Canon 7D mk II vs 6D please advise

[FlyingSquirrel]

This has probably been beat to death online, but I just wanted your opinions / advice based on my specific needs...

I'm considering purchasing either a second 7D mk II, or a 6D. First off, I am completely aware that these are vastly different cameras, and you may ask why I'm trying to decide between them. The reason is, I love my 7D2, but was thinking that the 6D would be great to have for much better image quality. Here are the factors that I'm weighing:

I am going to Yellowstone in a couple months and will be shooting 2 bodies - my 7D2 with 500mm f4, and another body with 70-200 f4 (this second body is the one that would either be the new 7D2 or the 6D)

- I don't have a full frame camera yet, and thought it would be nice to have one for better IQ at higher ISO's & low light
- I could use it for macro (and, much less frequently, for landscape, home studio, and misc shots)
- The 6D is significantly discounted right now at $1399, which is $300 off of the normal price. That's a pretty sweet deal IMO and a great chance to pick up a FF body
- HOWEVER, basically the ONLY thing about the 6D that makes me want it is the image quality (vs 7D2). The 6D is significantly lacking in every other area possible compared to the 7D2. Frankly, the 7D2 is just a waaaaay better camera, except for the IQ. That is what makes it a hard decision for me. If the 6D had comparable AF, build, and so on, it would be an easy decision
- I realize that I should not necessarily base my decision around the Yellowstone trip, but I can't help but think that it would be nice to have 2 x 7D2 bodies simply because everything about that body is better than the 6D, and at yellowstone and on many other shoots, I could utilize the better AF & features of two 7D2's attached to two different lenses at the same time, which may allow me to get some great wildlife shots when I don't have time to swap lenses...is the IQ of the 6D really enough to warrant giving up all of the other qualities of the 7D2? I am not sure!
- Finally I should note that the fact that I already have a 7D2 does not necessarily rule out purchasing a second one vs the 6D. I think I should decide between the two solely on their merits and benefits as opposed to saying "I have one, so I should buy the other" if you know what I am saying.

I'm back and forth between the two cameras due to the considerations about, and since the 6D is on sale at a good price, it is clouding my decision making...both bodies are similarly priced when at their normal prices.

I should probably ignore the price and just decide based on actual features and use..what do you guys think I should buy?

[russellsnr]

Hi, Thing is if you have never had a FF camera go to the shop and try one out. I once I have sold my 1DS MK ii am going for the 6D, but not just for the FF also the weight is important to me, looking on-line at all the why should I buy this or that has done nothing really other than confuse the situation, one guy says buy this because and another buy this because. As I enjoy land/seascape photography I will go for the 6D as I don't need so many focus points for one thing however if I did not have Canon lenses I would switch over to Nikon and the 800 series. At the end of the day it is what feels right for you, if your happy with the 7D ll then stick with it if you want a little more of a challenge, something differant to make not only the body switch but also to give that something else into making the way you approach a photographic situation a little more challenging then try a 6D.
Russ

[dje]

That's a bit of a tough question Matt. I can only provide a couple of comments to think about.

The superior IQ of the FF 6D to which you refer may not be as significant as you expect. According to DXOMark, the 6D has about 1 stop better dynamic range and noise performance than the 7DII at higher ISO values. This means for example that if you consider the highest ISO you might use on the 7DII to be say 1600, then for the 6D you could get similar noise performance at 3200. It depends on the circumstances you are shooting under but I guess 1 stop can make a difference when things are marginal.

As for sharpness, well the FF should inherently be sharper because of the size of the sensor (less optical reduction required to produce the image and hence less resolution required in the lens to re-produce a given level of detail) however this will be offset to some extent by the finer pixel pitch of the 7DII for which the AA filter should be weaker and cause less blur.

One question I would ask is why is the 6D discounted ? Is it soon to be replaced with a newer technology version ?

Another thing to consider is the reach of your 70-200. It will be less on a FF but this may be an advantage for landscape shots, depending on your style.

Good luck with your decision.

Dave

[chauncey]

Photographers are right at the top of the want/need scenario...you don't need a second body but,
you want one. You want a FF body, there's several of them in the pipeline within a year or so...
wait for one of them. Yellowstone is mainly for critters...use your 7D2.

Schlepping a second body around Yellowstone, IMHO, is not a choice based on wisdom.

[DanK]

- I could use it for macro

what kind of macro? You do both flowers and bugs (beautiful images on your site, by the way). I do more macro than anything else, and I shoot both FF and crop. FF is not better for all macro.

First, how are you going to display the images? Are you printing large? If not, I doubt you will see a noticeable difference in image quality. I'd bet good money that you would not be able to tell which of the macros on my wall or on my site I took with my 5D3 or my old 50D. Most macro work is done with artificial light, and that removes one of the advantages of FF, i.e., better handling of low light.

If you are going to shoot at or near 1:1, the higher pixel density of the 7DII means more pixels on the subject. Keep in mind that 1:1 means that the image size on the sensor is life-size. So, it takes up a smaller fraction of the FF sensor, and if the pixel density is lower, you get fewer pixels on the subject. In the case of the 6D and 7DII, you would get roughly 40% the pixels. (I don't recall the specific pixel counts for those cameras, but it is not hard to do the arithmetic with that and the sensor dimensions.)

In practice, I use my 50D when I chase bugs and my 5D3 when I shoot flowers indoors. Indoors, it is easy enough to add extension if I need more pixels, as the flower doesn't fly away. In the field, the higher pixel density, lighter weight, and smaller size of the crop are an advantage. Also, if I am not close to 1:1, I find the greater reach handy (again a matter of pixel density).

Your experience might be different, of course. You might want to borrow a FF and try it for macro before you buy.

[Loose Canon]

Matt, the DoF will change with a full framer. It will be less.

A biggie for macro stuff.

[rpcrowe]

Chauncy...

You state "Schlepping a second body around Yellowstone, IMHO, is not a choice based on wisdom." I wonder if you are talking about experience or personal opinion?

IMO, a two body system is a terrific way to get the advantages of a super-range-zoom along with the image quality and other attributes of a top-line zoom with less range.

I shoot with two bodies virtually all the time and the advantages are:

1. Insurance against losing photo opportunities due to a camera malfunction. Years ago, I fell climbing a slippery slope on Alaska's Kenai Peninsula and broke my 40D. This was the first day of a ten-day trip to that area. My second camera (a 30D) saved me from losing coverage of that very photogenic area...

2. It is also an insurance against missing shots due to the need to switch lenses...

3. Batteries and CF cards go a longer way because I am dividing my shots between two cameras...

4. Both of my lenses (which ever lens I select from my gallery of glass) will have excellent image quality and fast-accurate auto focus.

Sure there is a down side to the two camera system: two cameras are more expensive than a single camera (I purchased both 7D bodies as refurbs) AND two cameras are heavier. However in my case, two 7D cameras and my 17-55mm f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses weigh approximately the same as if I were carrying a single 7D with a 17-55mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 (series) lens. Only I don't have to switch lenses in the field!

I have carried a pair of bodies in Alaska, China and Italy, Greece, and Turkey. IMO, I would not attempt a once in a lifetime trip with a single body.

BTW: Up until recently, I had always carried two similar, but different cameras. Usually, I would have a top-line camera along with a camera that was a model or two older. While that was no real problem, I am happier with two of the same cameras. I now carry two 7D cameras. Will I upgrade to the 7Dii - perhaps, eventually when they become available as refurbished items.

IMO, the 6D, while a very nice camera falls short of the 7Dii in several areas:

4.5 FPS vs. 10 FPS
Buffer size: 16 Raw vs. 31 RAW
max shutter speed: 1/4000 vs. 1/8000 second
11 Cross Type AF poiints vs. 65

Of course, the 6D has some better low light performance.

IMO: YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT APPLES AND ORANGES IN COMPARING THESE TWO CAMERAS...

I think that the 6D might just be a bit better for landscape, portraiture and general studio work. I also think that it was designed as a "stripped down" camera to allow a photographer to start shooting full frame at a lower cost than the 5Diii...

If I were going to carry a full framer along with the 7D, I would cough up the extra cash and get a refurbished 5Diii...

[chauncey]

I wonder if you are talking about experience or personal opinion

The OP is seeking opinions and that's what I offered, but, even in my younger days,
I would not have considered buying a second body for a trip...renting yes, buying no.
Especially with what's coming.

[Shadowman]

Photographers are right at the top of the want/need scenario...you don't need a second body but,
you want one. You want a FF body, there's several of them in the pipeline within a year or so...
wait for one of them. Yellowstone is mainly for critters...use your 7D2.

Schlepping a second body around Yellowstone, IMHO, is not a choice based on wisdom.

Chauncey,

I see (through video only) a lot of wildlife photographers carrying their cameras attached to the tripod; even in heavy snow. Is that the typical mode of transport? A few years ago I went on a caving excursion and considered beforehand what I should take with me. I chose to take one camera body/lens and left the rest of the gear at home, best decision I could have made.

[Dr Bob]

I have been considering the 6D for sometime now and have a slightly different view of the camera. I currently shoot with a 7D which has been a great camera for me. I look at these 2 cameras as different tools for the job, depending on what you are photographing. The 7D excels at shooting things that are moving (FPS, buffer, AF features, etc) while the 6D is more designed for still subjects, such as landscape, nature and portraits. The advantages I see in the 6D are full frame, low light, smaller & lighter (for carrying on hikes, etc), and GPS. Both cameras will do a very good job at photos in general, its just that each has its strengths. I feel they actually complement each other well. In reading your post, it sounds like other than low light situations, you are more interested in the "fast" features of a camera making the 7D mkII second body a better choice. I have been to Yellowstone several times and my 7D has served me well. However, it is my last trip there a year ago, where I took many landscape photos that got me thinking about the 6D to complement my 7D.

Just my 2 cents.

Dr Bob

[chauncey]

I would suggest that there is no image you could take that using the 7D2 would not serve you well.
I have almost never taken a serious image, printing potential, without using a tripod.

[NorthernFocus]

Hey, Matt. I tried not to throw my two cents in but just can't help myself

It sounds like you've been considering adding a second body for a while. Like most of us you have limited funds so I'd suggest you make decisions that provide you the most return on your investment. Make the decision based on what fits your long term needs. Then let the other considerations (like trip planning, pricing, etc.) drive your timing perhaps, but not the ultimate decision of which one to get.

Having limited resources sucks...

[Scott Stephen]

Hi.
Think of this analogy. You are starting a tool collection, and so far you have a really nice hammer. What is your best bet for the next tool for your toolbox? Opinions will vary, but in my mental calculus the first alternative that pops into my head is not "HAMMER!". Or when you buy a set of screwdrivers they tend to be something like "big, medium, small, very small, short and long". Not often is it a set of "large, large, large, large and large."

I have a 6d and I love it. Much better than my old crop camera. The low light difference is more like 2 stops and it involves both grain and detail at high ISO.

I may get a 7d2 later on and carry both. That tool would be useful for the extra reach and advanced AF for distant well-lit speedy things, while the 6d can wear the 35mm lens and catch things that wander up closer in poorer light.

[William W]

. . . HOWEVER, basically the ONLY thing about the 6D that makes me want it is the image quality (vs 7D2). The 6D is significantly lacking in every other area possible compared to the 7D2. Frankly, the 7D2 is just a waaaaay better camera, except for the IQ.

If I were you I would be writing out the all the reasons that you want to buy a second body and then seriously consider the validity of those reasons with regard to what you usually do and how you usually do it.

However answering your specific question - I suggest that IF you do choose to buy anther camera, that you buy a 7DMkII, because: you don't mention any of these points as significant to your purchase choice of a 6D:

> access to WA and UWA lenses that have fast lens lens speed
> very large PRINT Enlargements
> ability to leverage extremely shallow DoF
> full functionality of TS-E lenses
> variable WD for macro using a Dual Format Kit, with one or more Macro Lenses
> functionality of MP-E Macro Lens

*

. . . The superior IQ of the FF 6D to which you refer may not be as significant as you expect.

I agree.

Additionally consider how significant is the IQ difference, specifically, to your Photography.

Bottom line:

My understanding of what has been written, in this and other posts, is that you want to buy a second APS-C body to use with two very specific lenses for your upcoming trip to Yellowstone. That, so far is the only reason from you that I reckon has validity and passion from you (and of course the added System Redundancy that you have with two cameras for a 'once in a lifetime' type trip) – if I am wrong, please convince me otherwise.

The solution to that matter is simple: rent a 7DMkII for the trip.

WW

[FlyingSquirrel]

Thanks a lot for all of the opinions and advice. I carefully read each reply, and in some cases reread them. I kept in mind that each photographer is different; their style of shooting, their needs, subjects, past experiences, etc, and there are bound to be conflicting advice, opinions, and lessons learned. Knowing this, and having thought carefully about what was said, I then took everything into consideration, wrote out some thoughts (including clarifying WHY I want a 2nd body, as was suggested), and came to the following conclusions:

- I don't really want a 6D as much as I thought. I just want better IQ, period. But the 6D is apparently not the right camera for that, and a FF body in general is mostly conflicting with the subjects and way that I shoot, thus does not make sense at this time.

- The 7D2 is a better choice overall for me, for reasons many have stated, and some reasons that were not stated.

- The reasons why I want a 2nd body (which I listed out on paper in front of me) are valid IMO, and that's what matters. And it is not specifically limited to the Yellowstone trip, FYI

- I will purchase a 2nd 7D2 body, though I may wait a month or so and keep an eye out for sales/refurb etc

- I am trying to offload my two old 7D v1 bodies to make room and $ for the new 7D2 (though if I wanted the 7D2 now I could certainly afford it)

Thanks again for the advice!

[William W]

. . .

- The reasons why I want a 2nd body (which I listed out on paper in front of me) are valid IMO, and that's what matters.

- The 7D2 is a better choice overall for me, for reasons many have stated, and some reasons that were not stated.

My view is that is: good logic and good procedure - result good choice.

Have fun at Yellowstone.

WW

[Steve6D]

HOWEVER, basically the ONLY thing about the 6D that makes me want it is the image quality (vs 7D2).

For me, this would be the bottom line.

I use a 6D, and have a 5D and a 40D as backups. I use the 6D for everything from landscapes to concerts to baseball to motorsports.

Personally, I think it's a misconception that the 6D is "lacking" in the area of AF. While it may not be as robust as the 7D MKII, my experience has proven to me, time and time again, that it's not "lacking" at all...

[myrah fernandes]

The recently released Canon EOS 7D Mk II has garnered much interest from Canon fans around the globe. After 5 years, the original 7D, an extremely popular camera in it's own right, has finally been replaced. So how does it stack up against Canon's cheapest full frame offering, the Canon EOS 6D? Can the APS-C sized sensor compete with the larger full frame sensor of the EOS 6D?

For a crop sensor camera, the EOS 7D Mk II packs quite a punch. It comes fitted with a 20.2MP sensor that has been shown to be excellent in other Canon bodies such as the EOS 70D. The EOS 6D has the exact same resolution as the EOS 7D Mk II but on a larger full frame size sensor. In theory this should mean better low light performance, better dynamic range and better all round image quality.

[IMG][/IMG]



Camera Build

The EOS 7D Mk II follows on from the tradition of the original 7D. It's built around a durable magnesium alloy body that has pro level weatherproofing to ensure you camera stays protected in the worst conditions. The improved weather sealing shows that Canon has thought a lot about this camera and how it is likely to be utilized for sports and wildlife photography.

The EOS 6D body is also built around a magnesium alloy shell like the 7D Mk II although the top plate is polycarbonate. In theory this may make the camera slightly less resistant to bumps and bashes but it's impossible to predict in the short term. Another small advantage of the 7D Mk II over the 6D is that it has a faster maximum shutter speed which is useful if you are shooting wide open in bright sunlight.

AF System

The EOS 7D Mk II comes with an impressive 65 cross type AF point system. This is the same system that is fitted to their flagship 1D X. Canon have also included their impressive dual pixel AF feature from the 70D which makes autofocus quick and smooth, great for video work.

The Canon 6D has a much less complex AF system. It only has 11 cross type AF points compared with the 65 of the EOS 7D Mk II. This will be perfectly suitable for any photography where you aren't excessively tracking your subjects like landscape or portrait work but if you are shooting motorsports for instance, you might find the 7D Mk II to be a little more accurate.

Speed

Again, when it comes to burst rate it is clear that the 7D Mk II is designed for sports, wildlife and action photographers. With an impressive 10fps burst mode, the 7D Mk II is a sports photographer's dream. The 6D on the other hand only shoots at a maximum of 4.5fps. For the majority of photographers this will be sufficient, even if sport is something you occasionally shoot. If however you are shooting sports regularly then you will much prefer the 7D Mk II.

Low Light

ISO range is an area where the EOS 6D pulls away from the 7D Mk II. As expected the 6D is a better low light performer due to the larger sensor and pixels that make its images much cleaner at high ISOs. The 7D Mk II has a decent ISO 100-16,000 range that is expandable up to 25,6000. The 6D however has an ISO range of 100-25,600 that is expandable both higher and lower to give a range of 50-102,800. In real use you are likely to see around a stop or so better low light performance from the 6D

[dasmith232]

A couple weeks stale on this thread, but another thought...

I own each of: 600D (T3i), 60D, 6D and 5D3. I don't own the 7D (either generation), but see this discussion as crop vs. full-frame and one vs. two bodies. I also have a pretty wide variety of lenses, in "L", non-L, EF and EF-S varieties.

When using zoom lenses, I really don't have that big of a difference in the kind of pictures I can take. (And yeah, I'm somewhat disregarding the "L" vs. non-L point for the moment.) When using a crop-body, I'll reach for the 10-22, 18-135 and 70-300 for a full compliment of general purpose lenses. When using a full-frame, I'll reach for my 17-40, 24-105 and 70-300. Either way, I get full coverage over roughly the same angles-of-view. I just grab one set of lenses or the other.

However, when using prime lenses, everything changes. In my experience, I don't see things as "free focal" length when putting a prime on one body or the other. Yeah, the marketing folks at Canon (or Nikon, or anyone) will advertise it as a focal length modifier, but it's not. It's a matter of automatically cropping an image which changes composition. Changing the composition changes everything about an image. A 100mm macro on a crop body is not the same lens when mounted on a full frame. Another really relevant example is the 24mm tilt-shift. It's an entirely different experience on the different form factors.

Some people will say that the need to (only) get EF lenses (or FX, and not EF-S nor DX) for when they move to full-frame. That way they'll have lenses. That's okay, as long as one realizes that yes they'll have lenses, but they're really not the same lenses. If you shoot with primes, then the body choice becomes very significant.

Having a larger sensor creates a wider view which allows for other creative options. Again, with zooms I don't care as much, but with primes I do.

As far as having two bodies, I would definitely take a second body when going on a long trip. As digital devices, one can stop working without much notice. I've had it happen. Personally, I don't actively carry the second body around, and I do opt for swapping lenses when needed. Yeah, you can't respond in an instant when things change, but I've often been able to anticipate the kind of images that I want to capture and haven't been surprised by most situations. For someone that's doing something like photo-journalism, it would be different.

I also shoot the occasional wedding. For that, I definitely carry both bodies with appropriate lenses mounted and using the Spyder holster system.

[rpcrowe]

I agree with Scott's analogy:

Think of this analogy. You are starting a tool collection, and so far you have a really nice hammer. What is your best bet for the next tool for your toolbox? Opinions will vary, but in my mental calculus the first alternative that pops into my head is not "HAMMER!". Or when you buy a set of screwdrivers they tend to be something like "big, medium, small, very small, short and long". Not often is it a set of "large, large, large, large and large."

However, here is another analogy which I would think is equally as valid: I have just assembled a prefabricated chicken coop which required drilling several hundred screw holes and then screwing in multiple screws to assemble the darn thing.

I "could have" drilled a screw hole, switched from drill bit to screwdriver bit and then switched from the torque for drilling holes to the torque for screwing in the screws. And then repeated the procedure for the next screws ad infinitum!

Or I can do what I did. I have two battery operated electric drills and have one set up with the drill bit and the torque set up for drilling holes. The second is set up for screwing in the screw with the torque set up for that action. Having a pair of drills may be "overkill" for some folks but, it is not "overkill" for me. The time savings in attaching several hundred screws makes the cost of the second battery operated drill well worth it to me.

As a further analogy regarding a full frame camera + a crop camera for shooting. I used a battery operated drill driver for drilling the holes and a battery operated impact driver for driving the screws.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Ryobi-18-...Q&gclsrc=aw.ds
Basically, the same tool but, just enough difference to make using both to be a time saver.