Which is the best combination to take on holiday.

I can't make my mine up as to which camera to take on holiday.
Canon 6d with 24-105 or
Canon 7d2 with 18-135

Initially I would pick the 6d combo, but then I thought I would like to do some videoing and I think the 7d2 would be better for that.

tongard wrote in post #18440033
I can't make my mine up as to which camera to take on holiday.
Canon 6d with 24-105 or
Canon 7d2 with 18-135

Initially I would pick the 6d combo, but then I thought I would like to do some videoing and I think the 7d2 would be better for that.

Well I suppose a lot depends on whether you are going to Magaluf or Machu Picchu.

Lake Garda Italy with trips to Venice and mountains

I'd go with the Canon 7d2 with 18-135 if you plan on videoing.

I recently sold the 6D and 24-105 so I know your dilemma!

The 6D with 24-105 is slightly wider and a lot shorter. what do you think you will take more of landscape or people? Going to an area with woderful vistas such as lake Garda and Venice, I personally would take the 6D for the landscape possibilities, but thats just me.

What about 7d2 with canon 15-85 . I took my 6d on a Caribbean cruise with 24-105 and I did like the results.
I suppose there might be some advantages with the 7d2 but ultimately low light image quality would be the most important thing to me .

tongard wrote in post #18440043
Lake Garda Italy with trips to Venice and mountains

I'd go with the 6D and the widest zoom you have. 6D's high ISO performance and large sensor and great low light focus for wide, handheld shots in dark lovely tight spaces in Italy/Venice.

If you have a 16-35 or similar ultrawide with stabilization, I'd take that; use the 24-105 in the mountains.

As for video, unless you're big into video, I wouldn't bother, it's cumbersome to use a dSLR and long lens, even with stabilization, for video without a stabilizing gimbal and nice microphone for real audio recording. For just taking a quick stabilized video of something, a smartphone these days does a very good job. Your dSLR video has to be processed a lot, so unless this is something you are already really well prepared for, I'd keep it simple. You're on holiday, not shooting a film. Right? I might be wrong, so just take this with salt.

Very best,

No that makes a lot of sense , I'm not really big on video , but really interested in low light / night time street photography so I think 6d with 24-105, 28mm 2.8 is and 70-200 f4 is with be perfect

I love the flexibility of the 7D2 with the 18-135mm

The first time I was made awaare just waht a powerful combo it is was quite by accident. I was goig to Guatemala for an amazing week with extended family in their home up in the mountains. I was hoping to do some birding as well, but needed a lighter load than normal.

I packed only 7D2, 150-600mm hoping for birds, 50mm 1.8STM for possible late night cameos, and 18-135mm for everything else.

As it turned out, I never had a chance to do any birding. I used the 18-135mm exclusively, but this was so flexible a solution it converted me to EF-S and 7D2 as my go to travel kit.

Low light proved to be no issue with the 7D2 high ISO.

IMAGE LINK: http://jakehegnauer.ze​nfolio.com/p804332531/​e20dc8147

IMAGE LINK: http://jakehegnauer.ze​nfolio.com/p804332531/​e22633e86

IMAGE LINK: http://jakehegnauer.ze​nfolio.com/p804332531/​e20b11cd2

IMAGE LINK: http://jakehegnauer.ze​nfolio.com/p804332531/​e2c4fe0c0

Now you got me all confused again with that post , I can definitely see an advantage with 7d2 and something like 18-135 or 15- 85.

Oops, the last shot was the 50 1.8

18-135 on an APS-C is not much different than a 24-105 on full frame, other than the 24-105 FOV on full frame will be wider on the 24mm end than 18mm on APS-C is, and shorter on the long end than 135mm on APS-C. Cyberdyne's shots illustrate how everything was on the wider end of the zoom too. ISO isn't even worth going over, the 6D at higher ISO is better. The only real thing to probably compare and argue is the quality of image stabilization (2 stop versus 4 stop, etc, depending on which lens you're talking about). But with ISO 6400~12,800 that results in a clean image, you don't really need to stress 4 stop IS.

Also the 6D isn't bigger. And the 24-105 isn't bigger either. So it's not a size/weight advantage either.

Personally I'd take any non-gripped full frame + a 16-35 F4L IS as the holiday kit. I find that the last thing you need on holiday is telephoto as you're usually wanting to tell the story by capturing the environment, which calls for wider FOV. No matter the sensor size.

If I were taking APS-C, I'd want the EF-S 10-18 STM IS actually or something similar with a really wide end and IS if possible. Especially in Venice and other places that were built when people and places were small and tight. And in giant cathedrals and castles (what good is a telephoto there?).

I spend time in St Augustine, Florida which is our old Spanish city, and it's built similar and is tiny, tight, and very reminiscent of what you'll find in Venice and other old world places that the world visits. Everything is very tight. The architecture and everything around you is part of what you want to capture and remember. I often find you can't fit enough in the composition!

@CyberDyne, I love that chicken shot actually the best, it tells the real story to me from your set! How people prepare food is deeply cultural. I assume that was part of the defeathering process. Very cool. In our countries, most people don't even know how chicken is handled from a walking creature to two breasts in a package!

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

Old tight quarter St Augustine, Florida, where I couldn't get wide enough, at 17mm on full frame (10mm on APS-C basically). I wanted to be able to get the interesting architecture and art basically, but still be able to grab images of my daughter, at the same time. I couldn't have done it with a 24-70 even. I had a 17-40 for the job and I literally took 90% of the images at 17mm. I would have loved to have a 16-35. Heck I almost bought a 14mm Rok just because we go there often, just for how tight it is in old cities. This courtyard wall is maybe 6 feet away or so. Very tight spaces. But ultrawide lets you go there again!

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/WsQM​Vi

I tried many different combinations for trips to Europe, and I travel there a few times a year due to a family in France. Crop cameras, full frame cameras, various Focal lenses, etc. Ended up with taking only a full frame camera (first it was 6D and now 5D4) with a 24-105. Sometimes I also take a 17-40, but when I do, I use it only occasionally. In Europe you want to go wide, and as a rule, 24-105 is all I need there.

Going to Moscow and Paris in October, and again it will be 5D4 with 24-105. If I did not have the 5D4, it would be the 6D.

I have a similar dilemma. In three weeks traveling to Cambodia. I no longer have a mid length lens suitable for my 5DIII just a 17-40L so my choice is between 7DII and 15-85 or a fuji X100 and X10 or I could go the 5DIII 17-40L and chuck in a second lens

MalVeauX wrote in post #18441025
18-135 on an APS-C is not much different than a 24-105 on full frame, other than the 24-105 FOV on full frame will be wider on the 24mm end than 18mm on APS-C is, and shorter on the long end than 135mm on APS-C. Cyberdyne's shots illustrate how everything was on the wider end of the zoom too.

I beg to differ here, 105 fov vs. 216mm fov (135mm x 1.6) is a significant difference at the long end. ie: DOUBLE. I can't agree that doubling effective focal length is "not much difference"

Also, I have a gallery of images from that trip, I chose to post a few that had more challenging light, and this did favor the wide end of the zoom. There are plenty taken @ 135mm (216 fov) Obviously this is an individual preference, if you prefer to shoot wider, that's the photographer vs. the situation, wehre yes you may be forced to shoot wider. But choosing to shoot wider does not reduce the effective doubling of FL at the long end of the two compared combos. As you know my passion is as a wildlife photographer, where FL is king, so this really means something to me.

So no, not everything on the wider end by a long shot.