What to buy

[jake23sanders]

Hello all,

I am looking into upgrading my camera body and I am stuck between A LOT of options. I am currently shooting on a canon rebel t3 and I mostly use my 70-200mm f/4 L for almost everything I do. I do a lot of portraits at the moment and a little bit of sports but I also want to start doing landscape photography as well. I want to upgrade my body but I don't know what to get. I am wanting to stay as cheap as possible but I know I may need to drop some money. My budget is around $1000 but if it is worth it, I can spend more than that. I have looked around a little bit and I have came across a lot of options. I could upgrade to a 70d or 80d. I could go full-frame with a 6d or an old 5d Mark ii or iii. (Mark iii would REALLY push my budget)

I could also switch over to the Sony mirrorless cameras. I could get a a6000 or 6300 and pick up an adapter. I could also get a full-frame a7 as well. I honestly am not leaning one way or another. I have no idea what I am going to go with. If you guys could help me out that would be great! Thank you all very much!

 

[goodguy]

I will make this short and sweet get the Canon 80D, excellent camera!
Yes the 6D is good but the AF on it is very basic.
5D II too old and with an even worst AF then the 6D
5D III is excellent!!!
Do you need FF camera ?

 

[PaulWog]

I'd go with a Canon 6D if you want shallower depth of field, or better low light performance at f4.

I'd go with the 80D if you want the same reach that you have now (equivalent approx 300mm on your 70-200), but you want a better camera.

 

[jake23sanders]

I will make this short and sweet get the Canon 80D, excellent camera!
Yes the 6D is good but the AF on it is very basic.
5D II too old and with an even worst AF then the 6D
5D III is excellent!!!
Do you need FF camera ?

I'm not too sure. I do know that full frame camera's will be much more expensive but I don't know if I can or if I need to go full-frame

 

[jake23sanders]

I'd go with a Canon 6D if you want shallower depth of field, or better low light performance at f4.

I'd go with the 80D if you want the same reach that you have now (equivalent approx 300mm on your 70-200), but you want a better camera.

Is there any difference in picture quality between the 80d and the 6d? I know that it's mostly the lens(if not all in the lens) but I have heard that full-frame gives a slightly better image quality than APS-C cameras.

 

[PaulWog]

I'd go with a Canon 6D if you want shallower depth of field, or better low light performance at f4.

I'd go with the 80D if you want the same reach that you have now (equivalent approx 300mm on your 70-200), but you want a better camera.

Is there any difference in picture quality between the 80d and the 6d? I know that it's mostly the lens(if not all in the lens) but I have heard that full-frame gives a slightly better image quality than APS-C cameras.

In practical terms, the image quality will be indiscernible in good light. The only advantage the 6D has over the 80D is that it has a full frame sensor. The 6D will handle higher ISO better, and it has the ability to produce a shallower depth of field than a crop sensor can. For example, an 80D would need to be set to f2.5 to produce equivalent bokeh to f4 on the 6D. I'll give you a practical settings example: If you're shooting at 200mm on an 80D at f4, then the 6D would need to be at 300mm and f6.3 to produce a similar image. If the 6D were shot at 200mm and f4, the 80D would need to be shot at 125mm and f2.5 to produce a similar image.

The 80D is the better camera in all respects except for the fact that it's a crop sensor camera. If you want a full frame, the 6D isn't much worse, but its autofocus system isn't as good.

My recommendation would be to go out and try both cameras if you can.

 

[Solarflare]

Couple thoughs:

Just for the record - if you switch to full frame, you could also switch to Nikon, because you'll need new glas anyway. Not saying you should and not saying you shouldnt - just wanted to point that out. I too was thinking about the pros and cons of switching to Canon when I upgraded to full frame.

Full frame with both Nikon and Canon has the advantage that much more glas is available, and its glas thats in general more expensive, but also of higher quality. Especially with Nikon theres also an awesome used market. For example one could get a D700 and the AI 105mm f2.5, a famous portrait lens, all metal body, from the ages of manual focus, and its nowadays really cheap. Very high quality full frame at the uber cheap, though you would have to learn manual focus. Obviously for sports you would definitely want autofocus, though. The lack of high quality old glas with Canon is because they dropped their old system completely in 1987 and ever since produced the new EOS mount. Some Canon users claim thats an advantage but seriously - AI lenses are manual, AF lenses need a motor in the camera, and finally AF-S lenses will have a (silent) motor in the lens and no aperture ring, just like with Canon EOS. And entry level Nikons (D3x00 and D5x00 series and their now very old predecessors) dont have said motor for AF lenses, but in turn can saftely mount pre-AI lenses from before 1977 (which can be converted to AI'ed lenses to saftely operate on any Nikon DSLR, though Nikon themselves dont offer this operation anymore, you'll have to find other people or do it yourself). Its not THAT hard to remember.

A huge motivation to switch to full frame could be wide angle. Lenses like the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 VC, a huge hit, really arent available for APS-C. Unless of course you go Fuji X, then you could get the XF 10-24mm f4 OIS which is pretty much the same thing. The Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 VC isnt even pricier than APS-C alternatives, just a whole lot better. Though at least with Canon there is the EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS which also offers very high image quality, quite a lot less bright but at least also a lot cheaper. The best offer for Nikon is probably the AF-S 12-24mm f4 which is more expensive, less good, less bright, and doesnt offer image stabilization. Whow. The Tamron is also great at focusing close to something (kind of like a macro lens) and put the rest of the world in a pleasant blurr, allowing for very unique pictures.

The 80D has the advantage over 70D etc that the sensor is now coming from the new fab which has finer structures; in turn the sensor performance is now much closer to the (current) Nikon sensors. Before that point especially dynamic range was substantly worse; dynamic range helps you with reallife lighting situations. Though in many situations you could use a flash instead, and in many other situations a tripod and HDR. Still dynamic range is something you'll actually notice in practice if you shoot spontaneous pictures.


P.s.: Almost forgotten: in case you arent aware - if you get into Canon full frame, you can no longer use EF-S lenses. Thats because Canon made it physically impossible to mount them. The reason for this is that EF-S lenses are designed for a shorter mirror box, i.e. they reach further into the camera body, and would thus destroy a full frame mirror.

Lenses from second parties (Tamron etc) do not have this issue because they only design their lenses once, then put a lens mount on them. Since other companies such as Nikon do not use this special trick that Canon uses, these lenses are all designed for a much larger distance to the sensor.


P.p.s.: Oh, and I really cant recomment switching to Sony. To really anyone.

 

[sashbar]

Do you need FF camera ?

I'm not too sure. I do know that full frame camera's will be much more expensive but I don't know if I can or if I need to go full-frame

If you do not know if you need a FF camera, then most probably you do not need it. Especially if you are on a budget. FF and, as you have stated, "staying as cheap as possible" do not usually go well together.

If you think FF will give you a much better IQ, you will be disappointed, because in most cases (portraiture definitely) in normal light with modern cameras the IQ is the same for our eyes. Lenses are often more important.

You can have razor thin DoF with FF, but if you soot portraits, landscapes and sport, you just won't need it.

But having a FF camera is cool , no denying that. There are basically two recipes for making you instantly feel a better shooter: a FF body or a shot of vodka. For most the effect (and result) is about the same.

 

[beagle100]

Do you need FF camera ?

I'm not too sure. I do know that full frame camera's will be much more expensive but I don't know if I can or if I need to go full-frame

If you do not know if you need a FF camera, then most probably you do not need it. Especially if you are on a budget. FF and, as you have stated, "staying as cheap as possible" do not usually go well together.

If you think FF will give you a much better IQ, you will be disappointed, because in most cases (portraiture definitely) in normal light with modern cameras the IQ is the same for our eyes. Lenses are often more important.
You can have razor thin DoF with FF, but if you soot portraits, landscapes and sport, you just won't need it.
But having a FF camera is cool , no denying that. There are basically two recipes for making you instantly feel a better shooter: a FF body or a shot of vodka. For most the effect (and result) is about the same.

I agree, full frame gives you more "background blur" and better low light ISO performance otherwise the choice of a lens is more important. If you shoot more sports than portraits get the 80D. If you shoot more concerts or portraits then a refurbished 6D could be (potentially) better