Hellom
I use the 70D mainly for landscape photography.
Although I'm aware of this body limitations, I am finding myself mainly limited by lens choice, ultra-wide and general zoom. I want to improve the IQ and willing to invest in glass but cannot find one that will give me substantial improvement over the lenses I use with the 70D - EF-S 10-18mm and Sigma 17-50.
So I' thinking maybe an upgrade to a FF is the right move and open up L lens options (such as the 16-35 F4 for ultra-wide)?
However I don't want to make an investment in the order of 5DIV + lenses, so it seems the only Canon option is 6Dii, which people debate weather it's no-so-up-to-date-sensor DR is the right choice for landscape photography, for such and investment.
Would appreciate any advice.
Barak.
This post is going to be LONG but I am taking my time with my thoughts to fully explain my position on what I would do as a Landscaper with the budge of a 6D Mark ii.
The upgrade to full frame will be good because most companies, such as Canon, don't put their best into APS-C lenses. Whenever you use a full frame lens on an APS-C camera, because it crops the glass you get way less pixels resolved. For example, you can spend 2 grand on a 24-70 2.8 ii L series lens but if you put it on a 70D, your kit lens might actually be sharper, where as on a 6D, your kit lens won't compare to something like the 24-70 2.8 ii L.
IMO, I would get the 5D Mark iii, it will cost a little bit more than the 6D Mark ii but not as much as the 5D Mark IV and if you're willing to go used, you can possibly find it for the same price.
I only say that because they hold back the 6D so much. I am a Landscapper myself and I had to use the original 6D for about a year. If you never find yourself doing ANYTHING but Landscape the focusing points don't matter and 6D ii is a great option.
The Dynamic Range doesn't matter much in Landscape if you're willing to bracket. I always have, so for me, I always capture the entire Dynamic Range of a scene no matter what the camera is. So more dynamic range to me just means less brackets, or I get to have more DR in portraits and video.
I'm not sure how many auto brackets the 6D ii will do but the original will do 7 auto brackets and as many manual as you want. You use the histogram to see what you need and you get the entire dynamic range of the scene. You usually won't even need 7.
Some people refuse to bracket and only want to do one shot, those people need more DR for landscape but I have no idea why anyone would be against bracketing as you get an exposure for the sky, the foreground, etc and you don't have to edit it to have that over processed HDR look.
Believe it or not the sharpest Landscape lens I've come across in my personal use is not the 16-35 F/4L series or the 24-70 2.8 ii L series ( I own both,) but the 35mm F/2 IS NON L series, goes for about 300 bucks or if you want new about $499.
The 35mm F/2 IS not only gives you IS but resolves a whopping 40 Megapixels on the 5DSR, not many lenses can do that on the 5DSR. The new 35MM L series is a little sharper but not by much and of course cost way more.
The 16-35 F/4L will give you more options though. Honestly if you only do Landscape you might find it to be the only lens you'll ever want or need. I go Landscapping with only that lens on my camera.
It's also my go to camera for most all video shots, as the 5D Mark IV has a 1.7 crop on the 4k, which is close to your 70D 1.6x crop, so I really like 35mm, in Landscape and in video shots, so in order to get a 35mm FOV and look I shoot around 20mm in 4k, and of course 35mm in 1080p.
For Landscapes I like to shoot almost all of them at 35mm if I can as I really like that look.
I also like the look of a 35mm for general photography.
You can learn a lot spending a lot of time with one prime lens. I spent a year one time with the original Sony A7R and a Zeiss 55mm 1.8 and that's all I had. I learned a lot from that.
If you won't be using the same lenses, what is your reason for staying with Canon? I prefer Canon right now as it is the right tool for the job for me, however, I'm talking about the 5D Mark iv.
Me personally, if there was no 5D Mark IV or if I could not afford it, or if I was just now starting and I only wanted to do Landscapes I certainly would be giving Sony and Nikon a look as they provide way more for your money when it comes to cameras in the price on the 6D Mark ii range.
For example, the Nikon D750 can be found used at a great price, it has better dynamic range than the 6D Mark ii, better video, you may even like the focus system better and really important... 2 card slots, so you never got to worry about losing your shots or carry around a bunch of memory cards so you can switch them out to not lose the whole trip incase one messes up. Meaning, you could put like a 128GB in each slot and never have to buy another memory card for the time you own the camera.
You can get the original Sony A7R used for only $999. It has the same sensor the Nikon D810 has, it has 36 Megapixels, it's focus system isn't great but it's perfectly fine for Landscape, I used it for a year as I said before. It also has focus peaking and some purest especially in Landscape really like using that without any auto focus.
You may ask why I came back to Canon from the Sony A7R but I can tell you if all I did was landscapes, I would have not came back. It was a GREAT Landscape camera.
Don't like mirrorless, prefer weather sealing, a better focus system, 2 card slots, Nikon D810 going for under $1499 used now. 36 Megapixels, lots of dynamic range.
If I was in your position the D810 is what I would go for, if you can't find it for the price you want, the D750, if you have a reason to stay with Canon, I'd try to get the 5D Mark iii but if not the 6D Mark ii will suffice.
But like you said this is a heavy investment, you'll be using this camera for years, do you really want to hand Canon the same amount of money you can hand Nikon or Sony and get a far inferior camera in almost every way?
I'm not a fan boy of any company, hence why I shoot Canon but can recommend other brands over it. I am a fan of the right tool for the job, I see the 6D Mark ii as too much money for what it is.
It has specs that aren't even up to speed with 4 year old Nikon cameras or even the first round of Sony full frame mirrorless bodies like the A7R.
I mean brand new, you can walk into Best Buy and for 2 grand have a Nikon D750 with a Nikon 24-120 F/4 VR. Which is a nicer lens than the Canon 24-105, stopping it down to Landscape, like F/8 you might find you really like it. 24mm is really wide on a full frame.
On B&H right now, I just looked: The 6D Mark ii with the 24-105 F/4 kit is the SAME price as the Nikon D810 without a lens, body only, both brand new. Used prices make it about the same as the 6D Mark ii.
Just because the 6D is a recent camera and the D810 came out a while ago, don't think of it like that, because the D810 is far beyond the 6D in specs and I just can't imagine you not absolutely loving the D810 as a landscaper, no AA filter, 36 Megapixels, more dynamic range than any Canon camera to date.
In fact coming from a 70D I'd think the D810 would be so impressive you'd probably be shocked at the sharpness and detail you can get just from the 24-120 kit.
Where as the 6D Mark ii, you're gonna get similar ISO that you are used to, a little bit better as its full frame, you're gonna get the same amount of DR that you're used to, you're still only getting one card slot, the only wow factor will be when you get a nice lens that resolves a lot of Megapixels you'll actually get to see extremely sharp vivid images on a full frame camera.
