Likyawarrior wrote in post #18465055
Background: I use now a Canon 60D with the following lenses:
- Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 Contemporary (for bird photography)
- Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS (all round)
- Canon EF-S 60mm 2.8 USM (macro & portrait)
The set I intend to constitute:
- 14mm 2.8L II USM or 16-35mm f2.8 II USM (landscape)
- 24-70 f2.8L II USM (all-round & portrait)
- Eventually 70-200 f2.8 II USM in the future
- I will keep the Sigma 150-600C for the birds.
I’m hesitating between the following cameras:
- Canon 5D Mark iii
- Canon 5D Mark iv
- Canon 6D Mark ii
...a versatile camera and subjects, from nature to portrait, I don’t know which specifications are the most important.
If I look at max ISO, Megapixels, fps and AFP (except with the 5D M iv), I don’t see a huge difference between these cameras. Is it then really necessary to spend that much more for the 5D Mark iv?
The 6D mark ii and 5d mark iii are less expensive, but I’m scared to be limited for landscape and nature (i love to capture birds
It sounds as if you've recently won the lottery. If so, congratulations!
Have you considered simply upgrading to a newer APS-C model and perhaps some "better" lenses?
The reason I ask is that a recent model like 80D can be a significant step up in performance compared to your 60D, but at considerably lower cost and smaller size/less weight (particularly when it comes to lenses. For example, a 24MP 80D rivals a 5DIII or original 6D for image quality and high ISO performance. It's not far short of the new, 26MP 6DII, either.
You don't currently have a particularly wide angle lens (18mm is only mildly wide), so I suspect landscape (or seascape, cityscape, architecture) are not a particularly high priority subject for you. Those are the types of subjects where full frame tends to be most useful. Of course it can also serve well for portraits and macro. I use FF for those purposes.
BIRDING: For long telephoto work (sports, wildlife) a crop sensor camera such as your 60D or the newer 80D has a big advantage. It allows you to use less pricey lenses. It allows you to be more mobile, with smaller, lighter, more handholdable lenses. Particularly for your love of birding, I think you will be disappointed with a full frame camera.... On a full frame camera, your 150-600mm will be a MUCH shorter telephoto! So at a very minimum, keep your 60D for use with your longest telephoto(s). If you completely switch over to FF, you'd also certainly have to replace both your EF-S lenses (18-135 and 60mm macro). Less spent on the camera might give you opportunity to upgrade some lenses possibly including the Sigma 150-600mm "Sport" version instead of the cheaper, less capable "Contemporary".... or to a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 "Sport" with a matched 2X teleconverter. The new Tamron 150-600mm "G2" VC USD is also said to be pretty good. You'll have to research these possibilities, I don't use any of them, so can't really recommend one over the other. My longest zoom (which I use for sports and wildlife on 7D Mark II) is the EF 100-400mm "II". It's a superb lens that meets most of my outdoor, daytime shooting needs very well. When I need a faster lens for indoors I use either EF 300mm f/4 IS USM (handheld) or EF 300mm f/2.8 IS USM (on a tripod or monopod). When I need a longer lens, I use EF 500mm f/4 IS USM, sometimes with 1.4X teleconverter. (I have not use 1.4X with my 100-400mm II yet, but I understand the combo works pretty well.) If, in fact, you won the lottery... the Canon EF 200-400mm f4 IS USM with built-in 1.4X would be an amazing lens... if you don't mind it's size, weight... and price!
LANDSCAPE: I will be upgrading my full frame camera eventually, primarily for landscape photography. While I already have some wide angle to short telephoto lenses, I would probably get EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM and 24-70mm f/4L IS USM zooms, to keep my backpack reasonably lightweight. The latter lens also can serve for near-macro purposes, with it's amazingly high 0.70X magnification (the f/2.8 lenses can only do about 0.25X, if memory serves). If I need wider, I will take a hard look at the <$400 Rokinon/Samyang 14mm f/2.8 manual focus/manual aperture lens... versus the >$2000 Canon lens. IMO, manual focus and aperture control are no problem for landscape photography. For ARCHITECTURE: My dream lenses would be the TS-E 17mm f/4L, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II and the new TS-E 50mm f/2.8L. You didn't mention this type of photography, so tilt-shift lenses might be of no importance to you.
But unless you make really big enlargements, there might be little real world benefit to full frame, even for landscape photos. Maybe instead you should consider one of the highly capable wide angle lenses for use on a crop camera. They can be smaller, lighter and less expensive than the full frame wide angles, too. The EF-S 10-18mm IS STM is a real bargain at less than $300. It's also one of the few with stabilization. The EF-S 10-22mm USM is an older model and about twice the price, but better built and still one of the best ultrawides made by anyone. I really like the Tokina ultrawides, too (12-28mm f/4 and 11-20mm f/2.8 presently... though I use an older model). They remind me of some Canon L-series wide angle zooms I've used in the past, though I think the EF-S 10-22mm I acquired more recently has slightly better image quality.
Below I mention the EF-S 15-85mm IS USM as a walk-around lens.... but it also goes wider than most of those (and there's a noticeable difference between 15mm and the 18mm you've already got). This might make an ultrawide such as above unnecessary for some folks.
PORTRAITURE: Personally I don't find my 24-70mm f/2.8 ideal for a lot of types of portraiture on full frame.... the wide end serves little purpose for portraiture and the 70mm end of the zoom is too short for a lot of it. I DO like it for portraiture on crop cameras. With them I use that zoom for less controllable portrait subjects such pets and children... But I prefer a small suite of prime lenses for adult portrait subjects. And exception.... 24-70mm are popular among wedding photographers who often them on use FF cameras. That's because a lot wedding portraiture is full length and couples or small groups, or wider "environmental" portraits that show the person or people in their surroundings. An f/2.8 lens also might be important, since a lot of wedding photos might be done by available light. For "dreamy" effects, wedding photographers might supplement the zoom with exceptionally large aperture primes, such as the 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L II and the 135mm f/2L.
On full frame, for portraits if I'm not using the primes, I probably use a 70-200mm more often than a 24-70mm. FYI: The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM "II" is considerably bigger, heavier and more expensive than the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS USM. Both are excellent... among the very best in their class. One reason is because they use a fluorite element... which is an ideal material for telephoto lenses, helping to keep chromatic aberration to a minimum. Canon has made extensive use of fluorite in their telephotos for decades, pioneered growing their own artificial crystals since it's rare to find large enough for optical elements in nature. They've also perfected working the rather fragile material into optical elements (and supposedly it's one reason they paint their long lenses off white, to reduce heat gain and metal expansion that might damage the fluorite element). Note: Nikon recently revamped many of their telephotos to use fluorite... but they are charging a premium for it. Their Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 "FL" costs almost 50% more than the comparable Canon.
MACRO: For full frame your reasonable low cost and compact EF-S 60mm will need to be replaced with a full frame capable lens. The good news is that the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses are both truly excellent. They also both can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring, which I highly recommend. I do most macro work on a tripod or monopod and I kept my earler, non-IS version, never bothered to upgrade to the "L". I doubt anyone could ever tell the difference in images from either of them. And they are both very well built. Of course they work very well on crop sensor cameras, as well. See above note about the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens' near macro capabilities, too. Personally I don't care for macro lenses for portraiture.... IMO they can be too sharp, making for a rather "clinical" look. Also, most macro lenses have f/2.8 max aperture, at best. Sometimes I prefer larger apertures for portraits (I use several f/2, f/1.8 & f/1.4 lenses instead).
GENERAL PURPOSE/WALK-AROUND: The full frame camera might come "in kit" with an EF 24-105mm f/4 IS USM, 24-105mm f/4 IS USM "II" or a EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM (depending upon which FF model). Personally I've never been all that impressed with any of the 24-105s. The far less expensive EF 28-135mm IS USM is just as good optically. Your EF-S 18-135mm rivals them too, in terms of image quality. The USM lenses are faster focusing though. (Note: you didn't specify which 18-135mm you have: The latest "USM" version is 2X to 4X faster focusing than the earlier "STM". Both of them are significantly faster, smoother and quieter focusing than the "micro motor" version. The latest uses Canon's new "Nano-USM", which is both fast and quiet... good for still photos including action photography, as well as video. It's also the only lens that can be used with the new PZ-E1 Power Zoom module.) I discussed the 24-70mm above under Portraiture... but if you were to stick with crop sensor and need a more low light capable lens, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM should be on your radar. It's smaller, lighter and less expensive than the 24-70mm f/2.8s for full frame. It's also got "L-like" image quality, fast USM focus and helpful IS. The 17-55mm range on crop is slightly broader, too (roughly equiv. to 27-88mm on full frame).
To summarize, since birding seems to be one of your favorite types of photography, I think you really need to consider keeping a crop camera in your kit... Or just stick with an APS-C camera and upgrade very nicely from 60D to 80D. After all, birders say "there's no such thing as a 'long enough' lens!" Your 150-600mm will "act" considerably shorter on full frame, than it does on your cropper. Maybe supplement your cropper with a full frame eventually... or just get better lenses to use on crop and further improve.
Autofocus speed and accuracy are determined as much by the lenses as by the camera. Stick with USM lenses for the fastest. For video work, STM (a bit slower) or the new "Nano USM" models (so far, only the 18-135mm USM, 24-105 II and 70-300mm IS USM II). Avoid the "micro motor" models (all Canon lenses not marked either USM or STM).
Low light performance is much better in more recent models, both full frame and crop. I used a pair of the original 7D for five years and about a quarter million shots. They use a slightly earlier version of the 18MP sensor in your 60D. I used those to ISO 1600 without concern, ISO 3200 needed a bit of noise reduction work and ISO 6400 was usable with more NR work in post-processing. Going on two years ago I updated to 7D Mark II. Those have a pretty modest increase in resolution to 20MP, but much better high ISO performance. Below is one of my first test shots at ISO 16000 (yes... sixteen thousand... not sixteen hundred)....
The above were shot by the light of a small window and a single, 60 watt CFL light bulb, both 8 to 10 feet from the subject. It was shot RAW (which prevents the camera from automatically applying NR) and post-processed through Lightroom with only the default noise reduction. Yes, there's some noise to be seen in the magnified detail. But when I make a print from an ISO 6400, 8000, 10000, 12800 or 16000 image, I always work it further in Photoshop, including additional NR with Imagenomic Noiseware plug-in.
80D is even newer than 7DII and has 20% higher resolution, appears to have similar noise handling. Sure, a full frame 26MP 6DII or 30MP 5DIV might have even less, which would be apparent if you were making a five foot wide print and viewing it from 18" away. Is that worth 2X to 3X the cost for the camera, plus the additional size, weight and cost of the lenses a full frame will require.
IMO, "versatile" = APS-C for most people... Particularly for anyone wanting to do powerful telephoto work. To me full frame are more specialized (unless you're a well paid pro with a couple assistants to help carry the lenses).
But, only you know your priorities and can decide what's best for you. Have fun shopping!