# Which is better? 5D MKII or 6D?



## TeenTog (Jan 4, 2013)

This isn't a question I'm paticularly interested in, but I am intrigued by the articles that say that a new "entry level" FF camera is potentially "better" than camera legendary for its IQ- the 5D MkII. Thoughts?


And yes, I know that better is kinda an open-ended, question, but I meant for it to be that way.


----------



## MartinvH (Jan 4, 2013)

The 6D is miles better , 5DII is 2008 technology to put it short.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 4, 2013)

TeenTog said:


> This isn't a question I'm paticularly interested in, but I am intrigued by the articles that say that a new "entry level" FF camera is potentially "better" than camera legendary for its IQ- the 5D MkII. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> And yes, I know that better is kinda an open-ended, question, but I meant for it to be that way.



I'm not saying IQ, but OVERALL, the 6D is better IMO.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Jan 4, 2013)

MartinvH said:


> 5DII is 2008 technology to put it short.



And yet, as a stills camera it produces the same IQ as the 5D3 in almost all situations....


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 4, 2013)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> MartinvH said:
> 
> 
> > 5DII is 2008 technology to put it short.
> ...



As has been beaten to death on this forum, IQ is not the whole camera. The 5D3 is also leagues better in AF speed than the 6D. The 5D3 has more and better features. The 5D2 nearly matched the 1Ds3 in IQ, yet the 1Ds3 retailed at beginning at 7999 while the 5D2 retailed around half that or less. None of the 3 have bad IQ, in fact, they're all superb. My point is that features matter to some, and not to others. Your statement is correct, but it's not surprising nor really all that important.

Personally I'd have a tough time deciding between the 5D2 and 6D.


----------



## Ryan708 (Jan 4, 2013)

/\ me too. 5dII is cheaper...... used even more so, and IM poor, so, I will prob end up 5dII. how much worse is a 5dII focusing than my 60D, center low light is prob the same, moving subject the 5dII is prob worse, i would assume? any input for me I would love!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 4, 2013)

Ryan708 said:


> /\ me too. 5dII is cheaper...... used even more so, and IM poor, so, I will prob end up 5dII. how much worse is a 5dII focusing than my 60D, center low light is prob the same, moving subject the 5dII is prob worse, i would assume? any input for me I would love!



I owned a 5D2. It was great and center point was just fine for me. I think it's a great camera for IQ.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Jan 4, 2013)

Ryan708 said:


> /\ me too. 5dII is cheaper...... used even more so, and IM poor, so, I will prob end up 5dII. how much worse is a 5dII focusing than my 60D, center low light is prob the same, moving subject the 5dII is prob worse, i would assume? any input for me I would love!



If they are both new, isn't the shutter life on the 5D2 150K versus 100K for the 6D? In theory that's 50% more use....


----------



## kubelik (Jan 4, 2013)

for me, as a 5D Mark II owner, the 6D is unappealing for the simple fact that I can't use any of my CF cards in it. if I figure out the cost differential of purchasing a 6D+all new memory, versus upgrading to a 5D Mark III for me, it's much closer to a wash than one would expect. if I were coming from a rebel and had a bunch of SD cards, I'd get the 6D over the 5DII, easy.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 4, 2013)

Oh no...not this topic again!!! ;D


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 4, 2013)

This topic and comparison is like Friday the 13th sequels ....you keep killin' off Jason, and he keeps comin' back!


----------



## stephr (Jan 4, 2013)

I think the 6D is better for some things and 5D better for others. If high ISO, wi-fi and GPS are not important to you, just choose the 5D. I just bought one used for 1000$ with 6000 actuations. It would have cost me 2200$ with taxes for a new 6D. The decision was not difficult at all since I shoot often below 2.8 so the max shutter of 1/8000 will be handy. But I think the image quality of the 6D is a tiny bit better but not much, especially at low ISO.


----------



## stephr (Jan 4, 2013)

Also, with lenses like 85 1.2 and 70-200 2.8, i think the 6D is too tiny to offer a nice balance with these kind of lenses.


----------



## Wildfire (Jan 4, 2013)

I just sold my 5D2 and replaced it with a 6D last month. I can without hesitation say that *the 6D is hands down a better camera than the 5D2 in every way except price.*

It's smaller, lighter, has silent shutter, useable 12800 ISO, better controls (lack of joystick aside), similar or better build quality, similar or better image quality at low ISO, far superior image quality at high ISO, superior AF performance (especially the center point in low light) and the list goes on.

I would never go back to a 5D2. I would, however, go up to a 5D3 


EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to mention the Wi-fi and GPS. Two features I don't really care about but they are actually pretty awesome if you plan on using them!


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 4, 2013)

TeenTog said:


> This isn't a question I'm paticularly interested in, but I am intrigued by the articles that say that a new "entry level" FF camera is potentially "better" than camera legendary for its IQ- the 5D MkII. Thoughts?
> 
> 
> And yes, I know that better is kinda an open-ended, question, but I meant for it to be that way.



As a 5dII owner, there are some improved and different features on the 6D. I do not own a 6D at this time.

Picture quality is about/essentially the same, based on reviews.

There are minor differences in shutter speed, projected shutter life, flash sync and probably more. If that stuff is important to you, then research it.

One shot focusing with the 5DII using anything but the center point was hit and miss for me. If the 6D is better just in that regard, I'd say choose the 6D.


----------



## hemidesign (Jan 4, 2013)

Oh yeah.. the 6D is way better camera than the 5d MKII.. 
and has better AF center point and high ISO compared with 5D MKIII...


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 4, 2013)

hemidesign said:


> Oh yeah.. the 6D is way better camera than the 5d MKII..
> and has better AF center point and high ISO compared with 5D MKIII...



Against 5D2....yeah...

But, against 5D3, not even playing on the same field.


----------



## stephr (Jan 5, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> I just sold my 5D2 and replaced it with a 6D last month. I can without hesitation say that *the 6D is hands down a better camera than the 5D2 in every way except price.*
> 
> It's smaller, lighter, has silent shutter, useable 12800 ISO, better controls (lack of joystick aside), similar or better build quality, similar or better image quality at low ISO, far superior image quality at high ISO, superior AF performance (especially the center point in low light) and the list goes on.
> 
> ...




What about shutter speed, sync speed, build, size (try a 85 1.2 with a 6D and you'll know what I'm talking about), all that with the same picture quality at iso under 1600 for 1000$ less. I don't think it's an easy decision between the two.


----------



## killerBEEcamaro (Jan 5, 2013)

i know the 6D is very new, but the pictures i have seen so far has not awed me as the pictures for the 5DII have. new tech is always better, but sometimes the older stuff may be better.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Jan 10, 2013)

The video on the 5D2 is better than the 6D. In certain conditions it's better than the 5D3 too(because Canon didn't have a cinema line to protect then), but it does suffer from worse moire. 

Unless you really need the improved AF, I think the 5D2 beats the 6D hands down. 

Although i think the wiFi is an underrated feature.


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 10, 2013)

The 6D is better in low light for sure and the images in general look slightly better. For just about everything else, the 5D mark II is better. The 6D is definitely not a 5D replacement. It is more of a 60D upgrade. 
More information in this review: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/91-canon-6d-review


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 10, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> I just sold my 5D2 and replaced it with a 6D last month. I can without hesitation say that the 6D is hands down a better camera than the 5D2 in every way except price.



+1 - though the 6d is missing platinum cps in europe, 1/8000s, 1/200 x-sync, 150k shutter



dswatson83 said:


> The 6D is better in low light for sure and the images in general look slightly better. For just about everything else, the 5D mark II is better. The 6D is definitely not a 5D replacement. It is more of a 60D upgrade.



Absolutely not - it may be a 60d-like body, but has numerous small but very convenient advantages over the 4+ year old 5d2, and even the 5d2-style af on the 6d has more precision than the predecessor - look at the list here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11309.0


----------



## hemidesign (Jan 10, 2013)

dswatson83 said:


> The 6D is better in low light for sure and the images in general look slightly better. For just about everything else, the 5D mark II is better. The 6D is definitely not a 5D replacement. It is more of a 60D upgrade.
> More information in this review: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/91-canon-6d-review



I disagree with you...6D blow away the 5D mk2 in every aspect.. don't even compare old camera with the new ones.. looks the center point AF, -3ev and high quality image in high ISO.. plus a buch of other stuff..


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 10, 2013)

hemidesign said:


> I disagree with you...6D blow away the 5D mk2 in every aspect.. don't even compare old camera with the new ones.. looks the center point AF, -3ev and high quality image in high ISO.. plus a buch of other stuff..


I agree the high ISO image quality on the 6D was amazing...even slightly better than my 5D3. The -3ev is more of a spec than anything else. In practice, the center 6D focus point, even in pitch black performed about equally to the 5D3 cross type points but the other points on the 6D failed. I will admit that the 6D is slightly better than the 5D2 in AF but only slightly. I wish the 6D was better. Of course you do get wifi & GPS and while I don't like GPS, there are some uses for Wifi.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 10, 2013)

6D is an "updated" 5D2... with tweaks and goodies to bring 5D2 into the expectations of 2012. 
If budget is not an issue, 6D is the clear choice between the two bodies. It is more contentious comparison if one starts dragging in 5D3... just the AF makes it a different animal.


----------



## Aglet (Jan 10, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> here is what happening" since 2008" sensor and todays 6D sensor
> improved QE, higher FWC, but still a lot of read out noise and low DR at base iso,
> improved high iso, and less banding at base iso



+1
however, the slight reduction in 6D's read noise figure does not tell the whole story.

We don't know HOW the read noise is calculated. To me it seems they're taking an AVERAGE read noise value instead of a peak-to-peak read noise value.

The difference being you can have 2 levels of average read noise that are very similar, as in the 5d2 and 6d, but they can have different peak-to-peak values.
The peak-to-peak read noise levels are more relevant because the _peaks_ are what become more visible in shadow areas.
In the case of the 5d2 the peak read noise occurs repetitively when going across the sensor horizontally, which results in a pattern of vertical noise stripes visible at lower ISO settings. These stripes get obscurred by larger amounts of relative random noise as you increase ISO.
The 6d's low ISO readout noise is much more uniform from pixel to pixel, resulting in a smoother looking tone in the shadow areas. This sort of noise also responds better to NR software so you lose less actual image detail because you don't need to smear the image so much to obscure the banding structures.

In this respect alone, the 6D is quite far improved over the 5d2 and even the 5d3.

As an overall package, I'd still consider the other improvements and refinements of the 6D over the 5d2 as significant.
I'm selling my 5d2 to fund a 6d. The 6d is Canon's best IQ per cost FF camera and if you don't need the performance features of the 5d3 or 1dx it's a no-brainer.
I don't care about video so haven't compared it.


----------



## Wildfire (Jan 10, 2013)

dswatson83 said:


> The 6D is better in low light for sure and the images in general look slightly better. For just about everything else, the 5D mark II is better. The 6D is definitely not a 5D replacement. It is more of a 60D upgrade.



Completely disagree with you. I sold my 5D2 for a 6D and I can confirm that the 6D is better than the 5D2 in every way.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Jan 10, 2013)

dswatson83 said:


> hemidesign said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree with you...6D blow away the 5D mk2 in every aspect.. don't even compare old camera with the new ones.. looks the center point AF, -3ev and high quality image in high ISO.. plus a buch of other stuff..
> ...



Have you shot a 6D in an actual event? Just wondering  I owned a 5D mark II for at least 3 years and the 6D is just slightly better than the 5D mark II in almost everything with the AF being the most noticeable. It's also "snappier" with the updated Digic 5+ chip. No one knew how sluggish the 5D mark II was until the next generation of full frame cameras came out, including the 6D. I don't care much for the GPS, and got bored of the WiFi feature over time. No big deal. But after shooting 4 events with a 6D already I can even go as far as saying that the video quality better. Not miles better, but I see stronger moire in my old 5D mark II footage. I can also attest that my 6D's center focus point is better than my 5D mark IIIs center points depending on the situation. I can get crowd reactions at a venue where only the stage is lit easier with the 6D's center point when my 5D3s would just hunt at center with the same lens. I'm not sure how you got your results in pitch black, but honestly... pitch black testing? How did you see your subject in pitch black? =P Anyways, I wouldn't call it just a spec, I'd rather call it getting the shot when another camera can't, especially against the 5D mark II. I admit, moving subjects are a different story with the 5D3 but you might want to get your 6D checked by Canon support. I wouldn't underestimate the center point.


----------



## joshmurrah (Jan 10, 2013)

This is symantics, because the 6D is the closest thing to the 5D2 and the comparisons are valid, but I want to point out that the 6D is more of a full-frame rendition of the 60D and less of a 5D2 replacement.

The 6D has more gadgets and and a shrank footprint, at the expense of ergonomics (button layout) and ruggedness, meaning they're choosing marketing over robustness, like they would normally for a Rebel or xxD line.

The difference in size alone should be a clear indicator, along with the slower, laggier shutter (which is just pure crippling??) and the required plastic top for the wifi/gps.

None of this doesn't mean it's a great camera, I'm sure it is, but it wasn't designed as a professional's tool, the 5D2 is. I went with the 5D2 and am still happy with that choice.

Plus, I'm 6'0" with big hands, so that made it an easy choice


----------



## Aglet (Jan 10, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Read noise and fixed patter noise can easily been level out / removed with black frames,..


true, but that's more PP work than I want, or any of us should have, to do to get a decent low ISO image



Mikael Risedal said:


> There are also banding where the read out levels are uneven calibrated to the ADC , like the problem with the first 7d.


Sold my 7D because of that, tired of those 8 pixel wide strips in the shadows because the dual readout channels were not properly matched



Mikael Risedal said:


> If Canon would they can limit the read-out noise, others with the same type of readout and signal path to the ADC can do it. ..


That's what I'm thinking. There are other sensor systems out there that are made more like Canon's than Sony's and they still perform better than Canon. Obviously the technology exists for Canon to improve their read noise, and their read noise variation, even without spending a lot on developing a sensor as good as Sony's, etc.

The 6D is the best for reduced low ISO pattern noise I've seen since the 50D came out. Their earlier cameras did not seem to suffer from FPN nearly as much. Seems that when they added video capability, that's when things started to go sour. Even the live-view capable 40D and 400D didn't have the FPN isssues as bad as later models like the 7D, 5D2, etc.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 10, 2013)

TeenTog said:


> This isn't a question I'm paticularly interested in, but I am intrigued by the articles that say that a new "entry level" FF camera is potentially "better" than camera legendary for its IQ- the 5D MkII. Thoughts?
> 
> And yes, I know that better is kinda an open-ended, question, but I meant for it to be that way.



Based on the comparisons I've read, the 5D2 really has no significant advantages over the 6D. The 6D's low light performance and excellent center AF point sensitivity/accuracy are big advantages. WiFi and GPS are nice features for some users. 

Does the 5D2 do anything significant better than the 6D? No, in my opinion. The only real advantage is price, but you are buying yesterday's (2008 to be exact) technology. The 5D2's "advantages" are of negligible value: of 1/8000 vs. 1/4000 maximum shutter speed - how often does anybody shoot at faster than 1/1000 anyway? 1/160 vs 1/200 sync speed - not a tangible difference. Build quality - the engineering plastic top section (necessary for the wifi and GPS to function) is not a significant difference from the 5D2 all metal body. Both are well built, solid cameras.

6D bashers complain that the 6D doesn't match the 5D3's spec's, but its not supposed to. Its an entry level FF camera, the 5D3 is the next step up. Buyers can compare the specs and prices and make a decision on which better suits their needs and budget.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 11, 2013)

As I see it

6D > 5D2 newer faster digic processor
6D > 5D2 higher iso capability usable 25k vs 6400
6D > 5D2 slightly more AF points with more sensetive center for low light
6D > 5D2 better screen

some may say the 6D > 5D2 becasue of wifi and GPS but for me its irrelevent

5D2 > 6D CF card better than SD
5D2 > 6D 5D2 has joystick and I prefer the ergonomics slightly bigger
5D2 > 6D Alloy body vs plastic
5D2 > 6D better VF
5D2 > 6D 1/8000 vs 1/4000 max shutter speed if it matter to you

since I kept my 5Dmk2s there is no reason for me to conside the 6D
as I will just get more 5Dmk3 bodies. I have one 5Dmk2 fitted with a brightscreen and its great for Manual focusing, eventually the other body I'll have converted to a Dedicated IR body


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 11, 2013)

I'd take the 6D any day. The reduced weight, better IQ and better AF are just better than 5D2. I for one hate lugging a 5D2 when I'm used to a TI1's weight for 4 hours straight. 6D is a little bit tolerable.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 11, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> I'd take the 6D any day. The reduced weight, better IQ and better AF are just better than 5D2. I for one hate lugging a 5D2 when I'm used to a TI1's weight for 4 hours straight. 6D is a little bit tolerable.



5Ds are pure heaven when you are used to 1D bodies 

its all relative


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 11, 2013)

scrappydog said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > how often does anybody shoot at faster than 1/1000 anyway?
> ...



Outdoor football and soccer? Oh about 1/3200 every shot? That's quite a bit.


----------



## Aglet (Jan 11, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> You misunderstood what I meant (I think), Canon can with several more rows of black / covered pixels offset the accruing noise already at the readout.(CDS) Nothing to do with PP work



I did misunderstand what you meant, i read too fast.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Yes, that's a perfectly feasible method and may even be doable even in firmware as-is with the existing masked pixels?


----------



## Aglet (Jan 11, 2013)

scrappydog said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > how often does anybody shoot at faster than 1/1000 anyway?
> ...


I very rarely even need to use 1/4000, only occasionally 1/2000.
Any less light required, a 2 to 4-stop ND filter is a cheap solution.
not having faster than 1/4000 is not a deal-breaker.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 11, 2013)

Aglet said:


> scrappydog said:
> 
> 
> > bholliman said:
> ...



I'm agreeing here. I never shoot above 1/3200, even in sports.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 11, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > I'd take the 6D any day. The reduced weight, better IQ and better AF are just better than 5D2. I for one hate lugging a 5D2 when I'm used to a TI1's weight for 4 hours straight. 6D is a little bit tolerable.
> ...



Yup. And anything lighter is even better.  Heck, if only RX1 offers a 24-70mm lens even a fixed one instead of a 35, I'll take it over 6D or 5D2 any day. I'm not a masochist after all.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 11, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > verysimplejason said:
> ...



size is also a factor as well as weight I find bodies smaller than 5D would give me cramps in my hand with a full day of shooting however my wife who has smaller hands will appreciate both the smaller size and lighter weight
same reason some people with bigger hands prefer gripped bodies or 1D size

haha about the rx I think if it had even a fixed 24-70 2.8 of substantial quality they would struggle to keep up with demand

I think if I was trying to decide between the 5dmk2 and the 6D i'd have to have a good long look at one and see if i can live with the ergonomics, but coming from a rebel or even 60D I think its a no brainer to take the 6D over the 5Dmk2 unless the 5dmk2 is significantly cheaper


----------



## beansauce (Jan 11, 2013)

I just bought the 5D2 over both the 5D3 and 6D for the following reasons:

1. The 5D3 is not representative of its price pertaining to features compared with 5D2 (other than AF).
2. The build quality of the 6D and ergonomics is in no way better than the 5D2.
3. The 5D2's AF is NOT BAD AT ALL for those who know what they are doing.
4. The IQ is literally the same between all 3 cameras, aside from the ISO improvements of the 6D and 5D3
5. You can't beat a 5D2 with 24-105 kit for $2299. IT WAS A STEAL... THANKS AMAZON!!!!!
6. The money saved allowed me to justify a 70-200L IS II.

I am 1000 percent happy with the 5D2, including the AF which a lot of folks love to hate. Having said that, I'm not tracking birds with a 600L or on the side of a football game machine gunning. Possibly those folks need the extra AF points and most likely don't care about the price since their organization pays the bill anyways. 

I will use the $h!t out of this camera until the 5D4 is released around 2016 or so. Hopefully we will see a new generation in sensor design (not that the 5D3 and 6D are bad) that is clearly not simply an incremental upgrade in IQ.


----------



## beansauce (Jan 11, 2013)

I forgot to mention that, yes, I've used both the 5D3 and 6D for a few days each and STILL went for the 5D2... I particularly can't stand the 6D's ergonomics. The multi directional pad is missing and feels like a cheap rebel. The only feature of both the 5D3 and 6D that I envy is the silent shutter mode. The 5D2 is a loud monster.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 11, 2013)

beansauce said:


> I just bought the 5D2 over both the 5D3 and 6D for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. The 5D3 is not representative of its price pertaining to features compared with 5D2 (other than AF).
> 2. The build quality of the 6D and ergonomics is in no way better than the 5D2.
> ...



Some valid points however I think you are understimting the image quality differences between the 5Dmk2 and the mk3 I use both all the time and the 5Dmk3 images give alot more latitude in pp than the mk2 and as for high iso... its not even a contest the mk3 kills the mk2.

as you correctly pointed out the current deals for 5Dmk2 and 24-105L are simply awesome and certainly give alot of bang for your bucks


----------



## greger (Jan 24, 2013)

This might be of interest.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-6D-vs-Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 24, 2013)

greger said:


> This might be of interest.
> 
> http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-6D-vs-Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II
> [/quote
> ...


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 24, 2013)

greger said:


> This might be of interest.



It is, as a beautiful example of building a website with zero editorial content but with some php/sql knowledge - and then letting users generate some background noise in the comment section.

The big failure here is that there's no evaluation on how important the spec differences are - but "objective" comparisons like that make manufacturers juggle with specs to either position a camera above the external competition or under the internal competition (Canon 5d3).

If you want to read some less obvious (positive) facts about the 6d, read this: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11309.30


----------



## kubelik (Jan 24, 2013)

the more annoying thing about snapsort is sometimes they flat out get the specs wrong.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 24, 2013)

The 6D is a slightly-microwaved 5D2 and re-served to us canonites for the next 4 years. ;D


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 25, 2013)

Freelancer said:


> beansauce said:
> 
> 
> > 3. The 5D2's AF is NOT BAD AT ALL for those who know what they are doing.
> ...



I think it all depends on where you want to use it. For sports, 5D2 won't have much keepers. Maybe for the good photographers, around 1 out of 5. For stills, 5D2 is great already. Having said that, I'd still take 6D. The difference in price isn't much.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 25, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> 5D2 > 6D better VF



Is that true? Does anyone else feel that the 5D2 viewfinder is better than that of the 6D? If the 5D2 viewfinder is better, what exactly is better about it? I have a 5D2 but not a 6D and haven't had a chance to handle a 6D. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Jan 25, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> Freelancer said:
> 
> 
> > beansauce said:
> ...



+1 It's easily more appealing than a 5D mark II for most purposes, especially indoor photography.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Jan 25, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > 5D2 > 6D better VF
> ...



In my experience the 5D2 viewfinder is slightly darker, not that big of a deal in broad daylight. But you'll definitely notice the 6D's viewfinder is brighter in low light situations. I can't see the difference between 98% or 97%, it feels just the same.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 25, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...


Thanks! Slightly brighter in low light would be better for me.


----------



## Aglet (Jan 25, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> The 6D is a slightly-microwaved 5D2 and re-served to us canonites for the next 4 years. ;D



+2/3

6D does have MINOR IQ improvements over the average 5D2:

- base ISO FPN is improved
- hi ISO is noticeably superior
- center AF point is better in low light
- love that quiet shutter
- intro price isn't horrid

BUT - the midtone fixed pattern noise I found on my 5D2 is still present, if reduced, on the 6D I tested - a minor but there it is, possible issue.

There's likely a few points in the 5D2's favor, like build quality, but I'll leave those to someone who _likes_ the 5d2 to state.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 25, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> Chosenbydestiny said:
> 
> 
> > Zlatko said:
> ...



I felt the 98% on the 5Dmk2 slightly brighter than the 97% of the 6D
not as big as a difference as a 100% vs either is though

I would think an EG-S screen would make the 5Dmk2 and 6D pretty much on par though


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 25, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> I'm not going to bother reading past posts in this thread There is only one aspect how the 6D beats the 5D3. And here's how you come by that…
> 
> You buy a 6D when you always wanted a 5D3. You convince yourself you 'saved' money. (I've always had a hard time with the notion of saving while spending)
> 
> ...



the discussion is the 6D vs the 5Dmk2 not the mk3 
anyone that thinks the 6D is better than the mk3 is kidding themselves


----------



## icantpickaname13 (Jan 25, 2013)

beansauce said:


> 5. You can't beat a 5D2 with 24-105 kit for $2299. IT WAS A STEAL... THANKS AMAZON!!!!!
> 6. The money saved allowed me to justify a 70-200L IS II.



Actually you can: http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/01/deal-canon-eos-6d-bundles-at-bh-photo/
6D for $2499 (With no tax which Amazon does have in my state and 2% =$49.98 in B&H rewards and another 2% from my credit card company)
But please hook me up with your link for a $100-200 70-200 2.8L ISII because that's a steal!

Also: for those saying CF>SD and it will cost a fortune for new cards have you looked up prices for SD online lately? One quick search and $59.95 for a 64GB sandisk extreme (about 2,500 RAWs) from B&H with 45mb/s so if you can afford a Canon Full frame in any flavor I'd say you can afford a few SD's ???


----------

