The 600D Upgrade - D7200?

[anyyshoots]

Hello, just searching for opinions on upgrading my 600D.
I am currently eyeing the Nikon D7200. Yes its a change of system but I'm fine with that.
I feel that my 600D does not do well enough in low light settings, producing photos with a lot of digital noise even at low ISO, and also requires a rather long time of focusing.
Perhaps I could be suffering from Gear Acquisition Syndrome but I'm rather willing to spend a little on myself to upgrade my current camera gear.
1. Canon 600D
2. Canon 18-135mm - non STM (I don't really use this lens)
3. Canon 28mm f1.8 (love primes, and BOKEH)

I'm looking into nikon D7200 for its ISO capabilities, better IQ(colour depth), 51 AF points etc. and I'm looking to pair it with a Sigma 24mm f1.4. I do love carrying around a single prime lens though I would probably get more in the future for other uses. I usually take street, landscape, friends and events.
The Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 seems pretty amazing but weight and size is a big issue for me.

Is this a good choice? I would love to hear your views.

 

[undergrd]

Why not a 7D mark2?

 

[pinoyfoveon]

I do suffer from GAS also. I'm eyeing on the EOS 7D Mark II to replace my old system. Canon's entry level line up works well at ISO 1600. I have two back up cameras EOS 1100D and EOS M1. These two produces very good results at 1600 and acceptable result at ISO 3200 for the EOS M1.

I am upgrading to 7D MK II because of the autofocus sytem and it would work well for my lenses, I use 200mm and 400mm primes for wildlife photography.

For street photography, I prefer mirrorless camera like my EOS M1, i pair it with 50mm f1.8 and 10-18. People in the street try to avoid me when I use DSLR. Mirrorless is very common so most people don't get annoyed.

50+ autofocus points of the D7200 is really good but would be too much for your lens and chosen genre which is street photography.

Nikon has a higher dynamic range compared to Canon. When I compare my shots to two of my friends D7000, they always have better color results for direct JPEG. But if you shoot RAW it wouldn't be a problem.

For entry level camera, they usually do hunt in lowlight when using autofocus. Best to use manual focus. Some get annoyed with the preflash and autofocus assist lights.

Try to do some testing. Some stores have displays that you can test.

If you really want better ISO performance at lowlight, a full frame camera would be the best choice. Consider also Sony, according to some reviewers they have the best low light performance.

Hope this helps. Thank you.

 

[anyyshoots]

I do suffer from GAS also. I'm eyeing on the EOS 7D Mark II to replace my old system. Canon's entry level line up works well at ISO 1600. I have two back up cameras EOS 1100D and EOS M1. These two produces very good results at 1600 and acceptable result at ISO 3200 for the EOS M1.

I am upgrading to 7D MK II because of the autofocus sytem and it would work well for my lenses, I use 200mm and 400mm primes for wildlife photography.

For street photography, I prefer mirrorless camera like my EOS M1, i pair it with 50mm f1.8 and 10-18. People in the street try to avoid me when I use DSLR. Mirrorless is very common so most people don't get annoyed.

50+ autofocus points of the D7200 is really good but would be too much for your lens and chosen genre which is street photography.

Nikon has a higher dynamic range compared to Canon. When I compare my shots to two of my friends D7000, they always have better color results for direct JPEG. But if you shoot RAW it wouldn't be a problem.

For entry level camera, they usually do hunt in lowlight when using autofocus. Best to use manual focus. Some get annoyed with the preflash and autofocus assist lights.

Try to do some testing. Some stores have displays that you can test.

If you really want better ISO performance at lowlight, a full frame camera would be the best choice. Consider also Sony, according to some reviewers they have the best low light performance.

Hope this helps. Thank you.

the 7D Mark ii seems like a pretty good choice, though I feel that I would not max out its potential as it is largely for sports/moving photography like wildlife photography etc.

The D7200 is more affordable, as I would be able to pair it with the Sigma 24mm f1.4 or Sigma 18-35mm f1.8.
Full frame is of course the most desirable but then again, costs is a major issue.

 

[daredevil123]

the 7D Mark ii seems like a pretty good choice, though I feel that I would not max out its potential as it is largely for sports/moving photography like wildlife photography etc.

The D7200 is more affordable, as I would be able to pair it with the Sigma 24mm f1.4 or Sigma 18-35mm f1.8.
Full frame is of course the most desirable but then again, costs is a major issue.

How a camera is positioned in the market has no bearing whatsoever on how you are going to use it. why worry if you will be able to max out its potential or not?

 

[anyyshoots]

How a camera is positioned in the market has no bearing whatsoever on how you are going to use it. why worry if you will be able to max out its potential or not?

yeah but I'll rather save the extra money investing into better glass etc. Hmm this is my mindset, but would getting a 7d mark ii be ideal in your opinion? I would love to hear your views.

 

[silvermoon1407]

yeah but I'll rather save the extra money investing into better glass etc. Hmm this is my mindset, but would getting a 7d mark ii be ideal in your opinion? I would love to hear your views.

If you don't shoot sports or wildlife, you will still be underutilizing the 7d2 if u do get it. A d7200 will be better in most circumstances. But it's not a light camera compared to your 600D. A d3300/5300/5500 can also address the issues that you face with the 600D.

Or you can consider mirrorless options. Sony E mount systems like the a6000 can give good performance without breaking the bank and is small and compact too, not to mention quite a range of compact inexpensive primes from Sony and Sigma.

 

[anyyshoots]

If you don't shoot sports or wildlife, you will still be underutilizing the 7d2 if u do get it. A d7200 will be better in most circumstances. But it's not a light camera compared to your 600D. A d3300/5300/5500 can also address the issues that you face with the 600D.

Or you can consider mirrorless options. Sony E mount systems like the a6000 can give good performance without breaking the bank and is small and compact too, not to mention quite a range of compact inexpensive primes from Sony and Sigma.

thanks for your opinion, haven't really considered Sony though.. Would definitely do more research now before caving into my GAS!

 

[SkyStrike]

thanks for your opinion, haven't really considered Sony though.. Would definitely do more research now before caving into my GAS!

Hmmm, if you are not going for the latest gadgets, 70D does things pretty well too for sports.. (at least when it first launch)

 

[daredevil123]

yeah but I'll rather save the extra money investing into better glass etc. Hmm this is my mindset, but would getting a 7d mark ii be ideal in your opinion? I would love to hear your views.

The money you lose on selling and buying lenses should be around the price difference between 7dm2 and d7200 no?

 

[fatbike]

Hmmm, if you are not going for the latest gadgets, 70D does things pretty well too for sports.. (at least when it first launch)

Yea actually 70D was in mind when I wanted to upgrade, but 7D mkll came just in time, actually 19 cross type n 7fps+ wifi from the 70D is already a killer , these still a lot more goodies from the 70D like its processor & stuff, it's a great upgrade from ur current 1