UKH

Might have some cash left at the end of the year so could be on the lookout to upgrade some photography kit. My pretty much sole interest is wildlife, and birds specifically. Setup at present is Canon 700d and Sigma 150-500 (5-6.3).

Not unhappy with this kit and I realise that a lot of what comes up on the screen is determined by who's doing the shooting. If you had the option to upgrade one part of the equation lens or body, what would you go for? I'm leaning heavily towards either a Canon 7d Mk2 or Canon 100 400L (Mk1) with both at or near the £800 mark. 

Thanks, Stuart. 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I'm going to sound like a stuck record, but 2nd hand is much better value: e.g., https://www.ffordes.com/p/SOR-18-033689/canon-eos/100-400mm-f45-56-l-is-usm 

In reply to Jon Read:

Second hand should be presumed with the budget I have, thanks. 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Sorry, I guess that would have been obvious had I thought harder!

I would go for the glass, unless you feel you're missing a lot of shots through poor autofocus (which I believe the 7d does well?)

In reply to Jon Read:

The real benefit of the 7dii is the burst speed and processing capacity - it'll do 10 fps and can buffer about 30 images in one go - ideal for pictures of moving things. For £800 I doubt you'll get a major glass upgrade on what you have. 

In reply to ianstevens:

From my limited experience/talent/understanding, the move from the 700d to the 7d is a bigger gain than the lens route - Sigma to Canon. Barking up the right tree?

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Buying the best glass is, in my opinion, the best formula for better images.

Here is a 10 year old youtube episode shoot-out between a cheap camera+expensive lens vs expensive camera+cheap lens. The kit is old but the expensive glass won. Scroll to 10 mins 46 minutes for the money shot results.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Celestron-71018-SkyMaster-20-Binocular/dp/B0007UQN...

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

7D2 definitely - the Sigma is glass enough for what you want

In reply to The Lemming:

I'm just getting an Amazon link...? 

In reply to timparkin:

It's interesting that there's a bit of split in the opinion. Following similar lines on another forum I asked the question to. Got time to mull it over anyway. Thanks all. 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Doh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk5IMmEDWH4&t=646s

In reply to ianstevens: it looks like the AF on the 7d2 should be significantly better than the 700d (esp. in low light) too. That’s just from the specs though, I haven’t used either of the cameras or lenses.

In reply to nic mullin:

I upgraded from a 550d to a 7d2 about 5 years ago and that was my exact observation. Nice glass is great, but if you can’t focus or miss the movement it doesn’t matter. The OP has a decent lens anyway - one they’re unlikely to improve upon within their budget IMO. If they wanted to spend more then a glass upgrade could be an option, but I still think they’ve got a lot to gain from upgrading what is an entry lever dSLR body.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I do the raw checking for the wildlife photographer of the year competition and I see lots of pictures with the Sigma lens but not many with that body. The 7D2 was one of the most popular cameras at one point though. I've had the 7D2 before and it was quite something. Between all the weather sealing, amazing focus, good enough resolution and fast frame rate plus some professional settings for AF tracking it's a 'proper camera' for the wildlife photographer. It's got a robust shutter so should be OK even if it has a bit of mileage second hand. 

In reply to timparkin:

I think they've dropped in popularity because they're old and people spending £1400 an a new body go for a full-frame 6D? I have always thought of it as the top-end crop sensor body. The fact its not been upgraded by Canon in 5/6 years, despite going through multiple interations of other bodies in that time, speaks volumes to me.  

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

On a slightly similar theme I've been gradually replacing my EF-S lenses with EF L versions as I'm planning to upgrade from my 70D to a 5D (3 or 4) next summer if I can afford it.  Anyway - even with the 70D I've seen a marked increase in image quality using the 'better' glass.  The 100 - 400 mk2 is a fantastic beast although slightly heavier than my car.  

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

It seems the 7dii is a popular choice at the moment as i've seen no end of posts regarding them and their quality recently, that includes myself! I'm also looking at getting a 7dii and some new glass, probably the sigma or canon 24 - 70 and a 70 - 200 combined with my EFs 10 - 22 and nifty fifty i'll have all basis covered i feel. 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I can't comment about Canon having not had one for years now, but for the Sony, I can really notice the difference of a cheap lens on the A7 vs putting a great lens on an APS-C compact. It's almost like the good body brings out all the flaws in the cheap lens! I suspect the same is true for other brands.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Even the best sensor in the world would be pointless behind bad glass. Anyway, even entry level sensors are pretty incredible nowadays. Plus glass won't be outdated in 5-10 years.

In reply to LucaC:

Was the case for me, when I first moved from a 550D to my 6D I was initially a bit dissapointed, it wasn't until I was able to invest in some L glass that I saw the improvement in the sensor for the first time.

In reply to Punter_Pro:

Think this is a common experience. From reading round the subject I'm coming to the conclusion that sticking really good glass on the 700, although not pointless, wouldn't give me the most bang for buck. The Sigma I have isn't a bad lens and seems to be a good match for the 7d M2. In an ideal world I'd spend a day with both setups but that's not likely anytime soon.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):Since my last post i've actually stepped back from the idea of the 7d ii and gone for a used 80D, yes the 7d ii is the better camera but the difference in price that i paid has left me a couple hundred extra to go straight into a new lens. 

In reply to The Lemming:

Great value for money binoculars. I would suggest a tripod with these as they have a high magnification so excellent for stargazing. I used my phone to take these two pictures through them. You can just about make out the nebula and get a good clear view of the moon.

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I had an olympus OM-D E-M5 mk1. With the supplied kit lens the photos were pretty average. I got a nice wee 20mm f1.7, which, while limited in use took great sharp images.

A year ago, before a big trip to Chile, I splashed out on the olympus 12-100 F4 Pro, which is super sharp and contrasty from wide open.

Suddenly a new world of wildlife photography opened up to me and... Highlighted the deficiencies in high iso noise and woeful autofocus. 1 in 10 sharp shots! 

Then my PCB died in my camera. Took it in for repair, estimate was around £180. Turns out olympus no longer have any spares, so offered me and upgrade to the mk3.

With that, I have a boost in resolution (not that bothered but I suppose its a bit of digital zoom), improved high iso noise levels, and, massive improvement in autofocus and high speed modes. 

Only got I a few weeks ago, but having great fun snapping away at birds in the garden etc.

So... I guess I'm saying "it depends". Maybe make a list of the things you like and dislike about your lenses and body just now, and figure out which upgrade ticks those boxes? 

Also worth remembering digital cameras don't last for ever, so if you've given it a hard and long life, it might be worth considering.

P. S. I'm not that familiar with the Canon /sigma, but most of the people in the thread saying "always go glass" don't seem to be making specific comments about *you're* glass. From what others are saying, it sounds like the sigma is decent and the Canon only incrementally better. Whereas the body sounds (again, not familiar) as a bigger jump.

Final note, reflected what I said above - nice glass on a poor body is very frustrating! 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

The 7d mk2 is the entry level full frame isn't it? if so beware the change in sensor size will make your lens seem shorter than it does now.

I haven't used the 150-500 sigma, but the more recent 150-600 is a very decent lens.

I'm currently using a 77d, so maybe look at the latest version of that.

Also consider grey imports e.g. https://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/ for more value trade off is no official warranty, but usual includes a third party warranty that are quite decent

In reply to balmybaldwin:

The 7d2 isn't full frame. Not sure of the lineage and why it's cropped and the other models in the top tier are full frame. 

Thanks for the link. I've pretty much decided on a new body and biding my time on the market, hopefully, being given a boost by people off loading after a Xmas upgrade. 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Late to the party but...

The answer to the glass-vs-body question really depends on what you are using your photo gear for and which of glass/body is the limiting factor. It's not the same for everyone. For instance if you're having to use high ISO to counter poor light and you already have a fast lens, then you need to probably upgrade the body to (for example a 6d). Upgrading to an Canon 'L' lens simply won't help address your problem - you'll just get slightly sharper but still horribly noisy images. Wildlife? A 6d body won't make sense - you probably want more crop factor and faster auto-focus, so a 7d would fit the bill better. Are you getting the shots you want, but they're all a bit 'soft' or lacking in contrast? Then a lens upgrade may be on the cards.

You really need to think "what problem am I trying to solve" in your photography. Once you understand the problem, you have a better chance of working out a decent solution and avoid spending money solving a problem you haven't got.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

The 7d 2 is by no means an amazing camera, but for some reason the original battery it takes a lot of time to get fully charged, also at the same time, the full charge it doesn't last for a while. Beside the original that it cames with the camera, I bought 2 batteries Newer, not to bad, but I'm surprise with the original Canon performance, does anyone know if there is any way for me to get replaced from Canon?

In reply to Removed UserJosh778:

I would go through the warranty if you have it. My canon original battery is significantly better at holding it's state of charge than the 3rd party extras I've got.... I guess it prob depends exactly on the battery model, but all the canon batteries I've had on various cameras have seemed to last forever.... but then I don't review pics on the camera much

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Yes you are right, the 6d is the entry FF.  I think the 7d is meant to be the top notch crop sensor.