5d2 vs 6d

[Marsu42]

I can afford the used 5d3 but i would also need a new PC.

I'm deciding if the 5d3 is "worth it" to me - but going beyond your budget for a camera body imho is a very bad idea - try to do a "total cost of ownership" calculation" including what you expect to buy in the future like memory-cards, flashes, lenses, filters, tripods, a little saving for repairs because things break and then think again :-o

I don't have a 5d2 but what I've read in the "5d3 slow low light af" threads is that the 5d2 at least works good with an af assist beam if that's ok for your applications. The the 5d2 is rated up to -0.5lv, I don't know what your current body is - my 60d (up to 0lv) definitely struggles in dim light and low-contrast scenes w/o af assist, so I'd like a vast improvement like on the 6d.

[leolol]

So you say it´s not bad. Thats good to hear

@Marsu 40D has the same rating as the 5d2 -0,5LV. Yeah you are right i would never spend money which i currently dont have on gear. 5d2+PC+Accesories is the same price as 6D+Accesories.

[Standard]

But my main complain: Does the focus of the 5d2 really suck balls in low light (sorry for the words)?
I know how good High-ISO is and i love the body and the button layout but i never handled one in low light.

No. Not at all.

Sure. It may not be as good as the Mark III but I've gotten plenty of great captures in extreme lowlight with it. Honestly, I don't know what all the gripes about the Mark II's AF being slow are all about. Take a look at either my Website or my Flickr stream and you will find plenty of good examples. I think too many photographers these days rely too much on technology and less on common sense and technique.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Honestly, I don't know what all the gripes about the Mark II's AF being slow are all about.

Most of those comments come from those who do not own one. 
The low light AF with the 5D MK III requires you to read the manual.  Many users turn on spot AF which reduces low light AF sensitivity considerably.  Use the center point without spot for the best sensitivity just as in any camera. 
 
I also note that if I wait for the AF indicator to flash in the viewfinder, there is a delay before it lights.  AF is actually achieved much sooner.  just hold down the shutter button while in one shot mode, and the shutter opens as soon as AF is achived, which in near darkness is remarkably fast and accurate.  Its the same story with the AF assist beam, just take the photo, don't wait for the AF confirm to flash. 
 

[Marsu42]

Most of those comments come from those who do not own one.

Well, my gear is in my tag and I tried to point to and quote what multiple 5d3 users wrote in the "af assist lag" threads, so I hope I am not spreading FUD :-o

just hold down the shutter button while in one shot mode, and the shutter opens as soon as AF is achived, which in near darkness is remarkably fast and accurate.  Its the same story with the AF assist beam, just take the photo, don't wait for the AF confirm to flash.

But that technique makes focus & recompose impossible, and the af points of the 5d3 are not all over the viewfinder ... so in low light, you're actually always picking the exact af point you want to use before pressing the shutter?

[Dylan777]

Dont want a general discussion for this topic but much more of a specific thing-

I´m mostly shooting landscapes, nature (no wildlife yet), studio (stock and people) and some high iso events.
I dont need fast FPS but i need a good enough autofocus which can lock on in dark locations. Both the 6D and the 5d2 only have one crosstype so it would be a downgrade from my 40d, would it?

For stock 21 MP are better then 20 because they reach a bigger size to sell (2o MP are just under the edge), the 5d2 also has the PC-Sync port...

High ISO: I think we can all agree that the 6d will be better in those situations?

Money: I can get a new 5d2 for 1500€, or a slightly used one for 1300 with the BG and i wouldnt need new Cards because i got the CF Cards. 6D+BG+Cards would be over 2200€. Do you think it´s worth it for what i shoot?

PS: Wlan and GPS are both interesting for me but i didnt miss them in the 40D.

You should repost this topic when there are enough 6D in user hands. Otherwise, it will remain as general discussion based on Canon spec.

[epsiloneri]

Honestly, I don't know what all the gripes about the Mark II's AF being slow are all about.

I found the 5D2 to be inadequate when it came track moving objects. The 7D and 5D3 do that much better. Otherwise the center-point speed/accuracy/sensitivity is fine on the 5D2.

[Zv]

Question - if you're going to be shooting at -0.5EV or lower then wouldn't you be using a tripod and or flash? Those low levels of light require long shutter speeds unless you use very high ISO? Correct? Why not use MF with live view? Is AF really necessary? Are you trying to capture candid shots of people?

Sure it would be awesome to use AF in low light but photographers have been capturing images for years without that ability.

I'm just curious.

[leolol]

Nope, can neither use a tripod nor slow shutter speed. I'm mostly photographing theater stuff or other not very bright events.

[nicku]

Dont want a general discussion for this topic but much more of a specific thing-

I´m mostly shooting landscapes, nature (no wildlife yet), studio (stock and people) and some high iso events.
I dont need fast FPS but i need a good enough autofocus which can lock on in dark locations. Both the 6D and the 5d2 only have one crosstype so it would be a downgrade from my 40d, would it?

For stock 21 MP are better then 20 because they reach a bigger size to sell (2o MP are just under the edge), the 5d2 also has the PC-Sync port...

High ISO: I think we can all agree that the 6d will be better in those situations?

Money: I can get a new 5d2 for 1500€, or a slightly used one for 1300 with the BG and i wouldnt need new Cards because i got the CF Cards. 6D+BG+Cards would be over 2200€. Do you think it´s worth it for what i shoot?

PS: Wlan and GPS are both interesting for me but i didnt miss them in the 40D.

I use the camera exactly like you (mainly stock and some outdoor and landscapes). my advice ( in case you don't have many Canon lenses) go for Nikon D600, more resolution , better ISO performance ( compared with 5D3) faaaar better AF ( compared with 6D) and the nikon 85mm f/1.8G lens (witch is NOT expensive) is descended from Haven... incredible camera.

[CharlieB]

I think, IMHO, that the 6D is not designed to be a studio camera or a pro photographer's first choice body. It is rather aimed at the serious enthusiast looking to enter the FF world for the first time.

Not sure if you can categorize the market quite like that... but... maybe.

The question of who Canon is "marketing to" always is (or should be) a matter of what their market research has revealed... which these days has in itself been very questionable!

I see it more like testing the waters... and bowing to competition from other brands (like "N").   

Canon took the market at the bottom with the first "sub-$1000" Rebel.  They owned that segment for a decent amount of time too.   I'm not sure if the competition is going to be as lax going forward... recent history (last few years) has shown they're not, and are likely to become even greater competitors.

We've gone from sub-$1000 DSLR to the sub $500 DSLR with lens of course.   Look at what you get in that price range compared to what was available at sub $1000 back in... what was it.... fall 2003.  Nearly ten years, yes, but the technology has moved in leaps and bounds.   

Think of this - what would a 6D capable camera have been worth to the photographic buying public (all segments) in fall of 2003?   At least double is my guess. 

I'll also guess, the best is yet to come....

[weixing]

Question - if you're going to be shooting at -0.5EV or lower then wouldn't you be using a tripod and or flash? Those low levels of light require long shutter speeds unless you use very high ISO? Correct? Why not use MF with live view? Is AF really necessary? Are you trying to capture candid shots of people?

Sure it would be awesome to use AF in low light but photographers have been capturing images for years without that ability.

I'm just curious.

Hi,
    For example, you want to capture the children blowing the candles in a birthday party with only the light from the candle or may be event or performance at the night where flash are not allow and light is low. With low light AF capability, the success rate will be a lot higher.

    IMHO, if the low light AF work as advertise and high ISO as good as the 5DIII (which I expect it will as it's had a large pixel size), I think this camera will sell very well... IMHO, a lot of people don't need that many AF points, just one super AF center point will be enough for many.

    Have a nice day.

[Leon]

@steliosk
Yeah and that 1 MP is so shitty for me. on iStock i can go to XXL with 21 but only to XL with 20.

You realize photoshop has a resizing tool?

BTW I don't see the 6D as a serious tool for a pro photographer, it's more like a 60D with a larger sensor. So I'd really go with the 5D2, it just seems to offer a lot for the money, and the AF being its only real drawback probably isn't a lot better on the 6D either. Also since the noise performance in RAW mode hasn't improved that much from 5D2 to 5D3 I wouldn't really expect a big difference between these two either. But since you're gonna have to buy new glass when switching to a FF camera anyway, it might be worth looking into another brand too (not gonna say the n-word here).

[Hobby Shooter]

Dont want a general discussion for this topic but much more of a specific thing-

I´m mostly shooting landscapes, nature (no wildlife yet), studio (stock and people) and some high iso events.
I dont need fast FPS but i need a good enough autofocus which can lock on in dark locations. Both the 6D and the 5d2 only have one crosstype so it would be a downgrade from my 40d, would it?

For stock 21 MP are better then 20 because they reach a bigger size to sell (2o MP are just under the edge), the 5d2 also has the PC-Sync port...

High ISO: I think we can all agree that the 6d will be better in those situations?

Money: I can get a new 5d2 for 1500€, or a slightly used one for 1300 with the BG and i wouldnt need new Cards because i got the CF Cards. 6D+BG+Cards would be over 2200€. Do you think it´s worth it for what i shoot?

PS: Wlan and GPS are both interesting for me but i didnt miss them in the 40D.

I use the camera exactly like you (mainly stock and some outdoor and landscapes). my advice ( in case you don't have many Canon lenses) go for Nikon D600, more resolution , better ISO performance ( compared with 5D3) faaaar better AF ( compared with 6D) and the nikon 85mm f/1.8G lens (witch is NOT expensive) is descended from Haven... incredible camera.

Oh dear, you must have tried all of these cameras in a number of different conditions. Especially judging the 5D3's ISO performance and the 6D's AF, have you even tried them?

[Marsu42]

BTW I don't see the 6D as a serious tool for a pro photographer

I probably wouldn't go as far as Ken Rockwell (see below on 5d3 vs 6d), but imho a pro photog uses the tools that are appropriate for the job and/or can adapt to the tools at hand - and if starting in the business or shooting in low light that might be very well the 6d because you cannot be pro and broke at the same time.

there are many minor differences in the sensors and shutters as I'll outline below, but these are designed merely to help upsell innocent rich amateurs to the 5D Mark III; they aren't different enough for a real photographer or someone without a spare $1,400 lying around to blow on camera bodies to worry about.