From Canon 6D to mirrorless

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
ChelseaPhotographer Contributing Member • Posts: 748
Re: From Canon 6D to mirrorless

ecka84 wrote:

Hi. I noticed that we have similar camera use cases (95% landscape / 5% holidays, these days). And I too have the 6D, to this day :), with no perfect camera on the horizon to replace it.

Here are some answers I've collected for myself:

1] There is no such thing like a universal "good enough" for everyone or everything. While "more than good enough" is really an argument from ignorance. Only you can decide what is good enough for you personally. No APS-C is really good enough for me. But for most people even phones are good enough. However, smaller sensors are not going to beat your (our) 6D chip in most regards. Shadow recovery and dynamic range do not define image quality, it's just one of the features you are interested in. I mean, image wise, there's barely any difference between the newest EOS R6 and the good old 6D (until you push it to extremes), specially for non-pixel-peepers.

2] Primes are great. I love primes. Small primes can be amazing and produce spectacular results. But there's a huge misconception around lens sizes. Like crop optics are supposed to be smaller or cheaper, which they are not. So, don't get fooled by the anti-FF propaganda. The A7III is a fine camera and the great little Samyang lenses are wonderful tools. I only use primes myself, but when it comes to ultra wide angle, I think that nothing beats stitching. A decent FF camera with a nice small prime lens can produce mind-blowing Medium Format level results when stitched.

3] Fuji X-Trans is a no-go for landscaping, in my opinion. If you really want a Fuji camera and a Fuji system, then I'd suggest to get one with Bayer CFA. But then you are not going to win anything in image quality, lens size or price. Only 100-200 grams chopped off from the camera body, resulting in uncomfortably smaller camera grip and smaller battery (so, you will need more spare batteries). No real advantages at all (in my opinion).

4] I would probably get the A7RII or A7RIII instead. Well, you want a better sensor and not the 'bells and whistles' too, right?. That would be my advice. Unless money in not an issue. Then just get the R5 and the A7R4 and all the lenses you want and be happy :).

Good light!

P.S. "day or two days hiking in the mountains" / "i never bring the 70-200" - That's really weird :). I think my best landscape shots were taken with telephoto lenses.

Wow, I wish there were more people like you in these fora (forums). Agree with everything you said except for one thing:

I have the A7RIV, and it is a very good camera, but before you buy an A7RII or an A7RIII, rent one for a week. Like everything in photography, they are not perfect. The colors are not great, the RAW files are twice as big, they are laggy and the ergonomics are also not great. Personally I got mine because of the Tamron f/2.8 zooms. The combo is light, produces amazing IQ, and it is relatively inexpensive. But as Canon and Nikon come up with more lenses, their systems should become more attractive. And both Canon and Nikon produce better colors than Sony.

 ChelseaPhotographer's gear list:ChelseaPhotographer's gear list
SeaLife DC2000 Ricoh GR III Pentax 645Z Canon EOS 5DS Nikon D850 +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow