# Canon EOS 6D vs Canon EOS 7D II (from wildlife perspective)



## AdamBotond (Jun 27, 2016)

Altough I'm a 6D user for mainly wildlife photography (whaaaat?), last weekend I rented a 7D II as I wanted to gain some ideas, whether its reasonable to make a switch (or addition) for me or not. That being said, I have favoured the better IQ in contrast with stellar AF system and pro-like features in the past. My biggest concern has always been the APSC IQ and noise level, especially in low light situations, where most of wildlife actions take place.

After testing a 7D II in real world I ended up some conclusions:

PROs:

Noise level. On paper 7D II produces approx twice amount of noise at the same iso compared to 6D. However, I found pics absolutely usable at 6400. I would rarely (almost never) go to 12800 with my 6D.
AF system is stellar, but you have to know how to utilize it. I guess its safe to say, that the more sophisticated AF system gives you more room to both succeed and fail at the same time. Some of my fox shots were out of focus, because I carelessly chose spot AF for the scenario that resulted back focus problems. 

Crop-factor. Its hard to not love the extra reach, that APSC offers you. My 400mm 5.6 becomes 640mm on 7D II, I would not be able to make that with any FF+lens combo lightweight. 

Frame rate: With 7D II you have twice as much pics in a sec, which is a big thing. In other words, you have 2x more chance to grab the perfect moment. On the other hand, you will end up twice as much pics to delete from. 

Metering system seems much more accurate than the 6D's. Exposure was almost always perfect in the most challenging situations to me. 

Pro features, dedicated AF menu are also much appreciated for any action photographers.

Cons:

Dynamic range: It was very very narrow. Its unfair to compare it to a sensor of a FF camera, but still. I am used to slightly overexpose my shots, so I could pull back the highlights and gain some information in the dark areas to end up with more DR, but that technique did not really worked well with the 7DII for me. To put it simply, what was clipping on the screen of camera was actually gone and most of them could not be saved in post processing, either. That makes me think its better to expose for the highlights rather. 

Loose of depth of field: I was expected to loose some on an APSC, but it wasn't noticeable to me, not a deal braker to say the least. 

So while switching my FF body for a pro APSC is not going to happen, adding 7D II to my kit would definitely help my wildlife photography.
Any inputs of 7D II users would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading.


----------



## Sabaki (Jun 27, 2016)

I also own both bodies. I have a distinct use criteria for each body as I feel each have been designed for very different purposes and as such, I do not consider the 7DII to be a backup camera to my 6D.

Just as I won't use the 7DII for landscapes or portraitures, I won't use the 6D for wildlife or other 'speed' photography. The 7DII is made for that and although the IQ may not be quite the same, the overall outcome to me, is better on the 7DII.

Example: Here in South Africa, we have a beautiful specie of kingfisher called the malachite kingfisher and they are fast! It takes well under 2 seconds for the bird to dive and re-emerge from the water with it's prey. Everything about the 7DII allows me to capture such a sequence more effectively than the 6D and using the 7DII becomes natural selection : (I'm so corny)

I am not saying the 6D is lousy or crappy when it comes to 'speed' photography but certainly it was not designed for that


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 27, 2016)

It is mentioned that the 7DII does not leave headroom in highlights when slightly overexposed. My experience with the 7DII is that the metering is so good, that leaving it in auto with no adjustment to it, will give you files that are exposed so that highlights might be blown, but they are recoverable if shooting raw. That's why overexposing the 7DII is unnecessary and most often a bad idea.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 27, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> It is mentioned that the 7DII does not leave headroom in highlights when slightly overexposed. My experience with the 7DII is that the metering is so good, that leaving it in auto with no adjustment to it, will give you files that are exposed so that highlights might be blown, but they are recoverable if shooting raw. That's why overexposing the 7DII is unnecessary and most often a bad idea.


+1
I find it difficult to believe that a serious wild life shooter doesn't use RAW.


----------



## picturefan (Jun 27, 2016)

Hi all!

I´m in the same position like the TO when decided to get a 7DII. I totally agree to the conlusions in all points.
My biggest CON: after testing the af-system - which is fast and reliable- for bif and wildlife, I found out that all pictures were relatively soft. Not one tag-sharp. After long time of searching for the reason I must tell: probably the camera`s fault. Using tripod and liveview, I made lots of comparisons. Not a single sharp picture whatever lens i used. Anyone else with that problem?


----------



## j-nord (Jun 27, 2016)

I also shoot wildlife with a 6D so I found this perspective very interesting. I tried a 7D as a 2nd body for a little while (6 months). I think your overall opinion of the 7Dii vs 6D closely mirrors my opinion of the 7D vs 6D. A pro crop cannot replace the IQ and benefits of a FF. In the case of the 6D, the 7Dii has much better AF, fps, and a crop factor so it will get a lot of wildlife shots the 6D can't. If you have to crop anyway, the crop body is often a better choice however, this gets into the 'more pixels on subject' vs 'better pixels' debate. 

I've held off on the 7Dii as a 2nd body because I'm not sure I want to A) carry a 2nd body and B) will be satisfied enough with the IQ for the mostly low light shooting it will see. C) sticking with a FF body has really forced me to improve my ability to get close to wildlife.


----------



## j-nord (Jun 27, 2016)

picturefan said:


> Hi all!
> 
> I´m in the same position like the TO when decided to get a 7DII. I totally agree to the conlusions in all points.
> My biggest CON: after testing the af-system - which is fast and reliable- for bif and wildlife, I found out that all pictures were relatively soft. Not one tag-sharp. After long time of searching for the reason I must tell: probably the camera`s fault. Using tripod and liveview, I made lots of comparisons. Not a single sharp picture whatever lens i used. Anyone else with that problem?



Have you micro adjusted your body/lenses? Also, using FF lenses on a crop body means that you take a sharpness/detail hit, what lenses are you using?


----------



## picturefan (Jun 27, 2016)

"Have you micro adjusted your body/lenses? Also, using FF lenses on a crop body means that you take a sharpness/detail hit, what lenses are you using?"

The sharpness-problem: I did no afma, because when analysing the problem I compared phase-detection af to liveview-af. In lifeview (=contrast-detection) and best conditions (magnify 10x, tripod, higher shutter speed, , raw-files, stills, clear air etc., 100-400II) no very good sharpness was possible. Here in the forum and elsewhere I´ve seen perfect clear pics with that cam/lens combi. What is wrong? Isn´t afma not necessary when using lifeview??
Thanks for your reply!

Coming back to the TO: 
After using crop for long time, I´got used to it. The 7DII is very good compared to other crops I´ve used. If this combo would deliver superb-sharpness (like I´ve seen in some posts), I don´t feel like changing to FF, also for landscapes, events etc.


----------

