# Anybody upgrade from a 7D to 6D? What are your thoughts?



## Helevitia (Dec 10, 2012)

Back in May I upgraded from a Rebel XTi to a 7D with the anticipation that a new FF camera was going to come out sooner than later. I would sell my 7D and upgrade to whatever was nice and new. Sure enough, the 6D was announced. As a lot of people, I wasn't too thrilled with the initial specs of the 6D, but I am slowly starting to like what I'm reading. 

I love the 7D. I think it's an amazing camera with one exception. I think it has too much noise. For that reason alone, I really want to upgrade. That being said, I'm not so sure I'll be happier with a FF camera. I mean, the build quality of the 7D seems really good to me and people are saying the 6D is closer to a 60D. Am I reading too much into this from a build quality perspective? I don't really need the fast fps, but it sure is fun to have. I am also worried about missing out on the advantage of having a cropped sensor. My walk around lens is the 70-200mm II. I love this lens. The pictures are extremely sharp and it has great clarity. Will this lens be even better on the 6D? 

I know the images will look cleaner, sharper and nicer on the 6D. I mostly shoot landscape and people, but not really portraits. I do occasionally record video. Obviously I don't need a 5D3. I'm not a professional and I don't pay attention to every single feature of my camera. I'm still learning a lot and still getting used to shooting in manual+RAW. And I know a lot of people in here will laugh at me for this, but I use LR as a crutch to make my pictures look better while I get better at picture taking  But hey, that's the truth. 

I guess the bottom line is, I want really good image quality. I want it to look sharp, clear, and as little noise as possible. Here's are two pics I took with my 7D and 70-200mm II. Any critique is welcomed. Thanks!


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 10, 2012)

Nice pics... Though if it were me, I'd apply a little bit of EV compensation and a little bit of warmth but that's my preference. Some would prefer it just as you had rendered it.

I think 6D will be perfect for your 70-200 especially since your preference is portraiture. I'd suggest though to get a proper portrait lens in order to maximize 6D/FF bokehliciousness. An 85mm F1.8 or 100mm F2 comes immediately to mind especially if you're mindful of your budget. Otherwise, 85mm F1.2L and 135mm F2.0L are better alternatives. Any FF body will shine in portraits and landscape.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 10, 2012)

Helevitia said:


> ...
> I love the 7D. I think it's an amazing camera with one exception. I think it has too much noise. For that reason alone, I really want to upgrade.
> ...
> I know the images will look cleaner, sharper and nicer on the 6D.
> ...



I see no noise problem whatsoever in your sample pictures. 
I see no problem with lack of sharpness in your pictures.
I see no other problem in your picture that would be resolved by using a 6D or any other 36x24mm sensor camera.
I do not believe your pictures will be any better than this with a 6D, a 5D 3 or a 1D-X.

You can shoot the 70-200 at f/2.8 ... it is sharp enough. No need to close aperture to f/4.0. 
You can further improve your skills in catching the perfect moment capturing persons in motion with the 7D. It is a perfect tool for that task. It is way faster, way more responsive and has a way better AF-system than the sluggish and totally compromised 6d. Switch your 7D to fast series speed and take short bursts of 4-5 pics in situations like the one you captured.
You can also further improve your compositional skills without needing a new "FF" camera. 

Biggest improvement factor I see is to fruther develop your photographic eye and your ability to capture the moment. All it takes is some self-criticial analysis and lots of practice. Wish you all the best in that task.


----------



## serendipidy (Dec 10, 2012)

+1

Good advice. I was thinking exactly what you just said. His photos are terrific. But a lot of people, me included, think they must get the latest and greatest new toys.


----------



## tomscott (Dec 10, 2012)

Well strictly speaking they are completely different animals, chalk and cheese.

I am currently selling my 7D and replacing it with a 5D MKIII but was taking some pics of it with my old 40D for the advert and I thought man... this is much harder to focus and compose with. I remember when I bought the 7D and was overwhelmed by the amount of AF points but when you get used to it its brilliant. Going back to less points would just make life much harder when your used to more choice. I was going to keep the 40D as a back up but although I used to love it, it just really doesn't do anything for me anymore. 

TBH the noise really isnt awful on a 7D if you print massive images then yes but if you are sticking to A4-A3 they are fine. Made an A2 print of mine the other week at ISO3200 and I was pretty impressed after seeling on screen it has too much noise. Its so easy to pixel peep. Infact coming from the 40D I was pleased with the higher ISO results but really disappointed with 100-400.

Another thing is that the 6D will feel slooooowww compared to the 7D especially trying to keep up with your kids. It depends how you feel, for an amateur the 7D is more than a great camera. But I dont think the 6D is the correct upgrade path and you will miss a lot of the features. Which is why the 5D is a more attractive option and the price difference I would save another few months and buy that instead.

If you were just doing Landscapes or still life I would say yes. But more than often you will be chasing the kids and you will find that one sensitive point in the middle wont be enough and those nice compositions wont be focused correctly in those fast situations. IQ is important but a camera is made of more than just IQ I think the 7D experience will be better and IQ doesnt sell that camera to me. Needs to have elements of the previous camera or you will miss it. Build quality weather sealed the class of cameras are completely different. 

Other option is to wait for the new 7D MKII. Although a lot of cameras, the choice is still hard but still think the 5D MKIII is the best all round camera ever made.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> It is way faster, way more responsive and has a way better AF-system than the sluggish and totally compromised 6d.



Um, the 6d has the same fast shutter release time as the 5d3, or what is "responsive" exactly?


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Dec 10, 2012)

You people characterizing the 6D as "slooooowww " or knocking the AF- have you actually tested one? Until there are some reputable reviews out there or you have personal experience with the camera- you're just spreading misinformation.


----------



## jmatzen (Dec 10, 2012)

Helevitia said:


> I am also worried about missing out on the advantage of having a cropped sensor.



I signed up an account just to comment on this. There is *no* advantage to a crop sensor. How would you feel if you had FF camera, but the camera cropped the picture before it saved it to the card? You would feel cheated! Same deal, only it's a physical limitation.

Source: I am a senior optical engineer.


----------



## zim (Dec 10, 2012)

jmatzen said:


> Helevitia said:
> 
> 
> > I am also worried about missing out on the advantage of having a cropped sensor.
> ...



Oh oh... popcorn out and sitting comfortably :


----------



## birtembuk (Dec 10, 2012)

zim said:


> jmatzen said:
> 
> 
> > Helevitia said:
> ...



hehehe ..... 8)


----------



## ecka (Dec 10, 2012)

jmatzen said:


> Helevitia said:
> 
> 
> > I am also worried about missing out on the advantage of having a cropped sensor.
> ...



I agree. Smaller sensor size is not an advantage, it's a compromise. However, higher pixel density *is* an advantage for cropping and APS-C sensor is physically limited to do only that - capturing 40% of the FF image.


----------



## Area256 (Dec 10, 2012)

I just upgraded from a 60D to a 6D. I haven't used a 7D, so do take that into account. Although since the sensor is about the same between the 60D and 7D, that part should be safe for me to compare.

First sharpness: I don't see any sharpness issues in your images. Also remember that sharpness is affected by lighting, contrast, depth of field, and motion blur. I think people tend to obsess over sharpness more than needed - great photos have awesome lighting and composition and tell a story or relay an emotion - and that comes from photographic skill and not sharpness. Having said that the resolving power of a full frame is much better - you will capture more fine details on a full-frame.

Noise: The 6D is about 1.5 to 2 stops better than the 60D. I find I can shoot at ISO 3200 and get results that look as good as ISO 800 on the 60D. And ISO 400 is just as good as ISO 100 on the 60D - which means I can shoot at ISO 400, and set my shutter speed 2 stops faster - which is great for action shots. Also when I say 2-stops better that's comparing the amount of noise I see in RAW files. However the real world advantage is actually a little better since with more detail you can apply more NR and still keep the minimum required detail for most applications.

AF: I'm finding the AF on the 6D to be very good, it's at least as fast as the 60D to lock focus, and clearly faster in low light. However my understanding is that the 7D has a great AF system for tracking moving subjects which are off center. So if you are finding you use the tracking AF a lot, and/or are using the points far from the center of the frame, you may want to keep the 7D for that. I find that with tuning, you can make the 6D's tracking fairly good, however you have to keep your subject near the center of the frame.

Speed and fps: The speed in terms of shutter lag, focus lock time, play back, ect. are all great. In terms of fps well it's slower than other cameras, the 7D should get almost twice as many frames if you shoot in burst mode.

Build quality: The 7D is a tank, just check out some of the DigitalRev videos on it. However, I'm quite pleased with my 6D's build quality, I can't see having any problems with it lasting for years.

Do I miss the crop sensor, not at all. However I don't shoot at the far end of my lenses very much. If you are often shooting at 200mm, and find that's not long enough, than the 7D will give you a small advantage there in terms of pixel density. However if you just take your 6D file and crop it, you'll get fairly close to the same result. And you get the advantage of having the 70mm giving a 70mm FOV, which could be useful depending on how you shoot.

Bottom line: Yes, the IQ in terms of noise and detail resolution is better on the 6D. The AF is fast, but keep in mind the spread is limited. I can work with the limited spread with limited "focus-and-recompose", but you'll have to consider how/what you shoot, and see if you could work with it or not.


----------



## coreyhkh (Dec 10, 2012)

I you just take pictures of people and stuff then the 6d would be fine. Anything else then the 7D kills the 6D, also people complain about the noise on the 7D far too much, generally if you take a good picture and no Photoshop then its not a problem.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 10, 2012)

coreyhkh said:


> I you just take pictures of people and stuff then the 6d would be fine. Anything else then the 7D kills the 6D, also people complain about the noise on the 7D far too much, generally if you take a good picture and no Photoshop then its not a problem.



I think more accurately, if you take good pictures in *good light* then 7D definitely is better than 6D. But in low-light, 6D is far superior than 7D. I've got a 500D and I think this is comparable to 7D ISO performance. I only raise the ISO to 1600 if it's the last option. 3200, only if I really need to get the shot. I always envy my friend who's using a 5D2 and doesn't have any trouble going to 6400. There are also times that you want to raise your ISO for stopping the motion. Even if you've got a great AF, if you don't stop the motion or at least pan, it's useless. Just recently, I've shoot my daughter's theatrical concert and almost all of my shots are taken @ 1600 and 3200. I asked the organizer why the stage is so dimly lit. The pictures though are still usable in the internet but I hesitate to have it displayed in a 40 inches TV monitor to have my relatives view it. I had just stored them in my IPAD for their viewing.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 10, 2012)

"I want it to look sharp, clear, and as little noise as possible"

My thoughts;

1. Clear & Noise: BIG yes, you'll see HUGE improvement with f2.8 or bigger primes.

2. Sharp: 6D has AFMA feature, that could help to improve sharpness. I suggest you use just the center AF point only for better sharpness. The other outer points on 6D are almost worthless in low light or tracking in AI servo.

3. 6D is a bit smaller than 7D in my hand. It doesn't have the solid feel like 5D II, III, 7D etc...I feel like FF sensor in Rebel chassis.

I'm a 5D III owner and looking for 2nd body. I thought 6D would be a good choice. After 2days using it, I decided NOT to have 6D as a 2nd body.

I'm thinking another 5D III or 1D X


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Dec 10, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm a 5D III owner and looking for 2nd body. I thought 6D would be a good choice. After 2days using it, I decided NOT to have 6D as a 2nd body.
> 
> I'm thinking another 5D III or 1D X



ha ha... getting a 1D X as a "2nd body" makes me smile and makes my wallet hurt


----------



## Area256 (Dec 10, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> 3. 6D is a bit smaller than 7D in my hand. It doesn't have the solid feel like 5D II, III, 7D etc...I feel like FF sensor in Rebel chassis.



It's small yes, but it's hardly a Rebel chassis. The Rebel is all plastic, and not very good plastic at that. It's somewhere between the 60D and 5D3/7D in build quality. I'm quite sure it'll take more abuse than a Rebel or 60D, if not as much as a 5D3/7D.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 10, 2012)

jmatzen said:


> Helevitia said:
> 
> 
> > I am also worried about missing out on the advantage of having a cropped sensor.
> ...



Yes there is an advantage: the resolution of a sensor depends on the size of a pixel, the smallest image that can be resolved into two separated points is one where the distance is circa 2 pixels. The pixel on the 6D is 6.54 micron, that on the 7D is 4.3 micron. So, with the same lens on each body and iso noise not being limiting, the 7D can resolve a separation of 8.6 microns as opposed to the 13.08 microns on the 6D. So, the 7D has 48.8% more reach than the 6D, which is a huge advantage for bird photography and is why the 7D is so popular for nature photographers. I am waiting for the 7D II.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 10, 2012)

Area256 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > 3. 6D is a bit smaller than 7D in my hand. It doesn't have the solid feel like 5D II, III, 7D etc...I feel like FF sensor in Rebel chassis.
> ...



+1. And being small and light isn't always a bad thing. It's entirely dependent on the user preference. 6D being small and light has its merits. Just asked those photogs that are tasked to carry their camera from morning till night. Even a slight weight difference feels like heaven. I had a lot of times where I shoot at least 3-4 hours straight (with 2 ultra-light lens, 28mm and 55-250 + external flash). Although I find the IQ of a gripped 500D sometimes lacking, it's heaven compared to an un-gripped 5D2 that I was able to carry and shoot once for 3 hours (wedding + reception) (with a 24-70mm lens + flash).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2012)

AlanF said:


> So, with the same lens on each body and *iso noise not being limiting*...



Unfortunately, my experience with the 7D in environments where/when I commonly shoot birds is that ISO noise often *is* limiting, in particular for the high shutter speed often necessary.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > So, with the same lens on each body and *iso noise not being limiting*...
> ...



For me (on 60d) the iso noise limit is _in my head_, that's the annoyance - next to exposure and framing I think about shutter speed/noise tradeoff all the time - either I get less keeper because of camera/motion blur, or the shots are crappy because of too much noise or too shallow dof.

Noise is not limiting when looking back at good shots, but few people state how many shots and opportunities they lost for a good one. That's why I'm really looking forward to a ff sensor. Realistically you can use higher iso even on crop when the final output size is not 100%, but for pixel-level 18mp iso800 is the absolute max that at least gives some air for postprocessing.


----------



## bvukich (Dec 10, 2012)

AlanF said:


> jmatzen said:
> 
> 
> > Helevitia said:
> ...



That's an advantage of pixel density, not sensor size. There is no inherent advantage of crop sensors, but they do happen to CURRENTLY offer an advantage in pixel density if that's a plus for what you want to shoot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Below are a pair of 100% crops from shots at ISO 3200, one from the 1D X and one from the 7D. I wonder which is which? :


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 10, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> Area256 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



-1 Rebel, xD and 5D,.....to me the weight of these cameras are not much different - in ounces? The lenses...yes. To have a snug fit camera in the hands is HUGE bonus.

Have you ever mount 70-200 on rebel Vs 7D or 5D?


----------



## Helevitia (Dec 10, 2012)

Hey everyone  A lot of info. I really appreciate it!

After going through everyone's posts, here are my thoughts:

1. bokehliciousness is my new favorite word 

2. Some say they don't see a noise problem in my pictures. That's because I shot at ISO 100(which still has noise on a 7D) and it is heavily processed in LR. These are ideal pictures scenarios. Bright light, low ISO, etc...Once it gets a bit darker, the noise is much more apparent. 

3. Thinking of moving objects(my daughter), I set my camera to AI SERVO, turned off IS and snapped away. How would the focus on the 6D compare to this type of situation? I would hope it would be better? BTW, this was manually pressing the shutter button, not using burst.

4. I have thought of waiting for the 7DM2. I hope it's not too far off, but in all honesty, if they pin it below the 6D, I can't see how the noise will improve much.

5. Is using LR to clean up noise an acceptable practice? Does anybody really care if they like the picture? Most people that look at my photos(all but one really) don't even notice things like bad shadows, noise, sharpness, etc..

6. As for the "advantage" of a crop sensor. Don't take my words too seriously  I just meant that I get 1.6x vs. FF. Call that a pro, con, whatever. If I take a picture at 200mm with a 7D vs. FF, am I really getting a "closer" picture? 

7. Again, the sharpness in my images are also improved in LR. And again, I ask, is it acceptable practice to use PP for things like this? 

8. Without LR, I wouldn't be able to get the images I want. Sad but true. LR has allowed me to achieve the pictures I want.

9. I noticed someone mention the 6D will easily beat out the 7D in low light. Thinking about that, I like to take pictures without flash whenever I can. I like the natural lighting better. I think the 6D is much better for this scenario.

10. Someone mentioned the noise when taking bird photos. I agree 100%, the noise is really noticeable. If you look at bird pics on 500px, flikr, etc... they are so clean, I often wonder if I'm missing something. I hate to say it, but I'm pretty anal about noise. 

I think I'm gonna hold off a bit longer. Possibly buy the 24-70 II instead and see what happens in 2013  As usual, I love this site and I appreciate everyone's feedback! Of course, tomorrow I might change my mind and want to buy the 5D3  I'm sure you all know how that goes 

I think I might take my 70-200 into a store, put it one both the 7D and 6D, take some pics and then take them home and compare.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2012)

Helevitia said:


> 3. Thinking of moving objects(my daughter), I set my camera to AI SERVO, used all AF points, turned off IS and snapped away. How would the focus on the 6D compare to this type of situation? I would hope it would be better? BTW, this was manually pressing the shutter button, not using burst.



The 7D will be better, IMO. Higher density of AF points and all cross-type AF points both mean better AI Servo performance. 



Helevitia said:


> 5. Is using LR to clean up noise an acceptable practice? Does anybody really care if they like the picture? Most people that look at my photos(all but one really) don't even notice things like bad shadows, noise, sharpness, etc..
> 
> 7. Again, the sharpness in my images are also improved in LR. And again, I ask, is it acceptable practice to use PP for things like this?



Of course. All's fair in love, war, and post-processing. Well, almost all - some photography contests restrict the amount/type of PP you can do, but NR is pretty much always fine.



Helevitia said:


> 6. As for the "advantage" of a crop sensor. Don't take my words too seriously  I just meant that I get 1.6x vs. FF. Call that a pro, con, whatever. If I take a picture at 200mm with a 7D vs. FF, am I really getting a "closer" picture?



You're not getting a closer picture. A 200mm lens projects a subject on the focal plane at a given size, regardless of the sensor. But as pointed out, current APS-C sensors generally have a higher pixel density than current FF sensors - that means more pixels on target with APS-C. Whether that's a benefit for you depends on your output. Comparing a 7D image to a 6D image cropped to the field of view of an APS-C sensor, the image quality will be at least equivalent, the 6D may be slightly better...but it will be a 7.8 MP image vs. an 18 MP image. 8 MP is sufficient for web, prints up to about 12x18", etc. If you don't need to crop the image, the 6D will offer substantially better IQ.



Helevitia said:


> 9. I noticed someone mention the 6D will easily beat out the 7D in low light. Thinking about that, I like to take pictures without flash whenever I can. I like the natural lighting better. I think the 6D is much better for this scenario.
> 
> 10. Someone mentioned the noise when taking bird photos. I agree 100%, the noise is really noticeable. If you look at bird pics on 500px, flikr, etc... they are so clean, I often wonder if I'm missing something. I hate to say it, but I'm pretty anal about noise.



The 6D (any FF sensor) gathers more total light - that means less noise at high ISO. I think my 1D X is about 2 stops better than my 7D, the 6D is likely at least 1.5 stops better. Combined with a faster lens, that can make a big difference (provided you have enough DoF).



Helevitia said:


> Of course, tomorrow I might change my mind and want to buy the 5D3  I'm sure you all know how that goes



As a general purpose camera, I think the 5DIII is a much better choice than the 6D. I believe that you'll find the 7D to 6D to be a step up in image quality, but step down in AF performance for moving subjects and in build quality. A 5DIII would be a step up across the board.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Below are a pair of 100% crops from shots at ISO 3200, one from the 1D X and one from the 7D. I wonder which is which? :



I could guess because I know crappy 18mp iso performance  ... but as written above, downsize that to forum web size (like 800px wide) and ask again... that's why I say iso performance has to be considered in relation to final output size, though I admit I'm a pixel peeper and have a hard time convincing myself.



neuroanatomist said:


> A 5DIII would be a step up across the board.



... at least until you try to shoot with af assist, the issue has neither been identified nor solved.


----------



## Helevitia (Dec 10, 2012)

Thanks neuroanatomist, I appreciate all of your responses


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 10, 2012)

The 5D3 is a 7D w/ a full frame sensor but better.

The 6D is a Repackaged 5D2 with Wifi/GPS.

The 5D2 was a 20D with a FF Sensor.

If you love everything about your 7D, Get a 5D3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Below are a pair of 100% crops from shots at ISO 3200, one from the 1D X and one from the 7D. I wonder which is which? :
> ...



Ok...how about now, with the original full images downsized? I know that I can certainly tell them apart, even at 800x533.


----------



## earwaxxer (Dec 10, 2012)

I've been a long time Canon DSLR enthusiast, I now own the 7D. From what I have read about the 6D, I honestly dont see much of draw there, over the 7D. If I was a semipro wedding photographer, who didnt already have a 5D of some incarnation I think the 6D could be a good step in the right direction.

As far as the crop factor, I like it, and take advantage of it with my long lenses for sports etc. I dont think I would want to sacrifice that for FF. 

As far as noise, the 7D stays very clean up to about 400 ASA. I live in Arizona, so sunshine is not a problem!


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 10, 2012)

6D is a wonderful step up in image quality for anyone shooting crop.

6D +7D is an awsome camera set that will give you options on which camera to shoot for the right subject/goal. So if you have a 7D and can add a 6D by all means do.

5DIII is most of the 6D and 7D combo and is the better choice if you don't already have the 7D.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ok...how about now, with the original full images downsized? I know that I can certainly tell them apart, even at 800x533.



Yeah, you're correct - but I'm usually the one bashing the crop iso performance  while others say they can get clean iso1600 or something out of it - but this is only possible if the shot has no dark areas with details.

On that note your (nice) squirrel shots are bit unfair because one has a dark background which of course shows higher shadow noise, and it even seems to be a bit out of focus or blurred ... if you'd use Lightroom's brush with higher +nr or even a bit -clarity on the background the difference at least might look smaller, though at the cost of the work involved. 

Btw: I currently have a similar cut shot of a bird as my wallpaper, but only @iso1250 - and even then the background noise is annoying if not postprocessed as written above, that's why I want a ff - if I ever decide which


----------



## Botts (Dec 10, 2012)

I've been using my 6D for a few days now.

The image quality and increased DOF is phenominal. Being able to shoot respectable photo's at ISO 6400 is amazing. I can't wait to take it out for a serious shoot. Sharpness with the 70-200 f/4 IS is incredible. The 40mm is also quite surprising.

For shooting events, the silent shutter option will come in very handy as well.

Some things though are really bugging me as an ex 7D user.

The zoom button is killing me. It's taking me forever to get used to. The buttons that simply don't exist I got used to easily as they aren't there anymore. The AF-pattern button is still there though, so I hit it out of habit.

The DOF preview button is also moved which is tougher IMO to press.

Depending on your shooting, not having a hardware button for FEC may be annoying as well. I'm currently in that boat.

I'm getting used to the AF system not being as good. The points do seem to be clustered near the center. The low light performance of the center point blows away the 7D's though.

The drop in FPS didn't affect me as much as I don't shoot sports or birds. If you're coming from a T2i or similar though, it will still be faster.


----------



## Botts (Dec 10, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> 6D is a wonderful step up in image quality for anyone shooting crop.
> 
> 6D +7D is an awsome camera set that will give you options on which camera to shoot for the right subject/goal. So if you have a 7D and can add a 6D by all means do.
> 
> 5DIII is most of the 6D and 7D combo and is the better choice if you don't already have the 7D.



Very good points that I agree with.

I decided that I'll keep the money I saved by going 6D not 5D3, and instead of spending it on a lens like most are suggesting, I'll keep it in the hopes that Canon sometime releases a 7D2. That way if I ever have a hankering to shoot sports or animals I'll have a great camera for that. I know that when I shot shuttle launches I'd be renting a 7D because the 6D's speed wouldn't cut it. From 3 miles though, almost everything is par focal, so the AF wouldn't be an issue, just the burst speed.


----------



## tphillips63 (Dec 10, 2012)

I was never happy with the noise from my 7D and when the 5D Mark III was announced I ordered one and love its results.
I did not know the 6D was coming out but am glad I went to the full frame model. As Neuro's shots show, there is a huge difference.
Maybe it is pixel peeping, I don't know but I know with the full frame sensor I am much more satisfied in the pictures I get. I feel they are more, film quality.
I am also coming from being out of photography through the initial digital years and last used a Minolta Maxim 7xi about ten years before I got the 7D.


----------



## ashmadux (Dec 10, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



this is the best visual explanation ever. I DREAM of shooting 3200+ without worrying about the limits imposed by crop color noise in post. Besides the outer focus points, these are only my only concerns.

night/day


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2012)

Botts said:


> The zoom button is killing me. It's taking me forever to get used to. The buttons that simply don't exist I got used to easily as they aren't there anymore. The AF-pattern button is still there though, so I hit it out of habit.



When (and if) Magic Lantern runs on the 6d button remapping will be easier, and the zoom function is much better with ml for example the option to go to 100% with one touch.



Botts said:


> The DOF preview button is also moved which is tougher IMO to press.



Canon marketing must have had a field day when they positioned that, nearly the same on the 60d ... I bet they had a contest for the most awkward position, and the guy with the winning design got a free 5d3 because he helped protect that model.


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 10, 2012)

tphillips63 said:


> Maybe it is pixel peeping, I don't know but I know with the full frame sensor I am much more satisfied in the pictures I get. I feel they are more, film quality.


Film quality? 35mm film was never that good.


----------



## Botts (Dec 10, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Botts said:
> 
> 
> > The zoom button is killing me. It's taking me forever to get used to. The buttons that simply don't exist I got used to easily as they aren't there anymore. The AF-pattern button is still there though, so I hit it out of habit.
> ...



Good point with the ML remapping option should that become available. As an ex-7D user I never had ML available.

I'm 99% sure that the DOF button is in the same place on the 6D as 5D3.


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 11, 2012)

birtembuk said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > jmatzen said:
> ...



Here we go~ Weeeee!!! :


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 11, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Area256 said:
> ...



Yes actually and they felt different. *If* all else equal, I'll take a gripped rebel. Sadly, I also take IQ into consideration. 

I guess you've got a large hand? As I've said, this is purely subjective. That's why I did not generalize. Again, *it is entirely dependent on the user's preference.* Of course, I'll still prefer 5D3 even with the added weight more than the 6D and a little bit of loss in IQ (almost non-noticeable) *if I got the money.* But with restrained budget, a 6D + lens is more appealing than a 5D3.


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Thank you! 8)


----------



## Area256 (Dec 11, 2012)

Helevitia said:


> 3. Thinking of moving objects(my daughter), I set my camera to AI SERVO, turned off IS and snapped away. How would the focus on the 6D compare to this type of situation? I would hope it would be better? BTW, this was manually pressing the shutter button, not using burst.
> 
> 5. Is using LR to clean up noise an acceptable practice? Does anybody really care if they like the picture? Most people that look at my photos(all but one really) don't even notice things like bad shadows, noise, sharpness, etc..
> 
> ...



3. Likely worse. The 7D has more points and more cross type points with better spread. However, the 6D can be "tuned" for different types of action like the 5D3, this make make it a little better in some cases. I have yet to see a real world test between the two for tacking - mostly because that's hard to measure. However the 7D is a sports camera, the 6D is a landscape/portrait camera, so it's safe to bet the 7D will outperform in tracking. 

5. 7. 8. In my opinion it is absolutely acceptable to process things like noise, sharpness, colour, exposure, local adjustments, ect. in LR - and you shouldn't feel "bad" about needing to do it. What matters is the final product. Think about it this way: when we had film you would chose your type of film to get different looks, use colour filters to change the colour balance, doge and burn to lighten up or darken parts of the image. There were even ways to change saturation, crop, do HDR, and much more. All the best photographers of the time did that. Ansel Adams did that. So don't feel like you can't use a bit of LR. 

Another way to look at it: The jpeg engine applies contrast, sharpness, NR, tone curves, etc to your image. Why not take control of that process in LR? If you don't like the jpegs, that's not necessarily because you are bad, just that the jpeg engine don't produce look you want.

This doesn't mean take crappy pictures and try to save them LR, you should always strive to get the best exposures and lighting you can. However to argue that you shouldn't touch them after that is silly, just like it was in the days of film. 

9. Yes the 6D will work better in low light, period. However I would recommend looking at off-camera lighting. A lot of people who say "I like the natural lighting better.", do so because they have only used the flash on their camera - and on-axis hard light almost always looks awful. However, put a flash in an umbrella off to the side, and you'll get great results. 

---

The bottom line for you I think is this: The 6D will give you better IQ in low light and good light. However it may not track as well as the 7D. The 5D3 will do both very well, but will cost a lot more, and leave you without as much money for lenses. That's a really hard choice to make. I don't shoot enough action to make the 5D3 worth it for me, so I got the 6D and will get myself the 135mm f/2L (a sweet lens) with the extra money.

One way to decide is just to play with a 6D in a store. Bring someone to run around, and try taking pictures of them, if it does a good enough job, get it. If not, well you're stuck with the 7D or 5D3.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 11, 2012)

Area256 said:


> Helevitia said:
> 
> 
> > 3. Thinking of moving objects(my daughter), I set my camera to AI SERVO, turned off IS and snapped away. How would the focus on the 6D compare to this type of situation? I would hope it would be better? BTW, this was manually pressing the shutter button, not using burst.
> ...



As I mentioned in my 1st post, the outer AF points on 6D are almost worthless in AI servo and tracking subject in running. On top of that, the frame rate is on slower side, that make it even more diffecult to shoot in AI servo.

How do you capture kid running around the house when your flash is mount on ext. umbrella soft box? 

agree on......... "the 6D is a landscape/portrait camera"


----------



## tphillips63 (Dec 11, 2012)

I know, that is why I said pixel peeping, which was not possible back in the day when everything was printed, usually no larger than 11x14 and most of the time way smaller.
With a computer it is so easy to look at images very large and think, it is very noisy, but they print fine.
I see many shots on the web or even in print from the 7D that I think are great.
Still, I like the images with the full frame better so OP will too.




Zlatko said:


> tphillips63 said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe it is pixel peeping, I don't know but I know with the full frame sensor I am much more satisfied in the pictures I get. I feel they are more, film quality.
> ...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 11, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> Helevitia said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



+1. 
I should add, I was in the same boat- considering moving to FF due to the high ISO noise of the 7D. I was advised in these forums to wait until I can afford the 5DIII instead, and in the mean time get fast lenses which will solve your high ISO problem while retaining all the pros of the 7D and will give you beautiful shallow DoF and your favorite word (bokeh...) when you move to FF.



tphillips63 said:


> I know, that is why I said pixel peeping, which was not possible back in the day when everything was printed, usually no larger than 11x14 and most of the time way smaller.
> With a computer it is so easy to look at images very large and think, it is very noisy, but they print fine.
> I see many shots on the web or even in print from the 7D that I think are great.
> Still, I like the images with the full frame better so OP will too.



Pity, pixel peeping has undermined more important aesthetic considerations nowadays.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 11, 2012)

jmatzen said:


> Source: I am a senior optical engineer.



I am too!

I'm an old guy wearing glasses -- and every time I look closely at something it's an engineering exercise!


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ok...how about now, with the original full images downsized? I know that I can certainly tell them apart, even at 800x533.



I can't tell them apart after using Noise Ninja with the 7D ISO 3200 profile. I imagine with proper processing this would hold true at 8x10 and 11x14. Past that you would start to see a difference.

I'll be the first to say that FF is better at high ISO, and that is a valid reason to go FF if you need high ISO. But like everything in photography, differences are exaggerated and blown out of proportion. Are you making 16x20 ISO 6400 prints? By all means, FF. Are you making 8x10 ISO 3200 prints? Use DPP (better noise handling at high ISO than ACR; at lower ISOs use ACR), Noise Ninja or another plugin, and put your money towards something that will actually yield a tangible benefit.

I don't know which category Helevitia fits into.


----------



## shutterwideshut (Dec 11, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> The 5D3 is a 7D w/ a full frame sensor but better.
> 
> The 6D is a Repackaged 5D2 with Wifi/GPS.
> 
> ...



+1000. I totally agree with that!


----------



## kidcharles (Dec 11, 2012)

I think what gets lost a bit in the discussion of high ISOs is that in addition to more noise, the color quality can take a substantial hit. Before I replaced my 7D with a 5D3, I would only go to 3200 in emergencies, as much because of the damage it did to color rendition as for the luminance noise. With the 5D3, I get acceptable noise and color at 3200, as good as the 7D set to 800. I've switched to the 5D3 for my bird photography because I can get away with higher ISOs. Despite the lower pixel density, I'm able to get shots that look as sharp or even sharper than equivalent 7D shots because I can use less noise reduction. If Canon comes up with a 7D Mk II that is a stop better noise-wise than the original 7D and has ~24 Mp I would probably go back to crop land, at least for telephoto work.


----------



## M.ST (Dec 11, 2012)

You can´t upgrade from the 7D to the 6D because you waste a lot of money for new SD cards.

It´s a shame that Canon don´t put a cf/sd card slot in the 6D that the people can change.

The 6D has better image quality, but the AF system and speed is s big step backwards if you come from the 7D.

I recommend to wait for the 7D Mark II (70D) or what the name will be. I hope that the camera will have a CF card slot because I want the camera as a TC replacement.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Dec 11, 2012)

I disagree with the memory card issue "preventing" an upgrade. SD cards are very cheap. As for durability, if you're the average careful person an SD card will survive longer than your camera shutter. Big step backwards in AF? For who? I came from a 7D, why don't I feel crippled with my wife's 6D or my 9 point AF bodies shooting moving subjects? Oh. because the difference in AF is actually marginal with the need for better ISO performance outweighing the need for that said marginal AF performance. You can jack up the shutter speed on the 6D a bit higher than the 7D and get similar results if you've warmed up enough to how the points work in your camera. And you'll still get a better looking set of images in the end, especially indoors or when the sun falls at a game. But no, not everyone shoots sports, sorry.



M.ST said:


> You can´t upgrade from the 7D to the 6D because you waste a lot of money for new SD cards.
> 
> It´s a shame that Canon don´t put a cf/sd card slot in the 6D that the people can change.
> 
> ...


----------



## AlanF (Dec 11, 2012)

bvukich said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > jmatzen said:
> ...



Pixel size = 1/(pixel density). I prefer to use pixel size as length is a more meaningful quantity to interpret immediately than are the units of reciprocal length that define density. But, others who enjoy thinking in reciprocals may prefer density.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 11, 2012)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> Big step backwards in AF? For who? I came from a 7D, why don't I feel crippled with my wife's 6D or my 9 point AF bodies shooting moving subjects? Oh. because the difference in AF is actually marginal with the need for better ISO performance outweighing the need for that said marginal AF performance.



If you're successful tracking anything with the 9pt af (esp. with shallow dof), you're a genius - whenever I tried I have to admit that there are simply too few focus points to keep the af, and of course the 60d has zero servo af customization.

But the 6d is bound to be better because of the better firmware options and esp. just the two af points more in the "gap" left+right from the center of the 60d-type af might make a difference - I'm still waiting for good reviews to decide.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Chosenbydestiny said:
> 
> 
> > Big step backwards in AF? For who? I came from a 7D, why don't I feel crippled with my wife's 6D or my 9 point AF bodies shooting moving subjects? Oh. because the difference in AF is actually marginal with the need for better ISO performance outweighing the need for that said marginal AF performance.
> ...



The 5DII has 6 points filling that gap, as it relates to AI Servo. Like Chosenbydestiny, compared to the 7D I found the 5DII and the T1i I had before the 7D, had no trouble tracking moving subjects. Tree sloths, snails, flowing molasses, tectonic plates...the 5DII did just great! My 3 year old running toward me across the back yard, with an f/2.8 lens, however.....


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> compared to the 7D I found the 5DII and the T1i I had before the 7D, had no trouble tracking moving subjects. Tree sloths, snails, flowing molasses, tectonic plates...the 5DII did just great!



I admit I seldom used af tracking with the 60d after I failed some time, but using a shallow rather dof like 300mm with f5.6 the objects often were not completely in focus (wrong prediction by the camera) or with small objects the single point af simply lost focus if the objects was either low contrast or away from the af point too long (i.e. zero custom settings on the 60d).


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 11, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Chosenbydestiny said:
> ...



LOL....LOL ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 11, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Chosenbydestiny said:
> 
> 
> > Big step backwards in AF? For who? I came from a 7D, why don't I feel crippled with my wife's 6D or my 9 point AF bodies shooting moving subjects? Oh. because the difference in AF is actually marginal with the need for better ISO performance outweighing the need for that said marginal AF performance.
> ...



Marsu42,
Don't put too much hope into it. 6D is your portrait/landscape camera. Lack of AF points(not to mention non-cross type on all outer AF points) and slower frame rate = not good in AI servo.

About you bring your kid to local camera store and try it out rather then waiting for reviews. While you there, try out the 5D III as well.......and if budget is not an issue the 1D X is usually sitting right next to the 5D III ;D


----------



## Helevitia (Dec 11, 2012)

Thanks again for all the feedback. This thread grew much bigger than I had anticipated. After mulling over everything in this thread(again), I 'm pretty sure I'll just focus on buying a new lens and see what the 7DMK2 has to offer or see if canon comes out with something in between the 6D and 5DIII. I really need to go play with a 6D in a store with my lens and see what I think. Maybe after the holidays.

Another thought is, I wait for another $2500 5DIII deal to pop up, buy that and sell my 7D for a grand. Technically I'm only paying $1500, right? right!


----------



## Helevitia (Dec 11, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > jmatzen said:
> ...



OK, so I've looked at your pictures and read some more online about FF vs. crop sensors. Wouldn't it be better to say we are losing picture real estate instead of magnifying the image 1.6x? If we are, in fact, not actually getting closer to the subject, then why does everyone say it like that? Why not say the opposite? 

And one other question about this: If I take a picture with a crop sensor at let's say, 12 ft, I then take the exact same picture with a FF sensor, at around 8ft, I'm going to get the exact same image size. Now let's assume for a second I cannot move closer to the subject to "equal" the crop sensor size. Do I miss out on anything? 

Also, what about the resolution within the crop sensor? If both the crop and FF sensor have the same megapixel, does that mean I have more detail in the picture on the crop sensor vs. the FF sensor or is it really just that it's exactly that, it's cropped out the extra real estate so it's the exact same? Whew! Hope I made sense?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 11, 2012)

Of course resolution depends on the product of many factors and it depends on lighting as well. But, there are some laws of basic optics and information theory that set upper limits on the resolution of sensors. One of the limiting factors is pixel density. The relative performance of FF and crop depends on lighting, distance and object size amongst other factors. On a bright day where noise is not important, the crop can resolve objects that are too far away to be resolved by FF. As the light gets worse, the sensor and photon noise will lower the resolution of the crop more than FF and the advantage of pixel density will eventually be lost. I have tested the resolution of a sensor, posted in another forum, and it fits well to the theoretical Nyqvist limit and pixel size.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2012)

It's called 'crop factor' or a 'crop sensor' for a reason - a smaller sensor crops the FoV, it doesn't magnify the image. 

Comparing APS-C vs. FF cropped to the same FoV is going to be influenced by the specific sensors in question. But the IQ likely will not be significantly different (it's a wash between the 7D and 5DII, for example; I haven't done 7D vs. 1D X yet, but will soon). As for what you're giving up - MP. A 5DII/III image cropped to 7D framing is ~8 MP, not 18 MP. I have some 24x36" prints - 8 MP wouldn't be good for that. 

The similar IQ applies in good light. If light is limiting, FF wins even when focal length limited, in terms of IQ. When not cropping, FF is the clear winner. For me, when I'm focal length-limited, I'm usually light-limited (need high ISO) as well. If my 7D vs. 1D X results are similar to privatebydesign's 7D vs. 1DsIII results, my 7D will likely get sold soon.


----------



## vmk (Dec 12, 2012)

Pinchers of Peril said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a 5D III owner and looking for 2nd body. I thought 6D would be a good choice. After 2days using it, I decided NOT to have 6D as a 2nd body.
> ...


----------



## StepBack (Dec 12, 2012)

Helevitia If u can look at a picture and say it's good that's all that matters.


----------



## bycostello (Dec 12, 2012)

curious to know why that is an upgrade?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 12, 2012)

privatebydesign said:


> Helevitia said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be clear, I am not saying the 7D is a bad camera, or that there are not very good reasons to choose one over a FF camera, all I was addressing was the farcical claim of a 48.8% reach advantage.
> ...


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 30, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> coreyhkh said:
> 
> 
> > I you just take pictures of people and stuff then the 6d would be fine. Anything else then the 7D kills the 6D, also people complain about the noise on the 7D far too much, generally if you take a good picture and no Photoshop then its not a problem.
> ...


I think you nailed it Jason... I've got lots of great high iso images with my 7D, lots of them, but the key is absolutely lots of light! Take that same camera and a f/2.8 lens into a room not so well lit and the noise drives you crazy... especially if you're shooting portraits. 

The 7D just isn't made for portrait work in my opinion. The noise in the shadows is terrible in low light... get them outdoors or get your softboxes set up and it's much better, but inside or portrait work, even with lighting can be difficult when it comes to noise in the shadows and the 7D. Just makes for much more work in post... yuck... I've got a multitude of wonderful portraits from my 7D but it's been a lot of work in post...


----------

