Wanting to upgrade from the Canon 6D

[AdventuresInMyTrustyBoots]

My current camera is the Canon 6D and the 24-105mm. I've been wanting and saving to upgrade. I was thinking about upgrading to the Mark IV. I'm not sure that it is worth it to go with the Mark IV and the 24-105mm, since I already have the 24-105mm from my 6D. I am thinking of just getting the Mark IV and the Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 instead.

My interests in photography are mainly landscape and nightscapes. I'm still learning, but I am really loving the nightscapes right now.

What are opinions on this combo? How does the Mark IV and the Tamron 15-30 perform for night landscapes, milky way photos?

I am currently using the 6D and the Rokinon 24 for my nightscapes. Recently aquired a Rokinon 14mm, but haven't had a chance to test it yet.

 

[Rick50]

How about the Mark IV and the new 16-35 F/2.8? The 24-105 will work fine on the Mark IV. Landscapes and night photo's both want a wide angle lens. For Milky Way shots it's aperture that counts but without chromatic aberrations. So a good lens goes a long way. The Sigma 35mm, F/1.4 is also a good prime lens. The Rokinon is also a fine lens.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Hi, and welcome to the forum!
While I definitely understand the whish for any upgrade what is it that you think or whish a new camera has, that would make your images or your workflow better?

 

[Derrel]

Might be worth testing the Rokinon 14mm as the wide lens, and the 24mm Rokinon as the not-so-wide "longer" option.

Wondering how well the 14 and 24mm Rokinons are corrected for coma, which is like, a big deal for star-shooters, and which needs to be corrected in the lens itself, not in software. I dunno...I am not a star shooter, and I like longer focal length landscapes so you'll not hear me advocating for a 15 to 30mm lens for full frame shooting.

I personally think short focal length landscapes lose a LOT of impact on anything over 15 feet from the lens front, and think the longer, 24,28,35mm wides make the far distance stuff look MUCH bigger, and of more interest than the 15,16,17,18,20mm lenses, which make the mid- and longer distances drop off to very small, tiny, on-sensor bits.

 

[AdventuresInMyTrustyBoots]

Hi, and welcome to the forum!
While I definitely understand the whish for any upgrade what is it that you think or whish a new camera has, that would make your images or your workflow better?

I am looking for the added resolution and dynamic range that this camera is supposed to have. I have been getting requests for large prints (3ft X 4ft or larger) of some of my landscapes. I am also hoping that the Mark IV will improve on my night landscapes image quality. I'm still learning though.

 

[AdventuresInMyTrustyBoots]

Might be worth testing the Rokinon 14mm as the wide lens, and the 24mm Rokinon as the not-so-wide "longer" option.

Wondering how well the 14 and 24mm Rokinons are corrected for coma, which is like, a big deal for star-shooters, and which needs to be corrected in the lens itself, not in software. I dunno...I am not a star shooter, and I like longer focal length landscapes so you'll not hear me advocating for a 15 to 30mm lens for full frame shooting.

I personally think short focal length landscapes lose a LOT of impact on anything over 15 feet from the lens front, and think the longer, 24,28,35mm wides make the far distance stuff look MUCH bigger, and of more interest than the 15,16,17,18,20mm lenses, which make the mid- and longer distances drop off to very small, tiny, on-sensor bits...

The Rokinon lenses have quite good coma control and quite sharp. I really do like them. The 14mm, I have only used once, and I think I will really like it for my night shots. I need to familiarize myself with it.

My reasoning for wanting the Tamron is the ease of use for both day time as well as night shots. The Rokinon is fully manual, which is fine for night, but I want something fast with auto focus for when I'm hiking with other people and trying to keep up. Snap a shot and carry on. I do like longer focal lengths as well, and use my 24-105mm or my Tamron 150-600mm sometimes. (Actually used that one quite a bit in the Yukon this summer).

This is one of the first shots I've taken with my Rokinon 14mm, the only time I had the chance to take it out.
First Snowfall by Jen Philippe, on Flickr

 

[AdventuresInMyTrustyBoots]

How about the Mark IV and the new 16-35 F/2.8? The 24-105 will work fine on the Mark IV. Landscapes and night photo's both want a wide angle lens. For Milky Way shots it's aperture that counts but without chromatic aberrations. So a good lens goes a long way. The Sigma 35mm, F/1.4 is also a good prime lens. The Rokinon is also a fine lens.

I've read that the Tamron is sharper edge to edge with less vignetting. Also the Tamron is about a $1000 cheaper. The down side of the Tamron is you can't fit a standard screw on filter on it.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Hi, and welcome to the forum!
While I definitely understand the whish for any upgrade what is it that you think or whish a new camera has, that would make your images or your workflow better?

I am looking for the added resolution and dynamic range that this camera is supposed to have. I have been getting requests for large prints (3ft X 4ft or larger) of some of my landscapes. I am also hoping that the Mark IV will improve on my night landscapes image quality. I'm still learning though.

Just to give you another thing to think about: what about sony a7rII? The resolution and dynamic range are bigger than the 5d IV. I do own it and some canon bodies (the newest being the 5D III). I currently shoot a big lot with the sony rather than canon and reading your hiking note above, the Sony is much smaller too. Since you are thinking about a combo to use as some kind of "second camera" from what I read, you could as well think about a different brand. This is how I started using the sonys.
One thing to note though: for whatever reason, the sony takes about as long for computing long exposures, as it does for taking the image - my 5DIII does take a while too, but nowhere near the sony. For me it wasn´t a big deal, but it is noticeable, and I don´t think it would work for night timelapses of the milky way - or maybe star trails.
Mirrorless has its pros and cons, for me currently the pros of the sonys outweigh the cons and this is why I currently buy more sony stuff than canon.

very nice snowfall image btw

 

[goodguy]

The 5D IV is a lovely camera but I have a feeling you will not see a huge change from the 6D.

 

[AdventuresInMyTrustyBoots]

Hi, and welcome to the forum!
While I definitely understand the whish for any upgrade what is it that you think or whish a new camera has, that would make your images or your workflow better?

I am looking for the added resolution and dynamic range that this camera is supposed to have. I have been getting requests for large prints (3ft X 4ft or larger) of some of my landscapes. I am also hoping that the Mark IV will improve on my night landscapes image quality. I'm still learning though.

Just to give you another thing to think about: what about sony a7rII? The resolution and dynamic range are bigger than the 5d IV. I do own it and some canon bodies (the newest being the 5D III). I currently shoot a big lot with the sony rather than canon and reading your hiking note above, the Sony is much smaller too. Since you are thinking about a combo to use as some kind of "second camera" from what I read, you could as well think about a different brand. This is how I started using the sonys.
One thing to note though: for whatever reason, the sony takes about as long for computing long exposures, as it does for taking the image - my 5DIII does take a while too, but nowhere near the sony. For me it wasn´t a big deal, but it is noticeable, and I don´t think it would work for night timelapses of the milky way - or maybe star trails.
Mirrorless has its pros and cons, for me currently the pros of the sonys outweigh the cons and this is why I currently buy more sony stuff than canon.

very nice snowfall image btw

I have thought about the Sonys and done some research on them. I have a little Sony 6000 which I picked up in the summer to take hiking, but find that I very rarely use it. I find the menu frustrating, and like the image quality of my Canon so much better. I'm a little regretful that I spent the money on it. I'll take another look at the Sony full frame mirrorless. Must be better then the crop sensor 6000. I'm still in research phase. I just thought that since I already have some Canon lenses I would stick with the Canon.

I've also been looking at the Nikon 810 some, but then that's a whole new lens system.

 

[robbins.photo]

I've also been looking at the Nikon 810 some, but then that's a whole new lens system.

I think a lot there would probably depend on how much you already have invested in Canon. The D800/D810 is a serious beast, with 36 mp full frame sensor and an extremely impressive dynamic range.

But if you've already got a ton of money invested in Canon lenses the switch over may be more expensive than what it's worth.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Hi, and welcome to the forum!
While I definitely understand the whish for any upgrade what is it that you think or whish a new camera has, that would make your images or your workflow better?

I am looking for the added resolution and dynamic range that this camera is supposed to have. I have been getting requests for large prints (3ft X 4ft or larger) of some of my landscapes. I am also hoping that the Mark IV will improve on my night landscapes image quality. I'm still learning though.

Just to give you another thing to think about: what about sony a7rII? The resolution and dynamic range are bigger than the 5d IV. I do own it and some canon bodies (the newest being the 5D III). I currently shoot a big lot with the sony rather than canon and reading your hiking note above, the Sony is much smaller too. Since you are thinking about a combo to use as some kind of "second camera" from what I read, you could as well think about a different brand. This is how I started using the sonys.
One thing to note though: for whatever reason, the sony takes about as long for computing long exposures, as it does for taking the image - my 5DIII does take a while too, but nowhere near the sony. For me it wasn´t a big deal, but it is noticeable, and I don´t think it would work for night timelapses of the milky way - or maybe star trails.
Mirrorless has its pros and cons, for me currently the pros of the sonys outweigh the cons and this is why I currently buy more sony stuff than canon.
very nice snowfall image btw

I have thought about the Sonys and done some research on them. I have a little Sony 6000 which I picked up in the summer to take hiking, but find that I very rarely use it. I find the menu frustrating, and like the image quality of my Canon so much better. I'm a little regretful that I spent the money on it. I'll take another look at the Sony full frame mirrorless. Must be better then the crop sensor 6000. I'm still in research phase. I just thought that since I already have some Canon lenses I would stick with the Canon.

I've also been looking at the Nikon 810 some, but then that's a whole new lens system.

The menu is frustrating for many people - also on the bigger ones. Sony seems to work on it, but there is no guarantee that it will get "better". Personally I like the menu, but would like to have one custom menu where I can put in all the things I regularely need.
The image quality of the a7rII is way better than the 6000, but I don´t find the a6000 bad in good lighting situations.
The only reason I was suggesting sony was because you thought about buying a camera/lens combo for a specific use - which was exactly why I purchased it. But as soon as I had it in my hands, I loved it much more than I thought (despite the limitations it has). Usually I would stick with the brand you have, because things change and in a few years from now Canon might have the technical lead. You don´t want to change your system every other year.

 

[weepete]

The 5D mk IV is an excellent camera and I'm sure will be a really good upgrade from the 6D. It'll gain you a stop and a half of dynamic range at ISO 100 and performs better than the 6D until ISO 3200 and has significantly better ISO invariance than the 6D meaning a lot less shadow noise.

The MKIV performance wise in comparison to the A7RII and D810 is very similar just above ISO100, though at that ISO and below the other two cameras still have a slight edge.

Dynamic Range and the New Canon 5D Mark IV

 

[nikonja01]

IMHO it would be a waste of money, better buy better lenses because I really doubt that you will see big, if any, changes in IQ. 6D has all you need for great landscape images and with 5D yes you will get litlle more than one stop but you can get that also with better lens.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

Sorry, but the idea that, "Canon might have the technical lead" within a few years, is not likely. Sony has the sensor technology lead and investment, and is producing sensors for its own use, and for sale to other, large companies. Sony's sensor technology and fabrication are recognized by Pentax, Hasselblad, Nikon, and others, as being state of the art. Canon is the company that iterated its entire APS-C camera line for literally, wasnit it seven years, without a single sensor upgrade. Same old sensors in what was it? Oh, six different APS-C cameras for serious enthusiasts.

Canon has a sales lead in a declining market. I think it is unlikely that Canon will invest the hundreds and hundreds of millions of Yen needed in order to build new sensor fabs. Canon lost the sensor-performance race in 2007, and has since remained at the second tier in sensor performance, and has remained focused on staying as the #1 seller of cameras. Nikon is second, Sony is a distant third place. Absolute image quality is not Canon's main concern as a corporation, but rather maintaining the sales lead they curently have is.