cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

My next camera

idanidan123
Enthusiast

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 !

34 REPLIES 34


@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. 


@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. 

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."


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.


@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?

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA


@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.


@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?

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA


@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
16-35 wide


EF-S 10-18 IS STM at 18mm
10-18 long

 

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


EF-S 18-55 IS STM at 55mm
18-55 STM long

 

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


@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.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."


@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.)

 

Tim Campbell
5D III, 5D IV, 60Da

Before I purchased a Full Frame camera body, EOS 6D, I wanted a wide lens to photograph landscapes and cityscapes with a Rebel T5.  I chose the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lens because it had a wider zoom range, and the front element did not rotate when the lens focused, which can be crucial for using CPL filters

 

3D8A0407.jpg

 

I shot the above photo, and then turned around and shot the two men fishing below.. 

 

The fact that the 10-22mm lens lacks IS doesn't mean much.  Not unless you're inches away from your subject, the angle of view is so wide that you're not going to notice slight camera motion blur until you start pixel peeping.  Besides, the 10-22mm was also slightly faster than the 10-18mm.

 

I bought the Full Frame camera, and I was back to square one.  I lacked an ultra wide angle lens.  I took a chance and purchased a Rokinon 14mm T/3.1 cinema lens.  Rokinon also makes a version for stills, 14mm f/2.8.  The lens works well on a full frame body, especially for capturing wide field pictures of the night sky. 

 

Some people complain that the lens is soft at the edges, in the corners, and that it vignettes more than they like.  I haven't found any of the images to be too soft, and like any ultra wide angle lens you will get some vignetting.  However, all of these issues are virtually non-existent on an APS-C body camera.

 

3D8A0401.Cropped.jpg

 

The above photo was shot with a 7D Mark II and the Rokinon 14mm T3.1.  I beleive the equivalent f/stop was about f/8.  The dark area in the center of the shot is how the scene appeared at the time.  It is not an artifact from the lens.  There was a severe weather front passing overhead.  The shot has been cropped to 16:9. 

 

IMG_3438.jpg

 

I love using the lens to capture shots of storm clouded skies, particularly with an APS-C body.  However, the above photo was a 2 second exposure taken with the 6D in near pitch darkness at first light of day as the sun lit the upper atmosphere, which provided the clouds with a backlighting.  I only used the 6D for its' low light capabilities.  As it turned out, I probably didn't need low light perfromace with a long exposure, but the clouds were literally racing cross the skes, and I wanted to keep the exposure as short as possible, to freeze the cloud motion.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."
Announcements