Full Frame Addition: 5d2, 5d3, 6d, wait for 5dx/4 ??? Landscape Images

[hmatthes]

My go-to body is a 70D and I am very satisfied even when making 24x36 prints.
It could well remain my go-to but I would like the increased DR etc. from a full frame sensor (or am I nuts?)
The FF would mostly live with tripods, would not need a million AF points, always be used in AV or M modes.
I have two kits:
The Holy Grail of STM lenses for the 70D: 10~18, 18~135, 55~250, 24 f2.8
Full Frame (& Film) lenses for everything: 17~35L, 28 2.8, 28~105 USM, 50 STM, 70~200L, 100 Macro USM
If I buy a FF, I will probably get it with 24~70 f/4L
Two opinions sought: (1) Does FF really deliver better RAWs than APS-C; (2) which FF sensor is best price/performer?

 

[jeffa4444]

My go-to body is a 70D and I am very satisfied even when making 24x36 prints.
It could well remain my go-to but I would like the increased DR etc. from a full frame sensor (or am I nuts?)
The FF would mostly live with tripods, would not need a million AF points, always be used in AV or M modes.
I have two kits:
The Holy Grail of STM lenses for the 70D: 10~18, 18~135, 55~250, 24 f2.8
Full Frame (& Film) lenses for everything: 17~35L, 28 2.8, 28~105 USM, 50 STM, 70~200L, 100 Macro USM
If I buy a FF, I will probably get it with 24~70 f/4L
Two opinions sought: (1) Does FF really deliver better RAWs than APS-C; (2) which FF sensor is best price/performer?

You have not given your budget but from the present Canon line-up and based on your write-up, FF lenses I would say the Canon 6D will fulfill your requirements. I use mine for landscape and travel and when I bought it within weeks stopped using the 7D I had at the time. Crop definately has its place especially in wildlife, birds & action photography but FF is the go to format for landscape, portraits & anything you want to print large.

 

[hmatthes]

Thank you jeffa4444

I would say the Canon 6D will fulfill your requirements

 

[fegari]

My go-to body is a 70D and I am very satisfied even when making 24x36 prints.
It could well remain my go-to but I would like the increased DR etc. from a full frame sensor (or am I nuts?)
The FF would mostly live with tripods, would not need a million AF points, always be used in AV or M modes.
I have two kits:
The Holy Grail of STM lenses for the 70D: 10~18, 18~135, 55~250, 24 f2.8
Full Frame (& Film) lenses for everything: 17~35L, 28 2.8, 28~105 USM, 50 STM, 70~200L, 100 Macro USM
If I buy a FF, I will probably get it with 24~70 f/4L
Two opinions sought: (1) Does FF really deliver better RAWs than APS-C; (2) which FF sensor is best price/performer?

(1) Does FF really deliver better RAWs than APS-C; Big resounding YES. This argument will be tortured in the thread by nay sayers but if APC had better IQ it would be more expensive. I have extensivelly both, APC is "better" if you need to extract reach from tele lenses or if you don't have the funds for FF.

*before the attacks arrive, I have a 7DII, very good IQ but a FF beats it all things aside being equal.

(2) which FF sensor is best price/performer? Have had 7D, 7DII, 5D3 and 5DSR. In the FF camp probably the best price/perfo ratio would be a used 6D

If I may, about your lenses, if you move FF, sell everything except the 70-200 and the 100 Macro. Then, can't go wrong with the 24-70 F/4 and if you want to go even wider the 16-35 F/4 (that I have)

 

[scyrene]

My go-to body is a 70D and I am very satisfied even when making 24x36 prints.
It could well remain my go-to but I would like the increased DR etc. from a full frame sensor (or am I nuts?)
The FF would mostly live with tripods, would not need a million AF points, always be used in AV or M modes.
I have two kits:
The Holy Grail of STM lenses for the 70D: 10~18, 18~135, 55~250, 24 f2.8
Full Frame (& Film) lenses for everything: 17~35L, 28 2.8, 28~105 USM, 50 STM, 70~200L, 100 Macro USM
If I buy a FF, I will probably get it with 24~70 f/4L
Two opinions sought: (1) Does FF really deliver better RAWs than APS-C; (2) which FF sensor is best price/performer?

I agree with the others, the 6D sounds right for you.

 

[dash2k8]

The 6D currently is the best value for the buck in the Canon lineup IMO. Better low light than the 5D3 and visibly identical (sans pixel-peeping) in image quality. Fewer AF points and slightly slower focus and lower FPS are negatives. If you don't need those, then the 6D is perfect.

 

[gargamel]

[...]
[...] from the present Canon line-up and based on your write-up, FF lenses I would say the Canon 6D will fulfill your requirements. I use mine for landscape and travel and when I bought it within weeks stopped using the 7D I had at the time. Crop definately has its place especially in wildlife, birds & action photography but FF is the go to format for landscape, portraits & anything you want to print large.

BTW, according to Tony Northrop, even for birds FF might be the better way to go, as extracting a crop from a FF image may yield better results than an APS-C image of the same size. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsWGkUT5A_Y. In my experience this could be true. I always thought and still think that the 70D is a great camera, but when I compare pictures that I took of simillar subjects with it and the 18-135 STM with pictures from my old (and now dead) 5D classic with the 50 1.8, crops from the 5D images seemed to look slightly better to me. The difference was very subtle with shots taken in good light, but more noticeably in shots taken in low light or with highlights and shadows surrounding the actual subject.

Still, the 70D/80D are the most versatile cameras in the market, thanks to one largely underrated innovation from Canon, which is of course the dual-pixel AF. This is really amazing technology, and I wish we would see it soon combined with 4k recording capabilities in Canon's midrange models.

gargamel

 

[timmy_650]

I was really happy when I moved to FF. If you don't need great AF go with the 6D. It is great for the price but I would have a hard time buying it right now. When the 5D4 comes out there will be a lot of cheap 5D3. But if Canon has a refurbish super sale where the 6D less than $900 I would jump on that.

 

[midluk]

BTW, according to Tony Northrop, even for birds FF might be the better way to go, as extracting a crop from a FF image may yield better results than an APS-C image of the same size. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsWGkUT5A_Y.

This is not what he is saying. Also see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbUIfB5YUc
When comparing uncropped FF to APS-C, then FF wins. But when comparing cropped FF with APS-C, then usually the higher pixel density of the APS-C wins.

 

[Omar H]

I'd say choose one from the current line-up. They're great cameras and of course the newest additions will always have something else that the current offer doesn't have or it's not as good, BUT, will very likely start at a price above $3k and there's no guarantee as to when you could have one in your hands.

The equipment that you DON'T have always looks better, but learn to master what you DO have. After all, they're just tools to the craft.

Good luck,

 

[dak723]

If you have a chance, rent a FF for a few days and take the same pics with both cameras. That will give you the answer that you need. Having both a 6D and an SL1, for my purposes and the type of pics I take (daylight, landscapes) there is very little difference. I don't print as large as you, but at 8" x 10" I can't tell the difference between cameras. Since you print larger, it would be best to actually compare them yourself, so rent if you can. I think it would be worth the cost.