# Best body for my needs? [yet another 6D vs 70D thread, sorry]



## red_trela (Jan 30, 2014)

I know, there's a few (or more) posts about 60D vs 7D already. But I'd really appreciate input on my specific needs. If you're already fed-up with this kind of threads, kindly move on or only just vote in the poll. Otherwise, I'd really appreciate a post. Short, long, extremely long and detailed - whatever suits you best. Thank you in advance.

So I used to have a Canon EOS 350D years ago, and a 550D since shortly after its release. Now I feel I need an upgrade as I have advanced to a decent level, but can't quite decide between the 6D and 70D. Both seem to lack usable features of the other but maybe I'm judging "what's right for my needs" wrong. Or how much the single differences matter in actual usage.

So, here's a list of things I shoot frequently:

Landscapes
Long time exposures at nightfall / night
Temples / Shrines / other interesting buildings (no, I don't have or want shiftable lenses)
Flowers / insects / small animals (close-up and macro)
Portraits and Cosplay (from close-ups to groups)

Things that might be worth mentioning as they might have an impact on the discussion:

I only ever take pictures outdoors. Indoor might become an option in the future, but I wouldn't like to take this into consideration as it's no priority at all..
I usually just use the available light (no flashes, etc.) and I don't need a built-in flash for sure (in those rare situations where I do use a flash, I require a "big" one)
I often take the camera to hiking or longer city trips, so weight and size do matter some. Also, I do GPS-tag my pictures.
I currently own only one EF-S lens, all the others are EF ones and I wouldn't mind not being able to use the EF-S anymore
I already got read of my older DSLR, i.e. they will not act as "you can still use them in whatever scenario" cameras
I don't care taking pictures of moving things (no sports, kids, animals)
I don't make videos and I don't need continuous shooting
I'm (obviously?) only a hobbyist and don't make nor plan to make any money from it so I'm not ruining somebody's wedding by having the wrong gear

For those interested (for judgment of my needs or otherwise), you can find my best-shots-only-gallery at http://www.sandro-mathys.ch/ - it's currently three pages (the last one nearly empty), so shouldn't take too much time to scroll through and it gives a really good overview of what I use the camera for.


----------



## MintChocs (Jan 30, 2014)

Based on what you shoot and how you shoot, the 6D is more suitable and appropriate.


----------



## stephan (Jan 30, 2014)

Definatly the 6D. You pretty much leaned towards the 6D in your post, it seems like you just need an outside confirmation.

Which lens is the EF-s?

I recently purchased it, and regret not getting it earlier.


----------



## weixing (Jan 30, 2014)

Hi,
Yap... go for the 6D. 

1) The IQ from 6D is a lot better than 70D (which IQ is similar to 60D) especially at ISO 800 and above. 
2) The 6D only got 11 AF points and looking on your requirement, you might not need that many AF points, but the 6D center point is very good at low light AF which I think you'll find it very helpful in your night shot.
3) The 6D got GPS built-in (I use it when I forgot to bring my external Garmin GPS unit).

The only feature I think you'll miss from 70D is the flip screen which is very helpful when you shoot at low angle... although you get the similar function using the 6D wifi remote apps with your phone.

Good luck and have a nice day.


----------



## red_trela (Jan 30, 2014)

stephan said:


> Definatly the 6D. You pretty much leaned towards the 6D in your post, it seems like you just need an outside confirmation.
> 
> Which lens is the EF-s?
> 
> I recently purchased it, and regret not getting it earlier.



Thanks for your post (and also thanks to MintChocs for the earlier one).

Actually, I really don't lean towards either. To me, they both have pros and cons and come out about equal. But I lack the detailed (real-life) experience / understanding of some things like how much more AF points or the type of AF points matter.

The lens is a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.


----------



## MintChocs (Jan 30, 2014)

I upgraded to the 6D from the rebel series Xsi (450D), if you happy with the AF system on the rebels then you'll be fine with the one on the 6D. The only feature I miss from my rebel series is the lighter weight and size. I love the sound of the shutter or more like lack of sound from the shutter. I wish it had a couple more cross type AF points but the 5Dmkiii was costing far too much just for that. The menu system is a bit different from my other camera and it does take some time and practice to learn how to change settings.


----------



## red_trela (Jan 30, 2014)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> Yap... go for the 6D.



Thanks for the comment!



weixing said:


> 1) The IQ from 6D is a lot better than 70D (which IQ is similar to 60D) especially at ISO 800 and above.



Honestly, so far I tried to keep with ISO 100-400 because of the noise (with the 550D) and noticed I can usually good shots at 100. Seeing that the 6D would take in more light with the bigger sensor, I tend to think I never have to go to ISO 800 or above. But obviously it's good to have the possibility - or rather the possibility without paying with IQ.



weixing said:


> 2) The 6D only got 11 AF points and looking on your requirement, you might not need that many AF points, but the 6D center point is very good at low light AF which I think you'll find it very helpful in your night shot.



Actually, I would have liked some more AF points in the past and I'd still like more (or rather have them distributed over a bigger space) but I can deal with that. And better low light AF is definitely a good argument. Didn't quite know / consider this (though I heard it before....sigh, so many things to know / look at).



weixing said:


> 3) The 6D got GPS built-in (I use it when I forgot to bring my external Garmin GPS unit).



Yea, I really like the built-in GPS with the 6D, if it's good. I tend to forget to turn on the GPS-tracking app in my smartphone. :/



weixing said:


> The only feature I think you'll miss from 70D is the flip screen which is very helpful when you shoot at low angle... although you get the similar function using the 6D wifi remote apps with your phone.
> 
> Good luck and have a nice day.



Right, that's one of the major points against the 6D for me. I would really love the flip / fold-out screen. I missed that in the past a couple of times, already. But you're right (and I totally forgot about it), there's now a app for that. With that, the 70D actually lost one of its bigger pros.

Thanks again!


----------



## verysimplejason (Jan 30, 2014)

I've been using 500D for quite a while before upgrading to 6D. I also have used 5D2 for work. To summarize, 6D is just too good to pass. It's even a lot better from 5D2 for low-light work though it took me awhile to adjust to 6D's controls. If there's one thing I'd copy from 5D2 for the 6D, it's the joystick. Other than that, 6D IQ will just tide you over. Heck, I've often chose to forego bringing a tripod because ISO 8K is still very good for 6D.


----------



## red_trela (Jan 30, 2014)

MintChocs said:


> Based on what you shoot and how you shoot, the 6D is more suitable and appropriate.



Thanks for your comments. Yes, I'd probably agree by now. Though macro is the one field where APS-C should be much better. And I occasionally do use a telephoto lens (not mentioned in the OP), which also works better magic with APS-C. But yes, neither is my main focus and the FF sensor suits all the other fields just as well or better. Maybe I should consider a low-end APS-C to fill that gap, later on.



MintChocs said:


> I upgraded to the 6D from the rebel series Xsi (450D), if you happy with the AF system on the rebels then you'll be fine with the one on the 6D. The only feature I miss from my rebel series is the lighter weight and size. I love the sound of the shutter or more like lack of sound from the shutter. I wish it had a couple more cross type AF points but the 5Dmkiii was costing far too much just for that. The menu system is a bit different from my other camera and it does take some time and practice to learn how to change settings.



I'd agree on weight and size but at least the weight doesn't differ much between the 70D and the 6D and I don't need to compare to rebels anymore, they're out of questions. 

More cross-type AF are one of the major (probably THE major) argument for the 70D. But from the other comments (plus some of my interpretation and other things I've read), it seems that's not that important - mostly since more light will allow for better AF, too.

5D3 - or rather it's equivalent by then - will be my next move, once I feel I've advanced enough so the 70D/6D isn't good enough anymore...so I guess in a few years or so.


----------



## red_trela (Jan 30, 2014)

verysimplejason said:


> I've been using 500D for quite a while before upgrading to 6D. I also have used 5D2 for work. To summarize, 6D is just too good to pass. It's even a lot better from 5D2 for low-light work though it took me awhile to adjust to 6D's controls. If there's one thing I'd copy from 5D2 for the 6D, it's the joystick. Other than that, 6D IQ will just tide you over. Heck, I've often chose to forego bringing a tripod because ISO 8K is still very good for 6D.



Appreciate your comment! Interesting what you say there, and hearing I might be able to leave the tripod at home in those situations where chances are small I'm going to use it anyway is definitely a good argument.

So everyone is strongly recommending the 6D so far. That makes my life easy, but don't hold back on pro-70D comments if you think it would suit me better and serve me well.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 30, 2014)

Looking at the pictures on your website and based on your "usage" list, I suggest you have a serious look at the micro-4/3 offerings.


----------



## candc (Jan 30, 2014)

I have and use them both. for your intended use the 6d is better. The iq of both are comparable at lower iso if you are using good lenses but the 6d is much better at higher iso (1600 and up). 

the reasons i use the 70d are:
better af 
much better live view
touch screen
crop factor reach for wildlife shooting

the reasons i use the 6d are:
much better high iso
like the feel of the larger body
focuses much better in low light
wider view with same lens compared to crop

other peoples reasons may be different but the 6d advantage is mostly in low light, the 70d advantage is in reach so they both have their uses.


----------



## fragilesi (Jan 30, 2014)

Interesting, I followed a similar path to you in that I wanted to upgrade from the 550d.

I actually went for the 70d because I really like action photography. As I also do some shooting indoors the 6D called to me loudly too but most of my time is outdoors with the action so I'm happy with the 70d.

You are pretty much the opposite it seems so although I'm a big fan of the 70d I would agree with the analysis above, the 6d is the one for you and I suspect you'll love it just as much as I do the 70d


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 30, 2014)

+1 for the 6D. Full frames have ~2 stop advantage in high ISO (although you do lose some DR). Full frames also give you greater control over the DOF, which is an advantage in portraiture. There are many more options for WA, UWAs on FF, and it allows you to use UWA lenses to their full capabilities.

You'll learn to work with the 6D's quirks. Go to a camera store with your own memory card and try out both bodies. The experience you gain first hand will mean more than forum recommendations.


----------



## red_trela (Jan 30, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Looking at the pictures on your website and based on your "usage" list, I suggest you have a serious look at the micro-4/3 offerings.



Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. But really, for my needs? Doesn't seem to fit anything but maybe the macro thingy. I will probably consider this instead of an APS-C to complement the full frame sensor - if I decide to go with the 6D. But as my primary camera? Really don't see that. Happy to hear your more detailed arguments based on my "usage list", though. I'm probably missing something here. 



candc said:


> I have and use them both. for your intended use the 6d is better. The iq of both are comparable at lower iso if you are using good lenses but the 6d is much better at higher iso (1600 and up).
> 
> the reasons i use the 70d are:
> better af
> ...



Very valuable comparison, thanks a lot! Of your reasons for both bodies, only about half each matter to me and so both the feel about equal again. But thinking about it a bit from a technical standpoint, I guess that's again more of an argument for the 6D.



fragilesi said:


> Interesting, I followed a similar path to you in that I wanted to upgrade from the 550d.
> 
> I actually went for the 70d because I really like action photography. As I also do some shooting indoors the 6D called to me loudly too but most of my time is outdoors with the action so I'm happy with the 70d.
> 
> You are pretty much the opposite it seems so although I'm a big fan of the 70d I would agree with the analysis above, the 6d is the one for you and I suspect you'll love it just as much as I do the 70d



Well, that sure is a new approach for a recommendation - a recommendation for the opposite case. Sorta.  Helpful too, thanks!


----------



## red_trela (Jan 30, 2014)

You guys are awesome, you write replies quicker than I can respond.



Random Orbits said:


> +1 for the 6D. Full frames have ~2 stop advantage in high ISO (although you do lose some DR). Full frames also give you greater control over the DOF, which is an advantage in portraiture. There are many more options for WA, UWAs on FF, and it allows you to use UWA lenses to their full capabilities.
> 
> You'll learn to work with the 6D's quirks. Go to a camera store with your own memory card and try out both bodies. The experience you gain first hand will mean more than forum recommendations.



Thanks for your assessment!

I did have both in my hands a couple of times and with different lenses on them. Unfortunately I can only just try them "on the spot" and shooting the interior of a shop is not exactly what I'm interested in.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 30, 2014)

red_trela said:


> I did have both in my hands a couple of times and with different lenses on them. Unfortunately I can only just try them "on the spot" and shooting the interior of a shop is not exactly what I'm interested in.



Yes, but if you bring a lens that you routinely use for your shots and test the ISO capabilities on both bodies then you'll see whether or not you'd take advantage of the higher ISO capabilities of a FF camera. Stores tend to be relatively dim, so they can be a good spot for tests. If you don't have a high speed prime, see if you can try one in the store on both bodies and see if the shallower DOF is to your liking. Better yet, take someone with you and use him as your model. These don't have to be keepers -- they just have to show you whether you value one camera's IQ enough over the other.


----------



## milkrocks (Jan 30, 2014)

This comment is from someone who's only had a 6D for about 18 hours. Compared to my previous XTi the noise performance is incredible. I'm not a pro nor am i interested in performing super detailed testing, but playing around last night with a friend's 2 year old has me really excited. 

ISO 6400 looks better than ISO 800 in my XTi (maybe even similar to ISO 400). The 24-105 F4L is marvelous. I spent a lot of time making this choice and am very pleased with the result. I plan to post an amatuer review comparing the difference between these two systems.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 30, 2014)

red_trela said:


> Landscapes
> Long time exposures at nightfall / night
> Temples / Shrines / other interesting buildings (no, I don't have or want shiftable lenses)
> Flowers / insects / small animals (close-up and macro)
> Portraits and Cosplay (from close-ups to groups)



Based on that: stay with your 550d  at least it runs Magic Lantern (timed bulb exposures, unlimted hdr bracketing, focus stacking for macro).

The 70d sensor isn't a significant upgrade, and you don't seem to have the need for a better af system. A full frame isn't really better in all cases, as it has a more shallow dof and this is what you *don't* want for macro, and for landscape it depends on how much you want to boost the shots in postprocessing.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 30, 2014)

I'd get the 6D.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jan 30, 2014)

Sell the EF-S lens, you'll get a good price for it! lenses hold their value! Pick up the 6D and enjoy the joys of FF!  

Put the cash from the EF-S to the 6D or even better yet, some new FF glass! But be warned... getting a FF DSLR is a gateway to some expensive glass!


----------



## Click (Jan 30, 2014)

+1 for the 6D


----------



## FTb-n (Jan 30, 2014)

Get the 6D and you won't look back.

I upgraded from the 7D to the 5D3. High ISO for sports and indoor events were the main motivation. But, I'm glad that I did so before a trip to Yellowstone. My 'L' lenses are sharper on the full frame body and the color latitude is deeper. If action isn't a priority, the 6D is a great choice. It would have been mine had I not needed the focus benefits of the 5D3.

For what it's worth, if you do go 70D, the 17-55 is a great lens for it. Still, since your considering the 6D, I'm betting that it's the camera that you really want, but just need some confirmation that full-frame is what it's cracked up to be. IT IS!


----------



## gigabellone (Jan 30, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> red_trela said:
> 
> 
> > Landscapes
> ...



Marsu42 got a serious point. The switch to FF is going to cost a heap of money. You need a serious wide angle lens for landscapes, even more than serious if you're going to take pictures of stars. To save some money, you can do double-duty with a 100/2.8L for both macros and portraits. That said, i would get a 6D body, an EF 24-70/2.8 II and 100/2.8 macro, for a total of about 4200€, 4500 if you throw in a decent tripod, but i assume you already have one. Of course you can spend a lot less, but what's the point of getting a brand new shiny full frame camera and skimping on lenses?


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 30, 2014)

red_trela said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at the pictures on your website and based on your "usage" list, I suggest you have a serious look at the micro-4/3 offerings.
> ...



The strength of the Canon system lies in its telephoto lenses and fast AF for sports, wildlife and surveillance. In the sub-200mm range, apart from the (manual focus) tilt-and-shift lenses, Canon offers very little that micro-4/3 doesn't as well. Canon has better video (than Olympus, but not Panasonic), but you stated that video wasn't a primary requirement. OK, sure, Canon has those spectacular *L* primes, but they're really heavy and quite expensive ... not something to lug around on a tourist visa. And ultimately a FF camera needs these glass bricks.

But, yeah, get the 6D ... everybody else did, but me.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 30, 2014)

milkrocks said:


> This comment is from someone who's only had a 6D for about 18 hours. Compared to my previous XTi the noise performance is incredible.



So what? What does the op need high iso for - posed portraits? no. (tripod) macro? no. architecture? nope, not with vanilla lenses. landscape? only for the superior postprocessing leverage of ff - and in this case, a used 5d2 might be even or better (a bit more mp, a bit sharper at base iso).

The other advantage of the ff is thinner dof, looking at the op's gallery he could profit from that - but expensive zooms or primes are needed for it ... much more than just a camera body upgrade. Last not least the infamous 5d2/6d af plus missing crop factor isn't made for shooting squirrels or alligators from a distance, so what he ends up is our popular setup: either a 5d3 or 70d/7d+6d combination. That's a lot of $$$ for camera bodies that loose value in no time, it might be smarter to get some nice primes first.


----------



## Longexposure (Jan 30, 2014)

I'd suggest the new fuji xt1 if you don't mind changing system. Its image quality is great and it's much lighter and smaller than either dslrs. Otherwise i'd get the 6d.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 30, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> red_trela said:
> 
> 
> > Landscapes
> ...


Although the picture quality is much better on full frame at ISO 6400, APSC has some advantages. Before someone say I'm delirious, here we go: 

Lighter weight, including lenses for the same viewing angle. 
More compact size, including lenses for the same viewing angle. 
Lowest price on the body. 
Much lower price in general purpose zoom lens. 
Built-in flash can be useful in unexpected moments. 
Depth of field wider is beneficial in macro and landscape. 
AF system (through the viewfinder) more agile and precise in 70D.
All cross-type AF points on 70D, including a dual cross-type.
AF dual pixel in live view is excellent for macro and landscape. 
Articulated LCD is very useful for macro and landscape. 
Image quality at low ISO is indistinguishable between 6D and 70D.


----------



## tron (Jan 30, 2014)

Just get the 6D after selling any EF-S lens(es). You will not regret the IQ and high ISO performance. 

Now, If you hadn't put any clarification in brackets I would answer to your question as follows:

The one that you both like and is offered to you ;D

Back to the question: I believe the 6D is a wonderful body ;D


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 30, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> So what? What does the op need high iso for - posed portraits? no. (tripod) macro? no. architecture? nope, not with vanilla lenses. landscape? only for the superior postprocessing leverage of ff - and in this case, a used 5d2 might be even or better (a bit more mp, a bit sharper at base iso).
> 
> The other advantage of the ff is thinner dof, looking at the op's gallery he could profit from that - but expensive zooms or primes are needed for it ... much more than just a camera body upgrade. Last not least the infamous 5d2/6d af plus missing crop factor isn't made for shooting squirrels or alligators from a distance, so what he ends up is our popular setup: either a 5d3 or 70d/7d+6d combination. That's a lot of $$$ for camera bodies that loose value in no time, it might be smarter to get some nice primes first.



The OP mentioned night shots. If this includes starscapes, then higher ISO capability is welcome. 

He also only has 1 EF-S lens, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which retains its value and can be sold easily. His other lenses are EF. The same EF lens on FF will seem to have better sharpness, and he would also get an immediate DOF benefit by moving to FF even keeping the same EF lenses. If anything, APS-C cameras place a higher premium on lens quality.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 30, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> His other lenses are EF. The same EF lens on FF will seem to have better sharpness, and he would also get an immediate DOF benefit by moving to FF even keeping the same EF lenses. If anything, APS-C cameras place a higher premium on lens quality.



Unless I missed it somewhere, the OP never states what EF lenses are in the equation ... and there's lots of iffy EF lenses that actually perform quite decently on APS-C, but sucks on an astronomical level on FF.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 30, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> The same EF lens on FF will seem to have better sharpness, and he would also get an immediate DOF benefit by moving to FF even keeping the same EF lenses. If anything, APS-C cameras place a higher premium on lens quality.



He would also get an immediate dof and working distance malus for macro when moving to ff.



Sella174 said:


> Unless I missed it somewhere, the OP never states what EF lenses are in the equation ... and there's lots of iffy EF lenses that actually perform quite decently on APS-C, but sucks on an astronomical level on FF.



+1 - I've got both crop & ff, the lenses perform differently esp. center vs. corners, but not better or worse. Unless shooting with top-notch glass, using just the best part of the lens with the current crop sensor resolution is usually neutral or even beneficial unless it's a "wide open" dud like the 17-40L or completely outdated models like the 50/1.8.


----------



## iron-t (Jan 30, 2014)

If you're anything like me you're going to miss the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 if you move up to FF. I loved that lens on my 60D. The 24-105mm f/4L that I replaced it with upon moving to 5D3, while serviceable, is far from lovable, and it'll be awhile before I can afford a good FF f/2.8(L II) zoom to replace it.

Which brings me to my point: if cost is a factor, don't be too quick to jump to the 6D. Not only will you need a new normal zoom, but the high quality wide angle zooms available for FF are much costlier as well. Consider this: while I adore my 5D3, I'm thinking down the line of also picking up a 70D and EF-S 10-22mm (which if you've never used one is superb). At that point it'd be hard not to think about getting Sigma's 18-35mm f/1.8 just because.

Just thought I'd give my counterpoint to all the full frame fanatics out there. There's no question that full frame does provide certain benefits. For landscapes and macro, you can stop down more before diffraction starts to rear its head. You have a little more dynamic range overall and much less noise at high ISO. You can get shallower depth of field for portraits. But there's also no question you can capture great images with a 70D. Indeed, take a stunning shot on APS-C and make a big print out of it, then challenge any gear snob to tell you how big the sensor was.


----------



## red_trela (Jan 31, 2014)

Thanks for all the replies, comments, suggestions, experience reports, etc. I'm going to respond only just where I have to add something that might add to the discussion. Still, I really appreciate all of them and I'm happy that there were also some voices against the 6D/FF now.



milkrocks said:


> This comment is from someone who's only had a 6D for about 18 hours. Compared to my previous XTi the noise performance is incredible. I'm not a pro nor am i interested in performing super detailed testing, but playing around last night with a friend's 2 year old has me really excited.
> 
> ISO 6400 looks better than ISO 800 in my XTi (maybe even similar to ISO 400). The 24-105 F4L is marvelous. I spent a lot of time making this choice and am very pleased with the result. I plan to post an amatuer review comparing the difference between these two systems.



I really don't need high ISO much - or at all. And I wouldn't call f/4 marvelous but at least it's a stable value over the whole zoom range so it's decent. 




Marsu42 said:


> Based on that: stay with your 550d  at least it runs Magic Lantern (timed bulb exposures, unlimted hdr bracketing, focus stacking for macro).
> 
> The 70d sensor isn't a significant upgrade, and you don't seem to have the need for a better af system. A full frame isn't really better in all cases, as it has a more shallow dof and this is what you *don't* want for macro, and for landscape it depends on how much you want to boost the shots in postprocessing.



I really got rid of the 550D already (before I expatriated, recently). Right, I've got to give ML a try once in a while. Agreed, that FF is not what would be ideal for macro but then again that's not my priority but just a nice thing I do now and then. And I really like to keep my postprocessing down.



gigabellone said:


> Marsu42 got a serious point. The switch to FF is going to cost a heap of money. You need a serious wide angle lens for landscapes, even more than serious if you're going to take pictures of stars. To save some money, you can do double-duty with a 100/2.8L for both macros and portraits. That said, i would get a 6D body, an EF 24-70/2.8 II and 100/2.8 macro, for a total of about 4200€, 4500 if you throw in a decent tripod, but i assume you already have one. Of course you can spend a lot less, but what's the point of getting a brand new shiny full frame camera and skimping on lenses?



Serious wide angle lens for landscapes? Didn't feel any necessity there yet. And no, no stars. Yes, I do own the 100/2.8L Macro lens and yes, I did use it for portrait in the past. I also have a 50mm/1.4 which is better for portraits in most cases. Yes, the EF 24-70/2.8L II sure must be nice. But also quite expensive as you say. I basically know I've got to get it if I go FF but not sure that will be right now. Any recommendations for a standard zoom lens that is in the <$1000 price range?



Marsu42 said:


> So what? What does the op need high iso for - posed portraits? no. (tripod) macro? no. architecture? nope, not with vanilla lenses. landscape? only for the superior postprocessing leverage of ff - and in this case, a used 5d2 might be even or better (a bit more mp, a bit sharper at base iso).
> 
> The other advantage of the ff is thinner dof, looking at the op's gallery he could profit from that - but expensive zooms or primes are needed for it ... much more than just a camera body upgrade. Last not least the infamous 5d2/6d af plus missing crop factor isn't made for shooting squirrels or alligators from a distance, so what he ends up is our popular setup: either a 5d3 or 70d/7d+6d combination. That's a lot of $$$ for camera bodies that loose value in no time, it might be smarter to get some nice primes first.



Actually, high iso might be useful in macro (think of things that might fly away, etc). But I still try to avoid it and never went higher then ISO 800 - and that is already unusual. So both options should be fine I guess.

Thinner DoF sure is a argument for the FF. Again, except when shooting macros. Figure I really need to either get a cam for macro alone (well, maybe plus some lighter travel photography) or stop doing it at all. If I go FF, that is and you guys are convincing in that point.

Oh, Squirrels and Alligators. (US) Gray Squirrels do get really close. Actually, in NYC or Boston, you have to pay attention they don't come bite you in the finger if you're eating a sandwich on a bench in a park. So getting close is really easy here. And Alligators. Well, it's not like that one had been free to go anywhere further away. Unfortunately (for him) :/

Nice primes first, maybe second (APS-C) body later. Understood.



Sella174 said:


> Unless I missed it somewhere, the OP never states what EF lenses are in the equation ... and there's lots of iffy EF lenses that actually perform quite decently on APS-C, but sucks on an astronomical level on FF.



There's actually only a few lenses. They are:
EF-S 17-55mm/2.8 IS USM
EF 50mm/1.4 USM
EF 100mm/2.8L Macro IS USM
EF 70-200mm/4L IS USM



iron-t said:


> If you're anything like me you're going to miss the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 if you move up to FF. I loved that lens on my 60D. The 24-105mm f/4L that I replaced it with upon moving to 5D3, while serviceable, is far from lovable, and it'll be awhile before I can afford a good FF f/2.8(L II) zoom to replace it.
> 
> Which brings me to my point: if cost is a factor, don't be too quick to jump to the 6D. Not only will you need a new normal zoom, but the high quality wide angle zooms available for FF are much costlier as well. Consider this: while I adore my 5D3, I'm thinking down the line of also picking up a 70D and EF-S 10-22mm (which if you've never used one is superb). At that point it'd be hard not to think about getting Sigma's 18-35mm f/1.8 just because.
> 
> Just thought I'd give my counterpoint to all the full frame fanatics out there. There's no question that full frame does provide certain benefits. For landscapes and macro, you can stop down more before diffraction starts to rear its head. You have a little more dynamic range overall and much less noise at high ISO. You can get shallower depth of field for portraits. But there's also no question you can capture great images with a 70D. Indeed, take a stunning shot on APS-C and make a big print out of it, then challenge any gear snob to tell you how big the sensor was.



Thanks for the warning and tips. Looking through the lenses on the market it really is as you say - I'd miss the 17-55mm/2.8 if I can't afford the 24-70mm/2.8L II right away. Get's one thinking.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 31, 2014)

red_trela said:


> Thanks for all the replies, comments, suggestions, experience reports, etc. I'm going to respond only just where I have to add something that might add to the discussion. Still, I really appreciate all of them and I'm happy that there were also some voices against the 6D/FF now.
> 
> <Wall of text>



The Tamron 24-70 VC would satisfy your mid-range zoom requirement for <1k, or if want to go prime, then the 24 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS would work well too. The focal lengths of your lenses will also be more useful on FF (100, 70-200) for portraiture.

Macro can still be done with FF handheld. The advantage that Marsu is claiming with APS-C is not as significant as it might seem. There are plenty of cases where DOF is not deep enough in either case and focus stacking is required. Besides, people were taking macro shots for years FF with film before APS-C came along.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 31, 2014)

red_trela said:


> Actually, high iso might be useful in macro (think of things that might fly away, etc). But I still try to avoid it and never went higher then ISO 800 - and that is already unusual. So both options should be fine I guess.



Remember that with high iso, you loose a lot of dynamic range even on ff: http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_6D.html



red_trela said:


> Still, I really appreciate all of them and I'm happy that there were also some voices against the 6D/FF now.



We're happy to help you rationalize every decision, whatever it'll be :->


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 31, 2014)

red_trela said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Unless I missed it somewhere, the OP never states what EF lenses are in the equation ... and there's lots of iffy EF lenses that actually perform quite decently on APS-C, but sucks on an astronomical level on FF.
> ...



Based on your current investment in lenses, yes, go full-frame. But ... the 50mm will not be suitable for portraits anymore and will become your general purpose, walking lens; the 100mm will be excellent for individual portraits and, of course, macro; and the 70-200mm for group photos and a walking lens when outside the city.

Second but ... based on your "usage list" I'd also have a serious look at a secondhand 5DII, instead of the 6D camera. I'm saying this, because I don't think the 6D offers anything much better than the 5DII ... for instance, I read up on how the GPS part works and, based on the literature, I feel it is badly implemented and will lead to severe headaches for the serious geotagger ... but I'm probably wrong, as usual.


----------



## dppaskewitz (Jan 31, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Second but ... based on your "usage list" I'd also have a serious look at a secondhand 5DII, instead of the 6D camera. I'm saying this, because I don't think the 6D offers anything much better than the 5DII ... for instance, I read up on how the GPS part works and, based on the literature, I feel it is badly implemented and will lead to severe headaches for the serious geotagger ... but I'm probably wrong, as usual.



I'm not a serious geo-tagger, but the GPS on the 6D actually is a lot of fun and easy to use. If I am out in the boonies for the day, I leave it on and still have plenty of battery (with grip or switching once during the day). The image locations then pop onto the map in Light Room without any other action needed. The only issue is that it sometimes appears to lose position, even when there are no obstructions. I haven't used the separate Canon GPS equipment so can't compare.

So far, I haven't felt the need to figure out how to use the WiFi function of the 6D, but some on this forum have reported favorable results from that feature as well.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 31, 2014)

Yet another vote for the 6D, whose low light performance is so good you may find yourself doing more photos of interiors than you do right now. I don't agree that you might as well get a second-hand 5DII - while a 5DII certainly has better image quality than any crop sensor camera, the 6D is better in terms of dynamic range (much less shadow noise and banding if you push shadows; the same is true compared to the 5DIII) and high ISO performance, and it focuses better in low light (than just about anything). 

Nor do I see why you would miss your 17-55 - it may be the best such crop zoom, but in my experience it's not as good as the 24-105 on FF, even though the latter is "only" f4. The EF lenses you have will likely perform better on a FF body too, at least in the middle of the image (crop sensors hide flaws at the edges, of course). The comparisons you can make at The Digital Picture are pretty reliable. Here, for instance, is a comparison of the 100L on crop and FF:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=674&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=674&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The suggestion that you go with m43 instead would be fine if you want to add a new system and don't mind the disadvantages of the smaller sensor (hardly any compared to a crop dslr); I love my Olympus OM-D - many of the lenses are marvelous, and the small size/weight combination is nice, but you may find it more of a sideways move than a progression in terms of image quality.

And if you are interested in looking outside Canon but still want to be able to use your EF lenses, and have lots of patience for focusing, the cute little Sony A7 (A7r too, of course) makes superlative images with Canon lenses - I haven't owned mine long enough to make extensive comparisons, but I'm tempted to conclude that they make even better images on that FF camera than they do on FF Canon bodies (I own both 6D & 5DIII and used to own a 5DII and a crop Canon).


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 31, 2014)

I concur with most here, the 6d is your best bet.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 31, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Second but ... based on your "usage list" I'd also have a serious look at a secondhand 5DII, instead of the 6D camera. I'm saying this, because I don't think the 6D offers anything much better than the 5DII ... for instance, I read up on how the GPS part works and, based on the literature, I feel it is badly implemented and will lead to severe headaches for the serious geotagger ... but I'm probably wrong, as usual.



-1. When the 6D was first announced, it was trashed by many in forums who said that they would buy the 5DII over the 6D, but now that it is out, very few would say that unless they had a specific requirement that would be satisfied by the 5D (i.e. ergonomics, better weather resistance). The 6D has much less banding than the 5DII, has greater center point light sensitivity and the outer AF points work better.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 31, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> The 6D has much less banding than the 5DII, has greater center point light sensitivity and the outer AF points work better.



Banding only occurs after a lot of postprocessing, and only the op can know how much he's into it and if he's able to ettr or use bracketing ... as for the af, the -3lv center point sensitivity is a big plus over the +0.5lv 5d2 (afaik) if you need it, but you're the first one to discover that the outer af points are a significant step forward 

There's no doubt in my mind the 6d is the "better" camera and that's why I bought it - but the main showstopper for getting used 5d2s is their still very high price & a cheap offer might be attractive for this semi-pro body. At least you can shoot xxl stock photography with the 5d2 which for you-can-guess-what reasons seems to start @21mp...


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 31, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Banding only occurs after a lot of postprocessing, and only the op can know how much he's into it and if he's able to ettr or use bracketing ... as for the af, the -3lv center point sensitivity is a big plus over the +0.5lv *5d3* (afaik) if you need it, but you're the first one to discover that the outer af points are a significant step forward



I'm assuming you're referring to the 5D2 above; the 5D3 has -2ev sensitivity, although the darkest I've tried and kept with the 5D3 is closer to -1.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 31, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> I'm assuming you're referring to the 5D2 above



Yes, it's a typo, corrected - thanks for spotting it.


----------



## tntwit (Feb 1, 2014)

Let me start by saying I generally agree that the 6D is the optimum choice for your needs.

But if you do go crop, here is another thought. Considering the needs, many of what the 70D has over the 60D probably don't matter for your needs.

The main benefits are more AF points, which probably don't matter much for static objects, AF in video, which you don't do, WiFi, which you expressed no opinion about (I don't think) and AF micro-adjust which I'm not sure if it may or may not benefit. I would think this type of photography is mostly manual focused anyways where I would guess the micro adjust wouldn't matter? Not sure - I don't have the feature.

I brought up the 60D because it is half the cost of the 70D right now and would leave a good $500 towards a lens.

I guess the question is, have you been disappointed with the image quality from the Rebel? If so, then you probably won't be happy with any of the Canon crops because from what I have seen, they haven't improved much since the T2i. I'm not saying they are bad - I was happy with mine as long as the ISO stays down - but they haven't made any great strides in improvements.

I don't recall if you stated anywhere about what your old camera lacked that you hoped for in the new camera, but that's where you should make comparisons. 

I'm in a similar boat with different needs/desires. I just sold my T3i and have been looking at the 6D, 60D and 70D. However, my main subjects are my kids (my daughter plays soccer as well) so I have some concerns about the focusing of the 6D for my needs. But also, I really want to use it for video and I haven't found my skill levels up to manually focusing in video, so I usually just don't. Also, I have the 15-85 and 10-20 Sigma crop lenses and I figure to replace them with say the 24-105 and 17-40, I'll probably spend another $1200+ over the 70D and the glass I already have (and this is a hobby for me) just to get back to the lenses I have now (of course they would be much better lenses).

For these reasons I am leaning toward the 70D, but what I really want (and probably everybody else) is the 70D with a full frame sensor. Another words, I prefer everything about the 70D over the 6D except the FF part and I fear the 6D2 will have dual pixel tech and then I'll be wanting that one. So part of me says get the 60D (better than the T3i I had and I didn't have AF video anyways) and wait for that one. In the mean time keep building glass (and lighting).

Anyways, maybe what you should do, if you can, is rent a 6D and see if it is what you really want. I thought about renting one, but I already know the outcome. :


----------



## gigabellone (Feb 1, 2014)

red_trela said:


> Serious wide angle lens for landscapes? Didn't feel any necessity there yet. And no, no stars. Yes, I do own the 100/2.8L Macro lens and yes, I did use it for portrait in the past. I also have a 50mm/1.4 which is better for portraits in most cases. Yes, the EF 24-70/2.8L II sure must be nice. But also quite expensive as you say. I basically know I've got to get it if I go FF but not sure that will be right now. Any recommendations for a standard zoom lens that is in the <$1000 price range?



Sorry, i wasn't aware that you already have a 50/1.4 and a 100/2.8 macro. That would make the switch to FF much more affordable. If you don't mind going all primes, you have a 50/1.4 as a general purpose/street photography lens, and a 100/2.8 as your macro/portrait tool; if you ever feel the need of a wide angle, you can add a 24mm or 28mm IS, and you've got a highly efficent and cost effective lens setup. If you need a midrange zoom without braking the bank, both the sigma 24-70/2.8 hsm (the newer one) and the tamron 24-70/2.8 seem to be viable choices, according to several online reviews. I can't vouch for them, having never owned one.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 1, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Yet another vote for the 6D, whose low light performance is so good you may find yourself doing more photos of interiors than you do right now. I don't agree that you might as well get a second-hand 5DII - while a 5DII certainly has better image quality than any crop sensor camera, the 6D is better in terms of dynamic range (much less shadow noise and banding if you push shadows; the same is true compared to the 5DIII) and high ISO performance, and it focuses better in low light (than just about anything).
> 
> Nor do I see why you would miss your 17-55 - it may be the best such crop zoom, but in my experience it's not as good as the 24-105 on FF, even though the latter is "only" f4.



+1. The 5D2 really has no advantages over the 6D other than price. To me the 6D is easily worth the difference in what you will pay.

f/2.8 on a crop is roughly equivalent to f/4.5 on FF, so you are not giving anything up in aperture going from a EF-S 17-55 2.8 on a crop to a 24-105 f/4 on a FF body. I think the 24-105 is optically as good and has the added advantages of better zoom range - both wider and longer, and superior build quality. You can buy a white box 24-105 for less than what 17-55's sell for.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 1, 2014)

bholliman said:


> +1. The 5D2 really has no advantages over the 6D other than price.



It's not "just" the price, it *is* the price - so as the worth of one $/€ is very subjective, the only possible basis for comparison is someone buying a cheaper body + more expensive lens or vice versa.

We all know the op will end up with the 6d anyway and this thread is just for fun - very few people (one is the CR memeber Paul as far as I remember) can resist the magnetism of is premium products ... so I have to re-post this, I didn't post it for some days now 

Pro DSLR + Cheapo Lens vs "Cheapo" DSLR + Pro Lens


----------

