Help me pick 80D vs 7D mk ii

[Mpls_Funk]

Hi all,

Brand new to the forum.  Looking forward to learn from all of you.  I'm looking for some advice, and I'm sure this is hot debate!

I have been using a T2i for several years.  It was my first DSLR.  I mainly use it with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Canon 55-250 IS (first version), and sometimes the "nifty fifty."  The majority of my pictures are of our kids playing sports.  I have two girls playing volleyball (indoors) and a son playing lacrosse (usually outdoors, but sometimes indoors).  Obviously the indoor sports is a bit of a challenge.  I typically have to shoot ISO 1600 or 3200 with shutter speeds ~1/160 to maybe 1/320 if I'm lucky.  I get "decent" results.  Meaning, most of the other parents are impressed with the pictures.  And sure, they are a lot better than in iPhone.

However, I am noticing that I'm missing more shots.  I pretty much have to guess at the timing for VB since my burst rate is only 3 fps and that's too slow.  So I do my best to guess when the ball will impact or whatever.  Sometimes I get lucky.  I also still get some motion blur as 1/250 just isn't fast enough in several instances.  I also find the camera just doesn't focus fast enough in some cases.

So, I'm looking to upgrade.  I orginally had my sights on the 7D mk ii, primarily due to it's great 10 fps.  It is also just a better built camera and has better image quality and much better focusing than my T2i.  But then I started researching the 80D.  From what I read, it probably has even better image quality than the 7D mk ii, but does not have as fast of burst rate (7 fps) and the autofocus system probably isn't as good as the 7D mk ii.

Keep this in perspective - I am not a professional!  I am not selling any of my pictures.  They are already good enough to impress most of the other parents and the kids.  I have never done video with my camera.  That's not to say I never will, but, I probably won't.  I do like to take pictures of nature...landscapes, trees, leaves, water falls, etc.

So - what camera should i upgrade to?  I'm wondering, since I'm not professional, will I notice the improved focus system of the 7D mk ii over the 80D?  Is it that much better?  If not, then is the only advantage of the 7D mk ii that of the faster burst rate?  And if I then say I can live with the 7-8 fps of the 80D, but get cleaner images both now and when doing nature stuff...is that the right move?  Or, in reality, is the image quality of the 80D not that much better than the 7D?  so then, I should opt for the faster burst and better focus system?

Hope this make sense - I look forward to your suggestions.  Seems like I can get either camera used for about the same price right now.  I also plan to get the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC to replace my Canon 55-250.  I might also get the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC to replace my Tamron 15-50 f/2.8.

[ebiggs1]

"Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Canon 55-250 IS (first version), and sometimes the "nifty fifty." "

If you are truly serious about upgrading, I would consider your lens inventory.  IMHO, none of these is worthy of a 7D MkII.

Instead of Tamron 17-50mm f2.8  get the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens.

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens is a much better lens than the 1st version however in your case I would buy the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens.

Instead of the Canon 55-250 IS (first version) get the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary Lens for Canon EF.

Yeah, I know that a lot of money. If it is too much right off get the Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM Lens first.  On a 7D Mk II or 80D it will be very difficult to top it with any camera/lens combo.  Plus you can sell your old lenses but don't expect too much for them.

[Mpls_Funk]

Hi ebiggs1,

Thanks for the suggestions.  I agree that my lenses need upgrading as well!  My plan was to upgrade my 55-250 with a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC model.  I realize as another poster said, that it would be best to stick with Canon, but it's hard for me to justify the price difference.  I can get a nice used Gen 1 of the Tamron for $700 as compared to the Canon for $1500+?  Just seems like the right decision for me.

Then, I would likely look to upgrade my Tamron 17-50 (I thought it was a good lense when I purchased it...now learning that it does not get great reviews) to the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8.  These seems to get MUCH better reviews than mine.  I rarely use the 17mm end of my lens, and then the 24-70 would match up to the 70-200 range.

Thanks for the thought on the 35mm...I feel like that won't give me enough reach.  I kinda like my 50mm (even if it's not the best quality).  I know they have better 50mm versions out there.

So - I think I'm leaning toward the 80D at this point...

[Waddizzle]

Mpls_Funk,

Your images will never be better than the quality of your lens.  Your current lenses would have been great 10-15 years ago, and could use an upgrade.  An 80D, or 7D2, would only reveal the shortcoming in your current lenses, especially if you switch to shooting RAW, and post processing your shots.  

BTW, if want to shoot with Tamron lenses, then I suggest that you consider buying an Adobe Lightroom, or Photoshop, subscription.  The free software that comes with the camera, Canon’s DPP4, does not perform lens correction on non-Canon lenses.

I think you have yet to experience the difference between a pretty decent lens, and VERY good lens.  Tamron makes some pretty good lenses.  Canon makes some VERY good lenses.  The EF 35mm f/2 IS STM is a VERY good lens.  It could be one of the sharpest lenses Canon sells.  I think it is one of the rare gems in Canon’s lineup, especially if you shoot RAW, and use lens correction in Canon Digital Photo Professional software.  See below,

I can guarantee you that the EF 35 f/2 IS USM will make you retire your current EF 50mm f/2.8 II lens.  

I think any of the Canon 70-200mm lenses is better than the Tamron 70-200mm you listed.  The top-of-the lens Canon 70-200mm is very sharp, and one lens every owner says. Is worth every penny.  It is!  It has image quality similar to the above photo.  And, the 70-200mm baby brothers are every bit as good under most shooting scenarios.  

Finally, you are much better off spending money on one VERY good lens, than two or three pretty decent lenses.

[ebiggs1]

" My plan was to upgrade ... with a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC model." (and) " ...  the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8."

I have both.  I have had them for some time now and have used them extensively.  They are not Canon "L" but they are very good.  If I couldn't have the Canon "L" versions the Tamron would be it.  But I do have the Canon "L" and let me say nothing, no where seconds them.  They truly are the best there is.  IMHO, I would buy a used Canon "L" if that meant I could have it over any other lens made.

But you must do as you see fit.  

[gdonoghue20]

7D MK ll hands down. Great for sports or wildlife shooting. I gave mine to my nephew regrettably though. I also have a 5d MK IV which I use. Considering the new 6D Mark ll as a back up because it is full frame. Problem is it does not take CF cards, which is why I have not purchase one.

[shadowsports]

Like others, my vote would be for the 7D2.  Dual digic's and better 65 point AF.  Given your fast action requirements, I think you will appreciate and benefit more from the faster FPS and better AF tracking, and will not miss the 4 less MP on the 7D2 from a IQ perspective. 

Also agree that lenses do matter.  I own 2 non canon lenses, one APS-C and one FF.  I love them both and have zero regrets.  But taking platform and standardization into consideration, I'm going to purchase Canon going forward.  This is because I use DPP for post processing and don't want to buy a Tamron Tap connector and Sigma USB dock...  plus manage 2 software installs on top of DPP not supporting 3rd party lens data.  Or I add Lightroom and be on my way.  Sticking with one makes life easier IMO.

Cheers      

[Mpls_Funk]

Hi all,

thanks again for all of your input.  I am still struggling on the camera decision to be honest.  Uggg.

Regarding lenses - I have no doubt that the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is the best.  However, even used it's $1700 or so.  I considered getting the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS (probably can get used for $700 or so), but I really think the extra 2.8 light will be beneficial in my application (indoor sports).  So then you look at the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, but most people think you really need IS, especially if much of the shooting will be at the farther end of the range.  So that quickly argues into the 70-200 f/2.8 IS which is really expensive.  I feel like I can get the Tamron 2.8 VC for far less money and be better off than any of the other 3 Canons (get the extra stop at 2.8 over the Canon f/4 IS, and get IS over the Canon 2.8 non IS).  Is it as good as the Canon, no.  But, I feel like this would be a huge upgrade over my current Canon 55-250 IS (original version) until I can save more for the "best" Canon version.  Make sense?  Or am I off-base?

[Waddizzle]

---

@Mpls_Funk wrote:

Hi all,

thanks again for all of your input.  I am still struggling on the camera decision to be honest.  Uggg.

Regarding lenses - I have no doubt that the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is the best.  However, even used it's $1700 or so.  I considered getting the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS (probably can get used for $700 or so), but I really think the extra 2.8 light will be beneficial in my application (indoor sports).  So then you look at the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, but most people think you really need IS, especially if much of the shooting will be at the farther end of the range.  So that quickly argues into the 70-200 f/2.8 IS which is really expensive.  I feel like I can get the Tamron 2.8 VC for far less money and be better off than any of the other 3 Canons (get the extra stop at 2.8 over the Canon f/4 IS, and get IS over the Canon 2.8 non IS).  Is it as good as the Canon, no.  But, I feel like this would be a huge upgrade over my current Canon 55-250 IS (original version) until I can save more for the "best" Canon version.  Make sense?  Or am I off-base?

---

Like I’ve said, any of the Canon 70-200mm lenses is better than the Tamron f/2.8.  Of course, the choice is yours.

[ebiggs1]

"I feel like I can get the Tamron 2.8 VC for far less money and be better off  ..."

The flat out truth of the matter?  90% of the time you will not be able to tell the difference.  A considerable expense of the Canon L lenses is build.  The Tamron simply isn't built as well.  If you don't need that part, then the Tammy will serve you nearly as well.

"...get the extra stop at 2.8 over the Canon f/4..."

You said it.  It is just one stop.  Think about it.  Not a deal breaker or maker is it?

[ebiggs1]

"... I add Lightroom and be on my way.  Sticking with one makes life easier IMO."

Yes, I suppose it does but that is impossible depending on how involved you are in to photography. Adding Lightroom or better use it instead of DPP has more benefits than simply lens correction.  And adding Photoshop to LR has even more potential.  But in the end it is how far you want to go.

Myself, I currently use five post editing software packages.  DPP as a general working tool is not one of them.