Canon 70d or 7Dmk2 Macro-Landscapes hiking?

I’m trying to give advice quickly on two Canon cameras that I know nothing much about to my gal.  She looking at buying either the Canon 70d or the new 7Dmk2.  Just quickly she already has 2 1Dx’s and a 5Dmk3 and a wide series of lenses.  Bulk of her work is landscapes and wildlife and the 1Dx’s get plenty of work.
 
She would like a light weight camera for day hikes to do macro and landscapes.  She sees the advantage of the 70d flip out screen for use on a tripod set low to the ground.  But I think you would need a cover over your head to block the light to see it.  She is also looking at either a Tamron or Sigma lens in the 16, 18 to ~270 mm range (need to ask her for exact ones) to go with it.
 
I can see the advantages of the 7Dmk2 on the wildlife side, but she says has the 1Dx for that.
 
Will she be happy with a 70d?  I hate buying things and not being happy with your choice that just end up not used.  I have bookmarked a few posts for her to look at but if you have any direct comments please do share. THANKS!
 

For landscapes, how about a Sony Alpha 7R?

Same price as the 7D2 but image quality in a completely different world (both for resolution and dynamic range). Of course, it will be MF only with her Canon lenses, but will have the same FOV as the 1Dx with her lenses, which is very nice for landscape work. She will need an adapter for the Canon lenses (which start around $50 for adapters with aperture control, which you want).

There is an autofocus adaptor for Canon EF to Sony FE mount, but it is slowwwww and expensive.

While the 18-2xx lenses might seem appealing I doubt your gal would be overly impressed with IQ if she is used to 1dx bodies and, I presume, decent glass. I bought my gal an 18-270 PZD with which she shoots her 30D and is very happy. I however fail to find any detail in the shots. Personally I think the Sony is a good call, as cropping to 16MP is possible for macro should you pair with a more general lens like a 24-70 or 24-105. Buying a crop sensor for someone doing primarily landscape seems odd to me. Especially with such great mirror less options.

It might help to know which lenses she has already?

For truly lightweight hiking with near DSLR autofocus and significantly better image quality than either of the two Canon's you mentioned, I would get a Sony a6000 with the Sony-Zeiss 16-70 mm f/4 stabilized lens. The camera uses a sensor that is superior to the Canon APS-C sensor. It has much less weight, better image quality and is much easier to hike with. It's what I use now for tripod free handheld shooting. Neither Canon nor Nikon are competitive in the genre of photography you are asking about Patrick. If you want more info, you know how to get a hold of me

A second option would be a Fuji X-T1 and appropriate lens.

The 7D2 is only 1.5 ounces lighter than the 5D3. If landscape & macro are her primary concerns I doubt she would be happier going to a cropped sensor from full frame.

"The gal" here. Thanks for all the input. I'm not yet familiar with mirrorless cameras, so that is an interesting option. I was interested in an all-in-one lens for 1) macro work, 2) backpacking, where weight is an issue, and 3) travel, where you often don't have time or opportunity to get close to subjects and it helps to have reach with a small, light, and relatively unobtrusive lens. The Sony a6000 with the 16-70 mm lens doesn't seem like it would give me the reach I'd like to have, EJ, although perhaps there are alternatives. I've noticed while traveling that there is seldom time to change lenses when people are the subjects.

EJ is right, the Sony Alpha 6000 is a great hiking camera with image quality perhaps slightly superior to the 1Dx at low ISOs (and significantly better than the 7D / 70D in a much smaller package). There are various zooms with longer reach than the 16-70 (Sony 18-105G, Tamron 18-200 etc.)

Since she is already Canon, starting over with a new system seems pretty crazy. I'd go for a 7DII and the little 70-300mm white wonder and a lightweight 10-22 for hiking.

The 7DII rivals the 1DX and is a tiny package for travel and hiking.

Steve the 7Dii and 70-300 weighs more than an entire a7 system with 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200 and has a lot poorer image quality.  It may be light to you but I certainly wouldn't want that as my hand held hiking lightweight camera

To the gal  Do realize that 16-70 is equivalent to 24-105.  Also there is an 18-200 lower end lens which would be the equivalent of 28-300 and a higher end 18-105 which would be equivalent to 28-160mm

7D2+70-300L = 2070g
a6000+18-200 = 868g
a6000+18-105G = 771G (G is a professional grade optic)

How about just adding a Canon Right Angle Finder to the 5DMIII for macro and use the saved money for the lense you want.

Excellent suggestions. I know quite a few people who have opted for the mirrorless alternatives, and I'm beginning to see why. Weight is definitely a key issue. Thanks for the weights on those cameras and lenses, EJ; that really puts it in perspective. Thanks to all who have taken the time to provide input.

Patrick here.... I read though the post and thanks for answering Carols questions. I like the goal of light weight and great image quality and going mirror less sounds like a great option.

The Sony a6000 sounds like a great recommendation. To help Carol some more I have questions on lens selection.

Lens company's like Sigma and Tamaron make lens selections in the Sony mount?

What lens would be good for macro, tiny flowers, or details up close?

That Sigma 18-200 (28-300) sounds good for walk around for multi use.

Always good to look at good glass.

Thanks and learning more about new technology.

Sigma only makes a couple of lenses for Sony E-mount and not the ones you said you were interested in.  Tamron does not
Sony has a short macro but many of the other lenses focus pretty close (see note below about the Zeiss Touit Macro for E-mount)
Don't confuse Sony A-mount (big lenses for DSLRs) with Sony E-mount.  The Sigma 18-200 that you are referring to is an A-mount lens for their large full-sized cameras.  They can be used with an adapter as can your Canon lenses though.
There's really no such thing as a really good 18-200 or 28-300. You trade versatility for optical quality with such huge zoom ranges in any mount.

Here is the lens range that is native to Sony E-mount (no adapters) - note that with an a6000 you would multiply time 1.5 to get 35mm full frame equivalent.  For an a7 body you would not apply a multiplier:
http://store.sony.com/e-mount-lenses/ca ... unt-Lenses

You can ignore the ones labeled FE for the a6000 and ignore the ones not labeled FE (those that are labeled E) for the a7.  A lens with the G designation or a Sony-Zeiss designation are much better than the lenses that do not have that designation in both build and optical quality.

For Macro, you might just use a Canon or Sigma 100mm Macro with an adapter since with Macro you are usually manually focusing anyway.  If you want a dedicated E-mount Macro lens, the Zeiss Touit 50mm Macro is outstanding:
http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_u ... 2850m.html

Finally, note that just about any lens ever made can be mounted to an E-mount camera with an adapter.  I have even used a 1936 Leica screw mount 28mm lens on mine.  I use a 1976 MD-Rokkor 40mm f/2 lens regularly on it and have used Canon and Nikon  mount current lenses on my Sony mirrorless cameras (a7R and a6000)

Here is a Tamron e-mount all in one zoom. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/8 ... i_III.html
For some reason way more pricey than Canon or Nikon equivalents.


There is a chart on Tamrons site with compatibility for all systems. http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/a ... _chart.pdf

I also fancy the A7 with a 24-xx zoom for traveling. But realize if I need longer I will end up carrying a load of gear again anyway.

Wow, Tamron snuck that by me

Another thought is the little Canon SL1

E.J. Peiker wrote:Wow, Tamron snuck that by me

Not much gets past you E.J.

The E-mount lens looks updated and modern but here costs 480€. The A-mount equivalent, and Canon/Nikon, is 100€ cheaper?

Of course if you went with an A7 mkII you could buy a non-stabilized lens.

You guys are great! Carol has the information and tools to do some reading and come to a decision. If we have more questions we won't hesitate to let you know. Thanks.