# Help to make my decision.



## willis (Jan 25, 2013)

Help me to make right decision, I've been shooting with 7D now +2 years and been looking for moving to FF. Basically what my gear includes now is 7D with 17-55 F2.8 and basic kit 15-135 that is not used like at all.. and now shooting with 7D these couple years I've noticed that my pictures are almost 50% portraits and 50% landscapes, cityscapes etc.

What should I do, been looking for to get 5D Mark II?


----------



## digital paradise (Jan 26, 2013)

5D2 for what you do if you are thinking about going FF. Mind you with a couple of other lenses you can do very well with the 7D. I had a Tokina 11-16 which is a very sharp corner corner lens. The Canon 85 1.8 is a inexpensive and excellent portrait lens. 

I have both the 7D and 5D3 (had 5D2) and you can't been the IQ you get out of a FF but I can't imagine giving up either. I also shoot sports and wildlife (birding) so each body has it's place. 

Tokina @ 11mm


----------



## 87vr6 (Jan 26, 2013)

I see two options for you if you want to make the jump to FF..

Sell 7D and lens, buy 5D2 + a lens or two

KEEP 7D and buy a used 5Dc (they can be had for 500 or less) + 17-40L.


----------



## willis (Jan 26, 2013)

What I got in my mind to figuring this was get 5D2 with Sigma 35 F1.4 and 24-105 F4L.
That Sigma and 24-105 fills my needs for now pretty much all the way because most of shooting what I do now is just family/portraits and some snowy landscapes.
And later on add 16-35L or 17-40L and 70-200L II, and change 25-105 to 24-70L Mk1.


----------



## dswatson83 (Jan 29, 2013)

The Canon 5D mark II might be perfect for you as you could get away without some of the new features of the mark III and get it for dirt cheap. I upgraded to the 5D3 from the 7D and it is the most logical upgrade and a great camera well worth the $ but the 5D3 is a bit pricey.

I would start selling your lenses now and replace them with FF lenses. Some top choices for what you shoot would be the:
Canon 17-40 f/4L - One of the best landscape lenses
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC - great all around lens and still good for portraits
85mm f/1.8 - The best portrait lenses around other than the extremely expensive 85mm f/1.2 and it is not too expensive

I picked the Tamron over the Canon because the Tamron gives the f/2.8 aperture which is great for portraits and low light such as indoors and still has the VC for stabilization. The Tamron was even a touch sharper than the new Canon 24-70 f/4L IS: 

Canon 24-70 f/4L IS vs Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC - FIGHT!


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 29, 2013)

You have no FF lenses, which mean's you might as well just sell everything and start new with FF.

1. Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.
2. Canon 100mm F/2
3. 5D2 or 5D3. 

Skip 6D, Not good value for $$$.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 31, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> You have no FF lenses, which mean's you might as well just sell everything and start new with FF.
> 
> 1. Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC.
> 2. Canon 100mm F/2
> ...



I WOULDN'T do that - I would skip 5D II and take 6D for these reasons. 

1. Newer camera - with extra features, wifi etc
2. True Auto ISO in "M" mode, 5D II has fixed auto ISO at 400
3. Better AF - more accurate then 5D II


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 31, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > You have no FF lenses, which mean's you might as well just sell everything and start new with FF.
> ...



In actual use, the 6D will fail in everything the 5D2 will performance wise and no better than the 5D2 in getting the shot. Same FPS, nearly identical terrible AF, and 98% viewfinder. The 5D3 will have none of these limits. 

So why waste those extra 500$? Get another lens. Don't waste it on the fluff from the 6D and that's why I consider it bad value for $$$.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 31, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> So why waste those extra 500$?


Well, some things come to mind... (from http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1130)


higher iso capability
less banding
higher dynamic range
center-point af up to -3lv
silent shutter
faster fps
longer battery life
shorter release time
better metering & auto-wb
hi-res lcd
small & light but good grip
top wheel lock
gps built-in
wifi built-in
newer firmware:
full support for rt flashes, 
in-camera multishot/hdr
in-camera ca correction
7x bracketing
dual afma for zooms
servo af customization
flexible min/max auto-iso
min shutter speed setting
orientation-linked af point


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jan 31, 2013)

a book is there for you to read, it is just the matter of how much you are getting out of it. same on camera, it is just a tool for you to use... if you are tight on budget, then find a work around way to deal with... there is a commercial/fashion photographer has won number of awards with her canon 350d/xt. ansel adams & george hurrell, etc did not have great tools back in the day, but they still produced great images. after all, it is just the matter of art (from your eyes and retouch)

link: http://blog.zhangjingna.com/2010/10/equipment-and-where-money-comes-from.html

note: if you are shooting sport, that is a different story. GET 1DX


----------



## Stig (Jan 31, 2013)

+1 on not dismissing the 6D from your considerations

... it is a budget (preferences) vs needs (wants) match and we don't know many of these (yours), however I had this dilemma as well and I don't have it anymore... what I do have now is a 6D : )

that said, the price differences of 5DII, 6D, 5DIII seem to vary between countries and the 6D to 5DIII was high in mine (6D+58%=5DIII), the 5DII and 6D were almost the same which made go with 6D for reasons already mentioned above


----------



## J.R. (Jan 31, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > So why waste those extra 500$?
> ...



+1 ... And also remote shooting with a smartphone and better weather sealing 8)


----------



## Dantana (Jan 31, 2013)

+1 from me too on not dismissing the 6D.

The OP didn't give a budget in mind, so I don't know that. One thing that I can tell you is that all of the "amazing deals" that I have seen on the 5DII have been for used gear just barely below the price of a brand new 6D. Believe me, I have looked. I realize that the 5DII is a great camera and a workhorse, but the thought of dismissing another very good camera which does include some improvements, and that can be had brand new with warranty for not much more seems like a bad idea.

I realize that some people have found that the 6D is not for them, and that's fine, but it doesn't mean that it's not for everyone, or that it's a bad camera. It's definitely on my list as a potential upgrade for my XSi. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 31, 2013)

Dantana said:


> I realize that some people have found that the 6D is not for them, and that's fine, but it doesn't mean that it's not for everyone, or that it's a bad camera.



The catch with the 6d is that I have to press the big red "delete knowledge" button to stop thinking about what Canon cut in comparison to the 5d3 for no reason at all than marketing, and what the competition can deliver for a €2000 price tag - after all, that's a lot of money for a camera body that is soon to be outdated by upcoming sensors and just has a 100k shutter rating.

But ignoring the said facts I'll most probably also buy a 6d if the price drops a bit more after the early adopters wave.


----------



## Dantana (Jan 31, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Dantana said:
> 
> 
> > I realize that some people have found that the 6D is not for them, and that's fine, but it doesn't mean that it's not for everyone, or that it's a bad camera.
> ...



Well, you can look at it that way.

Or you can look at it this way:
The 5DII was the successor to the 5D, and a great camera.
The 5DIII is the successor to the 5DII, also a great camera.

The 6D is the first in it's line, a FF body for someone who can't afford the 5D series, or wants a slightly smaller body, or... Comparing it to the 5DIII isn't really fair.

If I had the money to spend on a 5DIII I might just buy one. It is a wonderful camera. But I am not a pro (though photography does come up quite often in what I do), and I have a mortgage, and a car payment, and a wife, and... From the OPs first post it seems that they aren't a pro either.

Seeing the 6D for $1699 last week definitely makes it appealing.

Of course I will probably still obsessively follow 5DIIs on Ebay looking for that killer deal that won't ever come.

Sorry for hijacking the post. The OP said that portraits and landscapes were the bulk of what they shoot, so it seems like an option not to discount.


----------



## wayno (Jan 31, 2013)

I wasn't aware there was an increase in DR in the 6D? Not beyond marginal, at least?
For the OP's needs the 5d2 sounds perfect and I think the 'raft' of extra features in the 6D (in this instance) are not exactly essential. Nice to have but are they really useful? I would suggest the extra ISO capacity is the only enticement... And maybe just enough to justify the extra... The decision is not as clear cut as some would make out though, IMO


----------



## ishdakuteb (Jan 31, 2013)

Dantana said:


> Or you can look at it this way:
> The 5DII was the successor to the 5D, and a great camera.
> The 5DIII is the successor to the 5DIII, also a great camera.



The 5DIII is the successor to the 5DIII, also a great camera. <-- not until april (firmware release month) ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 31, 2013)

wayno said:


> I wasn't aware there was an increase in DR in the 6D? Not beyond marginal, at least?


Nothing to get excited about, but still: http://www.sensorgen.info/



wayno said:


> For the OP's needs the 5d2 sounds perfect and I think the 'raft' of extra features in the 6D (in this instance) are not exactly essential. Nice to have but are they really useful? I would suggest the extra ISO capacity is the only enticement...


Personally I like the silent shutter and the decrease in banding with is said to often hinder raising shadows on the 5d2 even in low iso. Also better metering/awb an some more fps are not to be disregarded, but of course ymmv concerning your shooting habits.

Most fw improvements of the 6d can be had on the 5d2 is using Magic Lantern though, except for the improved afma.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 31, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Or $500 in depreciation I suppose rather than invest in another lens. ???


----------



## sdsr (Jan 31, 2013)

willis said:


> Help me to make right decision, I've been shooting with 7D now +2 years and been looking for moving to FF. Basically what my gear includes now is 7D with 17-55 F2.8 and basic kit 15-135 that is not used like at all.. and now shooting with 7D these couple years I've noticed that my pictures are almost 50% portraits and 50% landscapes, cityscapes etc.
> 
> What should I do, been looking for to get 5D Mark II?



Unless you can get a 5DII for considerably less than a 6D or don't have much interest in shooting in low light/high ISO (or the other features listed by Marsu42), and because you don't have any lenses that will fit a FF camera, I would suggest you forget about the 5DII and instead consider a 6D & kit lens (i.e., 24-105L) - there are (or recently have been) very good deals featuring such a kit, and that lens is a good one to start with. If you *do* like shooting in low light, the 6D will amaze you (of course, coming from a 7D you would likely be amazed by the 5DII as well, but the 6D is even better). The anti-6D brigade strike me as protesting a bit too much....


----------



## Area256 (Jan 31, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > So why waste those extra 500$?
> ...



+1 I got the 6D over the the 5D2 for many of these reasons. I shoot low light, but not action, so the 6D saved me some $$ over the 5D3, and still delivered in low light - and I to had to have auto ISO in manual. If don't need the new stuff though, the 5D2 is a great deal.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 31, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



In which way? 6D AF center point is way MUCH BETTER 5D II, so what is your point?


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 1, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



your still stuck only using the center point. That's the issue.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Are you saying 5D II has better outer AF points then 6D? Both of these cameras should be considered as 1 point AF system. 6D center AF would kick 5D II in the rear in lower light.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 1, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I'm saying that the outer AF points on either camera are awful but I've never had a problem with the center AF on the 5Dc or 5D2. What I'm saying is the 6D outer points are still rubbish and virtually no improvement over the 5Dc/5D2


----------



## J.R. (Feb 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I agree on the AF. It's not very different from the 5D2. But would you call the 6D, a zero improvement on the 5d2


----------



## dcren123 (Feb 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I hope your statement is based on first hand experience with both the 6D and the 5D2, and not based solely on spec sheets or assumptions and hearsay, since I don't really think it's a good idea to dismiss something based on assumptions or specs without hands-on experience.


----------



## willis (Feb 1, 2013)

So we just created a war here between 6D and 5D2 ;D But thanks for all those feedbacks, I'll start figuring my next move to FF.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 1, 2013)

Look, this is really simple. Really. The 5D2 and 6D have equal performing outter AF points. The 6D's center AF point is better. The 6D has slightly better DR. In a strict comparison, yes the 6D has improvements over the 5D2. Not difficult to understand.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 1, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Not difficult to understand.



 I guess the difficult part is that the "entry-level" gimmick-loaded 6d has better performance than the venerable pro 5d2 that has been used winning "photographer of the year" awards ... but you're correct, it's simply the way tech evolution works. 

Imho the only important reason to buy a new 5d2 over a 6d is that the older model has higher sharpness @low iso, next to the pro-style usability with the joystick which might mixing 6d & 5d3 a hassle.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 1, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Not difficult to understand.
> ...



I would agree with that.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



Thanks that's $500 burned for me ... Need to buy the 24-70Ii and the 70-200 II IS but that's another story in another time


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 2, 2013)

I've seen used 5D2's for as low as $1000, and at that price you really cant go wrong. But if the 6D is $1699 then I think that's a viable option, especially considering how much newer it is. Just the ISO performance alone seems worth the extra money. And I know it may not seem like a big deal, but the LCD on the 5D3/6D is just gorgeous. After using the 5D3 for 6 months I shot with the 5D2 again and thought there was something wrong with the screen it looked so bad.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 3, 2013)

I have a 7D at work. My friend has a 5D2... I have not shot a lot with her 5D2 but from when I have I can safely say that it beats the C__P out of the 7D in low light/high ISO. It has to be 3 stops faster... I can't speak for AF as I have not had the two of them side by side for a realistic comparison. 

Personally, If I were to go out today and choose between the two, I would get the 5D2.

I have no idea how it compares to the 6D.... although the wireless seems interesting. The 5D3 is supposed to be a stop or two better than the 5D2 and a few other incremental improvements, but once again, just hearsay... I have not used one.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 3, 2013)

dcren123 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I wouldn't give comments on the products that I haven't touched. I owned 5D II before 5D III. I played with 6D from 1st patch for 2 days. AGAIN...6D center point would kick 5D II in lower light.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 3, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Look, this is really simple. Really. The 5D2 and 6D have equal performing outter AF points. The 6D's center AF point is better. The 6D has slightly better DR. In a strict comparison, yes the 6D has improvements over the 5D2. Not difficult to understand.



+1....the only thing they see is price tag - it's sad. All saving $ will go straight into alley purchases


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 3, 2013)

I rented a 6D for a weekend. I'd probably only trust the center AF point which was the whole problem with the previous 5D cameras.


----------



## FatDaddyJones (Feb 3, 2013)

6D or 5D Mark III if you can afford it. I got my 5D3 for $2600. Keep on the lookout for deals. If you can afford it, keep your 7D and 17-55. You'll miss it if you sell it. If your 18-135 is the first edition, sell it or give it away. It's a piece of crap, for lack of a better description. Actually if there was a EF mount on a real piece of crap, it might take better photos. Obviously, you know that already, since you don't use it anymore.


----------

