stumbo Loc: Prescott, AZ

I presently have a Canon 7D and the new 7D Mkii. I shoot mainly landscape images and have been looking at the Canon 5D Mkiii. The reason I have had the other two cameras is because I like the fast fps of the other two as it relates to sports and other action shooting. I'm thinking of selling the 7D and applying any proceeds towards the 5D Mkiii. What would be the main benefit I would gain in a full frame camera over the 7D Mkii I have now. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts and comments. Thank you in advance.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I know this isn't answering your question, but...are you looking to get a backup body? Is that why you want two cameras? If that's the case, and your not a pro, then get another 7d2 (or keep your 7d) and invest in quality glass...that's where you'll see the biggest improvement.

stumbo Loc: Prescott, AZ

I presently have the following lenses, all Canon. 24-105 1:4L, 24-70 1:2.8L, 70-200 1:2.8L and all have the IS feature except the 24-70, so I believe I'm in good shape with the glass I have. Are there any other lenses you would recommend? The reason I'm considering the Mkiii is because I've been told that for landscape photography, a full frame camera would be the way to go for the best results. And yes, I like to have a good back up camera and one with the higher fps for reasons stated. That's why I would want to keep the 7D Mkii.

stumbo Loc: Prescott, AZ

I forgot one lens. I also have the Canon 16-35 1:28 L which is a good wide angle lens that I've gotten a lot of use from.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

So it sound's like you've got the glass...I'm just not sure that the 5diii is going to give you a whole lot more over the 7dii. The dynamic range on both bodies are essentially the same. At least with the d5s R the range and IQ jump up (a bit)...but it still doesn't compete with the D810 in dynamic range.

I'll let the Canon users chime in now.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I have the 6D, and love it. Works great in low light and with the 24-105 I have done entire events like Civil War Reenactments. With my 14mm I can do the tight spaces inside carbarns or inside railway cars at the museum I belong to.

I got the 7DII because even with my Tamron 150-600 doing birds (my new interest) was a return to the days of film and no auto focus. Pre focus or pray and try to do manual focus, then try to shoot when the bird hit the pre focused distance, without the high fps.

I figure I now have the best of both. And in the event something happens to one of them, well I will need to make accomendations, but both are really good cameras.

Oh, lenses: 14mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 24-105 f4L, 70-300 f4-5.6, Tamron 150-600, Kenko 1.4X & 2X teleconverter, Set of Kenko extension tubes for close focusing (macro, unless one of the "true macro" believers jumps me for not being pure enough). I guess all I really need is a true macro lens. Or add the Canon 100-400 as a lighter long telephoto to carry with a teleconverter for birds and reserve the Tamron for fixed set ups with tripod and gimbal head.

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

The 16-35L will give you a very good wide angle on your 7DII, although I hear the first series has a bit of vignetting on a crop sensor at the widest settings. But you would know that.

I have a few bodies including the 7D and 5DIII, but agree with Cdouthitt. I don't see much gain vs. cost for your landscape use. If the other use you put them through is sports and action, the bodies you have now are perfect.

I tested the 7DII for a week through CPS and except for the high frame rate, for your practical purposes, the differences only make a difference if you have GAS.

Updating your L lenses would probably be a better use of the money you have to spend.

BullMoose Loc: Southwest Michigan

Definitely not a lens issue. With those lenses you won't exceed any camera's ability. Looks like with that investment you're serious and not afraid to spend. I would go to full frame. If you're serious about landscape, the 5D Sr would be my choice.

I have a couple of those lenses and still use the 5D mk2. I skipped the mk3 and am looking at the 5D Sr (soon I hope). When I made the move to full frame it made an immediate improvement (but that maybe was just a commitment issue on my part).

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

You are only looking at the Dynamic Range at ISO 100, where indeed the 7D2 and the 5D3 are the same. Everywhere else, meaning at the ISO values that actually get used, the 5D3 is of course about 1 fstop higher than the 7D2, as would be expected of similar technology FF and APS-C sensors.

It is true that Nikon sensors are significantly better in that respect. If that were what mattered to the OP, he should sell off all the Canon equipment and buy Nikon, Sony or Pentax. But I really don't think that is what he is going to do! If he wants to keep his 7D2 (for the purposes stated) and naturally all of his very nice lenses, a Canon 5D3 is a very good choice for a FF body. The new 5DS is a better choice if possible.

mper812 Loc: Atlanta GA area

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=170&v=l4_YokbwVNw

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

why not one of each? for aps-c sensor to get the further reach when using telephoto I use a d-300. if I need a wider angle or am shooting with pre digital lenses to get fx type lens without the fx price I shoot with my DF, also a bigger sensor should have better quality as more light hits the sensor

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

If you are actually looking for a FF body without the high fps rate, look at the 5D MkII. It was and is a very popular camera for portraits, landscapes, and weddings. They are available for between $1400 and $1100. This would be a primary landscape candidate.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I have a 1dmk4 (crop, for sports) and 1ds mk3 (FF, for portraits)
If the 16-35 is the old model you will get some vignetting when zoomed at 16mm on the FF. If it is the newer version (82mm filter size) you wont have any vignetting at all even on the FF. I compared the lenses and those were my results.
Your 24-70 on the FF will be roughly equivalent to the 16-35 on the crop.
You get such a wide view with the FF you just wont believe it. FF also gives you better image quality.

stumbo Loc: Prescott, AZ

Thank you for the link. I watched it and found it helpful.

stumbo Loc: Prescott, AZ

I greatly appreciate everyone's input. It is very helpful to get a cross section of suggestions and opinions. Thank you all.