Considering upgrading from Canon 40D to 6D

[Tony M]

It is with some trepidation that I post my first thread on camera hardware in CiC; they often evolve into a quite - ahhh - "colourful" - discussion. Anyway, here goes...

I want to upgrade my camera. I have considered my requirements and I think I have come to a decision that I'm reasonably happy with. My goal here is to get others' views; perhaps I've missed something, and you'll do me a big favour.

In late 2007 and bought the Canon 40D - a fairly advanced non-professional camera that I intended to grow into. Well, I used it as a point-and-shoot until late 2011 before deciding to get serious about photography as a hobby. In 2013 I still regard it as a fantastic camera; I have not out-grown it at all.

But things have changed in the camera industry in the last 6 years.

I do mostly landscape and some architecture and travel, and the Canon 40D is fine for that. But I would like more pixels - yes, I think size counts, especially when cropping photos to panoramic proportions. OK, I could stitch photos together; perhaps I don't need a tripod for that - I've never tried. But I don't want to have to do that. I don't yet print and hang my photos, but I will one day and I don't want to rely on interpolation of a 7MP (cropped) image.

I'd also like to do other kinds of photography, for example, low-light indoors or outdoors of people without a tripod. My mother, sister and her family are coming to visit this Christmas from New Zealand and I'm very keen to take good photos of them when in bars and restaurants here in Spain. I've been disappointed with the noise of the 40D at high ISO and would like less of it. Of course, a solution is to use a faster lens, but I don't always want the low depth-of-field of a 2.8 aperture in order to get a decent exposure.

A nice-to-have is more focus points. The 40D has nine cross-type focus points. Not bad really. Another nice-to-have is GPS; I often find myself in an unfamiliar location and want to find it again. Workarounds are GPS on my mobile phone, combined with Lightroom's import tracks feature.

Those are my basic requirements, and they have led me to the Canon 6D. I would have to sell my EF-S 15-85mm and EF-S 10-22mm lenses and get, say, the EF 24-105 L and EF 16-40 L lenses. That's no problem; there's a busy second-hand market in Madrid and in fact I bought the 15-85mm lens second-hand for an excellent price, with over 1 year warranty left. I can replace these lenses with little additional cost.

My other lenses are the EF 50mm 1.4 and 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM - the latter not a great lens and I'll replace it eventually. My lens needs are reasonably light zooms for long walks in the mountains, i.e. f/4 instead of f/2.8, and perhaps a fixed fast lens for the few occasions I really need it.

I think now's the time to move to full-frame. I think that this format is an inevitability for serious amateurs. The Canon 5D MkIII is a bit beyond my budget, or rather, it'd be really hard to sell that proposal to my better half.

Now for the questions and doubts.

I lose 8 cross-type focus points moving from the 40D to 6D, which has only one in the centre. Not having known any other DSLR, I don't know if I am really going to notice this. I guess that if the 6D has difficulty focussing on the non-centre point, then I simply have to swtich to that point and focus and re-compose. A bit inconvenient, but not a show-stopper...?

No flash. I don't think I'll miss it too much. I have a 580 EXII, which I'll have to make sure to take with me when I think I'll need it. And I should need it less often, given that the 6D handles low light better.

If I were buying a new kit from scratch, I'd probably choose the Nikon D610, for its 39 AF points, with 9 cross-type. It's only €250 more than the 6D. No GPS but that was a nice-to-have. I could change to Nikon; I'd have to sell my other two lenses and flash. I wouldn't lose money on the flash and only about €140 on the 70-300 lens. (I bought them in Hong-Kong, so relatively cheap compared to Spanish prices.) The D800 is only €175 more than the D610 and is tempting; although I don't think I'll really exploit the 36MP of the D800.

Any votes for switching to Nikon? Psychologically tough for me, being so used to Canon, but also a bit exciting.

Canon 6D users - what are your views?

And what have I missed in my analysis?

Tony

[William W]

Now for the questions and doubts.

I lose 8 cross-type focus points moving from the 40D to 6D, which has only one in the centre. Not having known any other DSLR, I don't know if I am really going to notice this. I guess that if the 6D has difficulty focussing on the non-centre point, then I simply have to swtich to that point and focus and re-compose. A bit inconvenient, but not a show-stopper...?

Can only relate to my technique.

I use Focus and Recompose 99% of the time. From the type of shooting you describe I cannot see why you could not do that.

Also, I don’t understand what you gain in using the outer points now?

Maybe you think it is speed and efficiency, but if so: I’d ask if you’ve A/B your technique with Focus and Recompose (once you’re good at F&R) – I think you might find the F&R is mostly always, quicker.

***

No flash. I don't think I'll miss it too much. I have a 580 EXII, which I'll have to make sure to take with me when I think I'll need it. And I should need it less often, given that the 6D handles low light better.

It would be a mistake to attribute the High ISO capacity (of the 6D) to the uselessness and being able to do without the Pop up Flash.

I see there are two uses for the PuF:

1. To make a required shot in low light with much disregard for “nice” lighting.
2. To use a Direct Flash Fill (in bright surrounds).

The latter is much more important than the former in my opinion and also in my applications of the PuF.

***

If I were buying a new kit from scratch, I'd probably choose the Nikon D610, for its 39 AF points, with 9 cross-type. Any votes for switching to Nikon? Psychologically tough for me, being so used to Canon, but also a bit exciting.

I wouldn’t.

For one reason - If you’re serious about developing Architecture, then the TS-E Lenses are wonderful. Sure they can be used via an adapter on a Nikon Camera: but easier on a Canon Body.

The are other reasons, mainly based on the functionality and systems of the two cameras – you’re used to Canon.

If you seriously are considering a swap – then do hire a Nikon and use it for a weekend mercilessly it will “feel” different to your Canon.


***


Other points:

1. Are you going to sell your 40D?

2. There is no 16 to 40 – I assume you mean the EF 17 to 40 F/4L USM?

3. The EF 24 to 105 F/4L IS USM, is a really REALLY useful travelling ‘one lens solution’ on a 135 format body.

4. The 6D presents really good value for money.

5. Down-board thinking, (regarding replacing your 70 to 300) you’ll be looking at one of the 70 to 200L’s I expect: the consideration is that you will already have 105mm at F/4 and with IS . . . so 200mm is not that much of a gain.

Then you will likely think of a 70 to 200 and a x1.4 Tele Extender EF – so you will look at the three F/2.8 lenses 70 to 200 . . . they are heavy and also more expensive than their 70 to 200 F/4 counterparts.

What you might do NOW is look at a 70 to 200F/4 IS and the EF 17 to 40 F/4 USM as a pair of lenses and evaluate, based upon the FL you’ve tended to use thus far, whether or not the 17 to 40 could be your general “walk about lens”.

This is counter, to the thinking of my point (3) above but worth considering, now.

6. If you choose the 6D and the 24 to 105, then (later) you should consider the 300 F/4L IS for more reach – as you have mentioned you are not adverse to cropping to make more reach and I’ve cropped severely using my 24 to 105 (at 105) to get the equivalent of 200mm reach (using 5D’s) – for the time you “need” 20mm I think you might be happy with cropping. The 300/4L IS is magic and works very well with the x1.4 Tele Extender EF.


WW

[Tony M]

Thanks for your comments Bill; they are a help.

I use Focus and Recompose 99% of the time. From the type of shooting you describe I cannot see why you could not do that.

Also, I don’t understand what you gain in using the outer points now?

I use the outer points when using a tripod and taking several shots of the same scene, for example, when using exposure bracketing, or trying different ND filter effects with a variable ND filter. It's convenient having several focus points to choose from and not using F&R. That said, I suppose I could F&R then switch to manual; I haven't tried that.

I see there are two uses for the PuF:

1. To make a required shot in low light with much disregard for “nice” lighting.
2. To use a Direct Flash Fill (in bright surrounds).

The latter is much more important than the former in my opinion and also in my applications of the PuF.

You're right; I also use fill flash. So I'll have to carry the external flash with me more often if I bought the 6D.

If you’re serious about developing Architecture, then the TS-E Lenses are wonderful. Sure they can be used via an adapter on a Nikon Camera: but easier on a Canon Body.

Interesting point about TS-E lenses. But I guess I'm not that serious about architecture, as I don't think I'd make this a criterion for selecting a Canon body. I believe there are tilt and shift lenses for Nikon that would keep me happy.

The are other reasons, mainly based on the functionality and systems of the two cameras – you’re used to Canon.

If you seriously are considering a swap – then do hire a Nikon and use it for a weekend mercilessly it will “feel” different to your Canon.

I doubt a weekend would be enough. A rental car feels strange the first couple of days, but after a week of using it, it's my car that feels strange when I return to it. I think I can adapt to the controls and user-interface of the Nikon.

Regarding your other points:

1. I may sell the 40D, or give it to my daughter with the kit lens (EF-S 17-85mm) if she shows an interest.
2. Yes, I meant the EF 17 to 40 F/4L USM lens.
3. The EF 24 to 105 F/4L IS USM, is a really REALLY useful travelling ‘one lens solution’ on a 135 format body. I fully agree. I want this as my walk-around lens. It doesn't have the reach of my EF-S 15-85mm on the 40D, but it will reduce the number of lens changes.
4. The 6D presents really good value for money. So does the Nikon D610; their prices are similar.

And regarding lens choice and your suggestion to use 17-40mm as walk-around and buy a 70-200mm now: I have the following proportions of photos in my Lightroom catalog:


F/L % photos
17-40 45%
40-70 27%
70-200 29%
24-105 87%


To get these numbers from Lightroom, I adjusted the F/L (i.e. divide by 1.6) to give the APS-C crop-factor equivalent, because my criterion is field of view, not depth of field.

I think I prefer to have the 24-105mm lens now, and defer my decision on the longer end lens.

Thanks for your comments Bill; they've given me food for thought.

Tony

[davidedric]

Hi Tony,

The underlying criterion behind your choice seems to be the move to full frame, which you describe as inevitable for serious amateurs. Given that today's apsc sensors are streets ahead of full frame sensors of a few years ago, I just wonder what your thinking is.

Granted L series lenses are designed for ff bodies, but that is a strategic marketing decision. Doubtless L series quality could be designed for a crop frame, but maybe that would dilute the brand.

I know this doesn't help your decision, but since I am planning to upgrade my 600D in the next year or so (for a related but different set of reasons) I am interested to learn how you decided.

[William W]

Granted L series lenses are designed for ff bodies, but that is a strategic marketing decision. Doubtless L series quality could be designed for a crop frame, but maybe that would dilute the brand.

That could be a chicken and egg question but I don't think it is.

I do really believe that the comment is flawed.

Long before current EOS Series of Cameras, the L Series Lenses had criteria to address to get that Red Line on them.

As I understand the history - one criterion has always been that any L Series Lens must mount to all the current series of cameras.

Therefore, by definition (defined before the EOS Series), no EF-S Lens can ever be designated as an L Series Lens.

The corollary is: only EF; TS-E and MP-E Lenses, can qualify that particular criterion to move on to (maybe) become, an L Series Lens.

WW

[William W]

Thanks for the detailed responses. I understand all of them.
A few more comments on some -

I use the outer points when using a tripod and taking several shots of the same scene, for example, when using exposure bracketing, or trying different ND filter effects with a variable ND filter. It's convenient having several focus points to choose from and not using F&R. That said, I suppose I could F&R then switch to manual; I haven't tried that.

OK, thanks - I understand.
I appreciate the details.
You’ve set the tripod and you don’t want to move the camera in the scene.
I would never (very rarely) have that requirement.
I rarely use a tripod, in that manner.

***

The EF 24 to 105 F/4L IS USM, is a really REALLY useful travelling ‘one lens solution’ on a 135 format body. I fully agree. I want this as my walk-around lens. It doesn't have the reach of my EF-S 15-85mm on the 40D, but it will reduce the number of lens changes.

Yes.
When travelling or hiking etc - Lens Changes are a major consideration for me.
Did you view the sample pics in the link I provided?

***

And regarding lens choice and your suggestion to use 17-40mm as walk-around and buy a 70-200mm now: I have the following proportions of photos in my Lightroom catalog:

It is only the 40 to 70 percentage that is interesting to me.
That could be accommodated by the 50 Prime.

***

I think I prefer to have the 24-105mm lens now, and defer my decision on the longer end lens.

Yes. I understand.
I also made this choice and I bought the 24 to 105/4L IS as my specific “travel lens”.
I think it is wonderful.
I was playing devil’s advocate and laying out to you, all the option that I considered.

Good luck with your choices.

WW

[Tony M]

Hi Dave,

The "inevitability" of FF in the market segment that I operate in has been debated often and I don't claim to be sure of my view. (In fact, that's why I take so long to make a decision when it comes to buying photographic equipment.) I have looked at the 70D and pretty much decided to buy it before considering the "what-if" scenario of changing to FF. Noise level has improved; I recently read a comment on another forum by someone who upgraded from 40D to 70D and reports much lower noise at 1600 ISO than 400 ISO on the 40D. Before that, I tried to compare the 40D noise against 70D in the reviews of these cameras on a popular review web site. (I forget its name and don't have the time to find it right now.) It was hard to make the comparison and I think I mistakenly drew the conclusion that the noise improvement wasn't so big.

Since noise is a function of pixel density, I think FF will always out-perform APS-C. When noise improvements are made to APS-C models, similar improvements will be made to FF models.

Regarding L series lenses: the EF-S 15-85mm isn't an L lens, but its optical quality is similar to that of L lenses; its lack of weather-resistance doesn't qualify it for the L badge. I think it's a great walk-around lens, and would use L lenses for the longer telezoom.

So I'm not making a strong argument for FF. I just wonder whether if I bought a 70D now, would my subsequent upgrade be to FF, and would it occur sooner than if I moved to FF now? Impossible to answer of course.

The key decisions are: what noise level would I be happy with, and what number and type of focus points would I accept? Other factors such as GPS/WiFi are optional and shouldn't affect my decision.

Tony

[William W]

Regarding L series lenses: the EF-S 15-85mm isn't an L lens, but its optical quality is similar to that of L lenses; it's lack of weather-resistance doesn't qualify it for the L badge.

Not picking nits - but please see my above.

WW

[DanK]

A lot of good information here, and you have clearly laid out some of the pros and cons for yourself, so I don't have a lot to add. However, I did recently buy a FF camera (5DIII) after about 6 months of dithering, so I have thought a lot about this.

I don't buy the "inevitability" issue. Sometimes people argue (without much information) that eventually, Canon and Nikon will move their "prosumer" lines to FF. I don't see evidence of that (the 70D was just released), but in any event, it doesn't affect the choices we face now. And if by "inevitable" you mean that as individuals improve they need to move to FF, I certainly don't agree. Some of the best photography I encounter is done on crop-sensor cameras. The two formats each have advantages and disadvantages, and the chore is to figure out which of them matter the most to you.

The 40D is a very old camera. Technology has improved a great deal since then. I think the more relevant comparison is between current FF and current crops.

Here is how I see some of the main tradeoffs. Other people might add others.

--FF costs quite a bit more. That is money that could be spent on glass, a tripod, or something else.
--FF cameras are bigger and heavier, and they use bigger and heavier lenses for a given reach. I weigh 200 lb (91 kg), and I notice the difference in weight, although with my large hands I prefer the larger size of the body.
--FF cameras have less reach. That is, to fill the frame from a given distance, one needs a longer, heavier, and more expensive lens. That was a big minus for me. Given your FL distribution, it might not matter as much to you.
--For mathematically similar reasons, the lower pixel density of FF cameras (not compared to yours, but compared to current crops) means fewer pixels on the subject at 1:1 macro distances. This matters to almost no one, but it does matter to me, and it was both my biggest hesitation in buying FF and one reason I have kept my old 50D body.
--FF cameras give narrower DOF at a given aperture, so narrower DOF at the maximum aperture you own. Important for some people, not for me.
--FF cameras create less noise in low light and with long exposures. This matters to me, as I do some night photography and a lot of long-exposure macro work.
--the FLs of many primes appear to be carryovers from the film days and assume the FOV of FF. E.g., that is why there are so many 50mm primes and no 30mm primes (that I know of).
--Reviews say that FF gives better detail when printing large, but at the sizes I have been printing, even my old 50D (15 MP) does very well, and I am not sure I would see a difference.

So I think the bottom line is that for specific purposes, the formats differ, but for many images, it really does not make much difference.

For my work, which is mostly not landscapes, I was not willing to accept the weak AF system of the 6D, even though for my night photography work, its sensor is better than that of the 5DIII. I ended up with the 5DIII for the combination of better low-light performance and much better AF, relative to my 50D. However, if Canon had released the much-delayed 7DII, I might not have made the considerable splurge. In your case, you don't need the AF for landscapes, but you might find weak AF problematic for the indoor candids you referred to.

The honest answer is that for many of my images, no one is going to notice which of my two bodies I have used.

The L issue is a red herring. If you buy a crop and don't find an EF-S that meets your needs, you can buy an L or any other lens designed for FF. I routinely used 2 L lenses with my 50D, the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 100mm L macro, as well as a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which is also designed for FF. All work just fine on any Canon body.

[Didace]

Reading this

so I don't have a lot to add

and then the rest of your post made me laugh.

Don't get me wrong, it was all good stuff, but I wonder how much you would write if you did have a lot to add.

[Tony M]

Did you view the sample pics in the link I provided?

Yes Bill, I looked at them. It's hard to judge the quality of the image straight off the sensor by looking at the scaled-down photos, but they do indeed look good.

I found this video by Tony Northrup that compares the Canon 6D, 7D, 5D MkII and 5D MkIII. It's 53 minutes long and a good watch. I think it's helped me feel more comfortable about getting the 6D. I now think that its AF system is not going to be an issue for me: I can focus and re-compose instead of being lazy and choosing a focus point on my 40D - an act that inherently influences my composition. And regarding the Nikon D610: its focus points are very close to the centre and do not extend to the thirds of the frame and so for me are not a substitute for those of the 40D.

Thanks Dan for giving your thoughts.

Tony

[William W]

Yes Bill, I looked at them. It's hard to judge the quality of the image straight off the sensor by looking at the scaled-down photos, but they do indeed look good.

My purpose directing you there wasn't to show the IQ of the Lens (or for your kind comment on my Photography - thank you for that) - but rather my purpose was to show the versatility of the lens as a "one lens solution".

For example it is possible to hand hold at 1/5s; the 24mm is quite wide enough for interiors (without much barrelling); its a great range for Portraiture; the "macro" is more than acceptable; bokeh is acceptable.

WW

[Colin Southern]

Regarding L series lenses: the EF-S 15-85mm isn't an L lens, but its optical quality is similar to that of L lenses; its lack of weather-resistance doesn't qualify it for the L badge of course.

Hi Tony,

Weather sealing isn't a requirement for an L-Series lens. There are plenty of L-Series models that aren't weather sealed.