Buyers Anxiety

[mgcameron]

I don't know why but I just can't hit the button to buy a new camera. Any advice is appreciated. I can spend about $3000 but I always fear the high priced one that I can afford is not always the best for my needs. I really am a multipurpose kind of user.  Outdoor and wildlife photgraphy are a priority as well as sporting events. I run my dogs in competitive agility and the poorly lit indoor facilities are a pain to shoot in (no natural light) and I shoot for the yearbook so bad gym lighting as well.

Thanks a bunch in advance!

[cicopo]

I'd recommend a 7D2 and depending on distance to you subject matter in those dim locations a fast lens. In a zoom a f2.8 or in a prime f1.8 or so but without more info I can't suggest which ones.

[mgcameron]

The distance all depends on the venue. Sometimes at wrestling tournament, I get to be mat side but other times I have to sit up in a balcony. Versatility is the key. Maybe I shouldn't worry about my "school/work" pictures and focus on purchasing the camera that works best for my personal photography. I'm a perfectionist so it is hard for me to not worry about the sports photos.

My husband is leaning toward the 5DM3 and maybe I'm just trying to justify the price jump. Is the price jump worth it?

[RobertTheFat]

---

@mgcameron wrote:

The distance all depends on the venue. Sometimes at wrestling tournament, I get to be mat side but other times I have to sit up in a balcony. Versatility is the key. Maybe I shouldn't worry about my "school/work" pictures and focus on purchasing the camera that works best for my personal photography. I'm a perfectionist so it is hard for me to not worry about the sports photos.

My husband is leaning toward the 5DM3 and maybe I'm just trying to justify the price jump. Is the price jump worth it?

---

In a word, yes. But whether you really need it or not is a decision only you can make. The most compelling argument in favor is that most Canon lenses, especially their indoor telephotos, have focal lengths optimized for a full-frame camera. But if you buy one of those telephotos (ideally the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II), you'll go way over your $3000 budget.

That said, if you're sitting in the balcony at a wrestling tournament, the 70-200 probably works at least as well on a 7D2 as on a 5D3. The combination is still over your budget, but not as much over. And because the 70-200 is a full-frame lens, you're keeping your options open for the future.

One other argument in favor of the 5D3 is that the price is favorable now with new models approaching. I paid $3100 for mine last year, but they're noticeably cheaper now. You'll pay full price for a 7D2 because it's new and everybody wants it.

Confused? I don't blame you. But you can't really go far wrong. Both cameras are excellent performers and should give you good results. You won't "outgrow" either of them for quite a while.

[cicopo]

From what I've read the AF of both the 5D3 & 7D2 are pretty much the same in speed & low light capabilities but the real difference is in the FPS where the 7D2 has a big advantage. IF fast paced action were the primary use then the 7D2 makes more sense & fits the budget allowing a lens purchase but if fast paced is just a nicety then it's an either / orther .

As for the low light AF of the 7D2 I recently bought one (lightly used) & tried the AF on a plant in the family room one night. The 7D2 focused & locked & produced a VERY nice photo using the built in flash (AF assist OFF). I tried the same shot using my 1D4, same lens, same settings, 580 EX flash & no go. The camera could not achieve focus, even when I used MF & tried to let the camera fine tune what I could accomplish. 

[RobertTheFat]

I agree with Cicopo's recommendation (7D Mark II). as will, I believe, most contributors to this forum. The obvious general-purpose lens for that camera, both indoors and outdoors, is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS zoom. I guess we're both assuming, from the tone of your note, that you have no current equipment worth considering in this context.

Your reluctance to pull the trigger is understandable, given the size of the purchase you're undertaking; but what we're recommending is fairly conservative. And if you buy from a reputable dealer, such as one of the well known New York houses like B&H or Adorama, you should be fine.

[mgcameron]

We are upgrading from a 40D. Old, I know but it's still working like a champ! We have a couple of canon telephoto lenses already so I don't have add them into the overall cost of this particular purchase. I got a nice retro check two years ago and splurged on a L series. I have my eye on a macro, lol. Maybe I will go rent them both for a weekend and just play with them before purchasing. 

[TCampbell]

You probably want a 7D II.  A 5D III would also be great (but that's about $2500 for the body only and you do want to get a decent lens.)

Here's what you do... RENT a body and lens.  Try it out.  Test it challenging situations to see how it does with high ISO & low noise when you're shooting in a venue with lousey light.  The sensor in the 7D II is completely new and it outperforms the preivous generation of APS-C sensors.  It's not just fractionally better to the point that you need precisely calibrated scientific instruments to tell the difference, your eye will immedaitely notice the difference.

You can rent a camera through LensRentals.com, BorrowLenses.com, and a few others.  Rent it for a few days and see how you like it.

If you're doing a lot of shooting in places with questionable lighting, then you probably want a nice low-focal ratio zoom.  The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II is basically the gold-standard in the industry.  But that lens alone is just a little over $2k.  There are less expensive f/2.8 zooms, but nobody else's is quite as good as Canon's.  (It's a case of "You get what you pay for.")

For as good as the 7D II is... it's not a full-frame camera.  It wont have the low-light high ISO performance of a 5D III.  But the 7D II is so substantially improved over the previous generation that you may (and I suspect will) find that it really doesn't matter.  

[ebiggs1]

Yes, I agree, the 7D Mk II is for you.  It meets all of what you stated and stays well below $3000 which will leave room for some great lenses.  Don't put cheap glass on it!

The 7D Mk II is worlds better than your old 40D.

[RexGig]

The 7D was a substantial step upward from the 40D, for me. I am now finding the 7D Mark II to be a noticeable step above the 7D, such that I bought a second 7D Mark II, in order to have a pair of identical bodies. (I can justify a second camera body, for duty/occupational reasons, though I do not claim to be a "pro" photographer. I do, however, make some important images, and strive for good quality.)

I shoot birds/wildlife/dogs during personal time, and forensic/evidentiary/documentary at work, none of which requires "full-frame" cameras. (I can shoot with an original 5D, when I feel the need.)