Where to upgrade from 80D

stryles said:

I have 80D and photograph as a hobby. I shoot events, kids birthdays, portraits, some architecture and landscape. Not much video because I didn't have good editing rig but now I do. For travel/street I have a minimalist Fuji with 35mm.

I have EF-S 10-18mm F4.5, 17-55mm F2.8, EF 85mm F1.8 and latest adition EF 100mm macro F2.8 L which is such a great lens: macro, portraits, tele. I also have a couple of Canon flashes. I use 17-55 the most, I noticed that I shoot most at around 35mm (50mm full frame equivalent) and I shoot more at the wide end than at the long end.

I would like to jump to full frame and if money was no object I'd get R6 and RF 24-105 F4. I think 24-105 on full frame would do what 17-55 does on APS-C with a bit longer range. F4 means less weight and portability, also OK for video. Sometimes run into high ISO with 80D as you can't go much higher than 1000-1600 before noise becomes a problem in and 20MP R6 would be better for low light han 5D IV or EOS R.

1.600 option: So for around 400 for EF 24-105 IS and 1200 for 5D IV I can jump to full frame but will need to switch to RF at some point. Cons, I use tilty flippy screen often. Reachable quickly, would need to switch to RF at some point.
2.500 option: RF 24-105 for 1300 and 1200 for used EOS R. I can use my EF-S 10-18 with 12MP crop until I get EF or RF wide zoom. Would need to save for 6-12 months
3.800 option: RF 24-105 for 1300 and 2500 for new R6. I think overall my system would benefit from more lenses (50 or 35 prime, a 200, 300 or 400 zoom) than from spending so much on a body. Would need to save 2 y

I shot EOS R once and I like it overall. The touch-bar is useless and it doesn't have a joystick but neither my current 80D has it. Video limitations are not worse than 80D
What do you think?

Click to expand...

First question: Why do you want to move to full frame? Are you sure it is going to be worth it for you? I'm not suggesting you shouldn't want to go full frame (I use full frame and I do like it) but APS-C has plenty to offer too, and it helps keeps size, weight and cost down. And if you are keen to move to mirrorless, you could always look at the EOS R10 (or R7 but obviously that is more expensive) and an adapter, and keep using the lenses you have for now.

If you do want to go full frame, one option is the 6D II. It has the tilty flippy screen you want, and while it has its limitations, it is relatively cheap and is still a good camera. Particularly if you found a good used 6D II that would leave you more money for lenses or anything else you want to buy, and of course your two existing EF lenses would work natively. Obviously though, it means you would be committed to buying EF lenses for now. EF lenses are comparatively cheap (particularly if you include third party options), but they tend not to be small or light compared to what you can sometimes get for mirrorless systems, and of course if you move to mirrorless in the future you will need to use an adapter to keep using them (although that's not the end of the world).

Otherwise, if you want to go mirrorless full frame, you have already looked at the R and R6. What about the RP though? The AF and FPS would be more limited, of course, but it would get you into the Canon full frame mirrorless game and let you focus on moving to RF lenses. Anyway, it seems to come down to how long you are willing to wait to make your move. Are you happy to keep using what you have for another couple of years while you save for an R6? Or do you want to make the move sooner? How important is the R6's viewfinder to you compared with the R's (or RP's) viewfinder? How important is the R6's higher FPS and faster AF? The R6 obviously has newer tech than the R or RP, but of course plenty of people have managed to take good photos with an R or even(!) an RP.

Finally, another option I would consider in your shoes is a used Sony A7 III (although you would need to check what the cost would be - I'm assuming in the same ballpark as an R or perhaps a bit cheaper). That would get you into the full frame mirrorless game, and give you access to significantly cheaper, and in some cases relatively small and light, lenses. I believe the Sony 24-105 f/4 is a little bit cheaper than Canon's, if you want to stick with that sort of zoom. But you could also look at lenses such as the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DN, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 G2 and Tamron 70-180 f/2.8, which are relatively affordable as these things go. Or you could look at some of the small, light and relatively cheap primes (eg the Samyang 35 f/1.8, 45 f/1.8 and 75 f/1.8 lenses) for the Sony system. I haven't shot with them so I cannot speak from first hand experience, but from everything I have read I would be very keen to try out an A7 III or A7 IV with one or more of those little Samyang lenses. Canon has brought out a few cheaper RF lens options now, eg the RF 100-400, but at this point there are a lot more relatively cheap (and in many cases, in my view higher quality for the money at least optically) options for the Sony system. I'm not saying the A7 III is the perfect camera, and whenever I have picked up one I have not liked the feel of it in my hands compared to Canon's cameras, but no camera is perfect so it's a case of deciding which overall package comes closest to satisfying everything you want.

I used to have a 70D (1 gen older than yours), with a pretty large assortment of STM lenses (most EF-S, and a few EF). My favorite lenses were the EF-S 18-135, the pancakes, and the STM nifty 50 (which on crop was effectively larger).

Like you, I wanted to go full frame for various reasons. With mirrorless becoming more prevalent, I decided to go with the R w/ the 24-105L & EF adapter as a kit (that was before the R5/R6 was released). My thought was that I could bring all my glass with me as I build my new kit. What I didn't realize was that I was going to be so pleased with the new kit, that I decided to sell off all my old gear after I acquired the RF50/1.2L... and then proceeded to slowly build my RF glass. When the R5 was released, I now had a few RF lenses... and decided that was the camera for me. I ended up getting a good offer on my R Kit, so sold it thinking I was going to replace the 24-105 w/ the 28-70/2 (that was a mistake). I ended up covering that range w/ a 24-70/2.8 + 70-200/2.8. I kind of wish I would have kept the 24-105 as a travel lens, but oh well... I sold it for only a bit less than I paid.

However, getting back on topic...
Another option is getting a R6 used w/ an adapter and start off using your current glass. Then build your glass from there.

About 5 years ago I was considering getting a new camera body to replace my Rebel. I thought about getting the 80D, but decided to wait until the 6D2 came out. Once it appeared, I decided to buy it with the non-L kit 24–105mm lens. I have not regretted the decision. Like everything, the 6D2 is worthy of some valid criticisms, but I haven't found any of them relevant to my photography, that I can tell. I thought of the kit lens as something to hold me until I decided what lenses to get. For that and for financial reasons, I decided that the price differential for the L version was too much stretch on my budget at the time. I have found it to be a good general-purpose lens for me, and I still use it much of the time. So I will second the recommendation for you to look into getting a used version as a bang for the buck option. The price difference with the L kit lens is probably not so great any more.

I already had the 100mm macro lens. At first I used it with my 6D2 as a portrait lens, too, but thought the results looked too "clinical." I later found an affordable refurbed 85mm f/1.8, which works well for me for that purpose. I also already had the 50mm f/1.4, which I used as a portrait lens on my Rebel. I don't have much occasion to use it now, but it comes in handy in low light. Over time I have added the 100–400mm zoom and the 16–35mm f/4 zoom, so I have the whole range I need covered.

I have not perceived any value for me from the new mirrorless cameras. If I were to make a significant upgrade in equipment, I'd get the Fujifilm GFX 100s and a lens or two. But I doubt that I would suddenly start taking that many more landscape pictures if I had it, or that the extra quality would show up in the ways that I use and display my pictures. I may reevaluate that once we get toward fall if I am still relatively solvent. That camera seems to make more sense for me than my spending $5,000 or more on something full frame.

So that is what works for me, so read my comments for what they are worth, to whatever extent they are relevant to your photography and your wishes, needs, and budget.

stryles said:

I have 80D and photograph as a hobby.
...
I would like to jump to full frame and if money was no object I'd get R6 and RF 24-105 F4.
...

Click to expand...

Hi stryles!
And welcome to canonrumors.


Before giving any advice, my first question is

What do you expect in going FF? So what should become better in your Photography?


When I started with DSLR a good friend of mine told me: "You have the money! Go FF!" so I did.
What he didn't tell me is that this was the very expensive route as I really quickly realized, that good glass was more important than the body.

When I bought me a 200D for traveling compact I realized that this was the right choice - for me.

So when I see your lens lineup I would consider an R7 plus adapter, too - depending on your answer on my first question.
And then slowly add RF lenses that will give you new possibilities e.g. an RF100-400.

When your answer leads towards FF I'd go the R6 + RF24-105/4 way, even if that would mean some more time saving money.
Add the RF 35/1.8 and the 50/1.8 as they are not so expensive and you'll also have a good setup for event and low light together with your EF85.

I own the 5D4 and really love that cam. But if I had to spend money now, I'd go directly the R system way as this is the future, defined by Canon.
And IMO the R6 offers much more than the R, especially the much better EVF, the better sensor and the better AF would be worth the money.

But before choosing the one or the other way. let us help you, if you really need or "just" want FF

An obvious thing I failed to mention is that I would miss having an optical viewfinder. I do OK with my G5X II travel camera, using the screen on the back or the EVF when needed, and I use live view on my DSLRs when that Is the best choice (or only choice in the case of video).