# 6D- An amateur's review



## abcde12345 (Dec 3, 2013)

I bought a 6D based on the recommendation of everyone here, and hence I think I owe everyone a review based on it, which I believe people upgrading from a Rebel model would appreciate. I myself upgraded from a 550D, so I guess I would have a similar idea of what people are looking for. I'm not aiming for a scientific journal, but rather more of experience relating, so please don't flame me for stuff you don't agree on.

1) Ergonomics and size:
This is highly rated by everyone, so I would give my point of view. I find it a lot bigger. MUCH BIGGER. Heavier too. My fingers used to wrap around the grip completely, but now I'm quite sure I don't reach the end of it. However, I guess it depends on individuals.

2) Layout:
It's quite different from my 550D, it takes quite a bit of learning. For example, learning all over again how to take bracketed shots and long exposure shots is a pain. However, I like how aperture has a dedicated button. I would expect ISO to have one too. It requires you to press the middle button among five buttons (there is a little bump on it so you will be able to know without looking) without spinning the dial, so it's slightly troublesome. I will prefer something like Nikon's mechanism, with two dials.

3) Image Quality:
Now, this is the best part. Image quality is AWESOME. It's such a big upgrade from my 550D, I can't get back to using it anymore. The details captured are awesome, with a sharpness that I can never get from my 550D. I used the same lens for both camera, and the effect is just extraordinary, with just a change of camera. (Tamron 28-75mm F2.8) It has a soft feeling, where my 550D would have been quite harsh with background but with very sharp lines, hence the image is distinct with a certain dreamy feeling. Bokeh effect is even stronger and more pleasant. It's much better for both portrait and landscape shots compared to 550D. Cropping a photo is ABSOLUTELY fine too. It's awesome how much detail you can extract from a shot!

4) Shooting speed:
Upgrading from a 550D, this is another big plus. It's able to take more than 20 RAW images continuously without buffering, and I don't think adding another frame in one second would matter much to me. However, I'm not heavily into sports shots, so that might explain it.

5) Flash:
Now this is something I miss quite a bit. I would prefer to have even a built in flash at times, but I guess it pushed me to get an external flash. However, it means extra weight and space. Boohoo. =<

6) Wi-fi and GPS:
Not too big fan of this. I take photos for trips and own pleasure, so I don't really use such options frequently.

7) ISO:
I decided to separate this from image quality, as I think it deserves a corner of its own! ISO was such a pain in the bottom when I was using the 550D: nothing acceptable beyond 1600! However, this totally changed my game. ISO6400 is now a common thing, with slight noise within it that is considerably unnoticeable. With a little photoshop, nothing's impossible! It makes me much more comfortable of using aperture values around F8-11 at anytime, anyplace. It also means I am now becoming a manipulator of light! Awesome!

8) Autofocus:
I don't do much of fast-paced stuff, so I haven't really pushed it to its limits. However, I have always been using the center point as autofocus point, so that might explain it too. Anyway, I have developed the habit of locking onto the subject first using the middle point then move away, so auto-focus has not been much of an issue. However, at times when I accidentally changed the auto-focus points, it does seem to not work as well (Accidentally? You're bound to have that mistake when you upgrade from a Rebel!) However, the center point is an awesome focus point: it really focuses in the dark as advertised! Accurately! 

Verdict? 
I love being in the full-frame family. Image quality is awesome. Those who said that 6D is just a full-frame Rebel with no difference in image quality should try it. My friends described me being poisoned by it, and they too now have been poisoned by it! Trust me, constantly observing photos produced by my 550D and now looking at my 6D, I am a happy man. I do not know about D610's image quality nor have I tried it out, so it's a hard comparison for me, but as an upgrade, definitely not regretting it. It expands the arsenal of my shots and skills. I hereby declare that for me, equipment does make a difference.


----------



## Casey (Dec 3, 2013)

Thanks for your review. I also moved from the T3i to the 6D and am very happy!

I have heard how much better the 5DIII is but I could not justify spending the extra $1K for what I would get, especially since I am not making money with it now. After reading Justin Abbotts review I decided that the 6D was the better option for me.

I found that ISO 800 was the limit in the T3i, but use 3200 in the 6D with good photos. I shot an event without flash and posted it athttp://www.pbase.com/collink/art__soul] [url]http://www.pbase.com/collink/art__soul [/url] for examples of what the 6D can do in low light.

The autofocus is one area that folks have complained about. I am used to setting on one-shot and using the center point and recomposing on the T3i. On the 6D I find that rather than holding the focus it will refocus. I have gotten used to using the other points. Since I am primarily landscape/architecture this has not been a problem. I have taken good shots of go-cart racing in bright sunlight, but had to frame wide and crop.

I agree with the image quality. The amount of detail moving from the APS-C to full frame sensor is amazing. I also notice that I get much more flexibility in cropping.

The 6D is not the 5DIII. If you are not taking indoor sports then it is a better value.


----------



## sunnyVan (Dec 3, 2013)

Ever since changing the focusing screen and using manual focusing more frequently, I don't complain about 6D's af anymore. For the budget minded who want ff, it's either mk 2 or 6d, and the choice is pretty clear.


----------



## sunnyVan (Dec 3, 2013)

Btw I find Dustin's review balanced and helpful for us regular joes. Clearly there are many who got deep pockets but I am not one of them, unfortunately. So I do appreciate any affordable way to achieve decent result. My best purchase for the year was the 6d and the sigma 35 art, which I think are more sensible than their more expensive counterparts.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 3, 2013)

Congrats on your new toy and welcome to FF world 

You reminded me when I first jump from 40D to 5D II


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 3, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> 1) Ergonomics and size:
> This is highly rated by everyone, so I would give my point of view. I find it a lot bigger. MUCH BIGGER. Heavier too. My fingers used to wrap around the grip completely, but now I'm quite sure I don't reach the end of it. However, I guess it depends on individuals.



Do not worry about this. In about a month or two you will get used to 6D's size and weight. 

(And when you will take 550D in your hands again, you will be smiling at how small and light it is and wonder "how people can hold this thing steadily, or see anything at all in its toy viewfinder?")


----------



## emag (Dec 3, 2013)

I went from 60D to 6D and found the size/ergonomic/layout change not too drastic. Neither camera feels as bulky or solid as my 40D. IQ and high ISO performance are of course very much better in the 6D. WA capability of FF is worlds apart from crop. The 60D didn't suddenly start taking bad photos, though; it will be modified for astro work and the already modded 40D sold to pay for the modification. I'm no fan of the deer in the headlights look of on camera flash so that wasn't important to me, though powered down for fill it could be handy. The more I use the wifi the more I like it. Used with a tablet it's better than having the articulating LCD of the 60D (a 60D feature I really like and use extensively). I haven't had occasion to use GPS so can't comment. AF is at least as good as the 60D, better if you consider AFMA. The extensive menu feature set of the 6D is impressive. I expect this camera will meet this hobbyist's needs for many years. I've used a T3i, IMO the 6D is a major change from that with respect to size, layout, ergo and feature set. Thinking back to my film days and cameras I've had, I'd rate the relationship between 60D/6D similar to that of Pentax ME Super / Nikon F2 Photomic.


----------



## CTJohn (Dec 3, 2013)

Casey said:


> Thanks for your review. I also moved from the T3i to the 6D and am very happy!
> 
> I have heard how much better the 5DIII is but I could not justify spending the extra $1K for what I would get, especially since I am not making money with it now. After reading Justin Abbotts review I decided that the 6D was the better option for me.
> 
> ...


I'd suggest trying back button focusing on the 6D. That way you can just hold the button down while you re-compose and not deal with re-focusing issues. Once I switched, I've been hooked.


----------



## CTJohn (Dec 3, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> 5) Flash:
> Now this is something I miss quite a bit. I would prefer to have even a built in flash at times, but I guess it pushed me to get an external flash. However, it means extra weight and space. Boohoo. =<


I agree regarding all your points on the 6D, and this one still irks me. I use the on-camera flash on my 7D to trigger a couple 430EXII Speedlites remotely. I had to buy a 90EX Speedlite for my 6D to be able to do the same. If it's a prosumer camera, add the pop-up flash Canon.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 3, 2013)

Nice review. My first DSLR was a 550D and I had a 7D before buying a 6D last winter. I had some of the same adjustments. Coming from the 550D and 7D I found the 6D size and weight to be a nice compromise.



Zlyden said:


> "how people can hold this thing steadily, or see anything at all in its toy viewfinder?")



I found the large, bright viewfinder of the 6D to be an incredible upgrade from the 550D. I took some shots with a friends 550D last weekend and was surprised with how cramped and dark the viewfinder was.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 4, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Nice review. My first DSLR was a 550D and I had a 7D before buying a 6D last winter. I had some of the same adjustments. Coming from the 550D and 7D I found the 6D size and weight to be a nice compromise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes indeed, cramped dark viewfinder. However, I can't believe some of the discounted prices on refurbed "rebels" here in the states. A T3i body was supposedly $299, a T4i body was around $385, and a T5i was $419 !!! Of course, Canon USA charges tax, so add 10% to those prices...but still, I was tempted to buy one, as a "backup" body for my 6D. Hard to pass up on a refurb price that is well below the price for used units on the open market, even if you factor in the tax. I guess the 6D refurbs are pricing the same way, at least for the holidays.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 4, 2013)

I've moved from 500D to 6D. I have to say that I've got the same experience. One other thing I miss is the 1/200 sync when I do some strobist stuffs. 1/200 is slow already. Generally, I'm quite satisfied though I hope they could have put the same awesome center point on all other points.


----------



## captainkanji (Dec 4, 2013)

I upgraded from the 7D. I think not having a flash is what I missed most. There's no way to trigger off camera units, so I ended up buying a Phottix Odin. Image quality, especially at high ISO, is the most noticeable improvement. Full frame quality was what I wanted, but price was the obstacle. I could afford a 6D (barely). I've had it for almost a year now and am very happy I made the move up. GPS is nice, and I use it, but I could live without it. Wifi is awesome. Quickly transferring photos to my iPad Air makes posting to social media a snap. I've come to really like it. The gimped AF system is the main drawback. While the center point is great, the outer ones are not, which makes composition more difficult in lower light situations. Now I know why people use the 'focus recompose' method. If Canon continues the 6D line, they need to make at least one point on the outer parts a cross type like the center. That would make composition easier in landscape and portrait. A second memory card slot would be nice. I had a San Disk SD card die on me Thanksgiving weekend. It wouldn't let me format it in any device. Fortunately, I didn't lose any photos. First time this has happened to me. Looking forward to another year.


----------



## sunnyVan (Dec 4, 2013)

captainkanji said:


> I upgraded from the 7D. I think not having a flash is what I missed most. There's no way to trigger off camera units, so I ended up buying a Phottix Odin. Image quality, especially at high ISO, is the most noticeable improvement. Full frame quality was what I wanted, but price was the obstacle. I could afford a 6D (barely). I've had it for almost a year now and am very happy I made the move up. GPS is nice, and I use it, but I could live without it. Wifi is awesome. Quickly transferring photos to my iPad Air makes posting to social media a snap. I've come to really like it. The gimped AF system is the main drawback. While the center point is great, the outer ones are not, which makes composition more difficult in lower light situations. Now I know why people use the 'focus recompose' method. If Canon continues the 6D line, they need to make at least one point on the outer parts a cross type like the center. That would make composition easier in landscape and portrait. A second memory card slot would be nice. I had a San Disk SD card die on me Thanksgiving weekend. It wouldn't let me format it in any device. Fortunately, I didn't lose any photos. First time this has happened to me. Looking forward to another year.



From a consumer's point of view we all desire a more robust af system than a mere center point. From a business point of view it's hard to blame canon for trying to adequately differentiate 6d and mk3. If the 6d had more than one cross type af point then it'd eat into sales of mk3 even more. For a ff that costs less than 1500 it's hard to ask for more. 

I bumped into a friend at a wedding. He was using a mk3. He said that quite often he uses the center point only. So I asked him why he didn't pick the 6d instead. He didn't really have an answer. But he had a mk2 as a second body so I think he's not willing to step down.


----------



## iron-t (Dec 4, 2013)

6D is a pretty interesting camera. It seems to be very nearly a 60D with a FF sensor (and WiFi, GPS), complete with the 60D ergonomics (which I liked) and already-outdated AF system. I considered both the 6D and the 5D3 as an upgrade path from my 60D. In the end the key differentiator was AF for the 5D3: far more points, more spread out in the frame, better sensitivity and focus point handoff. Being able to get sharp focus on wiggly children with thin DOF and without sacrificing composition was a priority. If I did mostly landscape/static photography and/or mainly shot at f/5.6 or above, the clear choice would have been 6D.

It would have been harder to choose the 5D3 if the 6D had a wider spread of good AF points, say 9x cross-type spreading as far across the frame, relatively speaking, as the 60D AF points. This very well might have been intentional handicapping on Canon's part to prevent cannibalizing sales of a very profitable camera. My guess is the margins on the 6D are pretty slim given substantial sensor cost and development of the wireless components.

In any event, full frame yields better IQ in basically all circumstances.


----------



## pato (Dec 4, 2013)

More and more I want to upgrade my 550D to a 6D 
I just discovered that the price took another jump down, to now Fr. 1995.- here in Switzerland (with the Canon 24-105mm F/4L) which is a low 2211 USD 
I believe this will be my Christmas present. Now I just need somebody who buys my 550D first.... 
Looking forward for more experience posts!


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 4, 2013)

pato said:


> More and more I want to upgrade my 550D to a 6D
> I just discovered that the price took another jump down, to now Fr. 1995.- here in Switzerland (with the Canon 24-105mm F/4L) which is a low 2211 USD
> I believe this will be my Christmas present. Now I just need somebody who buys my 550D first....
> Looking forward for more experience posts!



I hope you are able to get one and sell the 550D. Do you have something like craigslist over there, or will you use ebay or amazon?


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 4, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I hope you are able to get one and sell the 550D.



Personally, I chose to keep my old 60d with 150k+ shutter cycles when I purchased the 6d because it's not entirely an upgrade - the 6d lacks the swivel screen which is great for tripod, and the crop factor is very handy for tele (narrower fov) and macro (less dof). Last not least, not changing lenses but having two bodies is useful sometimes and you always have a failsafe if your 6d should ever break.

If your 550d isn't in pristine condition anymore you might also think about keeping it because the resale value probably probably isn't too great nowadays, the 18mp sensor is aged and newer models have many more features.


----------



## caerolle (Dec 4, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> I like how aperture has a dedicated button. I would expect ISO to have one too. It requires you to press the middle button among five buttons (there is a little bump on it so you will be able to know without looking) without spinning the dial, so it's slightly troublesome. I will prefer something like Nikon's mechanism, with two dials.



You can set up the 6D so that you can press the 'Set' button and use the top control dial to change ISO in shooting mode. This has a second advantage of automatically activating the viewfinder head's-down display, which pressing the ISO button does not; if you are trying to do it with the camera to your eye and want to see the changes in the viewfinder, you have to half-press the shutter release.

The quickest way to set this up is probably to open the Q menu, then select the 'Custom Controls' icon (the little camera with the lines to the right). Press 'Set' to open the menu, then scroll over to the Set button icon at the top right. Press Set to open the menu for the Set button, then scroll to the ISO selection. Press Set one last time, then close the menus (press the shutter release halfway is fastest way). Now you can press the Set button when you are shooting, and use the top dial to adjust ISO! The only problem I have with this is my hands are small, so it is a stretch for me.

Something else I use is to set the ISO steps to 1-stop rather than 1/3-stop, which makes it quicker to make changes in the ISO.

Now if they would just allow you to set white balance to some button!

Hope this helps!

Carol


----------



## randerson5726 (Dec 4, 2013)

I did a similar upgrade, 60D to 6D. I agree with everything. Most importantly the reduciton in noise, and increase in image quality. I miss the pop up flash not for flash purposes but triggering external remote speedlites. With wifi in this camera I wouldn't be surprised if we see a remote triggering of speedlites through wifi soon. I wonder if this protocol would be fast enough. As for now, I'm looking into extension cords.


----------



## sunnyVan (Dec 5, 2013)

randerson5726 said:


> I did a similar upgrade, 60D to 6D. I agree with everything. Most importantly the reduciton in noise, and increase in image quality. I miss the pop up flash not for flash purposes but triggering external remote speedlites. With wifi in this camera I wouldn't be surprised if we see a remote triggering of speedlites through wifi soon. I wonder if this protocol would be fast enough. As for now, I'm looking into extension cords.



I'd recommend this wireless trigger over a cord.

http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-Wireless-Receiver-Transmitter-Transceiver/dp/B0090BSSZO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1386202427&sr=8-2&keywords=yongnuo+trigger+canon


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 5, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you are able to get one and sell the 550D.
> ...



I agree it's nice to have two bodies, but if you really don't need the backup body, or a swivel screen, and can use the money to help fund the purchase, it does make sense to sell. I sold my 50D for a fantastic price right after I bought the 6D. And unlike your precious 60D, the 50D had AFMA...so there! 

I'm actually considering buying a Rebel T5i (I forget what it's designation is over there, maybe a "60million D"? Joking!) The reason I'm considering it, is because although it lacks AFMA, it's probably good otherwise, has that magical swivel screen, and refurb units have recently been on sale for $419, body only. I sold my 50D for 50% more than that! If I can't get one for close to that price, then I'll just wait till I can, even if it's a year from now.

Since nobody answered my other thread, what's your favorite pocket size camera, Marsu? Or maybe you're not opinionated enough to say? I might have to coax it out of you!


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 5, 2013)

caerolle said:


> abcde12345 said:
> 
> 
> > I like how aperture has a dedicated button. I would expect ISO to have one too. It requires you to press the middle button among five buttons (there is a little bump on it so you will be able to know without looking) without spinning the dial, so it's slightly troublesome. I will prefer something like Nikon's mechanism, with two dials.
> ...



Very interesting technique, I might try it. I mostly just set the ISO to auto, because there isn't a noise penalty.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 5, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I sold my 50D for a fantastic price right after I bought the 6D. And unlike your precious 60D, the 50D had AFMA...so there!



You were lucky then, my 60D is really worn down from outdoor use and has a lot of shutter cycles... as for afma, with crop it strictly speaking isn't necessary if you buy your lenses accordingly and return them if they would need heavy afma, it's only with ff that I need it at all with the 100L @f2.8.



CarlTN said:


> Since nobody answered my other thread, what's your favorite pocket size camera, Marsu? Or maybe you're not opinionated enough to say? I might have to coax it out of you!



None, the 60d/6d are small enough for me because I always carry a backpack around or have a bicycle with me, really no need for anything smaller - I really rely on the usability of a real dslr with two dials, no p&s for me thank you very much.


----------



## pato (Dec 5, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you are able to get one and sell the 550D.
> ...


It's in a good condition, but some 3 years old now. I have some 13k shutter cycles. I'm trying to sell it with my Sigma 18-125 F/3.8-5.6 lens, a battery grip (from Phottix) and a second (3rd. party) battery. 
But so far nobody showed any interest (trying some 900 USD for the kit, which is around the auction price of the body and 90% of the new price of the lens). Maybe I need to lower the price a little more, or sell it piece by piece.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 5, 2013)

pato said:


> Maybe I need to lower the price a little more, or sell it piece by piece.



Of course the resale value is the catch with 3rd party lenses like Sigma, and in all honesty for most people the 70d is a much better camera for newbies because of the dual pixel af and for anyone else because of the far superior af system... I know what I use my 60d for (Magic Lantern, it's n/a on the 70d), but for everyone else it's plain outdated and has the same sensor as every Rebel or cheap EOS M. But good luck finding a buyer for a decent price anyway, 13k shutter is really low!


----------



## Roo (Dec 5, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you are able to get one and sell the 550D.
> ...



Like you I chose to keep my 60d when I bought my 5D3 for the same reasons. That swivel screen is just too handy in awkward shooting positions and having 2 bodies at sporting events. However I had to go with the 5D3 because I prefer to shoot sports and the AF tracking and extra burst rate is important.

Thanks to the OP for the fair review. Like you I noticed the increase in size stepping up to FF (especially the extra stretch to the DoF preview button) but it didn't bother me so much after the first few shots.


----------



## bod (Dec 5, 2013)

Thanks for your post which I agree with - I upgraded from a 500 after a year of deliberation and trawling through review sites and hiring various bodies to try out.

1)Ergonomics - yes whilst heavier than the 500, I liked the feel of the 6D in my hands the first time I tried it. I find it a great body to hold for long periods of time

2)Layout - I find the layout fine. One aspect that for me is a huge step up is the easy access to C1 and C2 on the rotary dial. I have both set for common setups a use a lot and it is brilliant to be able to switch the camera instantly into a set of known settings rather than setting them up individually. Makes the difference between taking an unexpected shot and missing it.

3)Image quality - yes a big difference from the 500. Like you I was impressed by the improvement using exactly the same lens.

4) Flash - If having a built in impacted significantly on other aspects like size or weight then I would rather it was not built in. I tend to avoid flash anyway and with the better ISO performance it is not that often I miss it. Happy to have an external unit if I need it.

5)wifi and gps - yes I agree, not used much at all as yet by me. I will use wifi more when the EOS phone app abilities with bulb exposure mode improve

6) IS - The reason that I decided to move to FF. The improvement from my old cropped 500 body is very significant and really useful for a lot of the photography that I do. This in itself is enough for me to justify getting the 6D

7) AF - Struggled before buying the 6D with all the review negative feedback about this. Yes I am sure I would like a better AF system but after shooting with the 6D for a year I cannot make a strong case that I really need it for most of the shooting I do and certainly I am not interested in paying the extra cost of the 5D to get it. The centre AF point works great and it is rare on the 6D that I use anything else.

8)Other? - Yes I prefer the 6D viewfinder to the 500. As regards other features that the reviews have had an issue with such as dual card slots, these have not been a big issue for me.

Verdict - Canon seem to have got a lot of flack over the last year. However as far as I am concerned they nailed it with the 6D as regards being clear what their target market really needed from a lower cost FF body. I love my 6D and am delighted to have a FF body.


----------



## lux (Dec 5, 2013)

I moved from an xti to a 6D a year ago. There is no comparison. I can look at my photos on the computer and see the day that I switched without looking at any data...and so can everyone else. I know everyone worries about AF but I just use the center point for action then crop. For non-action I use the center point and recompose. (which is how I used to take pictures with film anyway). I would love the 5D3 but I couldn't afford it and I'd rather save up for a used 300 2.8 I (lens rentals had them for 3400...if I could just find someone near me to split it...).


----------



## roguewave (Dec 5, 2013)

It's clear that 6D would produce better IQ than crop sensor if high ISO or shallow DOF is required. I'm curious how much difference there is in other situations. Do you really get significantly better detail, colour, etc at "normal" ISO? I'd appreciate if anybody could post a comparison shots taken with 6D and a crop.


----------



## kkelis (Dec 5, 2013)

Got my 6D the other day and the only thing i'm disappointed so far it's the ergonomics and the cheap feel of the body and buttons. It simply doesn't compare with my 5D II. Ofcourse i was not expecting the same build quality as the 5DII ( that's 5D3 territory) but i was expecting something better than this. 
I plan getting the battery grip, hopefully the extra size will help balance out my 70-200


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 5, 2013)

roguewave said:


> I'm curious how much difference there is in other situations. Do you really get significantly better detail, colour, etc at "normal" ISO?



At iso 100-200 and straight out of camera shots you most likely won't see any difference, iso 400 is also very ok on current Canon crop sensors. Unlike the competition, at 100% magnification Canon crop shots display a little grain at any iso, a fact often criticized but imho nothing to worry about too much until...

... the big difference shows when you start postprocessing, the raw files from full frame are much more elastic meaning better gradients and plain color areas (red is a problem for Canon, esp. on crop), a bit more dynamic range plus sharpening simply works better. As for banding when raising shadows, with Canon it rather depends on the camera model than the sensor: 6d seems to be a bit better than 5d3 which in turn is much better than 5d2, and on the crop side 7d is worst, newer models gradually seem to improve.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 5, 2013)

The 6D is a good choice for someone moving up from a Rebel who wants to do so without breaking the bank.


----------



## roguewave (Dec 5, 2013)

Marsu42, thank you! I think that's a very good comparison - it definitely matches my experience with crop sensors .

The reason I asked for side-by-site shots is that a few posters mentioned a significant jump in IQ going from crop to FF. I'd imagine a good lens would produce quite similar results on both at lower ISO (aside from FOV difference), but I could be wrong. Or perhaps the posters also meant IQ after post-processing, as you mentioned.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 5, 2013)

roguewave said:


> I'd imagine a good lens would produce quite similar results on both at lower ISO (aside from FOV difference), but I could be wrong. Or perhaps the posters also meant IQ after post-processing, as you mentioned.



Probably, and as I really like my 60d I somewhat hate to say it - after proper postprocessing and sharpening, the 6d shots blow the crop sensor out of the water when it comes to fine details like fur (using the 100L which is good on both sensors) - I have shot the same scenes with my 60d & 6d, though I'm too lazy to dig them out atm


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 5, 2013)

roguewave said:


> The reason I asked for side-by-site shots is that a few posters mentioned a significant jump in IQ going from crop to FF.



Well, what exactly do you want to see and what lens do you want the samples made with?

1) If you will try to compare 'camera JPEGs' the huge difference will be the DIGIC brains that do RAW -> JPEG conversion (with lens correction, ALO, etc.). (In case of XTi to 6D comparison, 6D is the Einstein and XTi is the caveman  )

2) If you will try to compare 'camera RAWs' you will be at mercy of RAW conversion software camera presets (and number of bits in RAW data -- 6D has more than XTi).

PS: In my experience it's the FOV that makes the main difference. I used to shoot with XTi and 10-22 + 24-105 lens pair for years, and I always considered '24-105' as normal-to-tele lens (and I did not use it very often). The 6D changes the picture, now all my EF lenses make very (and I do mean 'VERY!') different pictures...


----------



## roguewave (Dec 5, 2013)

Marsu42, if you later feel like digging out your comparison photos, I'd like to see the difference. I can imagine that 6D has better IQ than just about as many pixels crammed onto 2.5 times smaller area, but is it dramatically better for monitor viewing / moderate size prints, or only fine fur details noticeable at 100%?


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Dec 5, 2013)

roguewave said:


> It's clear that 6D would produce better IQ than crop sensor if high ISO or shallow DOF is required. I'm curious how much difference there is in other situations. Do you really get significantly better detail, colour, etc at "normal" ISO? I'd appreciate if anybody could post a comparison shots taken with 6D and a crop.


Yes.


----------



## roguewave (Dec 5, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> Well, what exactly do you want to see and what lens do you want the samples made with?
> 
> 1) If you will try to compare 'camera JPEGs' the huge difference will be the DIGIC brains that do RAW -> JPEG conversion (with lens correction, ALO, etc.). (In case of XTi to 6D comparison, 6D is the Einstein and XTi is the caveman  )
> 
> ...



I agree with you. So yeah, I didn't consider JPEG. I also didn't mean FOV, because that's an obvious difference.

Other than that, I didn't have anything specific in mind. Because several reviewers mentioned that IQ is a BIG upgrade from crop, I just wanted to see an example, whatever shots they choose (other than high ISO) and see for myself how big the difference is.

I remember a landscape scene comparison on POTN between 7D and 5DII. While FF looked slightly better with color and detail / contrast, at web resolution it was not a huge difference by any means.


----------



## roguewave (Dec 5, 2013)

Janbo Makimbo said:


> roguewave said:
> 
> 
> > It's clear that 6D would produce better IQ than crop sensor if high ISO or shallow DOF is required. I'm curious how much difference there is in other situations. Do you really get significantly better detail, colour, etc at "normal" ISO? I'd appreciate if anybody could post a comparison shots taken with 6D and a crop.
> ...



Example, please .


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 5, 2013)

roguewave said:


> but is it dramatically better for monitor viewing / moderate size prints, or only fine fur details noticeable at 100%?



Ah, now I though that would be a given - for downsizing to the usual sizes crop is really fine, otherwise they wouldn't sell tons of them, would they?

That's why I was so reluctant to make the ff jump as you can get a stellar lens for €1500, but the sensor iq is just one part, it's the combination with shallower dof and different lens performance that matters as all my lenses are ef and perform better on ff.


----------



## roguewave (Dec 5, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> roguewave said:
> 
> 
> > but is it dramatically better for monitor viewing / moderate size prints, or only fine fur details noticeable at 100%?
> ...



Well, there is a difference between being just "fine" and being "almost as great as FF" .

I assume most 6D buyers don't make large prints on a regular basis. If the difference with crop is only apparent under magnification, it might make more sense to go with the 70D, which is cheaper and better in almost every other way - unless you really need low light capabilities and / or shallow DOF.

If, on the other hand, a viewer could immediately tell a FF shot from a crop sensor shot of the same scene under normal viewing and shot using comparably good lenses, then yeah, the jump to 6D is totally worth it.

That's exactly what I am trying to find out .


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 5, 2013)

roguewave said:


> If, on the other hand, a viewer could immediately tell a FF shot from a crop sensor shot of the same scene under normal viewing and shot using comparably good lenses, then yeah, the jump to 6D is totally worth it.



Imho the only correct answer won't make you happy: it depends on the scene.

Some crop shots are indistinguishable from ff or respond very well do noise reduction (not that there are great new algorithms like DxO's PRIME around), and for me some crop macro shots look even superior to ff because the crop "crisp" look goes along with the subject's texture.

Then again, if shooting gradients crop quickly falls apart after some postprocessing because downsizing cannot restore a smooth color transition, or with skin tones and skin texture every bit of nr smudging given an instant plastic look even at low magnification.

If you are not sure about 6d or 70d, my advise definitely would be 70d because it's the better all-around camera, the 6d specializes and excels in some areas but is crippled in others. Just be sure you know what "low light" means (try to meter the LV with your current gear) because even in cloudy daylight crop shooting can become a constant struggle to decide between lower iso or higher shutter speed, resulting in less keepers - the higher iso capability of ff relieves you of that tradeoff and you can concentrate more on the actual shot.

What's your current gear btw? If on a budget it might make sense to go with a 60d and get a better lens, or if you're looking for good iq Canon crop isn't a good choice at all and you should have a look at Nikon...


----------



## MichaelHodges (Dec 5, 2013)

roguewave said:


> It's clear that 6D would produce better IQ than crop sensor if high ISO or shallow DOF is required. I'm curious how much difference there is in other situations. Do you really get significantly better detail, colour, etc at "normal" ISO? I'd appreciate if anybody could post a comparison shots taken with 6D and a crop.



The difference is enormous. I think the closest crop camera is the 40D, which seemed to have a very nice balance of pixels/DR. But as far as the 7D, 60D, 70D, there's no comparison. No noise in the blue channel at ISO 100, no fear off using auto ISO, much sharper image, better color separation, more consistent exposure, etc.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 5, 2013)

kkelis said:


> Got my 6D the other day and the only thing i'm disappointed so far it's the ergonomics and the cheap feel of the body and buttons. It simply doesn't compare with my 5D II. Ofcourse i was not expecting the same build quality as the 5DII ( that's 5D3 territory) but i was expecting something better than this.
> I plan getting the battery grip, hopefully the extra size will help balance out my 70-200



I have a Meike battery grip, and I like it pretty well. No doubt it pales by comparison to the Canon one, but at 1/4 the price, I can more than live with that. It feels a lot less solid than the body alone, but the grip itself is very nice when you need to shoot in portrait mode. I actually have mostly only used it with the one battery, rather than two...so the weight/balance isn't as ideal as with two batteries. I still enjoy using it on occasion, when the need arises. 

As for your opinion of the lack of solidity, I disagree. I've tried a 5D2 in the past. It's simply a matter of the amount of force it takes to press buttons and move dials. With the 6D, they wanted less force applied, and I happen to like that decision. It feels no less solid to me. The clicks of the dials feel very snappy and definite. Certainly it makes the 5D2 and 5D3 feel like bricks by comparison, but if that's what you want, you should have bought the 5D3. Weight does not equal rigidity, though...not at all. Not saying the 6D is more rigid, just saying rigidity is not its problem.

Specifically on the feel of the shutter button, I happen to like the feel of the 6D's better than all other Canon cameras I've owned, rented, or tried including an older Rebel, a 50D, 60D, 7D, 5D2, 5D3, 1D4, 1Ds3, and 1DX. Worst of all, at least to my memory, was the shutter button of the 7D, with the 5D3 being very similar. Far too mushy and no transition between half pressing and fully depressed. Hopefully they will fix this with the 5D4.


----------



## roguewave (Dec 5, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Imho the only correct answer won't make you happy: it depends on the scene.
> 
> Some crop shots are indistinguishable from ff or respond very well do noise reduction (not that there are great new algorithms like DxO's PRIME around), and for me some crop macro shots look even superior to ff because the crop "crisp" look goes along with the subject's texture.
> 
> ...



Your answer makes a lot of sense - in fact, those are my thoughts exactly. I agree that it depends on the scene, and that 70d is a better all around camera, whereas 6D is crippled in some ways. For me, its better low light and shallower DOF capabilities are not enough to offset the 70D's price, better AF, frame rate, cheaper lenses, etc. Now, if the IQ is substantially better as most posters claim, that would be an important factor. Else, if it's a slight difference that most people won't notice without pixel peeping, then I can live with that.

I can afford either of them, but since I don't make money out of my hobby, I don't want to spend more than I need to. I also want to make sure I am happy with my choice for a few years ahead, because I don't like to resell gear. Speaking of gear, I have too many lenses to make a switch to Nikon, both crop and FF: Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55 f2.8, Canon 17-40, Canon 24-105, Sigma 30 f1.4, Canon 85 f1.4, Canon 70-200 f4 IS, and a few more . Depending on which camera I get, I may sell the crop lenses and get Sigma 35 f1.4, Tamron 24-70 f2.8, or both.


----------



## roguewave (Dec 5, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> roguewave said:
> 
> 
> > It's clear that 6D would produce better IQ than crop sensor if high ISO or shallow DOF is required. I'm curious how much difference there is in other situations. Do you really get significantly better detail, colour, etc at "normal" ISO? I'd appreciate if anybody could post a comparison shots taken with 6D and a crop.
> ...



The 40D was a great camera, although I'd ocasionally see blue channel noise even at ISO 400. I know 7D has the same problem, but other than that, you mean it's worse than the 40D in terms of IQ despite being a later and higher-end model?


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 5, 2013)

roguewave said:


> Zlyden said:
> 
> 
> > Well, what exactly do you want to see and what lens do you want the samples made with?
> ...



_*The only way you can justify for yourself if you like the improvement the 6D has over the 70D, is if you use both cameras for yourself, in the situations you shoot in, with the lenses you use. * _ _You can't depend on just looking at the work or tests of other people to decide. _  Plenty of people take great shots with iPhones and compact cameras, especially if it's just content that's displayed at websize. Doesn't mean those are as good as a 6D, but it does mean it depends on WHAT YOU WANT to get out of it, and if you prefer the ergonomics and experience of using a full frame or any specific camera or system.

I used my 50D for 4 years and had over 25,000 shutter cycles. I loved that camera to death, and planned to keep it a bit longer after buying the 6D. After the first couple of days of using the 6D, I had decided to sell the 50D. Eventually a kind gentleman from those internets saw my sale ad, and paid me handsomely for it!

Frankly, if you only shoot birds in _very bright_ daylight with a very high quality telephoto lens (perhaps any of the "big whites"), a 70D very likely makes more sense. The autofocus is no doubt as good or better than the 6D's in bright light, and you get a ton more reach. In the dark, the 6D's center point works where all others in the world do not...and even seems to work better on an f/4 lens in these conditions than an f/2 lens, like my 135L.

For most other stills photography situations, the 6D will excel over the 70D. Perhaps the 70D's image quality is better than the older 7D's, but keep in mind the 7D has generally better AF performance than both the 70D and the 6D...or at least that's what I gather. But the 7D has luminance noise that looks like a gravel driveway overlaying the image starting at about ISO 400. I'll grant you that it isn't as obvious until just above there, but that's not saying much. At ISO 1000 the 7D basically equals the S/N ratio of a Powershot G15 at its own ISO of about half that. That doesn't speak well for the 7D.

Also, one of the main advantages such a high quality image from the 6D is important, is the ability to crop into an image...even one that is shot at high ISO. You can't do that with as much success with the 70D. At the time of shooting, you don't always know or realize, exactly the framing you want...or that a slight or moderate crop winds up looking better when you look at it later on the computer.

For video, the 70D might be better, depending on the situation.

So, if your work is mostly going to be displayed at web sizes, AND YOU HAPPEN TO NEVER EVER CROP INTO AN IMAGE...then you have a lot of affordable choices at your disposal. If you need the flexibility of a Ferrari at Hyundai prices where image quality is concerned, go for the 6D.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 5, 2013)

MichaelHodges said:


> No noise in the blue channel at ISO 100, no fear off using auto ISO, much sharper image, better color separation, more consistent exposure, etc.



To put things into perspective: Using auto iso 100-800 on crop seems fine to me, the sharpness of an image is more dependent on the lens (think ff+cheap lens or crop+expensive lens, not $1000 vs. $5000), and exposure in eval at least on the 6d seems to be more erratic than on 60d and has nothing to do with the sensor - the dynamic range is about the same.

I do agree about color & noise as I wrote above, though my answer is intended for roguewave and he was asking about downsized shots, so the even iso performance isn't paramount for him.



roguewave said:


> Now, if the IQ is substantially better as most posters claim, that would be an important factor. Else, if it's a slight difference that most people won't notice without pixel peeping, then I can live with that.



Crop sensor performance of Canon is a bit beyond Nikon and the 70d's 20mp has't advanced much vs. 18mp, I guess that makes many people bash it in *relative* terms - but in *absolute* terms it's really fine, I've been using the 60d for 2.5 years an 150k shots and the only real "no go" area is shooting motion indoors.

Last not least if people spend a hilarious amount of money on a gadget I'd wager to say it's tempting to rationalize a fun purchase (and the 6d has great iq) as essential even when in many situations crop would deliver the same result for standard print/view sizes.



roguewave said:


> Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55 f2.8, Canon 17-40, Canon 24-105, Sigma 30 f1.4, Canon 85 f1.4, Canon 70-200 f4 IS, and a few more . Depending on which camera I get, I may sell the crop lenses and get Sigma 35 f1.4, Tamron 24-70 f2.8, or both.



I'm also not a big fan of the sell & buy game and rather stick to what I have and purchase other things that are also important (esp. lighting gear (flashes, diffusers), but also monitor, color calibration, tripod, filters, printer, software ... repairs!). For crop your 11-16, 17-55, 70-200 should indeed about cover it, the 17-40 & 24-105 are really ff lenses in sharpness & zoom range even if they add weather sealing.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Dec 5, 2013)

roguewave said:


> MichaelHodges said:
> 
> 
> > roguewave said:
> ...



When I mentioned the 40D, it was in a positive light. Looking back at my images, it seemed to come closest to the full frame "look", with very nice colors and lesser noise than the models that followed, at least what I could see when viewing RAW's in DPP and LR.


----------



## MichaelHodges (Dec 5, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> To put things into perspective: Using auto iso 100-800 on crop seems fine to me,



I found that to be the case for the 40D, but things started sliding downhill with the 50D and 7D, IMHO.




> the sharpness of an image is more dependent on the lens (think ff+cheap lens or crop+expensive lens, not $1000 vs. $5000),




Sensor quality plays a huge role in sharpness. When using my lenses on 5D III, 1DX, and 6D, it is like I'm using all new gear with better color and sharpness.





> Last not least if people spend a hilarious amount of money on a gadget I'd wager to say it's tempting to rationalize a fun purchase (and the 6d has great iq) as essential even when in many situations crop would deliver the same result for standard print/view sizes.



There's no question that a user can produce outstanding images with crop. But that same user will produce even better images with FF. The images just simply "pop" more due to being cleaner, sharper, and more colorful.




> I'm also not a big fan of the sell & buy game and rather stick to what I have and purchase other things that are also important (esp. lighting gear (flashes, diffusers), but also monitor, color calibration, tripod, filters, printer, software ... repairs!). For crop your 11-16, 17-55, 70-200 should indeed about cover it, the 17-40 & 24-105 are really ff lenses in sharpness & zoom range even if they add weather sealing.



I agree about the buy and sell game. People get addicted to it. *But* there is validity to it in certain cases, and going from crop to FF is one of those.


----------



## roguewave (Dec 5, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> _*The only way you can justify for yourself if you like the improvement the 6D has over the 70D, is if you use both cameras for yourself, in the situations you shoot in, with the lenses you use. * _ _You can't depend on just looking at the work or tests of other people to decide. _  Plenty of people take great shots with iPhones and compact cameras, especially if it's just content that's displayed at websize. Doesn't mean those are as good as a 6D, but it does mean it depends on WHAT YOU WANT to get out of it, and if you prefer the ergonomics and experience of using a full frame or any specific camera or system.
> 
> I used my 50D for 4 years and had over 25,000 shutter cycles. I loved that camera to death, and planned to keep it a bit longer after buying the 6D. After the first couple of days of using the 6D, I had decided to sell the 50D. Eventually a kind gentleman from those internets saw my sale ad, and paid me handsomely for it!
> 
> ...



Thank you for your points!

Using the cameras myself would indeed be better than relying on shots from other people and I may end up doing so. However, renting both would set me back at least a couple of hundred bucks, which negates most of the savings I could realize by going with the 70D. If somebody could show a few shots where 6D blows crop out of the water (same conditions and not high ISO), that would make my choice much easier. Everybody claims that to be the case, but a picture is worth a thousand words .


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 5, 2013)

roguewave said:


> Using the cameras myself would indeed be better than relying on shots from other people and I may end up doing so. However, renting both would set me back at least a couple of hundred bucks, which negates most of the savings I could realize by going with the 70D.



Best thing is to find a shop where both cameras are on display side by side, I am lucky to have found such a shop and took a lot of test shots 6d vs 5d3 and played around with them for hours. Next to the iq, the overall "feel" of the camera is very important, at least to me.

Btw just today I looked at the 70d in the same shop  ... seems nice enough and funny thing the lv af suddenly works unlike on 60d, but they did cut back from the 7d in body build and features: af expansion (so the larger amount of points is really only for tracking) and spot af (the af points of the 70d seem to be *very* big).


----------



## roguewave (Dec 5, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Crop sensor performance of Canon is a bit beyond Nikon and the 70d's 20mp has't advanced much vs. 18mp, I guess that makes many people bash it in *relative* terms - but in *absolute* terms it's really fine, I've been using the 60d for 2.5 years an 150k shots and the only real "no go" area is shooting motion indoors.
> 
> Last not least if people spend a hilarious amount of money on a gadget I'd wager to say it's tempting to rationalize a fun purchase (and the 6d has great iq) as essential even when in many situations crop would deliver the same result for standard print/view sizes.



Marsu42, that's exactly what I mean. Aside from some obvious specific situations, does FF has clear IQ advantage in most cases, or is it just a marginal improvement at pixel level, exaggerated in perception by people trying to justify their purchase . According to everybody so far, there is a significant real improvement, but I am yet to see sample shots.



Marsu42 said:


> I'm also not a big fan of the sell & buy game and rather stick to what I have and purchase other things that are also important (esp. lighting gear (flashes, diffusers), but also monitor, color calibration, tripod, filters, printer, software ... repairs!). For crop your 11-16, 17-55, 70-200 should indeed about cover it, the 17-40 & 24-105 are really ff lenses in sharpness & zoom range even if they add weather sealing.



The 17-40 has not seen much use after I got the 17-55, but I use the 24-105 on crop quite often, instead of swapping the 17-55 and 70-200 all the time.


----------



## roguewave (Dec 5, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Best thing is to find a shop where both cameras are on display side by side, I am lucky to have found such a shop and took a lot of test shots 6d vs 5d3 and played around with them for hours. Next to the iq, the overall "feel" of the camera is very important, at least to me.
> 
> Btw just today I looked at the 70d in the same shop  ... seems nice enough and funny thing the lv af suddenly works unlike on 60d, but they did cut back from the 7d in body build and features: af expansion (so the larger amount of points is really only for tracking) and spot af (the af points of the 70d seem to be *very* big).



That's an option, but then I'd end up buying the camera from the local shop and likely pay their much higher prices. I'd feel bad just "showrooming" for hours and then buying online .

I have to admit that the feel of the camera is important, but not critical - definitely lower on my priority list than IQ, AF, sensor noise, camera responsiveness, etc.

At least the 70D AF points are all cross-type. I am really suspicious of how 6D's non-center AF points would work with large aperture, when focusing precision is important.


----------



## kkelis (Dec 5, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> kkelis said:
> 
> 
> > Got my 6D the other day and the only thing i'm disappointed so far it's the ergonomics and the cheap feel of the body and buttons. It simply doesn't compare with my 5D II. Ofcourse i was not expecting the same build quality as the 5DII ( that's 5D3 territory) but i was expecting something better than this.
> ...



I do agree with you that the shutter button feels better than the 5D2( havent tried out a 5d3) but the dials certainly do not feel as snappy. On the 5D2 every dial click can be heard on the other side of the house and certainly it does take alot more force to move, it sort of gives me the assurance that "yes this is one click at a time" By all means i am not saying the 6D dials are bad, i just prefer the 5D2 better and this is just my opnion, i am sure other people will agree with you.

I was also looking at the Meike grip it really is a bargain compared to the BG E13. Have you tried it out on a tripod to see how much flex there is? Would you feel comfortable attaching a blackrapid strap on it?


----------



## OmarSV11 (Dec 6, 2013)

I moved from a t3i (600D) to the 6D and I REGRET NOTHING about it. I was heavily tempted to buy the Fuji XE2, tested it, touched it, smelled it. But the feeling of working with a FF sensor weigh in my decision. 

Paired with the EF 100mm f/2.0 for portraits it's just plain awesome. Even with the nifty fifty worked like a charm during my trip to NY.

Night folks!


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 6, 2013)

roguewave said:


> That's an option, but then I'd end up buying the camera from the local shop and likely pay their much higher prices. I'd feel bad just "showrooming" for hours and then buying online .



I'm not talking about an owner's small camera shop on the edge of bankruptcy here, but about large electro discount chains that have 20-30 "throw-away" cameras on permanent display, so personally I've got no problem with trying there and then buying online, I'm not using any of their personnel time for that.



roguewave said:


> I am really suspicious of how 6D's non-center AF points would work with large aperture, when focusing precision is important.



It's simple: They don't. You can read all about it in the relevant threads, for large aperture or low light the 6d is a one-point af camera (and even then the center point is *non-cross* below f5.6, the f2.8 precision is only a line). That's also part of the "feel" I'm talking about you can only get from the real thing and not from the spec lists: If you feel the af is too annoying it will impact your photographic results.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 6, 2013)

For me the main 'perceptual' difference in images after APS-C to FF switch could be put as 'FF images look more natural':

- I used to shoot with manual and SLR film cameras in 1980s-90s, so I still remember what aperture numbers like f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6... 'mean' and what type of pictures you get in each case.

- When I got digital compact in early 2000s it turned out that changing f-numbers does not make much difference (except adding more camera shake at tele-end of zoom range). 

- Switching to APS-C DSLR (XTi in 2007) made me relearn f-numbers again because the images were different from both old film cameras and digital compacts. This also added some crazy thoughts like 'Do I need to use very-very bright prime lens, because at f/4 I got a picture that looks more like film's f/6.3-7.1?', 'But if I use the bright lens at f/1.4-2.8 it seems that I (or camera's AF?) can't make razor-sharp pictures with focus where I want?', 'Can I shoot with f/16, probably not -- diffraction?'

- Now with 6D I do feel more 'at home' as in old film camera times: f/4 aperture value once again is a pretty good large aperture, f/2.8 is great for sharp-soft contrast, f/8 is very sharp but you still can easily see where is the 'subject' and where is 'background', etc. 

With APS-C camera you have to buy weird lenses like 17-55/2.8 (or new Sigma 18-35/1.8 ) to make better images. I never used 17-55/2.8, but judging by various charts and reviews -- 24-105/4 on FF camera outperforms 17-55/2.8 on APS-C in all and every aspect (including the price, at least in our parts in past 5 years 24-105 was usually $100-300 cheaper than 17-55/2.8 ).

FF is also 'more forgiving' and easier on lenses and shooting technique: 6D pixels are larger and there are much more of them -- when I make the same size images the result is more sharp and clean.

So, yes, in my opinion: 6D is better than any APS-C camera. Not because of ISO, DR and other acronyms -- but because FF images are more 'natural' and it's easier to make them.

PS: 70D? it has the same bulk and weight as 6D, but better AF system for shooting birds, running kids and movies? and it's price is only $1000, while 6D is $1500? No, thank you!


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 6, 2013)

It seems like everyone is commenting on the post regarding FF versus crop frame IQ. My honest opinion: there is a difference. The difference comes in sharpness, which is not available through just manipulating through sharpness in Photoshop. It has a more distinctive line (thinner outline as compared to 550D). Even when I'm using ISO100, the image quality has a sense of creamy bokeh and dreamy feeling, which I have never achieved using 550D. It was a shock for me right away. Such quality may not be apparent to those who are unfamiliar with their cameras, but if you've been looking at your camera shots for quite a while, it will actually be very obvious. I've reviewed more than ten thousand shots of my 550D, so definitely the jump is obvious and I can guarantee that. However, it might be due to a sudden spike of technic right after my purchase, so I wouldn't know. : The sharpness that I mentioned? People who loves portrait would love it.


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 6, 2013)

A portrait with reduced quality.


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 6, 2013)

Trust me, I know that with the same lens on 550D, I wouldn't get something like this. I wouldn't say it's a matter of skill, but the sharpness and detail retention are different. I've been using the same lens for quite a while, so I would say I know it quite well when it's fitted on the 550D, but now I can't say I know it anymore! It's a lot sharper! The only problem is with vignetting though (I use a Tamron 28-75mm F2.8). It is not one of the tip-top lens, but I was surprised by its performance.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 6, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> Trust me, I know that with the same lens on 550D, I wouldn't get something like this.



With the same lens -- of course not! 

In theory, you can try to make the similar image (with similar DOF, FOV, etc. as 75 mm f/2.8 on FF) using 550D with some 50/1.4 or 50/1.2 lens stepped down to ~ f/1/6 - f/1.8...


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 6, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> abcde12345 said:
> 
> 
> > Trust me, I know that with the same lens on 550D, I wouldn't get something like this.
> ...


Nope. I do not have such a lens. Very limited to pretty much this lens and 50mm F1.8. I've not yet tried 50mm F1.8 on my 6D yet, so it will be interesting. But conclusion: my lens are producing better images with this new body. Period


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 6, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> A portrait with reduced quality.



I dare say that you can get the same shot from a crop camera with a fast prime unless you view it at 100% magnification. The background blur is not *that* much different between crop and ff, the aperture used, focal length and camera-subject-background distance also matters a lot.



abcde12345 said:


> Even when I'm using ISO100, the image quality has a sense of creamy bokeh and dreamy feeling, which I have never achieved using 550D.



Yes, _if you are shooting for a thin depth of field_ and the "dreamy" or "only the nose or one eye in focus" look - but that's not what everyone wants, and I can vouch for the fact that you can get a very nice bokeh from crop with good lenses like 100L or 70-300L.

The point is: With the 6d shots often (when tracking: very often) look double-dreamy, once for the ff look, and once again because it's out of focus and you can delete the shot right away... you can lessen this problem with the 5d3, but at three to four times the price of a decent crop camera, and then you might need some lenses, too...


----------



## tcmatthews (Dec 6, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> Trust me, I know that with the same lens on 550D, I wouldn't get something like this. I wouldn't say it's a matter of skill, but the sharpness and detail retention are different. I've been using the same lens for quite a while, so I would say I know it quite well when it's fitted on the 550D, but now I can't say I know it anymore! It's a lot sharper! The only problem is with vignetting though (I use a Tamron 28-75mm F2.8). It is not one of the tip-top lens, but I was surprised by its performance.



I am not that surprised by the performance of that lens it is a sleeper. It also has a bit of a following. The biggest problem on canon has always been focusing. Mine is extremely accurate so for me that is not a problem.

I have not had enough time to fully test my new Canon 6D but I agree the images are just plain better than my 60D , EOS M, and NEX 6 in image quality. But testing has been limited to indoor cat shots with a flash. So I have not had an extensive test.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 6, 2013)

Another nonsense-comment for FF vs APS-C options:

Switch to FF could be interesting not only because of "better IQ". You also make a switch to opportunity 'to use a lot of lenses that were made for FF cameras in last few dozens of years'.

And that's a lot of fun!

For example, last week I decided that probably it is the time to investigate universe through 'fish-eye' (without spending too much) and got some cheapy-trashy-manual $200 Zenitar 16/2.8 lens.

Today I finally had an opportunity to test it for my normal 'way of work', that's shooting pictures of print equipment for our magazine's tests & reviews.

Yes, the result is too soft, with bad CA and just horrible (f/8 with ISO 1600 in not very bright office room + quick PP in Aperture). But: no crop camera can do the same with $200 lens. 

Few more days of experiments and fun with this lens will probably help...


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 6, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> Another nonsense-comment for FF vs APS-C options:
> 
> Switch to FF could be interesting not only because of "better IQ". You also make a switch to opportunity 'to use a lot of lenses that were made for FF cameras in last few dozens of years'.
> 
> ...



Interesting shots, I didn't realize fisheye lenses longer than 15mm existed. 16mm isn't much longer, but still it's interesting


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 6, 2013)

roguewave said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > _*The only way you can justify for yourself if you like the improvement the 6D has over the 70D, is if you use both cameras for yourself, in the situations you shoot in, with the lenses you use. * _ _You can't depend on just looking at the work or tests of other people to decide. _  Plenty of people take great shots with iPhones and compact cameras, especially if it's just content that's displayed at websize. Doesn't mean those are as good as a 6D, but it does mean it depends on WHAT YOU WANT to get out of it, and if you prefer the ergonomics and experience of using a full frame or any specific camera or system.
> ...



No problem, and I understand your desire to save money.


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 6, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> abcde12345 said:
> 
> 
> > A portrait with reduced quality.
> ...


I have already said, I know the quality of shots. It isn't about the bokeh ultimately, it's about the sharpness. When my 550D is in focus, the outline around the subject isn't as distinct or "lines" are thicker.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 6, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > abcde12345 said:
> ...



Do you think this is due to processing, or the sensor itself?


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 6, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> abcde12345 said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



I do not think it's due to processing. I would say it is the sensor itself. Even if it's due to processing by the sensor, I'm happy with that! (When I mean processing, I am referring to something like Photoshop.) Shots coming out of my 6D is instantly better than my 550D, I just don't have an explanation. After moving into full frame, I realize that I will now start to realize (only at certain times) cameras like 550D or D5100 by Nikon do tend to have a thicker and less well-defined outline of subjects, which is rather prominent in portraits.


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 6, 2013)

The difference in having such a nice outline makes it seem more in-focus. It isn't that my previous camera is not in focus; it's just that the outlines produced are that rough. You have to live with it. A lot of times when I thought my lens weren't in focus, I will check it and realize it is in focus, and I think that's the problem with 550D. It might be different with 70D or 7D, but that's another story.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 6, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > abcde12345 said:
> ...



No I meant the camera's internal processing when producing its RAW image (something that can't be bypassed with post editing). As for this outline you're talking about, that almost sounds like the amount of sharpening either the camera is adding, or in post. I've edited a lot of images, and certainly in Adobe's products, you can vary the radius of the sharpening, etc...as well as the "detail" slider.


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 7, 2013)

In that case yes, it's the sensor. I know sharpening in Adobe Photoshop, but this is not something Photoshop can replicate. I guess you will need to really use both to understand. The lines just can't be as fine using Photoshop and the effects are significantly different. I have been using Photoshop for 550D for quite a while, so I would have some understanding regarding that.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 7, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> In that case yes, it's the sensor. I know sharpening in Adobe Photoshop, but this is not something Photoshop can replicate. I guess you will need to really use both to understand. The lines just can't be as fine using Photoshop and the effects are significantly different. I have been using Photoshop for 550D for quite a while, so I would have some understanding regarding that.



I see. Well I've edited a few thousand images done with my 50D. It had digic 4 processing, was an aps-c, but was "only" 15MP, etc. I never noticed the outlining that you're talking about, in it (nor have I noticed outlining from full size pictures I've seen from cameras like the 7D, on the web). The only real difference I see between the detail via my old 50D's RAW files when viewed at 100%, and those from the 6D (besides the different amounts and types of noise at different levels of ISO)...is that when the luminance noise (the "grain") is at a similar level (say if the 50D is at ISO 500 and the 6D is at ISO 1250 to 1600)...then the 6D's grain structure is a bit larger. It's not quite like the difference going from the 6D to the 5D3 or 1DX. Their files show a grain structure that is more than twice as large as that from the 6D (relative to the size of the pixels). The 50D's grain is well over half the size of that of the 6D, but it's noticeably smaller. Again, this is viewed at 100%, it's not relative to the total size of the image, since the 6D's image has more pixels. And certainly the color noise from the 50D was always more of a problem than the grain...but then both got to terrible levels before I wanted them to!

Another improvement is a greater dynamic range (even at low ISO), apparently the 50D's was not all that good, at least compared to the 6D. The 6D in turn does not have the highest DR at low ISO, either, especially compared to Nikon.

By contrast, the old Rebel Xsi 12MP camera I used to own, did indeed look less detailed when viewing a RAW file at 100% (and it had vastly less DR than the 50D..and a lot more noise). It kind of looked like aliasing problems to me. That was "digic 3 processing" though. I assume the sensor that is in the current "Rebel T3" camera, is closely related to that sensor. I guess they wanted to make sure the IQ from the current "T3" camera, matched the feel of its body and grip...CHEAP and compromised.


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 7, 2013)

That is a possibility. An upgrade from Rebel series to 6D would be substantially different, I believe! It would be outrageous to demand such a high price without much in return. However, the difference between 50D might be lesser since it is a pretty good camera to start with.


----------



## pato (Dec 9, 2013)

Made the jump and bought the 6D yesterday 
To bad the battery was completely dead when I unpacked it, and once it was charged, it was night outside 
Luckily I can test my new toy today


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 9, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> That is a possibility. An upgrade from Rebel series to 6D would be substantially different, I believe! It would be outrageous to demand such a high price without much in return. However, the difference between 50D might be lesser since it is a pretty good camera to start with.



50D is nearer to rebels in IQ (in fact some rebels are quite better, even 500D) than to a 6D. 6D is worlds apart from a 50D IQ-wise. Heck, even 5D2 is worlds apart from a 50D IQ-wise especially in low-light.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 9, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> The difference in having such a nice outline makes it seem more in-focus. It isn't that my previous camera is not in focus; it's just that the outlines produced are that rough. You have to live with it. A lot of times when I thought my lens weren't in focus, I will check it and realize it is in focus, and I think that's the problem with 550D. It might be different with 70D or 7D, but that's another story.



Could it be just 'sensor's pixel pitch' and 'lens resolution'?

6D images looks sharper because 6D has sensor with lower pixel density than 'traditional' 18-MPs of 550D (and all later Canon's APS-C). Therefore, the final image is more detailed and looks sharper. 

I think I know what you mean by "the outlines are rough", because my EOS M images (18 MP) at pixel level look 'less sharp' to me than images from old XTi/400D (10 MP). (When both 18 MP and 10 MP images get down sampled to the same smaller size, 18 MP looks better of course.)

As I tried to point above: the FF camera is more tolerant to lens resolution and can produce good images with poor lens. Anyone who goes to DxO site to check on lens tests can say the same (by comparing the same lens model on FF and APS-C camera).


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 10, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> abcde12345 said:
> 
> 
> > That is a possibility. An upgrade from Rebel series to 6D would be substantially different, I believe! It would be outrageous to demand such a high price without much in return. However, the difference between 50D might be lesser since it is a pretty good camera to start with.
> ...



I would hope so, the pixels are several times the area of the 50D's pixels! I was only stating the experience I've had in editing thousands of photos from both...that's all. I'm not sure any of the Rebels are that much better in IQ than the 50D, though no doubt the T4i and T5i are very slightly better. They still don't have AFMA, though! But then, neither did the 60D...


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 10, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> abcde12345 said:
> 
> 
> > The difference in having such a nice outline makes it seem more in-focus. It isn't that my previous camera is not in focus; it's just that the outlines produced are that rough. You have to live with it. A lot of times when I thought my lens weren't in focus, I will check it and realize it is in focus, and I think that's the problem with 550D. It might be different with 70D or 7D, but that's another story.
> ...



I agree, but again, "outlines" around images sounds more like internal RAW processing to me, or else an inherent characteristic of the sensor. And again, I assume the 7D has the same sensor, and I've never seen such outlines from it.

The argument about lower pixel density holds up to a degree, but in my opinion not as much as the difference in "sensel size" would have you think. That's why I didn't feel the need to keep a crop sensor camera after buying the 6D. Because, in reality...and given the image that gets shot, achieves adequate sharpness...the 6D has more resolution than it seems like it would, so the difference is not as great. Perhaps the new 70D's 20MP sensor is very noticeably higher resolving than the old 18MP, so it might have more of the "lens flaw" resolving power you're talking about. But...is that really a good thing? Because it's not just about lens resolution itself, but also focus accuracy. And lenses only focus so accurately and consistently. With very small pixels, even something less than a micron of inaccurate autofocus, is going to suddenly reduce that 20MP crop sensor's resolution to 10MP...in which case it has no advantage over a full frame camera with larger pixels. In fact it only has disadvantages.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 10, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> In fact it only has disadvantages.



Yes. Similar doubts about 'all them megapixels' kept me from replacing 400D with newer APS-C camera for 5 or almost 6 years.

And I definitely do not need pictures that occupy much more file space. After doing some tests I decided to shoot with 6D in 'large RAW + medium JPEG' mode: 10MP JPEGs are quite enough for almost all needs (they also do not eat terabytes of space and megabits of traffic on editorial server), 20 MP RAWs are needed sometimes when some extra PP is needed. 

I did some tests with 'L' and 'M' size of RAWs and did not see any quality improvements (sharpness, ISO) in smaller 10 MP 'M's compared to larger 20 MPs 'L's, that might be expected (?). 

If anyone has some links at hand (or can explain it in few words), I will appreciate to get some basic info that explains how exactly different RAW sizes are created in camera, what advantages/disadvantages each one has...


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> Yes. Similar doubts about 'all them megapixels' kept me from replacing 400D with newer APS-C camera for 5 or almost 6 years.



I admit I'm completely lost with this line of thought - the 18mp crop sensor might be (arguably!) worse *at 100% pixel level* but if you downsize it to the mp count of former cameras it's same or superior - so you can think of it as getting more resolution for free for select shots.

I understand that people say that this argumentation doesn't isn't valid for 40mp+ high mp sensors as you really "don't need it", but personally I don't consider 18/20mp overkill if you shoot loose or want to crop for different aspect ratios.


----------



## candc (Dec 10, 2013)

I have a 70d and a 6d. Everybody knows the 6d has better low light performance but the IQ is very similar in normal shooting conditions. The 70d is much nicer to use in just about every way. They both have their uses so get them both for $2400 total and you have all kinds of options


----------



## pato (Dec 10, 2013)

Holy shi* I've already managed to scratch my display  Don't know how I did it, but it's scratched. My 550D is 3 years old and hasn't even a single scratch 
It seems as if there is some anti reflection coating and that doesn't seem to be very hard :'(


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 10, 2013)

pato said:


> It seems as if there is some anti reflection coating and that doesn't seem to be very hard :'(



Canon saved some $$$ buy just putting a plastic lcd into the 6d, the 5d3 has a glass cover ... so the very first thing after buying is to stick a protective plastic cover on it or order a glass protector, ebay/China for €5...

... but don't dispair, if you put a non-reflective cover on it now the scratch won't be as visible as now.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 10, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> I admit I'm completely lost with this line of thought - the 18mp crop sensor might be (arguably!) worse *at 100% pixel level* but if you downsize it to the mp count of former cameras it's same or superior - so you can think of it as getting more resolution for free for select shots.



The reason was: I was satisfied with 400D 10MP pictures most of the time (especially with quick RAW post-processing). No, I do not shoot birds, cats, kids, football players (and other fast moving animals or objects). I shoot a lot of equipment pictures that will be printed in the magazine as half-page width illustrations (i.e. -- 4x3 inches or 10x7 cm, even with 340 lpi Agfa screening, 10 MPs are much more than enough for the purpose).

The thing I did not like about 400D was not its 10MPs sensor size, but its 'not very good' high ISO handling (and long time or inability to focus in dark without flash). 

Judging by reviews (and rumors) that I looked at during all these years: no Canon APS-C camera could deliver me such things to a level or degree that was worth the switch. 

And the final drop (that made me to purchase 6D) was getting EOS M. EOS M has 18 MP sensor similar to all other Canon's APS-Cs and it did not offer any significant ISO/indoor improvements compared to 400D. Switching from 400D to 6D (and FF) was the only logical step with much better IQ promised (and delivered).

PS: And I wish that EOS M had similar picture quality settings as 6D: so, I could choose big RAW L + smaller JPEG M combination


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 10, 2013)

candc said:


> I have a 70d and a 6d. Everybody knows the 6d has better low light performance but the IQ is very similar in normal shooting conditions. The 70d is much nicer to use in just about every way. They both have their uses so get them both for $2400 total and you have all kinds of options



Much nicer in just about every way? I doubt that!


----------



## candc (Dec 10, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > I have a 70d and a 6d. Everybody knows the 6d has better low light performance but the IQ is very similar in normal shooting conditions. The 70d is much nicer to use in just about every way. They both have their uses so get them both for $2400 total and you have all kinds of options
> ...



it is, a lot of the features like the touch swivel screen and the really good live view shooting are things that i thought were kind of gimmicky to begin with now i don't want a camera without them. the way you can get through the menus using the touchscreen and the q button is so much better, i also really like the af expansion button and the better af system in general. the 70d seems to just respond faster.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 11, 2013)

candc said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > candc said:
> ...



To each their own. The 6D suits me just fine, and responds as fast as lightning. Swivel screens annoy the hell out of me...I notice the 1 series and 5D3 don't seem to need swivel screens. The 6D also has a Q button. Once I got used to using it, I find it works ok. I absolutely love the menu layout of the 6D, also.


----------



## pato (Dec 11, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> pato said:
> 
> 
> > It seems as if there is some anti reflection coating and that doesn't seem to be very hard :'(
> ...


Now that you mention it!
Damn, didn't realize this before.
Do you have a recommendation for the protector? I found this one here made of glass:
http://www.ebay.ch/itm/Camera-LCD-Screen-Glass-Protector-Cover-Camera-Protection-for-Canon-EOS-6D-/271333348435?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f2cba5453


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 11, 2013)

pato said:


> Do you have a recommendation for the protector? I found this one here made of glass



I even opened a thread for it  ... http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=17225.0

The cover you linked is about it, it's so cheap you cannot go wrong, I don't think you need one at 10x the price ... but let us know if you've got it and how it works and looks on the 6d.

Currently I'm using a non-reflective plastic cover that should also prevent scratches. Advantage: Well, it's non-reflective  ... disadvantage: the details on screen get blurred quite a lot, so it's harder to check for focus, probably a reflective glass is better if you don't intend to shoot in bright outdoors a lot.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 11, 2013)

pato said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > pato said:
> ...



The one I had on my 50D for 4 years worked perfectly, and from what I can tell, they're the only matte-finish plastic film screen cover you can buy anymore (and they might have always been the only one). They seem to only sell factory direct, as well:

www.boxwave.com 

I need to order a few more, but they don't seem to make one for the 6D. I could cut the 5D3's to fit, though. I bought a glossy finish plastic film one for the 6D (made in Germany I think), and it blinds me like looking directly into the sun!!


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 12, 2013)

Their are many differences between the 5dMKIII and the 6d its not just the AF. The build quality of the 6d is very good but not to the 5dMKIII level, the 5dMKIII has a shutter guarenteed for 150K shots as opposed to 100K so this camera even on those two criteria was built with pros in mind not amateurs which was the remit of the 6d. 

The 6d has to give something up with such a big price difference and clearly it does so making comparisons is not really useful because their aimed at totally different users. I find the 6d a wonderful tool when traversing Dartmoor with a Lowpro rucksack full of gear and a tripod in hand that lighter weight than the 7d you really notice after a few hours and you really notice the iQ back home when editting shots.


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 14, 2013)

An image to show what I meant by wider dynamic range. Using my old 550D, the whiter parts and yellow leaves would have been over exposed, but with 6D, I'm able to not just have it within range, but greater manipulation in CS6 too.


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 14, 2013)

This is horrible. I can't post any other picture. CR is frustrating me. =/


----------



## candc (Dec 14, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> This is horrible. I can't post any other picture. CR is frustrating me. =/



you have to type something in the text box to post an image


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 14, 2013)

I did. It uploads till 100%, and goes into a blank page.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 14, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> I did. It uploads till 100%, and goes into a blank page.



Do it like this instead: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,18464.msg344470.html#msg344470


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 15, 2013)

jeffa4444 said:


> Their are many differences between the 5dMKIII and the 6d its not just the AF. The build quality of the 6d is very good but not to the 5dMKIII level, the 5dMKIII has a shutter guarenteed for 150K shots as opposed to 100K so this camera even on those two criteria was built with pros in mind not amateurs which was the remit of the 6d.
> 
> The 6d has to give something up with such a big price difference and clearly it does so making comparisons is not really useful because their aimed at totally different users. I find the 6d a wonderful tool when traversing Dartmoor with a Lowpro rucksack full of gear and a tripod in hand that lighter weight than the 7d you really notice after a few hours and you really notice the iQ back home when editting shots.



Sounds to me like you don't have any trouble getting pro quality results from the 6D. Not saying the 6D was designed specifically for professionals, obviously...but frankly it just depends on what profession you're in. For all but sports and fashion photographers, the 6D works good to great. For wedding pros, it works great as a supplement to the 5D3. As the only DSLR at a wedding shoot, definitely not at a professional level. Thankfully I plan on never being a wedding pro!


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 15, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> An image to show what I meant by wider dynamic range. Using my old 550D, the whiter parts and yellow leaves would have been over exposed, but with 6D, I'm able to not just have it within range, but greater manipulation in CS6 too.



Nice image and processing!


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 15, 2013)

High ISO image.


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 15, 2013)

Finally it's through! 8) High ISO (I think its ISO6400) with hand held in pitch black situation. I believe that this is one of the greatest evidence that high ISO performance is important: definitely wouldn't be able to capture this without it! Being a tourist without a tripod or any space to place it, this would be a shame to not capture. I understand people would say that it's a compressed picture and noise blah blah blah, but this is just to show you guys what high ISO performance is like for 6D. In fact, you might say with the flexibility of high ISO, I am now more than willing to control my aperture too, which leads to better control over two segments in one go! ;D Definitely learning more stuff now!


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 15, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> abcde12345 said:
> 
> 
> > An image to show what I meant by wider dynamic range. Using my old 550D, the whiter parts and yellow leaves would have been over exposed, but with 6D, I'm able to not just have it within range, but greater manipulation in CS6 too.
> ...


Thank you! I guess this image would show somewhat of what I was talking about: detail retention and a certain sharpness that just can't be explained! (I hope ;D)


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 15, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > abcde12345 said:
> ...



Good image! 

Now I do see 'halos' on contrast area borders. 

Sorry, are you sure that these are not CA and JPEG artifacts? (Do you shoot in JPEG with high compression?)


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 15, 2013)

Nope. Only RAW. That could be a raise too much of shadow though.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 15, 2013)

abcde12345 said:


> Nope. Only RAW. That could be a raise too much of shadow though.



Then: could it be some 'over-sharpening' in post-processing + JPEG compression you use when re-saving image for posting on forum? 

I just tried to check my 6D images that may have areas prone to JPEG artifacts and halos and saw none...

Here is a sample of simple 'walk under the tree, point camera up and shoot' scene. It's out-of-camera JPEG, no extra processing at all. No halos (just unsharp corners of 17-40 at f/4).

Ooops! It looks like the forum engine efficiently re-compress the image and kills things "no one" needs (like ICC profiles). I think I'd bttere post is as a linked image:


----------



## abcde12345 (Dec 15, 2013)

I didn't actually raise sharpness, so it's interesting. I might have to check again what's going on. It might be due to the difference in converting RAW to JPEG though. I will have to research on this more...


----------

