UKH

It would seem that the Canon 7d mk2 is pretty much the go to camera body for wildlife and bird photography. 

Is there anything in the Canon world that is better and I've missed from my research? The one constraint being budget must equal that of a decent, low shutter count 7d mk2 - so approx. £700.

I'm on a 700d with a Sigma 150-500 at present. The lens I'll keep.

Thanks. 

Seems to be the "go-to" Canon body for wildlife - pretty bombproof. MPB currently have 3 used 7d2 from £439 for well used to £729 for excellent. Have dealt a lot with them in the past - very reliable. 

Thanks for replying.

MPB are good and I have used their trade in before. 👍 

Yeah, there doesn't seem much else out there that gets the mod on the 7d2. Was just wondering if I'd missed anything. Some users were suggesting a 5d3 or 80d as viable alternatives. 

I use a 5d3 - great camera, but for wildlife I think you would appreciate the extra "reach" of a crop body

I toyed with the 7D2, but eventually went for the 80D. Cant comment on how it compares, but its got the crop i need for wildlife, and I'm happy with it.

I'm not saying its better than the 70d, but you may want to take a look at it.

My first digital SLR was the 400D - coming from film I had lenses but they all became cropped.

I upgraded to a nearly new 60D about 7 years ago (ish), and started swapping lenses. I have the sigma 120-400 OS lens, canon 60mm macro (swapped from Tamron 90mm) and a 17-85mm. The 400D->60D was a decent upgrade.

For the last few years the stepwise improvement in the x0D hasn't been sufficient to justify swapping. I'm not sure how much better a 7Dmk2 is over the current x0D model.

Bottom line, could you get a cheaper body and extra lens than a 7D body.

Why? 

I'm listening, could you have a stab at convincing me? Thanks. 

I don't recall the exact reasoning, but I recall for the higher pixel count sensor, and it was newer (release date), smaller and lighter. I read loads of reviews and comparisons, and it was a tough call, but these are the main reasons I think.

Yep, same conundrum. The only thing swaying me towards 7d2 is that it's what seems to be used. I've no real interest in anything other than birding and wildlife and that's usually on the go rather than hide-bound. Wish I could afford more than one rig!

I'm using an eos 70d with the ef 100-400 l usm ii and find it's perfect for wildlife, plants and astro. 20.2 Mpixel cmos which is pretty sharp (and the same as the 7d) but it's somewhat behind the 7d in just about everything else .   It's perfect for my needs at the minute but I have a big birthday next year so I may be tempted into full frame territory although I'll lose a couple of hundred mm of zoom. 

Get the 7D2. I've got one and the pixel count is not an issue - I use a 5k screen and 1:1 ratio (i.e. 1 pixel = 1 pixel) is still larger than the screen. Megapixels simply aren't a reason to discern between dSLRS anymore. You will not notice the extra 4 MP an 80D offers over a 7D2.

The benefit for me is the FPS in burst - a 70d will do 7PS, the 7D2 will do 9.5 - makes the difference for action shots. It's also got a 2 processors vs 1 in the 80D. 

Good companions can found here: https://www.photoworkout.com/canon-eos-80d-vs-7dii/ 

FYI, the fewer zeros a Canon has, the higher up the range it is - so despite being a bit older, the 7D2 is higher spec than the 80D. 

The most telling thing of all - the 7D2 came out in 2014 and it seems Canon have absolutely no intent of bringing out a mkIII. During this time there have been 2 interactions of the 5D and 3 of the 1DX... (on that not the 7Dii was sold to me as a "crop version of the 1DX").

Get a 7Dii.

Seems to confirm my bias

Thanks.

I had a 7d for years and loved it. It was absolutely bomb proof. I see that it's advantages over the 5d series is that you can carry a 70-200L F4 lens around far easier than the equivalent reach lens for the 5d.

A crop body doesn't give you more 'zoom' or reach.  A 400mm lens is still a 400mm lens, no matter what sensor size you use it with.  A 400mm lens does not magically become a 640mm lens on 1.6x crop sensor body.

It's just that the field-of-view is smaller on the crop sensor cw full frame (at the same focal length) ... hence the perceived increased reach. 

But MP for MP, a crop sensor will give you a higher resolution cw full frame, as the pixel density will be higher, which would be useful for wildlife. 

So you sort of agree with what I was saying.

Reach is the wrong word.

Its the field of view that's causing the differences of what you see FF vs crop (at the same focal length).

The crop factor comes into play if you want the same field of view (FoV) between FF & crop

For 1.6x crop factor, if you want the same FoV that a FF at 100mm gives, then you need a 100mm/1.6, ie ~60mm on the crop camera.

Conversely, on FF if you want the same FoV that a crop at 100mm gives, then you need a 100mm*1.6 = 160mm on the FF.

How pixel pitch/size/density affects resolution (theoretical and achieved), have a look here:

https://clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/index.html

On this page, scroll down to the moon shots, nice side by side illustration of 5D image against 7D image, both taken a 300mm lens. The 7D moon image is 'bigger' due to smaller sensor pixels, not the crop factor.

So yes, if you are shooting wildlife with a long reach zoom or telephoto prime, the 7D will probably serve you better than a 5D, not because of the 1.6x crop, but because of the smaller pixels on the 7D. ( ... there are other complicating factors with reducing pixel size)

If the 5D had the same pixel size as the 7D, the pixel resolution advantage (in the final image), would disappear (ignoring other issues).