Dear community,
I am considering the following cameras:
Canon 6D with 24-105mm f/4L Lens or the Pentax K3 ii with DA 16-85mm.
The idea is to have an all-round camera with an all-round lens. Economically speaking they are similar enough for me to go either way (although the Pentax would leave marginally more room for filters etc.)
I don't have any lenses for either system, so completely unbiased from that side.
Printing some of the pictures relatively large (up to ca. 60cm)
Pictures will be mainly landscape, some architecture and occasionally family photos etc.
Thank you for your advice in advance!
Andrew

[Outis]

If you're mainly interested in landscape and architecture, I think you would definitely benefit from the wider angle fo the 16-85 instead of the extra reach of the 24-105. It makes a big difference, especially for sweeping vistas and enclosed spaces.

[bertwert]

Personally I'd choose the K3ii and 16-85 (most people on the forum will choose this and you are likely to get biased answers) as I prefer 'the feel' of Pentax.

[Giklab]

The two lenses on their respective cameras have the same FOV. The Canon setup will probably be heavier and slightly bigger. the AF on the Canon is better, but the super resolution mode will be a huge plus for the K-3II.

[normhead]

Damn, an all around camera. Does anyone make one of those?

The K-3 would have better dynamic range for landscape, but the 6D has better low light performance, so at about 800-1600 ISO (if memory serves me well), the 6D will be noticeably lower noise and better Dynamic range.

So there's no free lunch. 100- or 200 ISO the K-3 is just a better camera. Faster burst, higher resolution, WR, more solid construction... but if you spend a lot of time indoors, shooting without flash, the 6D might be a better bet. No one is going to tell you what to buy.. because no one knows exactly where you do most of your shooting, and which compromise you'd be most comfortable with. In your position, my supplier (Henry's of Canada, have the 6D $200 off right now with the lens you want for $2,099 CDN.

A k-3II is 1,150, that leaves $1000 for lenses. How about a DA 17-70 ƒ4 (599) A DA 50 ƒ1.8 (150) and a Pentax DA L 55-300MM F4-5.8 ( $269) for the same money. With that money, that's certainly the way I'd go, and I get a heck of a lot more bang for my buck.

IN terms of field of view, that package gives you the 6d equivalent of 25-450mm in top of the line consumer quality glass, ( plus a good low light performer in the DA 50 ƒ1.8, to make up for the 6D's better low light sensor. 2 stops more light capacity is actually a better deal, in those situations you can use a 50mm prime lens.

[PentxOrni]

Dear community,
I am considering the following cameras:
Canon 6D with 24-105mm f/4L Lens or the Pentax K3 ii with DA 16-85mm.
The idea is to have an all-round camera with an all-round lens. Economically speaking they are similar enough for me to go either way (although the Pentax would leave marginally more room for filters etc.)
I don't have any lenses for either system, so completely unbiased from that side.
Printing some of the pictures relatively large (up to ca. 60cm)
Pictures will be mainly landscape, some architecture and occasionally family photos etc.
Thank you for your advice in advance!
Andrew

What kind of camera did you use yet...?
If you had a compact bridge cam or even smaller you will enjoy the (still) compact measures of the Pentax K-3 combined with small but high quality lenses, that must not be the latest models as the stabilization is inside the DSLR.
Hence, ifyou think of weight to carry around, Pentax will be also lighter, at least when it comes down to your fields of interest.

[Na Horuk]

I don't have any lenses for either system, so completely unbiased from that side.

I suggest you try going to a store or a photography club where you can hold the camera(s) in hand. This can often be a big issue for people deciding which camera system to use.

Printing some of the pictures relatively large (up to ca. 60cm)

The 6D has fewer MP, but I don't think this would be a problem. The K-3II has more MP and no AA filter, so you could use slightly higher DPI in a print of a given size. Neither of these cameras would give problems in that regard, so this is not an issue. The K-3II should be the better choice here, especially if you use pixel shift function (which will give you stunning detail, but should only be used for still subjects)

Pictures will be mainly landscape, some architecture and occasionally family photos

Sounds like this is mostly outdoors and wide angle. The Pentax would be a fine choice because 16mm on APSC is wide angle, you get a WR system, and 85mm is more than enough for portraiture
But! Both of the cameras you mention are DSLRs. They are made to have interchangeable lenses, and the photographer is supposed to mount the best lens for the needed task. While the zoom lenses you mentioned are not bad, I would still recommend you get a fixed focal length 35mm and 50mm lenses some time later. These will give you good image quality, better low light performance than the zoom lenses, and are still affordable.
One thing to keep in mind is that Canon uses in-lens stabilization, and Pentax uses in-camera stabilization. This means that for Canon, you need to buy a lens that has stabilization, if you want stabilization. Some Canon lenses do not offer this, and neither do adapted lenses. With Pentax, you can mount any lens, and it will be stabilized. Even 50 year old adapted lenses. This can be of great value, as you can find an affordable old lens, but still get some modern features like SR and even CiF (depending on lens mount). This is one of Pentax' main strengths. And WR, green button, and super compact camera/lenses (some of the smallest in this sensor size category).

[Lev]

As I know, 6D has less cross type focus points, as I remember only center point is cross type, I may be wrong but anyway, I think that 6D is good mainly for portraits, and of course bigger sensor has its advantages. But man, WR K3 II with 16-85 is just beautiful.

[SpecialK]

The 6D is not that big or heavy. Landscape and architecture frequently calls for tripod use. If you want a tilt/shift lens for architecture or even portraits, Canon will have more options.

[RKKS08]

I don't own a K-3, but I think it has sensor shift for composition, which with WA can replace a specialized shift lens in most cases.
You probably loose SR while using it, but with wide angle and landscape or architecture, this should not be such a problem.

Thanks for all the fast responses!
I've been taking 35mm until now (Minolta) - so am used to a compact body (although quite heavy)
Yeah exactly mostly outside (and yes, as landscape often with tripod)
Looks like it's going to be a Pentax, the idea of internal stabilization, and therefore a broader selection of superior lenses which I can still afford just looks superior to me. Thanks again for all the opinions! I appreciated them a lot...
Now the question is which lens(es). I would be willed to spend up to 800 USD.
To split the range completely up seems too inconvenient to me. (I almost don't have a usage for tele and within a standard range I think that in many instances I will walk closer/farer from the object before changing the lens)
As I am coming from film I might be biased against having different lenses, as I never would spend an entire film on a very narrow lens. But changing now to digital I might want to overcome this.
Especially a second prime lens for low light looks quite reasonable to me. Out of the list the relative cheap DA 50 ƒ1.8 appeals to me. (To have something to switch to when it gets darker or the light conditions are really miserable) In good light how will the results between the rel. cheap DA50 and the 28-85mm at 50mm compare? As my experience with inferior lenses for specified uses translated to them just not being used. However the photos I saw with the DA 50 were also really impressive in sharpness. (I guess it comes back to a camera is as good as its user )
So options seem to be to me: 28-85 + eventually DA50 f1.8
Two prime lenses: One Wide (e.g. 15mm F4 + 50mm F1.8)
My thoughts: the wide lens is just slightly cheaper than the zoom, is its image quality really so much superior? Because by the pictures I saw in the forum I couldn't tell this, so that I thought the zoom lens would be a good mix between quality and convinience.
But am open to be teached better, so which lenses do people having the 28-85mm normally buy extra?
Thanks again for all the support!

[normhead]

Any of the Pentax lenses, even the 18-55 and 18-50 are pretty good. Pixel peeping, the differences are very small...

I looked at 50mm from a variety of sources a while ago... https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/297821-50mm-what-use.html

The Tamron 17-50 ƒ2.8 was by the end of the day the best, even better than the FA 50 ƒ1.7, the DA 50 ƒ1.8 is apparently a little sharper than my FA 50.

I don't know what was going on with my camera that day. I've since gotten much better images with the 18-55s.

Another one done for different lenses at 35mm.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/302815-35mm-find-prime.html

My advice after doing three series , this one also at 70mm... https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/301360-70mm...out-prime.html would be there are advantages to the primes, but it isn't as much as you'd expect.

Personally I'd buy on other features, spee. Even with old film glass you can't go wrong.

1. do you want a fast aperture.
2. Zoom or prime?
3. Water Resistance?
4. Size The (DA 14mm ƒ2.8 is a monster, the 15 ltd. ƒ4 is a little gem.)
5. What is your preferred range? Standard zooms come in all sizes.. 18-135, 16-85, 17-70. 16-50, 17-50.

All these tests done with my lenses, one of each, so sample variation is certain to be affecting some results. Plus my 18-55s have seen much more use than my other lenses. If any lenses were affected by wear it would be them, or my 18-135.

Just based on what I've done, I don't see any really bad lenses. I'd make my selection based strictly on other features.

[ChristianRock]

Thanks for all the fast responses!
I've been taking 35mm until now (Minolta) - so am used to a compact body (although quite heavy)
Yeah exactly mostly outside (and yes, as landscape often with tripod)
Looks like it's going to be a Pentax, the idea of internal stabilization, and therefore a broader selection of superior lenses which I can still afford just looks superior to me. Thanks again for all the opinions! I appreciated them a lot...
Now the question is which lens(es). I would be willed to spend up to 800 USD.
To split the range completely up seems too inconvenient to me. (I almost don't have a usage for tele and within a standard range I think that in many instances I will walk closer/farer from the object before changing the lens)
As I am coming from film I might be biased against having different lenses, as I never would spend an entire film on a very narrow lens. But changing now to digital I might want to overcome this.
Especially a second prime lens for low light looks quite reasonable to me. Out of the list the relative cheap DA 50 ƒ1.8 appeals to me. (To have something to switch to when it gets darker or the light conditions are really miserable) In good light how will the results between the rel. cheap DA50 and the 28-85mm at 50mm compare? As my experience with inferior lenses for specified uses translated to them just not being used. However the photos I saw with the DA 50 were also really impressive in sharpness. (I guess it comes back to a camera is as good as its user )
So options seem to be to me: 28-85 + eventually DA50 f1.8
Two prime lenses: One Wide (e.g. 15mm F4 + 50mm F1.8)
My thoughts: the wide lens is just slightly cheaper than the zoom, is its image quality really so much superior? Because by the pictures I saw in the forum I couldn't tell this, so that I thought the zoom lens would be a good mix between quality and convinience.
But am open to be teached better, so which lenses do people having the 28-85mm normally buy extra?
Thanks again for all the support!

Now you are getting to what would be the most important factor that should make you decide what system you want: what are the lenses you are after? As someone once said, buy the lens you want and get the camera that goes with it.

If you get Pentax, I would start off with a good all-around lens. Sigma makes a great 17-70mm f2.8-4 that is not expensive at all. The Pentax 18-135 is another good all-around lens, albeit a bit slower aperture, but it makes up for it being weather resistant (WR). Or, a primes set of a DA 21mm ($345.56 silver version) + DA 35 2.4 (119.95) + DA 50 1.8 ($94.99) would only cost about 560.50 at BHPhoto - and you would get very good IQ to get you started, combined with a WR 18-55 kit lens for versatility, and you'd have a great system for not a whole lot of money. Add the very good HD 55-300 for 264.99 and you'll have your hands full for a while.

If you get the Canon, what lenses would you get? How much would they cost?

Also, if you already have Minolta lenses, and they are AF, you could buy something from Sony that uses that same A-mount, like the A77(II) or even an older A850 which would get you to use them in a full frame size sensor.

Once you know what lenses you want, it will be easier to determine what body to get.

[TER-OR]

Don't forget about the little DA21mm pancake. It has a lot of contrast and I really like it for landscape/scenery.

[Outis]

Oooh, yeah, I love that one. And the 40mm Limited. And pancake lenses in general.