# 6D vs 7D mark II



## David - Sydney (Dec 7, 2014)

Hi Guys... in a quandary. I have a 7D with 10-22mm lens, etc. Getting on now after 3 years of reasonably heavy use and generally happy but hitting the limit with noise/wide aperture lens. I do nightscapes, sea/landscapes but also some action shots (not published). Going full frame was the next step especially for low noise with wide angle/wide aperture so the 6D was the obvious next step for me but 7D mark II sensor seems to be as good with noise and has all the new goodies as well. 1 body would be nice rather than 6D + current 7D.

6D pros => more expensive as need new wide angle 16-35mm f/4 (options for 14mm samyang f/2.8, 8-15mm etc), wifi, better DoF
7D mark II pros => keep same lens set (10-22mm is the best one), very good AF (+f8 centre)/burst, much better video, wifi only with eyefi, SD+CF, very good weather sealing, flash

Thoughts?

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS => horses for courses. totally different end user market. 
6D best for landscape/portrait with low light/high ISO/depth of field but low ISO dynamic range is not fantastic. Lens range is best for FF
7Dii best for AF/action/video. 7Dii should be better than 7D for everything.
Worth the wait for 6Dii?

Thanks
David.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmarriottsydney/ 
7D, 10-22mm, 24-105L, 70-200L II, 50mm f/1.4, 1.4xIII, 600EX-RT


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 7, 2014)

David - Sydney said:


> Thoughts?



Question is how happy you are with your current low iso iq for landscape. The ff sensor is definitely "better" as in "more post-processing leverage, better gradients", but if you're not selling you shots it isn't a critical difference. The 7d2 will be much more fun than the 6d, esp. if your preference is to have only one camera body anyway.

For portraits and thin dof shooting the ff + your 70-200L2 will be much better, but you don't seem to do this. Don't let yourself be talked into thinking that ff is the only way to get satisfactory iq, it really depends on what you're doing.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 7, 2014)

For shooting nightscapes and landscapes like you're talking about I'd go with the 6d. Ecspecially if you want to go wide as you can and are thinking about getting the 16-35 f4. It's such a great lens and so sharp. The 6d focus points and frame rate are its week points imo. But for mainly shooting what you are that won't matter. With night photography you'll be amazed at the ISO performance compared to the original 7d.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 8, 2014)

> Don't let yourself be talked into thinking that ff is the only way to get satisfactory iq, it really depends on what you're doing.



+1

I did read that the 7D2's low banding is excellent for long-exposure nightscape shooting so that might be a selling point. If you aren't looking to bring up detail in dark areas after long exposures, the 7D2 has that going for you.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 8, 2014)

You could make a argument that crop sensors are better for landscapes since they give you more depth of field. Lots of "Pro" landscape shooters take 2 shots focusing at different spots of the scene then combine them in PS so everything is sharp..... To the op I think you'll be happy with either camera. FF is not the only option but I do think for night photography the 6d or FF as the way to go. Less noise with the high ISO you'll need.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Dec 8, 2014)

I would not recommend an APS-C camera over the 6D for any purpose except tiny birds.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Dec 8, 2014)

Just get the 7D2. It will give you really IQ, much better than your current 7D and you'll get better AF, particularly when shooting action.
I bought the 5D3 because it was more all-around camera than the 6D with much better AF.


----------



## papa-razzi (Dec 8, 2014)

I have both a 6D and a 7D. I love my 7D for everything except the high ISO noise - which is pretty bad. When I first got the 6D it was really a step down in handling and especially the focus compared to the 7D. It took me a while to get to like the 6D itself - I was spoiled by the 7D. However, the IQ on the 6D was wonderful.

I use the 6D for pretty much everything except when I need action shots. I had the 7D on the shelf for quite a while and recently pulled it out for football season. Now I am GASing for a 7DII - but I wouldn't get rid of the 6D - for indoor & low light the 7D can't touch it.


----------



## Oneand0 (Dec 8, 2014)

I just took out my 7DII and compared it to my 6D for landscapes this weekend, just to see how it would compare. It is good and gets the job done, but still not as good with noise, and believe me not even close! I too shot with a 7D for a while and made good use of it, before buying the 6D. I actually gave my 7D away to a relative, and missed it a few times. So when the 7D II came out, I bought one immediately. It serves mainly as a back up camera when I travel for my landscape vacations, and secondly for action and video from time to time.

I looked at your work and it's really nice. Your 10-22 lens matched up with the 7D served you very well. I have two recent action shots (before purchasing 7D II) that I took with my 6D on flickr, with my dog, and one of a whale. Take a look, you can use it for action, it's just painfully slow, but it does work. https://www.flickr.com/photos/1and0hound/14908192883/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/1and0hound/15191260015/

Happy shooting


----------



## e17paul (Dec 8, 2014)

I think that if your main lens is the 10-22, then you will love the 6D for its IQ, but as you say, it does mean also investing in the 16-35L. If it's as good as the As others have said, the limitation of the 6D is that it misses the sophisticated auto-focus of the 7D/7D2/5D3. However, I managed fine at Top Gear Live in Sydney earlier this year.

If your action photography tends to be in good light, then keeping the 7D alongside the 6D would give you the choice, and give you an extended reach option for any telephoto lenses that you have. I'm contemplating a crop sensor camera to use with my current lenses.

There are plenty of places in Sydney that will hire equipment if you want an extended test. I hired my 70-300L from Georges on condition that the hire money would be refunded if I bought the lens. I did.

Incidentally, did I meet you around Sydney Harbour last Feb/March, when I was carrying my OM-10, or was that another photographer called David in Sydney?


----------



## Nethawk (Dec 9, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Just get the 7D2. It will give you really IQ, much better than your current 7D and you'll get better AF, particularly when shooting action.
> I bought the 5D3 because it was more all-around camera than the 6D with much better AF.



Not really. None of the side-by-side comparisons I've seen between 7D and 7Dii are showing much improvement at all, and nothing has shouted out "much better", or even "after 5 years...". On the other hand, the difference between 7D + 10-22mm and 6D + 16-35mm is significant (I own both bodies and lenses). I loved the combo with 7D, had lots of fun with it, but there is a big step up with the 6D.

I was in the same conundrum, but as feedback started trickling in with the 7Dii capabilities I decided to keep the 7D and augment my shutter habit with 6D. I locked myself in even, received a good deal on the 16-35mm via CPW and purchased it first. There was no turning back. I'll keep the 7D for long reach and use the 6D for everything else.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 9, 2014)

The 6d and 7d2 are two completely different cameras for different purposes. For action, sports, bif 7d2. For portraits with shallow depth of field, night photography, landscapes stills I'd lean to the 6d


----------



## sanjosedave (Dec 9, 2014)

Rent them both at the same time, compare/contrast...make a list of must haves without a body bias...low noise vs fps vs focus


----------



## gregorywood (Dec 9, 2014)

papa-razzi said:


> I have both a 6D and a 7D. I love my 7D for everything except the high ISO noise - which is pretty bad. When I first got the 6D it was really a step down in handling and especially the focus compared to the 7D. It took me a while to get to like the 6D itself - I was spoiled by the 7D. However, the IQ on the 6D was wonderful.
> 
> I use the 6D for pretty much everything except when I need action shots. I had the 7D on the shelf for quite a while and recently pulled it out for football season. Now I am GASing for a 7DII - but I wouldn't get rid of the 6D - for indoor & low light the 7D can't touch it.



I have the same and have considered the same. In the end, I'm still happy with the 7D and 6D as a combo. I see them as unique to each other, yet complimentary. I like the notion of having two bodies also.


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 9, 2014)

sanjosedave said:


> Rent them both at the same time, compare/contrast...make a list of must haves without a body bias...low noise vs fps vs focus



+1


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 9, 2014)

Nethawk said:


> Not really. None of the side-by-side comparisons I've seen between 7D and 7Dii are showing much improvement at all, and nothing has shouted out "much better", or even "after 5 years...".



At low ISO the 7D2 is less 'gritty'. At high ISO I would say it's "much better", though obviously not as good as the 6D.



> On the other hand, the difference between 7D + 10-22mm and 6D + 16-35mm is significant (I own both bodies and lenses). I loved the combo with 7D, had lots of fun with it, but there is a big step up with the 6D.



That's because of the lens in question. A Tokina 11-16 or Sigma 8-16 would even that up.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Dec 9, 2014)

I don't think it would even up much.


----------



## weixing (Dec 9, 2014)

Hi,
IMHO, if you seldom shoot action and birds, get a 6D. No point trading IQ for fast frame rate and AF system if you don't need it most of the time.

Have a nice day.


----------



## tayassu (Dec 10, 2014)

For pure landscapes, the 6D is better because of its FF sensor, although I-forgot-who declared the 7DII the best low-light shooter because of its low thermal noise or something...
The AF of the 6D isn't too bad, but the 7DII is miles ahead in that section. 7DII is the more appealing package for me, as noise is (after TDP's results) only a good stop better at high ISO's.


----------



## Nethawk (Dec 10, 2014)

tayassu said:


> For pure landscapes, the 6D is better because of its FF sensor, although I-forgot-who declared the 7DII the best low-light shooter because of its low thermal noise or something...
> The AF of the 6D isn't too bad, but the 7DII is miles ahead in that section. 7DII is the more appealing package for me, as noise is (after TDP's results) only a good stop better at high ISO's.



The 6D will beat out the 7D in all circumstances related to low light, both for focusing and high ISO noise. The 7Dii improves upon both when comparing with the original 7D but it still can't touch the 6D.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2014)

Nethawk said:


> The 6D will beat out the 7D in all circumstances related to low light, both for focusing and high ISO noise.



If you're talking about the 7d2 - how's that? Both have the center point down to -3lv, but the 7d2 has a double cross and the 6d only a f2.8 overlay. My understanding is that the 7d2 should do better in low light, single point af - not to mention all other af points, of course.


----------



## Nethawk (Dec 10, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Nethawk said:
> 
> 
> > The 6D will beat out the 7D in all circumstances related to low light, both for focusing and high ISO noise.
> ...



True that, and my apologies for being overly brief. I was responding specifically to the "miles ahead" claim, as nobody is going to buy the 7Dii for its center focus point capabilities only. And when both focus and ISO are considered, the 6D is still the better camera.

I'm not sure I quite understand the "only a f2.8 overlay" comment. Are you referring to the added f/2.8 vertical line sensing capability?


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2014)

Nethawk said:


> I'm not sure I quite understand the "only a f2.8 overlay" comment. Are you referring to the added f/2.8 vertical line sensing capability?



Yes, that was me being overly brief - I'm indeed talking of the strange 6d/5d2/... af point contraption with a slower cross af point overlaid with a single, faster af line. No idea why didn't put a full double-cross sensor into it, either marketing and/or tech limitations on release of the older cameras.


----------



## candc (Dec 10, 2014)

here is the 6d 16-35f/4 (16mm) and 70d sigma 8-16 (10mm)

they are both good. the ff combo is better in low light but for shots like this they are very similar.


----------



## Nethawk (Dec 11, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Nethawk said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure I quite understand the "only a f2.8 overlay" comment. Are you referring to the added f/2.8 vertical line sensing capability?
> ...



I'm with you on this one. "Oops, we forgot something" seems to have influenced this move. Just a guess.

I'm not sure whether others do this, but if I pixel peep and notice issues, or if I know that horizontal or vertical lines and contrast are going to affect AF I rotate my camera, lock focus and shoot again. Not quite suited to sports or BIF, but it works pretty well (once you understand just where AF limitations are). I'm almost always using center AF point though.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 11, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> I've been using the 7D since it came out and I just recently purchased a 5Diii based on all the comments that ff is much better than the APS-C. My experience - not so much.



A common fallacy if you ask well-off enthusiasts, I'm afraid.



Jackson_Bill said:


> but for static things like landscapes and night photography, I think the 7Dii would do the trick.



I depends on how much you postprocess the shots and if you compete with other photogs ft. ff gear. But for general shooting crop is just fine, of course it is, otherwise manufacturers wouldn't sell that many gear with smaller sensors.



Nethawk said:


> I'm not sure whether others do this, but if I pixel peep and notice issues, or if I know that horizontal or vertical lines and contrast are going to affect AF I rotate my camera, lock focus and shoot again.



I'm very used to it because I did just that for ages using my old film Canons 620 and RT with only one non-cross sensor :-\

Problem is that rotating the camera takes time, so with wildlife this is awkward. Furthermore, rotating introduces a recompose focus error because you move the camera, but you'll only notice with thin dof and/or fast lenses.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 11, 2014)

Do you really like negligible depth of field? You get more out of focus blur for a given aperture with a full frame. I love shooting at f/1.4 to f/2 (35 to 55mm FL) and f/3.5 (180mm macro). That is one of the big advantages of FF. If bokeliciousness is not your style, APS-C is more than fine. The FF cameras tend to have about 1 to 2 ISO doublings advantage in noise - my 60D is getting quite noisy at ISO 1600, the 6D equivalent is 6400. If you don't shoot at high ISO, APS-C quality is fine. I use the 6D with primes for landscapes and high ISO shots, including astrophotography, and use the 60D (maybe soon replaced by 7D2) for one-lens shooting (EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6, quite a good lens, probably better than the 24-105 on crop), for macro, and for action / birds. I don't currently have a normal zoom for the 6D, and I use a mix of old film all-manual lens classics (sitting around the house) on adapters and digital era primes.

There is no one right answer.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Dec 11, 2014)

Nethawk said:


> The 6D will beat out the 7D in all circumstances related to low light, both for focusing and high ISO noise.



Agreed.


----------



## sdsr (Dec 11, 2014)

Given the op's camera use, leaving aside the relative merits of 6D vs APS-C, would there be much point in getting a 7DII rather than the less expensive 70D? I suspect the real world image quality differences are trivial or negligible.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 11, 2014)

e17paul said:


> There are plenty of places in Sydney that will hire equipment if you want an extended test. I hired my 70-300L from Georges on condition that the hire money would be refunded if I bought the lens. I did.
> 
> => A good idea. I am going to Oahu for a week over Christmas and seriously thought about hiring the 6D/16-35mm but it would cost ~10% of the purchase price. Either choice will be better than what I have but each has their advantages so either carry 2 bodies or maybe 6Dii in the future but I can't imagine that the AF from the 7Dii will go to the 6Dii as differentiation from the 5Diii will be needed.





e17paul said:


> Incidentally, did I meet you around Sydney Harbour last Feb/March, when I was carrying my OM-10, or was that another photographer called David in Sydney?



=> Good question. I am not sure (there are a few of us Davids in Sydney). Just joined a fabulous and active group of landscape photographers called Focus in Sydney. Perhaps we can catch up there.
http://focusphotographers.org/
https://www.flickr.com/groups/northernbeachesnsw/


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 12, 2014)

NancyP said:


> Do you really like negligible depth of field? You get more out of focus blur for a given aperture with a full frame. I love shooting at f/1.4 to f/2 (35 to 55mm FL) and f/3.5 (180mm macro). That is one of the big advantages of FF. If bokeliciousness is not your style, APS-C is more than fine. The FF cameras tend to have about 1 to 2 ISO doublings advantage in noise - my 60D is getting quite noisy at ISO 1600, the 6D equivalent is 6400. If you don't shoot at high ISO, APS-C quality is fine. I use the 6D with primes for landscapes and high ISO shots, including astrophotography, and use the 60D (maybe soon replaced by 7D2) for one-lens shooting (EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6, quite a good lens, probably better than the 24-105 on crop), for macro, and for action / birds. I don't currently have a normal zoom for the 6D, and I use a mix of old film all-manual lens classics (sitting around the house) on adapters and digital era primes.
> 
> There is no one right answer.



+1


----------



## Nethawk (Dec 14, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> I've been using the 7D since it came out and I just recently purchased a 5Diii based on all the comments that ff is much better than the APS-C. My experience - not so much. Yes, the 5Diii is better at high iso, which is important for conditions when the light is low and a high shutter speed is needed but for static things like landscapes and night photography, I think the 7Dii would do the trick.



I have to respectfully disagree, although I don't own either of the bodies mentioned. ;D

I have both 6D and 7D, and if we factor in the marginal IQ improvement of the 7Dii over its predecessor and the similarities of IQ in the 6D and 5Diii, the 6D beats the crop bodies handily. Given the same image taken with both cameras, same focal length and exposure, the post-processing capabilities of the 6D image alone trounce what is capable from those created with the 7D. Sure, the 7Dii will do everything a FF equivalent can, and I'm not criticizing it - and I have no intention of getting rid of my 7D - but there is a big difference if looking at the big picture, so to speak.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 16, 2014)

Crop and Full frame night shooting is worlds apart.

Recently i put a 7d2 versus a 6d, long exposure waterfront cityscape. As good as the crops can be at low iso, it's not even close - FF dynamic range int low light is a wonder to behold.

But.......

Beware the Af of the 6d. It's pathetic.


----------

