Is a Canon 7D an upgrade?

strelleymagpie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
32
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have both a Canon 40D and 550D both of which I use regularly, mainly for travel and landscape photography. I've been offered a 7D with a 17-40 f/4L lens - will the 7D be a significant upgrade over my other Canon bodies as I've seen it described as more of a professional camera, or should I just stick with the 550D
 
The controls are much better and quicker to use on the 7D the image quality will be the same , which is still excellent by the way I’ve got all 3 of those cameras as well as the 7D mk 2
I would go for the 7D mk 2 that would be a significant upgrade the autofocus i much better on the 7D mk 2 image quality is slightly better
to be honest for landscape I don’t think you would benefit from changing
I have been going through some old shots that I took on my 550D , in good light the image quality is excellent :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: zx9
Purely FWIW

I had the 40D and that sensor was superb IMO it might have been best Canon crop sensor (no doubt superceded eventually).....I replaced it with the 7D and was by degrees disappointed because I went from the lovely low noise images to noisy ones even at modest ISO level = more effort needed to tame the noise.

By all the accounts I have read the 7D mk2 sensor was a noticeable improvement but by that the time that came I had upgraded to full frame 5D MK3.
 
Purely FWIW

I had the 40D and that sensor was superb IMO it might have been best Canon crop sensor (no doubt superceded eventually).....I replaced it with the 7D and was by degrees disappointed because I went from the lovely low noise images to noisy ones even at modest ISO level = more effort needed to tame the noise.

By all the accounts I have read the 7D mk2 sensor was a noticeable improvement but by that the time that came I had upgraded to full frame 5D MK3.


I agree the 40D was excellent but so was the 550D and 7D as well as the 7D mk2 the main difference I saw was that the mk2 had much better autofocus than the 7D mk1 , well for me anyway the 7D mk 1 struggled with fast moving subjects but for image quality I can’t really see any difference between the 550D and 7D both were excellent with a slight improvement at higher ISO for the 7D mk 2
I did read on here back in the day that the 7D image quality was variable maybe that’s why some people have found it not very good but I found on all those cameras (40D, 550D and 7D mk 1 and mk 2 ) if you nailed the exposure and the light was decent the image quality was decent
 
Last edited:
For what you shoot, the 7d isn’t an upgrade.

And the 17-40 might be an upgrade from the kit lens, but is frankly not a great lens.

If you want to upgrade your IQ without breaking the bank, can I suggest a purchase of the 17-55 IS.
 
The 7d was a good camera... in it's day. I have a 30d and a 7d, and the 7d is miles better, but the 40d was a fair bit better than the 30d, so the advantage is less. While the 7d has more MP I'd suggest looking at the 90d if budget allows. Miles better than the 7d, more MP and a LOT better in low light (and a faster frame rate) if budget is tight check out the 750/760d 24 mp, way better than a 7d in low light (I have a 750) not as rugged as a 7d but unless your rough on camera it's fine (similar build quality to the 550d) Lens wise take a look at a Sigma 17-50 2.8. Lovely quality and faster than your kit lens.
 
Tamron also did a 17-50mm f2.8 which was smaller, lighter and cheaper than the Canon 17-55mm f2.8.

This was the lens which convinced me that a lens can be too sharp for pictures of your GF :D
 
I would think so. It definitely ticks more boxes and the good news is the new fancy software is much better at cleaning up image noise which you will definitely need, well already do almost certainly
 
Offered sounds like a free gift... If it's free take it & try it. If you find you prefer what you have, offer it back or maybe get it astro converted?
 
Back
Top