I’ve had a good couple of months financially, and have hit the point where I can afford the upgrading from the 40D to the 7D, but not quite enough money for the 5D II. Main purposes for upgrading, in this order are a) higher usable ISOs and b) more pixels.
Given that I’m hardly shooting much these days, should I just hang in there until I can afford the 5d II ? That’s my inclination. If I do upgrade to the 5D II (and I’ve been looking at prices for both cameras – new – on eBay) I’ll also need to pick up a fast 35mm lens to replace the 30mm f1.4 Sigma. In other words the 50mm that I have is not going to be wide enough for my style on the 5D and I’ll need a 35mm f1.4 although I could get by (esp. given the faster speeds of the 5D II with the 35mm f2.0 which is a good lens and MUCH cheaper than the f1.4).
In addition I have the 20mm f2.8 and the 100-270 zoom with IS which is an excellent lens. Not the real expensive one. But very good.
I think the real question is whether the usable ISO speeds on the 5d II are really that much better than what the 7D offers. I have downloaded files from both cameras, and in the pixel-peeping mode I can see a difference between the two cameras at 1600 and definitely at 3200. On the other hand, I haven’t done the real work yet and made prints from them, of cropped pieces from the large files. I think that’s really what I should do next. Convert them to b&w the way I usually do (from raw files if I can get them) and see for myself if there’s a visible distance at a normal viewing distance… yes… thinking outloud in this post, I think that’s what I’ll do to decide.
I hate the idea of giving up the 30mm f1.4 which has been so good to me wide open.
In other news: the Zazzle stuff has really been a great boon to me as people have bought prints after seeing the calendars. And I’ve begun to use the free Fedex triangle tubes for rolling up unmatted prints of 12 x 18 and larger. They work very well and I’ve saved money and storage by not having to use the Kraft tubes.