Please help me decide… upgrade from 40d to ...

Hi,

You can see in my signature what I currently have. I would like to get a new body for better iso performance, better image quality, wifi (for remote shots), and just because it's been a while . My primary interests are nature, landscape, street, family, occasional birds and wildlife. So, my interests don't make it easy to decide on one camera. My initial thought is to keep the 40d for the birds and wildlife and get a 6d + 24-105 for everything else. I've never shot full frame so I don't have much knowledge of it aside from what I read here. Because money is tight, I figured I'd sell the 17-55 and possibly the 11-16. The reasoning being that my wider shots will now be taken with the 6d and these lenses won't be usable on the full frame. My main concern with this plan is that I will no longer have an ultra wide and I will no longer have f/2.8 (except for the 50mm).

Of course the 7d and the 70d have also been a consideration - the lens issue won't be a concern. But this would make keeping 40d a bit redundant other than as a backup. I shy away from the 7d just because it is likely to be replaced soon (yes I know it is still highly regarded). So really, the decision is between the 70d and the 6d.

So, I guess I just need some advise from people who are more up to date with the camera and lens pros and cons. And full frame vs.crop pros and cons. Does my plan sound good? Or is there a better solution?

Stefan

I suggest the 70D. The 11-16 you already have is well respected as an UWA APSc zoom. If you are giving that up, and like the range, you are looking at a $1600 16-35 II to replace it. Not worth it in my opinion. I imagine the 70D will give you better high ISO jpg files than does the 40D. If also has a very nice AF system.

I don't see anything in your requirements that points to full-frame. It does provide 2 readily useable stops in high-ISO noise control, if you need it. If you are not currently struggling with ISO 3200 or higher, don't bother with the 6D. I bought my 6D for ISO/noise control. You may have other reasons.

Giving up your 11-16 and 17-55 just to get a 6D and no comparable glass seems like a fool's errand to me. You'll need at least the 16-35 II and 24-70 II to fully take their places. That is a huge pile on money. Go with the 70D. Keep your 11-16 & 17-55. Buy a 5Dc if you need to play with FF, but don't have a specific need for it.

I appreciate your thoughts. They make a lot of sense. I often find myself using ISO 1600 or H and they both are pretty bad. The only thing I know to do is crank up the noise control in LR but then the image looks artificially smooth. So yes, high ISO performance is a requirement. Since my primary interests are nature and landscape, I was under the impression that FF was the best format.

6D.

High ISO performance depends a lot on what you want/need/expect, and how much effort you are willing to put into it. I regularly use my 60D at 6400, with quite nice results. At that level, you HAVE to shoot raw, you HAVE to expose properly (the meter is seldom right), and you HAVE to process the images. 6400 should be no problem for the 70D, if you do your part. I get useable 12,800 shots out of my 60D, sometimes. Sometimes they are crap.

I can use JPG files out of my 6D at 12,800 with no work at all. How far do you need/want to push the ISO?

This thread has lots of incredibly useful information about high-ISO processing:
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1079217

I'll check out that thread. I do shoot Raw 100%. I process all images and I get exposure most of the time.

I went from a 40D to a 5DIII (still keep the 40D for a back-up, or for when the wife and I both want to shoot).

I love being able to use higher ISO (I hated going above 800 on the 40D). Awesome AF, and I like having MFA. I like the feel and ergonomics of it, as well. Maybe it's all in my head, but I think the pictures coming out of it are better; whether you can attribute that to FF vs crop, I don't know, and I'm not going to open that can of worms.

If you get a 5DIII, I doubt you'll ever think, "Dang, I wish I had gotten a 6D or 7D."

My two cents.

I would agree with EOS5DC. The 70D would have all the features you want and it will work with all your current gear, so it would appear to make the most sense. You're already invested in 3 great lenses for crop cameras (17-55, 18-135, and the Tokina 11-16), so if you went up to a 6D, you would also have to get some new glass. If you get a 70D, the only extra stuff you'll need to buy are a few SD cards.

You all make good points from an economic standpoint. What are the advantages of shooting landscapes/nature/port​raits with a FF that I wouldn't get from a 70d with my current lenses?

Stefan A wrote in post #16694338
You all make good points from an economic standpoint. What are the advantages of shooting landscapes/nature/port​raits with a FF that I wouldn't get from a 70d with my current lenses?

One advantage to FF is you can obtain a thinner depth-of-field. You can get roughly the same shot with 50mm on APSc as you can with 85mm on FF. The biggest and most noticeable difference that you can blur the background more with FF. Personally, I think the effect is WAY overdone. I want the tip of the nose in focus as well as the hair at the back of the head. To me, a shot with the eyes in focus and the ears not looks like the photographer didn't know how to use his equipment. Tastes vary.

The advantage for landscapes goes to APSc. It is not a photographic advantage, but a monetary one, primarily. It is a lot less expensive to get the best APSc UWA zoom (IMHO, the 10-22) than it is the best FF UWA zoom, the 16-35 II. The 10-22 is sharper to the corners, with less vignetting, on APSc than the 16-35 II is on FF.

One advantage that goes to FF for landscape is print size. Fine detail in prints diminishes as print size increases. As FF is nearly twice the size of APSc to start with, you can push print size larger with FF. This will not even be visible until you push APSc well past 20"x30". I have made 11x17 prints from APSc that would pass anyone's inspection. A shooting buddy makes 20"x30" posters all the time from his APSc 7D. If you don't plan on regularly printing larger than 20"x30", FF offers nothing here.

You asked about APSC vs. FF with respect to landscapes. For the most part, I don't think there is a difference. One that does come to mind is the pixel density, and its corollary: diffraction, of FF. The best glass on the best APSc body is going to start showing the blurring effects of diffraction at f/8. It may not be visible to the naked eye until f/16 or so. That same glass on a lower pixel density FF body may not start showing diffraction until f/11-16. Honestly, I don't think this is a huge issue, unless you print really big.

For me (please keep that in mind) the biggest reason to buy the 6D was for its much better low-light/high ISO performance. I take intimate family gathering photos. My 60D/10-22 or 60D/15-85 combination left me shooting f/4.5 to 5.6 and ISO 3200, and barely useable shutter speeds. Workable, but I wanted better. With the 6D/35 IS I can use ISO 1600 with ease, open up the lens to f/2-2.8 and keep my shutter speed at 1/100-1/125. The photos are hugely less noisy, I'm not gettign the subject motion blur I was getting at 1/30 or so. Seriously, I am considering just shooting the 6D in JPG. LR can handle WB errors in JPG files just fine. The 6D's JPG engine does better with noise than I can do myself. I am completely happy with my 6D/35 IS. I also use it with the Tamron 28-75.

With all that out there, I still think the 70D is a better fit for what you are shooting. If you can get by without the high-horsepower auto focus, the 60D is a steal at Canon refurbished princes right now. You get 90% of the 70D for 40% of the price.

Hey, if money were no object, I'd be shooting a 5D3 and a 1Dx with a bag-full of red rings. I am sure most of us would.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

I'm in the same boat but holding out for the 7DII. I know it has been a sure thing at least twice but later this year is looking good. I'm not going to get another bite of the apple so l at least want to see what the next 7D has to offer and at what price. If it dissapoints I'd go with the 70D.