iguanaluke

Yeah, I guess the low click requirement doesn't make that much sense with my usage. On the other hand, it's not only clicks but the overall wear that can be gauged by that number. That's why I was aiming at a body relatively unused. Thanks Josvan for the words of restraint, too. (Yes, the mirror was replaced.) I am not a guy to jump to all the newest gear, the next-great-thing, and so on. I am perfectly happy driving a car that is 17 years old, since it ideally delivers me from one place to the other. That's why I was so interested if the image quality from the 6D was indeed so much better. All of you assure me that it is, so I may take a shot (figuratively and literally). The weight of the A7R is tempting, but I just can't imagine working without an ovf. I tried the electronic viewfinder in XPro1 and hated it. Thanks to everyone for their input. Have a great weekend.

I just started a similar thread on the merits of upgrading from 5D mk I to 6D mk I, didn't spot this one. Re: the question. It''s clear that the 6D is a better camera. But is the final image quality really better to justify dumping the old camera just because the new one got a bit cheaper? In mine, the shutter count is at about 30k. I tend to think it's better to invest in a good lens, which would work on other bodies as well instead of adding pixels. But maybe I'm wrong. That's why I posted my question. OK - higher workable iso is nice. Maybe the 6D doesn't catch dust so easily. But I'm not totally convinced.

Thanks Gary for pointing that out. You're right that the camera bag gains weight as the trip progresses. I once took the 5D and a film body to Turkey and how I regretted that! But my question is: is the potential image quality of a newer camera so much better than the 12 year old 5D? I tend to think that it's better to get a good adventure zoom than invest in pixels. The tempting thing is the high iso though. But then - maybe I'm missing something.

Dear photo.net, this is my first post here although I’ve been reading the fora for a long time and always appreciated the friendly tone of discussions and helpful comments. So here’s my question and it’s one I admit I’m ashamed to ask, since the question is: Which dslr should I buy? Yeah, I know. The bigger issue is: I used to shoot a lot, portraits and street photo mostly, but these days are gone and I can’t see them coming back. So it’s gonna be a dslr for an occasional, holiday shooter. I own a 5d mark I, the shutter count is about 25k (I’m not a quick fire shooter). I also have some lenses, but apart from the 85mm/1.8 I’m not really attached to them. So now a three week trip to Argentina looms (I live in Poland), and I’m thinking: my camera is more than 10 years old, maybe I should buy a new one for the upcoming journey? I’m looking at 6d mark I or the Nikon 750d, I see their merits (especially the Nikon’s), but it’s hard to find a used body with less than 20k actuations for a good price. But is the whole thinking right? Will there be enough difference in image quality to be worth the hustle? In low light I’m sure there will be but otherwise? Is the shooting experience any better? Or should I rather pursuit a decent 24-70L lens instead? (Until now, I mostly used primes.) Yes - I know about the mirrorless, I even owned a XP Pro, but the build, the slow AF, the shooting experience just didn’t feel right. I guess I need to look through the lens. So which way would you go? Thanks. Lukasz