I for the past 4 months have been researching and watching reviews on three different canon cameras. Currently I am shooting with a Canon T3 and several different lenses none of which are L series lenses. I shoot mostly landscape and wildlife, however I am crossing over into some portrait and street photography, and even setting up a studio in my home with lighting and soft boxes. I still want the ability to shoot all these things in my travels. Currently I am looking at three cameras that are in my price range since I want to spend money on good glass im keeping the budget down to about 2000 dollars. Im not looking to buy second hand if possible. Three cameras that im looking at are the Canon 6D mark ii which doesn't get the best reviews but mostly due to its video quality which I care nothing about. The Canon 7D mark ii which Canon claims is there best wildlife crop sensor camera and gets great reviews. Or the Canon 80D which is another crop sensor and so far have been impressive in the reviews.
Please give me your opion and your reason why you feel I should go with a certain camera. If you own one then I would love to compare unedited files also. Ive only been shooting a year now and I really feel my T3 is holding me back due to several reasons, one is the weather sealing and I live in the Pacific Northwest, second is the speed of the camera since I do like to shoot eagles and other birds of prey, third is the low light capabilities however that can be tweaked with better glass and fourth is resolution since I tend to blow most my work up to wall hanging photos up to 42x72 print. All help and advice is appreciated.

Three examples of my work will be listed with this post not for critising since i know whats wrong with the photos but to show what typed of things im shooting.
Gear includes T3 camera, Canon18-55 EFS kit lens, Canon 75-300 IS USM lens, Canon 50mm 1.8 USM lens, Canon 24mm 1.8 USM lens, Tamron 28-300 VC DI Aspherical lens and a Godox 680 Speed light with remote.

I normally prefer having a lens on my camera, but if you prefer having what others insist is what you need...then who are you shooting for them or you? Your feet control the best all around lens there is...the ones attached in your head and connected to your brain? After that it's up to you on who you want to shoot for using your gear? You or the ones telling you what to get? Rent, rent, rent, try, try, try ... but I will promise you this, sooner or later you will convince yourself there is something better and it's because you're brain damaged into believing new is better...who markets the truth anyway? What you should convince yourself of is, there are lenses that achieve things differently ...not better, bestest, or best, "different" so there is no Good or Bad, what there is different light and different ways lenses handle it.... there is no all around lens, ebay is proof of that unholy grail.

What I jokingly meant was if you buy prime lens, then it's going to always have the same fixed focal length and to bring the photographed subject closer to you, you'd need to walk towards that subject or, inversely, if you're to close to the subject, you'll need to walk away from it for better framing -- something you don't need to do with zooms (or do less).
My suggestion then would be, if snapping birds is your main thing, then don't go with primes and go with the zooms. Spend as much as you can for the one with quality glass and greater reach. Considering the fact that you also specified your preference for "all-around lens", I'd say 24-105 would probably be the very minimum zoom you should consider, keeping an eye for others, with higher second number (105, 135, 200, 300, etc.). Hope that helped.