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



## TallDude (Jul 8, 2017)

I've learned a lot over the past 6 years or so since I bought my first DSLR. I bought it to shoot my son's indoor basketball. I bought a used T2i body only in great shape for $200. I when through a number of lens with little success (high school gym lighting and fast moving kids). After reading up and watching some videos, I decided on getting a Sigma 17 - 50 f2.8. All of the sudden, I was getting good stop action shots shooting in AV mode. Over the years I've paid more attention to the type of lighting in gyms, watching my light meter, shooting a stop down in manual / RAW and doing more post work. 
I feel I'm doing everything I can with this camera given the conditions, but hitting the ISO ceiling
So what is the next body? I've been looking at 7DmII mainly because of the faster focusing and FPS. Is the ISO high enough? 
Here is a sample of what I'm having problems with.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 8, 2017)

what ISO was this shot at? did you do any noise reduction on it?
here it is cleaned up a little in lightroom. 
budget wise for sports, the 7D or 7DII are probably your best bets. ive seen a lot of good results with those cameras when paired with good glass.


----------



## Peeb (Jul 8, 2017)

I don't live in the canon ecosystem but I agree with you that sticking with your existing glass is wise.


----------



## TallDude (Jul 8, 2017)

Here are the spec's in the 'old' editing software I have. With LED lighting in some gyms now, I'm able too shoot f3.5 - 750 @ 1600. Usually I'm stuck with f2.8 - 500 @1600. ISO 800 doesn't cut it. ISO 3200 on the T2i is really noisy. This photo has been lightened up. I'm including a sample RAW.


----------



## TallDude (Jul 8, 2017)

I didn't do any NR on these photos. I'm always on the fence about the sharpness that's lost with NR. Grain vs lost edges?


----------



## Overread (Jul 8, 2017)

The 7DMII will likely give you FAR improved AF performance and some gain in ISO however you're already shooting at what I'd consider very tame ISOs for indoor sports. As such I'd spend some time learning about noise reduction and sharpening - its a huge area with a lot of various methods and approaches but the net result is that even light noise reduction can really help a lot; a little sharpening after and you can get some really fantastic results. 

If you're underexposing that's also another are to consider; with digital sensors* its best to expose so that you gather as much light as possible and then work from there. If you're brightening things up you're actually increasing noise levels more so than if you'd have used a higher ISO at the time.

Thus I'd say a few adjustments to your method might help out a lot.

That said a 7D MII would be a good solid choice; giving you improvements in pretty much all sectors. Sadly the possible 7DMIII is likely a long long way off as yet so no chance of any lowering of the 7DMII prices.

You could consider fullframe; the 5DMIII and higher level bodies will give you much much better noise control; and with the MII and higher bodies the 5D line got AF systems as good as those in the 7D (the 5D1 and 2 had much simpler systems). Of course you lose the cropfactor and that might also be a problem for your current lenses if they are crop sensor only. 


Finally you might consider a 70-200mm. Your current lens appears to be doing well but I'm not sure how much cropping you're doing. A top end lens like an f2.8 version would give you the light gathering you need and let you be closer to the action. In time you might well use two bodies; one with each lens on; to let you switch and swap as you need (even if you end up only using one for team shots and such its handy to not have to keep switching lenses). 


*Some newer sony and nikon sensors are beating this trend with allowing a lot of data recovery from underexposed areas without the noise increase.


----------



## TallDude (Jul 8, 2017)

I'm sure there is a little more room before I truly hit the ceiling. I'll give the 3200 ISO another try. I'm thinking about taking a Lightroom class as well. I usually like yesterdays technology at a bargain, given it was the best then. So the 7D mark I is looking good price wise. I think I'll stay in the crop frame world. My good lenses are for crop.


----------



## Overread (Jul 8, 2017)

Having shot indoor spots (showjumping) I'd err toward the MII if possible; just for that little bit of extra usable ISO range. I have had the 7D right at its upper limit several times; granted showjumping tends to be very poorly lit indoors, but still I'd aim to get every bit I could. 

That said if you can only afford the 7D it will certainly be a big step up for you from your current camera in overall performance.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 8, 2017)

Full frame, sports action camera, fast glass. That's what you need. I am not a Canon guy, maybe a refurbished  or used full frame. You seem focused on noise, full frame will help you. Maybe a 5d Mark 3 ? 
EOS 5D Mark III


----------



## TallDude (Jul 8, 2017)

The 5D m3 is about $500 more than the 7D m2. Then I have to buy new glass.... That's a bigger jump than I was considering. A few pro sports photographers that are friends of mine, still at times shoot with their crop frames.


----------



## TCampbell (Jul 13, 2017)

I'd suggest you rent (e.g. LensRentals.com, BorrlowLenses.com, etc.)  a 7D II and a 5D III ... and compare them by shooting a game.  You may even have a local camera shop that would rent gear.  That will help you decide and you won't have buyer's remorse.  I suspect you'll be quite happy with the 7D II... technically a 5D III will outperform at high ISO.

As for noise... I use this software less and less (since my 5D III and 5D IV shoot clean enough that I seldom need it) but my favorite software for dealing with noise was a photoshop plug-in called Noiseware Pro by Imagenomic.    The reason I like this particular noise reduction software is because I can adjust how aggressive it will de-noise the image based on tonality.  You'll typically see heavier noise in darker areas... and much less noise in lighter areas.  The software lets me analyze the noise (and it'll auto-apply an adjustment) but then I can go in to the controls and adjust the noise by tonality so that I don't apply too much de-noising in areas that don't really need it (if you apply too much de-noise then skin starts to look like plastic.)

Another piece of software is Nik Define 2.  The Nik collection is now free.  You can download and install it (it also comes as a Photoshop plug-in) then use Define to analyze and apply noise reduction.  Define lets you drop small boxes to make it sample noise in various areas and it also applies some auto-reduction... which you can also tune.  BUT... another cool feature of Define is that you can also use a "brush" option.  This actually creates a new photoshop noise reduction layer with a layer mask and you use a "brush" to brush-out the noise where you think it's a problem ... rather than just applying some global reduction across the whole image.  

One nice thing about the "brush" choice is that noise reduction tends to soften edges... so this would let you "brush" on the noise reduction in the trouble spots... but stay away from the edges where you want to maintain good detail.

There's also a way to do this with just Photoshop alone (no plug-ins -- but requires Photoshop CC ... my older versions can't do it).   This involves duplicating the background layer, aggressively de-noising that layer, but then creating a mask on that layer so that not all of the de-noising is applied.  You can then do an "Image" -> "Apply Image" (but tick the "invert" box) and this creates what looks like a black & white negative of your photo in the mask.   The reason that's cool is because if an area of a mask is "white" then any change made in that layer is fully applied.  If an area of a mask is "black" then none of it is applied.  But if an area is "grey" then it is partially applied depending on how dark or light the gray is.    The effect is that this causes aggressive noise reduction in the darks (where the noise is always the worst) and little to no noise reduction in the lights (where noise typically isn't visible.)  You can also "brush" selective parts of the mask darker or lighter to increase or decrease noise in that area with more control.


----------



## TallDude (Jul 13, 2017)

Thanks' everyone for your responses. I do have a fairly local shop that rents everything pro that one could need. One of my friends rents a f2.8 70-200 from them when she needs it. I'm definitely leaning towards the 7D mII. I prefer shooting in manual 95% of the time. My new frontier is going to be learning Photoshop / Lightroom. I can get the CC version pretty cheap as a college instructor. In the old days, I spent a good deal of time in a darkroom dodging and masking. I understand the layers in PS, and the brushing selective areas concept I get. Hopefully it won't be a huge learning curve.


----------



## weepete (Jul 14, 2017)

renting a few different bodies to try them out probably the way to go. The 7dmkii is a good camera, but it's quite far on in it's lifecycle (canon seem to be bringing out new models on a 5 year lifecycle). I'd also consider the 80D which has a newer sensor and better high ISO performance though slightly less FPS.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jul 14, 2017)

The 7D MK2 wil do quite well in those lighting conditions. You can get clean shots past ISO 6000. Example below. If you don't need the 10fps and would like to get close with 7fps and better ISO than the 7D MK 2 I would suggest the 80d. It is a newer sensor and it's auto focus system is as good as the 7D mk 2 with  few less focus points. 

Below is at ISO 5000




Barred by Trevor Baldwin, on Flickr


----------



## Braineack (Jul 14, 2017)

they should rename noise reduction to "detail destroyer".


i'd much rather my image look pointillized than a mushy pile of steaming...


----------



## Gary A. (Jul 14, 2017)

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 (Jul 14, 2017)

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 (Jul 14, 2017)

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 (Jul 16, 2017)

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 (Jul 16, 2017)

TallDude said:


> 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 (Jul 17, 2017)

TallDude said:


> 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 (Jul 23, 2017)

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


----------



## Braineack (Jul 24, 2017)

beagle100 said:


> 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 (Jul 24, 2017)

Braineack said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> > yes, the 80D or 77D  or 900D is good ... mirrorless is smaller and lighter
> ...



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


----------



## Braineack (Jul 24, 2017)

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


----------



## beagle100 (Jul 25, 2017)

Braineack said:


> 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 (Jul 25, 2017)

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 (Jul 26, 2017)

Braineack said:


> 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 (Jul 26, 2017)

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 (Jul 26, 2017)

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.


----------



## beagle100 (Jul 26, 2017)

Braineack said:


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



LOL!
obviously you don't (*yet*) have a mirrorless camera !

*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*



Untitled by c w, on Flickr


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2017)

beagle100 said:
			
		

> ever seen a wide mirrorless"pancake" lens?
> (hint: it's science)



How about a 35mm SLR/d-slr  "pancake" lens from Nikon that measures  0.7 inches long, and 2.5 inches around, or 17mm x 63mm. Nikon 45mm f/2.8 P

Here's a flatbed scan of my MIRROR-camera pancake semi-wide...a very sharp lens...shown with its 52mm Nikon lens cap, and its special "bowl-style" thread-in lens hood:




Or how about a MIRROR-system pancake wide-angle...shown on a huge mirrorless system lens adapter here ....Lens Review–Nikon 28mm f/2.8 Series-E

But, again, look at the actual, common, modern, AF mirrorless lenses like the 2-pound Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 lens: BIGGER, and heavier, than a comparably-spec'd mirror-system lens.

What about a MIRROR-system wide-angle pancake lens from Olympus, their 28mm f/2.8 Auto-Zuiko W

 shown with a Olympus OM-to-Canon EF lens adapter on my Canon 5D...


----------



## beagle100 (Jul 27, 2017)

Derrel said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



getting closer ...   but Nikon has apparently abandoned their current mirrorless cameras

the Canon 22mm f/2 pancake  is .......  _n i c e _
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*




Untitled by c w, on Flickr


----------



## Braineack (Jul 27, 2017)

Your logical fallacies are telling


----------



## beagle100 (Jul 27, 2017)

Braineack said:


> Your logical fallacies are telling



the obviously logically tellingly  ... it's "*scientific*"   !!!!

"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*


'
it's about the "wide"


----------



## Derrel (Jul 27, 2017)

Canon has a neat 24mm EF-S pancake for their mirror-using d-slr line...and the lens is quite affordable. And Canon has a neat 45mm f/2.8 pancake also. Again, for mirror-using cameras. there is NO issue making small, short focal length lenses smaller and lighter by using a mirrorless camera design. But...longer focal length lenses can NOT be "miniaturized" any more than they already have been using modern optical design methods and modern high refractive index glass. A 300mm f/2.8 lens for Olympus mirrorless and a 300mm f/2.8 lens for a Nikon APS-C is basically the same weight and size and length. Only thing is, the Nikon has a bigger, better sensor, better low-light performance, better High-ISO perrformance, AND the option to be used on an APS-C body AND ALSO to be used on an *ever-better-performing, full-frame* sensor body...depending on the need of the shooter or the sport or event or shooting scenario. Buy a miror-using Nikon camera, and you can use your lenses on APS-C bodies and/or full-frame bodies. ALL Nikon FX Cameras can mount and use Nikkor lenses...Nikkor lenses work on APS-C cameras and on FX cameras: lenses with dual-format capability. Mirrorless is mostly a one-format, tony-sensor game for the most part, with the exception of Leica and Sony.

Speaking of HUGE lenses....look at the sheer HUGE size and weigtht of the new Leica SL pro-cam's lens set for mirrorless--big, herking lenses....huh...whaddaya' know....the _smaller,lighter nonsense_ has once again, proven to be a cannard. (Cannard = a lie; a falsehood; a falsehood promoted as a truth.)

Leica-SL_Lens_Comparison-768x588.jpg

LOOK at the HUGE size of the Leica 24-90mm and the Leica SL's 90-280mm lenses. Fricking MASSIVE! Mirrorless lenses are smaller and lighter? Ummmm. NO.

Leica SL (Typ 601) Review: A Professional Mirrorless Camera | Red Dot Forum

Witness the sheer size and weight of Sony's 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for mirrorless--it's FRICKING HUGE. And heavy. And expensive. Same with 100-400 lenses for mirrorless...NOT small, NOT light, NOT inexpensive...$1,699 for the new Fuji 100-400.

It is easy to quote a few lines of text in a casual, offhand manner, but when you actually look at the totality of the lens offerings for mirrorless cameras, what happens is that the longer-length telephotos, and the 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses, and the 85mm high speed lenses are just as large, just as heavy, just as expensive, as the Canon and Nikon mirror-using d-slr systems' counterpart lenses.

Science. The idea that mirrorless lenses are ALL smaller and lighter than equivalent mirror-using d-slr lenses is total B.S. Look at Braineack's comparison above...the Sony 24-70mm is larger and heavier than the 24-70 Tamron VC lens..._*l_a_r_g_e_r *_  and_* h_e_a_v_i_ e_r.*_


----------



## beagle100 (Jul 27, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Canon has a neat 24mm EF-S pancake for their mirror-using d-slr line...and the lens is quite affordable. And Canon has a neat 45mm f/2.8 pancake also.
> _*e_r.*_



finally science and logic prevails in this continuing "debate"
thank you Dr. Spock
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*

"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."




Untitled by c w, on Flickr

but what about the* flippin* mirror ?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 27, 2017)

No need for you to be a wiseacre simply because I just refuted your cannard.

Perhaps the OP ought to buy some new lenses for his Canon T2i, and see if he really has "maxed out" the camera. Good lenses can really improve one's photographic results, and many people are aware that buying a new lens can stimulate creativity, can stimulate interest in getting out and making photographs, etc.. Buying a new lens is a time-honored way to get one's self out of a _photography funk._

Small-sized lenses. Normal-sized lenses. Large-sized lenses.

One of the things Zeiss did decades ago was to design an entire series of lenses, and to allow each lens design to be as large as was necessary for maximum lens performance. MANY of the BEST-performing lenses are large, because a large lens element is easier to grind to an ultra-high degree of precision; miniaturizing lenses makes the manufacturing process more-difficult, and makes even the slightest 0.0003-inch error in grind radius into a big issue.

Ever wondered why the Sigma 35mm and 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 ART lenses are HUGE lenses? Ever wondered why the Zeis OTUS series are all HUGE lenses?

You want smaller, lower-performing lenses? Plenty of them out there for mirrorless systems.


----------



## beagle100 (Jul 27, 2017)

Derrel said:


> No need for you to be a wiseacre simpl
> 
> You want smaller, lower-performing lenses? Plenty of them out there for mirrorless systems.



Thank you Mr.  large-size "Leica"  Spock 
 (obviously  not a mirrorless camera user)
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*

"*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."




Untitled


----------



## William_Doyle (Jul 28, 2017)

TallDude said:


> Thanks' everyone for your responses. I do have a fairly local shop that rents everything pro that one could need. One of my friends rents a f2.8 70-200 from them when she needs it. I'm definitely leaning towards the 7D mII. I prefer shooting in manual 95% of the time. My new frontier is going to be learning Photoshop / Lightroom. I can get the CC version pretty cheap as a college instructor. In the old days, I spent a good deal of time in a darkroom dodging and masking. I understand the layers in PS, and the brushing selective areas concept I get. Hopefully it won't be a huge learning curve.



Lots of good and *free* tutorials out there. Photoshop Essentials is a good site for that. Recently Scott Kelby came out with a book "How do I do that in PhotoShop" with tips and tricks for PhotoShop, I found it to be very helpful. The learning never really stops, Photography is just too competitive and their are too many good photographers out there so, you need to keep learning new things. In general, not you specifically. LoL


----------



## Braineack (Jul 28, 2017)

beagle100 said:


> finally science and logic prevails in this continuing "debate"



I appreciate you put quotes around debate.



beagle100 said:


> but what about the* flippin* mirror ?



Here, I'll expose another one of your fallacies:

What about the freakin' flippin' mirror?!   We are "debating" lens sizes.  The premise was: *as soon as you buy a real lens for a mirrorless, it's just a big, bulky, and heavy...
*
you've "debated" this with strawmen and attacks; much like a child who didn't have any basic education would.

Not only do you yourself use big, bulky, and heavy lenses on your own mirrorless (your flickr is full of examples), but Derrel and I have also provided a few examples where the lens for a mirrorless is just as big/heavy, if not bigger/heavier than a DSLR equivalent.

The distance from mount to sensor is only one argument for your case that you have actually brought to the table.  And while yes, that's true, it's still just one small point.  There's still the whole problem with N = f/D -- especially when comparing a aps-c mirrorless and dlsr.  Obviously when you reduce D things get smaller overall, but what happens when D is the same for both the mirrorless and the DSLR?

Of course there are advantages with mirrorless, especially when we move the stabilization from the lens into the body, and move the sensor closer to the rear element, and use teeny tiny sensors.

and sure, the 22mm f/2 is a nice little small lens, but is the EF-M 55-200?   at 2.5x3.5" and half a pound you're not putting that in your pocket.  It's still going to require a bag -- just as a Nikon DSLR user with their 2.7x3.1" half pound 55-200mm lens would...


if we were actually "debating" the body size, then yes, most of size of the DLSR body is used up to make space for the flippin' mirror.   I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing -- some of these tiny mirrorless bodies are incredibly difficult to wield and put all the weight in your fingers; not your palm.


----------



## beagle100 (Jul 29, 2017)

Braineack said:


> beagle100 said:
> 
> 
> > finally science and logic prevails in this continuing "debate"
> ...



all those freakin' small mirrorless cameras !
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------

