# Looking for upgrade recommendations from T6s



## Duct_Taper (Jan 13, 2018)

Hi everyone,

I bought a T6s about a year and a half ago as my first DSLR, mainly to get better pictures of my son (he's 19 months old now) than was possible with an iPhone. Since then I've gotten pretty interested in photography... mainly family stuff but also a decent bit of landscape and wildlife for fun. My current kit is:

Bodies - T6s w/ battery grip, SL1 (bought used)
Lenses - 18-135 STM, 55-250 STM, 24 STM, 40 STM, 50 STM
Lighting - 2x Godox TT685c, Godox X1c, and a basic backdrop and a couple of lightstands / umbrellas

I've been happy with both cameras and plan to keep both (T6s for my wife and SL1 as a cheap/light camera for travel or situations where I don't want to risk an expensive body), but I've learned enough about how cameras work that there are a few things that the T6s is missing that I'd like to have.

Basically, I've come up with the following requirements for a new body and am looking for advice on what to do.

Must haves:

Touchscreen (both T6s and SL1 have this and I like it too much to give it up)
Anti-flicker mode (I expect to be shooting indoor sports with my son eventually)
Full auto-ISO customization (T6s and SL1 both only have a setting for "max auto" - I want some control over the min shutter speed)
Custom modes on the mode dial - at least 2
DPAF (both the T6s and SL1 are decent in live view but I have heard DPAF is a big improvement)
Dedicated rear AF-On button (I'd like to use BBF but find the T6s and SL1 awkward when configured to use the * button)
Better RAW buffer depth (T6s and SL1 are both ~7 frames)
Better low-light AF (T6s is rated to -0.5 EV and I've had a few situations where it's really struggled)

Nice to haves:

Tilty-flippy screen
SD card storage (to keep only one card format)
In-viewfinder level
Better framerate (T6s is 5fps and SL1 is 4)
Larger/nicer viewfinder
AFMA
GPS
Built-in Wifi (I don't use it that much but it can be handy to have)
Built-in flash (again, don't use it that much but it's occasionally handy)

I haven't had any complaints about IQ from the T6s or SL1 so I'm not specfically looking for improvement there but if it comes along with the above then I won't be upset 

Budget is, as always, a consideration... I'd like to spend as little as possible to get what I'm looking for, but I'm willing to wait/save for longer if it's really worth getting something more expensive.

It seems like the 80D checks most of the boxes for me, but I have also been considering the 6D II for better IQ and higher ISO performance or waiting for the 7D III in hopes that it has a tilty-flippy or at least a touchscreen. Downside of both is the cost, with the 6D II also carrying the associated lens upgrade costs of going to FF.

tl;dr - Is the 80D a good bet or should I save/wait and get either the 6D II or 7D III? Or switch to Sony or Nikon?


----------



## Pippan (Jan 14, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> Is the 80D a good bet ... ?


Yes. 

And if you were to get a 6DII the only of your lenses you could use would be the 40 and 50.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 14, 2018)

Not sure if it meets all your criteria, but the 80D definitely checks almost all your boxes. Sounds like it is closer to what you are looking for than anything else.


----------



## Zen (Jan 14, 2018)

My opinion . . . 6DII, and be done with it.

You won't be disappointed!

8)


----------



## stevelee (Jan 15, 2018)

Zen said:


> My opinion . . . 6DII, and be done with it.
> 
> You won't be disappointed!
> 
> 8)



I went from a T3i to a 6DII, and have been extremely well pleased. I already had some EF lenses, and I never use built-in flash, so that would be a difference for my situation. I got the 24-105 STM kit lens to use for general purpose shooting, and have been pleasantly surprised by it all the way around. The low light quality of the camera and the image stabilization of the lens have helped me shoot handheld in quite a range of situations.

I considered getting the 80D, and I think I could have been happy with it, but decided to go full frame at this point. Money was not such a huge factor for me, and I tend to think of it as a false economy to buy something that I think I might be less than happy with in a few years. IOW, I think it is cheaper to spend a few hundred dollars extra now and not be replacing in a short time.


----------



## Talys (Jan 15, 2018)

You will love either the 80D or 6DII.

As someone who's owned all three -- t6s, 80D, and 6DII -- the 80D and 6DII are worlds apart in functionality from the t6s. I actually bought the t6s as a spare after a 70D, and hardly ever used it. In the two or three years I kept it, I'm not even sure the shutter count got to 4 digits.

The three things you'll probably notice right away with either are: a massively larger viewfinder, AFMA, and DPAF. It's hard to overstate how much better pentaprism is than pentamirror, save to say that afterwards, you'll never want to go back. If you invest in Reikan FoCal and tune your lenses, your AF'd photos will instantly be sharper at a tiny cost. And if you ever use live view AF (for example, for video), DPAF is just a world of difference over the older PDAF.


Advantages of 80D over 6DII: 

- It's cheaper.

- If you mostly shoot wildlife in lots of sun and can keep it at ISO 100-200, crop is really nice to get more pixels out of your glass. 1.6 crop factor is nothing to sneeze at on a 150-600mm lens. 

- Up to about ISO 400, the 80D is stellar, but after that, images from the 6DII are going to be way better. However, it's not like the higher ISO images are unusable; they're just not as clean after post, and not as good.

- If your landscapes are mostly on a tripod, 80D lets you use the Canon EFS10-18, which is a fantastic lens at an absurdly good price. It yields about the same field of view as a FF 16mm on the wide end, and it's super sharp from corner to center to corner, and a LOT cheaper than an EF 16-35.

- On the same note, you can use EFS lenses. And although they're not the most super-exciting thing thereare some pretty cool ones. For example, the 18-135 is pretty awesome, because autofocus is so stupid fast that most of the time you don't even know it's autofocusing. Plus, it's nearly completely silent.

- The 80D is smaller. I personally think that the 80D is the perfect size camera body, but this can work the other way too; some people prefer a 6D, or 5D sizes. Even though they look almost identical in pictures, I can really feel the difference in the grip.


Advantages of a 6DII

- It's a little better at ISO 400, and starting at ISO 800, the 6DII is gets way, way better than 80D.

- Lots of higher ISO shots look great, especially certain colors like browns, which let you really crank up that shutter speed.

- You get wider shots out of 16-35 and 24-70 lenses, and you'll get more mileage (wider shots) out of the super wide angle primes and zooms.

- If you like wireless remote shooting (pairing with PC, tablet, smartphone, etc), the 6DII is a billion times better than 80D. For starters, 6DII lets you pair with as many devices of as many types as you want; 80D lets you pair with ONE, period. If you pair a smartphone, the PC's pairing is deleted. Not only that, but when I first had my 80D, it was a real pain (wouldn't recognize my Surface).

- Bluetooth and GPS in 6DII. The Bluetooth opens up the Bluetooth trigger, which is great if you're taking just single shots (for whatever reason, you can't hold it down for continuous shooting).

- It's got better weather sealing. That includes the little things, like using the 5D style, water resistant remote trigger instead of the mini-mic that is found in 80D and t6s. And that port is in a great place too, by the way, in the front to the bottom left.

- They have slightly different button layouts. Personally, I think the most of the 6DII's button layout choices are slightly superior.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 15, 2018)

Hi Duct Taper. 
Just to say don’t limit yourself to APS bodies for the built in flash, there is the beautiful little 90ex which is little bigger than the index and middle fingers of my hand (without the V  ) and about the same power as most of the built in flashes, no it is not built in but it is small enough to carry every time you go out with a camera! Plus it can do optical master flash all for about $50 on eBay. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Duct_Taper (Jan 15, 2018)

Wow, thanks for the feedback all - really helpful! Talys especially, it's super helpful to hear from someone who's used all three. Any thoughts on whether the extra cost of the full frame body and lenses is generally worth it? I'm tempted to go that way to have more ability to use available light without pulling out a flash, especially for family stuff... but the cost difference is significant! (also there isn't a FF single lens equivalent of the 18-135 which is my outdoor go-to lens for everything but wildlife... the 24-105 or 28-135 seem to be the closest)

Overall it sounds like I'll be happy either way, which is awesome 

PS - Graham, thanks for the tip on the 90EX - I had never heard of it before but will definitely check it out if I go the 6DII route!


----------



## stevelee (Jan 15, 2018)

The little flash doesn’t appear to tilt or swivel, so bounce flash doesn’t appear to be an easy option. My guess is that with the 6D2 you would use available light much more than you think you will. Maybe the good news is that the flash is weak enough that it would be more of a fill in than a harsh main source in many situations.


----------



## midluk (Jan 15, 2018)

The most important difference I see between the 80D and 6D2 (APS-C vs FF) is the lens selection.
You can get higher quality and faster lenses for FF. EF-S lenses are either relatively slow variable aperture with focus by wire or old (like 17-55).
While you can still use FF lenses on APS-C, zoom lenses just don't work the way they are designed to work. 24-70/105 is too narrow on the wide end to be a useful general purpose zoom on APS-C, same for 70-200 for indoor usage, and ultra wide is impossible. And you effectively lose 4/3 stops of aperture on APS-C compared to FF with its effect on DoF/bokeh and noise performance. So in the end it might be cheaper to buy slower lenses and a FF camera compared to faster lenses and APS-C (e.g. 35mm f/1.4+APS-C vs. 50mm f/1.8+FF).

The main reason I went FF (apart from the better ergonomics with the 5D4) was that lens-wise APS-C was a dead end.
If you are fine with your lenses, go 80D. If you wish your lenses were faster (for DOF or noise reasons), go 6D2.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 15, 2018)

I have a SL2, and I love it. But, as soon as ISO levels rise above about 800, images lose color and clarity. A FF body really shines under the same circumstances.

I took my new SL2 and my 5D IV to shoot low light theater last week, the first I've tried the SL2 for that. I had to slow the shutter way down to 1/30 sec to keep ISO from totally running away, and used my Sigma 177-35mm f/1.8. The slow shutter speed did cause some blurring. I set my 5D MK IV to 1/80 sec for the most part, with a f/2.8 lens and still got far nicer looking photos. I did not bother to use the SL2 after that first night.

If you can afford to update your camera and lenses, get FF. Otherwise, a SL2 is a nice low cost upgrade over the SL1. A 80D is a good value as well.

I'm convinced that for your use, once you try a FF, you will not give any use to the 7s.

I like the touch screen, and the SL2 has no AFMA, so its best used in live view for accurate AF. 

Here are a couple of shots from last week, 

SL2 ISO 250 








5D MK IV ISO 1600


----------



## Talys (Jan 15, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> Wow, thanks for the feedback all - really helpful! Talys especially, it's super helpful to hear from someone who's used all three. Any thoughts on whether the extra cost of the full frame body and lenses is generally worth it? I'm tempted to go that way to have more ability to use available light without pulling out a flash, especially for family stuff... but the cost difference is significant! (also there isn't a FF single lens equivalent of the 18-135 which is my outdoor go-to lens for everything but wildlife... the 24-105 or 28-135 seem to be the closest)
> 
> Overall it sounds like I'll be happy either way, which is awesome
> 
> PS - Graham, thanks for the tip on the 90EX - I had never heard of it before but will definitely check it out if I go the 6DII route!



As others have said, the cost of the lenses is what's going to determine whether or not the 6DII is in the cards, because they're sure not cheap once you add them up.

However, if you're used to (and happy with) STM lenses, the 70-300 is a decent lens that won't break the bank and covers a lot of focal length -- it was about $350 recently with discounts, about a hundred more than that now -- but the used prices are excellent. For the lower end of the focal range, consider the 24-105. You can go STM and get one used about $300, but if you can afford it, I'd really recommend a Mark 1 L for about $400 used, or $700-ish grey market. The Mark 2 L is about $900, and is probably over budget, and in that price range, you can also consider the 24-70 f4 IS Macro, which is superior in every respect except that it doesn't give you 70-105 on that lens (which can be really useful). 

So, short version , between $600-$1500 to give you between 24mm - 300mm. Keep in mind that because of crop, 24mm will give you as wide a field of view as 15mm on the APSC. I wouldn't worry too much about the telephoto end, because your cropped picture out of the 6DII if you're shooting at anything over ISO 400 are going to be as good as the 80D, even though it's 1.6x less crop.

The built-in flash on the 80D is a crime. Pictures you get when it's up look like a cheap point an shoot, _just like every other photo shot with a flash pointed directly at the subject_, because a super bright tiny light pointed at the subject washes out all the details.

Don't get me wrong, though, I think that flashes are _awesome_. You just have to point them at something other than right smack in the middle of the subject, and that's impossible when it's a fixed position right above the lens. Instead, invest in a $100 third-party bounce flash, set it to manual, and point it at something that it can reflect off of, like the ceiling, or in the worst case scenario (like outside), pull out the built-in bounce card and point it straight up. Don't set it to ETTL and point it at the subject; that's the same as the built-in flash, and will just give you a whole slew of washed out pictures. If you get a cheap light stand and a remote trigger, you can also do really cool things with your flash. 

But anyways, sorry, totally off topic  Just mentioning it as the built-in flash NOT being a reason to choose the 80D. The high ISO shots from the 6DII in poor lighting will probably be as good/bad as the built-in flash shots out of the 80D (ie devoid of contrast and interesting shadows).


----------



## midluk (Jan 15, 2018)

Talys said:


> The built-in flash on the 80D is a crime. Pictures you get when it's up look like a cheap point an shoot, _just like every other photo shot with a flash pointed directly at the subject_, because a super bright tiny light pointed at the subject washes out all the details.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, though, I think that flashes are _awesome_. You just have to point them at something other than right smack in the middle of the subject, and that's impossible when it's a fixed position right above the lens. Instead, invest in a $100 third-party bounce flash, set it to manual, and point it at something that it can reflect off of, like the ceiling, or in the worst case scenario (like outside), pull out the built-in bounce card and point it straight up. Don't set it to ETTL and point it at the subject; that's the same as the built-in flash, and will just give you a whole slew of washed out pictures. If you get a cheap light stand and a remote trigger, you can also do really cool things with your flash.


As a fill flash to reduce shadows caused by direct sun light the on-camera flash is perfectly usable.

And using the bounce card without anything to bounce off does not make sense. It is meant to produce a little catchlight with the main light coming from the ceiling. You would be wasting most light and the bounce card is not much bigger than direct flash.

But by looking at the first post, Duct_Taper does not seem to need much advice on lighting.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 16, 2018)

Hi Stevelee. 
The little 90ex tilts and swivels exactly the same amount as a pop up flash which the op put down as a nice to have occasionally. As far as I know none of the FF offerings from Canon have pop up flash so the 90ex is a close approximation for power and functionality negating the need to carry his much larger better specification Godox TT685c. 

Cheers, Graham. 



stevelee said:


> The little flash doesn’t appear to tilt or swivel, so bounce flash doesn’t appear to be an easy option. My guess is that with the 6D2 you would use available light much more than you think you will. Maybe the good news is that the flash is weak enough that it would be more of a fill in than a harsh main source in many situations.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 16, 2018)

I had acknowledged that OP's needs/wishes differ from mine. I never use direct flash, neither the pop-up or hot-shoe variety, and I can't imagine anybody liking the effect other than fill-in. My point was that the low-light capability of the 6D2 very often gives a good alternative to using flash, and I think a better-looking alternative.

My G7X II does let you move the pop-up flash around on a spring, so with practice one perhaps could develop some consistency for a bounce flash, but that seems more trouble than it is worth.

But, yes, the little flash should substitute for the pop-up kind.


----------



## Talys (Jan 16, 2018)

midluk said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > The built-in flash on the 80D is a crime. Pictures you get when it's up look like a cheap point an shoot, _just like every other photo shot with a flash pointed directly at the subject_, because a super bright tiny light pointed at the subject washes out all the details.
> ...




@midluk - If you point your bounce flash straight up, extend the bounce card and flash at full power, 80%-85% of the light goes nowhere, and 15-20% of it is caught by the bounce card and goes forward (or whatever direction the bounce card is pointing). But the light is much softer and doesn't sear through all the detail of the subject.

Personally, I think it produces much nicer than setting your flash at 25% with a bounce flash and pointing it straight at the subject, as you must do with the built-in flash.

Just preference, I guess. A Rogue Flashbender, a $15 knockoff, or even a piece of white cardstock and a rubber band is better, but there are lots of times when I just don't have time to fiddle, and the built-in card is better than nothing.

This photo was taken with a 600EX-RT flash using the built-in bounce card (and the flash head pointed to the sky), on a dark, rainy day, for exactly that reason -- there was no time to set up anything better. Without the flash, the rain would have been flat and the blacks would have lacked any definition. Without the bounce card (if I had just lowered the power and pointed it at the bird), I would have lost detail and the center of the image would have been noticeably brighter than the rest.

Oh, and the photo is on a 6DII! 


Edit: I totally forgot about one other thing: CTO gels! Really, all the gels, but I'd really miss CTO's (color temperature orange). When I discovered flash gels, it was hobby-life-changing for my flash photography. I was like, where have you been all my life.


----------



## midluk (Jan 16, 2018)

Talys said:


> @midluk - If you point your bounce flash straight up, extend the bounce card and flash at full power, 80%-85% of the light goes nowhere, and 15-20% of it is caught by the bounce card and goes forward (or whatever direction the bounce card is pointing). But the light is much softer and doesn't sear through all the detail of the subject.
> 
> Personally, I think it produces much nicer than setting your flash at 25% with a bounce flash and pointing it straight at the subject, as you must do with the built-in flash.
> 
> ...



I seriously doubt that the bounce card throws 20% of the light towards your subject. It's definitely less then 5%. Less than 25% of the light hits the card, and only a small part of that is actually scattered at a ~90° angle towards the subject. I set up a 600EX pointing straigt at a wall and made the image just not saturate at 1/128 flash setting. Only at 1/8 flash setting the parts not hit by direct flash started to saturate (and the saturation only appeared in a small area that was likely still hit by direct light scattered in the window of the flash head). Only at 1/2 flash settings the parts definitely only hit by bounced light saturated. And this is with still some light bouncing around in the room, so in a free space the light loss through the bounce card is likely even worse.
The ratio between light from the bounce card and bounced light from the ceiling migth actually be around 20% for usual distances between camera, ceiling and subject.

The area on the bounce card actually hit by light is about twice the size of the flash tube. I don't think this small difference matters much in cases where the flash is not the only light source.

If you get a brighter image center with direct flash, set your flash head to a wider setting. If with "center" you mean "foreground", this only depends on your ratio between flash light and ambient (25% direct flash is much stronger than the small percentage from the bounce card at 100% flash setting). A small bounce card does not change the 1/r^2 falloff, so it will not change the exposure ratio between foreground and background assuming you get the same amount of light from flash on the foreground.


----------



## cpsico (Jan 16, 2018)

Based on the lenses you already have i would get the canon 80d, if you are looking for a low light monster nothing beats a original canon 6D. If you price hunt you can get both for not that much more than a 6D II.


----------



## Duct_Taper (Jan 16, 2018)

Thanks again for all the additional help!

Re: lighting, indeed the only reason I'd ever look to use the built-in flash is for daylight fill... which may not really be enough of a case to justify it. I've found so far that using it for fill in most daylight situations requires the aperture to close down so much for sync speed that the end result isn't of much better quality than just not using the flash and adjusting highlights/shadows in post. I'm going to experiment with the TT685 for daylight fill since it does HSS but a full-size flash is a bit unbalanced on top of the SL1/40 STM combo which I often walk around with. If I'm using the flash for primary lighting it's always set up as bounce and/or off-camera.

The cost/selection of lenses to cover the FL range I have now is definitely something I'm trying to figure out - I had been looking at the 24-105 IS Mk1 or 28-135 IS and 85 1.8 or 100 2.0 as options alongside the 70-300 IS II which covers most of what I would need... just not sure if I'll really miss the 300-400 equiv. that I get from the 55-250 on APS-C. I end up using the 55-250 at 250mm quite a bit, but at least half of that is for the magnification on flowers, bugs, etc where the 70-300 is probably close enough (.25x vs .31x). For longer distances, based on Talys' comment here as well as reading through the crop vs FF for lots of mms thread, it sounds like in many cases cropping from the FF will be as good or better quality than having the extra reach on APS-C. I'd love to get a 100-400 II no matter what body I end up with but that's at least a few years further off 

Finally, re: STM vs other focusing types - I've really only used Canon STM lenses (plus the Sigma 35 Art which I rented) so I don't know any better, but am certainly looking to try out some USM ones to see if it makes a difference in the stuff I shoot. I don't really expect to see a big difference on the zoom lenses as the 18-135 and 55-250 are both pretty fast and I rarely focus manually shooting with them, but I do find the 24/40/50 can be a bit slow to keep up with a high-energy 19mo old.


----------



## Talys (Jan 16, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> I'd love to get a 100-400 II no matter what body I end up with but that's at least a few years further off



This is a beautiful lens, quite possibly my favorite zoom lens. I guarantee you that you won't regret the investment  

Regarding the crop factor -- after using the 6DII, which is my first full frame camera, I find that the wider crop on lenses is more useful than the higher density of pixels on the narrower crop, by quite a bit, because it's almost always easier to get a closer or crop a tighter (and get a lower resolution image), than it is to shoot a wider.

The exception is that the alternatives to the 10-18 STM on FF are pretty expensive (or, that the 10-18 is awfully cheap for good optics).

I think that 70-300 on 6DII is pretty good reach, generally speaking. I'm sure you can give it a shot in a store and evaluate the difference. My biggest problem with the 70-300 on 80D is that at f/5.6, it isn't easy to get ISO 100-200, and often not even ISO 400. Really, no different than the 55-250. How often do you wish you could have a lower ISO/higher shutter/wider aperture on your T6s with the 55-250... and it will be about the same on the 80D. The noise is definitely improved, but you're still stuck wishing you could use low ISOs. I don't know if you ever run into it, but something like an action shot in a gymnasium taken at f/5.6 looks way times better on the 6DII.

Also: the IQ of the non-nano 70-300 are pretty similar to the new, and much nicer/modern looking 70-300, though the AF on the new nano 70-300 is a lot better. I mention that only because you can probably get the old one really cheap, used.




Duct_Taper said:


> Finally, re: STM vs other focusing types - I've really only used Canon STM lenses (plus the Sigma 35 Art which I rented) so I don't know any better, but am certainly looking to try out some USM ones to see if it makes a difference in the stuff I shoot. I don't really expect to see a big difference on the zoom lenses as the 18-135 and 55-250 are both pretty fast and I rarely focus manually shooting with them, but I do find the 24/40/50 can be a bit slow to keep up with a high-energy 19mo old.



Just go to a camera store and try any L lens out, like the 24-105. The big difference is that if you need to manually focus - having to power the lens to focus is a real pain, and with STM, you can't really feel how far/quickly you're focusing, especially with some of the new ones where fast twist = bigger focus jump, slow twist = little focus jump. 

If you use tripod / live view / magnify / manual focus to get shots into perfect focus, or the part of the picture you really want in focus (like a flower), ring USM is feels more precise and (at least for me) feels easier to get just where I want it.

The other thing that you'll probably notice if you're a focus nut is that the L lenses are generally a lot more consistent in AF than their STM counterparts, which makes microadjust more useful.



midluk said:


> I seriously doubt that the bounce card throws 20% of the light towards your subject. It's definitely less then 5%. Less than 25% of the light hits the card, and only a small part of that is actually scattered at a ~90° angle towards the subject. I set up a 600EX pointing straigt at a wall and made the image just not saturate at 1/128 flash setting. Only at 1/8 flash setting the parts not hit by direct flash started to saturate (and the saturation only appeared in a small area that was likely still hit by direct light scattered in the window of the flash head).



If you use a Sekonic and measure it outside from about 3ft from the flash, a 1/80 ISO 100 exposure might look something like -

no flash f/2 (direct exposure, ambient light)
flash pointed up with built-in bounce card pointed at meter f/4
flash pointed straight at meter f/16

Take it for what you will, I find that in the day, outside, when I need some fill in a bind, a bounce card aimed at the subject will often be enough to improve a shot, whereas pointing the flash directly at the subject almost never improves the shot. _Of course_ I would rather bounce it, have a softbox, use a flashbender, have someone hold a reflector, or whatever.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 16, 2018)

Good discussion all the way around. Where there is some disagreement the points made on both sides are helpful to consider. I've learned a few things about lighting. For some reason, I hardly ever do outdoor portraits any more, and that's the situation where I'd use fill-in flash. When the occasion comes up again, I'll try the bounce card for fill-in flash rather than just raising the shadows slider in ACR.

As for super wide-angle, I have the 10-22mm zoom for my T3i, and I have just the 24 end of the kit STM zoom for my 6D2. So if the need comes up any time soon for something wider than that, I'll pull out the T3i. The 16-35mm f/4 looks tempting, and I see the f/2.8 on sale for just a couple hundred dollars more (pros and cons for each, I realize). But since I've not needed to use the T3i for that since I've had the 6D2, and given that the realtor for whom I used to shoot some interiors has retired, I don't think I need to be in any rush. Maybe replacing the cheap 75-300mm telephoto with something better will be more of a priority.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 16, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I bought a T6s about a year and a half ago as my first DSLR, mainly to get better pictures of my son (he's 19 months old now) than was possible with an iPhone. Since then I've gotten pretty interested in photography... mainly family stuff but also a decent bit of landscape and wildlife for fun. My current kit is:
> 
> ...



I recommend the 80D as you've suggested for yourself. It's a fine camera that will serve you well and fits your lenses and listed needs.


----------



## ken (Jan 16, 2018)

Here's a thought: If you're thinking about possibly saving up for the 6D ii, you could stretch that a bit more and get the 80D along with the original 6D (probably with kit lens if you go used). You'd have the 80D for your main camera, and the 6D for low-light shooting. You could make use of your current lenses on the 80D, and acquire EF lenses over time, maybe starting with used or rentals. 

The original 6D doesn't have the tilt screen and other niceties that you're looking for, but it takes amazing photos, and I can't conceive of giving up the low-light capability. I was holding out for the 6D ii myself, but it wasn't super compelling to me. So I'm waiting to see what the Canon FF mirrorless looks like... and will either go that route... or something else. I *do* have a need for the flippy / tilty screen, or else I'd already have jumped on the 5D iv.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jan 17, 2018)

I'd recommend another approach. Unless you have identified situations where the T6s absolutely cannot perform to your desire, keep using it. If GAS - gear acquisition syndrom - is severe, concentrate on full frame lenses. With a youngster, an 85mm is a terrific lens to keep your distance but get good close-up portraits. The f1.4 is supposed to be phenomonal but the f1.8 is budget friendly. the 70-300is gives you additional range from your 55-250 at a reasonable price. Consider adding a hot shoe flash or two for portability and perhaps some radio control units.
Someone has already recommended the 24-105L which will be a step up from anything you currently have image quality wise. 
If you absolutely have to have a new body, give the 70D a hard look. Dual pixel, better viewfinder, improved low light, la di da da. Sell the T6s, give the SL1 to your wife (it will still be around for backup) and move on.


----------



## drob (Jan 17, 2018)

What about the SL2 and a few lenses? Then start saving up for 6D2 or 90D or whatever else comes down the line in a year or 2. But start your lens collection.


----------



## Duct_Taper (Jan 18, 2018)

I've definitely considered the original 6D as well as the SL2 as options, but neither of them have some of the key things that are my reasons for upgrading or that I want to keep (DPAF, touchscreen for the 6D and Auto-ISO, custom modes, AF-On button for the SL2).

The more I think about it the more I'm tempted to look at the 6DII for the high ISO advantage... I also realized I have a 28-90 4-5.6 II lens kicking around from an old film camera that I could use at least initially even though I know it's not a great performer.

I'm still struggling with justifying the lenses though... because for most of them it doesn't make much sense to sell the EF-S lenses while I still have EF-S bodies. E.g. the 18-135 is a better combination of range and IQ on EF-S than just about any FF lens would be for general purpose stuff, and the 70-300 isn't really that much more useful than the 55-250 while being heavier and bulkier. So in the end it probably means having two sets of lenses for the same purposes on the different sensor sizes rather than really having much commonality.

Maybe I should just sell it all and get everything FF?


----------



## Talys (Jan 18, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> Maybe I should just sell it all and get everything FF?



If you can afford it, and there is nothing about crop that really draws you (a little extra reach once you get to the point where you can't afford longer focal lengths, a smaller body, or smaller size of some APS-C lens)... I'm sure that would make you happy 

Personally, I've kept a bunch of my APSC gear for my home studio, though last year, I sold a whole bunch of it. When I control lighting, manually set exposure, and manually focus, the practical difference in the final image between t2/t3/5/t6/70d/80d/6dii are pretty small.

This will sound so silly, but you'll also notice that the mirror sound from the 80D or 6DII is much more satisfying


----------



## Duct_Taper (Mar 10, 2018)

So a quick update... haven't bought a new body yet but had almost convinced myself to go 6D II, waiting for a good deal to come up (the current one seems relatively decent - buy the 6D II and get a free 600EX II-RT).

In the meantime I picked up a 100 f/2 (I wanted one anyway and a good deal came up) and an old 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM (it was cheap and I needed something tele for a film camera I've been toying around with) so I have most of my bases covered for FF at least initially if I go that way.

Then the A7 III got announced for pretty much the same price as the 6D II and it's making me question whether to stick with Canon for the next body. 10fps, silent shooting, Eye AF, dual card slots, etc are all pretty tempting... but potentially means a whole other investment in lenses if the Canon ones don't perform well enough on an adapter. Also means giving up the fully articulated touchscreen with Canon's UI...

Any thoughts? Convince me that the 6D II is still the way to go? Or go back to looking at the 80D?


----------



## Sarpedon (Mar 10, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> So a quick update... haven't bought a new body yet but had almost convinced myself to go 6D II, waiting for a good deal to come up (the current one seems relatively decent - buy the 6D II and get a free 600EX II-RT).
> 
> In the meantime I picked up a 100 f/2 (I wanted one anyway and a good deal came up) and an old 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM (it was cheap and I needed something tele for a film camera I've been toying around with) so I have most of my bases covered for FF at least initially if I go that way.
> 
> ...



Switching systems is a drastic solution, and you should be totally sure it's the right move for you. I think for most people it isn't, it's just gear lust. The A7 III has great paper specs, but you could totally hate using it. That said, I switched over to the A7R III, kept my Canon lenses, and I'm in love with the thing. It's a blast to shoot and the files are amazing.

I think the best advice if you're considering switching systems is to rent: spend some real time with the Sony and see if you actually like it. Different camera systems, Sony especially I think, take time to get used to. Failing that, if you can't rent, find a brick and mortar store and spend as much time with one as you can. 

Above all, be honest with yourself. Do I really enjoy shooting with this camera? Does it help me take better pictures? Does it motivate me to go out and shoot more than other cameras? If the answer to those three questions is yes, then go for it.


----------



## yjchua95 (Mar 10, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> So a quick update... haven't bought a new body yet but had almost convinced myself to go 6D II, waiting for a good deal to come up (the current one seems relatively decent - buy the 6D II and get a free 600EX II-RT).
> 
> In the meantime I picked up a 100 f/2 (I wanted one anyway and a good deal came up) and an old 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM (it was cheap and I needed something tele for a film camera I've been toying around with) so I have most of my bases covered for FF at least initially if I go that way.
> 
> ...



The best camera is the one that you have in your hands.

I upgraded from a 60D (which was still serving me well) to a 6D Mk2 and am really happy with it.

If you want image quality samples, I've uploaded some photos I took with my 6D2 here for you to evaluate: https://1drv.ms/f/s!AkzrHH5MUh7tg-ld3G-azehKIHDh4w

I've been tempted by the A7 III, but I haven't found myself being limited by the DR of the 6D2 yet, and aside from the IQ of the A7 III, nothing else on it interests me. Canon's DPAF is excellent, and if you know how to make full use of the 45-point AF system on either the 80D or the 6D2, it performs pretty damn well.

Some were shot at pretty high ISO and still looked pretty good (you can view the EXIF data of each image). The birds were all shot with a Tamron 70-300 VC USD, while the close ups were shot with an EF 100 f/2.8L IS USM and wide-angle shots were done on a 24-70 f/4L IS USM.

That being said, I think you can't go wrong with the 80D and it might end up suiting you better. High ISO performance on the 80D is a hell of a lot better than on my 60D, and I rarely find myself needing to push above ISO 3200.

Also, you mentioned that you were interested in shooting wildlife. I highly recommend the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM if you're going to get the 80D. It's a massive upgrade over the non-STM version in terms of IQ and offers very good value for money. 

That being said, the A7 III packs a lot of sorcery inside it, and if you get a Sigma MC-11 EF to E-mount adapter, PDAF and Eye-AF will still work like magic on the Sony.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 10, 2018)

Way way back when I had a 40D, I decided to go FF. I knew that I needed 1.6X the focal length to get the same compositions, so I started replacing my lenses with FF. A 16-35mm f/4L works for both, a 24-105mm L a 70-200, and so on.

Any high zoom ratio lens like a 18-135 is a severe quality compromise, so don't worry about replacing it.


----------



## Valvebounce (Mar 11, 2018)

Hi Duct Taper. 
I can’t speak to the IQ improvement yet, I only just bought the STM version to upgrade Angela’s kit, but I can say the leap from the AF of the version II to the AF of the STM Lens is phenomenal. 
The speed improvement is incredible, from 16ft to near minimal focal length the STM takes a small fraction of the time of the grumbling version II, (I’d estimate it at 1/8 to 1/12th of the time) it also seems to be more positive about the point of best focus and the AI Servo tracking seems far superior too. 
The comparisons were made sequentially on the same 100D body and were not particularly scientific, the targets being a kitchen cupboard door knob (far) and the edge of the door frame (near) and an estimation of the distance at 16ft and as such these are just my feelings of the performance of the lenses. 

Cheers, Graham. 



yjchua95 said:


> I highly recommend the EF-S 55-250mm IS STM if you're going to get the 80D. It's a massive upgrade over the non-STM version in terms of IQ and offers very good value for money.


----------



## Talys (Mar 12, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Any high zoom ratio lens like a 18-135 is a severe quality compromise, so don't worry about replacing it.



Couldn't agree more. It just ins't possible to get L quality output from a lens with such a large focal range and such a small size and weight. But the 18-135 USM is still a really nice lens to complement the 80D


----------



## Duct_Taper (Mar 12, 2018)

Talys said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Any high zoom ratio lens like a 18-135 is a severe quality compromise, so don't worry about replacing it.
> ...



Definitely understood... however, the 18-135 currently gets used a LOT for outdoor adventures with the kid. IQ is *good enough* and the flexibility of the zoom range means I get a fair number of shots that would otherwise require bringing & swapping between two lenses...

Body-wise, I looked again at A7 III vs 6D II for what I'm looking for and it seems to come down to:

A7 III advantages:
- 10fps
- 40/89 shot RAW buffer
- silent shooting
- IBIS
- dual card slots

6D II advantages
- OVF
- low-light AF (the Sony is rated to the same LV -3 but anecdotally DSLRs are still better in low-light)
- UI -> fully articulated touchscreen plus Canon menus, etc
- GPS
- fully works with my EF lenses and Canon accessories (lighting, etc)
- fits in with my existing post processing workflow

Everything else is close enough to be equal as far as I'm concerned. So despite the incredible spec sheet of the A7 III, it's definitely not the home run it would seem to be over the 6D II, at least for me...


----------



## yjchua95 (Mar 13, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...





yjchua95 said:


> The best camera is the one that you have in your hands.
> 
> I upgraded from a 60D (which was still serving me well) to a 6D Mk2 and am really happy with it.
> 
> ...



You forgot to mention ergonomics too, it's usually better on DSLRs.


----------



## Talys (Mar 13, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> A7 III advantages:
> - 10fps
> - 40/89 shot RAW buffer
> - silent shooting
> ...



I am playing with an A7R3 right now, and I have to mention the fine print....

- 10fps is only in Hi+ drive mode. But Sony recommends you use Hi, which is 8 fps... because in Hi+, what you see on the display/viewfinder is not real time (!!). So, 10fps, _as long as your action scene doesn't require that you move the camera_.

- Silent shooting has turned into a dud for me. I thought it would be cool because hummingbirds sometimes fly off with shutter noise. The problem? IQ is lower, and very notably, distortion. It can be pretty awful. Sony recommends that you turn it off for high speed shooting. 

I guess if I did weddings or whatever, there might be a use. But it is disappointing.

- IBIS sounds great. Except I've been using the GMaster 70-200 and 100-400 (with OSS too), and the IS difference is not noticeable. Maybe it's just my perception.

There's another major pro for Canon, by the way. All the high-end lenses are mechanical focus, so you can grab it and twist it. All the high-end Sony lenses are focus by wire and require you to do stupid things (like push a button) before you MF. In addition, the rotation to take you from minimum zoom to maximum zoom, and from MFD to infinity both take much more effort, and you can't jump from one end to the other nearly as quickly.

If low light matters to you, you can purchase a flash or the Yongnuo version of the ST-E3, and autofocus in everything up to pitch black is instant on a Canon 6D2. On the Sony, two things are gimpy:

- If you're in a room lit by something like a fireplace, forget it. You'll never get autofocus.

- If you set aperture smaller than f/8, _the camera only supports contrast detection autofocus_. Which is about as fun as Nikon live view autofocusing. I'm not talking about the minimum aperture (eg due to extenders or what not) -- I mean the aperture that you set. This actually screws me over on portraiture, as my go-to apertures can be up to f/11 with studio strobes.

On the other side of it all, the Sony stuff you didn't mention that I find really noteworthy:

- Eye AF is very good and works with most adapted lenses in the portraiture sweet spot of focal lengths (it falls apart with adapted telephotos, including at the far end of the 70-200).

- APSC crop mode is pretty awesome.

- The grip is retardedly expensive ($300!!!!). The Sony one is also very heavy, and the only third-party one at the moment is junk. But if you buy an A7iii, you pretty much have to buy a grip, because otherwise, it's an ergonomic nightmare. On the bright side, you now have the footprint of approximately a DSLR... but you actually have a very decent portrait orientation grip, without adding further bulk/weight.


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 13, 2018)

Talys said:


> Duct_Taper said:
> 
> 
> > A7 III advantages:
> ...



A couple of questions from your experience; with the silent shooting, what sort of iq difference have you found? Distortion is pretty typical with the non-stacked sensors, so that one is a given at this stage. I've heard mixed reports here, but haven't seen anything negative other than distortion on moving subjects in my use

With the f8 focusing, have you tried turning the exposure simulation off while shooting? You lose the wysiwyg but it seems to focus fine otherwise on mine? I believe that was the work around - it has it's own draw backs sure but that might help your situation/be worth a try

IBIS seems to be best suited for lenses without built in lens stabilisation I've found - I think it defers to the in-built lens one when it is aware of it (at least, that's what it does on my adapted lenses). With the sigma arts, it seems to work a treat so far

Can't comment on the rest as haven't been using native glass as a rule, apart from agreeing about eye- af, and the crop mode (super useful with the sigma 35mm art in video, makes it a 35 and 50mm in one)


For the OP; if you have any interest in video, the sony is a really good option here, for the different file formats etc. I don't think you could really go wrong with either the A73 or the 6dmk2 though as an upgrade, but I'd be hesitant to pay the current price of the 6dmk2 if I could avoid it. 

The other pros I'd put for the sony would be the evf, depending on what type of shooting you do and what you like to have in the view finder, and how customisable the buttons are on the Sony (which I find a pain on the 6d, smaller thing but menu diving for bracketing and having to press a few buttons for iso changes).

I'd put weather sealing on the canon 'pro' side, but I having lost a 6d to weather, I'd be hesitant to use either in a rain storm without cover. Not sure if that is a factor for what you're doing.


----------



## Talys (Mar 13, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> A couple of questions from your experience; with the silent shooting, what sort of iq difference have you found? Distortion is pretty typical with the non-stacked sensors, so that one is a given at this stage. I've heard mixed reports here, but haven't seen anything negative other than distortion on moving subjects in my use



Even on slowly moving subjects, though, silent shooting creates distortion -- and it's pretty trippy distortion  When I was fooling around with it, a trellis with vines on it gently swaying in the wind looked messed up on the silent-shoot version versus the non-silent.

Keep in mind that I was trying to photograph hummingbirds, and I _do_ want to capture them in motion. As I mentioned, I think it would be a nice tool for things like events where you're trying to be quiet, less so, when you're trying to be sneaky trying to capture animals in the moment 



Isaacheus said:


> With the f8 focusing, have you tried turning the exposure simulation off while shooting? You lose the wysiwyg but it seems to focus fine otherwise on mine? I believe that was the work around - it has it's own draw backs sure but that might help your situation/be worth a try



I'm sure that you mean Live View Display, Setting Effect On/Off, right? When there's a lot of light, like outdoors, f/11 it isn't terrible anyways.

But the situation that I usually need it in is where it's not so bright, and I'm using flashes and strobes. Imagine a room that's lit with a couple of 60W bulbs, for example. In this case, what happens at f/8 is that autofocus works with minimal hunting. In most cases, f/8 AF sounds like "tick". In f/11, every single time the camera goes from defocused to focused, you can hear the AF motor go "tick-tick-tock" as it moves past the in-focus point, and then back to best focus.

The live View Display Setting Effect is absolutely critical for flash photography anyways, because otherwise, you either have an overexposed image... or you have no idea what you're photographing  It's a good implementation, IMO.



Isaacheus said:


> IBIS seems to be best suited for lenses without built in lens stabilisation I've found - I think it defers to the in-built lens one when it is aware of it (at least, that's what it does on my adapted lenses). With the sigma arts, it seems to work a treat so far
> 
> Can't comment on the rest as haven't been using native glass as a rule, apart from agreeing about eye- af, and the crop mode (super useful with the sigma 35mm art in video, makes it a 35 and 50mm in one)



I see. I did not know this, thanks!



Isaacheus said:


> I'd put weather sealing on the canon 'pro' side, but I having lost a 6d to weather, I'd be hesitant to use either in a rain storm without cover. Not sure if that is a factor for what you're doing.



My biggest problem with the weather sealing, to be honest, is that the battery compartment has zero weather sealing (it's quite obvious if you flip open the door). I use a blackrapid, so my camera is almost always upside down, so you can imagine my concern...

I do not know what the weather sealing situation is with the grip (since the battery door isn't exposed). However, I would worry that water would travel down the grip, to a crevice, and through the door.


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 13, 2018)

Talys said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > A couple of questions from your experience; with the silent shooting, what sort of iq difference have you found? Distortion is pretty typical with the non-stacked sensors, so that one is a given at this stage. I've heard mixed reports here, but haven't seen anything negative other than distortion on moving subjects in my use
> ...



Huh weird, I've found that slower moving objects seem to come up OK in my experience, so I wonder if it's more affected by certain shutter speeds? It's great for landscapes and timelapse, which is where most of my shooting is done. I guess the a9 is where they want you to be at for true silent shooting and action though

On the af point, I think part of the trouble is that it tries to focus with the lens stopped down, rather than opening the aperture up to get focus first, at least with one of the exposure simulations on: turning it off means that it will focus wide open and then stop down to the wanted aperture on shooting. Whether this is useful to you, or even the issue with focus and strobes, I'm not sure. All I can remember is that it's one of the settings I leave on, as I don't typically use strobes/flash. 

The weather sealing at the bottom seems to be the issue yeah; I'm normally on a tripod, so not such an issue there hopefully. Looking for a good cover (for both the sony and Canon) to minimise the risk overall. Can't really justify a 5dmk4 or 1dx2 just for the sake of a cover vs weather sealing 

I've always wondered about the crevices on battery grips and sealing, interested to know if anyone has had any issues with Canon ones?


----------



## Talys (Mar 15, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> Huh weird, I've found that slower moving objects seem to come up OK in my experience, so I wonder if it's more affected by certain shutter speeds? It's great for landscapes and timelapse, which is where most of my shooting is done. I guess the a9 is where they want you to be at for true silent shooting and action though



I have a sequence of 13 photos of a very large dog as it swims across a lake and then leaps into action. It was taken with an A7R3 using center + expanding and shot at 8fps in Hi mode. Shutter speed I think is 1/2500.

The photos while the dog is swimming towards me are relatively sharp, though not perfectly so. At 1500 - 2000 long edge resolutions, I think they're clear enough. However, as the dog moves into rapid action and splashes water around, the AF system gets confused, and sometimes focuses on the water droplets instead of the dog! 

Now, I know that I could have selected one of the "lock on the subject" modes, but I hate doing this, because it basically screws me over with quickly taking a picture of something else interesting that pops up. Plus, being used to tracking subjects with center point AF, I'm quite comfortable with keeping camera pointed where the subject is.

Out of the 13 shots, 5 are pre-action and fine. Of the remaining 8, only 3 are sharp enough to share; the rest are either just out of focus, or, the camera is focusing on the water droplets in the air. Perhaps I'll post them up so that others can see.



Isaacheus said:


> On the af point, I think part of the trouble is that it tries to focus with the lens stopped down, rather than opening the aperture up to get focus first, at least with one of the exposure simulations on: turning it off means that it will focus wide open and then stop down to the wanted aperture on shooting. Whether this is useful to you, or even the issue with focus and strobes, I'm not sure. All I can remember is that it's one of the settings I leave on, as I don't typically use strobes/flash.



I'm sure you mean Live View/Setting Effect On/Off. It does not seem to improve things, but frankly, the camera is unusable with Effect On (WYSIWYG) when you're using flash, because if you're correctly exposed to see stuff, the flash will just wash everythign out. If you have it configured for the flash, you won't see anything at all through the VF 

Setting Effect to OFF, which make the VF always bright, does not appear to help.[/quote]



Isaacheus said:


> The weather sealing at the bottom seems to be the issue yeah; I'm normally on a tripod, so not such an issue there hopefully. Looking for a good cover (for both the sony and Canon) to minimise the risk overall. Can't really justify a 5dmk4 or 1dx2 just for the sake of a cover vs weather sealing
> 
> I've always wondered about the crevices on battery grips and sealing, interested to know if anyone has had any issues with Canon ones?



The crevices on the battery grips and base have no impact on a canon. I think they exist to help grip the tripod plate to the base.

TBH, the weather sealing isn't a huge deal for me, because I don't shoot very often when it's raining, certainly not more than if it's a little drizzle. But still, I'd much rather have a camera that's weather sealed than not. Sometimes a little water or moisture is just unavoidable.

By the way, here's one of the sharper images of the dog.


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 18, 2018)

Talys said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > Huh weird, I've found that slower moving objects seem to come up OK in my experience, so I wonder if it's more affected by certain shutter speeds? It's great for landscapes and timelapse, which is where most of my shooting is done. I guess the a9 is where they want you to be at for true silent shooting and action though
> ...





Isaacheus said:


> The weather sealing at the bottom seems to be the issue yeah; I'm normally on a tripod, so not such an issue there hopefully. Looking for a good cover (for both the sony and Canon) to minimise the risk overall. Can't really justify a 5dmk4 or 1dx2 just for the sake of a cover vs weather sealing
> 
> I've always wondered about the crevices on battery grips and sealing, interested to know if anyone has had any issues with Canon ones?



The crevices on the battery grips and base have no impact on a canon. I think they exist to help grip the tripod plate to the base.

TBH, the weather sealing isn't a huge deal for me, because I don't shoot very often when it's raining, certainly not more than if it's a little drizzle. But still, I'd much rather have a camera that's weather sealed than not. Sometimes a little water or moisture is just unavoidable.

By the way, here's one of the sharper images of the dog.
[/quote]

Nice shot of the dog. 
Pity you've had a bit of trouble with the af though - I assume you've been using native glass if you're shooting at 8 fps too.

I haven't played around with the lock on af yet for the same reason you have. 

And I think you're right about the view finder effect setting, I would have hoped that would help the situation but looks like it's an area where it could be improved.


----------



## Talys (Mar 18, 2018)

@isaacheus - yes, it was the native 100-400.


----------



## malarcky (Apr 6, 2018)

I always see people automatically go to the value scenario for some reason. I find that it distracts from the intent of the people who ask question about the gear. If someone wants to know if they would be happier with a different lens, most posters include the value aspect as the focus of their response. I think that the respondents should establish the ground rules for the implied intent of the OP before assuming that cost has to be a factor in this decision. 

I bought a EF 100-400mm II because I wanted the best IQ I could get. I know that 400mm isn't offered in the EF-S line of lenses, but I was looking at images captured from this lens and knew I'd have to save for it because it is very expensive. I can't tell you how satisfied I am with the purchase, as I can see the reason this lens costs what it does. Every single time I review captures using this lens, there is a satisfaction that can't be bought. It's priceless. The same goes for the 70-200mm f/2.8 II. 

I am a hobby photographer that wants the best quality IQ I can get, and the satisfaction of reviewing the captures that just stand out as stunning is a priceless feeling. The feeling I get when I load up my gear, knowing that these lenses are top of the line, and realizing that I didn't try to save a couple hundred bucks for a lesser IQ result, makes it worthwhile each time. I may have spent a crazy amount of money as opposed to being more value conscious purchaser, but I am smiling ear to ear every time I pull the card out for reviewing the captures of the day.

The other thing that occured to me when I decided to drop that kind of cabbage on a lens was the resale value. I figure that I can sell these high quality lenses for a lot more than the less expensive ones. That is a comforting feeling as well.


----------



## Duct_Taper (May 8, 2018)

Update for anyone who was interested - I ended up picking up a used 80D (came with a 10-18 STM too). It was too good a deal to pass up and I decided budget-wise I was going to be waiting a while to justify a FF body... especially when what I really want to spend that money on is lenses (100-400 II, I'm looking at you).

So far so good - DPAF truly is a whole different ball game from the live view experience on the T6s. Well worth the price of admission.

I'm still getting my settings all dialed in but glad I went ahead with the upgrade!


----------



## stevelee (May 8, 2018)

Duct_Taper said:


> Update for anyone who was interested - I ended up picking up a used 80D (came with a 10-18 STM too). It was too good a deal to pass up and I decided budget-wise I was going to be waiting a while to justify a FF body... especially when what I really want to spend that money on is lenses (100-400 II, I'm looking at you).
> 
> So far so good - DPAF truly is a whole different ball game from the live view experience on the T6s. Well worth the price of admission.
> 
> I'm still getting my settings all dialed in but glad I went ahead with the upgrade!



Congratulations. I came very close to buying an 80D to upgrade from my T3i. Everything I read and my limited experience with an 80D suggested that it is a great camera. I finally decided to wait for the 6D2 instead, and don't regret that. I just got the 100-400 II. I have now disposed of my disposable income, but am very happy with that purchase, too. I've read in more than one place that it is likely the best zoom telephoto ever. I would not be surprised if that is true.

I have the 10-22mm for my Rebel. I was shooting interiors for some realtors at the time, and it did a fine job. The 10-18mm came out later, and I likely would have bought it instead had it been out when I needed it. It is smaller and reviews say it is as sharp. And I had 18-22mm covered by the kit lens.

I still don't have anything wider than 24mm for my 6D2, so if I had a sudden need for UWA, I'd get out the Rebel and the T3i. If I had a little notice and I were going to make a little money off the shoot, I'd buy the 16-35mm f/4 for the 6D2. That covers the same range as the 10-22 does for Rebels.


----------



## greger (May 8, 2018)

Congratulations on your purchase of a used 80D. I was going to recommend waiting for the 90D to come out. Now you have money to put towards buying a 100-400 ll. I have the version l which I love. It sees things that I can’t see. With 2 C modes on the mode dial of the 80d, you can set one for action to capture your son running around and for BIF. Mode 2 can be used for anything else you frequently shoot.


----------



## Durf (May 12, 2018)

stevelee said:


> Duct_Taper said:
> 
> 
> > Update for anyone who was interested - I ended up picking up a used 80D (came with a 10-18 STM too). It was too good a deal to pass up and I decided budget-wise I was going to be waiting a while to justify a FF body... especially when what I really want to spend that money on is lenses (100-400 II, I'm looking at you).
> ...



I have the 16-35mm f/4 lens for my 6D2 and it's an amazing combination. The lens is pin sharp center to the edges no matter what focal range you are at. 
I also have the 80D with a 10-18mm lens and that is an awesome lens to and rather quite sharp with great IQ rendition and contrast. 

I almost always have both these cameras with me in my every day carry bag (An awesome pair!) In the last few months I've mostly had the 70-300mm IS USM mark ii lens always on the 80D and the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 always on the 6D2. The 16-35mm is ALWAYS with me though to quickly snap on the 6D2 when needed, mostly for landscapes and home interior shots. 

I thought when I bought the 6D2 last year that I would seldom use my 80D all that much any more, I was wrong! The 80D is just a darn good camera and I love the extra reach with my bigger lenses the 6D2 can't get.

Pairing these two cameras together has completely changed my photography game and increased the fun taking photos bigtime!!!! They both are excellent cameras and have great and amazing image quality regardless of all the negative trolling saying different.


----------



## Talys (May 12, 2018)

Durf said:


> I have the 16-35mm f/4 lens for my 6D2 and it's an amazing combination. The lens is pin sharp center to the edges no matter what focal range you are at.
> 
> I also have the 80D with a 10-18mm lens and that is an awesome lens to and rather quite sharp with great IQ rendition and contrast.



I agree! As wide angle combinations, these are both fantastic. The 80D with the 10-18 in most situations produces photos that are very nearly as good, especially in the realm of nice vacation vistas, and it's a much lighter/smaller combination to pack. And of course, the 10-18 is much cheaper.

The main things the 16-35 on the 6DII has going for it (for me) are the fixed aperture and weather sealing.



Durf said:


> I thought when I bought the 6D2 last year that I would seldom use my 80D all that much any more, I was wrong! The 80D is just a darn good camera and I love the extra reach with my bigger lenses the 6D2 can't get.
> 
> Pairing these two cameras together has completely changed my photography game and increased the fun taking photos bigtime!!!! They both are excellent cameras and have great and amazing image quality regardless of all the negative trolling saying different.



Yes, I couldn't agree more. I also have both a 6DII and 80D, and I use my 80D a lot, especially in my home studio. It is an amazing camera. Going between the two cameras is pretty seamless, except that the zoom and magnify function is ergonomically different between them.

One thing the 6DII is much better at is remote shooting, because it can pair with multiple laptops, whereas the 80D can only be paired with one at a time.


----------



## Durf (May 12, 2018)

Talys said:


> Durf said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 16-35mm f/4 lens for my 6D2 and it's an amazing combination. The lens is pin sharp center to the edges no matter what focal range you are at.
> ...



Yes, it took me a little while getting used to the magnify button being in a different spot on the 6D2! lol

Shooting constantly now for 8 months or so with both cameras I'd be lost if one of them broke.....I'd have to immediately replace it. (with the same camera and not a friggin Sony!) haha.

I honestly don't care how much better other cameras are, these two cameras are awesome and get the job done for me with outstanding results.


----------



## dak723 (May 12, 2018)

Durf said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Durf said:
> ...



You have spoken great wisdom. The cameras that you mention (80D and 6D II) are awesome. You can't get much (if any) better than awesome, which means other cameras are not much better (or even ANY better). Only forum dwellers who love specs think otherwise. Whatever you do, don't let their ignorance influence you.


----------

