Upgrading body, need advice

Ever thought of upgrading to FF? I dont think the 5D would be a bad choice.

I have a nikon d300s and the d300 is basically the same (no video but it doesn't sound like you want that anyways) and i would def recommend it great for sports (fast fps) and also has pretty good lowlight performance and the colors are also a lot brighter and realistic over canons IMO

to get a FF that has high fps (5d only has 3.9(?) ) would be over my price range, but the d700 comes close in mind.

^many people keep telling me if you want photos go the nikon route and for video go canon. is this at all true?
the nikon d300 sounds like a good choice and would keep it under the budget with money to spare.

Wish I could help but are you going to sell the t2i?

yea, i would sell the t2i for a new body.

How much?

I made a pretty similar thread a little bit ago, maybe it will be of some help,
https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/686977/

Nikon.  I love my D7000 for videos and it shoots great video.  I run a fly fishing and hunting blog with a lot of photos and video.  Feel free to check it out if your looking at getting a D7000. 

http://www.montana-wild.com/

Definitely true i see a lot better photos with nikon and better videos with canon until you get to the ff cameras then i see the same throughout both nikon and canon

Stick with whatever brand fits in your hand best.

Personally I'd go 7d; 1d2n is a banger camera, I don't know much about it though. 8fps at 18 megapixels is awesome, my friend uses his for skateboarding and it is an amazing camera; makes me wish I'd saved a bit more to get one over my 60d. I'd stay away from the 1d3, I remember hearing about focus issues and that it not being worth the upgrade from the 1d2n, I know Dan Carr skipped it and waited for the 1d4. So 7d or 1d2n for sure, 1.3 would be nice for those wide moments, but I'd personally prefer to have a 7d.

If you do want to go 1.3 sensor you should check out the rokinon primes, they're manual focus, but for the same price of the lower end canon primes they give you amazing performance for your money. Regardless what you end up with I'd 100% pick up a 70-200 F4L used, they go for around $500 and its tack sharp throughout the entire range, nice bokeh at f4 because its a tele so it works well for portraits as well, I don't know what I'd do without mine.

Full Frame is pointless for sports, your going to be spending $3500 for a 5d3 to get enough fps for sport photography, and if it's just a hobby you really don't need the IQ.

Seeing as you already have the 24-105 L (Keep this 100%), I'd stay canon, learn one and stick with it.

thanks for the replies everyone! all of this info is really helping me decide.

^ if i went between the 7d or 1dii, strictly for sports does it seem reasonable to sell the 24-105 L and pick up a 70-200 2.8L? then i would have my sports body/lens taken care of and have the canon s90/g12/g1x as my travel/underwater/ everything else setup.

Well what kind of sports are you shooting? A 24-105, a 70-200, and a fast prime would be a good all around setup. If your only shooting say hockey, football, ect. I could see only owning a tele but I'd still want to have a all around zoom lens like the 24-105. F4L is just as sharp as the 2.8L if not sharper, if your hard pressed for cash I'd save it and just go for the f4L, other's might say different but the only time were I've needed below f4 is at a concert in a dark bar or poorly lit rooms. I'd rather have that extra cash to put towards a prime or a fisheye than to have how ever few stops more of light.

i guess you are right, i should just save up and get the 70-200 4L as its only $500. than i will have most of my lengths covered. I mostly shoot outdoor sports, i would say 80% is skiing and the other 20% falls into football and water sports( windsurfing,kitesurfing, surfing).

does anyone have experience with a 1.4 TC on the 70-200 4L?

It is true, in the sense that Nikons tend to have better dynamic range and slightly better high ISO performance, while they are lacking in video features (e.g. no 60 fps). I find this secondary to personal preference: I find myself taking worse pictures with Canon bodies because I'm not comfortable with the feel of the controls.

As for your decision, I always think it's important to look at what you are lacking in your current setup: what is holding you back? where is your equipment limiting you? And based on that, you can look at how to improve your setup.

From your original post, I get the feeling you want to get a 70-200 type lens with a more solid body to go with it. In that range Canon has a better offering: Nikon is seriously lacking a 70-200 f/4 lens.

The rumors of a low-cost full frame Nikon are probably a hoax. At least the article on which these rumors are based was a hoax.

However, a replacement for the D7000 and D300 are coming very soon.

Good advice.

Nikon vs Canon is a non-issue. Really doesn't matter. Just shoot with what you're used to. Not just one brand, one camera. Knowing your camera inside-out is part of what makes you a good photog. That, and having a photographers eye. Gear doesn't really matter that much.

The guys over at the Fred Miranda sports corner forum know lots about tc's I'm sur they could help you out

You will 100% be fine the f4L then. You should check out Dan Carr's blog for info on the TC, he uses them a ton on his 70-200 F4L IS (Basically the same lens in terms of optics), and I know he's done reviews on them.

http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/

thanks to all who contributed. i feel a lot more comfortable deciding what to get now, all of this information is great!

now that i am set with the lenses, back to the body; 7d vs 1diiN

from what i know:
7d=higher mp, "newer technology", better in low light(?), 1.6x
1dii= faster fps, better build/weather sealing, more accurate af, 1.3x (weight doesn't affect my decision)

does anyone have experience with the the 1dii for skiing? there is lots of info about the 7d but no so much about the 1dii.