My next camera

[idanidan123]

Hello guys, I have the 1100d almost 2 years, and 2 lenses. Now I want to step up to a full frame camera. I looked up CNET reviews, but I wanna be 100 percent sure so I need your opinion- I looked up reviews for the 70d and it looks like a pretty great camera, do you recommend it ?

FYI- I shoot landscapes and nature. I don't care about video mode at all, i'm all about photography.

Thanks in advance !

[RobertTheFat]

---

@idanidan123 wrote:

Yea, I guess it kinda get repetitive at this point. My lenses are the 28-105mm and 90-300. I just think a full frame camera will capture more unlike crop sensor, from what I've heard. Basically what I want is a great DSLR for the next 3 years, at least. Sorry for asking the same question every time, I just feel like upgrading to a much better camera, I've read stuff about full frame cameras, and I really like it. I've been looking for a really low price for the 5D Mark II but it's really difficult. Do you have any other suggestion for a great full frame dslr ?

---

In the Canon world, you have three choices.

5D Mark IV: Expensive, state-of-the-art camera with many features you'll probably never use. But if you want the best in class, this is it. In three years it will still be considered an excellent camera. Your current lenses will work, but don't begin to match the quality of the camera. So be ready to spend important money on lenses when you can't see much advantage over your current rig.

5D Mark III: The camera the Mark IV is replacing. It's going out of production, but can be had for about $2600 while they last. If you don't mind listening to Mark IV owners brag for the next several years about how much better their cameras are, the Mark III is a very good value. However, you'll likely be dissatisfied with your lenses soon enough. (See above.)

6D: Lacks many features of the 5D III and IV, but is cheaper and simpler to use. It's considered an entry-level (to the full-frame world) camera; and if you really start to advance as a photographer, you may be tired of it in three or four years. But by then there may be a 5D Mark V; and in any case, the 6D can be a fine backup camera. (Even here, though, your current lenses are mediocre and should eventually be replaced.)

So there it is. But it's really too early to take our word for what you should do; you've got to start doing some research on your own. Then come back to us with specific questions about whether this or that capability on whichever camera is worth the money or not.

And forget the 5D Mark II; it's just too far in the past. If you can't afford one of the above three, buy a lesser (APS-C) camera (or keep your current one) and start buying full-frame lenses in anticipation of an eventual upgrade.

[TTMartin]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

And forget the 5D Mark II; it's just too far in the past. If you can't afford one of the above three, buy a lesser (APS-C) camera (or keep your current one) and start buying full-frame lenses in anticipation of an eventual upgrade.

---

His lenses are to long for landscape photography, and as you said the are old mediocre designs.

He just needs to buy the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens instead of a new camera!

If he's on a tight budget like it sounds he is, he isn't going to have the money to get decent full frame lenses that would work as a landscape lens with his current camera. 

He is just looking in the wrong direction for someone on a budget. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

And forget the 5D Mark II; it's just too far in the past. If you can't afford one of the above three, buy a lesser (APS-C) camera (or keep your current one) and start buying full-frame lenses in anticipation of an eventual upgrade.

---

His lenses are to long for landscape photography, and as you said the are old mediocre designs.

He just needs to buy the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens instead of a new camera!

If he's on a tight budget like it sounds he is, he isn't going to have the money to get decent full frame lenses that would work as a landscape lens with his current camera. 

He is just looking in the wrong direction for someone on a budget. 

---

Count me in the camp says only buy full frame lenses, if you're leaning towards going full frame in the future. 

[TTMartin]

---

Waddizzle wrote:

---

TTMartin wrote:

His lenses are to long for landscape photography, and as you said the are old mediocre designs.

He just needs to buy the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens instead of a new camera!

If he's on a tight budget like it sounds he is, he isn't going to have the money to get decent full frame lenses that would work as a landscape lens with his current camera. 

He is just looking in the wrong direction for someone on a budget. 

---

Count me in the camp says only buy full frame lenses, if you're leaning towards going full frame in the future. 

---

He already has full frame lenses.

All he needs is an EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens for his current camera.

He doesn't need a full frame camera and likely if he did buy a full frame camera, he would keep using the same old lenses he has. Any of the STM lenses on his current camera would be a game changer for the quality of his images.

You need to read and understand what he is writing. You need to take into account what he has now. He seems to be on an extremely tight budget. Full frame is an unnecessary fantasy for him, and you are doing him a disservice by feeding it.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@TTMartin wrote:

His lenses are to long for landscape photography, and as you said the are old mediocre designs.

He just needs to buy the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens instead of a new camera!

If he's on a tight budget like it sounds he is, he isn't going to have the money to get decent full frame lenses that would work as a landscape lens with his current camera. 

He is just looking in the wrong direction for someone on a budget. 

---

Count me in the camp says only buy full frame lenses, if you're leaning towards going full frame in the future. 

---

He already has full frame lenses.

All he needs is an EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens for his current camera.

He doesn't need a full frame camera and likely if he did buy a full frame camera, he would keep using the same old lenses he has. Any of the STM lenses on his current camera would be a game changer for the quality of his images.

You need to read and understand what he is writing. You need to take into account what he has now. He seems to be on an extremely tight budget. Full frame is an unnecessary fantasy for him, and you are doing him a disservice by feeding it.

---

He says he wants to go FF sooner or later, and he offers no hint that he needs/wants a wide-angle lens. Yet the only suggestion you offer is that he buy a WA lens that can't be used on a FF camera. I'm having trouble making sense of that. Even if we fully accept your analysis of his current situation, it still doesn't make sense. What am I missing here?

[Waddizzle]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

---

He already has full frame lenses.

All he needs is an EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens for his current camera.

He doesn't need a full frame camera and likely if he did buy a full frame camera, he would keep using the same old lenses he has. Any of the STM lenses on his current camera would be a game changer for the quality of his images.

You need to read and understand what he is writing. You need to take into account what he has now. He seems to be on an extremely tight budget. Full frame is an unnecessary fantasy for him, and you are doing him a disservice by feeding it.

---

I do?  He primarily wants to shoot landscapes, and so do I.  The OP lacks a lens that is really wide enough.  Is it better to save and invest in  a FF body, like a 6D, or invest in EF-S lenses and keep shooting with a 12 MP Rebel T3?  I say save up for one of FF cameras Bob listed, and only buy FF lenses, if you do buy lenses.

One thing about many STM zooms that I don't like is that they do not focus internally.  The barrel rotates when they focus, and I think the EF-S 10-18 IS STM is one that rotates to focus.  I think the rotating barrel is why I chose the 10-22 over the 10-18.  I like to take shots that involve water, like lakes and waterfronts.  I frequently use CPL filters, which a rotating barrel would complicate.

[TTMartin]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@TTMartin wrote:

His lenses are to long for landscape photography, and as you said the are old mediocre designs.

He just needs to buy the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens instead of a new camera!

If he's on a tight budget like it sounds he is, he isn't going to have the money to get decent full frame lenses that would work as a landscape lens with his current camera. 

He is just looking in the wrong direction for someone on a budget. 

He already has full frame lenses.

All he needs is an EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens for his current camera.

He doesn't need a full frame camera and likely if he did buy a full frame camera, he would keep using the same old lenses he has. Any of the STM lenses on his current camera would be a game changer for the quality of his images.

You need to read and understand what he is writing. You need to take into account what he has now. He seems to be on an extremely tight budget. Full frame is an unnecessary fantasy for him, and you are doing him a disservice by feeding it.

---

He says he wants to go FF sooner or later, and he offers no hint that he needs/wants a wide-angle lens. Yet the only suggestion you offer is that he buy a WA lens that can't be used on a FF camera. I'm having trouble making sense of that. Even if we fully accept your analysis of his current situation, it still doesn't make sense. What am I missing here?

---

He already has full frame lenses that cover from 28-300mm. The biggest reason for a landscape photographer to go to a full frame camera is it eliminates the cropped field of view (wider angle).

Sometimes people don't know what to actually ask for. People without a lot of photography knowledge read this article or that article and get in their head there is only one solution to their problem. I for one believe in buying lenses for the camera you have, not one you may never get.

Lenses designed for full frame cameras that are wide enough for UWA on a crop camera are expensive, and still don't perform as well as the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens would on a crop camera. 

He's using at extremely budget set up, and said he couldn't afford to stretch to a used 5D Mk II. If he can't afford a used 5D Mk II, he can't afford decent full frame lenses for his current camera.

Just because he says he wants a full frame camera doesn't mean he needs a full frame camera.

And certainly someone on an extreme budget should look at crop cameras and maximizing those, and that doesn't mean buying full frame lenses.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

He already has full frame lenses that cover from 28-300mm. The biggest reason for a landscape photographer to go to a full frame camera is it eliminates the cropped field of view (wider angle).

Sometimes people don't know what to actually ask for. People without a lot of photography knowledge read this article or that article and get in their head there is only one solution to their problem. I for one believe in buying lenses for the camera you have, not one you may never get.

Lenses designed for full frame cameras that are wide enough for UWA on a crop camera are expensive, and still don't perform as well as the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens would on a crop camera. 

He's using at extremely budget set up, and said he couldn't afford to stretch to a used 5D Mk II. If he can't afford a used 5D Mk II, he can't afford decent full frame lenses for his current camera.

Just because he says he wants a full frame camera doesn't mean he needs a full frame camera.

And certainly someone on an extreme budget should look at crop cameras and maximizing those, and that doesn't mean buying full frame lenses.

---

OK, granted, 28mm isn't wide enough for landscapes on an APS-C camera. But that doesn't mean that he needs a 10-18, which would leave a 10mm gap in his coverage, just where he needs it most. He says he's considering an 80D. Right now an 80D body is selling for $200 more than the 16-35mm f/4L IS. The latter is a vastly better lens than either of his current lenses, would extend the range of his current camera where he needs it extended, and would still be very useful if he ever goes FF. Why not recommend that?

[TTMartin]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

He already has full frame lenses that cover from 28-300mm. The biggest reason for a landscape photographer to go to a full frame camera is it eliminates the cropped field of view (wider angle).

Sometimes people don't know what to actually ask for. People without a lot of photography knowledge read this article or that article and get in their head there is only one solution to their problem. I for one believe in buying lenses for the camera you have, not one you may never get.

Lenses designed for full frame cameras that are wide enough for UWA on a crop camera are expensive, and still don't perform as well as the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens would on a crop camera. 

He's using at extremely budget set up, and said he couldn't afford to stretch to a used 5D Mk II. If he can't afford a used 5D Mk II, he can't afford decent full frame lenses for his current camera.

Just because he says he wants a full frame camera doesn't mean he needs a full frame camera.

And certainly someone on an extreme budget should look at crop cameras and maximizing those, and that doesn't mean buying full frame lenses.

---

OK, granted, 28mm isn't wide enough for landscapes on an APS-C camera. But that doesn't mean that he needs a 10-18, which would leave a 10mm gap in his coverage, just where he needs it most. He says he's considering an 80D. Right now an 80D body is selling for $200 more than the 16-35mm f/4L IS. The latter is a vastly better lens than either of his current lenses, would extend the range of his current camera where he needs it extended, and would still be very useful if he ever goes FF. Why not recommend that?

---

Since he is looking at the 80D he is not looking to go to a full frame camera. He plans on his next camera being a crop camera also. 

And the EF-S 18-55 IS STM covers most of the same range as the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS. And has very similar image quality at a fraction of the cost.

As I stated in my previous post ANY of the STM lenses would vastly improve his image quality.

He could purchase the EF-S 10-18 IS STM (which eliminate his need for a full frame camera) for $215 refurbished. And the EF-S 18-55 IS STM ($130 white box new) greatly improve his image quality with his current camera, and his next camera (if it is a 70D or 80D).

You yourself pointed out he doesn't seem to even know what a full frame camera is. Why steer someone to spending thousands more than he needs to?

EF 16-35 f/4L IS at 16mm



EF-S 10-18 IS STM at 18mm

EF 16-35 f/4L IS at 35mm

EF-S 18-55 IS STM at 55mm

And the EF 16-35 f/4L IS still really isn't all that wide on a crop sensor camera.

[TCampbell]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@idanidan123 wrote:

Yea, I guess it kinda get repetitive at this point. My lenses are the 28-105mm and 90-300. I just think a full frame camera will capture more unlike crop sensor, from what I've heard. Basically what I want is a great DSLR for the next 3 years, at least. Sorry for asking the same question every time, I just feel like upgrading to a much better camera, I've read stuff about full frame cameras, and I really like it. I've been looking for a really low price for the 5D Mark II but it's really difficult. Do you have any other suggestion for a great full frame dslr ?

---

In the Canon world, you have three choices.

5D Mark IV 

5D Mark III

6D

---

For completeness, the 1D X (I & II) are "full frame" but those are flagship bodies... extremely high performance, but probably not a good choice for landscapes.  These are also the most expensive bodies in the lineup.

Also the 5Ds and 5Dsr -- thes are Canon's 50 megapixel sensor bodies and they are *ideal* for landscapes (particularly the 5Dsr which has no anti-aliasing filter... the filter removes "moire" but also has the side-effect of slightly softening images.  A camera that has no filter might have moire on pattern images (architecture for example) but would be unlikely to experience moire in natural landscape settings.

Apart from the camera's Bob has already listed and these few that I've added, these are 'all' the full-frame bodies Canon offers.  None of the mid-range models (80D all the way back to the 10D) nor any of the Rebel series bodies have full-frame sensors (they are all APS-C size crop-frame sensors just like the camera you have today.)

You can shoot landscape & nature with ANY camera... it does not have to be "full frame".

Sometimes what you get by going with a higher-end body a rugged body (magnesium allow instead of polycarbonate), weather sealing, a faster shutter (faster continuous burst speed), a better focusing system, etc. etc.

But for landscapes you tend to not be shooting in a hurry... so having lots of focusing points or a very fast burst-speed on the shutter doesn't necessarily help (if you were shooting wildlife in action it would be different... that's more like shooting sports).

One downside of shooting high-resolution sensors and full-frame is that these camera bodies are less-forgiving if your lens quality is not up to the task.  Basically if you want to go "full frame" then be prepared to start saving up for quality lenses (keep in mind that if you aren't displaying your images in a very large size then nobody will likely notice.)

Full frame cameras have an advantage if you want to shoot with a shallow depth of field and beautiful background blur... but this isn't typical of "landscape" photography (it is typical of portrait photography).  That's not to say that you might not shoot "nature" (non-landscape nature photos such as this:  https://flic.kr/p/z7MAgq ) where you do want a shallow depth of field.

If I were to prioritize where to spend money to optimize the look of landscape photos... I would probably put things like a quality circular polarizing filter and perhaps some quality gradient neutral density filters in line *ahead* of a new camera as I think they'll make a more noticeable difference (and they don't cost as much as a new camera body.)

If I were to buy a new camera body specifically to landscape & nature... I'd have my eye on the Canon EOS 5Dsr (and some good quality lenses to go with it.)