# 6D & 1.4X -or- 7D Mk II?



## awair (Nov 15, 2014)

For image quality, which would you prefer/recommend: 6D (FF & low-light capability) with a 1.4X converter or the new 7D2 (at native resolution, without a converter).

I have the 300/4L, 135/2L & 50/1.4 - it is the 50mm performance that I am most interested in (70mm @ 2.0 with converter, versus effective 80mm @ 1.4).

Short story:
I have the 7D and will almost certainly upgrade to the 7D2. I mostly use the 135L lens, although the 300 would be more useful to me on FF than it is at the moment. I find the 7D/300 combo limiting due to the lighting situation, and believe the 7D2 would give a significant improvement for my typical use.

If I buy the 7D2, I will sell the 7D, but I am also considering the 6D "at some stage". What are your thoughts?

Long story:
I used to have numerous items of 35mm kit, including AE-1, AV-1 & various typical and mediocre lenses. My former favourite was the T90 & 85/1.8 prime. I am fairly used to judging my required shot with a prime, rather than a zoom.

Having moved up through various digital models, including early 'point & shoot' to the 20D & 7D, I am now looking for my final camera body. I've rented the 5D3, and would love a 1Dx, but have ruled that out financially.

As for lenses, I thought I wanted the 400/2.8L, but after using it, I know it's too big. The 200/2.0L was also on 'the list', but again is too bulky. My future lens purchases are now probably the 35/1.4L (for FF) or temporarily the new EF-S 24/2.8. The 70-200/2.8 non-IS is also a possibility.

Based on my existing lenses, and possibly the wish list, which combination will give me the best quality images: the 6D with converter, or the 7D2? I've ruled out the 2.0X, the 5D3 and most other zooms/primes. Having two bodies offers an advantage, and I realise there are other considerations (AF being the main one).

Maybe the question should be, which do I buy first: the 6D or the 7D2? I know the 7D is more suited to my typical shoot.

Many thanks.


----------



## timmy_650 (Nov 15, 2014)

So you want to put a 1.4x converter on a 50mm? My vote would be 85mm 1.8 lens. The price difference wouldn't be that much and it would give you the best quality.
With your bodies I would say buy a refurbished 6D from canon for like $1400 (on sale) and keep your 7D.


----------



## awair (Nov 15, 2014)

Thank you for the reply, I realise that part of the question may seem nonsensical. Probably because I've jumped a couple of steps ahead in my mind.

I'm looking to compare the advantages of having a 1.4X converter to expand my line-up versus a crop-format (1.6) body. At the longer focal lengths, I can reasonably predict the quality based on other reviews, but the 50/1.4 and a 1.4X?

Would you; and if not why not, if you owned both? And how might this result compare with the similar effective focal length of the crop 7D2?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 16, 2014)

I own(ed) all of them except the 7D.

It depends mostly on what you shoot and you don't mention that. Or your budget.

Based on my use of the 7D2, buy the 7D2. It has great high ISO, amazing AF and a few features that no other camera has like Deflicker. It also has a variation of Dual Pixel sensor tech and quiet 10 fps. It will give you more reach with all lenses along with the necessary AF to exploit them.

The 6D is a wonderful camera but the fps is pretty slow. It has the best low light sensor available. It has built-in WiFi which allows Remote Shooting + GPS. And it's Full Frame. It offers more creativity if you prefer wide lenses.

Owning both gives you incredible versatility. But the 7D2 is more versatile by itself as long as you don't need WiFi or extra wide range. (So get an Eye-Fi card and/or CamRanger along with one 10-22 EF-S lens.)

The 7D2 is currently a bit overpriced but it is getting great reviews. Buying the 7D2 now will cost you a high price but that doesn't matter if you need the technology now.


----------



## AUGS (Nov 16, 2014)

awair said:


> For image quality, which would you prefer/recommend: 6D (FF & low-light capability) with a 1.4X converter or the new 7D2 (at native resolution, without a converter).
> I have the 300/4L, 135/2L & 50/1.4 -* it is the 50mm performance that I am most interested in (70mm @ 2.0 with converter, versus effective 80mm @ 1.4*).
> {content removed}
> Many thanks.


Just a word of warning, you wont be able to use the 1.4x with the 50/1.4. From Canon website for the 1.4xIII:


> Note: This lens is only compatible with fixed focal length L-series lenses 135mm and over, as well as the EF 70-200/2.8L, EF 70-200/2.8L IS, EF 70-200/4L, and EF 100-400/4.5-5.6L.


To get a focal length around 70-80mm you will need to get a new lens for a full frame camera - if that is what you want or need. This may be a factor in your final decision which body to purchase.


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Nov 16, 2014)

I have a 7D as well, but quite a different spectrum of lenses. I had been careful with all lens choices (except a 10-22) to be sure I was lining myself up for my future FF upgrade I was sure I was going to do. Turns out I'm quite satisfied with the DOF I get with the crop and my uses tend to require more reach, fast shutter, and great AF. So coming to realize this I'm very excited about upgrading to a 7DII because it is a perfect match to my uses around water sports given my budget. As someone already mentioned, the 7DII alone is more versatile, and when the 6D eventually gets upgraded, it will be cheaper to buy a 6D body then any L glass and will put a whole new perspective on everything in your kit.

One question about your 135, as I've thought long and hard about that one. Great for tight portrait, but on a 7D/7DII I think it would be the poor man's 200 f2 for sports. What's your primary use for it, and is it the best you could imagine for that.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 16, 2014)

This video showcases some of the reasons that I bought the 7D2 camera. Particularly since I shoot a lot of indoor swimming in terrible flickering light. The video shortcut below starts at the DeFlicker feature but you should watch the whole video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noo-2h-PG7k&feature=youtu.be&t=4m35s


----------



## candc (Nov 16, 2014)

better for what? you haven't said what type of shooting you want it for?


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 16, 2014)

I would recommend the 6D over any crop camera for all pursuits except for tiny songbirds.

As an owner of numerous Canon crop cameras the last decade, the IQ IMHO lost something with the start of the 7D. The images just look "rough" compared to Canon's FF offerings. I have also experience increased focus inconsistency with the 1.6x high megapixel sensors.

The 300 prime is amazing on FF. Also, IMHO, using a 1.4x on 50 and 85mm primes is a waste of time, just crop. The 1.4 is brilliant on the 300/F4 on FF, though.


----------



## tayassu (Nov 16, 2014)

If it is all about IQ, go for the 6D! 
But be aware that you can't put a 1.4x in front of the 50mm...


----------



## AlanF (Nov 16, 2014)

The question is: 6D & 1.4X -or- 7D Mk II? _not_ 6D -or- 7D Mk II? It is _not_ FF vs crop?

The 1.4XTC lowers aperture by a stop and slightly degrades the image. So, the advantage of FF having better iso noise is lost by having to use a 1.4x higher f number. My choice, therefore, would be the 7D II.


----------



## Rob-downunder (Nov 16, 2014)

There are only 2 reasons I can see for using a lens with a wide aperture. To allow more light in so you can use a faster shutter speed, or to produce a thin depth of field for artistic reasons. 
In the first instance, comparing using the 6D with a TC to a crop sensor, the extra ISO performance of the FF sensor would mean that the loss of a stop would be easily offset or indeed surpassed by being able to bump the ISO.
In the second instance, if you want thin depth of fields with wide aperture lenses you will achieve this better on a FF body than on a crop.
In both scenarios if you want to use a wide aperture lens - the 6D wins hands down over a crop sensor body.
If you are wanting to use lenses up to 200mm, then using a TC seems pretty pointless. Where the argument becomes valid is as you extend the focal length beyond 200mm at which point the cost for good glass goes up very sharply, and the reach advantages of crop bodies vs FF with TC becomes debatable. If even more reach is needed then you start looking at crop with TC.
But in the focal lengths you are interested in using (or at least questioning in this post), full frame wins everytime.
Discussion of autofocusing abilities and other features of the cameras are a separate discussion.
Based on the original question - if you like the full frame 85 mm focal length with a wide aperture - go the 6D with the 85 1.8.


----------



## Otara (Nov 16, 2014)

I have the 7D, 6D and 7D2. I got the 6D with the idea it offered a low cost option to check out FF. Problem is it doesnt really, and comes with other usability issues that ended up getting irritating when I was used to not having them, particularly AF and controls.

With crop and FF bodies, I dont find theres a natural complementing of lenses, and ended up starting to develop 2 systems, which doesnt work well from a cost or trip perspective. As stated above, a 1.4 doesnt really fix this, and in my view the next 5D or the current one makes more sense than buying 2 separate cameras and trying to bodge it with each, eg having both AF and full frame advantages. You will almost certainly end up favouring one over the other like me, and then the other becomes a devaluing desk ornament or at least far less commonly used.

For me the current desk ornament is the 6D, but it is early days. I think Im the tiny bird guy Michael is referring to, and he has a point in that my preferences may be overspecialised, in that most Oz Victorian wildlife tends to be smaller rather than larger.


----------



## CanonOregon (Nov 16, 2014)

I think the 6d+7d MkII combo only works if you think in two 'mindsets', the 6d for landscapes and the 7d MkII for long reach and wildlife. So pair wide lenses for the 6d and long for the 7d MkII. I have the 7d MkII and currently use a 70d for landscapes- just so I'm not changing lenses all the time in the field but I find too often I set out on a day and wind up being either in 'landscape' mode or 'wildlife (birding) mode' and fail to use the other that much. I don't know that there's a 'lens duplication' problem' if separate the tasks for each body. But I would never consider a body based on using a 1.4x with it on a continuous basis. (You can get the Kenko 300 series extenders to work with just about any Canon lens and their 1.4x is very good, but I wouldn't recommend using a 'short lens' with any extender as someone pointed out, the 85mm 1.8 is a very good lens and used is around $300- so why an extender on a 50mm?)


----------



## tiger82 (Nov 16, 2014)

MichaelHodges said:


> I would recommend the 6D over any crop camera for all pursuits except for tiny songbirds.
> 
> As an owner of numerous Canon crop cameras the last decade, the IQ IMHO lost something with the start of the 7D. The images just look "rough" compared to Canon's FF offerings. I have also experience increased focus inconsistency with the 1.6x high megapixel sensors.
> 
> The 300 prime is amazing on FF. Also, IMHO, using a 1.4x on 50 and 85mm primes is a waste of time, just crop. The 1.4 is brilliant on the 300/F4 on FF, though.



Wait, you can use 1.4X extenders on the 50mm and 85mm? What's yoursecret?


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Nov 16, 2014)

get a 7d mark your have all more power decent lower light camera
6d= cheaper full frame and good low light -3ev other then that nothing


----------



## Steve (Nov 16, 2014)

I don't think he's saying that he's using the 85/50mm with a 1.4x but my guess is that you can use it if you put an extension tube in between the lens and extender


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 16, 2014)

Personally, I'd chose the 6D. The advantage of the 7D Mark II is for wildlife shooters. 

You will need lenses that are 1.6 the focal length of your current lenses. You are missing 85mm, 35mm, and 24mm. If you only shoot longer focal lengths, then you will want a 400mm lens. 

I've sold most of my primes now that the new zooms and FF sensors are fast enough to eliminate any advantage from a faster prime. I've kept my 135mmL, but haven't used it in over a year. It needs to go, its just hard to part with.

A 6D with 24-105mmL kit is a good place to start.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 16, 2014)

*Mt. Spokane*, I agree with you about the 6D (and the lenses) but if sports is the subject being captured, I think the 7D2 has a pretty significant list of important features the 6D lacks. There's more to a camera than simply the sensor IQ and size. I have finally shot an event with the 7D2 and it's pretty amazing to use for sports, esp indoors with funky lighting. I agree that the 6D with 24-105mmL kit is a great place to start if one is shooting a myriad of things EXCEPT sports.


----------



## tiger82 (Nov 16, 2014)

Steve said:


> I don't think he's saying that he's using the 85/50mm with a 1.4x but my guess is that you can use it if you put an extension tube in between the lens and extender



Wouldn't an extension tube prevent focusing at infinity? Non-AF?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 16, 2014)

For those that say you can't use a 1.4 TC with 50mm lenses, you can. Simply use a 3rd Party Kenko TC.

I just installed about 10 different lenses on my 5D3 using the Kenko DGX 1.4 TC. This includes the following lenses and their results...

- 50mm f/1.4 WORKS FINE
- 50mm f/1.8 WORKS FINE
- 70-200L f/4 IS WORKS FINE
- 70-200L f/2.8 IS-II WORKS FINE
- 24-105L f/4 IS WORKS FINE
- 70-300L IS WORKS FINE
- 16-35L f/2.8 v1 WORKS FINE
- 28mm f/1.8 WORKS FINE

- 24-70L f/2.8 -II THROWS 'IRREGULAR' ERROR (Says something like "What the Heck are you doing fool!?")
- 15mm f/2.8 FishEye LENS WILL NOT TURN TO LOCK (Yes, silly to try to use a TC with a FishEye but I thought it was funny to try.)

I've got a few other lenses but I lost interest at this point. I was actually surprised that the 24-70 v-II lens didn't work. Something about the pins or the electronics because it mounts fine. Whatever. Obviously not a big deal. The point is, you can mount just about any lens on a 3rd party TC and it will most likely work fine. The actual benefit gained is still up for debate however.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 17, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Personally, I'd chose the 6D. The advantage of the 7D Mark II is for wildlife shooters.



The 6D is better for wildlife, too, except tiny birds. Whenever I compare my FF wildlife images to my high mega-pixel 1.6x images, there's quite a difference. The FF images are smooth and clean. The 1.6x images contain a rough, digital quality. Almost cartoonish. The crops do fine when you can fill the frame and have the Light of the Gods. Then again, so will an iPhone.


----------



## Otara (Nov 17, 2014)

CanonOregon said:


> I think the 6d+7d MkII combo only works if you think in two 'mindsets', the 6d for landscapes and the 7d MkII for long reach and wildlife. So pair wide lenses for the 6d and long for the 7d MkII. I have the 7d MkII and currently use a 70d for landscapes- just so I'm not changing lenses all the time in the field but I find too often I set out on a day and wind up being either in 'landscape' mode or 'wildlife (birding) mode' and fail to use the other that much. I don't know that there's a 'lens duplication' problem' if separate the tasks for each body. But I would never consider a body based on using a 1.4x with it on a continuous basis. (You can get the Kenko 300 series extenders to work with just about any Canon lens and their 1.4x is very good, but I wouldn't recommend using a 'short lens' with any extender as someone pointed out, the 85mm 1.8 is a very good lens and used is around $300- so why an extender on a 50mm?)



Thats the kind of thing Im talking about - you end up either carrying two cameras, or you end up only using one and not being able to use the other options, but at least wih 2 crop theres no lens mismatches. If you are in a situation or mindset for your shooting where that works its great - I too often find myself wanting a camera and two lens options, and the splitting became more of a pain then.

For me the main reason to go with the 7D2 is I already have a fair few crop lenses. I guess the 6D is cheap enough to try before considering a 5D instead, given a 7D is already in the picture, its the 6D/7D2 combo Im mostly warning against.


----------



## Steve (Nov 17, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> Wouldn't an extension tube prevent focusing at infinity? Non-AF?



Yes it would prevent infinity focus (though why that would matter, I'm not sure) and af should still work if you have tubes with pass through contacts. 



MichaelHodges said:


> The 6D is better for wildlife, too, except tiny birds.



Only if the wildlife you shoot is tame and/or slow. High burst rate and solid tracking AF are really important for a ton of wildlife shooting, not just small birds. I would absolutely rather have a 7DII over a 6D for wildlife shooting because I would rather have sharp shots of peak moments with slightly worse IQ than soft shots of missed moments with slightly better IQ.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 17, 2014)

awair said:


> For image quality, which would you prefer/recommend: 6D (FF & low-light capability) with a 1.4X converter or the new 7D2 (at native resolution, without a converter).
> 
> I have the 300/4L, 135/2L & 50/1.4 - it is the 50mm performance that I am most interested in (70mm @ 2.0 with converter, versus effective 80mm @ 1.4).
> 
> ...


I just sold all my APS-C lenses along with my 7D and bought a 5D3. Hence, I started to build my lens kit based on one system. 5D3 doesn't have the AF and burst rate of the 7D2 but come somehow close and fit my needs.
6D will give you better IQ but 7D2 sports new technology and features no other budget oriented Canon camera has.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 17, 2014)

Steve said:


> Only if the wildlife you shoot is tame and/or slow.



I shoot grizzly bears, bighorn rams and other wild animals. The crop IQ just lags behind. The center point on the 6D will get the job done.




> High burst rate and solid tracking AF are really important for a ton of wildlife shooting, not just small birds. I would absolutely rather have a 7DII over a 6D for wildlife shooting because I would rather have sharp shots of peak moments with slightly worse IQ than soft shots of missed moments with slightly better IQ.



For me, lower noise and overall aesthetic quality supersede a few extra fps. Also, most of the prime wildlife is crepuscular, and in those conditions crop cameras have serious trouble. 

I have the 5D III and 6D side by side with 70D (and formerly the 7D). I would only use the crops over the FF for tiny birds. Fur and feather looks too rough, even at lower ISO.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 17, 2014)

CanonOregon said:


> I think the 6d+7d MkII combo only works if you think in two 'mindsets', the 6d for landscapes and the 7d MkII for long reach and wildlife. d out, the 85mm 1.8 is a very good lens and used is around $300- so why an extender on a 50mm?)



Most of the popular wildlife in the U.S. is crepuscular, where crop cameras struggle. Extra FPS and "reach" won't matter if you can't achieve acceptable shutter speeds and noise levels.


----------



## awair (Dec 16, 2014)

Many thanks for all the constructive replies. Several of the answers helped me re-evaluate what question I was trying to ask, and what answers I needed for my next purchase.

I wasn't aware that the 1.4X was not supported on the 50mm, but wasn't really planning on that solution (6D+50mm+1.4X versus 7D+50mm), just curious as to the relative quality. My initial thought was that, if I had both FF & crop I would effectively have 2 focal lengths for every lens (roughly equivalent to the 1.4X). Alternatively, switching solely to FF I would lose some reach that could be compensated by a 1.4X converter.

The 'two mindsets' consideration made me refresh my view. However (for me), worse than having 'the wrong two camera/lens combos' would be only having one body.

Anyway, as expected, I've purchased the 7D2, I'm now considering selling my 7D (possible takers for $650) and will reconsider the second body next year (another 7D2, 6D or 5D4???).

Next up will be a new lens (70-200 or 100-400), which will eventually prompt another complete re-evaluation; but so far really impressed by the low light results of the 7D2 & 300/4L (much better than the 7D), so my desire for 'fast glass' may be diminished...

My only remaining question is whether to sell the 7D (pays for ½ a 6D now, or wait a while for the 5D4). My current feeling is that the 7D & 7D2 are just different enough for me to treat the original 7D as a 'second-class citizen', which it really doesn't deserve.

Thanks again for the advice.


----------



## Skirball (Dec 16, 2014)

AlanF said:


> The 1.4XTC lowers aperture by a stop and slightly degrades the image. So, the advantage of FF having better iso noise is lost by having to use a 1.4x higher f number. My choice, therefore, would be the 7D II.



This. 

Plus the AF degradation. Plus the sheer silliness of considering putting a 1.4x on a 50mm.


----------



## Nethawk (Dec 20, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> *Mt. Spokane*, I agree with you about the 6D (and the lenses) but if sports is the subject being captured, I think the 7D2 has a pretty significant list of important features the 6D lacks. There's more to a camera than simply the sensor IQ and size. I have finally shot an event with the 7D2 and it's pretty amazing to use for sports, esp indoors with funky lighting. I agree that the 6D with 24-105mmL kit is a great place to start if one is shooting a myriad of things EXCEPT sports.



But sports wasn't mentioned. Nor was any other subject for that matter. If the OP is primarily interested in anywhere near 50mm then the 6D would seem the obvious choice. Both choices have an impressive list of pluses and minuses, but the 7Dii pluses don't really add up to what awair was looking for.

CanonOregon, +1 on your reply. Excellent comment.

I was in a similar situation and really wanted to upgrade my 7D to the new model. However, I was more than a bit disappointed after 5 years that there was little improvement in high ISO or IQ. If I were exclusively a sports or BIF photographer I'd jump in a heartbeat for the AF system alone, otherwise paying full price seemed a waste. So, I did myself one better - add a 6D and when 7Dii prices drop (a lot) I will trade up. 

Congrats on the new purchase awair!


----------



## awair (Jan 18, 2015)

Well the story unfolds...

After checking some of the results on the 7D2 with 300/4L, I was happy with the improvement in exposure/noise, but still disappointed with the focus. Wasn't sure if it was (completely) a user issue, or anything technical.

I also found that my new lens purchase bumped up quicker than expected, a 24-70/4L (which included a 6D!)

After checking the 300 on the 6D, I realised that AFMA was needed. Both cameras needed around +10.

Following the adjustment, I had two different opportunities for shooting some sports, indoor swimming (25m) and outdoor cross-country. I used both the 135 & 300 lenses on swapping them between the 6D & 7D2. I really appreciated the flexibility that gave me, although of the 4 options 6D/135 was a little short. The results from the 300 on both bodies are a huge improvement over the 7D, and I may have new favourite lens!

Next (outdoor) event will be with the 7D/135 & 7D2/300, but I'll definitely be using the 6D combo for indoor events. There's just enough difference between the camera settings to have me completely confused, and in the manuals for months. However, I've seen enough improvement in keeper rate to appreciate the investment. Now I just need to find a computer with an internal 4TB SSD.

In short, I would recommend the 7D2/6D combo with the lens I have. The 24-70 on either body can cover 'normal' photography, while the two primes effectively give me 135/216/300/480 coverage.


----------



## awair (Dec 18, 2015)

As an update to anyone interested in a similar comparison. I have "answered" my own question.

After upgrading to both the 7D2 & 6D earlier in the year, I was achieving better results for sports in low-ish light than with my original 7D.

To top this off, I recently purchased the venerable 70-200/2.8L IS USM II. This was to be used (at an indoor swimming gala) under similar conditions that I had encountered previously.

The lighting conditions were not entirely favourable, but I had previously settled on:
ISO 800 f/2 1/500 or 1/250 for the EF 135/2L &
ISO 3200 f4 1/500 or 1/250 for the EF 300/4L.

Under these conditions I was compelled to use the 135 with the 7D2 & the 300 with the 6D. With a not dissimilar effective focal length (216 vs 300), the 6D produced the better quality shot, despite the higher ISO, with the 7D2 getting better images due the focussing and frame rate. So for my initial question of image quality, the 6D was nudging ahead, but with obvious difficulties capturing the best action shot.

A visiting pro advised me to couple my new 70-200 to the 7D2, as the more effective option. However, after half a day (of a two-day gala) I switched to the 6D with 70-200 and was considerably impressed with the results.

The extra reach of the 200mm (over 135) gave me more of the result that I was looking for. It also convinced me to re-visit my original 7D and use that with the 135 for more difficult focus cases, while leaving the 7D2/300 combo virtually redundant.

In good lighting conditions all of my lens and bodies produce results that I am more than happy with, however I should re-phrase my original question: 
"Under poorer light conditions which option produces the better quality image - 7D2, or 6D cropped to achieve the same effective focal length?" My inclusion of the 1.4X converter was probably a distraction?

The results from a cropped full frame sensor (if I can capture the desired image) have generally been of better quality. This has convinced me that despite the additional "zoom" of a crop body, under the lighting conditions that I normally find myself in, the full frame is the better option for me. I also realised that carrying 2 bodies was not as convenient, with wildly differing (focus) features/switch layout.

With the prices of the 5D3 & 1Dx dropping due to upcoming replacement, I 'settled' on the 1Dx to pair with my 70-200. This will probably give me 95% of the shots I am trying got get at most swim meets. I'll leave the 7D2 attached to the 300, for days when that extra reach is needed at better-lit venues.

Thank you for the valuable tips that you've provided, I hope this post is of use to others:
*I would thoroughly recommend the 6D as great introductory camera, the price/performance is hard to beat.
If you can stretch to the 5D3, that would be the perfect camera for most Canon users (and what I should have bought instead of the 7D2).*

As for the 1Dx, I'm not sure if it's the right camera for me, but a 5D3 after the 7D2 & 6D combo did not provide a big enough difference. I'll post again in a year, but if I can get just one great shot of my kids then it's a win.

_So for my next thread... should I get the 1.4X or 2X converter, and which of L lenses & bodies should I drop...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28629.0_


----------



## awair (May 23, 2016)

A further update...

I believe that I have now definitively answered my original question, whether to use a 6D & 1.4X or 7D(2) for better image quality.

My scenario related to sports use in less than perfect lighting.

As a background, my 7D2 has been returned to Canon. They have finally admitted that it is faulty, and it is being replaced. I currently have (only) the 1Dx and original 7D.

I went to my 'usual' venue for a swim gala last week and setup using the 1Dx with the 70-200. After the initial races, I switched to the 300/4, and found the extra reach more appropriate (even though this was a 25m, Short-Course event). I then used used the 70-200 on the 7D.

For the most part, this combination was effective, except when swimmers got too close and I was then limited with the 1Dx/300 combo.

I finally selected the 1Dx with the 70-200 & 1.4x for an experimental trial. To maintain the same exposure, I upped from ISO 1600 to 3200 (as I had used with the 300/4).

Reviewing the results from the various combinations of body/lens that I used over the meet, showed better results with the 1Dx at ISO 3200 than the 7D at ISO 800 (I dropped the shutter speed to get this, a compromise). The results were also at least as good as using the 7D2 on an earlier occasion.

1Dx: ISO 1600, 1/1000, f/2.8 or ISO 3200, 1/1000, f/4 with 1.4x III.
7D: ISO 800, 1/640, f/2.8
(7D2: ISO 1600, 1/1000, f/2.8 - previous event)
(6D: ISO 3200, 1/1000, f/4 - previous event)

Even though I wasn't using the 6D (as per my original question), I would have to say that the combination of Full-frame & converter, despite the loss of 1-stop and increased ISO, produced better quality than the crop camera (both 7D & 7D2) in the lighting conditions available.

The effective 98-280 focal range on the 1Dx was just about ideal, suggesting a look at the 100-400...
I'm just not sure I can get by with f/5.6 at the long end with the resulting 6400 ISO.

Anyway, next event is 'long-course' (50m) and I'm expecting to rent the 400/2.8


----------



## bananaboat83 (Jul 18, 2016)

Does anyone know if 6D2 will work with canon 2x teleconverter + 400f2.8?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2016)

bananaboat83 said:


> Does anyone know if 6D2 will work with canon 2x teleconverter + 400f2.8?



No, it will not. But that's mainly because there's no such camera as a 6D2.  Otherwise, 400/2.8 + a 2x TC yields an 800mm f/5.6 lens that will work 'properly' (i.e. full AF functionality, except that the AF will be slower) with any Canon camera including the entry level Rebel/xxxD models.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jul 24, 2016)

I came to the same conclusion regarding crop vs. ff when I'm shooting my daughter's dive meets. I have a 6D and the results it produced compared to my 60D were superior. I also found for my use that the 70-200 f2.8 mk ii was the perfect lens for that. Most of my shots were around 135mm so our next meet I'm going to try the 135 f2 to see how it compares. I'm expecting the image quality to improve by allowing me to drop the iso one stop. I keep my camera set to iso 3200 and the shutter speed at ~1/1000-1250, which is sufficient to stop action on most of the divers. It gets harder for the 6D with our seniors who twist really fast - limitation of the camera as it loses focus lock and won't re-aquire.

Congratulations on your 1dx! I may be following your footsteps for an action camera, but I want to see the next 5D first before making a decision. I don't need the 14 fps, but the 4.5 is pretty slow if shooting something other than youth sports. It's more about perfecting your timing with a camera that slow (which can be done).


----------

