I've Max'd out my T2i... Looking to upgrade to?

[Gary A.]

I've been away from Canon for a while, but both the 80D and the 7DMKII would be significant upgrades in camera performance and high ISO IQ beyond what your shooting now. You can't go wrong with either camera. I've shot sports and fast moving action in dim lighting most of my life. There is a significant difference between seven FPS and ten FPS, but, (the big but), I don't think you need the extra three FPS. That extra three FPS will do more in extending your processing time, than it will in delivering 'The Exceptional Image'. But in photography, as in life, it is better to have and not want than to want and not have.

I've been shooting since the film-only days and back then with motor-drives. I've always shot in continuous modes back then and until a year ago ... and presently, I am so behind in processing ... it's overwhelming. In the past year or so I've dialed it back shooting in single frame mode. It has made my processing much much easier and I believe the differences in the final images are insignificant. When I shoot sports I shoot at three FPS and wait for the peak of action. I am shooting digital similar to how I shot film and I think my photography has improved.

Do look at factory refurbished cameras, they are less expensive, look new and usually come with warranties.

 

[goodguy]

If you don't care for video then get the 6D II
Its a very disappointing camera due to the lack of 2 SD cards and lack of 4K but other then these 2 main deficiencies its actually a very good solid camera with 6.5FPS, modern 26MP sensor, good processor and impressive AF system with 45 ALL cross type points.
If I was a hobbyist only Canon user who didn't care for video I would seriously consider this camera, if I was a serious pro I would never look at this camera.

 

[benhasajeep]

Your T2i is rated in the ISO department at 807 by DXO.
The 7Dmk II is rated at 1082.
Nikon's cheapest body D3400 is rated at 1192.
Best low light crop sensor out right now is Nikon D7500 at 1483 ISO rating.
Best aps-c crop sensor Canon is the M6 at 1317.
Best low light camera period. Sony A75 at 3702.
Best low cost full frame low light camera Pentax K-1. ISO 3280. $1,000 less (at least) than next 7 lower performing cameras, $4000 less than Canon's best (which is 3207)!.

 

[TallDude]

For my price point and current glass, I'm narrowing my shopping cart to 7D, 7D mII and the 80D. I can't justify the cost (nor really afford) of jumping up to a FF. I'm not a video dude, except for GoPro action stuff. I have a drawer(s) filled with years of video tapes in various formats and files on drives that I haven't watched in years. The photos are on our phones, walls, websites and flickr to be constantly viewed and re-viewed over and over. The 80D has the video perk, and the fps would probably be enough. I used to shoot 300 to 400 clicks per game, now much more selective. Maybe 150 - 200 per game and framed much better. Very little chopping or angle adjustments. The only reason I'd consider the older 7D is, I could squeeze in another lens too. On the other hand, I would like to buy more current processing. The 80D seems to offer the most current, but what would 7d mII offer other than higher fps?

 

[benhasajeep]

For my price point and current glass, I'm narrowing my shopping cart to 7D, 7D mII and the 80D. I can't justify the cost (nor really afford) of jumping up to a FF. I'm not a video dude, except for GoPro action stuff. I have a drawer(s) filled with years of video tapes in various formats and files on drives that I haven't watched in years. The photos are on our phones, walls, websites and flickr to be constantly viewed and re-viewed over and over. The 80D has the video perk, and the fps would probably be enough. I used to shoot 300 to 400 clicks per game, now much more selective. Maybe 150 - 200 per game and framed much better. Very little chopping or angle adjustments. The only reason I'd consider the older 7D is, I could squeeze in another lens too. On the other hand, I would like to buy more current processing. The 80D seems to offer the most current, but what would 7d mII offer other than higher fps?

Going by DXO the D80 clearly has the better sensor. Event though more MP still has better performance. Same monitors, nearly same video function.

 

[weepete]

For my price point and current glass, I'm narrowing my shopping cart to 7D, 7D mII and the 80D. I can't justify the cost (nor really afford) of jumping up to a FF. I'm not a video dude, except for GoPro action stuff. I have a drawer(s) filled with years of video tapes in various formats and files on drives that I haven't watched in years. The photos are on our phones, walls, websites and flickr to be constantly viewed and re-viewed over and over. The 80D has the video perk, and the fps would probably be enough. I used to shoot 300 to 400 clicks per game, now much more selective. Maybe 150 - 200 per game and framed much better. Very little chopping or angle adjustments. The only reason I'd consider the older 7D is, I could squeeze in another lens too. On the other hand, I would like to buy more current processing. The 80D seems to offer the most current, but what would 7d mII offer other than higher fps?

Forget the 7D if you are looking for better sensor performance, it's too long in the tooth now and while it's a decent camera it suffers in low light compared to the more modern offerings.

 

[beagle100]

yes, the 80D or 77D or 900D is good ... mirrorless is smaller and lighter
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Braineack]

yes, the 80D or 77D or 900D is good ... mirrorless is smaller and lighter
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

as soon as you buy a real lens for a mirrorless, it's just a big, bulky, and heavy...

 

[beagle100]

yes, the 80D or 77D or 900D is good ... mirrorless is smaller and lighter
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

as soon as you buy a real lens for a mirrorless, it's just a big, bulky, and heavy...

LOL !!
obviously you don't (yet) have a mirrorless camera
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Braineack]

LOL. obviously I do.
www.dontfoolyourself.mirrorlesscameras.arestillclumsy.whenyouattachahuge2.8.lensonthem.com/becausescience

 

[beagle100]

LOL. obviously I do.
e

LOL !

it's obviously you don't .... or perhaps you got the wrong mirrorless "system" !
(sorry)
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Braineack]

The Sony FE 24-70 2.8 for the mirrorless e-mount is 3.45 x 5.35" and weighs 2lbs.
The Tamron SP 24-70 VC on my D610 is 3.5 x 4.3" and weighs 1.8lbs.

mirrorless aps-c and ff sensors are going to have lenses exactly the same size as their DSLR counterparts -- again, because science.

 

[beagle100]

The Sony FE 24-70 2.8 for the mirrorless e-mount is 3.45 x 5.35" and weighs 2lbs.
T
mirrorless aps-c and ff sensors are going to have lenses exactly the same size as their DSLR counterparts -- again, because science.

actually no - ever seen a wide mirrorless"pancake" lens?
(hint: it's science)

"compared with DSLR cameras, mirrorless cameras can place the lens mount closer to the imaging sensor, giving a shorter register distance. A shorter register distance means that wide angle lenses can be constructed simpler. With a long register distance, typically for a DSLR camera, you need a complicated retrofocal optical design to make wide angle lenses. With a shorter distance, the lens design becomes simpler, and you can make smaller, lighter, and less expensive wide angle lenses."

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

.
and the batteries to keep those mirrors flipping!

 

[Braineack]

How much smaller is the 100-400mm you use on your Canon M5 APS-C sensor mirrorless, compared to the 100-400mm I would use on my 1600D?

 

[idcanyon]

To the OP:
My experience has been that a camera upgrade to improve low light performance has been mostly disappointing. You get a 1 stop improvement when you dream of 3 or 4 stops. Its a lot of money for only a mild improvement. Honestly I think the image you posted looks pretty good. One thing that I have felt (but not tested to prove) is that more recent raw converters are handling noise much better--particularly color noise. Color noise used to be a big problem but it is rarely an issue anymore. Noise that is not color-polluted looks a lot like old grainy film and can be appealing in its own way. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to download a trial of Adobe Camera raw in Photoshop or Lightroom to see if it gives you the boost you are looking for.