My daughter has been hinting about wanting a DSLR, so I figure giving her my T5i and moving up to something a little more professional would be the right move. What I'm struggling with is exactly what the next camera should be. As someone that is still new to photography (1 year) I have no single area of focus, I like landscape, city, nature, macro, you name it... The one thing that is holding me back is my current lenses (50mm, 18-55, 55-250 and 10-22) most being for a crop sensor.
I've been doing research and I think it's between the 70D and 7D Mark II when it comes out, but was hoping to get some feedback here on these or any other suggestions.
It would help a lot if you identified what your current camera isn't doing for you, in order to see what upgrade fits you. Upgrading because a camera is "more professional" sounds like throwing money away to me.
Your lens selection is mostly kit lenses, with (I assume) the 50 1.8 and a good (but limited in use) UWA. I think upgrading your lenses would do far more for you then a camera. Maybe you could get a cheap refurbished T3i or something for your daughter, give her your kit lenses and upgrade you lens selection?
The 7d2 is a very precisely defined camera, at least as far as the specs go. It's designed for action/sports. If you don't shoot a lot of action then it's overkill. That's fine, if that's how you want to spend your money, but again, that money could be put into something that would benefit you much more, like glass.
It's not that my camera isn't doing anything for me in particular, but my daughter has been hinting around about getting a DSLR and rather than her spending her money on it, I would like to give her my current one as she is just starting out in life and money is tight.
My comment around "more professional" just means that I would like to take my photography more serious and I would like to get advice on a camera that will last me as I continue to improve my skills over the next few years. I appreaciate your feedback on the 7D2 not really being an "all purpose" camera and on my kit lenses. I'm planning on giving my daughter the 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses and upgrading there as well.
So, I guess to be more percise, I'm looking for the best camera I can get from $1500-$2000 that will primarily be for city/landscape photography. The only thing is, I would like to stil be able to use my EF-S lenses, so I believe it would need to be a crop sensor.
Thanks again for your previous advice.
Thanks for the feedback. I went out and found these guys that have the 6D Kit for under $1900. I've not really purchased anything new off ebay and not sure about doing such, but that price would be right in my range. The only thing I would miss is my 10-22 UWA, but I guess I could sell that and put it towards the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L.
For what you shoot, in my opinion, the only camera change that will make a significant impact in your output, is going full frame. You can buy a more robust crop camera, or one with a much more sophisticated AF system, but even the latest crop sensors don't appear to have a huge leap in image quality over the T5i. Just my opinion, others would disagree.
That opinion is only for cameras, I do think you could have a noticable increase in image quality from keeping your T5i and getting better glass.
If you do go for a 6D kit you'd be giving up a lot of focal range, but that can change. The 24-105 is a terrific all-around performer and can handle a good deal of situations until you feel the need to expand your lens collection. I really missed my 10-22 when I went full frame, and the 17-40 just didn't do it for me. I still use it, but I'll probably upgrade to the 16-35 f/4 sometime soon.
The notion that the brand new 7D Mk II is not an all-purpose camera is total hogwash. It is an outstanding camera but so is the 7D. You may look for one of them as they are on sale now.
The 7D series is the entry level into a full on 'pro' body. Everything is more robust in every way over any Rebel.
The 6D is also a nice choice and is the entry level class in full frame. If you have only EF-S lenses it will require you to buy new EF lenses.
However if I were you I would go with a 7D series either the original or the Mk II.
The notion that the brand new 7D Mk II is not an all-purpose camera is total hogwash.
The 6D is also a nice choice and is the entry level class in full frame.
Hah! You are so amusing. I love how you throw a fit when someone puts a label on your beloved 7D series, but a couple sentences later apply a similarly asinine label to the 6D.
Nobody is saying that the 7D2 can't be used in a variety of situations, and certainly nobody said it wasn't more rugged than a Rebel. Only that, if you're not going to be shooting action, then it's overkill. Which is fine, if someone had a good selections of lenses to choose from and wanted a 7D2. I'd say go for it. But spending an extra $700+ on a new camera with many feature you don't need, while using kit lens, is a poor choice, IMHO. That $700 could be put to glass, which will have a much greater impact on his results, given his shooting style.
You can use a 7D II for anything... but it's been optimized with lots of performance tweaks that really shine when you're shooting action photography. For this reason, people tend to think of it as a "sports" camera.
The 70D is the logical next step up from a T5i in that it is a mid-range camera. The overall performance increases... it has a better focus system, faster shooting speed, continuous focus during video, and it provides controls which are laid out more like the high-end cameras (adds a second dial on the back and another LCD screen on top -- like the high end bodies have.)
The 70D, being another APS-C camera, would allow you to keep using all your current lenses... as would the 7D II.
The 70D has WiFi. The 7D II does not.
The 70D has a polycarbonate (plastic -- like your T5i) body. The 7D II has a magnesium alloy (metal) body. It will be heavier.
The 6D is a full-frame body and as such it cannot use any of the EF-S lenses... but that's ok BECAUSE as you start getting into full-frame cameras, you should be willing to invest in better glass anyway.
There's a general thinking that "full frame is better". It's probably more accurate to think of full-frame as being better at some things... but they have their trade-offs. They tend to be better at low-light (less noise at high ISO). Also, lenses have a wider true angle of view when attached to a full-frame sensor body and this translates into some behavior differences which ultimately do result in a shallower depth-of-field for any given focal length (technically the depth of field isn't really shallower... but since the angle of view is wider, the photographer will tend to stand at a closer distance to subject to achieve similar framing... and since the depth of field becomes shallower when focus distance is closer... people regard the camera has having a "shallower depth of field"). In any case... the wider angles of view and the shallower depth of field translate into generalizations that these cameras have advantages for both landscape and portrait photography.
The 6D does not have a continuous burst shooting speed nearly as fast as the 70D or 7D II.