Which way to go ? Camera Upgrading

smr

I'm New Here
Jan 24, 2017
19
0
Hi all,

I've a bit of a quandary. I've been into photography for five and a half years now, during that time I've owned two DSLRs (my first being the 700D and my present Camera the 80D). I've got just one EF Lens which is the f/1.8 50mm. The rest of my lenses are crop sensor lenses including the 10-18 and 55-250 STM which I use the most for my Landscape Photography.

I am interested in Landscape Photography and have always wanted to switch over to Full Frame Cameras at some point so that I can really utilise the optical performance of the Full Frame lenses such as the 16-35mm f/4, 70-200 f/4 etc.

However the release of mirrorless has given me other options. It seems to me that Canon are really going to concentrate on mirrorless and it seems to be the future of Cameras.

So where we are today, almost mid way through 2020, would it make more sense to invest in a Canon EOS R (I just can't afford the £3-4k or thereabouts pricetag of the upcoming R5) or would buying a Canon 5Dmk IV or Canon 5DSR be a good choice?
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,809
941
I'd suggest a RP with a 24-105mm RF lens. Ultra wide lenses like the 16m ones tend to need expensive accessories and skill for landscapes, the 24-105 will do well, and you can stitch multiple photos together easily and get higher resolution and even wider or taller images. The RP is lighter and smaller than a 5D MK IV or a R and will feel more like the cameras you are used to. You won't sacrifice image quality, just get fewer features that you'll likely never use anyway. I have a R and a 5D MK IV, but I could be happy with a RP, it did not exist when I bought my cameras. I don't do 4K video and virtually never use 1/8000 sec exposures, but I would use the focus stacking that only the RP currently has.

Another possibility is a 50 MP 5DS R. They are available for $1400 on the gray market, and provide plenty of detail for landscapes. Like the other 5D bodies, they are much larger and heavier than your current bodies, that often comes as a shock when you first use one along with a heavy "L" lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximilian

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
795
822
I just think that the combo 16-35 f4 & 70-200 f4 makes a lot of sense, maybe with an additional 50 mmf1,8.
The 5 D IV would be my favourite, BUT: go to a camera-store, take a look at the EOS 5D IV, 5 Ds R, and at the EOS R & RP, then decide...
After all, it's YOUR decision, choices are something eminently personal. So, don't hurry, take your time to test the various options, they all are good !
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

Czardoom

EOS T7i
Jan 27, 2020
59
133
Before deciding anything, I would rent a Full Frame camera and lens and see if you find any real difference in the optical quality. In my experience (having owned Micro 4/3rds, Canon crop and Canon FF) you may find that there is little or no difference between the FF and your current camera. I like to print my best photos, but don't print anything larger than 8 x 12. Basically - with what I shoot, there is no perceivable difference between the 3 formats. I do like to use the FF for low light situations, but in all other circumstances, there isn't really any optical difference in my experience and at the size I print or view.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
792
413
I think the RP is not much of an upgrade over the 80D in terms of dynamic range, so I would try the EOS R.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

koenkooi

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
883
664
I think the RP is not much of an upgrade over the 80D in terms of dynamic range, so I would try the EOS R.
But is it €600 better? When I wanted to buy an R, Canon had a deal where you could rent the R + RP + RF50 + RF24-105 for a week for free. After doing that I decided that the RP was "good enough" and used the price difference to buy the 100mm L macro lens.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
792
413
But is it €600 better? When I wanted to buy an R, Canon had a deal where you could rent the R + RP + RF50 + RF24-105 for a week for free. After doing that I decided that the RP was "good enough" and used the price difference to buy the 100mm L macro lens.
Is the RP worth upgrading to at all from an 80D for that specific purpose, if one needs new lenses as well? I don't think it is worth it for a small jump in image quality (and much worse battery life).
The R does offer the jump up in terms of image quality that is expected from upgrading to FF.
 

Quirkz

EOS RP
Oct 30, 2014
239
170
The RP is an excellent camera. Small and light for FF. I traded my 5d4 for an R because I stopped using the 5d4 after I got the RP.

If your goal is using FF ultrawides, it will do nicely, and the money saved can go to better lenses. It does have more shadow noise and less leeway to push darker parts of an image than the RP, so you’ll need to be more careful to get the exposure right. That might be an issue for some types of landscape.

The R is even better, but I still keep and use the RP. The RP + RF35mm Fits in small bags.

The MP difference between it and the R is negligible.

The RP has slightly lower DR than the 80D at under iso 400; but from 400, the RP easily takes the lead due to its large sensor. Well exposed images are gorgeous and rich in color and detail. It’s only the deep shadow noise where it suffers. Only you know if this will matter to you.

Others have given good advice on comparing sizes at a store. If your landscape involve hiking, you might prefer the lighter camera. Perhaps even staying with aps-c, and something like the m6 II.

What is it about your current camera and lenses that you feel is lacking, amd what things do you really want to see improved?
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,428
1,915
120
5DS/r's are a bargain, as is the excellent EF16-35 f4 IS L and 70-200 f4 IS L. For somebody looking to work on their landscapes with budget constraints I can't imagine why you'd look any further. Buy them and enjoy them for a few years and see where the R and RF lens prices settle down to, at this point they are nothing but big and heavy and very expensive compared to those f4 EF L's.

Those voting for the R, why? 26mp, same old generation sensor, limited native lens range...

If landscapes are your thing get the 5DS/r, I'd get the 5DSr version but a few here who shoot landscapes professionally with the 5DS wouldn't agree! If landscapes make up a smaller portion of your output then the 5D IV is more compelling, much better AF (irrelevant for landscapes) and better sensor tech (good for lowlight especially which again for tripod mounted landscapes is moot).
 

Maximilian

The dark side - I've been there
Nov 7, 2013
2,836
837
Germany
Hi smr !

So if you want/decide to go FF and you focus on landscape and your budget is tight then IMO there are two ways to go and I second both of them here:

You shoud decide, if it is more important to go the "future road" with ML system but lots of changes in the near future.
Then I would focus on good glas first andlook for the better bodies later, so I would second that way
I'd suggest a RP with a 24-105mm RF lens. ...
Depending on budget I would add the excelent RF 35/1.8, converter, and keep the EF 50/1.8 for the moment.
Look what future RF lenses might be important for your kit.

Or - if the excellent quality of many MP are more relevant to you now, take the "classic road", that might end some day, but until then you'd have excellent equipment chosing
5DS/r's are a bargain, as is the excellent EF16-35 f4 IS L and 70-200 f4 IS L. For somebody looking to work on their landscapes with budget constraints I can't imagine why you'd look any further.
Best will be to try the gear out, maybe rent it for some time and then decide.
Have fun, enjoy the process of decision and take your time to decide. :cool:

If I was to chose I'd take the first one as the RP is light and small and good for hiking. So is the RF 35/1.8.
But at the tradeoff of less MP.

Post your decission and experience later here, maybe together with some pics taken with it ;)