# 70D or 6D



## GaabNZ (Jul 4, 2013)

Hi all, I've been following the site for a while now and just signed up today.

I'm looking at upgrading from my 600D which I have really enjoyed using and learning from.

Without seeing any real hands on reviews and images from the 70D quite yet, I am keen to hear some thoughts on which camera you guys think would be a good upgrade.

I am not interested in the video side of things, only stills photography. It is not something I do to make money, but I do get a lot of enjoyment from photography.

I like to shoot landscapes, but also with 2 young kids like to photograph them too.

I'm looking at either the 6D or the 70D when it comes out. I have a friend who shoots with a Nikon D800e and he always recommends the full frame route.

I'm also wondering if the price of the 6D will drop at all when the 70D is released.

I'm just interested in opinions either way.

Cheers


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 5, 2013)

The general rule of thumb is that FF is better for large and wide, APS-C for small and narrow..... Unless it's moving quickly and then you want the best af system you can afford. 

The second rule of thumb is if you are shooting in poor light, go FF or use a flash.

The third rule of thumb is that the lens will have more impact on iq than the camera.

Since you are shooting landscape, short of cataclysmic events such as volcanoes erupting, kick-ass autofocus is not important.... But what is important is a quality wide angle lens. Because of the crop factor on APS-C cameras, it is a lot harder to make a good wide angle lens, and you will find you get much better results from a FF camera.


----------



## Vivid Color (Jul 5, 2013)

The price of the 6D has dropped considerably since it was released. You can now get the 6D + 24-105L + a printer for $1999 after a $400 rebate. See http://www.canonpricewatch.com/bundles/23030

It's not clear how long this price will last, but my guess is not long. So, if you want full frame, this 6D sale is great. 

That said, you could also wait to see how the 70D actually performs when it comes out and whether the extras it has is worth it to you to upgrade from your current crop body camera. From what you've told us, it seems like you have little to lose by waiting a bit. 

I'll also note that Mr. Haines listed some very good points to consider. Unfortunately, there's no one clear answer as it depends on each person's preferences and priorities. When I was trying to decide what second body to buy, I thought about what my T1i could do and what it couldn't do and what I wanted my new camera to be able to do better than what I had. Perhaps thinking about what you want your new camera to do that you can't do now will give you your answer. 

Best wishes and let us know what you decide.


----------



## duydaniel (Jul 5, 2013)

I don't care what body u use, your photo is only as good as your lens.
Go for the lens, whatever body doesn't matter


----------



## dexstrose (Jul 5, 2013)

You should really think about how much you can afford and will that cost bring you to where you would like to be. 

Does your glass work with a full frame?

What's your current camera not doing that a new one will do?

Are you buying cause it will make you happy?

Do you really need a new camera?

Do you think a better camera can capture those moments?

I could go on, but read more and get as much information before you make a decision. That will also make you wait since the 70d is not out yet for real usage review.

Good luck!


----------



## intxaurrek (Jul 5, 2013)

If you are comparing the 70D and the 6D, you must be a bit confused about the 6D, since they target very different uses imho. More pricey does not always mean better suited for you.

The 6D is great for image quality and low light, and being FF, with WiFi and GPS in it is more than tempting, even for those more adventurous that go outdoors hiking. But notice that it's not too well designed for outdoors, action, nature and moving subjects:

- It only offers 1 cross type AF sensor in the center. The rest are vertical or horizontal aligned only. Not good when you need precise focusing or autofocus off the center.
- 4fps: not good for nature or sports.
- No flash means you'll always have to carry your 580EX or whatever you use, in your bag. This can be tricky if you go mountaineering and try to avoid too much load.

Don't get me wrong. I sallivate when I hear 6D (or 5DMkIII!), but the question comes to... is it _that_ what you actually need?


----------



## weixing (Jul 5, 2013)

Hi,


GaabNZ said:


> I like to shoot landscapes, but also with 2 young kids like to photograph them too.
> 
> I'm looking at either the 6D or the 70D when it comes out. I have a friend who shoots with a Nikon D800e and he always recommends the full frame route.
> 
> ...


 For your case, I think 6D will be better choice since you mention landscape and people (unless you want to shoot your kids when they are running around). Canon 6D will have better image quality, better high ISO performance and better low light AF performance than 70D (70D AF should be faster in bright lighting condition).

Have a nice day.


----------



## robertbanksoz (Jul 5, 2013)

full frame


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 5, 2013)

I like to shoot landscapes, 
6D is ideal for landscapes. Better overall image quality (presumably) and it is going to be wider using normal lenses (unless you have a tokina 11-16 or a 10-22 canon). But generally the 6D is wider.

but also with 2 young kids like to photograph them too.
Young kids grow into young athletes. For sports, the 70D is going to rock the 6D's auto focus, but if we are talking balerina, then low light is better and the 6D is better, though only the center AF point is really usable.

I'm also wondering if the price of the 6D will drop at all when the 70D is released.

I doubt it. The 70D and 6D both eat into the ethusiast (semi-pro) market, but I think those people who want a 70D generally aren't the people who want a 6D, with you being the exception.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 5, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> I don't care what body u use, your photo is only as good as your lens.
> Go for the lens, whatever body doesn't matter



I agree that lenses make a huge difference, but it is possible that he already has a full complement of L lenses. And the next logical improvement is a new body.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 5, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> I don't care what body u use, your photo is only as good as your lens.
> Go for the lens, whatever body doesn't matter



*-1*...disagree. Let say you going to shoot a indoor volleyball, football or soccer game.

Here are your options:
1. Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II + 1D X
2. Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II + 7D

You think the photos(IQ) from 7D will be same or near to 1D X?

As others already mentioned, FF is the way to go


----------



## GaabNZ (Jul 5, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care what body u use, your photo is only as good as your lens.
> ...


Thanks for all the comments.

Re lenses. I currently have the Sigma 10-22mm. Sigma 105mm Macro and the Canon EF 70-200F4L

I noticed a big jump in quality from my kit lenses and am looking at adding another lens between 10-22 and 70-200. I don't want to jump into another APSc lens if I move up to a full frame camera, so will be waiting to see more reviews on the 70D when it comes out.


----------



## sarakoth (Jul 5, 2013)

*subscribed*



I have the same decision to make (though coming from an even older 500D)...

I like portraits, and a bit of landscape, but with young kids, sports carnivals, running around at parties, love animals at the zoo,etc.. it just seems other than the top of the line cameras, I have to make a choice and compromise what I want to shoot.

I invested in the 15-85 EF-S which is a great lens, but to go to a 6D I would have to get a 24-105 which is an additional cost as well and from some comparisons I have seen the IQ between then (on the same camera) is quite similar.. 

I was hanging out for a 7D2, but the more I read it is a real unknown when it will be available and it will also be a top of the line crop with alot of extras I don't need, for a lot more cost. hence thinking I should choose between the 70D and 6D.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 5, 2013)

sarakoth said:


> I invested in the 15-85 EF-S which is a great lens, but to go to a 6D I would have to get a 24-105 which is an additional cost as well and from some comparisons I have seen the IQ between then (on the same camera) is quite similar..



If you're considering moving to a 6D, I don't think there's much point comparing the 15-85 and 24-105 on the same APS-C camera; rather, compare - say - a photo taken in low light/high ISO on the APS-C + 15-85 with a photo taken in similar conditions with 6D + 24-105. The latter combination at ISO 3200 will likely look superior to the former at ISO 1600 or even 800. (It might also look better in bright light at ISO 100, for that matter, though the distortion will, of course, be worse in any light.) Of course, we don't know yet how the 70D's performs in any sort of light, but it's probably a safe assumption that its sensor isn't as good as the 6D's in low light. So if that matters to you, and if minimizing depth of focus matters, chances are you would notice a bigger improvement if you bought a 6D. (Plus, up till now, at any rate, Canon's FF sensors seem to perform better than their APS-C sensors if you need to restore detail to overexposed portions of photos via Lightroom etc.; who knows how the 70D will perform there.)


----------



## oscaroo (Jul 5, 2013)

Gday.

I've a 6D with the 24-105
I've a 50d with a 15-85

I got the 6d cos of GPS/wifi/ff/pixels/ISO over the 50d.
I thought, meh, at crappy AF, I already had crappy AF. I was used to centre+recompose anyway. So 1 good AF point was ok. 

Turns out .. it wasn't okay. Turns out the 50d centre point is a double-cross when at f2.8. Thus, my 6d centre point is pretty shitty with my wide aperture primes : ( . The 6D's centre point is single cross f5.6 and vertical f2.8. Boo.

So ... I find myself unable to use fast lenses with the 6D at wide open. AF is just too shitty for those.
If the 70d had been released before the 6D i would have gotten the 70d. Back then I didn't know why I would want GPS. Even now ... GPS I only use while holidaying or travelling. 

Depending on the ISO abilities of the 70d, I would get the 70d over the 6d nowadays.
if the 70d gives me clean 6400iso then that's good enough for me.


----------



## intxaurrek (Jul 5, 2013)

GaabNZ said:


> Re lenses. I currently have the Sigma 10-22mm. Sigma 105mm Macro and the Canon EF 70-200F4L
> 
> I noticed a big jump in quality from my kit lenses and am looking at adding another lens between 10-22 and 70-200. I don't want to jump into another APSc lens if I move up to a full frame camera, so will be waiting to see more reviews on the 70D when it comes out.



Sigma 10-22? You mean the 10-20? ( Sigma AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM ). I know of a Canon 10-22 EF-S. Anyway, both are digital crops.

IMVHO, the 6D is nice for studio or for cityscapes, but it can be a bit more annoying if you like trekking. I do landscapes most the times too but:

1) The general rule for landscapes, unlike portraits, is that the center of focus is off-center, and often you like appearing on the photos too on one side. 6D is no good at that for me. You can use the remote wifi triggering and focus off-center at yourself with both, but what is the point if the 6D fails focusing at that position?
2) Usually most landscape shots are full daylight at iso 100 (except for nightscapes), and/or forced long exposures with ND filters. I doubt there is so much difference in noise between both.
3) On landscapes there's no much point pixel noise peeping. Did you notice any noise on Ansel Adams shots due to his film's grain? ;-) You will not appreciate noise on tree leafs, rocks, sea... who cares about a bit of grain on sea sand?
4) I generally do enough with a 17 (17-55 f/2.8 IS). Its shallow depth can be nice when needed, and when one needs wider, usually it's necessary to take multiples shots anyway. I go with Autopano Giga and stitch nicely in those cases.
5) Wider zoom ranges provide me less weight to carry uphill, and a digital crop gives you lighter lenses for that.

Anyway, each of us has a different style for shooting, and more importantly very different needs. So I wouldn't generalize. Not everyone shooting landscapes cares about noise alone ;-))

The only real feature I miss is the GPS for geolocation, but fortunately I always need to carry my topo gps anyway so that I can correlate with no prob., hehehe.


----------



## GaabNZ (Jul 5, 2013)

intxaurrek said:


> GaabNZ said:
> 
> 
> > Re lenses. I currently have the Sigma 10-22mm. Sigma 105mm Macro and the Canon EF 70-200F4L
> ...



Sorry, yes, thats the one. 10mm-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM


----------



## yakman (Jul 5, 2013)

If main focus on landscape,

6D + 24-105 is a good choice.

Otherwise you can also consider add a mirrorless system
EOS M + (to be released EF M 11-22, EF M 18-55 also not bad)
EF M 18-55 STM seems sharper than the EFS lenses in the same range.
In APS C, to go wide, EF M seems better than EF S for now and future. I just sold my Sigma 10-20.


----------



## sarakoth (Jul 5, 2013)

oscaroo said:


> Gday.
> 
> I've a 6D with the 24-105
> I've a 50d with a 15-85
> ...



Thanks for the feedback and that is a little surprising to me.. I had the centre point on the 6D was great, especially at low light, just the other points pretty much suck?

As someone else mentioned on a different thread.. if something isn't in focus, then it doesn't matter what the ISO, noise, DR, etc, etc is... it will be out of focus... which is my big worry with the 6D. 

I also wonder how much light is considered "shooting in low light".. everyone seems to mention it but I am struggling to think what sort of situations I would find myself in low light as such. As it is, that is also why I have some faster lenses or IS to use. 

I dunno.. kids hardly ever sit still, so even say at an indoor gym with low light (which is an example I had a couple of weeks ago for a party), I can't see the 6D being able to track them jumping around, where I assume the 70D will get more keepers, even if those keepers have higher noise and less DR? 

Trouble for me at least is most of the time I want a great family "snapshots" of events & activities, and then some of the time I like to push my photography buttons and do some nice formal portraits, landscapes, etc.

At this stage I am waiting on some more detailed tests of both the AF and the IQ of the 70D.


----------



## pedro (Jul 5, 2013)

If you can afford it, I'd go FF. As good as the 70D may get, the 6D will have the edge in IQ. Especially once you choose to do some extremely low light handheld shots. My two cents.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Jul 5, 2013)

Perhaps you could ask 70d or a Teaspoon as this wouldmhave more relevance than your original question!!


----------



## sunnygal (Jul 5, 2013)

im in the same dilema. I have a 350D at the moment and i am just getting back into photography. Was looking at getting a 5D2 second hand, but then I was thinking i should just purchase brand new. Still going to wait till the 70D is released as i would like to hold it in my hands before making and prior purchases


----------



## jasonsim (Jul 5, 2013)

sarakoth said:


> *subscribed*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you like your 15-85mm EF-S IS lens (I had one and enjoyed it), then I would go with the 70D. If the improvements to hight ISO materialize, I too might be interested. Like you say, the 7D II will be much more especially if they make it with a built in grip (a la 1Dx). The only thing that worries me about the 70D is the AF performance; I hope it is better than what was on the 7D. There was no mention if there are any double cross type points in the 19 point array. That make a big difference when tracking birds in flight.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 5, 2013)

oscaroo said:


> Gday.
> 
> I've a 6D with the 24-105
> I've a 50d with a 15-85
> ...



Really? Maybe yours is defective. I frequently use fast primes wide open on my 6D in low light (by which I mean dimly lit rooms, outdoors at night with sparse street lighting or less - that sort of thing) and almost never have a problem getting it to focus (and when I do have a problem, it's rather extreme situations like, say, a black statue). Based on reports here and reviews, my experience is hardly atypical.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 5, 2013)

sdsr said:


> oscaroo said:
> 
> 
> > Gday.
> ...



+2 I have a 6D and don't have any problems getting pictures in focus. The center AF point is great and the off-center points usable. I use my 35 1.4L, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and 135 2.0L extensively with the 6D with zero problems - in fact it works fantastic.

Oscaroo, you should have Canon service take a look at your camera.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 5, 2013)

Based on what we know today, I'd recommend the 6D based on what the OP whats to use it for, but I think waiting a few months until hands-on reviews of the 70D are available would be a good idea. We will all have a better idea about the 70D's high ISO capabilities and general IQ. 

I know the 6D is an excellent camera for landscapes and kids, I have one and that's what I use it for 95% of the time. The 70D looks like an excellent camera from the early reviews. However, its strengths appear to be video and sports. The 6D's strength is IQ, so great for landscape, portraits and low light photography.



intxaurrek said:


> IMVHO, the 6D is nice for studio or for cityscapes, but it can be a bit more annoying if you like trekking. I do landscapes most the times too but:
> 1) The general rule for landscapes, unlike portraits, is that the center of focus is off-center, and often you like appearing on the photos too on one side. 6D is no good at that for me. You can use the remote wifi triggering and focus off-center at yourself with both, but what is the point if the 6D fails focusing at that position?
> 2) Usually most landscape shots are full daylight at iso 100 (except for nightscapes), and/or forced long exposures with ND filters. I doubt there is so much difference in noise between both.
> 3) On landscapes there's no much point pixel noise peeping. Did you notice any noise on Ansel Adams shots due to his film's grain? ;-) You will not appreciate noise on tree leafs, rocks, sea... who cares about a bit of grain on sea sand?
> ...



I find the 6D to be an excellent landscape camera. I often take it on long hikes and overnight hiking/camping trips and it performs great. What don't you like about it for trekking?

(1) For landscapes, you are generally going for as much depth of field as you can without running into diffraction, so typically f/8-f/16. Generally, I'm using a wide focal length 24-35mm, I try to keep the foreground interest elements at or near the hyperfocal distance for my lens - which yields a very high DOF. I focus on the foreground element either using the center AF point and re-composing, or one of the non-center points that work very well in decent light. At these narrow apertures, even if you miss the focus a little it will not matter, as nearly everything will be in focus due to the DOF.
(2) I have a 7D and 6D and agree the noise of the 7D is pretty much non-existant at ISO 320 and below. However, the OP stated he wanted to use the camera for taking pictures of kids. I also have two kids at home, and find the low-light/high ISO capabilities of the 6D to be terrific. I take lots of indoor shots of the kids at ISO3200 that look great. I don't even consider shots like that with my 7D - the noise would be impossible to clean up in PP.
(3) Depends on the photographer. I'm pretty anal, so like my landscape shots to be noise-free. 
(4) The 17-55 2.8 is a great lens!
(5) Agreed, APS-C lenses are much smaller and lighter. Full format will give you better image quality at the expense of size and weight of the gear. That said APS-C IQ is pretty damned good, more than good enough for most people, so its really a matter of personal preference.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Jul 5, 2013)

A lot of issues that people have when focussing with the 6D tend to be more about the user and not the camera!


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 5, 2013)

GaabNZ said:


> Hi all, I've been following the site for a while now and just signed up today.
> 
> I'm looking at upgrading from my 600D which I have really enjoyed using and learning from.
> 
> ...



In my opinion, nobody should have an opinion on the 70D just yet. Wait for hands on and some real testing.

The price has already dropped as low as it will go on the 6D, with B&H's current "deal" and $400 rebate. Not sure if you can take advantage of this if you are outside the USA, though. The only time the 6D's price will be lower, is when its own replacement gets close.

My vote is for the 6D, especially since you're only interested in stills photography, and you shoot landscape. Much debate exists over the 6D's autofocus ability, so I will now delve into that abyss for four paragraphs. My copy works just fine, even in servo mode in low light, whether with all points or center point. Certainly the outer points are the weak link, but at the 6D's price point (compared to Nikon's D600), I feel there is no significant difference in overall autofocus performance. The 7D's sensor (which the 70D is supposedly getting), however, might fare better...I have not done a side by side to test autofocus with one yet. I've only used the 7D on it's own.

Further on the above point...just two nights ago, I performed some servo tracking testing with my 135 f/2L lens on my 6D. With a bit of tweaking of the servo autofocus menu, at 4.5 frames per second, I was able to get 6 to 7 out of 10 shots at or near perfect focus...all points active. However, to achieve this I needed to keep the subject at or around the center point. But...With only a single outer AF point active, the number of sharp shots dropped to 3 out of 10. This is certainly what most of those who complain about the 6D's autofocus, are complaining about. Additionally, apparently there have been some samples of the 6D which included a faulty AF sensor. Not sure if Canon has officially commented on that. I would say, perhaps beware of samples with early production serial numbers. HOWEVER...there are also those people who just want to brow beat 6D users, in a lame attempt to convince them they wasted their money, and should have bought the 5D3 instead. Ignore these people; their minds are closed. They seem to lack photographic and technical ability.

The subject was a camera lens box on a moderately lit (a lot less than daytime sun intensity) table, indoors. Color temperature needed about 2600K, so that should indicate the low quality of the light. The movement was me, holding the camera and walking very swiftly toward the target. Shutter priority mode was 1/800, aperture varied between f/2 and f/2.2. Auto ISO varied between 12.8k and 20k. The results are more than adequate servo autofocus performance, compared to the 5D3, 1D4, and 1DX I have used. Apologies to those 6D haters out there, but it really does work adequately. On still targets in a comparably very very dark room, I was able to coax some auto focus out of the outer points, but it took time. The center point obviously worked fairly well. In a similar very low light situation (with the same 135L mounted), I could not get the 1D4 to AF at all, it hunted and gave up.

In bright daylight, servo autofocus via my 6D, can get between 7 and 10 out of 10 shots in perfect focus...depending on how difficult and busy the background lighting is...especially if that background has bright contrasty elements, and the target subject is dimly lit with very little contrast. So this is basically very close to the best autofocus available _in bright light_...in my opinion...achieved with a much reviled AF sensor to boot. I will admit that there are probably situations with extremely fast moving targets, where my results would fall well below 7 out of 10 sharp shots in very bright light. But I have not encountered those yet. I'd like to. Some of these targets include machines that rev to 18,000 rpm and will visit the "Circuit of the Americas" in Texas later this year. 

However, considering a purchase of the 6D, is dependent on how many full frame lenses you currently own, or are willing to buy. Price is a huge factor with them.

The advantages of the 6D as a full frame camera for landscape, should still prevail even over the new 70D with it's digic 6...especially since wide angle landscape will likely always be hindered by dedicated crop format wide angle lenses, with their inferior resolution and higher effective chromatic aberration (due to their lower quality of design, lower tolerances, and the CA is magnified by the smaller pixels of the crop format). I have owned and rented quite a few, none of them were stellar...some better than others. 

However, if you use the best quality full frame wide angle lenses and are happy with the narrower FOV of a 1.6x crop, such as with a Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 (it might be the "best" overall wide angle lens currently available)...then I suppose a 70D could suffice, if you like its other qualities better than the 6D.

But...for low ISO, and/or longer exposure/tripod landscape imaging only...overall the Nikon D800E is certainly still the best body available. *When the future high MP Canon body comes out, that will likely change...*but it should be priced well above the D800. So price could be a factor there, especially for a non-pro, or a part time pro who does not yet make big money, like myself. Not that I am considering Nikon...but it's low ISO performance advantage is real, and widely accepted on here. Nikon as a system, however, is not superior, and much of the time, inferior.

Oh, and as for high ISO performance (above 1600, but specifically between 2000 and 10,000...where low available light photography _lives_), I say the 6D generates the cleanest files available in 35mm format. Depending on the specific ISO setting, I have found the 1DX's RAW files to have less chrominance noise than the 6D, but higher luminance noise (grain). Ditto for the 5D3, only it's slightly worse than the 1DX. Their grain is large in its structure, and thus it cannot be "reduced" without throwing away a lot of resolution. The 6D's grain at the pixel level, is much finer. Thus a bit more of it can be reduced in post editing, without throwing resolution out with it. The Nikon D600's noise performance, from the comparison samples I have seen, looks far worse with both types of noise, than any of these three Canons.

No doubt the 70D will have fine noise performance _for a crop camera_, but whether or not it beats the Sony/Nikon 1.5x crop sensors, I don't know. It might only equal them, if that. That would still put it miles ahead of the 7D, and the T4i or T5i.


----------



## Aurora Borealis (Jul 5, 2013)

What do you think of your ISO performance today? Is it OK or completely inadequate?

Given the same choice and considering the little info there are on the web I'd still go for the 70D as long as ISO performance were as good as or better than the 600D.

Here is a suggestion:
70D + 10-22 + 430ex

That would mean a new wide angle lens and possibly a flash. But both the flash and lens are great and I can warmly recommend them. The 10-22 have shorter MFD than the 17-40 (same price but FF) and therefore creates stronger pictures.

When it comes to zoom, you cant get better than the Canon 70-200f4L IMO. The 2.8 is great but [email protected] is not so much better that it warrants the extra weight and cost.


----------



## northbyten (Jul 6, 2013)

6D without a doubt.


----------



## x-vision (Jul 6, 2013)

GaabNZ said:


> I'm looking at either the 6D or the 70D when it comes out.



Canon made the choice between the 70D and 6D quite difficult, IMO.

Without a doubt, the 70D is the more well-rounded and versatile camera. 
The 6D is a one trick pony: it has a FF sensor and ... that's it. 

Of course the 6D will be the better camera in terms of image quality.
Canon stated themselves that at the RAW level, the 70D ISO performance will be 'on par' with that of the 60D.
The 6D has about a ~2 ISO stops advantage over the 60D, which it will obviously keep over the 70D as well. 

So, if you decide to go with the 6D, you are obviously going to get better image quality.
But this will cost you more - and at the same time you'll be losing some fun and useful features.

Like I said, Canon made this a difficult choice.
Good luck with your decision.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 6, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > I don't care what body u use, your photo is only as good as your lens.
> ...


I say go for the lens....

He is talking about landscape so lets look at a 24mm lens. To get the same field of View, the crop equivalent is 15mm. The question becomes is a 6D with a 24mm lens better than a 7D with a 15mm lens. It is very hard to make a 15mm lens with the same image quality and distortion of a 24mm lens. 24 wins, and therefore 6D is better for landscape than 7D.

Btw.... I am not a FF fanatic... My next camera will be the 7D2. For my needs, crop cameras are better, but I am not a landscape shooter.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 6, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> I say go for the lens....
> 
> He is talking about landscape so lets look at a 24mm lens. To get the same field of View, the crop equivalent is 15mm. The question becomes is a 6D with a 24mm lens better than a 7D with a 15mm lens. It is very hard to make a 15mm lens with the same image quality and distortion of a 24mm lens. 24 wins, and therefore 6D is better for landscape than 7D.
> 
> Btw.... I am not a FF fanatic... My next camera will be the 7D2. For my needs, crop cameras are better, but I am not a landscape shooter.



Prior to my 5D III - I owned 40D, 60D, 7D, and 5D II. I do miss extra reach some time, but I doubt I would go back to crop. I'm talking about crop as primary camera. I do alot indoor shooting, therefore, FF is very important to me. That's just me of course


----------



## intxaurrek (Jul 6, 2013)

bholliman said:


> I find the 6D to be an excellent landscape camera. I often take it on long hikes and overnight hiking/camping trips and it performs great. What don't you like about it for trekking?
> 
> (1) For landscapes, you are generally going for as much depth of field as you can without running into diffraction, so typically f/8-f/16. Generally, I'm using a wide focal length 24-35mm, I try to keep the foreground interest elements at or near the hyperfocal distance for my lens - which yields a very high DOF. I focus on the foreground element either using the center AF point and re-composing, or one of the non-center points that work very well in decent light. At these narrow apertures, even if you miss the focus a little it will not matter, as nearly everything will be in focus due to the DOF.
> (2) I have a 7D and 6D and agree the noise of the 7D is pretty much non-existant at ISO 320 and below. However, the OP stated he wanted to use the camera for taking pictures of kids. I also have two kids at home, and find the low-light/high ISO capabilities of the 6D to be terrific. I take lots of indoor shots of the kids at ISO3200 that look great. I don't even consider shots like that with my 7D - the noise would be impossible to clean up in PP.
> ...



Thanks for your comments. Now I have more doubts about buying the 6D ;-)

The things I didn't like from it fr trekking were those I mentioned in the list (extra lens weight, AF, lack of flash...), but given your comments on the AF, I may reconsider.

Actually my current camera (30D that is still doing nicely!) has a similar configuration for AF points, but often it misses focus (at f/2.8 ), if I try to use sensors other than the center one. That is why I am a bit reluctant about that AF configuration. 

The reason think the 70D's AF is interesting for me, is mainly because I usually take self-portraits over landscapes, and usually I am off-center. I cannot focus and recompose, since it's hard to focus on my face while I am not in the frame. So being able to focus off center in live view would be great for me. Just set f/10-14, focus on me in live view through a mobile phone, and shoot. Not sure how the 6D would behave with that.

And yes, you're very right about the low light capabilities of the 6D. I'd love it for indoor portraits, although it is not the main use I do with the camera.

If only Canon told us when 7DMkII would come out, I'd possibly forget about both and go for it ... ;-)

My main issue is the AF, I generally cannot easily focus and recompose, since I ofen take self-portraitsl.


----------



## oscaroo (Jul 7, 2013)

Hmm.

Given people's suggestions that my centre AF is a bit banged ... I might consider it getting checked out.

The situation I had where it didn't work was taking photos of some dancers, in low light. The dancers had moments where they would stand still for a second or so, and I would shoot then. I'd aim my 100 f2 at them and the photo would be OOF enough to annoy me.

Then I used my 24-105 and the photos of them were sharper, although at times, blurry cos of the slower shutter speed.

*shrug.

So the centre point is focussing ok, maybe it's an AFMA thing, i'll give it some more tests, etc, in due course. I've warranty till Dec anyway.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Jul 7, 2013)

I upgraded from a 7D and its superior focussing because I wanted FF, to date i have had no issues focussing in a variety of situations!! The picture quality from the 6D is by far and away more superior. 

I am interested as to why the original poster would compare FF to a cropped sensor camera. Perhaps it should have been 70D or 7D!!


----------



## weixing (Jul 7, 2013)

intxaurrek said:


> The reason think the 70D's AF is interesting for me, is mainly because I usually take self-portraits over landscapes, and usually I am off-center. I cannot focus and recompose, since it's hard to focus on my face while I am not in the frame. So being able to focus off center in live view would be great for me. Just set f/10-14, focus on me in live view through a mobile phone, and shoot. Not sure how the 6D would behave with that.
> 
> And yes, you're very right about the low light capabilities of the 6D. I'd love it for indoor portraits, although it is not the main use I do with the camera.
> 
> ...


Hi,
Hmm... all Canon DSLR that have live view can focus off center, so shouldn't be a main issue...

Anyway, if taking self-portraits is high priority, then you need to get a DSLR with flip screen (60D, 70D, 700D & etc)... I don't think 7DII will have flip screen.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Powder Portraits (Jul 7, 2013)

Just a thought on pop up flashes, nice for snapshots in low light, but not so effective for fill light.


----------



## mwh1964 (Jul 7, 2013)

6D and FF for landscape for sure. No doubt.


----------



## kennephoto (Jul 7, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> I don't care what body u use, your photo is only as good as your lens.
> Go for the lens, whatever body doesn't matter



+1 can't agree more! Went to cars and coffee today with my 5d2 20-35 2.8L attached and a 12 year old canon 1d 4.2mp with 50 1.2L attached only difference I saw was bokeh and distortion from wide angle. Seriously this canon 1d 4.2mp at 12 years old makes just as good a photo as my 5d2. Shoot the af and 8fps on my 12 year old canon will be more than enough for the kids. This old 1d focuses so much better in bright and low light than my 5d2 its insane, disappointing actually. I have some old lenses and cameras but they give me great images compared to what people spend on higher end stuff. If you're not making money from your camera then buy what you want cause you will be happier that way. FF is awesome and crop is too try before you buy then you'll know!!


----------



## AudioGlenn (Jul 7, 2013)

Powder Portraits said:


> Just a thought on pop up flashes, nice for snapshots in low light, but not so effective for fill light.



? what do you mean? a pop up flash is fine for filling in some shadows. It doesn't need to be nearly as powerful if used as just a fill...


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 7, 2013)

AudioGlenn said:


> Powder Portraits said:
> 
> 
> > Just a thought on pop up flashes, nice for snapshots in low light, but not so effective for fill light.
> ...



I was outside yesterday morning and I tried to used a 430 ex ii for some fill flash... and the sun was winning that battle. UGH!!!.


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Jul 7, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> AudioGlenn said:
> 
> 
> > Powder Portraits said:
> ...



Did you haveit switched on? A 430ex ii will work as fill flash in any light??


----------



## Pi (Jul 7, 2013)

sarakoth said:


> Thanks for the feedback and that is a little surprising to me.. I had the centre point on the 6D was great, especially at low light, just the other points pretty much suck?
> 
> As someone else mentioned on a different thread.. if something isn't in focus, then it doesn't matter what the ISO, noise, DR, etc, etc is... it will be out of focus... which is my big worry with the 6D.



You have to think in equivalent terms. Is the AF focus of the 70D at f/2.8 more accurate than the 6D at f/4.5? No way, unless you need tracking. 

I have experience with the 5D2 and the 50D (supposedly better AF). For equivalent apertures, the outer AF points of the 5D2 (AI servo, back AF button) are similar, if not better than _the center _ of the 50D. Once you start shooting moving objects not in the center, things change.


----------



## intxaurrek (Jul 7, 2013)

weixing said:


> Anyway, if taking self-portraits is high priority, then you need to get a DSLR with flip screen (60D, 70D, 700D & etc)... I don't think 7DII will have flip screen.



Why would I want a flip screen? You cannot see the screen of your camera if you are 4-5 meters away from the camera anyway. it's landscape shots, not normal self portraits, so you are a bit further from the camera, to avoid covering the lanscape, and if doing panoramas, to avoid parallax issues.

With the 70D and 6D you can take a photo using your mobile phone and wifi, and see live view through it. There's no need for a flipping screen. But the AF on the 70D might work better, since it's not contrast based anymore.


----------



## Pi (Jul 7, 2013)

intxaurrek said:


> The things I didn't like from it fr trekking were those I mentioned in the list (extra lens weight, AF, lack of flash...), but given your comments on the AF, I may reconsider.



Lenses with the same light gathering abilities for FF are not heavier. For example, the 24-105 is comparable in weight to the 17-55.



> So being able to focus off center in live view would be great for me. Just set f/10-14, focus on me in live view through a mobile phone, and shoot. Not sure how the 6D would behave with that.



AF in LV? This is entirely different AF. The 6D would not behave any different. If anything, with the same lens, the 6D would gather more light and AF better in LV.


----------



## intxaurrek (Jul 7, 2013)

Pi said:


> Lenses with the same light gathering abilities for FF are not heavier. For example, the 24-105 is comparable in weight to the 17-55.
> 
> (...)
> 
> AF in LV? This is entirely different AF. The 6D would not behave any different. If anything, with the same lens, the 6D would gather more light and AF better in LV.



The 17-55 is f2.8. The 24-105 is f4. An f2.8 for a full frame like the 6D would be much heavier. 

The lenses needed to gather light for a full frame are larger and heavier, since they need much wider diameter lenses to cover such a sized sensor. It's not only about capturing the same light. It's about having the same light density on the sensor.

And about live view focusing, the 6D does contrast focusing, while the 70D does phase detect in live view. Thus my question. It actuallly DOES AF in a similar maner to normal AF....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2013)

intxaurrek said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Lenses with the same light gathering abilities for FF are not heavier. For example, the 24-105 is comparable in weight to the 17-55.
> ...



Actually, it is about the same total light. The exposure triangle has three sides - so, while f/4 is a stop slower than f/2.8 in terms of light per unit area (independent of sensor size), comparing an f/4 lens on a FF sensor to f/2.8 on APS-C, the latter gives you the DoF of f/4.5 on FF but a stop faster shutter speed, you can bump the ISO up a stop on the FF f/4, and still have less noise than f/2.8 on APS-C. 

You're right about the Live View AF on the 70d being better than that on the 6D, at least by spec. But let's wait for the testing - CDAF on the 6D, 7D, and 5DII should be 'the same' but the 6D is both more accurate and more precise than the other two.


----------



## cookinghusband (Jul 8, 2013)

I think it really depends on how much video that need auto tracking you will be doing. If this is video you do more, then 70D. If it is still then 6D

However you may need to get a bunch of EF new lens instead of the EF-s lens for 6D


----------



## Pi (Jul 8, 2013)

intxaurrek said:


> The lenses needed to gather light for a full frame are larger and heavier, since they need much wider diameter lenses to cover such a sized sensor.



No, this is wrong. It is quite simple, really - same diameter (more precisely, entrance pupil), same light.



> And about live view focusing, the 6D does contrast focusing, while the 70D does phase detect in live view. Thus my question. It actuallly DOES AF in a similar maner to normal AF....



Yes, I forgot about that. Still - did you say that you will be shooting at f/10, or so? You might be overthinking it.


----------



## intxaurrek (Jul 8, 2013)

Pi said:


> No, this is wrong. It is quite simple, really - same diameter (more precisely, entrance pupil), same light.



You are mistaking light candelas/luxes with lumens. You get the same amount of light in lumens, but not the same light density (luxes/candelas), since the light is spread all over the sensor. The sensor will give you a charge depending on this density of light, and the lens will give you more or less *total* amount of light depending on the aperture (pupil) diameter. Then this light is spread over an area, but a crop lens is designed to focus it on 24mm area, while a full frame lens is designed to cover 35mm... then the 35mm one needs more light entering to yield the same exposure.

For an f2.8, no matter which lens, as far as it's appropriate for the given body, they all produce the same light density on the sensor. Otherwise the exposure settings would need to be different on each body, and you know that's not true. You just cannot compare an f.4 from full frame with an f2.8 on a crop. They do not yield the same photo on the same iso/Tv settings at maximum aperture.

The difference between an f2.8 on a FF and a f2.8 on a crop is that even if they show the same exposure, they are not equivalent in terms of DOF, frame, etc.... 

But anyway, there's no point discussing what's already discussed elsewhere, so please better read here:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#exposure


----------



## intxaurrek (Jul 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, it is about the same total light. The exposure triangle has three sides - so, while f/4 is a stop slower than f/2.8 in terms of light per unit area (independent of sensor size), comparing an f/4 lens on a FF sensor to f/2.8 on APS-C, the latter gives you the DoF of f/4.5 on FF but a stop faster shutter speed, you can bump the ISO up a stop on the FF f/4, and still have less noise than f/2.8 on APS-C.



Well, true, I was trying to compare the images at the same exposure settings (same iso/Av/Tv), and that may not be correct to get equivalent photos in terms of noise and DOF, right.

In your comparison terms, an f4 on a FF is the same as f2.8 on a crop sensor  if you alter exposure settings, that is


----------



## Pi (Jul 8, 2013)

intxaurrek said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > No, this is wrong. It is quite simple, really - same diameter (more precisely, entrance pupil), same light.
> ...



No, you are.



> You get the same amount of light in lumens, but not the same light density (luxes/candelas), since the light is spread all over the sensor.



Right, but you are the only one insisting that intensity has anything to do with the discussion, so ... you get the idea.



> But anyway, there's no point discussing what's already discussed elsewhere, so please better read here:
> 
> http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#exposure


Yes, good reading. I have been referring to it for years. Did you get to the "total light" part of it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2013)

Pi said:


> Yes, good reading. I have been referring to it for years. Did you get to the "total light" part of it?



Apparently not. :


----------



## intxaurrek (Jul 8, 2013)

Pi said:


> intxaurrek said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



Did you get the equivalence vs exposure part? I was comparing exposure, you were comparing equivalence. What's wrong with that? 

1) respect is first
2) justifying your answers is second
3) You did none, so well, go on,...


----------



## intxaurrek (Jul 8, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, good reading. I have been referring to it for years. Did you get to the "total light" part of it?
> ...



Please, if I said anything wrong in the answer to your explanation, whch I believe I agreed, do please correct me. I accept corrections, but silly "you're wrong" answers like those from "Pi" aren't reasonable. The only thing I said was that I was comparing same exposure value, although you proved total light is what matters for getting quality out. Is that wrong in any sense?


----------



## GaabNZ (Jul 10, 2013)

Well, I've managed through a friend's wife who works for Canon to get hold of a brand new 6D and 24-105L lens for an amazing price and have ordered it today. 

Hopefully I'll get it by Friday

Here in New Zealand we are paying a lot more for our gear than in the US.

I brought my EF70-200L from B and H photo earlier this year and even getting picked up at customs for tax I saved NZ$350 on the local retail price.

Looking forward to trying out my new toy


----------



## Pi (Jul 10, 2013)

intxaurrek said:


> Did you get the equivalence vs exposure part? I was comparing exposure, you were comparing equivalence. What's wrong with that?



Exposure (to total light) is the same for equivalent images. This is what determines the photon noise. You are fixated on intensity per unit sensor area which is not directly related to IQ. 


> 1) respect is first



Then show some.


----------



## intxaurrek (Jul 10, 2013)

Pi said:


> Exposure (to total light) is the same for equivalent images. This is what determines the photon noise. You are fixated on intensity per unit sensor area which is not directly related to IQ.



You're completely right on that. I never before cared to compare lenses in terms final IQ, but it's actually the way to do so for photography at least.

About the term "exposure", just not to confuse, I prefer using it in the same definition that the website I linked does (he defines Exposure: The total light per area (photons / mm²)). Otherwise we may end up talking different things.



Pi said:


> > 1) respect is first
> 
> 
> 
> Then show some.



I thought I did, or tried to, but sorry if I didn't. And honestly, my intention wasn't bothering anyone. There's tons of incorrect things written about photography out there, and the learning path can be slow ...


----------



## greger (Jul 14, 2013)

GaabNZ congrats on your purchase of the 6D. Please post your feelings on the camera after you have used it for a couple of days. I hope they are all positive.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Jul 14, 2013)

The 70D doesn't have the super sensitive center AF of the 6D, as I've read on canon's website. 70D seems like a really nice companion to 6D though, considering they have a similar button layout and both use sd cards. I'd still consider it or a 60D as a second body later on. I think you'll be happy with the 6D for most normal shooting conditions. Congratulations


----------



## iP337 (Jul 15, 2013)

I wouldn't get a 6D and 70D, that would cost too much, for that price a 5D3 would be a better choice. I would get a 6D and 7D though or just a 70D because I'm pretty sure we can look at the 70D as being a 7D/6D mix in one body, notice the reported resolution is the exact same as the 6D (5472x3648) so I'm pretty sure we can expect the same "line-skipping" video quality as the aliasing 6D :/ It makes sense that Canon in an effort to maximize their investment into the 6D's research and development has just ported the "Down Sampling" code from the 6D to this new 70D. If this is true, than it is a deal breaker for me. I'd rather wait for the 7D2, which I assume will have the same resolution and down sampling method of the 5D3.

Another potential deal breaker would be the signal to noise performance, I've heard Canon say that even though the 70D has a higher pixel density (19.96Mp btw) than their previous 18Mp APS-C sensors the noise performance has not suffered. I would have rather heard that the 70D's senor has a one stop advantage over the previous 18Mp APS-C sensors; so I'm not too optimistic on this matter either.

My last worry is that it is likely using the same SD card controller as the 6D. Which (although UHS-1 rated) was only able to write a maximum of 40MB/s; not fast enough for Magic Lantern's requirement of 80MB/s for continuous 1080p24 raw video (or even 50D's 60MB/s yielding continuous 1500x800 at 24fps).

However the new Live View Auto Focus system is amazing, I think the technology is really the future for all video cameras but I've also read (43rumors I think) that the 70D's implementation of it is actually slower than Panasonic's new contrast detect in the G6/GF6. Maybe the 70D's is more accurate though, or maybe they tested that with one of the slower/smoother STM lenses.

Another great upgrade in the 70D over the 7D is that video compression is now done with the 5D3 and 6D's AVC High Level codec (variable bit rates of 80Mbps Intra and 48Mbps Inter with B frames). These are one of the best option's H.264 has to offer and should show a marked improvement in detail over the previous canon models.

I'm also very happy with the photo features, 7fps burst and 19 cross-type AF are all I need. Which the 6D lacks but the 6D would be loads better in low-light.

It's no substitution for a 5D3 but it's defiantly an upgrade to the 7D, and even though I am okay with the $1200 price tag the truth is that other than this potentially gimmicky live view af system this camera is still using "yesterday's" technology especially for video and I expect that it's price will drop quickly (just like the 6D) when people start comparing it to the other brands.


----------



## Hardproducer (Jul 15, 2013)

The start price of the 70D will be probably very high. So if you can't wait you should go for the 6D.


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 15, 2013)

iP337 said:


> I wouldn't get a 6D and 70D, that would cost too much, for that price a 5D3 would be a better choice. I would get a 6D and 7D though or just a 70D because I'm pretty sure we can look at the 70D as being a 7D/6D mix in one body, notice the reported resolution is the exact same as the 6D (5472x3648) so I'm pretty sure we can expect the same "line-skipping" video quality as the aliasing 6D :/ It makes sense that Canon in an effort to maximize their investment into the 6D's research and development has just ported the "Down Sampling" code from the 6D to this new 70D. If this is true, than it is a deal breaker for me. I'd rather wait for the 7D2, which I assume will have the same resolution and down sampling method of the 5D3.
> 
> Another potential deal breaker would be the signal to noise performance, I've heard Canon say that even though the 70D has a higher pixel density (19.96Mp btw) than their previous 18Mp APS-C sensors the noise performance has not suffered. I would have rather heard that the 70D's senor has a one stop advantage over the previous 18Mp APS-C sensors; so I'm not too optimistic on this matter either.
> 
> ...



Good points. However, if you are concerned about trying to shoot RAW video via a 6D...there may not ever be a RAW video hack for it. Even if there is, how could it overcome the aliasing/moire problem enough to justify going to the trouble?

My point, you don't buy a 6D if you primarily shoot video...especially not if you want high quality professional level video.

As for the 6D's price dropping quickly...it's apparent that Canon can build the camera for a lot less than it sold for initially. I don't know whether this is a reflection of weak consumer demand, or just Canon's ability to undercut the D600's price. I think it's the latter.

My only concern before I bought the 6D, was whether or not it would hold its value well enough on the used market. It is so far. Used units on amazon marketplace are still over $1600. If at this time (July 2013, 6 months or so after the 6D's initial release) there were a lot of used units "like new", selling down in the $1200 range, then that would be more of a concern. It's just not happening. I do wonder how long it will take before you start to see a lot of used units with an asking price down in the $1200 or $1100 range. Perhaps by the holidays, or else early 2014. My point with all of this, is that the 6D is just not the dud a lot of people want it to be.


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 16, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Good points. However, if you are concerned about trying to shoot RAW video via a 6D...there may not ever be a RAW video hack for it. Even if there is, how could it overcome the aliasing/moire problem enough to justify going to the trouble?



I'd put the odds somewhere around 99% (+/- 1%) that the problem is caused by a poor scaler algorithm that downsamples the 20MP image to a ~2MP image (1080p) or smaller. There are many ways to downsample an image, and different algorithms behave differently. A particularly high quality compressor would choose among various downsampling techniques, depending on the content of the frame in question.

With that in mind, a RAW video mode coupled with a better codec/scaler would almost certainly eliminate the video moiré problem entirely. There's certainly no sensible reason why any 20MP sensor should not be able to produce a 2MP image without moiré problems.


----------



## mitchell3417 (Jul 16, 2013)

I've had a 7D and a 5DII. I much prefer the IQ of the full frame camera to the speed and AF abilities of the 7D. I loved my 7D but full frame game my pictures that extra wow factor IMO. It's hard to measure the impact that bigger sensor has.


----------



## sarakoth (Jul 16, 2013)

My concern with the 70D is that all the benefits are around movie mode and live view... I want better IQ for stills.. if the 6D wasn't so gimped on the AF front I would buy it.. if the 70D improved IQ over previous crop sensors I would buy it.. as it stands I don't want to buy either but will have too or otherwise wait another couple of years for a 6D2 assuming they fix/improve the AF.

I really hate this merging of photo and video in one unit.. all you do is compromise on both and increase the cost..


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 16, 2013)

Janbo Makimbo said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > AudioGlenn said:
> ...



It was on... the photos were about 15 ish feet away from me... so it wasn't doing the trick.


----------



## BPLOL (Jul 16, 2013)

I was waiting for the 70D for a long time, until I decided to buy the 6D three months ago.

Previously I've used a XTi with EF-S 10-22 and 17-55 f2.8, plus 70-200 f4 L IS, and I really wanted a 7D or 60D replacement (so I could stay with both EF-S lenses), but I must say that I do not regret buying the 6D. As a matter of fact, every time I use high ISO I know that I'm using the best available.

Also, I don't know if I'm luck, but my EF 24-105 f4 L nails focus 99% of the time, even in low light conditions with the outer points (but I don't do sports, so I cannot say about tracking). It's night and day compared with my old XTi - image quality, focus accuracy of all points - it gets the picture I need every time I press the button.

I only miss the 10-22.

Had not experimented, would I buy the 6D today with the 70D available? Probably not, since I would save some money and also would not need to sell my lenses to go FF (I'm buying a condo, everything counts). Having experimented the 6D, would I change it for the 70D today because of its specs? Nope.

I think the only 70D feature I would like to see on the 6D is the new focus on video. That is really cool.


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 16, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Good points. However, if you are concerned about trying to shoot RAW video via a 6D...there may not ever be a RAW video hack for it. Even if there is, how could it overcome the aliasing/moire problem enough to justify going to the trouble?
> ...



That's nice to know. So is Magic Lantern or someone else going to hack the 6D to produce RAW video output?


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 16, 2013)

BPLOL said:


> I was waiting for the 70D for a long time, until I decided to buy the 6D three months ago.
> 
> Previously I've used a XTi with EF-S 10-22 and 17-55 f2.8, plus 70-200 f4 L IS, and I really wanted a 7D or 60D replacement (so I could stay with both EF-S lenses), but I must say that I do not regret buying the 6D. As a matter of fact, every time I use high ISO I know that I'm using the best available.
> 
> ...



My situation was similar, except that came from the 50D, and I wanted to go to a full frame anyway. Had already planned on selling my crop lenses. It took a max of about 2 weeks to sell each one. No regrets whatsoever. Well one other difference, I had rented a 10-22 Canon lens, and it sucked. Wide zooms on crop cameras just don't deliver the goods. I've rented a number of others, and owned two Sigmas and a Tokina.


----------



## GaabNZ (Jul 16, 2013)

greger said:


> GaabNZ congrats on your purchase of the 6D. Please post your feelings on the camera after you have used it for a couple of days. I hope they are all positive.



Loving it so much. I have found the upgrade from the 600D to be huge.

I've not struggled with focusing at all, in fact I've found it so much better. Photography is not a job for me, just a hobby and I also don't take fast moving sports so, so far so good.

I love the bigger size of the camera body and having the top lcd and adjustments there is fantastic.



BPLOL said:


> Also, I don't know if I'm luck, but my EF 24-105 f4 L nails focus 99% of the time, even in low light conditions with the outer points (but I don't do sports, so I cannot say about tracking). It's night and day compared with my old XTi - image quality, focus accuracy of all points - it gets the picture I need every time I press the button.
> 
> I only miss the 10-22.



I feel exactly the same here. The quality of images are far better than my 600D. The high iso shots I am taking without flash indoors under normal lighting are just amazing. They are just so clear.

My keeper rate already has improved massively. I'm looking forward to getting outside a bit now and really trying to learn what it can do.

I would be interested to try the 17-40L as well to replace my Sigma 10-20mm crop lens. I'm really liking the images I'm taking on the 24-105L kit lens. I'm finding it a really nice walk around lens.


----------



## sarakoth (Jul 17, 2013)

GaabNZ said:


> greger said:
> 
> 
> > GaabNZ congrats on your purchase of the 6D. Please post your feelings on the camera after you have used it for a couple of days. I hope they are all positive.
> ...



Glad to hear it is going well... 

Can I ask what sort of shots you have been taking?? You say the focusing is much better than your 600D.. in what way? speed? accuracy? 

I am looking at coming from a 500D so I imagine I will find the jump as such similar to you.


----------



## Wildfire (Jul 17, 2013)

sarakoth said:


> Can I ask what sort of shots you have been taking?? You say the focusing is much better than your 600D.. in what way? speed? accuracy?



I used to have a T3i as well. I will say that the AF on the 6D is both faster and accurate, but you may or may not notice that. The biggest difference is the low-light autofocus performance: you will be blown away by the kind of dimly-lit scenes in which the 6D's center point will lock focus quickly and accurately.

Additionally, you'll enjoy knowing you can take photographs at 12800 ISO that look far better than the T3i at 6400 ISO ever did.


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 19, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> sarakoth said:
> 
> 
> > Can I ask what sort of shots you have been taking?? You say the focusing is much better than your 600D.. in what way? speed? accuracy?
> ...



The 6D's servo autofocus menu is highly tweakable, and it can work very well if the situation you are guessing will align with that setting, actually does work. It doesn't always work. But basically, I'm talking about attempting to servo autofocus in relatively low light, such as a room which seems well lit to your eye, but not to the camera. I'm not sure how much better the 5D3 or 1Dx would servo AF in such lighting. Also heavily depends on the lens attached.

As for still shooting with autofocus in very dark lighting, that center point is like a dream. I've gotten it to lock focus on dark chair legs against medium gray carpet, in a room lit only by the equivalent of a couple of candles...on the opposite side of the room! There is no direct light on the chair legs, and only very dim indirect light on the carpet. And this is with an f/4 70-200 lens. My 135 f/2, even though it takes in a lot more light...sometimes hunts. I think it's because the lens elements that do the focusing, are heavier, and also have a longer way to travel (even if I set the focus limiter to 1.6 meters rather than 0.9), than with the 70-200 f/4. Or it also could be some kind of quirk going on, where the 6D just does not like the 135 as much as it likes the 70-200....I don't know.

What's the ISO for a normal exposure in the above situation? 102,400...at 1/5 of a second with the f/4 lens!! That center point is way beyond the ability of the image sensor...


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 19, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> Additionally, you'll enjoy knowing you can take photographs at 12800 ISO that look far better than the T3i at 6400 ISO ever did.



If we are talking RAW files with no noise reduction...In my opinion both types of noise on the 6D at ISO 12,800, are comparable to the T3i's noise content at ISO 3200 or so. It's about the same as my 50D's noise was at ISO 2500. The 50D's main problem was color or chrominance noise, which I suspect the T3i's sensor and especially overall processing...improved on, but only slightly.

The key for higher ISO photography, is to set exposure compensation at +1/3 or +2/3, as often as you can get away with it (when the subject matter does not have extremely bright highlights). This will allow the noise content to be vastly lower still, than with a normal exposure. Also, I've found the light metering, actually requires this anyway. The darker the light, the less accurate the 6D's light meter seems to be. Seems to underexpose, unless of course there are bright lights in the view...in which case you either meter/expose for them, or else let them blow out slightly, depending on how important the darker content is.


----------



## sarakoth (Jul 23, 2013)

Well I bit the bullet and decided to go with the 6D and not wait for the 70D.

I believe the AF and FPS will be fine for the sorts of "action" shots I need (i.e kids running around playing sports outdoors).. 

The very next night I actually went to a lights display and thought it was a great test.. i was very happy with how the camera focused in low light and the IQ at a higher ISO than I would normally use.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/1072696_10201062417697054_1776612149_o.jpg


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 23, 2013)

sarakoth said:


> Well I bit the bullet and decided to go with the 6D and not wait for the 70D.
> 
> I believe the AF and FPS will be fine for the sorts of "action" shots I need (i.e kids running around playing sports outdoors)..



A co-worker of mine purchased a 6D. He was showing me some of his action shots (soccer games, BIFs including hummingbirds). The 6D did not seem to have any problem with auto focusing.


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 23, 2013)

sarakoth said:


> Well I bit the bullet and decided to go with the 6D and not wait for the 70D.
> 
> I believe the AF and FPS will be fine for the sorts of "action" shots I need (i.e kids running around playing sports outdoors)..
> 
> ...



Nice shot...is that a projected image?


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 23, 2013)

AcutancePhotography said:


> sarakoth said:
> 
> 
> > Well I bit the bullet and decided to go with the 6D and not wait for the 70D.
> ...



The 6D can be made to lose tracking in servo mode, especially on subjects with lower contrast, or with a difficult background or foreground (also depends on which lens is attached...some will make the problem worse). As available light gets darker, things don't improve. But the problem with comparing how much worse this is than with other more capable bodies, is that these problems also happen with the 5D3 and 1DX. They just happen less often, generally (and up to that point where the 6D's center point can still achieve fast focus lock in "single shot" mode...where the 1DX and 5D3 are left hunting forever.)

*In my opinion, for 90% of the type of photography the general public does, the 6D's autofocus is capable of getting a very high percentage of their shots in focus...even sharp focus.* It really is those who are experienced with the 5D3 and 1DX, who are able to easily find fault with the 6D's autofocus ability. These people would never be caught dead using a 6D for anything other than long exposure tripod photography, because otherwise, word might get back to their buddies that they were using the inferior camera for "critical action events". That just will not do. 

If you happen to own one of the "great white" supertelephoto lenses, you are already very serious about getting high quality results. If you shoot events with this lens, that are highly speed intensive, occurring in moderate to good light, _then the 6D is not the right choice at all_. If you mainly shoot wildlife that is either slow moving, or large, or else small and stationary...in low light with this great white lens, _then the 6D can quite possibly be the best choice_. The 1DX has a lot less color (chrominance noise) than both the 6D and the 5D3, so if you can tolerate its loud shutter, mass, expense...and you can make it autofocus in the above low light situation...then it is the best choice (currently...its successor might more likely the best choice of all).


----------



## sarakoth (Jul 24, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> sarakoth said:
> 
> 
> > Well I bit the bullet and decided to go with the 6D and not wait for the 70D.
> ...



Thanks.. this was literally the first time using the camera.. 

Yes for projected images.. there were about 6 buildings in a row lit up with changing pictures and patterns. This was from Perth, Western Australia and is apparently done by the same company that often lights up the Sydney Opera House for special events.

Another one I liked showing great detail in the projection. They were clearly designed for the buildings as the scenes worked around the windows and features. 

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1074255_10201062464138215_18992598_o.jpg


----------



## sarakoth (Jul 24, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> *In my opinion, for 90% of the type of photography the general public does, the 6D's autofocus is capable of getting a very high percentage of their shots in focus...even sharp focus.*



This is pretty much what I was thinking and why I also did not wait any longer for the 7D2.. I just don't need dual card slots, weatherproofing, etc.. and it looks likely to be quite an expensive camera in it's own right in order to have (possibly) much better AF system. So I went with better IQ of FF for all my shots, and will live with the occasional times the 6D struggles. I want one or two frames in focus of my kids playing sport or on stage, not 10 FPS to get the perfect shot when the bat impacts the ball, or the exact frame a catch is made..


----------



## jrista (Jul 24, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> The general rule of thumb is that FF is better for large and wide, APS-C for small and narrow..... Unless it's moving quickly and then you want the best af system you can afford.
> 
> The second rule of thumb is if you are shooting in poor light, go FF or use a flash.
> 
> ...



It was the first answer, and I think it was the best answer. Great rules of thumb, Don! This is along the lines of catch a man a fish/teach a man to fish, which is always best, IMO.


----------



## OmarSV11 (Jul 24, 2013)

My line of work:

- Portraits
- Fashions (5DmkIII would be ideal for these but can't afford yet)
- Product (very scarce)

70D with the new Sigma 18-35 or the 6D with the new Sigma 35

I have already 50mm f1.8, 100mm f2 need something on the wide end


----------



## Janbo Makimbo (Jul 24, 2013)

OmarSV11 said:


> My line of work:
> 
> - Portraits
> - Fashions (5DmkIII would be ideal for these but can't afford yet)
> ...



Your last sentence basically answered your question.....6D !!


----------



## Hardproducer (Jul 26, 2013)

For what i have seen the 70D example pictures looks nice. But it's hard to compare a picture from a 70d with another from a 60d. I need the same object shoot with both DSLRs with same lens to compare.

Are there any example pictures from 70d vs 60d on full size?


----------



## pedro (Jul 29, 2013)

In your case: 6D. Without regrets. 70D is crop. Helpful for range. But high ISO IQ will fall far behind what a 6D even at very high ISOs is able to deliever. I was shooting a 30D for more than five years. Last August I purchased the 5D3. No regrets. So if the 6D matches with your budget: go and get it. This is my 5D3 last week, at very low candle light and insanely high ISO 51.2k. Processed in DPP (mostly NR), slight tonal corrections in PS.




Z96A5407bTLKlein by Peter Hauri, on Flickr




Z96A5407bTLBWKleindefCrop by Peter Hauri, on Flickr


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 1, 2013)

sarakoth said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > *In my opinion, for 90% of the type of photography the general public does, the 6D's autofocus is capable of getting a very high percentage of their shots in focus...even sharp focus.*
> ...



Sounds like you made the right choice to me. Not sure how much more weather sealing the 70D will have over the 6D.


----------



## CarlTN (Aug 1, 2013)

pedro said:


> In your case: 6D. Without regrets. 70D is crop. Helpful for range. But high ISO IQ will fall far behind what a 6D even at very high ISOs is able to deliever. I was shooting a 30D for more than five years. Last August I purchased the 5D3. No regrets. So if the 6D matches with your budget: go and get it. This is my 5D3 last week, at very low candle light and insanely high ISO 51.2k. Processed in DPP (mostly NR), slight tonal corrections in PS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice shots!


----------

