Hi all,
This question has probably been asked a million times but I'm hoping someone can help me out. I'm going to be upgrading my kit soon but what to get is confusing me. I currently own a Canon 1200D with 3 lenses - 40mm f/2.8 EF stm, 50mm f/1.8 EF stm and a sigma 17-70 EF-S. I mostly shoot landscapes and seascapes, but I occasionally assist at weddings, a few gigs and I'm starting to do some portraits. A real mixed bag - basically I'm taking as many different types of photo's as possible to improve my photography but my passion is in landscapes.
I know glass is everything but the limitations of my current body are really starting to become a hinderance. The low-light performance is poor and the lack of weather sealing is limiting to my landscape shoots. I have a bag thing that goes over the body but if it's raining, it's usually windy and that rain cover just turns into a sail which isn't great when I'm doing long exposures (which is most of the time - I shoot a lot of seascapes).
I'd really like to go full frame but the cost for current models is too high. I was looking at the Canon 7d mk2 but I looking at the second hand market, for roughly the same money I could get a 5D mk 2 and a nice, wide lens (I'd trade in the sigma or sell it). I'm trying not to to be dazzled by all the marketing hype around the new bodies and seeing as my rig is tripod mounted 99% of the time and the camera's in fully manual mode, would I be better of getting a camera a few generations old or a new crop sensor camera?
I'm pretty much brand agnostic (saying that I'd want to stick to either Canon or Nikon) and in the scheme of things I'm not too heavily invested glass-wise in Canon.
While the 5D Mark II may be quite a bit older tech, it would certainly be a big upgrade from the 1200D, especially in image quality. IMO, that's the way I would go in your situation. Agreed, you don't have much invested in lenses, but I wouldn't switch brands unless you had a really good reason. Just easier that way.
That's my 2 cents! :) (Note, I'm a NIkon shooter, so I may be totally wrong! LOL)
Thanks Tom. I've decided to stick with Canon, I've only just got used to the canon-esque terminology! I'm now Thinking about the 6D (after reading Roberts suggestion). Sorry for the delay in replying - real life (i.e. girlfriend) got in the way of my photography life the past few days!
The 5d mk2 would be a nice way to go, it's a great shooter but also if you want full frame look at the Canon 6d. They're better in low light, have a better colour depth and include things like wifi which the 5d's don't. The 17-70 wont work anymore but trade it in and look at the 16-35 f/4 if you want to stick with canon glass or there's some really nice offerings from Sigma and Tokina in the wide angle area.
The 7d mk2 is primarily a sports aimed camera, high frames per second and great focus tracking for moving targets... I don't think it's what you're after.
I would then look at an 85mm or the canon 100mm macro (great lens) for your wedding stuff. You could shoot a decent wedding with the 16-35, 50mm and an 85/100mm (I shoot 98% of a wedding day with just a 35mm)
if you did want to change to Nikon for the better colour depth and shadow recovery then I would say that the D750 is an incredible camera and considered by many as the "perfect wedding camera" while still giving you 24mp for your landscapes with a better sensor than the equivalent* Canon
*5d mk3
Thanks Robert, I hadn't even considered the 6d but looking at the costs it seems the more sensible (if such a word can be applied to the cost of this photography lark) way to go. Seeing as I already own a 40mm prime, would that be a useful enough lens to use for weddings whilst building up my glass collection?
The 40mm is a decent focal length for wedding work but it's a f/2.8 yeah so you might struggle in low light and with depth of field.