Narrowed down to 7D Mark II or 80D...does any feature tip the scale that will help me decide?

[darnol1]

I had owned the Nikon D200 many years ago, which I sold.  I am looking to get back into photography, which will mainly be general purpose (vacations, kids' sports, family get-togethers).  Where my selection needs to shine is low light/focusing/fps capability since the sports my kids play are indoors allot (swim meets and indoor soccer).  I will mate the camera up with high quality lenses (2.8 or better).

Video is not important to me.

I narrowed it down to the 7D Mk II and 80D.  I am assuming I'd be happy with either, but given my needs especially with sports, does anyone feel there is a feature/specification on one of these 2 cameras that will tip the scales to favor one more than the other?  I would prefer to stay under $1,500 for the body.

Any input would be much appreciated.

[darnol1]

I made the decision to go wtih the Canon 7D Mark II.  It's ordered.

As much as I'd like to go the route of a 70-200 2.8, I cannot justify the cost since swim meets and soccer games will be minimal.

What I am seriously considering is the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM I think it's a very good compromise as I believe the focal length will be sufficient enough, and I'm willing to adjust my distance from the pool / field enough to get decent shots.

My only concern is, given the extra high humidity at the indoor pools I'll be shooting at, should I have any concerns with this lens not having weather sealing?

[ebiggs1]

Good choice on the 7D Mk II.  

The Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Lens is a very nice lens.  It is sharp for sure.  Fact is most people, most of the time shoot at the long end of a tele zoom way more than the short end.

"...should I have any concerns with this lens not having weather sealing?"  Of course you should!  Just don't do stupid things. I think you said, " swim meets and soccer games will be minimal."  Is that true or not?  I would not be worried.

However, I think you will find 200mm is too short for soccer.  Unless you have unlimited access to the side lines and like to run!

[darnol1]

I found some information on the following website that walks you through calculating the distance you need to be away from your subject to fill your frame vertically.  Given the web source, I will assume this should be fairly accurate.  Do you agree?

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/blogs/2013/20130820_winston_lenssizept2_blog.shtml

With a particular lens, how far or close will I need to be?

Distance = Lens focal length (mm) x Object Size, divided by Image Size

Another hypothetical example: you know you have a 200mm lens and you use an APS-C camera, like an EOS 60D or EOS 7D. Because friends and acquaintances know you’re an accomplished shooter, they’ve nominated you to shoot their child’s elementary school play. You know you want to get some tight, full-length, vertical images of first and second graders — who are perhaps 50 inches (a bit over 4 feet/1.2 meters) tall. How far away from the stage should you ask them to reserve a seat for you?

• Lens focal length is 200mm. That’s based on the lens the shooter already owns, in this hypothetical example.
• Object size — 50 inches (1.2m) is the actual subject height and converted to millimeters is 1,270mm… 1,300mm is close enough for our purposes!
• Image size on the actual CMOS sensor is going to be about 18mm — full-length, vertical shots with an APS-C sensor camera (total available height on the sensor, held vertically, is about 22mm; 18mm would allow comfortable composition with room above and below the final subject).

To calculate:

Distance = 200mm x 1300mm, divided by 18mm

Distance = 260,000mm, divided by 18mm

Distance = 14,444mm

(Convert that back to feet by dividing it by the number of millimeters in a foot — 304.8)

14,444mm divided by 304.8mm = 47.4 feet.

You’d need to be about 50 feet away to get the tight, vertical shots of those grade school kids you’re hoping for with your 200mm lens.

[kvbarkley]

I prefer to think in FOV and use trig.

FOV for a crop sensor at 200 mm is about 7.5 degrees.

A line from the middle of the camera to get a right angle to the top of the FOV will have an angle of 3.75 degrees. The arc tangent of that is .065. Assuming you want 3' above and below the center line, 3'/.065 is 46.2 feet.

[ebiggs1]

"Do you agree?"

Sorta.  I shoot a lot of school events.  If I had a 50ft parameter to stay within, I would opt for my Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Lens.  One reason is full body shots are simply one aspect of this type situation.  This is the big problem trying to use a prime lens instead of a zoom.

I generally try to shoot school events from the light/sound booth.  Probably at 100ft but I never actually measured it.  I use my Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sports Lens for Canon for that.

Some examples.....

150mm

550mm

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I greatly prefer the 7D Mk II as it is a more professional build.  But in your case I think I would go for the 80D with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens.  The lens in this case it more important than the camera.  So, even if you decide on the 7D Mk II, my choice, make sure you get it with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens.

Now don't give much weight or attention (that will folow this post) to the one camera is better at this or that when in the end it is the build that is the big difference.  Either camera is very capable and will be a winner.  It is the lens that matters.

The 80D with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens on it will rival many FF cameras.  Another winner of a lens is for the 80D is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens for Canon.   It is the lens that matters.

---

Here's a picture my wife took with her 7D2 and the 17-55mm lens that Ernie recommends.

[ebiggs1]

Nice shot Roberts's wife!  No sports?  I thought, from what I read here, you can't shoot anything but sports with a 7D2.

Factoid #37, the presence of a rubber seal on a lens does not guarantee a weather sealed lens.  The rubber seal is to keep water out of the camera not the lens.