# Advice - worth the jump 550d to 70d?



## fragilesi (Sep 2, 2013)

Guys,

This is a genuine request for opinions. For my first couple of years photography I’ve had a 550d and frankly being totally new to the field have been delighted with it. But it’s getting on and I’m getting to the point where I’m starting to realize some of the limitations to my little “magic box”. I’m therefore thinking about the new 70d. What I find almost impossible to gauge from all the informed opinion and debate about ISO charts, sensor IQ and the like is just how much of real-world difference I’d notice and would like the opinions of anyone with greater knowledge than me. To be clear, that’s pretty much anyone who regularly remembers to take the lens cap off for their first shot .

I do understand that these would be just opinions and yes it’s different for everyone but I’d rather listen to a few of those opinions to get an idea of what I might expect to see from such an upgrade. To inform those opinions my photography prime interests are:-

•	Nature, most especially birds in flight.
•	Sports, especially football and cricket.
•	Rock concert photography.
•	A smaller amount of landscape / architecture photography and occasional macros.

I’ve got what I think is a decent collection of lenses with the obvious “miss” being something a bit longer for the birds, all Canon:-

10-22, 24-70L (the older version, not the latest one), 100L Macro, 70-300L

All lenses frankly more than adequate for my current level of talent / capability. I took previous advice to concentrate on glass first.

My real expectation of upgrading from a 550d to a 70d is:-

Significant improvements (for me):-

Low light capability for the concerts and indoor or other low-light shots. Seems to me there should be a noticeable improvement?
AF performance and flexibility, especially for the birds in flight and low light situations. I’m thinking this should be the real deal clincher? 

I guess there are other things, I do very occasionally video things so the new Live View AF looks like a big jump and of course the touch / vari-angle screen will be a genuine step forwards.

What I’m really after though is opinion on whether the two areas that I point out (AF and low light capability) are genuinely things that I will see a genuine improvement in. I don’t plan to buy just yet, I will let the price run down first but I’m curious to see if my expectations are roughly in line with reality 

Thanks.


----------



## whothafunk (Sep 2, 2013)

im in the exact same boat as you, but i only shoot sports. 

1 - not one review has yet to compare 70D's AF to 7D and how it acts. we dont know, if 70D has a dedicated processor for AF alone like the 7D, we dont know if its as snappy as 7D's.. we only know that 70D was stripped of Spot and Expansion AF modes, which is a bummer, especially Expansion mode for sports is very useful. 

2 - ISO performance is about 1/3 - 1/2 stop better than 550D's judging by reviews and jpeg comparisons. not a lot, eh.


----------



## Strobe the globe (Sep 2, 2013)

Yes, I would upgrade! I have just upgraded from the 60D to 70D and loving the new video capabilities! You would love the jump from the 550D to the 70D even more. The touchscreen is very useful. I got it with the 18-55mm STM lens kit. My first impression was that I had bought a junky lens - simply because of how light it was to hold. But after using it a little, I am very happy with the quality of the images - and the speed of focussing while using continuous auto-focussing. 

I mush admit though - if I was not in to using my DSLR for video, I would not think the upgrade was worth it - as the 60D was an excellent camera. 

I made a youtube video of the unboxing showing some closeups of the camera body (and a little bit of using the touchscreen) if you are interested. Good luck. 

Canon EOS 70D (W) EF-S 18-55mm STM lens kit unboxing and first 'hands on' review


----------



## whothafunk (Sep 2, 2013)

he is more interested in AF for stills, not video. as am I.


----------



## cervantes (Sep 2, 2013)

In terms of IQ I wouldn't expect that there is a real visible difference between the two of them. 1/2 a stop is a VERY minor improvement if you take into consideration that there are about 4 years of technology advancement between them.

The 550D is a very stellar performer IQ-wise - even after all those years it's still quite as good as all the other (and newer) Canon APSC models. So if you want improved low light performance you will have to go full frame.

AF performance should be much better I suppose and since your primary interests are action related topics this will make a difference. In this regard take a look at the 7D though (what you most likely already did).


----------



## sdsr (Sep 2, 2013)

I assume that by improved low light performance you mean both greater focus accuracy and less noise. I don't know about the former, but based on all the online high ISO examples I've seen online so far, it seems that while there will be a "noticeable" difference, the improvement in image quality at high ISOs will be minor (as it would be even if you switched to APS-C cameras with the best high ISO performance like Pentax). 

The only way you would get a high ISO improvement of the sort that prompted me to make involuntary "wow"-type noises when I made the switch would be if you moved to full frame instead. Based on your references to cricket and football you're presumably not in the US, so I don't know how prices compare, but here in the US at least if you shop around carefully/wait for special deals the difference in price between a new full-price 70D and a discounted 6D is only a few hundred dollars. The 6D's focusing accuracy in extremely low light is pretty remarkable, too - at least if the subject isn't moving. All but one of the lenses you currently own will work on a 6D too, and, what's more, work better; you'll gain at the wide end and although you'll lose reach, you'll be pleasantly surprised by the quality of crops from the 70-300L even at 300mm. Something to think about, perhaps. 

But the 70D may well be better than the 6D at focusing on things that move, even something as slow as cricket....  I'll leave it to others to comment on that, as I don't photograph that sort of thing. It could be that the two factors you singled out - low light performance and shooting action - lead to conflicting recommendations (the 5DIII will give you both, but at quite a price), so you'll have to decide which of the two matters more. Any chance of renting in your part of the world so you can find out first hand?


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 2, 2013)

I don't have the 70D, but I have a digicV EOS M, a 7D (similar AF) a 600D and had a 550D. 

The 550D was a great little camera, but there are a few practical differences which I think merit an upgrade:

1. Vari-angle LCD screen. Brilliant for your macro stuff (600D is my go to video and macro body)

2. A stop better ISO/noise trade off. You'll still want to shoot RAW and tweak the luma channel NR in post, but noise a stop less intrusive at any given ISO. 3200 perfectly usable if you are handy with ACR or Lightroom.

3. Wireless E-TTL off camera flash. A real boon for your macro, and perhaps some nature and sports.

4. Better AF. 550D is just about ok if you limit yourself to centre spot only AF and use fast lenses. Fast lenses are still a given, but the 70D will be a massive step up. The new dual pixel live view and touchscreen might be just the ticket for your macros.

5. OVF quality. When you go to a prism finder from a mirror finder you'll be amazed at the clarity, sharpness, brightness.

You aren't going to fall off your chair at the differences in IQ! what you will do is get more keepers, be able to stop down more (by lens or by shutter) to give you more depth of field or freeze the action a bit better in low light.

The 70D will just be easier to get along with, especially for macro.


----------



## distant.star (Sep 2, 2013)

.
I liked, and still like my T2i. After the agonizing wait (for both the camera and the right price) I finally got a 5D3 last December. I always found the T2i to be nearly adequate with compromises. The 5d3 is entirely adequate with no compromises. For some reason I've always seen the T2i sensor as somewhat better (less noise) than most other models using that 18MP APS-C sensor. I'd like to chalk that up to imagination, but I've seen too many other people say the same thing. Anyway, I use my T2i as a backup, and I'm planning to upgrade that. This 70D is certainly in the running. I plan to wait for whatever 7D2 announcement may come or what they might do with a new M before I decide. However the 70D seems like a lot of outstanding technology for not much money, comparatively speaking.

Unless you're willing to go all the way to 5D3, I don't see that you'll get much noticeable improvement in image quality -- through DR, less noise, etc. And that says a lot for the overall quality of the T2i specifically and that particular APS-C sensor. Obviously, the 7D will reduce the amount of compromise you have to do in the AF area. The 70D will too, but probably not as much as the 7D would. Overall, I think the amount of compromises you need to make are significantly reduced with the 70D compared to the T2i. Up to you whether that's enough to base a purchase decision on.

The best little review I've seen of the 70D recently was done by Scott Kelby. He is quite impressed overall and excited given the price:

First Look at the New Canon EOS 70D on-location shooting a BMW 650i


----------



## EOBeav (Sep 2, 2013)

Here's another thought: If you can afford a 70D, you're not far from a 7D. Sensors are going to be similar, but you get better build quality and more pro-level features on the 7D. I just think you'll be happier with it in the long run. You do have a nice collection of lenses with a wide range of focal lengths.


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 2, 2013)

EOBeav said:


> Here's another thought: If you can afford a 70D, you're not far from a 7D. Sensors are going to be similar, but you get better build quality and more pro-level features on the 7D. I just think you'll be happier with it in the long run. You do have a nice collection of lenses with a wide range of focal lengths.



If I were in the market for a 7D, I'd probably wait a few months for the rumored Mk II.


----------



## EOBeav (Sep 3, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> EOBeav said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another thought: If you can afford a 70D, you're not far from a 7D. Sensors are going to be similar, but you get better build quality and more pro-level features on the 7D. I just think you'll be happier with it in the long run. You do have a nice collection of lenses with a wide range of focal lengths.
> ...



Key word there is 'rumored.' No doubt they're going to come out with a replacement for the 7D, but that doesn't make a 7D any less worthwhile. I don't like to encourage people to get into the "don't get X, the XmkII will be out soon." You spend your time waiting around for something that may or may not come to fruition, instead of getting the images you want with a great camera.


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 3, 2013)

EOBeav said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > EOBeav said:
> ...



True, but IMO there's no clear winner between a 7D and a 70D. Each does some things better than the other, and the generally less-functional camera costs $300 more. That's a lot to pay for a metal body and a slightly faster frame rate. As I understand it:


The 70D has better picture quality, better live-view/video focusing, a higher resolution LCD, and built-in Wi-Fi.
The 7D can take one more picture per second, can take more shots before the buffer fills up, has a slightly more accurate viewfinder (100% versus 98%), and has a metal body.

AFAIK, that's pretty much the extent of the differences. Unless you're shooting sports, the 70D is usually the better choice, and even then, the 7D's benefit is pretty small, IMO. If you strongly care about the advantages of one or the other, buy that one. Otherwise, I'd either buy the cheaper one (the 70D) or wait for the more expensive one to be a clear winner (hence my Mk II suggestion). I really don't think it makes much sense to buy a 7D right now.

Or you could always take the plunge and jump to a 6D or other full-frame, with the caveat that you'll need to budget an extra $1,700 or so for the 16-35 II to replace your 10-22.


----------



## DRR (Sep 3, 2013)

If I were you, I'd wait 6 months.

In 6 months, the 7DII might be announced, or the rumors may be firmer. This will give you a better basis on which to judge, 70D vs 7DII, versus saving a few bucks because I'd expect the 7D probably will fall another $100 or so in the next 6 months (for an extremely capable camera).

Also in 6 months, more real world reports will be in from the 70D. For the most part all we have now are specs and a few limited reports. Wait for the more in-depth reviews. I don't expect any surprises, any bugs, etc. but if there are any, you'll know in 6 months.

If you want to buy now, I'd go for the 70D without much hesitation. When I read about the 70D being released it sounded to me like a 7D Mark 1.5. I don't know what else they're thinking about putting into a 7DII to make it much better than a 70D. A few more FPS, a larger buffer, dual card slots? Maybe wifi and GPS? There's not a lot that could be added to make it head and shoulders better than a 70D in my opinion. Guess we'll see when it's announced/released.


----------



## andrewsg (Sep 3, 2013)

The difference is smaller than you would expect. You have done very well so far with your decision to spend on lenses rather than bodies - keep it up.  The 70d is by no means bad, or poor value, if you were looking for a new camera it would be a good choice. If I was in your shoes I would wait, save and get a 6d - it's already under $2k new, or just buy whatever lens would complement my current collection.


----------



## Dukinald (Sep 3, 2013)

Im exactly on the same boat as you. I have decided to wait it out a few more months as things can only get better.......

1) As someone mentioned, there would be more real world feedback on the 70d
2) The 7d is getting cheaper 
3) The 6d price is also going down
4) the 7dII is just around the corner

So right now am also looking at expanding my lens stable as there is no model out there the meets my shooting needs (thats within budget). If im going to make a purchase now, i would have to think hard between the 6d and 70d.


----------



## sarakoth (Sep 3, 2013)

As a few have said, strongly consider a 6D.. even though the 70D had just been announced at the time I upgraded my 500D to a 6D as I didn't think the 70D would improve much on overall IQ and it seemed there was not going to be a huge difference in price. Now the real world tests are out it seems like I was right as far as IQ goes. 

To me the 70D and it's advantages are are around taking video.. if you are doing mainly stills, want to improve the IQ of every shot you take, then have a look at the 6D. Especially low light performance. Otherwise at least wait as the RRP for the 70D will no doubt drop by Christmas and you may get a confirmation of the 7D2 specs by then. 

The downside of the 6D is no on camera flash (so allow for a speedlite) and outer AF only works in good lights (but the center is amazing in low light to make up for this).


----------



## vlim (Sep 3, 2013)

> Otherwise, I'd either buy the cheaper one (the 70D)



Actually the 7d is cheaper than the 70D (at least here in France i've seen it at 999 €)

8)


----------



## skfla (Sep 3, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> My real expectation of upgrading from a 550d to a 70d is:-
> 
> Significant improvements (for me):-
> 
> ...



Fyi, I shoot with the 7D (folks keep saying the 70D has the 7D af array) as a back up & I've rented the 6D. My opinion is that w/ the cameras you've mentioned, you can have one but not both of your key specs. 

The 6D is incredibly good at focusing in low light. I was incredibly impressed with the camera when I shot in low natural light w/ a prime. But it's focusing ability is not one I would want in a sports camera. I don't think you'll feel that there was a great improvement in that area, certainly not 3-4 years worth. 

I haven't shot with the 70D but most folks keep talking about it's af array being similar/the same as the 7D. If thats the case, it will be huge improvement over your T2i for sports photography. Once you're used to it, you'll wonder how you ever got a good shot with your rebel. But as far as low light goes, I had hoped the 70D would have the same capability as the 6D. I was prepared to buy a 70D when it came out because of this. Unfortunately, the -3ev sensitive cross center focus point was not given to the 70D (I decided to just stick w/ my 7D partly because of this). And because of the lack of -3ev focus point, my reading of the spec sheet & experience with the 7D-I don't think you'll see a big improvement in the 70D for your concert/low light shooting. At least not enough to upgrade for. Although, to be honest, I may have been so spoiled by the 6D that even "good" low light focusing now seems just ok. Anyway, once the reviews come out we'll know a good bit more. 

You're smart to wait a while, read the various reviews & watch the price drop a little. But unfortunately I just don't see one mid-level camera suiting both your main needs perfectly. Regardless, good luck w/ your selection & kudos on your glass selection. I think you've really managed to squeeze the very best out of your T2i.


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 3, 2013)

Firstly, to everyone who has taken the time to respond . . . THANKS! This is exactly what I was after and I did wonder what might happen after reading some of the recent 70d threads!

I guess it confirmed some things I already knew, tells me a few things I didn’t and gives me much food for thought:-

Things confirmed:-

- With the 550d I certainly landed on my feet, for its price point it has always felt a hell of a camera.
- With the variety of things I like to shoot I need to spend a lot of cash for the camera that excels in low light and focuses like a demon! It’s not impossible for me to get a 5dMkIII but it would be a fruitless exercise given the severe reduction in life expectancy that would follow my wife seeing the bank statements . . . 
- It’s prudent to wait a bit longer (70d price drops, 7d MkII news possibly), I’m just about to hit 100k actuations on the 550d, I’m not sure how long these things last but at my level there’s still a lot it can help me learn, I'm sure of that much.

Still at issue:-

- How much better is the low light performance, ISO thoughts seem to be between a third and one stop. The former is not worth considering for me, the latter would be nice so that needs further investigation! I’m sure the AF would be better regardless of conditions. The ISO improvements puzzle me though. 10% more pixels, better processing power . . . you would have thought that from 550d to 70d there would be a real difference to be had there.

- Full frame via the 6d. It is only currently 30% or so more but I’d envisage that gap widening especially if the 7dMkII gets announced any time soon. I’d pretty much made my mind up to stick with crops and the superior sounding AF on the 7/70ds nicks it. I also have the feeling that while a full frame camera might suffer tighter cropping to get similar results it would be harder to lock focus on something smaller in the frame(??).


Things I really didn’t know

- The difference between the viewfinders, this sounds like a real benefit, 99% of the time I use the viewfinder rather than Liveview.
- I didn’t actually realize quite how close the 7d was in price to the 70d . . . I can pick one up for basically the same price in the UK similar to France (scratches head and wonders if that might not be such a bad idea!). But then I’d miss the screen and a couple of other things set against the advantages it does have. 

In summary I’ll wait, I might also be tempted by that 400mm lens and blow the cash on that instead. For those in the same or similar boat it would be interesting to see how you get on should you make the jump!

But once again, thanks this has been really helpful.


----------



## per_e (Sep 3, 2013)

I just upgraded from the 450D to the 70D. I mainly shoot stills, mostly wildlife/nature. I use EF24-105 & EF 100-400. I'm very pleased so far. The biggest improvements have been in autofocus, low light noise and general handling of the camera. Also, the higher speed is nice and 20 MP is quite a jump from 12 on the 450D which lets me crop even more.
Having the opportunity to shoot an occasional video might prove useful - but you all ready have that of course.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 3, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> - With the 550d I certainly landed on my feet, for its price point it has always felt a hell of a camera.
> 
> - It’s prudent to wait a bit longer (70d price drops, 7d MkII news possibly), I’m just about to hit 100k actuations on the 550d, I’m not sure how long these things last but at my level there’s still a lot it can help me learn, I'm sure of that much.



True, it is. And also, True, it is.

Your 550D might be nearing it's tested shutter durability, some keep going much longer, some fail much sooner.
You have a working camera for now it seems so no real need to panic buy.

I haven't suggested full frame because it isn't the answer to your question, or by any stretch, your dilemma. Some folk just like saying full frame full frame a lot I guess.

The 7D and 70D AF is similar in phase mode, but in terms of flexibility and tweaking etc the 7D has more user variables, if you are very serious about AF and want the best possible within budget the 7D still has the upper hand.
Just. The 70D will probably work just fine out the box, the 7D needs a bit of playing about to get sorted, but it will reward you.

However, keeping shooting with your 550D is fine too.

I would recommend the following, if you don't already..

1. Select the centre AF point only. It's the only cross type. 

2. Set the drive rate to burst. Get a class 10 SD card.

3. Select AiServo for sports and nature. Track track shoot. Track track shoot. This really helps predictive AiServo. And will help keep things in focus when your mirror is flapping around during a burst. The small short bursts help you keep things composed and also let the cameras buffer clear, ready for the next important bit. If you keep your finger on the shutter everything will slow to a crawl.

4. Consider faster aperture lenses. They will also really really help your AF, especially on your current body, but every EOS DSLR has improved AF with f2.8 or faster lenses. Something like a 200mm f2.8L is a very fast focusing high quality lens that will also work on full frame if you go that way. Certainly a brilliant sports lens, if not really long enough for a lot of nature.

5. Consider a mono or tripod. Especially where any panning is involved. Mono-pods cheap and have virtually no footprint. If you pan, you'll pan 10x with a little support. And this will also really help your AF keep up.

6. Finally, consider JPEGS in good light. This will also speed things up and clear your buffer giving you more burst depth.


----------



## whothafunk (Sep 3, 2013)

only thing i dont like about the 7D is that it is REALLY soft when shooting JPEGs. my 550D is sharper than a 7D. 70D is even sharper. same story with the ISO. other than that, terrific dslr the 7D


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 3, 2013)

Have you checked the picture profile settings?


----------



## DRR (Sep 3, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> I haven't suggested full frame because it isn't the answer to your question, or by any stretch, your dilemma. Some folk just like saying full frame full frame a lot I guess.



Yes I don't understand the recommendations for FF either. For what the OP is shooting, a faster crop sensor camera seems to make much more sense. I am not saying that FF is not a worthwhile investment or that you can't shoot any of these things with a FF camera, I just happen to think a _faster_ crop sensor camera is the better tool in this case. All things being equal, sure go FF, but at that point you're looking at a 1DX - no compromises.

• Nature, most especially birds in flight.

Crop factor and AF speed seem ideal for this.

• Sports, especially football and cricket.

Again, the ability to get in tighter with the same lens, faster burst modes, and AF speed for quick moving subjects, is ideal for a crop camera.

• Rock concert photography.

You need the fastest AF and metering you can get for concerts, with moving subjects and constantly changing light.

• A smaller amount of landscape / architecture photography and occasional macros.

Macro shots again benefit from the crop factor. Landscape/architecture is the only thing on this list that's a clear win for FF cameras. You want to be able to get wide, you can afford to have a slower shutter speed, because your subject isn't moving.

FF is great. The 6D is a wonderful camera. I shoot with a 5D2 and for what I shoot it's a better choice than a crop camera. For what you shoot, I would suggest the 70D or save a few bucks with the 7D. Unless you can afford a 5D3 or 1DX.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 3, 2013)

sarakoth said:


> As a few have said, strongly consider a 6D.. even though the 70D had just been announced at the time I upgraded my 500D to a 6D as I didn't think the 70D would improve much on overall IQ and it seemed there was not going to be a huge difference in price. Now the real world tests are out it seems like I was right as far as IQ goes.


Agreed, and if the OP is getting by doing nature and concert work with a T2i, then a 6D will AF just as well if not better. And what you gain in low-light ability is worth the trade. If you didn't keep the T2i, then you could probably swap your 10-22 for a 17-40 for around the same price

I could also agree with people suggesting the 7D over the 70D, since it's a well-known commodity and a great price right now. Itd be MUCH better for nature and sports work than a 6D, but, it loses the low-light performance against the 6D at concerts. Still, the 7D is plenty capable for landscape work, etc. For BIF work, it;s hard to top


----------



## jblake (Sep 3, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> What I find almost impossible to gauge from all the informed opinion and debate about ISO charts, sensor IQ and the like is just how much of real-world difference I’d notice and would like the opinions of anyone with greater knowledge than me. To be clear, that’s pretty much anyone who regularly remembers to take the lens cap off for their first shot .



If you attached a Canon 85 1.2 L to both camera's, T2i and 70D, and took a photo, I doubt you would see much difference, unless the 85 needed to be micro-adjusted or it would not acquire focus because of the single type outer AF points that the T2i has. High ISO JPEG images would look much better on the 70D as well.

I have owned and used all the camera's in question and my advice is to purchase the 70D and not the 6D or the over-rated 7D; you will be much happier. I now own the 70D and did own/use the 7D for around eleven months, and bought and used the 6D for about two months. 

The 7D does not focus very consistently; for my 7D, AI Servo yielded around a 60% hit rate for indoor/outdoor sports. And the IQ was not that great on these RAW images either, a bit soft even when focus was spot on. I then bought a 1D3, and my hit rate went to over 90% and the 1D3's images were so much sharper than the 7D's images. Goodbye 7D and have never missed it.

If action/fast moving objects are important for you to be able to capture, then forget the 6D. It is an incredible camera if you understand it's one limitation, the outer AF points. Now you could work around that and just use the center AF point on the 6D and then later in post just crop to re-compose. I did this and the results were pretty good, you just lost some resolution. For me, I need to be able to rely on the outer AF points for composition right then while I am taking the photo, not later in post, so the 6D was sold. If the 6D had the outer AF points like the lowly T4i has, f/5.6 cross type, then I would still have the 6D today and would need no other camera.

I used my 70D at a local High School night football game the Friday before last, and in between the intermittent rain showers, out of 60 some photo's, all were sharp and in focus; something my copy of the 7D could never do on it's best day. Keep in mind, that I achieved this with just the single AF point, I did not have access to the expanded AF point option like the 7D has. I used the default AI Servo settings straight from the factory for the 70D. This impressed me very much.

The 70D produces sharper images than the 7D does. The 70D has better IQ with low ISO RAW images than the 7D has, think studio stuff or landscape photography. However, the high RAW ISO images like at ISO 6400, are similar between the two cameras. The JPEG images from the 70D are superior to the 7D at all ISO's. 

The 70D allows you to micro-adjust your zoom lenses at the wide and telephoto ends where the 7D you can only make one micro-adjustment for the entire zoom range, The 70D, from my experience, has better and more consistent auto-focus than the 7D, not even close to be honest. In all fairness, I have not had time to do any BIF shot's, so the jury is still out in that area. The 70D has a silent shutter option which is very nice, similar to the 6D's. And when not in silent mode, the 70D's shutter is quieter than the 7D's, this includes high continuous shooting as well. The 70D is the first DSLR that makes taking video's fun and makes me want to take video's.

Keep one thing in mind, everything that I just said is only my opinion and nothing more. Just thought I would give you my impressions from my actual experience/take on of these camera's. Good luck with your decision and as you know there is no one perfect camera; the closest to that level of greatness cost around $6800. Way too many confusing and expensive compromises in this hobby.


----------



## vlim (Sep 3, 2013)

Thanks per_e and jblake for your reviews about the 70d in the real life... I'm actually using a 40D and of course i'm thinking about adding another body mostly for wildlife photography and the 70D looks promising one ! i'll take it if it's better body than the ol' 7D


----------



## skfla (Sep 3, 2013)

PS: for what it's worth, here is one of the early reviews out on the 70D.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_70D/

As an fyi, I've personally grown a little cool on Gordon's reviews since he got on a mirrorless kick a couple years ago. I don't think I'm the only one. This review has a little bit of a feeling like a fob to the tradionalist DSLR crowd to reestablish some of his cred. Probably me just reading too much into it but even so. Regardless though, it is nice to get some additional info on the camera. 

Update: Digital Rev has their youtube channel review of the 70D uploaded


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 4, 2013)

DRR said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > I haven't suggested full frame because it isn't the answer to your question, or by any stretch, your dilemma. Some folk just like saying full frame full frame a lot I guess.
> ...



For bird photos, yes, because the crop factor is an advantage in terms of reach. For concert shooting, no, because the extra couple of stops of usable dynamic range make full-frame cameras really shine.


----------



## sarakoth (Sep 5, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> My real expectation of upgrading from a 550d to a 70d is:-
> 
> Significant improvements (for me):-
> 
> ...



I suggested looking at a 6D because from these comments.. Low light capability and performance, 6D wins easily. AF performance and flexibility I would suggest is about equal.. BIF 7D/70D but low light the 6D. 

I have not used my 6D with BIF so can't comment on that.. I think football (soccer?) and cricket would be fine for most shots, but the higher FPS of the 7D if you want to catch the exact moment the ball is caught or hits the stumps, goes past the keeper, etc would make it more likely to capture. I was quite surprised how well the 6D handled a recent track day I was at after all the negative comments I had heard about it.


----------



## thgmuffin (Sep 5, 2013)

skfla said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > My real expectation of upgrading from a 550d to a 70d is:-
> ...


6D Center AF point for sports is beyond enough.


----------



## The Bad Duck (Sep 5, 2013)

A used 1D mkIV? Perhaps too expensive, I don´t know. But it is built for what you want to do, and you have lenses for it. And it´s cool!

That, or wait for 7D mkII. Your 550D is not bad, you may be able to stick with it for a little while longer, if you are not loosing sales with your current gear.

Good luck with your choise.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 5, 2013)

thgmuffin said:


> 6D Center AF point for sports is beyond enough.



For a subject that is in the centre of the frame, or if you are happy with that composition, certainly.

TO be fair, I did suggest that the ideal set up if the OP was going to continue using their 550D would be to select the centre AF point, that was to make the most of what they had whilst they are using it, but I would not recommend somebody buys a camera for sports or nature based purely on the performance of the centre AF point.

7D AF much better for action stuff, and the 70D which is fairly similar to 7D AF should perform better when the subject isn't under the centre AF point.


----------



## thgmuffin (Sep 6, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> thgmuffin said:
> 
> 
> > 6D Center AF point for sports is beyond enough.
> ...


It's probably because I jumped from the T2i to the 6D and it's worlds better. Though I am thinking of replacing the T2i with a used 7D in a few months.


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 6, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> True, it is. And also, True, it is.
> 
> Your 550D might be nearing it's tested shutter durability, some keep going much longer, some fail much sooner.
> You have a working camera for now it seems so no real need to panic buy.
> ...



Thanks again to all, this is incredibly useful. I didn't expect everyone to agree but the opinions and points mentioned have certainly expanded my knowledge of the important points to consider.

And Paul, thanks for this advice. Steps 1 thru 3, part from the short bursts are pretty much standard for me - I shall try those a bit more. Faster apperture lenses . . . in general "I wish" but there's a limit to what I can have  I shall add the 200mm F2.8L to my "maybe one day" list but I'm also wondering should fortunes be good about the 70-200L with IS as it could be good both for low light (IS and flexibility) and sports but the 200 may be more realistic for me.

Mono or tripod I wonder about though. Given that I am usually talking about shutter speeds of 1/1000 or faster what will they give me? For the birds as well being able to manuevre myself quickly is often very useful . . . so I'm curious as to how these things improve my chances? (To be clear I'm definitely not disagreeing just wondering how it helps).

JPEGs in good light? Maybe I should, normally I shoot RAW and to be honest often the post-processing benefits there don't really materialise because the shadows are too extreme to extract anything that will greatly improve the picture. That said given that in my favourite haunt I'm often in the thick of it (Terns flying around me) I'm often fluctuating between shooting into the light and with the light. I'll leave it to the imagination how often I remember to adjust the exposure correctly!


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 6, 2013)

sdsr said:


> But the 70D may well be better than the 6D at focusing on things that move, even something as slow as cricket....  I'll leave it to others to comment on that, as I don't photograph that sort of thing. It could be that the two factors you singled out - low light performance and shooting action - lead to conflicting recommendations (the 5DIII will give you both, but at quite a price), so you'll have to decide which of the two matters more. Any chance of renting in your part of the world so you can find out first hand?



While it would bore everyone to death if I replied to everyone I had to pick up on this too . . . cricket? Slow? You might not know it but AI Focus was actually invented specifically for cricket. You focus on the cricketer and in case something unexpected happens and he actually moves (heaven forbid) you still get the picture! ;D

It's actually (like so many things when you really analyse them) a really interesting subject. With the players wearing all white (traditionally at least) you need to be careful on exposure and the action which can actually be quite brutally fast when it does happen keeps you on your toes. The challenge of getting both the batsman hitting the ball and a fielder catching it as well a second or two later can be quite entertaining as it's so unpredictable!


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 6, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > 5. Consider a mono or tripod. Especially where any panning is involved. Mono-pods cheap and have virtually no footprint. If you pan, you'll pan 10x with a little support. And this will also really help your AF keep up.
> ...



It gives you a smoother pivot, the camera is much more stable throughout your burst (IS and fast shutter may capture the action for a frame, for a burst you need to think contiguous) so a supported camera means that the position of your subject within the frame is uniform frame to frame, and so gives the AF a much better chance. You'll be amazed how much an unsupported camera dips when the shutters pressed, magnified by a long sports or tele lens. A supported camera will also help you keep your composition uniform as well. Honestly, try one out, you'll be amazed at the difference it can make. Especially if you fancy a slower shutter for panning drag effect, or thats what the light is giving you.


----------



## sdsr (Sep 6, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > But the 70D may well be better than the 6D at focusing on things that move, even something as slow as cricket....  I'll leave it to others to comment on that, as I don't photograph that sort of thing. It could be that the two factors you singled out - low light performance and shooting action - lead to conflicting recommendations (the 5DIII will give you both, but at quite a price), so you'll have to decide which of the two matters more. Any chance of renting in your part of the world so you can find out first hand?
> ...



Oh, I know, I know; you weren't supposed to take my comment seriously. I grew up in Australia and England and was forced to play it (and rugby) at school. As a cricket-hating schoolmate of mine described it, hours of boredom interrupted by moments of terror. Or as Robert Morley once described it on "Any Questions" in the mid 1970s - "an awful, boring game played by awful, boring people and watched by awful, boring people." But yes, it can't be easy to photograph....


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 6, 2013)

As far as my 2 cents, I was in the market of upgrading my backup 7d as it's getting kinda long in the tooth and the camera is intermittently freezing up during inopportune times. The 7d2 is not here and likely wont be here until 2014 and from all signs, there likely will be a price jump, probably similar to the 5d2/5d3 jump. That makes the 7d2, being and aps-c camera less appealing. I was very interested in the 6d, and then my good friend won a 6d in a contest and I had a chance to play with it the other day... The AF is really as good as the 5d2 and rebel lineup. The center point is more accurate in low light, as expected, and the outside points are ok, maybe a tad better than the 5d2, but it's nothing to write home about. The thing that kinda bothered me other than i would be stuck with the center point, focusing and recomposing all the time was the picture quality. My friend has a vast selection of L lenses, and in areas of repeated patterns, like roofing shingles and stuff like that, morie pops up abruptly. Also disturbingly, although the 70D is the same way, they have eliminated the double functionality of the top LCD buttons which means white balance has gone away, and you cannot reprogram that button =( So... if you want to change white balance, you have to dig through your menu and save that to your "my menu" to have that option readily available. I guess for me there are no clear winners, but since the backup camera may be seeing more video than stills, the 70D is looking better from my POV


----------



## sdsr (Sep 6, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> My friend has a vast selection of L lenses, and in areas of repeated patterns, like roofing shingles and stuff like that, morie pops up abruptly. Also disturbingly, although the 70D is the same way, they have eliminated the double functionality of the top LCD buttons which means white balance has gone away, and you cannot reprogram that button =( So... if you want to change white balance, you have to dig through your menu and save that to your "my menu" to have that option readily available. I guess for me there are no clear winners, but since the backup camera may be seeing more video than stills, the 70D is looking better from my POV



A couple of things:

1. Maybe I'm not looking closely enough, but I don't see the moire you refer to on photos taken with my 6D unless I use a small JPEG setting (and even then it's rare, e.g. on the occasional cat's whisker), and I only use that for quick photo checking to weed out photos before processing raw files. 

2. Changing the white balance on the 6D is not as complicated as you describe above. All you do is press the "Q" button to bring up the main info screen, scroll to the white balance icon and select it; that can't be more than one or two extra steps from what you're used to; and on the 70D (assuming it's a similar design"), with its touch-screen, it should be easier still.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 6, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> Guys,
> What I’m really after though is opinion on whether the two areas that I point out (AF and low light capability) are genuinely things that I will see a genuine improvement in. I don’t plan to buy just yet, I will let the price run down first but I’m curious to see if my expectations are roughly in line with reality 
> 
> Thanks.


The simple answer to your question is: *Yes*, the 70D provides noticeable difference in the AF and low light capability over the 550D ... plus the ergonomics are far better than the 550D.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 6, 2013)

sdsr said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > My friend has a vast selection of L lenses, and in areas of repeated patterns, like roofing shingles and stuff like that, morie pops up abruptly. Also disturbingly, although the 70D is the same way, they have eliminated the double functionality of the top LCD buttons which means white balance has gone away, and you cannot reprogram that button =( So... if you want to change white balance, you have to dig through your menu and save that to your "my menu" to have that option readily available. I guess for me there are no clear winners, but since the backup camera may be seeing more video than stills, the 70D is looking better from my POV
> ...



As for #1, I didn't do any extensive shooting with his camera, but he pulled up on the computer a few shots he did with the camera and pointed out the moire. He mentioned that he was getting that a bit in his shots and he mentioned when he looked into the cause, he found through the university of google that the Aliasing filter is removed on the 6D's causing moire to come more easier (same as the nikon D800E). 

And for #2, thanks for pointing that out. To be honest on my prior cameras (whether they had that Q button or another button that took you to that screen) I always found that set up to be annoying, but if this is any indication of button layouts on future cameras, I may have to learn to deal with it. 

Anyways I will look more into the 6D's moire thing but after playing the AF, after being spoiled with the 7D and 5d3 AF, i may hang myself focusing and recomposing =)


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 7, 2013)

sdsr said:


> Oh, I know, I know; you weren't supposed to take my comment seriously. I grew up in Australia and England and was forced to play it (and rugby) at school. As a cricket-hating schoolmate of mine described it, hours of boredom interrupted by moments of terror. Or as Robert Morley once described it on "Any Questions" in the mid 1970s - "an awful, boring game played by awful, boring people and watched by awful, boring people." But yes, it can't be easy to photograph....



Noooo, I didn't take it seriously as I'd hoped my first paragraph showed! I think your mate probably had it right in many ways for a lot of people, I just love the game but it's easy for me to understand why others might have a problem watching people mostly standing about for five days and then agreeing sagely that the result is a draw ;D.

The point I meant to make is that with photography I've come to the conclusion that often subjects that sound less interesting can make the best pictures. For example I was quite excited to visit a local castle recently expecting to take excellent pictures! of course I came back with some pictures that looked like everyone else's pictures of the castle! Nothing special. Simple lesson, don't expect the subject to make the picture great without the help of decent technique and the eye for a good shot. I say simple lesson and meant it but it does beg the question of why I have to re-learn it most times I go out with a camera in my hands!


----------



## Niki (Sep 7, 2013)

why not wait and buy a Canon 35mm film camera cheap in the meantime?


----------



## sdsr (Sep 7, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> The point I meant to make is that with photography I've come to the conclusion that often subjects that sound less interesting can make the best pictures.



True. It helps if you develop the sort of photographer's eye that lets you see the world in terms of what might make a good/interesting etc. photo as opposed to what's good/interesting etc. to look at (which isn't, of course, to say that they don't overlap). That's one reason why I like lenses that allow for extreme isolation - macro lenses, long zooms/primes, fast primes; it's fun to take photos that bear little resemblance to what you actually see (and to see the puzzled looks on people's faces while you do so!).


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 18, 2013)

With a final thanks to everyone who offered help / opinion on this thread I have jut decided to make the jump and order the 70d. Very excited!

Please, rules of this thread are now that no-one may say a bad word about this decision or suggest I should have waited / bought something else! ;D

I will be back some time later to reflect on my impulsive abuse of the credit card ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 20, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> With a final thanks to everyone who offered help / opinion on this thread I have jut decided to make the jump and order the 70d. Very excited!


Congratulations! May it serve you well.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Nov 20, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> With a final thanks to everyone who offered help / opinion on this thread I have jut decided to make the jump and order the 70d. Very excited!
> 
> Please, rules of this thread are now that no-one may say a bad word about this decision or suggest I should have waited / bought something else! ;D
> 
> I will be back some time later to reflect on my impulsive abuse of the credit card ;D



Awww man!, the 80D's gonna have RAW and XLR inputs. Shoulda waited.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 20, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > With a final thanks to everyone who offered help / opinion on this thread I have jut decided to make the jump and order the 70d. Very excited!
> ...


I hear the 90D will be even better ;D


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 20, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > fragilesi said:
> ...



Darn, that'll teach me to be more patient in future


----------

