UKH

Hello everyone.

I'm not a newbie into photography in general and I consider myself a quick learner given my field of work is close to photography.

Just finished reading a long topic (with all replies) for someone with the same dilemma last year! I guess until now, there's no official word on the new/MKII 6D. So here is my issue:

Canon 70D was my first proper DSLR about a month ago. I took it with me for mountaineering for a week, had great fun and some superb shots. The experience was enough to make me take this a little more seriously.. 80D was announced the day I received my new 70D, luckily for me, the store manager has kindly agreed to replace the new 70D with 80D once available (which is any day now).

All this got me thinking whether I actually want to move to a full-frame camera rather than these cropped sensors in 70/80D! Furthermore, it got me much more involved into reading about different cameras, setups etc..

From what I gathered, investing in HQ lenses is equally if not more important. So for someone fresh like myself who has no bias towards Nikon or Canon, I would like to know what and where to invest?

What/where I shoot; mainly two areas:

1. I'm mainly keen on mountaineering (winter, snow, summits), landscape and trekking/camping/nature in general. (i.e. 90% of the time I'll be carrying the camera in my backpack)
2. I'm also very keen to learn night/sky photography when I camp in the wilderness. (I hear the 6D is great in low light, some reviewers mentioned it's even better than the 5D III?)

I'd very rarely use the DSLR for anything apart from above mentioned activities. At least that's what I think so far.

Note: I always take my GoPro HERO4 BLACK with me (4K videos in case you want to know the video alternative I've).

So here are the chain of questions to answer my replacement camera:

-you think it's appropriate to buy a Canon 6D at this time (I mean there probably going to be a replacement this year)?
-would you rather go for a Nikon D750 (I know it's unfair to compare these two, Nikon D750 is at least GBP 300-350 more expensive and it was released 2 years after the 6D. However, it's the only full-frame Nikon that I can kind of compare to the 6D specs/price was. I think the Nikon 600s are way too old now?)
-if you think I should go with the Canon, how's the EF 70-200 (yes I need zoom) f 4 L lens? any other recommendations?
-what would recommend for the Nikon?

Sorry if this is just too long. I'm sure the answers can be short. I just want to know which way I should go knowing that I'll keep the expensive lenses, and probably replace the body in 2-2.5 years time from now!

Thanks!

In reply to Karakoramian:

Nikon dream team from me.
Nikon810 body
Nikon 14-24mm
Nikon 24-70mm.
Tamron70-210mm.2.8
Nikon200-400mm.
Damn just woke up .

In reply to Karakoramian:

I upgraded from a Canon 450D (crop sensor) to a 6D a couple of years ago. I'm really pleased with the 6D. It's not as heavy as other full frame bodies. It has a plastic top cover instead of metal that Canon say is to allow the wifi/gps signal through - this saves weight. It has poor autofocus compared to many other DSLRs but for landscape/ climbing photography I haven't noticed it. All in all the body has impressed me.

However, I bought the 16-35mm F4 when it came out and this is a really good lens. Pin sharp. I would reccomend it for sure for landscape and climbing photography. I also have the 24-105mm F4 for more general photography and I find this is a good all round lens without excelling in any area/ length. Investing in good glass is essential. For night sky though you will need a F2.8 lens or lower. Rokinnon make some exceptional prime lenses for night sky photography however they are heavy and their reliability is low.

I struggle to see what they may include on a 6d mk2 that would really tempt me. More megapixels? Don't need them. Better autofocus? Not needed for my type of photography (landscape/climbing). Dual card slots? Don't care. 4K video? I've got a GoPro also. I would go for the 6d again for sure if given the opportunity and im sure you can get it cheaper than when I got mine! Hope that helps somewhat.

In reply to JoeyTheFish:

Thanks Joey. Last bit there summed up that I'm going in the right direction! This is very useful - thanks.

One question though, how's the weather sealing with the 6D when you're above the freezing zone with stormy/wet conditions?
I know Canon claims it's as good as the 5D MK III but I heard otherwise from reviewers on YouTube.

In reply to Karakoramian:

I've been using the 6d for landscape work in scottish winters for a while now and it's perfectly robust. Obviously it won't suffer getting soaked (which camera would?), but it's held up against inevitable smattering of rain and snow, and condensation, when taken out of bag for a quite shot.

The low-noise at high ISOs was a revelation coming from the 20d, and so it is really well positioned for night photography. The centre-point is very good for auto-focussing (I only really use that, so have never really seen the need for a zillion focus points. It focusses on stars, man -- I kid you not -- this makes night and low-light shots very reliable. No more guessing for focus.

The other major thing I like about the 6d, you've already touched on -- it's light. Your knees only have so many steps in them, and that weight saving (and relatively small size) might make all the difference.

In reply to Karakoramian:

Lots of good advice on here already. Full frame cameras are generally better in low light but at the cost (quite literally) of been more expensive and heavier.

I owned the Canon 6d and loved it.

I switched over to Nikon purely on the back of the 14-24 which at the time didn't really have a rival.

Now running a setup pretty much as John mentioned:

Nikon D810
14-24
24-70
80-400

Having used both there's not really a difference between Canon and Nikon. Canon arguably ever so slightly have the edge (particularly with the 24-70), but at the cost of been that bit more expensive.

As you've correctly said I'd pick a setup based on the lenses and not the body. The body will be out of date in 18 months, a good lens will last you 10 years or more.

Some example photos taken with the Canon 6D and Nikon D810: https://jamesrushforth.smugmug.com/Portfolio

Don't neglect getting a good tripod, no point having a good body / glass if it moves during al long exposure.

Have fun!

In reply to Karakoramian:

I am sure the Nikon D750 is a great camera but I have never used it. I do have a 6D though and it seems just the job to me. I lug it up and down hills on a regular basis and it does everything I ever need it to do. I normally have a canon 70-300 f.4 -5.6L attached to it and I like that combo, heavy and bulky but I don't really care about that (mostly..). I am happy enough to have it hanging across my chest/shoulders as a walk rather than in my rucksack but not in damp conditions. I got it wet once and the back buttons went a bit weird, all fine when it dried out thankfully. The 70-300 is great in wild conditions. The 6d will go in the bag in damp/wet weather but I am not particularly gentle with it and it seems quite robust generally. It does have an amazing ability to focus in low light, it is like it can see in the dark! That has been really handy sometimes. The lack of an all singing and dancing focussing system has never been a problem for me, but I tend to take pics of things that don't move much, if at all. Great camera.

In reply to Karakoramian:

When I first started using the 6D I was very conscious about letting rain/snow on it. I've since been caught out a few times with poor weather and it's repelled moderate rain and snow without complaint. I'm now more confident but I do carry a drybag for it in case the weather really turns. I can't compare it's weatherproofness to anything other than my 450d but it has proven to stand up to everything I've made it endure.

In reply to James Rushforth:

WOW - some absolutely amazing shots! If I can get similar results with the 6D (of course with good lenses), I'll be more than happy!

In reply to James Rushforth:





Having used both, could you please answer this:

- What would be the equivalent setup for Canon, especially the ultra wide? I'm trying to compare the prices - knowing that both Nikon bodies (810/750) are more expensive so I can save some for the lenses if I go with the 6D.

- As a starting professional lens I'm thinking about the 70-200 mm f 4 L (only because it's the cheapest in the pro telephoto range), would you stick with this or go with the 70-300 f 4-5.6 IS?

Thanks!

In reply to mac fae stirling:

Very useful - thanks. I'm confused between the 70-300 or the 70-200 L as a first the first lens I want to buy this week if I'm going with the 6D (which seems very likely given everyone's encouraging it). Any insight?

In reply to Karakoramian:

I had the 70-200L f4 (non IS) and I thought it was great. I did struggle a bit with the lack of IS though. So I sold it and got the 70-300L. It is heavier and chunkier but the extra 100mm is very handy and the IS is excellent and pretty much essential for me up a hill. I tend to avoid using it at the full 300 end as I think it can be a bit soft, still good though. The 70-300 is more expensive (I picked one up 2nd hand). I also think the 70-300 is weather sealed.
Tough call but both superb lenses, I reckon the 70-300 is better for taking out on the hills.

In reply to mac fae stirling:

Just to confirm, we're talking about the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM Lens vs Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens right?

Out of these two, the 70-300 is cheaper and I assume less weather protected.

In reply to mac fae stirling:

Sorry. I saw you originally did mention the 70-300 with the "L". I get it now, was a bit confused lol

Thanks!

In reply to Karakoramian:

I had the EF 70-300 for a while but was often disappointed with it. I replaced it with a Tamron SP AF 70-300 Di VC f4-5.6. I thought that was a cracking lens. Brilliant value. I took that up a bunch of hills too. For a wee while I had that lens plus the canon L 70-300 and I did a bunch of unscientific tests and I just couldn't see any difference in the IQ between them at all. In the end I went with L lens due to the weather sealing and snob value... the Tamron was/is ace though.

In reply to mac fae stirling:
I'm just trying to conclude whether it is worth investing on non-L (i.e. non pro or cheaper range) lenses for mountaineering/harsh weather. I think not?

In reply to Karakoramian:

I think it probably is e.g. the Tamron 70-300, since the 6D isn't weather sealed either so you will have to keep it out of the wet/damp anyway - although they can easily cope with a bit of wild weather no problem. It was a very well made lens, even if it doesn't have the chunky brick-like reassurance of the L lens. Check some reviews.

In reply to mac fae stirling:

Just to put Nikon back in the mix the D610 is still in their current line up and a later model than the Canon 6D.T
here are differences between Canon and Nikon but either system will take professional Quality photographs.
If your only buying one lens to start I wouldn't go with a telephoto zoom more like a fast standard zoom 24-70 or stick with the kit lens .The canon 24-105 f4 is a lot of lens for the money. You can later invest in glass when you know more of your own style and what you want to photograph.

In reply to john1963:

Yes! and camera decisions rates the 610 higher than the 6D!

In reply to Karakoramian:

Probably the best review site on the net .May help you decide.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews

In reply to john1963:

Thanks.

It's now D750 vs D610 vs 6D...

In reality it's whether Canon or Nikon lenses/setups are more suitable for my applications..

In reply to Karakoramian:

Thanks very much, I'm glad you like the photos!

The equivalent Canon setup to mine would be something like:

Canon 11-24mm F4 or Canon 14mm 2.8
Canon 24-70 2.8
Canon 70-300

This is hugely expensive though. Also ask yourself if you need an extreme wide angle (most people find them difficult to use as they make everything look tiny - you've got to get right in the face of your subject).

Something like the Nikon 16-35 or Canon 17-40 are great landscape lenses, and are much cheaper and lighter than some of the extreme wide angles. They also takes filters.

I think Mac's covered the 70 - 200 / 300 very well. I also agree with him that I'd look at a 'standard' zoom first. As John says the 24-105 isn't the sharpest but is a lot of lens for the money.

My go to lens is the Nikon 28-300. It's my least sharp lens and isn't a pro lens, but it's just so practical when I'm out and only want to carry one lens.

Lots of food for thought hopefully

In reply to James Rushforth:

Thanks a lot James. A lot of food really.

You've used both, you've excellent shot and an excellent system of Nikon.

We can agree that prices are comparable (I'm actually surprised because all I heard so far, Canon is cheaper compared to Nikon).

What's your pick for someone about to invest?

In reply to Karakoramian:
Have you thought about the mirrorless route? I looked at a d810 and eventually decided I'd need the entire crew of the Enterprise to fly it properly - there is sooo much you can adjust/set.
Instead I went for a Fuji xt1 - worth a look maybe... Much lighter than most dslrs esp fx. Worth looking at the Peak design CapturePro for attaching the camera to a rucksack strap (if safe to do so) makes it more accessible so you don't miss pics....

In reply to Karakoramian:
-if you think I should go with the Canon, how's the EF 70-200 (yes I need zoom) f 4 L lens? any other recommendations?
-what would recommend for the Nikon?

I had that, it's the nuts. Get the IS one though.

I've since had a couple of the f2.8 versions but would happily buy the f4 again.

In reply to obi-wan nick b:

I haven't really. Someone suggested to me at work today (he owns an D800) to go with the new Micro Four Thirds systems! Getting even more confused now lol

On the serious side, I need to decide before Thursday as that will be the last day I'm getting full value for the system I've

In reply to Tom Last:

Duly noted. Thanks!

In reply to Karakoramian:

For ultimate quality I would stick with full frame for landscape work for the present .If you want a smaller body look at the Sony Alpha A7R II.
Just to confuse you more.

In reply to Karakoramian:

The 6D is a great camera and really cheap at the moment due to the imminent 6D MkII. I've used it and abused it on a wide range of shoots (in all weather conditions) for the past couple of years and it's stood up well, although a few bits have now fallen/ smashed off it. All the images here were shot on with the 6D - http://www.chris-prescott.com/photo/

I've been using the Sony A7R II for the past few months but have actually found myself going back to the 6D as it's so different (EVF etc). If you're used to a DSLR then sticking to something like the 6D rather than one of the mirrorless cameras might be a better bet in terms of time spent learning how to use it. Having said that though i'm sure a lot of it comes down to perseverance with learning something new and the benefits of mirrorless might be worth the hassle (although that's hard to do when you're hanging from a rope trying to get a shot and the camera isn't working properly!).

As you say investing in lenses is the most important thing though and lens choice is a lot more important than the camera body. In fact it's pretty much impossible to buy a full frame camera nowadays that isn't capable of taking great images.

In reply to Karakoramian:

Ah I would't like to say. I've never joined the Canon / Nikon / Fuji / X argument. They're all excellent depending on your needs

Have fun choosing, there's a mind boggling array of options now! I wouldn't go too expensive though. You never know what you really want until you've used a system for a while. Then you find yourself thinking 'if I just had a bit more reach' or 'I could do with a faster lens for night photography' and you can suitably invest...

In reply to john1963:

Nicely done - thanks *crying*!

In reply to Karakoramian:
Having just got a new camera Nikon D7200 I did consider the Nikon d750 budget prevented this (couldn't afford the change in lenses)
A bit of post purchase research showed that Nikon and Cannon are coming out with some very good full frame lenses and seem to be concentrating their better optics on full frame now, also if starting from scratch cannon seems to have better value Optics with two tier L lenses making it a little less painful to start off with good quality glass

In reply to Karakoramian:

I know what its like ,I had the same dilemma when upgrading my camera system from an olympus d620. I went to a Nikon d7100 and a couple of lenses, a decision I feel I now got wrong I should of gone full frame but the temptation to buy a whole system at once was to great.
I should of bought a fx body with a kit lens and built a system over time but you live and learn.
Good luck whatever you decide.

In reply to chrisprescott:

If all those pictures + some night/aruora pics I saw on Instagram earlier are taken by the 6D; I don't see why not I should go with it!

In reply to Karakoramian:

More Canon system votes so far....

In reply to Karakoramian:

I have owned the 70-200 non-IS and currently have the IS version. The 70-200 f4 non-IS is good value with similar image quality to the more expensive f4 IS lens. It does not have weather sealing which might be an issue if you want to use it in the mountains (and longer shutter speeds are required).

I can recommend the 16-35 f4; the IQ is great, it is good value and 16-35 f4 + 70-200 f4 makes a good full-frame landscape set-up.

Full-frame systems are heavy and take up a lot of space in your bag. I only take my full system with me in the hills if photography is high on my agenda (or I’m getting paid). When I do take my camera on a trip I usually compromise and just take one lens (a prime) and accept that I will loose shots; otherwise I use my phone camera!

In reply to Removed Usertk:

Interesting notes - thanks a lot!

Regarding the 70-200 non-IS, it's about the half price of the IS version which is a massive difference. Besides the weather sealing issue (which I heard from users is not a big issue and will take a slight rain/snow), do you think it's a good value or shall I save the money for the IS version only?

Thanks.

In reply to Karakoramian:

Are you buying new or second hand?
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/u...

In reply to Jon Read:

I was thinking to buy a new one from Jessops it's 795!!!! http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/canon/ef-70-200mm-f...

Sorry to ask this, is the link you provided a reliable company to buy from?

In reply to Karakoramian:

Yes, I got my 70-200 f4 IS from them Still works fine.

In reply to Jon Read:

Great - thanks a lot for this... They've two in stock for 539 ...

In reply to Karakoramian:

A fairly good price for that lens in reasonable condition -- that's why I suggest it.

In reply to Karakoramian:

Thank you everyone. 6D is home! The deciding factors were:

1. Body weight,
2. Again, Body + Lens weight (Nikon has less options for each focal lens, for example the 70-200 is way heavier as compared to the small 70-200 L by Canon. I know it's F2.8 but still...)

Keeping in mind I will have this setup on my shoulders 90% of my photography time, I went with Canon.

Cheers!

In reply to Karakoramian:

Great to here. New adventures await,if you haven't already get a copy of lightroom you won't look back.Other software is available.

In reply to Karakoramian:

Have fun!

In reply to Karakoramian:
John and Mac - thanks a lot. Yes I'm considering that.... Worth the 100 quids Mac version?

In reply to Karakoramian:

Wow is that how much it is.I got a hard copy of Lightroom 4 for 20£.There are some big advantages to v6 though.

In reply to Karakoramian:

And you can get the cc version on monthly subscription for £7ish/month. Worth considering.

T.

In reply to Karakoramian:


It is a very good value lens. I would still be using it if it hadn’t been stolen ...

IS is very useful in low light situations; but only where high shutter speed is not critical to the final image. A good tripod is a more useful investment for landscape photography. I would recommend getting a lens collar if you use the 70-200 on a tripod.

In reply to Removed Usertk:

Great thanks. I'm already looking to invest 100-150 in a good tripod so I think that justifies going for the non-IS version?

In reply to Karakoramian:

Good stuff. I am very tempted by a 6D as a carry-around/landscape camera to replace my Fuji kit and save my 5D3 (and my shoulders) for other times. Let us know how you get on with it.

Re software, Lightroom is probably the cheapest and friendliest RAW converter and file manager based on its ubiquity and the amount of online support it has. If you are a Mac user, have a look at Affinity Photo, it is getting very good reviews as a Photoshop alternative and is only about £30. I also use Phase 1 Capture1 Pro as a RAW converter/file manager because of the reviews it got, though it is a good deal more expensive than LR and has nowhere near the level of online support/learning resources, though the themes are similar so if you can use one you can get used to the other.

Re lenses, bear in mind that the f2.8 is significantly heavier (as well as more expensive) than the f4. There are a lot of landscape-only shooters who use the f4. Also, if you are not going to be using it handheld much but mostly using a tripod, then I'd probably advise saving your money and buying a non IS version instead.

All the best.

In reply to James Rushforth:

Sorry to come back to you (and others are welcome to answer) with this again, which one of the following options you'd
go with?

70-200 L non-IS F4 (this one is a super light weight and that's a big bonus given price, zoom, quality - I'll get an extreme focal length probably a Tamron but later it's not a priority now) with:

a. Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Lens
b. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L Lens
c. Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens

I'm leaning towards option C, do you agree?

In reply to Removed User:

Thanks for the fantastic tips! I'm looking into Affinity - hopefully they have a trail version..

In reply to Karakoramian:
It depends on what you're planning to shoot but i'd definitely go for a 24-70 over a super wide as it's a good standard zoom range and therefore more useable for a wide range of subjects, although both lenses are really useful for outdoor. This is the lens setup I use for 99% of shoots (both stills and video) and it's worked perfectly for years -

Canon 14mm f/2.8
Canon 16-35 f/2.8
Canon 24-70 f/2.8
Canon 70-200 f/2.8

In reply to chrisprescott:

Thanks - it seems like there's no straight answer for this: do I really need f2.8?

Both 24-70 and 16-35 are probably the better options to go with... But now there's a new aperture dilemma lol

In reply to Karakoramian:

To achieve a fast 2.8 lens requires the build of that lens ,glass and body to be of a higher quality than say an f4 lens in general.Great for low light work,but on a lens below 100mm you will probably be shooting at f8 or higher for landscape work.The optical quality at that aperture will probably be negligible on a good quality lens.

In reply to Karakoramian:

Generally better quality but for most applications apart from low light you won't see any difference and an f/4 lens with IS will be pretty comparable in terms of useable handheld shutter speed as an f/2.8 without IS.

In reply to Karakoramian:

I agree with Chris Prescott; 24-70 is probably a more useful zoom range than 16-35. I got my 16-35 & 70-200 f4 zoom combination for work purposes but I rarely go wider than 24mm in my own photography.

For landscape the 24-70 f4 is fine (and it has IS and macro). The 2.8 is bigger and heavier.

To further confuse you, if you get f4 zooms you might want to add a wider aperture prime for hand held low-light photography e.g. 35mm f2 IS or 50mm 1.8...

In reply to john1963:

Are you saying that for landscapes in general (night/sky included) for either of these two:
a. Canon EF 24-70mm f/4 L IS USM Lens
c. Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM Lens

the f2.8 won't make a big difference?!

In reply to Removed Usertk:

Nicely done *crying-again*

In reply to Karakorami
These are difficult questions to answer it really does depend on your own photographic style.Any lens under 24 mm or over 210mm you could say is a specialist lens and you may never need to use them it all depends on how and what you want to take photographs of.
If your buying a 2.8 lens that could cost a lot more than a f4 you really need to now why you want 2.8 or 1.8 you may never need them.A fast lens is produced for a specific reason either to let more light in or for a shallow depth of field.

In reply to Karakoramian:

I have been wondering whether it would be better to get a range of prime lenses and crop them in LR. Anyone tried this? It might be easier to carry in the mountains and better in low light. Possibly cheaper?

In reply to anyone:

This is a very useful thread. Its also proving expensive as I am now also resolved to buy a Canon 6D.

A couple of questions, for anyone please:

1. I used to own and understand slrs when they had film in, but have not as yet owned a dslr. When you talk of the focal length of lenses, are they the same as old slrs? 50mm was a standard lens then, is a dslr 50mm lens the same?

2. with my new 6D, i am looking at 2 zoom lenses, 24-70, and 100-400. Is the gap between them a no-no? I wondered if my Lightroom would cover the gap.

In reply to Fredt:

In answer to (1), they're the same if you have a full frame sensor (e.g. 6D), but not if you have a crop sensor (e.g 70D), where 50mm becomes more like 80mm and to get 50mm equivalent, you'd go for a 35mm lens.

In reply to Fredt:

You can certainly take a photo at 70mm and crop it to an 85mm perspective - obviously there will be a slight loss of resolution compared with a photo taken with an 85mm lens, but nothing significant or easily noticeable.

In reply to Fredt:

I doubt you'd miss the 30mm gap between them. Nothing that a little step forward or backwards couldn't remedy.

In reply to Fredt:


Indeed. I've just bought a 24 - 105 mm IS STM, largely provoked by discussions here and a lingering wish to upgrade the 24 - 85 mm lens that was on my 5D mk1 when I bought it.

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:


That lens is often bundled with the 6D, are you pleased with it? I'm toying between that or the more expensive 24-70L

In reply to Fredt:

It'll be delivered later today, so depending when it arrives I may take it for a walk in some nearby woods or wander round the garden with it. It always takes a wee while to get used to a new lens I think and the IS will be new to me, so I'll be especially interested to see the contrast between hand-held and tripod shots. I'll report back after I've played with it a bit.

T.

In reply to Fredt:


Having used it a couple of times now yes, I am. No, it's not the ultimate lens for landscapes; but I don't think it's meant to be. I bought it as a general purpose lens, the sort that'll live on the camera body and become a default option. As such it's fine. Relatively light, straightforward controls, easy to use. One small thing I have already appreciated is the lock switch that prevents the barrel of the lens extending when it isn't meant to; when you're walking around, say. Very handy.

It - well, it and the nice weather - helped me get a shot I'm finally happy with from a location I've tried to capture a number of times (https://www.flickr.com/photos/8411024@N08/26409635745/ ). So far, so good then.

T.

In reply to Karakoramian:

16-35 f4 and 70-200 f4 arriving shortly. I can't wait xD

Thanks for everyone who pitched in... Will keep some updates here

In reply to Karakoramian:

Good luck with the new kit, I would be interested in the results especially any atmospheric / cloud /starry sky ones.
A second hand 6D is on the shopping list.