I really miss having my sessions and conversations with Ansel Adams when I was younger. Met him many times and took courses from him, and a follower of his Zone V method. Once at a course in Monterey, CA he invited us all to his house for "drinks" at 6 PM. We were told at the time that "he never did this" but he made a connection with our group. The thing was that 6 PM was dinner time where we were staying at a conference center. Food was included at the conference center as part of the week long course. Many were on shoe string budgets and debated, "food or drink at Ansel's house". Ansel's house won out. We arrived at his house and had full run of his gorgeous house overlooking the Pacific Ocean, his infamous darkroom, his gallery and he had the the full open bar as promised and a complete spread of food for us! We all had pleasant conversations and great time that evening with him while he sat in his favorite chair under his epic image of Half Dome. A memory I will forever cherish as a photographer forever.

You have been shooting with a Canon for a long time, now, and you're used to the system and are familiar with it. You also have two good lenses. If you want to upgrade your camera body, given that you like to shoot sports and other action photography, I have to second the recommendation of upgrading to an 80D. It's fast and very capable. And all you'll need is the body since you already have lenses. I'd say stick with Canon, otherwise you'll end up spending a lot of time trying to learn a new system, such as Sony. Also, if you are interested in the possiblity of going mirrorless, Canon just came out with two good full frame mirrorless cameras, both of which come with an adapter so you can still use the lenses you already have. But I would still recommend the 80D.

Ok in answer to your question, it is not cheap, but I would probably take a good look at Capture One.

There were not as many choices when I switched in 2014, I tired several, and I narrowed it down to, the Adobe Photographers plan which was LR + PS and Bridge at the time, and Capture One Pro 7. I tried both for a year. I really liked the crisp raw rendering results of Capture One. I got results I liked, more "punch" but not excessive, faster with less effort than with PS or LR.

But in the end I liked what Adobe was doing with it's business model, the "Cloud", pushing out real time updates, over the internet. No waiting months for a major release. They offered LR for light editing and cataloging, and PS for heavy lifting. I had used PS Elements prior to adapting Aperture, so I had some familiarity with "Photoshop Lite", but I could never justify the price. Now PS itself was included in the Photographers Plan. My new at the time Camera was quickly supported by Adobe, but not by Phase One. I was advised I would have had to buy the next version to get raw support. That rubbed me a little raw. ;) So at the end of a year I went with Adobe. The price is still the same now as it was when I started. And they have added a lot of features, LR CC, Mobile Apps, the Portfolio. I'm a happy customer.

Aperture is still the best for organizing/cataloging/keywords. RIP.

This is incorrect.

f/2.8 is f/2.8 as far as EXPOSURE is concerned, regardless of whether the lens is used on a crop sensor camera or full frame camera. There is no "light loss" with zooms, any more than there is with primes. f/2.8 on a prime delivers the same light to a sensor as f/2.8 on a zoom. Plus, today's zooms are optically much better than those of the past. The best zooms now approach the image quality and distortion correction of prime lenses, while most lenses and/or post processing software programs are able to easily correct for any vignetting and chromatic aberrations that might occur. In fact, image quality concerns are less is especially true when using a full frame-design lens on an APS-C camera, which crops away the periphery of the image where vignetting and most CA occur, utilizing only the central best and sharpest part of the image rendered by most lenses. (Plus the original poster appears to be using a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens... which could well be one that uses a fluorite element to largely eliminate CA. Over the years, two of Canon's four different 70-200/2.8 models have used fluorite. All three of their 70-200 f/4 lenses have used it.)

When sites like DXO (and people like Tony Northrup) refer to a lens "acting more like an f/3.5 or f/4 than like f/2.8", they are talking about how the lens renders DEPTH OF FIELD when it's used on an APS-C camera, compared to how it does on full frame. They ARE NOT referring to light transmission or exposure... which don't change.

Yes, a prime lens can be smaller, lighter, faster and considerably less expensive than a zoom.... it can even be "better corrected". There are very few zooms that have larger than f/2.8 max aperture, while primes with f/2, f/1.8, f/1.4 and even faster are widely available. One of the more extreme examples, a zoom including the 50mm focal length such as a 17-55mm f/2.8 costs more than $800, is over 3.25" diameter and 4.5" long, and weighs nearly 4X as much (just under 23 oz.) In comparison, a 50mm f/1.8 lens.... which is over a full stop faster... can be bought for as little as $125, is 2-3/4" diameter, 1.5" long and weighs less than 6 oz.

But as far as exposure is concerned, f/2.8 aperture on ANY lens - be it zoom or prime, wide angle., normal or telephoto, crop only or full frame capable - will deliver the same amount of light to the sensor.

The difference is how the lenses render DoF on different formats... and, even then, it doesn't matter if it's a zoom or a prime. Plus, it's actually an indirect cause of the difference in DoF. The reason "apertures on crop cameras act smaller" is due to the way we use the different formats, not due to any inherent difference in the actual DoF. In other words, a 200mm lens (zoom or prime, doesn't matter) at f/2.8 that's used to photograph an object 25 feet away will render exactly the same DoF, regardless of sensor format. However, that's not what we do. The reason it seems different is because when you put the 200mm lens onto a full frame camera, in order to frame the subject the same way you did with the lens on a cropper, you have to move closer to it with the camera and lens, and this change in distances is what causes the DoF the lens produces at that aperture to appear shallower and out of focus background objects to be more strongly blurred. Instead of moving closer, you could instead use a longer focal length lens on the FF camera... and this also will make any given aperture produce shallower DoF and stronger background blur.

In other words, f/2.8 "not acting like f/2.8" only pertains to how DoF is rendered, not to exposure. And the differences in the way DoF is rendered on different sensor formats is actually due to changes in distance and/or changes in focal length that are done to accommodate the change in sensor format.

For a zoom, f/2.8 is "fast". There are very few zooms that are faster, mostly due to size and cost limitations.

Primes can be faster, while also being smaller, lighter and less expensive. But primes aren't as versatile and convenient as zooms.

Before the digital revolution, I used square format cameras, twin lens reflex and Hasselblads. Now I am using DSLR's and enjoying them. The only thing I find annoying is having to rotate the camera. I own several brackets that allow me to rotate from horizontal to vertical and I certainly can do it manually.
I got to thinking about the good ole days when I owned a "Robot" 35 mm camera. (Yes I am that old!) It was a 35mm square format camera. It was never popular and did not catch on. Later, Kodak brought out it's Instamatic line of square format cameras and films but again they were popular for awhile and then disappeared. Now everything is digital and we have sensors in many varied formats, 2x3, 3x4, full frame etc. I am curious why some enterprising manufacturer hasn't brought out a square format sensor in the 35mm size. (36mm X 36mm) It doesn't appear that it would take much retooling to create and the resulting camera would certainly be less expensive than the large square format digital cameras on the market today. I think the functionality of our present DSLRS and Mirrorless cameras could be retained and at the same time give us square format lovers a camera to enjoy. Any insights or comments, anyone?

Before the digital revolution, I used square format cameras, twin lens reflex and Hasselblads. Now I am using DSLR's and enjoying them. The only thing I find annoying is having to rotate the camera. I own several brackets that allow me to rotate from horizontal to vertical and I certainly can do it manually.
I got to thinking about the good ole days when I owned a "Robot" 35 mm camera. (Yes I am that old!) It was a 35mm square format camera. It was never popular and did not catch on. Later, Kodak brought out it's Instamatic line of square format cameras and films but again they were popular for awhile and then disappeared. Now everything is digital and we have sensors in many varied formats, 2x3, 3x4, full frame etc. I am curious why some enterprising manufacturer hasn't brought out a square format sensor in the 35mm size. (36mm X 36mm) It doesn't appear that it would take much retooling to create and the resulting camera would certainly be less expensive than the large square format digital cameras on the market today. I think the functionality of our present DSLRS and Mirrorless cameras could be retained and at the same time give us square format lovers a camera to enjoy. Any insights or comments, anyone?

I agree Graham. I also do the same. But to call that the same as using a shift lens is complete nonsense uttered by a clueless individual. I called it a fake shift, because it isn't a shift at all. At no point do I regard opting to crop and adjust in post processing as anything less than good technique.

I don't use wide lenses for panorama. I find that the volume anamorphosis at the edges and corners problematic for most pano stitching programs, so I usually opt for nothing shorter than a 35mm on full frame.

I used Sinar in my own studio and for my own indoor work. But out in the field I had a lovely Horseman 985, and an odd duck - a Speed Graphic that had some limited rear swing/tilt capability - and the dual illuminated rangefinder focusing system for dark settings which did not require you look into a dark groundglass or rangefinder - you just pointed the camera and adjusted focus until you lined up the two light beams. I really miss that gear, though I do appreciate everything that digital has allowed me to do with my images.

I also have Canon Lens 24-70/2.8 And 70-200/2.8 I had a t6i I really liked it but wanted to move up so I got the 80D a guy on here kept on telling me to get the 6D mark II well I did not listen to him. so got the 80D was not happy with it that much I call Canon Ask if I could send it back they let me and I order the 6D mark II I love it thank you Chris. I do high School Soccer, Basketball, Volleyball and people really like my pictures. what ever you do dont let people talk you in to taking pictures of their kids way to much work not going to do that next year hope this helps you out