Considering an upgrade from Canon 60D (yes, another 'should I upgrade' post)

Hello! I poke around on here from time to time when I could use some strangers' opinions. I've got a 60D, which I've had since November 2010, with its original kit lens (18-135mm f/3.5-5.6), plus a 50mm f/1.8, 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6, and a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6. I've been generally happy with this set-up and have gotten some really lovely shots in the past 8 years, but I'm finding myself more and more interested in full frame and less enthused about needing the extra lens to get the sweeping wide angle shots, especially now that I might actually be able to afford it if I can find the right deals.

I mostly shoot landscapes, some street photography, whatever draws my eye on vacation. I'm an enthusiast, honestly, who has decided against going pro, so something more entry-level with decent features for the price is my preference. If I can save a few pounds in my camera bag, even better, but I know that wouldn't necessarily be the case.

I'm not opposed to:
mirrorless
micro 4/3
sticking with my current body and upgrading a lens (not preferable since I'd like full frame if possible)
switching systems
bodies that were released 3-4 years ago that perform quite well for a good price
whatever else you can throw at me

I'd be selling my gear in most of these cases, obviously, to help fund my purchase. What thoughts do you guys have to offer me? Anything else you have questions about that could help you advise?

(Full disclosure, part of this desire is the "ooh, shiny full frame!!" mindset)

adivineeternity wrote in post #18581958
Hello! I poke around on here from time to time when I could use some strangers' opinions. I've got a 60D, which I've had since November 2010, with its original kit lens (18-135mm f/3.5-5.6), plus a 50mm f/1.8, 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6, and a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6. I've been generally happy with this set-up and have gotten some really lovely shots in the past 8 years, but I'm finding myself more and more interested in full frame and less enthused about needing the extra lens to get the sweeping wide angle shots, especially now that I might actually be able to afford it if I can find the right deals.

I mostly shoot landscapes, some street photography, whatever draws my eye on vacation. I'm an enthusiast, honestly, who has decided against going pro, so something more entry-level with decent features for the price is my preference. If I can save a few pounds in my camera bag, even better, but I know that wouldn't necessarily be the case.

I'm not opposed to:
mirrorless
micro 4/3
sticking with my current body and upgrading a lens (not preferable since I'd like full frame if possible)
switching systems
bodies that were released 3-4 years ago that perform quite well for a good price
whatever else you can throw at me

I'd be selling my gear in most of these cases, obviously, to help fund my purchase. What thoughts do you guys have to offer me? Anything else you have questions about that could help you advise?

(Full disclosure, part of this desire is the "ooh, shiny full frame!!" mindset)

Why full frame?

Archibald wrote in post #18582019
Why full frame?

Why not? I like shooting wide angle shots of landscapes, architecture, etc. and I like using natural light. I'm not looking to buy a 5D4 or anything like that, but my 60D isn't cutting it for me anymore and if I'm going to look at a potential upgrade, I'm going to consider affordable full frame options over another crop.

adivineeternity wrote in post #18582026
Why not? I like shooting wide angle shots of landscapes, architecture, etc. and I like using natural light. I'm not looking to buy a 5D4 or anything like that, but my 60D isn't cutting it for me anymore and if I'm going to look at a potential upgrade, I'm going to consider affordable full frame options over another crop.

If you just have a hankering to have a full frame, then go buy one!

Archibald wrote in post #18582045
If you just have a hankering to have a full frame, then go buy one!

This is part of it, yup. I just have a bit of a budget to stick with (tax refund season whaaat), so I want to explore my options. It's not, like, a stupid budget of $500 which would make more sense to stick in my savings account for a lens upgrade in six months or anything like that, but I can't pounce on anything too expensive, nor do I want to since I don't particularly need what a more fully-featured body would offer. I just want to see what options others might look at as a potential upgrade while I dig around to see what's out there, myself.

Some comments, if you please, from someone who has gone from full frame to crop to full frame and finally back to all crop. Format (ff vs. apsc) can make a HUGE difference, or an INSIGNIFICANT difference. That difference depends on two things: which glass you use, and what you shoot. For most of what you do with a camera, you'll never see the difference.

The 60D is a rock solid camera. If you buy a full frame body, keep the 60D. You'll regret selling it, at some point.

Full frame really shines if/when you do one of two things: shoot in the dark (ISO 12800 and up), print really large (bigger than 11"x17", regularly). If you do neither, or do them infrequently, you'll see little difference between FF and aps-c.

Glass matters. I just sold my 6D (not 60D), a month or so ago. I used the 17-40 on my 6D, a lot. My Tokina 11-20 on my 80D gives better results. I could have spent a bunch more money buying better glass for the 6D. I chose to buy better glass for my 80D. The Tokina 11-20 is a fantastic wide zoom. There used to be an argument that if you shoot wide, you need FF because there is no good wide apsc glass. Not true anymore. My favorite UWA zoom on the 6D was the Sigma 12-24 II. I paid $450 for it. The Canon 11-24L is $2,000+. I opted to sell the $450 12-24, and replace it with a Sigma 8-16mm for my 80D. The 8-16 is all around better on crop than the 12-24 is on full frame; sharper, better in the corners, deeper DOF. (I make no comparison to the EF 11-24L; I can't afford it.) I also sold off my $800 70-200mm f/4L to buy an 18-135 USM ($250), and a 70-300II ($379). Both of them focus as quickly as the 70-200L, and I gave up very, very little in IQ. Canon's new consumer glass is NOT Canon's old consumer glass. Glass matters.

With all that said, if you want a full frame, go buy one. If you are doing it for IQ, you'll have to spend large to get good glass to get everything out of it.

There is another full frame option: film. I have been scouring E-Bay and have put together another full frame kit, for about $200. Yashica FX-D (x2, last rock solid Yashica before Kyocera bought them), 28 2.8, 50 2, 135 2.8, 28-85, 70-210 f/3.5, 2X TC, and 3 flash units. Or... you can get an EOS film body for about $200, and use Canon EF glass. I do that, too. For digital, I'm all apsc, and happy with that.

If I were buying a FF digital right now, the 5D3 looks really appealing at today's prices. If money didn't matter, and both my arms worked right, I'd be shooting a 1DX2 and lots of primo primes.

Best of luck in making your choice, and enjoy your new full frame, whichever you choose.

adivineeternity wrote in post #18581958
but I'm finding myself more and more interested in full frame and less enthused about needing the extra lens to get the sweeping wide angle shots, especially now that I might actually be able to afford it if I can find the right deals.

It sounds as if you want a one-lens solution rather than two. Tough to accomplish!

Your APS-C 10-18mm would be equivalent to FF with 16-29mm, the APS-C 18-135 is FF with 29mm-216. In essence you are wanting a 16-216mm lens!

Wilt wrote in post #18582078
It sounds as if you want a one-lens solution rather than two. Tough to accomplish!

Your APS-C 10-18mm would be equivalent to FF with 16-29mm, the APS-C 18-135 is FF with 29mm-216. In essence you are wanting a 16-216mm lens!

The Sony RX10 comes pretty close!
https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …_rx10_digital_c​amera.html

Wilt wrote in post #18582078
It sounds as if you want a one-lens solution rather than two. Tough to accomplish!

Your APS-C 10-18mm would be equivalent to FF with 16-29mm, the APS-C 18-135 is FF with 29mm-216. In essence you are wanting a 16-216mm lens!

I'd actually be happy with 18-20mm on a FF at the wide end, as I don't usually use my 10-18mm at 10mm. I think I start around 12mm on it most of the time. I also don't often go out to the 100-135mm range on the telephoto end, so for telephoto shots I'd be happy to have a second lens suited to that purpose in the future. I do most of my shooting between 18-100mm on my 18-135mm lens, possibly even 20-95mm. I'd have to look to be sure, though.

I want to shoot in lower light more often, as I like low light photography, and I'm not looking for anything crazy in image quality, although I'll never argue against improving it a bit if I can.

Generally coverage for FF ends up divided...17/18mm marks the wide end of standard zooms only for APS-C, with insufficient image circle to cover FF.
For FF, zoom lenses generally start at 24mm - longer. Sigma 24-35, Canon 24-70, Canon 24-105, etc.
Wider zooms including the 20mm FL just don't exist...20mm fixed focal length only. Wider end up being the superwide (for FF) Canon 17-40mm, Canon 16-35mm, Sigma 14-24mm

Regarless of format size, the dividing line tends to be 'ultrawide zoom' vs. 'very wide and longer zoom', and no single lens seems to overlap both

Wilt wrote in post #18582110
Generally coverage for FF ends up divided...17/18mm marks the wide end of standard zooms only for APS-C, with insufficient image circle to cover FF.
For FF, zoom lenses generally start at 24mm - longer. Sigma 24-35, Canon 24-70, Canon 24-105, etc.
Wider zooms including the 20mm FL just don't exist...20mm fixed focal length only. Wider end up being the superwide (for FF) Canon 17-40mm, Canon 16-35mm, Sigma 14-24mm

Regarless of format size, the dividing line tends to be 'ultrawide zoom' vs. 'very wide and longer zoom', and no single lens seems to overlap both

You do know your 11-20 works just fine on full frame, right? Of course, it isn't any wider because you're limited to the 16-20mm range on full frame.

Currently looking at maybe something older like a Sony a7II. So many things to contemplate right now.

With your parameters, you really only have three options in the Canon line.

6D: nice camera but the A/F is a bit lacking

5D2: Basically the same comments as above

5D3: Still a bit more expensive but, IMO worth the extra money

If I were you, I would look into a refurbished 80D. Not a full frame camera but really nice. An 80D might run about:

$899 from Canon (refurbished)
$999 from B&H (new)

Forget the 5DII, The 6Dc is about the same price and a better camera. If your thinking 5DIII, then the 6DII is just a tad more and a better camera.

As to the Sony route, don't forget to to add an adapter to your cost unless you are switching all to E-mount so bump the price $300~$400.

gjl711 wrote in post #18584178
Forget the 5DII, The 6Dc is about the same price and a better camera. If your thinking 5DIII, then the 6DII is just a tad more and a better camera.

As to the Sony route, don't forget to to add an adapter to your cost unless you are switching all to E-mount so bump the price $300~$400.

I wound up finding a nice deal on an A7II and a nice deal on a kit 28-70 lens. I don’t plan on sticking with that lens forever since it’s not phenomenal, but it was affordable and left me enough play in my budget for an adapter to use my boyfriend’s Nikon lenses, lol. I’m going to test the camera out for a bit, first, before I decide 100%, but this is what I’m going to explore to see if I like it.

If I keep it, I’ll sell my 60D with its kit lens, the 10-18, and probably the 50 so I don’t need three adapters. The 70-300 I’ll give to my mom so she can have something with better reach than her current lens for wildlife. I’ll get an adapter for my canon film lenses and the one for my boyfriend’s Nikon lenses. If I can swing it, I’m contemplating one of lensbaby’s Twist 60 lenses for fun and play and experimental stuff.