>>2864198
>gear thread

I've been lusting over the 7D for quite a while now. I think I'm regretting going Pentax but it's too early to say.

Enjoy the stellar stellar AF, excellent, very realistic colors, good video and good ISO performance. You will also be investing in a non-meme tier ecosystem (extremely important for anyone besides a bloody amateur).

You will lose the extreme depth the Sony sensors had for pulling up shadows (NOTHING will compensate for not properly exposing a photograph, but Sony sensors are better than Canon crop).

If you're like me you'll super extremely enjoy the optical viewfinder.
You will also realize that mirrorless cameras have INGRAINED into you the desire to chimp. To know NOW NOW NOW what the photo looks like. This is cancerous overall to photo taking. You need to know, yes but not distractingly so.

For landscapes and travel? Stick with the a6000 and invest in better glass. It's smaller, lighter, and has better high ISO performance and dynamic range. Although I really don't like the EVF, cheap feel and clunky menus of the a6000, though. There's always trade-offs...

>>2864198
More lenses is the better option

>>2864198
it depends on the lenses. Canon + zoom lens is probably by far the best.

Stop responding to this without sage.

>>2862011

Suck mah dick op, use the gear thread. Saged

If you want a system that you can grow with go for the Canon.

The only so-called advantage the Sony has is muh dynamic range which has always struck me as more a marketing tool of rather dubious real-world value.

The best way to decide really is go to somewhere like flickr and search by camera name and model and have a good look at what people are shooting with them. You'll be able to see for yourself if Sony's dynamic range is consistently outperforming the Canon

>>2864314
>The only so-called advantage the Sony has is muh dynamic range

And size and weight, and lens adaptability, and fps, and AF coverage, etc....

stick with the sony.

i recommend getting the sigma 18-35 for the e-mount if you want a good, semi-wide semi-long travel lens that will kick the shit out of your kit.

the thing that really sucks about sony is their native lens selection, but their third party and adaptable selection is good.

lens>>>camera for image quality, but camera>>>lens for general enjoyment.

I've owned an RX1 and absolutely hated using it, despite getting some amazing photos with it.

I have an SL1 and prefer it iver the RX1 immensely, even if it takes pictures with a little less resolution and shadow detail.

so with all that idk man. sounds like you dont really enjoy using your a6000 if you want to switch ecosystems entirely. if the issue is image quality then I'd say stick eith your sony, you'll probably get worse IQ from the 7Dii. but if it's the camera itself you hate id do the 7Dii, I plan on going that route in a bit myself.

>>2864316
>And size and weight
er no not really when you consider all the extra batteries you have to carry to get a decent days shooting

>and lens adaptability
true you can bolt on all manner of third rate Russian and Chinese lenses as well as dusty old junk shop glass for a really hi-tech Frankencamera

>and fps
Sony = 11fps
Canon = 10fps

But with a max of 360 frames per charge with no chimping, no tracking, no looking through the viewfinder to establish the best angle and settings ... belting out 11fps will fuck your battery in no time. And at least the Canon frames will be in focus ...

>and AF coverage
... Sony's inability to focus on anything moving faster than a bollard is legendary

>>2864198
For landscapes and travel, there is nothing that the 7Dmk2 can do that your A6000 can't, other than some weather sealing that you won't use. Use the camera you have, and spend your money on traveling.

>>2864348
>there is nothing that the 7Dmk2 can do that your A6000 can't

except focus consistently, quickly and not need the battery changing every couple of hours

I need some help.

I got a 650D a few years ago to take with me while travelling. I ended up taking a liking to photography and ended up buying a 50mm f1.8 and a 24-105mm f4 L with the intention of upgrading to a full frame when I could.

Now that I have the money to go full frame Sony have come out with full frame mirrorless, and seeing as they are lighter than a dslr they'll be better for travelling with.

Now do I go for a Canon full frame like the 6D and deal with the weight, or do I go for an a7 II and get a lens adapter so I can use my canon lenses on it?

>>2864726

this.

7DmkII is far superior than a6000

>>2865243
Mirrorless full frame isn't really much smaller or lighter than DSLR full frame, once you account for the same quality and speed of lenses attached to the front. If you're looking for compact, something APS-C mirrorless is more likely your way to go, unless you'll be adapting older rangefinder lenses, for instance.

There are advantages to the A7 series, but size and weight aren't really among them.

>>2864726
Hes shooting landscapes so he should be manual focusing anyways. I hate gear fags so much its like "holy shit, they used to use manual settings???? Wtf thats some stone age shit!"