Upgrade Path Dilemma

[KennethC]

Hi everyone. I have been following canon rumors for a while and this is my first post. Understand that there are already lots of "Upgrade path" threads but I just can't find an answer to my own situation. Therefore, I will like to ask for advice from everyone here.

I current owned the following:
Canon 60D body
Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS
Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX DG HSM (Non-Art)
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS
EX430 II

I have been shooting for more than a year now. I am a hobbyist, not a pro. Therefore, my lenses are usually sigma because they are "Best value for money". I usually shoot outdoor portraits (Loved my 50mm for this), landscapes (17mm at widest), some mini events (17-50 with EX430 will rock this section), and tried a bit of wildlife (using 70-200 and crop a lot). Although I will prefer more of landscape to wildlife, I do enjoy both types of photography. I don't shoot Studio and Macro. Currently, I do have some cash available to me right now (Maximum of buying only a 6D body). I am considering the following:

1) Buy a 6D body to use with my 50 and 70-200, keep my 60D and 17-50. This will allow me to shoot events properly with 2 bodies. (I'm doing it for free but my friends do pay me a little tips to cover for the expenses.)
Pros: Good for events and portraits (BOKEH!)
Cons: No UWA for landscape

2) Buy a 6D Kit, Sell my 60D and 17-50. (Which is more or less like what I am having now but has better IQ, this is the debate of whether to upgrade to full-frame, for the low-light performance and BOKEH!!! But I do love my 60D+17-50 combi too (Great travel combo))
Pros: Good for Portraits (BOKEH!), Slightly good for landscape (24mm from kit lens)
Con: Not so good for events (1 Body only)

3) Buy a Canon 10-18mm or 10-22mm EFS and stick with APSC sensors. (3.1 - Save the rest of the money. 3.2 -Buy a 100D as second body, 3.3 - Buy a Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm for wildlife)
Pros: 16mm landscape!!! Nothing else = Save more money, 2 bodies = Good for events, 150-600mm = Shoot wildlife.
Cons: Sticking with APSC for a long time, Will never enjoy the BOKEH-ness of full frame for portraits.

4) Don't buy anything at all. Shoot more till I decided on which photography I like best. Then decide.

5) Any other opinions.

Thanks very much in advance for your advice!

 

[Khalai]

6D+C24-105L will more than adequately replace the 60D+S17-50/2.8. For portraits, events and landscape, 6D is a really good body, if you can live with rather basic AF systém. But you'll get shallower DoF, better IQ and less noise, especially at higher ISO (6D can easily produce very nice images even at ISO 3200, ISO 6400 is somewhat bordeline on that body, but that is a bit subjective from person to person). I have a 7D (basically the same sensor as 60D) and after moving up the 6D, my 7D is only as a backup. I shoot portraits, macro and landscapes, occasionally weddings and 6D is a clear winner over 7D (or 60D in your case). However for wildlife, I would not recommend getting rid of 60D.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Hi everyone. I have been following canon rumors for a while and this is my first post. Understand that there are already lots of "Upgrade path" threads but I just can't find an answer to my own situation. Therefore, I will like to ask for advice from everyone here.

I current owned the following:
Canon 60D body
Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS
Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX DG HSM (Non-Art)
Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS
EX430 II

I have been shooting for more than a year now. I am a hobbyist, not a pro. Therefore, my lenses are usually sigma because they are "Best value for money".

I'm one who does not share that opinion. When you go to upgrade, its often very difficult to sell Sigma lenses. They are inexpensive, but have not held their value. In the past, my Sigma stuff became worthless when it turned out that they did not work with newer Canon bodies. No savings there, 4 of 5 lenses worthless.

They are fine if you intend to keep that Camera and those lenses forever, but bodies change rapidly, and when you decide to make a big change, like going to FF, you will take a big hit. Then, when you have a issue, you can watch the lens manufacturer and the camera body manufacturer point fingers at each other with you in the middle and stuck. That's painful. The high end sigma models avoid some of that with their dock, which changes the lens settings to match your camera. If you have two 60D's, you can match the lens to one body, but its pot luck with the other. I've learned to have a list of Canon lenses I want, and then monitor Craigslist for a deal, and to watch the Canon refurb site for a sale (You have to know what you want, and be quick)

I am usually able to upgrade and sell my lenses for more than I paid.

I'm just saying that the resale end needs to be counted when you figure in actual value. I've seen some local sellers trying for over a year to sell some of the lenses you have on our local Craigslist. They have to almost give them away.

 

[tayassu]

I'd go with the 6D and a 24-105, but take the Sigma, from what I heard and read it is better than the Canon optically. If you can afford it, keep the 60D for wildlife and sell only the 17-50! Happy shooting!

 

[Vivid Color]

I would vote for option 1. If you can only afford the 6D body, then just buy it and keep the 60D. You can always add lenses. But if a second body is useful to you, then I see nothing to be gained by selling your 60D.

 

[ScottyP]

You don't list interests in shooting live subjects in low light or indoors. That somewhat reduces your need for full frame.
As long as you are shooting landscapes, etc., which do not move, you could get by in dim light by using long exposures, provided you get a good tripod and head. Do you have one?

 

[nc0b]

Once I went full frame, my crop bodies are used less often, but I would not sell them. I happen to have a 5D classic and a 40D at one home and a 6D and 60D at another. In general I will choose the crop when I am shooting wildlife or children at a park. If I am taking one camera and have no idea what I will be shooting, the 6D and 24-105mm L is my "go to" combination. I just shot a museum on a trip and shot everything indoors at ISO 10,000 with the 6D. None of my other bodies can do that with low noise. When I bought my 60D as a replacement for the original Rebel 300D, I bought the 15-85mm EF-S zoom. Sadly it doesn't get much use anymore since it is too slow for indoor use when racked out to the longer focal lengths. I will no longer purchase any EF-S lenses, nor any variable aperture lenses. I suggest you keep your 60D, buy the wonderful 6D, and add Canon FF lenses as appropriate over time. The 60D and 6D use the same battery and SD cards, a win win combination.

 

[tiger82]

Consider the 6D with the 24-70 f/4 or the upcoming less expensive 24-105 STM which will be wider than your crop 17-50

 

[dgatwood]

6D+C24-105L will more than adequately replace the 60D+S17-50/2.8. For portraits, events and landscape, 6D is a really good body, if you can live with rather basic AF systém. But you'll get shallower DoF, better IQ and less noise, especially at higher ISO (6D can easily produce very nice images even at ISO 3200, ISO 6400 is somewhat bordeline on that body, but that is a bit subjective from person to person). I have a 7D (basically the same sensor as 60D) and after moving up the 6D, my 7D is only as a backup. I shoot portraits, macro and landscapes, occasionally weddings and 6D is a clear winner over 7D (or 60D in your case). However for wildlife, I would not recommend getting rid of 60D.

IMO, the 6D is usable at 12,800, as long as you aren't cropping to the point where you'd see the individual pixels, and even then, with a bit of NR, it's generally serviceable. It tends to have fairly consistent, random-ish noise, which makes it a lot easier to work with even at high ISO levels than other cameras with banding problems and other similar nonlinearity.

 

[Steve]

I'm one who does not share that opinion. When you go to upgrade, its often very difficult to sell Sigma lenses. They are inexpensive, but have not held their value. In the past, my Sigma stuff became worthless when it turned out that they did not work with newer Canon bodies. No savings there, 4 of 5 lenses worthless.

This was a thing that happened literally 20 years ago. Its not an issue at all anymore. This is basically the same thing as telling people not to trust Canon ever because one time they completely changed their mount and screwed everybody who had huge investments in FD lenses.

I'm just saying that the resale end needs to be counted when you figure in actual value. I've seen some local sellers trying for over a year to sell some of the lenses you have on our local Craigslist. They have to almost give them away.

Craigslist is a weird internet swap meet and not a very good metric for judging resale. eBay is much better and I've never had any problems selling camera gear of any make there. Sigma gear doesn't hold its value compared to new like Canon does, not even close, but it generally holds its used value well. Looking over eBay completed listings, it looks like I could easily sell my 70-200 2.8 HSM for what I paid for it used, possibly a touch more. I could definitely sell my 300-800 for much more than I paid for it.

Anyway, on topic, I'd agree with the rest and go with the 6D + 24-105L IS. Such a good lens for the money. I've kept older bodies around as backups or second bodies and I just never end up using them. Unless you're being paid for the gig and need to be on top of every shot, switching lenses is a lot easier than hauling around two cameras imo

 

[unfocused]

Wait as long as you can. The 6D is not going to go up in price, it will only come down. (although probably not by much).

If you can't wait, buy a 6D and 24-105 "L" for the CanonPriceWatch.com street price of $2039.

Then, to satisfy your Bokeh cravings, watch the Canon refurbished store for a sale on any of these lenses:

85mm 1.8; 100 mm 2.8 macro; 200mm 2.8 prime.

Any of those three are great portrait lenses and all are relatively cheap but hard to come by on the refurbished sales. Be sure and register with CanonPriceWatch to get a notification and then move quickly when the one you want is available.

 

[dsut4392]

Go for option 2, 6D with 24-105/4. I did the same earlier this year, and the only time I have used the 60D since is when my wife pulled the wrong body out of the cupboard once by accident. I have kept the 60D only through laziness, just never seem to get around to selling it (note to self - ebay it this week!)

I completely disagree with the sentiment "wait as long as you can" - it's a very worthwhile upgrade in image quality, so why not start enjoying that sooner? For day-to day use, the 24-105 is a brilliant little lens, and is on my camera 85% of the time. My Sigma 50/1.4 (same as yours) makes up another 10%. The remainder is old MF glass, both wider and longer.

For my purposes (mostly landscape & travel) I miss the loss of 8mm (equivalent) at the wide end (comparing my old Sigma 10-20 @10mm with the 24-105 @24mm) more than any loss at the long end. I'm just waiting until the current round of releases of UWA zooms is done and I decide which to get. I would be surprised if you didn['t appreciate the extra width of the 24mm over your 27mm equivalent 17-50. But for wildlife you may well miss having a longer focal length than 200, especially coming from APS-C. I don't shoot much wildlife, but would certainly buy/rent something longer if I did.

As for carrying 2 bodies for events, if you're not shooting commercially can you really be bothered? I used to commonly carry two film bodies back in the day (one for chrome, one for B&W), but see no need to now unless you're relying on your gear to earn a living. It sounds like you only have one body now, and having two may make you 'feel' a bit more 'PRO', but make sure you weigh up the pros and cons. The benefit of not having to swap lenses is often outweighed (pun intended) by the nuisance and discomfort of having two cameras dangling around your neck clacking together. And you would have to be extremely unlucky (or clumsy) to need a 'backup' body - touch wood I have yet to have a complete camera failure in 25 years of shooting, including some pretty hostile environments (e.g. skiing, climbing, canyoning, kayaking, deserts and jungles, between -28C/-20F and +51C/+123 F).

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi dsut.
On the first point, there are some fantastic dual harnesses out there, some at ridiculously low prices! No excuse to disrespect two expensive bits of gear by allowing them to collide!

On the second point, is a complete failure having to power off and back on between each shot? If so it happened to me on a very low mileage coddled and loved 40D early in my digital "amateur career". I will not be more than a reasonable walk from my backup (old) body, if the event involves park and ride "long difficult to return to vehicle" and is a rare occurrence I carry two bodies.

As for unlucky it could just be a D'oh moment that leads you to grab the second body rather than miss a shot! :-[

Cheers, Graham.

The benefit of not having to swap lenses is often outweighed (pun intended) by the nuisance and discomfort of having two cameras dangling around your neck clacking together.


And you would have to be extremely unlucky (or clumsy) to need a 'backup' body - touch wood I have yet to have a complete camera failure in 25 years of shooting, including some pretty hostile environments (e.g. skiing, climbing, canyoning, kayaking, deserts and jungles, between -28C/-20F and +51C/+123 F).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

This was a thing that happened literally 20 years ago. Its not an issue at all anymore. This is basically the same thing as telling people not to trust Canon ever because one time they completely changed their mount and screwed everybody who had huge investments in FD lenses.

FD lenses were not marketed as being EOS compatible, that's not a good example, but it was painful. The issue happens to 3rd party flash and flash accessory buyers with almost every new Canon model. Up to a year to get your equipment working.

It can happen to Sigma again, it happened to them twice, they fixed lenses to work with the early Canon DSLR's, and they broke a 2nd time when the 10D came along.

Since then, they work, but AF is still a thorn in their side.

 

[KennethC]

Thanks everyone for the advice. It seems like the natural way to go ahead will be to upgrade to Full Frame. I will probably keep my 50 and 70-200 sigma. I'm sure they will become great portraits lens if I get myself a 6D. Being a hobbyist, i probably won't upgrade to a canon 70-200. (But who knows one day I may go crazy when I manage to try using one) If in 10 years time, my 2 sigma lenses cannot be used on the new canon bodies, I guess I would have make them worth-while and retire them as decorations in my study room.

At this moment, most of the suggestions seem to be heading towards a 6D kit which means selling my 60D with 17-50. But I am also wondering if full frame will really worth the extra bucks? It's not going to be a small sum. Will you guys be able to share some examples of why full frame owns the APSC by that sum of money difference? I need a bit more motivation and justification to "lie" to myself that I need full frame. =p

Maybe i will listen to unfocused. Hold on a while more for the price of 6D kit to drop (while i save up more and keep shooting even more) Then i will buy the kit and sell only my 17-50. Somehow, I have this feeling that I will miss my 60D if I sell it away (For wildlife, and my friend just bought a Tamron 150-600. time to borrow from him. =p)
May just consider buying a 10-18mm to try out, the most I will sell it at a small loss when the time comes. (This is to try out to see if I will have the feel to buy a 16-35 f4 in the future)

Anyway, thanks you guys for the great information.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 50 Sigma is great on a crop where only the center portion of the image is used, but the Canon 50 1.4 beats it on FF where the Sigma edges are poor.

Its should not be a big deal, but I would not buy one for FF, even if it did focus accurately.

One thing you need to be aware of is that FF cameras have a shallower depth of field, and as a result, AF needs to be more accurate, since errors are not lost in the deeper depth of field that a crop body has. Fortunately, the FF bodies all have AFMA so that you can fine tune autofocus.

 

[Khalai]

Being a hobbyist, i probably won't upgrade to a canon 70-200. (But who knows one day I may go crazy when I manage to try using one) If in 10 years time, my 2 sigma lenses cannot be used on the new canon bodies, I guess I would have make them worth-while and retire them as decorations in my study room.

If you don't want to buy a 70-200/2.8L II, then I suggest don't even touch it, don't mount it on the camera and for all that is holy, DO NOT take a single picture with it. Otherwise, your bank account will suffer Trust me, I've been there, that lens is phenomenal, sharpness, contrast, colours, handling. Only downside for me is the weight (I need to list some cons, right?)

Transition to FF is great, especially, if you're looking into shallow DoF and cleaner high ISO. 6D is impressive in that department, some even claim it's slightly better than 5D3, neck to neck with 1Dx (but that's for others to decide). I can speak from my own recent experience as I bought 6D on January 2014. My poor 7D lies in the bag as a backup ever since, never regretted the purchase (if you can live with rather limited AF and small VF coverage).

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Go with option 4

Shoot with what you have until you are convinced that it is the camera that is holding your photography back.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

... Shoot with what you have until you are convinced that it is the camera that is holding your photography back.

+1

 

[dgatwood]

Shoot with what you have until you are convinced that it is the camera that is holding your photography back.

Or until you find a camera that offers features that you care about. I shot on an XTi for many years. I upgraded to a 6d because:

• Its GPS made it possible to know where my pictures were shot without having to keep a log.
• The higher resolution means no more upscaling of photographs for hardcover book jackets.
• The low light handling meant I'd get more keepers when shooting in crappy light.
• The auto ISO means the first dozen photos after I move from a dark location to a brighter one aren't noisy.

None of these things were holding back my photography, per se, but they all made photography less of a hassle under certain circumstances, at certain times, and at certain levels of compromisation.