# 6D vs. 600D with good lenses?



## beginner (May 27, 2013)

I've decided to buy a DSLR camera to advance my interest in photography. Here are some of my photos; to give you an idea of the style that appeals to me. http://500px.com/Black-Bird/sets .Mostly street, travel and architecture. I'm also wanting to get into portraits and more landscape. I realize I am all over the place but that is why I love photography, to capture life everywhere I see. After reading books on DSLR photography, many camera reviews, seeing sample shots and visiting shops; I came up with the following options and would like your help and advice. I've done my best to understand the considerations but forgive me if I am not just there yet. I'd love a full-frame because of image quality. Love to stay around $1500, but I don't want to find myself wanting to buy a full-frame within a short time. Prices are just roughly.

Which option or alternative for the body would you recommend? Am I too hasty dreaming of full-frames?

1 - Canon 6D + EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS ($2500)
I think I'd be happy and content with this + 50mm prime for a looooong time.

2 - Canon 600D + EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS ($800)
I am not sure of the kit lenses that comes with 600D. 

3 - Canon 600D + EF 50mm f/1.4 USM ($900)
Could add more lenses later.

4 - Canon 600D + EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ($1200)
This is also looking like a great option. I could add, $400 for a 50mm 1/4 prime for $1600 total.

I thought of 7D kit with EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS at $1600. However considering 6D is full frame and the lense (24-105) it comes with, I am thinking 6D is a better option.

I thought of used 5DM2, but they seem to be just as expensive without a lense as 6D with a lense.

I thought of 60D, but from what I read 600D would do just as well and cheaper.


I'd love to know what you think and what you'd advise. Thanks in advance!


----------



## timmy_650 (May 27, 2013)

My favorite choices are 1 and 4. With 1 I would add the nifty 50 ($100) for the price it can't be beat. Yes I know of it short coming. 1 and 4 will be every similar in most ways. If you got the money I would get the 6D I think it will last you longer. but if your unsure of your commitment 4 is a better choice price wise and you should still be happy with the pictures.


----------



## woodywup (May 27, 2013)

Looks like you never use DSLR before, 
suggest to go with option 2 to start with, kit lens is not that bad and once you are familiar with it and will know which lens you will go next (better zoom lens or prime lens) . 
Do not buy expensive EF-S lens, for sure you will upgrade to FF camera and it will useless and hard to sell it.

otherwise as long as you can afford it go with option 1. may be can add 50/1.8


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2013)

In good light, it'll be hard to distinguish a 600D + 17-55 shot from the 6D + 24-105. But if you have to raise the ISO above 400-800 or so, you'll notice the better IQ of FF sensor. Since you mention street, if that's in the evening/night, the 6D will be better. Also, you mention portraits, so be aware the crop factor applies to DoF, too - to get the DoF of an f/2.8 lens on FF, you need an f/1.8 lens on a crop sensor. 

Don't forget to budget for accessories. For the types of photos you list, I'd consider as mandatory:


A good tripod and ballhead. Manfrotto at a minimum, or Induro or Benro
A good circular polarizer, B+W if possible. Adds contrast and saturation, blues up skies, reduces reflections. 
A 10-stop ND filter. Long daytime exposures to blur people out of architecture shots. 
RAW conversion software. DPP comes with the camera and is free, but not good for library management and kludgy to use. Lightroom is a popular choice. 

For the filters, it's a good idea to get them in the largest size you think you'll need, and get step up rings. If you see a 16-35 II or 24-70 II in your future, you can get 82mm filters now (I started with 77mm and step ups from 72mm, 67mm and 58mm, then had to re-buy in the 82mm size later).

My inclination is to recommend the 6D + 24-105. But, you should consider your total budget. The accessories on my list could total $1000. A 600D + 17-55 with a good tripod is likely more useful than a 6D + 24-105 with no tripod or a cheap one.


----------



## sdsr (May 27, 2013)

No, you're not too hasty to be thinking about full-frame; they're not any more difficult to use than APS-C (in many ways they're easier - more controls are directly accessible from the exterior of the camera without having to mess around with menus, for instance) and in the case of the 6D it's not that much bigger. If you're new to dslrs I don't think there's any reason why you need to learn via an APS-C before moving "up". If you can afford it, and if their advantages suit your needs, go for it.

Based on a glance at your photos, I think you likely would benefit from the 6D. In low light where you can't or don't want to use a flash, but will need higher ISOs, the 6D will give you obviously superior performance to the 600D (or any other APS-C camera, esp. current Canon models) both in terms of noise and accuracy of focus. In many such situations - interiors of buildings, esp. churches - you will also benefit from the near-silent shutter of the 6D. Also, you can more easily isolate your subject/blur backgrounds with the 6D. If those three things don't matter much to you, you might as well stay with the 600D (or forget DSLRs altogether and go Micro 4/3 etc.).

If if I were you (but of course I'm not) I would take option 1. I trust you realize, in comparing the lenses you mention, that thanks to the APS-C crop factor the 24-105 on the 6D is a bit wider but quite a bit less long than the 18-135 you mention (the equivalent on FF to that lens on APS-C would be c. 28-216). If you go FF you may want to add something longer at some point, such as a 70-300.

And yes, you'll want some accessories, but - at the risk of getting laughed off the internet - I would suggest starting light, with a good RAW converter such as lightroom (if you're going to go to the expense of buying a dslr it would be a shame if you didn't shoot RAW) and later figure out what else you need. (For instance, depending on where you go and what you shoot, a tripod could simply be a nuisance, especially if you have lenses with good IS and know how to hold a camera steady.)


----------



## verysimplejason (May 27, 2013)

I'd get the 6d and 24-105 if I can. It's better to spend once and totally enjoy it. Just make sure you have the budget to include a decent tripod and some filters (ND,UV, GND, polarizer) and a speedlight. Don't forget to get a flash even if you've got a one hell of a high iso performer camera. For people shots, flash will do some tricks you can't do without it. Other lenses can come later bit by bit depending on what you think you need. For filters, get the 82mm size and some step rings except for UV.


----------



## captainkanji (May 27, 2013)

I love the 6D and the 24-105. I had the 7D and 17-55 2.8. They were actually very easy to sell. I am now in the slow process of upgrading my 70-200 f/4. Maybe next year


----------



## Zv (May 27, 2013)

I would say 6D and 24-105. I'd also say a tripod is useful but not 100% necessary these days. With the 6D you'll be able to get great shots at ISOs the 600D would cringe at. Add to that 3/4 stops of IS and, really, do you need a tripod? I have one but it rarely gets used (mostly because its big and heavy). 

Nothing wrong with the 17-55 though it's an EF-S lens and that limits you to crop bodies. Shame cos it's a really nice lens. Even then you get shallower dof with the 24-105 on the 6D. I think the 6D is a bargain, I kinda wish I had waited and bought it instead of the 5D II just for that high ISO ability. 

You could look into a second hand 5D II as a cheap alternative. In terms of IQ it's still one of the best out there.


----------



## jdramirez (May 27, 2013)

It sounds like you want to do a little of everything. Nice distance photography for the birds, but with landscape. 

1 - Canon 6D + EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS ($2500)
I think I'd be happy and content with this + 50mm prime for a looooong time.



2 - Canon 600D + EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS ($800)
I am not sure of the kit lenses that comes with 600D. 

The 18-135 has similar image quality as the 18-55, and shooting at 5.6 isn't going to give you a nice bokeh or very nice low light performance. My biggest issue is the 18-135. I'd sell the 135 for $300 and then just rock some primes if I had the choice. I sold some new t3i bodies on craigs list for $450, so that plus a 40mm f/2.8 ($150) plus a used tokina 11-16 ($515) plus a 100mm f/2 ($300)... @ less than $1500... I think that is a solid option. If you have more cash, the 15-85mm for around $550 would be a good option. I have a stable of lenses that I'm use and I have to think in advance what I might be shooting... and when I don't know... I just take my 24-105. So the 15-85 would be your do anything lens. 

3 - Canon 600D + EF 50mm f/1.4 USM ($900)
Could add more lenses later.

I think I covered this with option two and my dislike of the kit lens. 

4 - Canon 600D + EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ($1200)
This is also looking like a great option. I could add, $400 for a 50mm 1/4 prime for $1600 total.

No offense, but the 17-55 is usually sold for around 800 used, so plus $500 for the t3i and you are looking at 1300. But the 50mm f/1.4 can be found for $300... so your total is not off at $1600. 

As for the performance... people rave about the 17-55mm and it is f/2.8. I have never used it, but that isn't a bad combination. You would have your wide angle and the 50mm can be adequate for portraits... but I would probably suggest an 85mm f/1.8 or possibly again, the 100mm f/2. Those would be better for portraits... with a big time lean towards the 85mm. 

I thought of 7D kit with EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS at $1600. However considering 6D is full frame and the lense (24-105) it comes with, I am thinking 6D is a better option.

I wouldn't go with the 7D. I don't think you do sports photography or photography of quickly moving objects. So the advanced AF system would be wasted on you. Also, the 8 shots per second would be wasted... so you would be paying for features that you don't need and the picture quality isn't any better than a t2i because they share the same sensor. The 7D does have AFMA, so that would be a benefit, but I'd still push you towards a 6D over the 7D

I thought of used 5DM2, but they seem to be just as expensive without a lense as 6D with a lense.

The 6D is better at the same price. If you can save hundreds, then the 5D mkii is a better value and you can put the money towards your lenses. 

I thought of 60D, but from what I read 600D would do just as well and cheaper.

Ditto the same argument with the 7D. You just won't use the advanced features. Having said that... I was selling 60D bodies for $600, so for $150 it isn't cost prohibitive to get a better camera, though picture quality will be about the same.


----------



## dmills (May 27, 2013)

Though they are similar in features, one important advantage that a 60D has over a 600D is that it has a top LCD screen. To me, this is a no-go for the 600D. The top LCD allows you to quickly see what aperture, shutter speed, iso, focus mode, evaluation, etc, etc. You're at (as well as shots remaining and battery life). I simply wouldn't buy a DSLR without that.


----------



## jdramirez (May 27, 2013)

dmills said:


> Though they are similar in features, one important advantage that a 60D has over a 600D is that it has a top LCD screen. To me, this is a no-go for the 600D. The top LCD allows you to quickly see what aperture, shutter speed, iso, focus mode, evaluation, etc, etc. You're at (as well as shots remaining and battery life). I simply wouldn't buy a DSLR without that.



I use that daily... and I also use it to set my AF point. I love the shoulder LCD screen and I couldn't go back... but when I had my XS... I switched settings using the back LCD without too many issues. But I don't think I can go backwards.


----------



## verysimplejason (May 27, 2013)

Zv said:


> I would say 6D and 24-105. I'd also say a tripod is useful but not 100% necessary these days. With the 6D you'll be able to get great shots at ISOs the 600D would cringe at. Add to that 3/4 stops of IS and, really, do you need a tripod? I have one but it rarely gets used (mostly because its big and heavy).
> 6
> Nothing wrong with the 17-55 though it's an EF-S lens and that limits you to crop bodies. Shame cos it's a really nice lens. Even then you get shallower dof with the 24-105 on the 6D. I think the 6D is a bargain, I kinda wish I had waited and bought it instead of the 5D II just for that high ISO ability.
> 
> You could look into a second hand 5D II as a cheap alternative. In terms of IQ it's still one of the best out there.



Tripod use depends entirely on how long your shutter speed needs to be. For long exposures, of course, you will need a tripod. It doesn't matter how high you can push your ISO. E.g., as Neuro said, architecture photography to get rid of those extra people, star trails, night photography where you want to record light trails. That said, yes, you're right, you can't go wrong between a 5D2 and 6D but for a little bit extra, 6D is worth every cents.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 27, 2013)

while i normally always recomend FF over crop if you are just starting out and are quite budget concious
I would say get a 600D and 18-55 kit now (the 600D is the best value for money 18mp APS-C canon you can get at the moment) and then get one of these bad boys from sigma when they come out

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sigma-18-35-1-8

or the 6D and 24-105 if you want to go full frame


----------



## Zv (May 27, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I would say 6D and 24-105. I'd also say a tripod is useful but not 100% necessary these days. With the 6D you'll be able to get great shots at ISOs the 600D would cringe at. Add to that 3/4 stops of IS and, really, do you need a tripod? I have one but it rarely gets used (mostly because its big and heavy).
> ...



Yeah, depends on OPs style of shooting. I doubt as a newbie he would be out doing star trails etc with a 600D and 18-55. my point is for all general purposes you can manage without a tripod. It is only really specialized use like you said long shutter speeds where you will undeniably need a tripod. Therefore a 6D and 24-105 covers the widest range of applications.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (May 27, 2013)

More flexibility in low light performance and range both wide and tele with option #1. On the 600d you would have had to find a lens that is 15-65mm to match the same focal length of 24-105mm on 6D. DOF of f/4 on 6D is also compared to f/2.5 on 600D. The boost in ISO performance and overall look of the images is also better with full frame, but I wouldn't spend that kind of money for street shots if I could barely afford it, you should make the bigger purchases if you know your finances can take the hit or if it will be an investment that pays for itself short term. But of course, in the end, you still buy what you want because it's your money.


----------



## Zv (May 27, 2013)

I started out with a 550D and kit lens. Though cheap, I ended up selling after a year or so at about half price. If I could go back and start over again I would buy a FF camera and 24-105. That would have lasted me until now for sure (three years on). If you decide it's not for you, sell it.


----------



## pj1974 (May 27, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> More flexibility in low light performance and range both wide and tele with option #1. On the 600d you would have had to find a lens that is 15-65mm to match the same focal length of 24-105mm on 6D. DOF of f/4 on 6D is also compared to f/2.5 on 600D. The boost in ISO performance and overall look of the images is also better with full frame, but I wouldn't spend that kind of money for street shots if I could barely afford it, you should make the bigger purchases if you know your finances can take the hit or if it will be an investment that pays for itself short term. But of course, in the end, you still buy what you want because it's your money.



Certainly FF has advantages of more control of depth of field (DOF) ie by definition of having a larger sensor, a shallower DOF is easier possible - with the same aperture. And FF has the advantage of generally lower noise, so in that regard the 6D would be a good option.

However there is a place for APS-C (eg 600D or 60D) too. Firstly there are many great EF-S lenses, eg the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 which covers 24-135mm in FF format. True, this is a slowish lens. The 17-55mm f/2.8 is a faster lens. Though for truly shallow DOF, a dedicated fast prime (eg f/1.2 - f/2) is more suitable.

UWA, there are so many great lens options - from various manufacturers, many of which are sharp corner to corner, contesting the best L UWAs. Eg the Canon 10-22mm, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 8-16mm. 

The 7D's AF is great for street photography (19 cross type AF points, well spread across the composition). Most EF-S lenses are less expensive than their FF 'equivalent'. No doubt if money is no barrier, then go for FF- and get a 6D (or even a 5DmkIII or 1DX). But generally people don't choose the 5DmkIII or 1DX because of financial limitations - and needing to keep sufficient funds for decent glass.

Regards

Paul


----------



## Sella174 (May 27, 2013)

I'd like to throw a spanner in the works and suggest the OP consider micro-4/3 as an alternative option, otherwise ... 6D with 50mm f/1.4 as a start and then a 70-200mm.


----------



## tapanit (May 27, 2013)

pj1974 said:


> Chosenbydestiny said:
> 
> 
> > But generally people don't choose the 5DmkIII or 1DX because of financial limitations - and needing to keep sufficient funds for decent glass.
> ...


----------



## beginner (May 27, 2013)

Hi all! Thank you for all the great advice and suggestions. I've read them all.

I have already invested and started to play in Lightroom. Though only have jpegs in there, I'm getting the hang of it. I will be definitely shooting in RAW, if anything else I wouldn't consider DSLRs. 

I am planning to get some basic filters with the camera. I know what they do basically. But I have some reading to do on them as I don't know the details and specifics as of yet. Thanks for the advice on this area, it would give me a good start as to what to look for. I will wait on the tripod and invest in one a bit later. For now, I don't mind using my body or holding my breath while I figure out the camera.



dmills said:


> ... to quickly see what aperture, shutter speed, iso, focus mode, evaluation, etc, etc. You're at (as well as shots remaining and battery life). I simply wouldn't buy a DSLR without that.


This is also very important to me. I want to take pictures, not fiddle in and around with the camera.

I will look at micro-4/3 as suggested to have an idea of those as well. 

Budget is, of course, a concern. 6D is in the top range I want to part with. The more I think about it the more I am leaning to option 1... As many of you mentioned, and I quote "it's better to spend once and totally enjoy it."... Which is how I was feeling and justifying the price tag for a first DSLR.


----------



## ecka (May 27, 2013)

I regret that I didn't start with a FF camera. I didn't know what to get, so I tried to follow the most popular advice for beginners, which was/is like:
- body doesn't matter, half-dead Rebel is fine  ; (*not for me*)
- get the best lenses you can afford ...; (*best doesn't mean the most expensive*)
- ... which are 11-16/2.8, 17-55/2.8, 70-200L, 100-400L; (*not really, primes work better for me*)
- don't forget about accessories: tripods, flashes, filters, etc; (*you can buy these later, if you feel the need) (IMHO, only memory cards, bags and spare batteries are the must-have, everything else is optional*).
Now I know that it does not fit my style. I don't need to cover the 16-600mm focal range. I rarely use tele lenses, flashes, tripods, filters ... no need to spend money on that. I should have bought a used 5D with 50/1.8'II and then add 85/1.8USM later (which I recommend for portraits).
The problem is that you never know before you try it. My current choice is 6D+40/2.8STM (people, close-ups, stitching landscapes, travel) +150/2.8Macro for portraits and stuff outdoors.


----------



## Zv (May 27, 2013)

ecka said:


> I regret that I didn't start with a FF camera. I didn't know what to get, so I tried to follow the most popular advice for beginners, which was/is like:
> - body doesn't matter, half-dead Rebel is fine  ; (*not for me*)
> - get the best lenses you can afford ...; (*best doesn't mean the most expensive*)
> - ... which are 11-16/2.8, 17-55/2.8, 70-200L, 100-400L; (*not really, primes work better for me*)
> ...



+1. Find your style first before buying all that extra stuff. You may find that you use a filter about once a year. Don't buy anything until you find a definite need for it. Try without it. You might find a cheap workaround. For example grad ND - I find lightrooms grad filter way more flexible or take two exposures and blend in photoshop. For ND filter - f/22 does the job (well kind of!). Maybe a CPL is one you will need as thats not possible to replicate digitally. Tripod - my knee, lampost, railing etc. even used someones shoulder once. 

When you catagorically cannot go further - then buy it.


----------



## verysimplejason (May 27, 2013)

Zv said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > I regret that I didn't start with a FF camera. I didn't know what to get, so I tried to follow the most popular advice for beginners, which was/is like:
> ...



I can agree to almost anything except FLASH. I consider flash as one of the most important accessory besides lens and camera. You can use it as a fill-in flash which makes portraits a lot better. It's also a great help for extending a little bit a picture's DR. I can live without a tripod (most of the time) and filters but I consider flash as a must whenever I take pictures except for some situations. You may argue that 6D can take a much higher ISO but when you know how to use your flash properly, your pictures will be a lot better.


----------



## Zv (May 27, 2013)

VSJ - Ok yeah that's true I can't live without a speedlight!


----------



## ecka (May 27, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



Well, yes and no. It is a must-have in studio-like conditions or staged scenes (portraits or macro), but for candid or street photography flash can make it look unnatural and be embarrassing for people around you. However, I'm no flash expert, so I may be wrong.
I know that good photograph needs good lighting and outdoors there is plenty of it


----------



## Vivid Color (May 27, 2013)

To beginner: Thank you for posting the link to your photos as it was very helpful to informing my suggestion to you, which is: Get the 6D with the 24-105L lens plus a really good clear filter. For the filter, I'll recommend the B+W XS-Pro Digital 010 UV-Haze MRC nano (77mm size). (I bought this filter for my 24-105 after others on this site recommended it.) Buy these 3 items plus an SD card and you'll be good to go. Check B&H and Adorama and you might find a deal in which a bag is thrown in. I realize this puts you at the maximum of what you want to spend, but I think it is the best investment strategy for the type of photos you take. The filter is not cheap so you may need to wait on getting the 50 mm, but that's ok. It may even be for the best. While using the 24-105 for a while, you can have time to save up some more money and then decide whether you want to get a 50 mm 1.8 or 1.4 or 40 mm 2.8 or a telephoto zoom. Other posters to your query have suggested a flash, and you will want/need one at some point. (Most of your photos seem to be taken outdoors so that is why I'm not prioritizing a flash.) Also on the wait until you can save up for them list are CPL and ND filters and a tripod. All of these things are excellent and important to have but I would not trade off buying the 6D to get them right now. (Even the camera bag is optional. I have several, but I have also opted on many occasions to wrap my camera and lens up with two large thick hand towels so I could carry them in a regular backpack or tote.) I bought the T1i/500D several years ago when full frame DSLRs were not as affordable as they are now. I bought the 6D several months ago and love it. It is, in my opinion, truly a camera body you can grow into. That said, your priorities may differ and if you do decide to go with the 600D, then consider the EF 17-40mm lens instead of the EF-S lenses. That way, if/when you move to FF, you'll at least have a lens that is FF compatible.


----------



## RadioPath (May 27, 2013)

Hi,
how about 600D + 50 1.4 + 17-40 4.0 L? Should be 1400-1500$ and you have a standard zoom and nice fast portrait lens for now. 
If/when you decide to go FF you would already have a wide-angle zoom and low-light standard prime; throw in a longer prime or zoom and you'd be set and could keep the older crop-body as a backup. 
All the best
RadioPath

Edit: Looks like Vivid Color beat me to the punch


----------



## Rocguy (May 27, 2013)

I started with a 650D and quickly wished I had gotten a FF. Which I did. 6D + 24-105. NO regrets about upgrading to the 6D. But I do wish I hadn't started with the crop camera. I'm currently getting ready to sell it. And according to eBay prices I won't lose too much money on it. But it's just an extra step that really was not necessary. If the 6D is within your budget just do it.


----------



## Zv (May 27, 2013)

One thing I really like about the 6D is the sound the shutter makes - just so smooth and pressable. In comparison my 5D II just sounds like some old man sneezing and those rebels are just as bad. Clunk Clunk hurts my soul!

Sorry, maybe not your highest priority!


----------



## ecka (May 27, 2013)

Zv said:


> One thing I really like about the 6D is the sound the shutter makes - just so smooth and pressable. In comparison my 5D II just sounds like some old man sneezing and those rebels are just as bad. Clunk Clunk hurts my soul!
> 
> Sorry, maybe not your highest priority!



+1
The shutter sound was never something I cared about, until I tried 6D . Now I love it.


----------



## pato (May 27, 2013)

Hi Beginner
I'm in the same situation.
Reasons for me to probably go to the 6D from the 550D are: 
- bigger body = better for my hands
- more controll in manual mode (you have many additional options for ISO (more steps), more options for the AF points, ...)
- narrower DoF, could also be a problem sometimes
- bigger and brighter view finder!!!

Negative points are
- only EF lenses = more expensive
- less reach compared to APS-C with the same lens

But yeah, the positives clearly outweight the negatives


----------



## beginner (May 27, 2013)

Again All.... Thank you for all your input, suggestions on accessories and alternative combinations. I've decided to get the 6D with the kit lens. I want to get the kit lens as I really want to play with different length options, ISO and SS to get real life experiences on different combinations. So no primes as of yet.

To Ecka & ZV: Agreed. My focus is to get the basics and grow with the camera. Add things if I need to. I don't find the need for a flash or a tripod initially. I'm sure I will add when I know what I'm doing a bit more. Only planning to get the UV filter at the moment ( I think?!?) to protect the lens. For tripods... I know they have their place. I have never used one before but I actually love using my body to get the shots. It somehow makes me feel the photo so much more. Quiet shutter is of course my preference and glad 6D accommodates that as well. 

To VividColors: Thanks for your input and taking the time to look at my pictures. It makes me more confident on my choice for going for the 6D.

To Pato: If we can afford it, 6D seems to be it. I can see what you mean about the EF Lenses. It was a concern for me also. That is why I have decided to go with the kit with 24-105... Roughly, the lens is around 1100 and the body is 2000. You do the math. In the mean time, you are getting a great camera and a great lens. I doubt I will be looking for any other lens other than a couple of much cheaper primes. So, at this point I am not even worrying about the EF lens prices. If the day comes to buy a EF lens that is really expensive, I will assume somehow I am making real good money from this hobby. At that point, the cost will be funded by the hobby and I'll be writing it off as a business expense.


----------



## pato (May 27, 2013)

What I completely forgot to mention (but was already mentioned by others) and this actually pisses me a bit off, it has no built in flash. Nikon is able to do that, so I'm a bit unhappy that Canon did not manage to do this. On the other hand the 6D has GPS and WIFI built in which also occupies some little space. 
Recently I checked all my pictures, I haven't often used the flash, but you might be missing some night portraits out. 

Once I have the 6D I'll probably miss the reach, even with the 24-105 lens. I made a graph of all my pictures and discovered that 1/3 of all my taken pictures are made with ~140 and ~160mm, so I will need a lens with further reach. I guess it would be the 100-400mm one, once I've saved up again enough money. Until then my old, crappy, 75-300 (or 70-300) has to cover it, together with my 400mm Sigma Prime. 
ExposurePlot is the name of the program, really usefull for this kind of information. 

Anyway, congratulation about your choice! Maybe you could write a small follow up in a week or two after you had some time to test the kit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2013)

pato said:


> What I completely forgot to mention (but was already mentioned by others) and this actually pisses me a bit off, it has no built in flash. ... but you might be missing some night portraits out.



Indeed...that special deer-in-headlights look you can achieve with an on-axis flash as the primary light source for the shot is something to which many aspire. :


----------



## ecka (May 28, 2013)

beginner said:


> Again All.... Thank you for all your input, suggestions on accessories and alternative combinations. I've decided to get the 6D with the kit lens. I want to get the kit lens as I really want to play with different length options, ISO and SS to get real life experiences on different combinations. So no primes as of yet.
> 
> To Ecka & ZV: Agreed. My focus is to get the basics and grow with the camera. Add things if I need to. I don't find the need for a flash or a tripod initially. I'm sure I will add when I know what I'm doing a bit more. Only planning to get the UV filter at the moment ( I think?!?) to protect the lens. For tripods... I know they have their place. I have never used one before but I actually love using my body to get the shots. It somehow makes me feel the photo so much more. Quiet shutter is of course my preference and glad 6D accommodates that as well.



I don't use UV filters, so I don't have one, because in my shooting environments the chance of damaging front glass element is very low. No UV filter adds anything good to the picture, quite opposite, you are trading some of the goodness for safety. So, if dust and moisture are not your only concern, then make sure that the glass you are putting to protect your lens is a tough one, "bulletproof" . Otherwise, (IMHO) it's not worth it. Most of the UV filters break much easier than the lens glass itself.



> To VividColors: Thanks for your input and taking the time to look at my pictures. It makes me more confident on my choice for going for the 6D.
> 
> To Pato: If we can afford it, 6D seems to be it. I can see what you mean about the EF Lenses. It was a concern for me also. That is why I have decided to go with the kit with 24-105... Roughly, the lens is around 1100 and the body is 2000. You do the math. In the mean time, you are getting a great camera and a great lens. I doubt I will be looking for any other lens other than a couple of much cheaper primes. So, at this point I am not even worrying about the EF lens prices. If the day comes to buy a EF lens that is really expensive, I will assume somehow I am making real good money from this hobby. At that point, the cost will be funded by the hobby and I'll be writing it off as a business expense.



Well, if there was an equivalent EF-S lens for every EF lens and just as good, then they would be just as expensive (or even more). For example, 24-105L beats the EF-S 17-55/2.8 in every way - build, DoF, IQ, focal range, while both are similar in size, weight and price. Take a look at EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM, the EF-S equivalent would be 17-85/2.2-3.5 IS USM, I doubt that it would be any smaller, better or cheaper. Actually, I'd prefer 6D+28-135/3.5-5.6 over 60D+17-55/2.8. So, I call this myth busted


----------



## Zv (May 28, 2013)

Lens hoods work just fine for protecting the front element in most cases except sand / dust and rain. If you absolutely have to shoot in those conditions then yeah buy a clear filter. It's not a bad thing to have, Canon recommend you use one to complete the weather sealing on most L lenses.


----------



## verysimplejason (May 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> pato said:
> 
> 
> > What I completely forgot to mention (but was already mentioned by others) and this actually pisses me a bit off, it has no built in flash. ... but you might be missing some night portraits out.
> ...



Actually a built-in flash is also quite useful as a fill-in flash to achieve a little bit more DR and to take away some shadows from people's faces during portraits. Of course this should be done using slow-sync. At night, built-in flash use should be minimized and only during emergency cases. A good external flash is always preferred. At night for high contrast situations (background has lights on it), it will be very hard to meter without a flash to help you get the shot (metering using the background and letting the flash lit up your subject's faces). As such, using a built-in flash is better than without though again, an external flash is very much preferred.


----------



## verysimplejason (May 28, 2013)

ecka said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Zv said:
> ...



A good flash is required especially at night or for high-contrast scenes (background vs subject) which is quite prevalent in street photography. This is to keep the background from being overexposed and your subject (people mostly) from being underexposed unless you want to try applying HDR which isn't always applicable (actually most of the time). In the morning, you can opt for a reflector sometimes but at night, there's no light you can reflect so you're down to your flash to expose your subject properly.

And another thing, a speedlight used as a *fill-in flash* isn't too unnatural that a slight WB adjustment can't fix.

http://digital-photography-school.com/using-fill-flash


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2013)

ecka said:


> beginner said:
> 
> 
> > To Pato: If we can afford it, 6D seems to be it. I can see what you mean about the EF Lenses. It was a concern for me also. That is why I have decided to go with the kit with 24-105... Roughly, the lens is around 1100 and the body is 2000. You do the math. In the mean time, you are getting a great camera and a great lens. I doubt I will be looking for any other lens other than a couple of much cheaper primes. So, at this point I am not even worrying about the EF lens prices. If the day comes to buy a EF lens that is really expensive, I will assume somehow I am making real good money from this hobby. At that point, the cost will be funded by the hobby and I'll be writing it off as a business expense.
> ...



It's busted as long as you're talking about comparing the EF-S lens on APS-C with the EF lens on FF. But for example, when both are used on the same APS-C body, the EF-S 17-55/2.8 delivers better IQ than the EF 24-105/4L, and (IMO) the former is a more useful focal range (24mm is 'normal' on APS-C meaning no wide angle therefore the 24-105 is not a 'general purpose zoom' covering wide to short tele).

Personally, I'd prefer the 60D+17-55 over the 6D+28-135 any day. But I'd take 6D+24-105 over both.


----------



## tron (May 28, 2013)

It would be 6D and 24-105 for me. No dilemma!

If you go FF you will have no need to upgrade to FF later. You can built upon this system.


----------



## ecka (May 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > beginner said:
> ...



Well, of course I'm talking about EF on FF vs EF-S on APS-C. The myth claims that EF lenses are more expensive, because they are meant for FF. I'm just saying, that L lenses are more expensive for different reasons and if those same reasons were included in every EF-S lens, then there would be no big difference in price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2013)

ecka said:


> Well, of course I'm talking about EF on FF vs EF-S on APS-C. The myth claims that EF lenses are more expensive, because they are meant for FF. I'm just saying, that L lenses are more expensive for different reasons and if those same reasons were included in every EF-S lens, then there would be no big difference in price.



I disagree, sort of... For wide angle and normal lens designs, the smaller image circle means less glass is needed - for an equivalent level of build quality, an EF-S lens will cost less to produce than a corresponding EF lens. I say 'sort of' because the reality is that production costs are only one factor (and not the most important one) in determining lens pricing - Canon would likely charge the sameand keep the difference as profit...


----------



## Pi (May 28, 2013)

Get FF from the beginning. If you start building a crop system, it would costs you more later to go FF.

The 6D+24-105 would perform very similarly to the 60D+17-55 combo but there are still differences worth paying for - better resolution at equivalent settings, the 24-105 has a better range, you can get very clean files in good light with the 6D. But the most important thing is that you can build a better system with the 6D in the future.


----------



## Pi (May 28, 2013)

pato said:


> Negative points are
> - only EF lenses = more expensive



Actually, equivalent EF-S lenses, when they exist, are *more* expensive, like the 17-55 vs. the 24-105, the 10-22 vs. the 17-40, EF-S macro vs. the 100 macro.


----------



## ecka (May 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Well, of course I'm talking about EF on FF vs EF-S on APS-C. The myth claims that EF lenses are more expensive, because they are meant for FF. I'm just saying, that L lenses are more expensive for different reasons and if those same reasons were included in every EF-S lens, then there would be no big difference in price.
> ...



Then how comes that EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM is Canon's only UWA APS-C offer, which is like 16-35/5.6-7.1 FF equivalent? Is APS-C+10-22USM any better than FF+17-40L, while both lenses priced similarly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2013)

ecka said:


> Then how comes that EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM is Canon's only UWA APS-C offer, which is like 16-35/5.6-7.1 FF equivalent? Is APS-C+10-22USM any better than FF+17-40L, while both priced similarly.



Actually, yes. The 17-40L on FF is a soft mess in the corners, especially wide open, and has major barrel distortion at the wide end (3.6%, although the 24-105L at 24mm has even more distortion). The 10-22 on APS-C is sharp into the corners, and has far less distortion (1.2%, and that's another area where EF-S wins for the 17-55, which is at 2% distortion at 17mm vs. 4.3% for the 24-105L on FF).


----------



## ecka (May 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Then how comes that EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM is Canon's only UWA APS-C offer, which is like 16-35/5.6-7.1 FF equivalent? Is APS-C+10-22USM any better than FF+17-40L, while both priced similarly.
> ...



For fair comparison we should use 17-40L at f/5.6-7.1 vs 10-22USM wide open. I've noticed before that 17-40L has soft FF corners at wide angle and stopping it down doesn't help much. For that reason I never bothered to try it myself. However, lots of angry worshipers argued that it's perfect at f/5.6+. I still don't believe them. Perhaps my definition of perfection is different . Can you confirm that?


----------



## Pi (May 28, 2013)

ecka said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ecka said:
> ...



Right, the confusion comes from the inability of people to understand equivalence.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=271&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=398&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=107&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=335&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## pfortissimo (May 28, 2013)

If you were going to go APS-C, I'd say get the 650D. It has support for STM lenses and does the in-video AF. It's a significant leap.

I'd recommend getting this refurbished kit with the STM zoom, then adding the 50mm prime. 
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_331230_-1

The old 18-135 was rubbish, but the new 18-135 STM has excellent resolution. The [email protected] may seem bad, but you will get decent bokeh from compression. 
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/776-canon_18135_3556stmis?start=2

Good luck!


----------



## Pi (May 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 10-22 on APS-C is sharp into the corners, and has far less distortion (1.2%, and that's another area where EF-S wins for the 17-55, which is at 2% distortion at 17mm vs. 4.3% for the 24-105L on FF).



The 17-55 has less distortion at 24mm eq.? I did not know that!

The distortion of the 24-105 is the price you pay for the real wide end and for a slightly more reach. The 15-85 distorts a lot, too. Distortion with today's digital workflow is not such a big problem anymore.


----------

