Upgrade time! (Architecture/Landscape)

It seems my photography interest is heading in the architecture/cityscape​/landscape way.

I even managed to sell a humble amount of prints in the past few weeks and although nowhere near pro level (the price reflected it) I received nice feedback from the costumers.

When I get home from a shoot there’s always a good picture in the set, but I know there is a lot to be gained on the gear side. Obviously on the skill side as wel, but that’s a whole other story.

Anyway, this (and a pleasant surprise financially) is making me think about upgrading a part of my current kit.

Now I have:
- Canon 5d (classic/mk1)
- Canon 17-40 f/4.0
- Sigma 35 f/1.4
- Canon 200 f/2.8
- Tripod
- CPL Filter
- ND Filter

Pretty basic, but it gets the job done very well.

Possible upgrades:
- Sigma 12-24 -> I love to go wide! But maybe 12mm is overdoing it and it accepts no filters. However it would leave a lot of room for perspective correction (I would sell the 17-40)
- Canon 5d mk3 -> Same pictures, higher resolution, more editing possibilities, live view, higher ISO. Just a much better body overall
- Canon 17mm or 24mm TS-E -> Ultimate architecture lens, but wondering if it makes sense without live view
- ... (Suggestions?)

I will definitely not sell my Sigma 35 and since I’m looking into wide angle territory the Canon 200 will probably stay as well.

Budget is around 1500 EUR (maybe, maybe 2000 EUR) and I don’t mind buying used.

Unfortunately my website needs maintenance, but if you are interested in my style you could check out my Instagram for a very brief look.

Any advice is appreciated!

Lenses first... but your case is a nice exception
I'd upgrade to at least a 5D2 (about 500 EUR), and add a used TS-E 17 with what's left.
With the much higher resolution of the 5D2, cropping the 17 to 24 equivalent would be ok.

Heya,

Well, personally I don't see a reason to upgrade just yet. Depends if your gear is holding you back or not. If you're struggling with shadow lifting and highlight recovery, etc, things to do with dynamic range, then there is something to say about getting a more modern sensor (but I would not bother with a 5D2 for this). You could move towards a 6D, 5D3 or potentially a 5DSR. I would lean towards the 5DSR to give the most flexibility for composition and detail when it comes to photographs where everything is in focus.

The 17-40L is a great lens. On the big pixels of the 5Dc, you won't notice any difference, but if you move to a newer more dense sensor, you may find a nice gain by going towards the 16-35 F4L IS (but really only if you move to a newer sensor, which is counter-budget I know).

I honestly don't see a reason to upgrade though. Looking through your work, I think you're doing fine. I think the biggest impact will be processing advancements

If anything a Rokinon 14mm F2.8 or a Canon 17mm TS-E would be really interesting (things distort at 17mm on the zoom, but the TS-E gives you the ability to correct distortion a lot if you like shooting really wide to help those corners).

+++++++++++++

Total upgrade in every way:

Canon 6D
Canon 16-35 F4L IS

Or, just add to your kit:

Rokinon 14mm F2.8
Canon 17mm TS-E

Personally, it's hard to let go of the rendition and color of the 5D classic.... you can print huge from those RAWs, 12MP isn't holding anything back! Heck, I shoot with two 5D classics for this very reason, it just has wonderful RAWs to work.

Very best,

Thanks to the both of you for sharing your thoughts! However kind of different they both reflect the thoughts I had. Some more thinking to be done, I guess..

MalVeauX wrote in post #18388054
I think the biggest impact will be processing advancements

What do you mean exactly by this? Is this a general opinion or do you see specific areas that could be improved? I'm curious to hear your thoughts!

For what you shoot, I would not be in a hurry to upgrade the 5Dc. DLA on that camera is about f/13, IIRC. The 5D3 is about f/9. If you shoot at f/11, or smaller, this may matter to you.

thijs wrote in post #18390624
Thanks to the both of you for sharing your thoughts! However kind of different they both reflect the thoughts I had. Some more thinking to be done, I guess..

What do you mean exactly by this? Is this a general opinion or do you see specific areas that could be improved? I'm curious to hear your thoughts!

General opinion,

When you look at the top landscape photographs around, they're highly processed. There are two incredibly important things for landscape photography, light and composition. The light you cannot control, you simply have to be patient, and it's generally dawn/dusk moments, fleeting minutes of time each day, so some of those shots happen after a few days of waiting for it to be just right with the light and weather for the subject and composition. Composition you can control, but it's merely field of view which again you can control. The rest is processing. I didn't see any deficit in your processing, it's just that's something that will evolve over time for you, it's amazing what can be done with newer tech on the software side of things, and it will change how you capture data to process in the future. But again, when it comes to landscape, you can use an old sensor and still get amazing results if the light and composition are right. Anyhow, that's why I stress for what you're doing, there won't be a major upgrade in many ways. There will be an upgrade in dynamic range that you can gain; but that simply changes how you process. You can capture the full dynamic range with an older sensor, it just may be more than one exposure to do it (likely). Some newer sensors like the 810 can capture enough dynamic range to sometimes pull off an exposure with a single exposure, exposing highlights and lifting shadows. But again, this just changes how you capture and how you process. Doesn't really make it better.

Very best,