oldgeezer3 Loc: SoCal

The ef-s lenses won't work on M-body. They work fine on canon crop sensors, but you'll get vignetting on canon full-frame camera bodies. For light-weight photography, I have a canon sx50. 12mega-pixels, but that's good for all but the most extreme telephoto shots. Good Luck---

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

M5 is a crop sensor, will work perfectly with EF-S lenses and the Canon adapter.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

I would do what I did. Get rid of the Canikon gear and buy a Micro 4/3 system. Saying "mirrorless" no longer has the meaning it once had. Sony is now making full frame mirrorless cameras so the only weight saving there is in the camera body - the lenses are just as large and heavy. A Micro 4/3 system has a smaller sensor and smaller/lighter lenses with the same angle of view as the big artillery. Small, light, agile and with the many advantages of the electronic view finder.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

What about wide-angle scenarios??

{I did look at the SX-50 at one time, but I decided I wasn't ready for 1/2.3 as my standard sensor}

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Are you shooting for pay... or just as a hobby? The reason I ask is because while you say your 7D is "on it's last legs", it's a very durable camera rated to be good for 150,000 shutter actuations. I have two 7D that I used for five years, each of which have exceeded that and are both still working just fine (still have them as backup cameras). Maybe you should just keep using your 7D until it dies, unless photography is your job and you absolutely must have utterly reliable gear and don't want to risk a "higher mileage" camera. (I do shoot professionally, which is why I upgraded to two 7DII early in 2016... At net cost of roughly $1250 per body after rebates and the value of bundled items... plus the cost of two new BG-E16 grips, a dozen additional memory cards, two new Arca-Swiss camera plates and four additional LP-E6N batteries.)

If size and weight are a concern... FORGET FULL FRAME. Of necessity, both camera and lenses tend to be larger and among the heaviest. There's a more limited selection of lenses and they need to be bigger to produce a large enough image circle to cover the larger sensor.... making them both heavier and typically more expensive. Sometimes A LOT more expensive! IMO, $2000 is not nearly enough budget for serious conversion from APS-C to full frame, even if you sell off your old gear that won't work on the FF camera. The most viable Canon FF model would be the 6D.... a fine and capable camera. But you'd be going from "top of the line" APS-C to "entry level" full frame. In a lot of ways, for you it would be a big step down in various performance factors. So, I'd recommend you rule out full frame, especially if you're planning to travel with your gear and size/weight are already a concern.

Getting a 7DII won't save weight. It's a fairly heavy camera... same weight as your 7D and, for that matter, about the same as a full frame 5D-series model. If you're serious about reducing weight, I'd recommend you look at an 80D instead. It also is currently offered for $1100 (body only), versus the $1500 price of a 7DII. Note: There are various bundles offered with both cameras that might make for lower net cost... depending upon whether or not you actually need and can use the items bundled with the camera. For example, 7DII is offered with Pixma Pro 100 printer, net $650 discount between a $300 instant rebate on the camera and $350 mail-in rebate on the two items... making both a good price on the camera AND the printer basically free. But that works out best if you actually NEED and can put to good use a new printer (which I did, when same offer was made last year).

Maybe you should just have the 7D serviced and keep using it. But 80D offers A LOT for the money... and weighs LESS at about 1.6 lb. compared to slightly over 2 lb. for either 7D model.

80D has an articulated LCD screen, which can be handy for low angle macro shooting, among other things. It's also a "Touch Screen", which a lot of people like. Neither 7D model offers this.

Live View autofocus is VERY MUCH improved in both speed and accuracy on both 80D and 7DII, compared to your 7D. They both use Canon's new Dual Pixel AF in Live View, a form of faster phase detection, while your 7D still relies upon the older contrast detection type of AF in Live View.

Your 7D has Micro Focus Adjustment feature in a simpler form... up to 20 lens models and single adjustment possible regardless of type of lens. Both 80D and 7DII have the latest version of MFA... up to 40 specific lenses and zooms have dual adjustment capability (one adjustment at each extreme of the zoom range).

80D is 24MP, 33% higher resolution than your 18MP 7D and even 20% higher resolution than the 20MP 7DII.

I found my 7DII are able to give usable images about 1 stop higher ISO than my older 7D. As best I can tell without using one a lot, the even newer 80D seem to have about the same 1-stop higher capabilities, but that's with the higher resolution too. The 80D was the first camera to introduce Canon's 24MP sensor, said to have the best dynamic range of any Canon APS-C sensor to date (it's since also been used in T6i, T6s, T7i, 77D, M5 and M6). The slightly older 7D II's 20MP sensor seems to have been inherited from the 70D.

80D has 45-point AF with up to 27 "f/8 capable" points. That's a nice improvement over your 7D which has 19-point AF, none of which are f/8 capable. 7DII has 65-point AF, with one f/8 capable at the center.

Your 7D has five different focus patterns to choose: All Points/Auto and Single Point/Manual (like all Canon DSLRs have)... plus Zone Focus, Expansion Points (4-point) and Spot Focus (high precision single point, using a smaller AF point). In comparison, 80D has four patterns: All Points, Single Point, Zone and Large Zone. 7DII has seven focus patterns: All Points, Single Point, Zone, Large Zone, 4-point Expansion, 8-point Expansion and Spot Focus.

All three cameras have 100% viewfinders with true pentaprisms and use Active Matrix Transmissive LCD focus screens that adapt to the various AF pattern configurations. You're familiar with how this works... since it was introduced in the original 7D.

The newer models both offer better low light AF performance. Your 7D's AF is rated to -1EV. Both 80D and 7DII are able to shoot at -3EV (approx. "moonlight"), though it may limited to select AF points.

80D has slightly slower 7 frame per second continuous shooting speed, compared to your 7D's rated 8 fps (which I found often slows down for focusing and metering, anyway). 7DII offers 10 fps.

All three cameras use the same LP-E6 batteries... though the newer models come with the slightly higher capacity LP-E6"N" and those are recommended for them.

Your 7D uses Compact Flash memory cards. 80D uses SD cards, which are smaller and less expensive. 7DII uses both types of cards, with dual slots.

The control layouts of 80D are a bit different than the 7D/7DII... but not radically so. I wouldn't think it would be hard to adapt to them.

So, regardless whether you either keep your 7D (and have it serviced... maybe $100 to $200 cost).... or get an 80D ($1100).... or get a 7DII ($1500)... What next?

Especially for travel...

1. Do you ever wish you had a wider lens? 17mm is your widest and is only moderately wide. Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is a BARGAIN at under $300 (add a hood for $15-$25)... excellent image quality, quite compact and lightweight (67mm filters), though a bit plasticky. Still, fine for truly wide shots that might be occasionally needed.

OR, replace your Sigma 17-70mm with a Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.... excellent image quality, better build, high performance USM and IS... if 15mm is wide enough and if the $800 price tag (plus $25 lens hood) doesn't sting too much. That might depend upon what other changes you make to your system.... such as how much you spend on the camera itself.

OR, the 80D is often offered in kit with Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS USM lens... where that lens costs $300 instead of it's usual $600 price when bought separately. This is the latest upgrade of the 18-135mm, now with the new Canon "Nano USM" focus drive that makes it both faster (2X to 4X faster focusing than the STM version, according to Canon) AND still quiet and smooth enough operating to use for video work, if you wish. It's also the only lens compatible with Canon's new Power Zoom module (about $100), which videographers might find useful.

2. Replace BOTH the EF 50mm f/1.8 AND the 100/2.8L macro lens with a Tamron SP 60mm f/2 macro lens. That way you'd have a single lens that serves low light, portrait AND macro purposes. I know I'm spewing heresy suggesting replacing an L-series lens with a more plasticky Tamron. But it's around half the size, weight and considerably lower cost than the 100mm... and it's a full stop faster with an f/2 aperture (and only 1/3 stop less fast than the 50mm). I use both a Canon 100mm (tho mine is not the L) and the Tamron. The Canon is my favorite and most-used macro when that's what I'm shooting seriously. But it's pretty big and bulky, especially if using the tripod mounting ring on it (which I do). The Tamron goes in my bag all the rest of the time, to serve for both the occasional macro and portrait shot. I have 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2 when I'm doing "serious" portrait work... But the Tamron takes their place, too when I want to lighten my load, such as for travel. It's got fine image quality, reasonably good build and is an "IF" or "internal focusing" lens, like the 100mm (doesn't "grow longer" when focused closer, the way many macro lenses do). It uses a micro motor focus drive so isn't fast autofocusing.... but neither are the EF 50/1.8 or the 100L. The 50/1.8 is either micro motor too (if the earlier model) or STM. And no macro lens is fast focusing... they all emphasize precision over speed and aren't good choices for sports/action shooting. So, while it's fine for macro and portraits, the 60mm ain't no speed demon and not useful for sports shots. (I use other, fast-focusing lenses such as 24-70, 70-200, 300mm and 100-400mm for that.)

A 60mm lens also won't give quite as much working distance as a 100mm... which can be an issue with close-up work. However if your sample image is any example of what you do a lot, that won't be much concern because you weren't anywhere close to minimum focus with that shot. It appears to be far less than full 1:1 magnification. The Minimum Focus Distance of the 60mm is about 9 inches... closer to 12 inches with the 100mm. However, keep in mind that MFD is measured from the film/sensor plane, so much of the difference between these two lenses is offset since the 100mm itself is almost two inches longer.

Also, the Tamron 60mm doesn't have image stabilization, like the 100L does. Personally I don't think that matters very much at these shorter focal lengths and since the 60mm lens has a full stop faster f/2 aperture. Now, I'm a big fan of IS and have been using a variety of Canon telephoto lenses with it for over fifteen years... But I just don't feel it's as important on shorter focal lengths and see relatively little assistance at macro magnifications. I have no trouble hand holding 60mm (would use a monopod or tripod anyway, if I did.)

Tamron SP 60mm f/2 sells for $524, would save about one lb. (compared to 100mm AND 50mm) and can pack into a smaller space for travel. You could probably sell the 100mm for at least as much to completely offset the cost or maybe even profit a little... And any $ you got from selling off the 50mm would be "gravy".

An alternative, Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM is a fine, compact macro lens too, and it costs less than the Tamron: $400 (+ hood). But, it's "only" f/2.8.

3. 24-70mm L series might be an option. But the f/2.8L II version is MUCH bigger and heavier than the Sigma, 50mm or even the 100mm. It also would eat up most of your stated budget, at $1700 (on sale now). A bit smaller, lighter and "only" $900, the f/4L version may be a better choice, even though it's still not exactly a small, light lens. Unlike the f/2.8L II, it does have IS and it's exceptionally close focusing. In fact, able to shoot at .70X (nearly three quarters life size) it might even make your 100L unnecessary. However, you do give up the 17mm to 23mm moderately wide angle range, so it may need to be supplemented with a wide angle such as the 10-18mm IS STM ($270) or the 10-22mm USM ($600)... Which would sort of negate the savings in weight and size by substituting the 24-70/4L for the 17-70 and 100L.

4. Your EF 70-200mm f/4L is an excellent travel lens. I'd suggest you keep it! The f/4 lenses are approx. 1/3 lighter and smaller than the f/2.8 versions. Is yours the IS version? If not, longer focal lengths like 200mm greatly benefit from stabilization, especially when shooting handheld and with the effective 3 to 4-stop rated IS used in the 70-200/4L. Of course, cost is higher... nearly double for the IS version ($1100 vs $600 right now, after instant rebates). Your call, unless you're already using the the IS version.

Finally... Yes, mirrorless is a possibility for travel. I've been considering a Canon M5 very seriously... since Canon FINALLY got around to producing a model with a built-in viewfinder (which I consider a necessity)! They also are using DPAF, same as in the newer DSLR cameras' Live View mode, which is said to be a huge improvement in focus performance compared to the earlier M-series models. This would be a "fun" camera for me, though. It wouldn't replace my DSLR "work" cameras. So I might have to wait for Christmas... 2018 or '19!

Mirrorless can be reasonably compact for travel and the latest have some great features, but there's limited lens selection. Canon only makes a few EF-M lenses, mostly fairly low specification STM zooms. I would probably put together a set of compact, manual focus primes. Maybe even adapt some vintage rangefinder lenses. While I've looked at other brands (Sony, Fuji and others), they ain't cheap! I've found they also have limited lenses though maybe more than Canon (and a more expensive). I keep coming back to Canon M-series because of the option to use some of my EF and EF-S lenses on them via an adapter (Canon's own adapter is $200... but Vello makes a near identical knock-off for $70). However, my primary use would be like "street photography"-style rangefinder cameras I used back in the days of film, so I'd like to have three or four petite primes for use on a compact mirrorless. Third party manufacturers are stepping up to fill the gap in lens selection that Canon has left. For example, Rokinon 12mm f/2, 21mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.2 have caught my eye. A Canon M5 body costs $1000 and those three lenses add up to roughly another $1000. (Making for a rather expensive Christmas present, whether I buy it for myself or finagle someone else into buying it for me! )

OTOH, I'm also a bit enamored with the Fujifilm GFX medium format, 50MP mirrorless!

So, there's no easy answer. There are several ways you might approach it . I'd consider the 80D, 10-18mm, 18-135mm or 15-85mm, 60mm Tamron and 70-200/4 a great travel ensemble (it's a whole lot smaller and lighter than the 5DII, 20mm, 24-70/2.8, 135/2 and 300/4 I've traveled with at times). What works best for you is likely quite different than what works for me. But, hopefully, this gives you some ideas.

DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area

I've got the 80D with the EF-S 18-135 and EF 70-300 and am ordering the EF-S 10-18 next week. I've spent 4 full days walking around Sonoma Raceway and Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca with it, and I don't think I'd want anything heavier or bulkier. Great combo.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Mazda/Laguna Seca Vintage Races 2009... Canon 50D with:

Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM...



Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM with Canon EF 1.4X II Extender...


Tokina AT-X 12-24mm f/4...


Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM...


Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM...


Don't want to be THIS GUY!

terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii

If it were me I would spend the cash on trips to different places that you can put your already fine equipment to good use, nothing wrong with what you have,
get out there and have fun.

DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area

Great photos! I'll post some from the Laguna Seca Spring Classic from last month and the Sears Point Vintage races in April in the near future. For now, here are a few I took with a Minolta Hi-Matic 7 rangefinder (scanned from slides) from the October 1966 Can-Am race (I worked on the timing crew).

John Surtees and his Lola T70

(Download)

Parnelli Jones

(Download)

New Ford GT

(Download)

The Starting Grid

(Download)

Victory Celebration; Phil Hill (1st), Jim Hall (2nd), Bruce McLaren (3rd)

(Download)

Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH

I also have the x-t2 with the 18-135 lens. Incredible combination!

That would definitely blow the $2k budget by about $300, though.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

===============

Personally....


This is what I would do. I would keep the older camera as a "Second Shooter".

Happy traveling on that Trip you might be taking ;-)

-0-

jcboy3

Your equipment is too heavy to lug around. Sell it all, take the money and buy a micro four thirds mirrorless system; Panasonic or Olympus.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

-------------------------------

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

If you want to go lighter there is the Canon M5. It has it's own light lenses or you can use with 100% compatibility your existing Canon lenses on the camera. It is in basic terms a 80D but mirrorless and is very well built. Unfortunately because of physics it is hard to make the larger aperture lenses smaller than what they are already. Your Canon lenses are FF so are sized accordingly where the Canon M lenses are somewhat smaller but slower and designed for the smaller sensor. The 24-70L is hardly going lighter, the 24-105 is lighter and greater zoom range and has IS as well. The 80D is a lighter camera than what you have and if going FF the 6D MII is coming out next month and you might look at it if desiring FF.
Good luck, you have some incredible Canon lenses already.