neill_farmer2

<p>Thank you Mark for that test. I also have an interest in low light photography. I'm a bit surprised how well the 7D compares to the 6D, I thought they were miles apart.<br> As for canines in poor light moving quickly I think the OP needs to try and borrow a 6D and try it out. The 6D may perform better with the centre AF point because it is so good in poor light. Balance this with the BIF people who say its tracking isn't good. I find in poor light my 7D AF gives up as the light fades, and this may be an issue if the arena is really dim. I'd base my decision on which ever camera gave the best focusing performance first, then think about IQ.</p>

<p>To obtain great images of school plays in dim light requires a state of the art camera and lens. Something like a 6D and a 2.8 tele lens. This is big $ for what will be a specialist purpose. <br> I think I would try the XT and Canons EF-S 55-250 lens first. For the school play bump the ISO up as high as practicable, 800 or more and see how that goes. Sitting up front with your 50mm 1.8 will give a good indication whether a 2.8 tele will do the job.<br> for sports I think the limitation might be the XT's focussing capabilities, once again give it a go with the 55-250 EF-S. <br> Getting a step change in low light/sports capability will also require a step change in $s expended. Only you can judge if that investment is worthwhile.</p>

<p>The 24-105 will work fine on your camera. It will be a equivalent to a 38-168 mm lens on a full frame camera. This zoom range suits some applications, but not others. If you're happy with this zoom range then there is no reason not to buy it. There are other EF-S lenses available for less cost that may have a more suitable zoom range. </p>