Canon 7d or 77d?

Messages
16
Name
Sharon
Edit My Images
No
#1
Hi all, I am looking to upgrade my camera body possibly to a Canon EOS 7d or 77d. I shoot weddings, portraits, wildlife and landscapes and have been using a Canon 750d for years. I don't find it works too well in low light and I have arthritis in my hands so weight is an issue so can't upgrade to the 5d. I did look at upgrading to the Fuji XT1 but feel I would be starting from scratch again with body and lenses. I know with the 7d and 77d I can use all my Canon lenses on including my 24-70 which I primarily use for weddings and portraits. Any thoughts/advice on these bodies would be very much appreciated.

Many thanks
Sharon
 
Messages
5,429
Name
Darran, Daz or ****
Edit My Images
Yes
#2
The Canon 7D mk1 is quite old and although it's still a good body, you can't compare it to the 77D.
The 7D mk2 is quite a bit more expensive than the 77D so again not really a direct comparison.
Have you thought about the 80D?
I recently bought one and think it's a really good choice.
Unless you want / can afford a 7D mk2, I would consider either an 77D or an 80D.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,719
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
Also if the 5D body is too big then a 7D / 7D MkII will also be too big as they are about the same size. What about the 80D as a halfway house between the two?
 

GTG

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,795
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
Wait for the 90d. I hear rumors it is going to be big leap forward for Canon.
 
Messages
3,539
Name
Dale.
Edit My Images
Yes
#5
7D, I wouldn't, I have one and it's a noisy beast, definately not a low light camera. I can't really vouch for the 77D or the 80D as I've never used either but the 80D has a much better reputation than the 7D.

I'm considering using my 7D to part fund a Canon M5, which shares a lot of the 80D's internals. It is much smaller too. There's also the M50, which is a scaled down version of the M5, both are mirrorless crop sensor cameras. I will use the M5 as a back up camera and I am very tempted. Beware though with the M5, you will need a new lens system or get the adaptor, which will allow you to use EF lenses.

I'm waiting on the rumoured M5mkii being released but it might be a bit of a wait yet.
 
Messages
1,846
Name
Glenn
Edit My Images
Yes
#6
I have a 7D2 and mrs has an 80D. She prefers the slightly smaller size of the 80D and it is a really good camera. I prefer the 7D2, better size and I like the controls. Image wise there's nothing in it, both are very good (all IMHO of course). I don't know the 77D, but from what I've read it seems to be similar. For what you need, it may be the 77D with its newer Digic 7 processor offers slightly better noise than the 80D.

Couple with decent lens you can't really go wrong, though a 6D or a lightly used 5D3 might be of more interest for wedding stuff.
 
OP
OP
Shazza
Messages
16
Name
Sharon
Edit My Images
No
#7
Thanks everyone for your comments. Obviously I will go round some shops for a hand hold to get an idea of comfort. Re the 80d will it take ef and efs lenses like my 2 current cameras will. 7d sounds like it is going to be too heavy, unless I start taking a tripod everywhere with me Just a bit apprehensive about upgrading and find a new model isn't giving me a better performance than my 750d especially in low light. So need to be sure what I get is a definite improvement
 
Messages
3,486
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
Perhaps have a look at a mintish, used, low shutter-count 6D Mk 1. They are reasonably small (particularly for a full frame camera) and give great low-light performance. It would mean changing lenses though, as EF-S lenses won't fit full-frame Canon cameras, but camera-wise I'd think it might fit the bill and would suit weddings, portraits and landscape work to a tee, and would handle wildlife stuff as long as it's not fast action shots you're after, but that's always going to be a compromise if you can't handle (or afford) a 5D III or IV and want really good low light performance to go with a super-quick multi-point auto focus system.

Pair a 6D up with a good, used, Mk1 24-105 L IS (which was the 'kit' lens for this camera) and that should get you going until you work out (and save up for) what other lenses you want to get. This would probably need a good rethink about your budget and what you want from a camera, but given your requirements it might be worth thinking about if the overall set-up isn't too heavy for you?

The size and weight information of any camera you are thinking about should be available via an internet search, so perhaps compare a few choices... and don't forget to add the weight of the relevant lens to the camera when considering this, although often it's how a camera and lens fit your hands that's more important than a few grams of weight. So there's no substitute for trying a camera and lens set-up in the hand when comparing different models. Anyway, best of luck finding the right kit for your requirements, and take your time to find what suits you best.
 
Last edited:
Messages
101
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
I have recently bought a 77d (upgrading from a 100d). Taken it on two outings, one for video and one for photos. The photo outing was in a restaurant at night, dim lighting, iso up to 12800 and there is noise but useable pics. My client notices a difference from photos I had done before with the 100d and same lens.

The reason I picked this was because of its video capabilities. I do a bit of both, not enough to spend loads on kit, but this camera is working for me.

I chose this over the 80d because it had image stabilisation for video built in, higher iso and digic7 rather than 6 processor. I would have bought a 6d mk2 if I could have used my ef-s lenses, but with the higher cost of the body, plus replacing the lenses was not possible at the moment.

Good luck, T
 
Messages
22,849
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#11
Surely the 6d is a better fit for weddings / portraits than either the 7d or 77d?
Also definitely smaller than the 7d.
I bought 6d’s rather than 5d cameras for the weight saving.

As an aside, surely you’ll be keeping the 750 and retiring the 100.
 
Messages
10,827
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#12
Surely the 6d is a better fit for weddings / portraits than either the 7d or 77d?
Also definitely smaller than the 7d.
I bought 6d’s rather than 5d cameras for the weight saving.

As an aside, surely you’ll be keeping the 750 and retiring the 100.

I can't keep up with Canon's multi-layered system, but the 6D you say, is smaller than a 7D? I still don't understand why they named a FF body a lower number than an APSC one, but hey, they also have a zillion other names for each model across the globe! I think I'd like the 6D but I still have a bit of sucker side in me that thinks I need video.
 
Messages
3,486
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
I can't keep up with Canon's multi-layered system, but the 6D you say, is smaller than a 7D? I still don't understand why they named a FF body a lower number than an APSC one, but hey, they also have a zillion other names for each model across the globe! I think I'd like the 6D but I still have a bit of sucker side in me that thinks I need video.
Canon have, since the introduction of the EOS range, arranged their 'number' named cameras so that the smaller number is the higher spec model. Hence the 1D range being the pro model, and the 5D being the next one down in price and spec (but with different attributes to target a slightly different pro audience).

As for video, the 6D does shoot video, I've only used this feature a couple of times and only to snatch a minute or two of footage, but each time the results have looked sharp and clear. So perhaps check out the spec and try to find some example footage before you rule the 6D out.
 
Messages
22,849
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#14
I can't keep up with Canon's multi-layered system, but the 6D you say, is smaller than a 7D? I still don't understand why they named a FF body a lower number than an APSC one, but hey, they also have a zillion other names for each model across the globe! I think I'd like the 6D but I still have a bit of sucker side in me that thinks I need video.
It’s significantly smaller, about the same as the 20d I reckon. The 7d is nearer to a 5d in size and weight. I’d much rather carry 2 6d’s and I have an itch for a 6d2 because my only ‘complaint’ with the 6d is that it’s realistically a single focus point camera. With a very very good single point.

It also looks tiny compared to the D610 which was its ‘rival’ at launch.

I think the 7d is the anomaly when you look at the naming conventions, as it’s APSC and single digit, though how else they’d have done it I don’t know. Maybe the 60Dp or 60Dx or 60D+, as it was a step up from the 60d at the time IIRC.

If they’d known what they were going to release at the beginning, they’d have a better system. The 5d should always have been the 3d, but they were scared of the obvious confusion. The 300d was definitely a digital 300 and is now an 800d?, the d30 was aimed at the eos30 market, and became the 10d... 80d. But with the advent of the newer 100d, 750d, 77d its become confusing for those of us that understood what was going on previously.
 
Messages
3,486
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
Snip:
The 5d should always have been the 3d, but they were scared of the obvious confusion. .
The original 5D wasn't as well specced as the EOS-3 (less AF points, which didn't catch up with the 45 the EOS-3 had until the 5D MkIII, and no eye controlled AF point selection), so I don't think they dare have called it the 3D because a lot of people who were waiting for the digital version of the 3 would have probably had a good moan about it!
 
Messages
10,827
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#16
It’s significantly smaller, about the same as the 20d I reckon. The 7d is nearer to a 5d in size and weight. I’d much rather carry 2 6d’s and I have an itch for a 6d2 because my only ‘complaint’ with the 6d is that it’s realistically a single focus point camera. With a very very good single point.

It also looks tiny compared to the D610 which was its ‘rival’ at launch.

I think the 7d is the anomaly when you look at the naming conventions, as it’s APSC and single digit, though how else they’d have done it I don’t know. Maybe the 60Dp or 60Dx or 60D+, as it was a step up from the 60d at the time IIRC.

If they’d known what they were going to release at the beginning, they’d have a better system. The 5d should always have been the 3d, but they were scared of the obvious confusion. The 300d was definitely a digital 300 and is now an 800d?, the d30 was aimed at the eos30 market, and became the 10d... 80d. But with the advent of the newer 100d, 750d, 77d its become confusing for those of us that understood what was going on previously.

There was a time when I thought the D600/610 was tiny, when I used a D800, now both would seem huge to me :D

They have some very odd cameras mixed in, like the 4000D - did anyone even buy that?

It would be the 6D or 80D I'd look to for my budget. A lot of it is born out of frustration with Panasonic, as my G80 is going back for repair for the second time in 7 months. I've never had that with any other camera I've owned. Also Canon is the only system at this stage that I have somehow never to have used, let alone own. I shot once with a 5DIII at a wedding for about 2 minutes, swapped the owner with my D800E as we were both curious. We were both confuzzled also and swapped back as quick lol. But given a full day with one I know I'd work it out
 
Last edited:
Messages
22,849
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#17
They have some very odd cameras mixed in, like the 4000D - did anyone even buy that?
The general ‘internet consensus’ is that Canon don’t listen to their users and put out some awful products.

The actual truth is that the internet is peopled by a niche and that Canon are market leaders because they know exactly what customers want.
 
Messages
10,827
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#18
The general ‘internet consensus’ is that Canon don’t listen to their users and put out some awful products.

The actual truth is that the internet is peopled by a niche and that Canon are market leaders because they know exactly what customers want.

I'm sure they know what they're doing, but this one in particular puzzles me because of the plastic mount. I doubt there will ever be a dedicated thread for it on here either.

I'd be terrified using adapters or slightly heavy metal mount lenses on there personally
 
Messages
22,849
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#19
I'd be terrified using adapters or slightly heavy metal mount lenses on there personally
Any heavy lenses, the rig should be carried by the lens, and I’m certain the plastic lens mount is strong enough to support the weight of the camera body.

Not that I’m about to buy one, and asper my previous post, this forum (or any other) isn’t the arbiter of what the market wants to buy.

The really strange decision for me is the complete lack of ‘serious’ M mount lenses, where the M5 and M6 can hold their own against equivalent Fuji cameras, why can’t we buy equivalent lenses? A set of 16, 22, 35 and 56 lenses at even f2 would be nice, but f1.4 would be brilliant. Why do they think all mirrorless users are happy with cheap slow zooms?
 
Messages
10,827
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#20
Any heavy lenses, the rig should be carried by the lens, and I’m certain the plastic lens mount is strong enough to support the weight of the camera body.

Not that I’m about to buy one, and asper my previous post, this forum (or any other) isn’t the arbiter of what the market wants to buy.

The really strange decision for me is the complete lack of ‘serious’ M mount lenses, where the M5 and M6 can hold their own against equivalent Fuji cameras, why can’t we buy equivalent lenses? A set of 16, 22, 35 and 56 lenses at even f2 would be nice, but f1.4 would be brilliant. Why do they think all mirrorless users are happy with cheap slow zooms?

Yup, I'm interested in the M line, but the lack of really decent native lenses is puzzling, do they just want people to buy and mostly use their EF/s lens line up? Very counter productive. Atm I would rather buy a cheap AF adapter for an M body and ef-s lenses, as they are better, and just as cheap at least used. If they had even a quarter of the native options that M43 has I might already have bought in. Maybe they'll announce some new M bodies and lenses after they see what Nikon are up to exactly
 
Last edited:
Messages
22,849
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
#21
Yup, I'm interested in the M line, but the lack of really decent native lenses is puzzling, do they just want people to buy and mostly use their EF/s lens line up? Very counter productive. Atm I would rather buy a cheap AF adapter for an M body and ef-s lenses, as they are better, and just as cheap at least used. If they had even a quarter of the native options that M43 has I might already have bought in. Maybe they'll announce some new M bodies and lenses after they see what Nikon are up to exactly
I spoke to a Canon rep at Focus and he said that ‘most Canon mirrorless users are soccer moms and not enthusiasts, so the slow zooms sell well’. It works well enough with the adaptor, but it defeats the object of having a small body that’ll accept shallow register WA lenses.

I fear things will become more complicated when Canon release a FF mirrorless, I think they’ll build primes to suit that and neglect the M mount entirely.

they’ll produce any more enthusiast lenses for the APSC mirrorless. Look how few ‘good’ EFS lenses there are after 15 years :(

The FF mirrorless will become the market leader, with a built in motorised EF adaptor, making a mockery of Nikon’s ‘all F mount lenses will work’ kludge once more. Just mount an EF lens and it’ll automatically move the lens mount to the correct distance, the EF mount already means that the camera knows what lens is fitted. The new lenses will have a notch to stop them being attached to a body with a mirror (like EFS won’t allow mounting to FF)

But... those slow EF-M zooms aren’t too bad optically, they’re just not designed for the likes of us.
 
Messages
10,827
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#22
I spoke to a Canon rep at Focus and he said that ‘most Canon mirrorless users are soccer moms and not enthusiasts, so the slow zooms sell well’. It works well enough with the adaptor, but it defeats the object of having a small body that’ll accept shallow register WA lenses.

I fear things will become more complicated when Canon release a FF mirrorless, I think they’ll build primes to suit that and neglect the M mount entirely.

they’ll produce any more enthusiast lenses for the APSC mirrorless. Look how few ‘good’ EFS lenses there are after 15 years :(

The FF mirrorless will become the market leader, with a built in motorised EF adaptor, making a mockery of Nikon’s ‘all F mount lenses will work’ kludge once more. Just mount an EF lens and it’ll automatically move the lens mount to the correct distance, the EF mount already means that the camera knows what lens is fitted. The new lenses will have a notch to stop them being attached to a body with a mirror (like EFS won’t allow mounting to FF)

But... those slow EF-M zooms aren’t too bad optically, they’re just not designed for the likes of us.
They sell well in that market because those are the people interested because of what's available, but if they had some 1.4 primes and 2.8 zooms then the enthusiasts take notice. But as you say, they know best, they have all the figures.

What you describe for a possible Canon FF mirrorless sounds brilliant, but also pricey
 
Top