III plus lens adapters? Other than AF performance with long glass and fact moving subjects, I can't think of one reason not to sell the 7DII. Am I missing something here?

Sorry, the thread title should be A7III NOT A7RIII. I would need to add about a grand to the 7DII sell price to get the A7III but when I look at the AF performance and the fact that it is full frame I can't help but think the cost is worth it.

I'm a strong proponent of the school of "If you don't use it, then move it along". Although, if you are not using the 7DII now, if you switch to the Sony, is it also going to go unused? What problem are you trying to solve with the upgrade?

gjl711 wrote in post #18674281
I'm a strong proponent of the school of "If you don't use it, then move it along". Although, if you are not using the 7DII now, if you switch to the Sony, is it also going to go unused? What problem are you trying to solve with the upgrade?

I bought the 7D to use for extra reach as well as what had been touted at relatively good higher ISO performance. I also wanted it for an extra body so that I could have a long lens on one and a wide angle zoom on another. However, I found that the AF performance for me in certain situations was not up to par with the 1Dx or at least my expectations, and I also realized that if I was using the 1Dx for motorsports that having a crop for wide angle wasn't necessarily the best choice. In seeing examples of AF performance and high ISO capability of the A7III it looks to be on par with the 1DX, plus it will give me 10PFS in RAW and a silent shutter.

Additionally, I bought the 7DII to use indoors with my girl's cheer competition as sometimes the viewing location was further away and the 70-200 2.8 didn't have enough reach on the full frame. Well she no longer is in cheer so I really have no need, plus I picked up a 300 2.8 for use on the 1Dx. (and am looking at maybe a 500/f4)

I personally don't like the idea. Why do you need an A7RIII? Do you need the 42 mpx? What are you trying to solve.

If you are a sports shooter, then having two cameras makes a lot of sense so you can keep two lenses mounted. Having them be from the same system makes a lot of sense. The 7D also offer the extra reach - and on a big prime that really gives a lot of latitude.

As one who lives in both worlds, I have parked my 1Dx because bouncing between the two is too much of a hassle. For now I am in the Sony camp 90% of the time - with adapted L lenses. But I wouldn't suggest investing in Sony unless you had a super compelling reason to do so. It just messes with your workflow too much.

Not knowing your shooting needs - if they do include sports - I have no issues with focus speed with my 70-200 L mk II, or any of my big primes, some of which are over 10 years old. Just no an issue. On consumer grade lenses... a bit more problems with the exception of my Tamron lenses.... ironically. I have a 30 year old tamron and it focuses just fine. Go figure.

Anyway, my advice, hand tight and see what is announced over the next few months. Canon (and Nikon) have to announce something definitive else the damage will be too great. Love my Sonys but there will be other stuff around the corner if you want to go mirrorless (I'll never go back to mirrored if I have a choice). Keep the 7D as your backup until you really know what direction you want to head.

I wasn't able to edit the thread title but did explain in my first post and next post that I was looking for the A7III. $2k for a full frame with that many features is so very tempting.

gjl711 wrote in post #18674281
I'm a strong proponent of the school of "If you don't use it, then move it along". Although, if you are not using the 7DII now, if you switch to the Sony, is it also going to go unused? What problem are you trying to solve with the upgrade?

Don't use it for how long? I've got a closet full of gear. FF and APS-c digital bodies, 13 EF/EF-s lenses, 2 film bodies and UWA/STD/TELE zooms for them. Some stuff doesn't get used often, but when I want it, I want. Not selling something is a boatload cheaper than re-buying it.

If I sold all the tools I didn't use over the last year, I'd be left with hammer and pair of pliers. Not selling any tools, either.

Bassat wrote in post #18674502
Don't use it for how long? I've got a closet full of gear. FF and APS-c digital bodies, 13 EF/EF-s lenses, 2 film bodies and UWA/STD/TELE zooms for them. Some stuff doesn't get used often, but when I want it, I want. Not selling something is a boatload cheaper than re-buying it.

If I sold all the tools I didn't use over the last year, I'd be left with hammer and pair of pliers. Not selling any tools, either.

Tools are much different than cameras. The useful life of a tool is decades or more and many are very specialized or difficult to get. With a camera, the useful life can be as short as 3 years with most upgrading within 5 years and they are all off the shelf commodities (unless modded for astro or such). A camera sitting on the shelf for a year or two is 1/2 of it's usable life. That's money wasted. The only exception I can see is a backup camera but then again, a backup is doing it's job every time your out shooting.

Why not get a 6DII?

Your analogy makes very little sense. Unless it is some collectors item, selling a camera while it has value will be a net benefit even if I have to buy another in 2 years. In fact if the 7DIII gets announced, the price of the 7DII will drop by several hundred almost immediately. When the 7DII came out, the price of the used 7D went from roughly $900 to $500 seemingly overnight.

As to getting a 6DII, I am done with buying more Canon with limited AF points. The Sony from all the info I have found is heads and shoulders above the rest when it comes to AF. Maybe not speed when tracking objects using a converter but for sure with portraits and other things I would likely be using the camera for as a second body.

"With a camera, the useful life can be as short as 3 years with most upgrading within 5 years and they are all off the shelf commodities (unless modded for astro or such)."

I'm not sure where you got this from. Why is the useful life of a camera only 3 to 5 years. Real pros - they may wear their cameras out in that amount of time, but I haven't seen many hobbies or really good semi-pros who "need" to upgrade their cameras in that amount of time.

Here is a sports image taken back in 2008 from Sports Illustrated

https://www.si.com …-photos-all-time-final#19

This was taken with 10 year old technology - likely a Canon 1D Mk III. Today's value between $350 and $700. It's not the technology that is "needed" You don't need a 1Dx Mk II to get this shot.... or any of the shots there. So why 3 to 5 years do you need to upgrade? Most people upgrade for specific features - like I use bluetooth a lot on my cameras. But it has nothing to do with that quality of the images I am getting.

The Mk III's and even Mk II's focus speed and reliability was more than enough to get just about any shot.

If the 7D really is worn out.... then fine. But a newer camera isn't going to make you a better photographer - rarely is. And a mixed system like I have is actually a lot more complicated and expensive than staying with the same brand. I love my A7s.... I you want one, they are a dream to use. Greater dynamic range is a game changer for me. EVF is so nice. But depending on your shooting style... it could be a miss. Even thought the 6d or 6D mk II don't match up on a spec sheet, they will stay take gorgeous images. I would caution you jumping into a two brand family for now... unless you just can't get the shot you need with your 7D.

gjl711 wrote in post #18674515
Tools are much different than cameras. The useful life of a tool is decades or more and many are very specialized or difficult to get. With a camera, the useful life can be as short as 3 years with most upgrading within 5 years and they are all off the shelf commodities (unless modded for astro or such). A camera sitting on the shelf for a year or two is 1/2 of it's usable life. That's money wasted. The only exception I can see is a backup camera but then again, a backup is doing it's job every time your out shooting.

We have very different philosophies. My 80D will always be as good as the day I bought it. My 6D will always be as good as the day I bought it. (Well, until they quit working, anyway.) I completely fail to understand the concept of 'half its life' is used up by sitting on a shelf. A short while ago, I wrecked my shoulder so badly that I could not pick up a camera for 6 or 7 months. Surprise! Neither of them (6D/1D4) deteriorated one iota while I wasn't using them. In fact, I have two Yashica FX-D bodies. Near as I can tell, both are still as good today as they were in the '80s.

To my mind, you aren't selling stuff 'cuz is old and useless. You are selling stuff 'cuz you want new toys. If 'old' means 'useless', I've been useless for a decade or two.

Bassat wrote in post #18674581
We have very different philosophies. My 80D will always be as good as the day I bought it. My 6D will always be as good as the day I bought it. (Well, until they quit working, anyway.) I completely fail to understand the concept of 'half its life' is used up by sitting on a shelf. A short while ago, I wrecked my shoulder so badly that I could not pick up a camera for 6 or 7 months. Surprise! Neither of them (6D/1D4) deteriorated one iota while I wasn't using them. In fact, I have two Yashica FX-D bodies. Near as I can tell, both are still as good today as they were in the '80s.

To my mind, you aren't selling stuff 'cuz is old and useless. You are selling stuff 'cuz you want new toys. If 'old' means 'useless', I've been useless for a decade or two.

So, you never plan on upgrading and have never upgraded? There are those who keep equipment for a long time but I suspect most on this forum have a lengthy list of upgrades.

gjl711 wrote in post #18674661
So, you never plan on upgrading and have never upgraded? There are those who keep equipment for a long time but I suspect most on this forum have a lengthy list of upgrades.

Yes, I have upgraded several times. Always, always, always, to some previously unavailable, or muchly improved, feature. The camera I upgraded from was not used up, or deteriorated in any way. My 500D was the same 500D, and performed as it always did when I sold it. Your claim that age, regardless of use, degrades a camera is silly.

Mike,

The A73 is like a mini 5dmk4 to a certain degree.

If your going to use the Sony with adapted Canon glass for a second body it will work. My question is for what??? weddings? events? Fun extra camera?

For critical shooting I would suggest NOT using canon glass with sony. The Canon glass is very functional with the A73 but you do not get any video AF with the Sigma Mc11 adapter. I do not feel comfortable using adapted glass for any critical events. I would trust the 7dmk2 landing the shot with canon glass but potentially more noise in low light. The Sony adapted to canon glass in demanding low light you may just get an SD card full of blurry mis focussed shots.

If you want to squeeze every bit of performance out of the Sony you must use native glass $$$ I'm not even at the point of buying native Sony glass because the A73 is purely a fun camera for me. I will say I am finally getting a hang of the new Sony colour science compared to my usual Canon and Fuji.

At this moment I'm really enjoying the A73 with E mount 24mm ART prime for a walk around. Totally different render than my X-t2 with 16 f/1.4 (24mm equiv). My intentions of using Sony is purely experimentation and casual.

You will soon discover the real life render of Sony vs the common Canon images you are use too. Your first battle will be your workflow as mentioned earlier in this thread. If you want that polished post processed photo shop look with Sony it will take alot more effort than Canon.

I'd rent before you dive into sony if your wanting serious reliable performance with adapted canon glass.