Downgrade from a 7D...

I know this sounds crazy but hear me out. I am thinking of downgrading from my 7D back to the 40D (previously owned) or even 1DII to fund the purchase of a 300 2.8L
I don't use the video feature at all, I thought I'd use it a lot. Also I can't use anymore funds, well maybe a few hundred but not enough to keep the 7D and get the 300. Thanks for your input.

Can't really provide you with any advice as I'm just looking into buying a dSLR and was thinking of buying the 7d or the 50d. Curious to know why you don't use the video feature a lot, as this feature is what is making it difficult for me to decide between the two cameras. Keep going back and forth on which one to buy.

I don't think it's crazy. If the 7D has more features than you'll ever need, then why pay the premium for them to never use them? Since the consensus seems to be to spend more money on glass than the body, scaling back from the 7D to get better glass fits that axiom perfectly.

I'm in the midst of deciding which body to buy next (upgrading my Rebel XT). There are things about the 7D I like. But there are things I do not. Video is not something high on my list. And the larger file sizes that RAW files will be from the 7D mean that I'll run out of disk drive space faster than a camera with less megapixels.

So for me I'm thinking 1). 30D (mostly due to lower cost), 2). 40D due to MP still not too high and [to some people] better low-light handling than the 50D, or 3). 50D due to better display and the micro-adjustment feature for lenses.

Int he long run, quality glass will be far more valuable to you than the latest body. We are beginning to see faster and faster upgrades to the bodies.

Having said that, the 7D is an amazing camera. Your decision will come down to what is most important to you. If you are shooting something that needs 300mm, then you will need the lens. If it needs 2.8, fast glass is a must. However the newer bodies high ISO can compensate for some of the speed needs on the glass.

I put up a WTT a gripped 40D +cash for a 7D if you are interested! Let me know.

Isn't the 300L 2.8 in the range of $4500? The amount you would be able to cash out of the 7D would be what, about $1000? That's a small part of the price of the glass. I would hang on to the 7D and just save a little longer.

I have a gripped 40D with less than 7500 actuations if you're willing to trade.

K6AZ wrote in post #8877240
Isn't the 300L 2.8 in the range of $4500? The amount you would be able to cash out of the 7D would be what, about $1000? That's a small part of the price of the glass. I would hang on to the 7D and just save a little longer.

300 non-is, sorry didn't mention that.

canon_fanatic wrote in post #8877343
300 non-is, sorry didn't mention that.

That's not a current model? I'm looking at Canon's site and I don't see a 300 2.8 non-IS.

K6AZ wrote in post #8877399
That's not a current model? I'm looking at Canon's site and I don't see a 300 2.8 non-IS.

Nope, they just make the IS version now. There are used ones though but they are normally 10+ years old.

AFAIK, Canon no longer even services the non-IS 300mm. Correct me if I'm wrong.

canon_fanatic wrote in post #8877404
Nope, they just make the IS version now. There are used ones though but they are normally 10+ years old.

That explains why I was having difficulty find that, IOW an oldie but a goodie. How much do these typically go for?

K6AZ wrote in post #8877426
That explains why I was having difficulty find that, IOW an oldie but a goodie. How much do these typically go for?

I find it definitely depends on the condition, anywhere from $2000 to upper $2000's if perfect.

canon_fanatic wrote in post #8877449
I find it definitely depends on the condition, anywhere from $2000 to upper $2000's if perfect.

Are you absolutely sure you need the 2.8 non-IS over the current 4 IS? I was in the market for a 70-200 and after renting each version discovered I could use the f/4 non-IS.

downgrading from a 7d to a 40d will bring you like $700, which is not much.