lesroll

So, the resolution of my question: after much debate internally, I fell victim to the bundled sale on B&H of the 7D Mark II with the Pixma Pro 100 for $1049 after the $350 rebate. I'm getting the printer and accessories for less than the anticipated cost of the camera. I'm excited, and very appreciative of all of your input.

Thanks everyone for the thoughts. I appreciate that many of you brought up stuff I hadn't even gotten around to considering. I'd like to amend what I said earlier: making decisions on a budget is hard!

<p>Thanks y'all for offering some thoughts. I'm still just struggling between the noise in the 7D Mark II images I've seen vs having to replace lenses to go to 6D.<br> I have been shooting high school soccer, so the frame rate, AF speed peaks my interest, but I probably shoot more "normal" photography, and in scenarios with low light / high ISO - live cooking demos, etc. I hate to give up the reach, and I just bought the 24mm pancake for wide shots.<br> Making decisions is hard! Lol.</p>

<p>Hi all,</p> <p>I have a (brief) opportunity to upgrade from my 40D while my wife is convinced. I've spent some time poking around while daydreaming and know that my options are realistically a 6D, the 7D Mark II, or to wait until I can swing a 5D Mark III (which may be Summer or later).<br> Right now, I shoot primarily community events, my toddler / family stuff, and high school sports. I have enjoyed macro / wildlife and some landscape / abandoned building photography as well, and would like to do more of that again. I'm shooting primarily with the the 50mm 1.4, the 24mm pancake, and the 17-55 EFS 2.8 IS. My long lens is the 75-300 4.5 5.6 IS.<br> I know that any of the three will be an improvement over my 40D. I have just about settled on the 7D Mark II for affordability, frame rate, and AF speed, but have concerns about the noise level at high ISO and low light performance since I'm shooting some high school sports and evening community events. (I'll admit to some curiosity that there doesn't seem to be a lot of commentary on the 7D Mark II on photo.net.) <br> I guess my question is this: Are these concerns valid for me, given that I'm stepping up from the 40D (which doesn't do well much above 500 really)? Should I go ahead and upgrade to the 7D Mark II or give the 6D a second look? (Or wait for something else down the road altogether?)</p> <p>Any help and advice is appreciated. <br> Thanks,<br> les</p>

Thanks for that! I know the old adage about the better lens is the one you'll use, and like you, I find the beloved 17-55 a bit hefty and obtrusive as a walk around lens. Not sure if I can bring myself to sell it, but I may need to pick up the pancake.

<p>Hi all,<br> I was hoping to get some opinions about the quality and value of the EF-S 24mm 2.8 STM as compared to the EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS. I have the 17-55 and love it, but find myself leaving it at home in favor of my 50mm 1.4 due to size. I have been shooting candids at events (local football game, parties, fundraisers) in addition to local soccer games (with my 75-300mm) and find that I want the smaller / lighter option, or that the 17-55 won't fit in my smaller bag with my 75-300. <br> So, I gave some passing thought to buying the 24mm because it's small enough to fit pretty much anywhere and short enough that I don't need as much room for candid shots in a crowd as i do with my 50mm on my 40D. Knowing that I effectively already have that same focal length in the 17-55mm zoom, I'm hesitant to duplicate equipment. (I also don't expect to upgrade to FF any time soon. Likely upgrade to a 7D Mark II within the year.)<br> Does the 24mm STM compare, quality-wise, with the 17-55mm? (at all?) Is it comparable enough that I can feel okay making the purchase based on size and weight of the lens?</p> <p>Any insight is appreciated. Thanks!<br> les</p>