[Guest]

Just one comment on this: I  am finding that since the time of the EOS 40D the sensor quality (regardless of manfacturer) has not significantly improved regardless of what certain test sites claim. I still have a 50D from the old times and comparing it to newer Canon, Nikon or any other sensors, I do not find much progress apart from the increased resoluion of the newer sensors. Furthermore, if you compare prints ( I print usally larger than 50x75 cm) , the differeces between cameras of the same sensor size has been almost indistinguishable for about 6 year.  What you do notice however are two things:

 

1. Raw process ing has improved considerably. Meaning if I re-process my old raws from the 50D with the latest Lightroom process, I get sharper shots with less noise and more pleasing colours ( This actually might be the reason why newer cameras appear to better, because they are quite often tested with newer raw converters);

 

2. Jpg processing has also improved quite a bit, with newer camers usually delivering better results.

 

In other words:  If you are satisfied with the resoluition of your sensor, upgrade your camera only if you need better jpg-processing, better features, faster operation etc.. Raw image quality  has remained almost the same across manufacturer for the past 6 years. It usally pays of to re-process your files with a newer raw engine.

Well, the EOS 50D (15mp) was released back in late 2008(!) so it's overdue for a replacement here in the zone.

However, it seems pointless to prefer the 7D II over a 70D - at more than the double price. The sensor quality is the same and the rest is rather irrelevant for us here.

That being said, the 70D was released in mid 2013 so it's not new anymore either.

 

I reckon we have to go for the 7DII for "political" reasons rather than technical ones.

 

While DxO doesn't seem to care about the resolving power for whatever reason, it still shows the technical state.