Which is better? 5D MKII or 6D?

[Aglet]

Read noise and fixed patter noise   can easily been level out / removed with black frames,..

true, but that's more PP work than I want, or any of us should have, to do to get a decent low ISO image

There are also banding  where  the read out levels are  uneven calibrated  to the ADC , like the  problem with the first 7d.

Sold my 7D because of that, tired of those 8 pixel wide strips in the shadows because the dual readout channels were not properly matched

If Canon would  they can limit the read-out noise, others with the same type of readout and signal path to the ADC can do it. ..

That's what I'm thinking. There are other sensor systems out there that are made more like Canon's than Sony's and they still perform better than Canon.  Obviously the technology exists for Canon to improve their read noise, and their read noise variation, even without spending a lot on developing a sensor as good as Sony's, etc.

The 6D is the best for reduced low ISO pattern noise I've seen since the 50D came out.  Their earlier cameras did not seem to suffer from FPN nearly as much.  Seems that when they added video capability, that's when things started to go sour.  Even the live-view capable 40D and 400D didn't have the FPN isssues as bad as later models like the 7D, 5D2, etc.

[bholliman]

This isn't a question I'm paticularly interested in, but I am intrigued by the articles that say that a new "entry level" FF camera is potentially "better" than camera legendary for its IQ- the 5D MkII. Thoughts?

And yes, I know that better is kinda an open-ended, question, but I meant for it to be that way.

Based on the comparisons I've read, the 5D2 really has no significant advantages over the 6D.  The 6D's low light performance and excellent center AF point sensitivity/accuracy are big advantages.  WiFi and GPS are nice features for some users. 

Does the 5D2 do anything significant better than the 6D?  No, in my opinion.  The only real advantage is price, but you are buying yesterday's (2008 to be exact) technology.  The 5D2's "advantages" are of negligible value: of 1/8000 vs. 1/4000 maximum shutter speed - how often does anybody shoot at faster than 1/1000 anyway?   1/160 vs 1/200 sync speed - not a tangible difference.  Build quality - the engineering plastic top section (necessary for the wifi and GPS to function) is not a significant difference from the 5D2 all metal body.  Both are well built, solid cameras.

6D bashers complain that the 6D doesn't match the 5D3's spec's, but its not supposed to.  Its an entry level FF camera, the 5D3 is the next step up.  Buyers can compare the specs and prices and make a decision on which better suits their needs and budget.

[scrappydog]

how often does anybody shoot at faster than 1/1000 anyway?

I do.  Often.  Nuff said.

[wickidwombat]

As I see it

6D > 5D2 newer faster digic processor
6D > 5D2 higher iso capability usable 25k vs 6400
6D > 5D2 slightly more AF points with more sensetive center for low light
6D > 5D2 better screen

some may say the 6D > 5D2 becasue of wifi and GPS but for me its irrelevent

5D2 > 6D CF card better than SD
5D2 > 6D 5D2 has joystick and I prefer the ergonomics slightly bigger
5D2 > 6D Alloy body vs plastic
5D2 > 6D better VF
5D2 > 6D 1/8000 vs 1/4000 max shutter speed if it matter to you

since I kept my 5Dmk2s there is no reason for me to conside the 6D
as I will just get more 5Dmk3 bodies. I have one 5Dmk2 fitted with a brightscreen and its great for Manual focusing, eventually the other body I'll have converted to a Dedicated IR body

[verysimplejason]

I'd take the 6D any day.  The reduced weight, better IQ and better AF are just better than 5D2.  I for one hate lugging a 5D2 when I'm used to a TI1's weight for 4 hours straight.  6D is a little bit tolerable.

[wickidwombat]

I'd take the 6D any day.  The reduced weight, better IQ and better AF are just better than 5D2.  I for one hate lugging a 5D2 when I'm used to a TI1's weight for 4 hours straight.  6D is a little bit tolerable.

5Ds are pure heaven when you are used to 1D bodies

its all relative

[bdunbar79]

how often does anybody shoot at faster than 1/1000 anyway?

I do.  Often.  Nuff said.

Outdoor football and soccer?  Oh about 1/3200 every shot?  That's quite a bit.

[Aglet]

You misunderstood what I meant (I think), Canon can  with several more rows of black / covered pixels offset the accruing noise already  at the readout.(CDS)  Nothing to do with PP work

I did misunderstand what you meant, i read too fast.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Yes, that's a perfectly feasible method and may even be doable even in firmware as-is with the existing masked pixels?

[Aglet]

how often does anybody shoot at faster than 1/1000 anyway?

I do.  Often.  Nuff said.

I very rarely even need to use 1/4000, only occasionally 1/2000.
Any less light required, a 2 to 4-stop ND filter is a cheap solution.
not having faster than 1/4000 is not a deal-breaker.

[bdunbar79]

how often does anybody shoot at faster than 1/1000 anyway?

I do.  Often.  Nuff said.

I very rarely even need to use 1/4000, only occasionally 1/2000.
Any less light required, a 2 to 4-stop ND filter is a cheap solution.
not having faster than 1/4000 is not a deal-breaker.

I'm agreeing here.  I never shoot above 1/3200, even in sports.

[verysimplejason]

I'd take the 6D any day.  The reduced weight, better IQ and better AF are just better than 5D2.  I for one hate lugging a 5D2 when I'm used to a TI1's weight for 4 hours straight.  6D is a little bit tolerable.

5Ds are pure heaven when you are used to 1D bodies

its all relative

Yup.  And anything lighter is even better.    Heck, if only RX1 offers a 24-70mm lens even a fixed one instead of a 35, I'll take it over 6D or 5D2 any day.  I'm not a masochist after all.

[wickidwombat]

I'd take the 6D any day.  The reduced weight, better IQ and better AF are just better than 5D2.  I for one hate lugging a 5D2 when I'm used to a TI1's weight for 4 hours straight.  6D is a little bit tolerable.

5Ds are pure heaven when you are used to 1D bodies

its all relative

Yup.  And anything lighter is even better.    Heck, if only RX1 offers a 24-70mm lens even a fixed one instead of a 35, I'll take it over 6D or 5D2 any day.  I'm not a masochist after all.

size is also a factor as well as weight I find bodies smaller than 5D would give me cramps in my hand with a full day of shooting however my wife who has smaller hands will appreciate both the smaller size and lighter weight
same reason some people with bigger hands prefer gripped bodies or 1D size

haha about the rx I think if it had even a fixed 24-70 2.8 of substantial quality they would struggle to keep up with demand

I think if I was trying to decide between the 5dmk2 and the 6D i'd have to have a good long look at one and see if i can live with the ergonomics, but coming from a rebel or even 60D I think its a no brainer to take the 6D over the 5Dmk2 unless the 5dmk2 is significantly cheaper

[beansauce]

I just bought the 5D2 over both the 5D3 and 6D for the following reasons:

1. The 5D3 is not representative of its price pertaining to features compared with 5D2 (other than AF).
2. The build quality of the 6D and ergonomics is in no way better than the 5D2.
3. The 5D2's AF is NOT BAD AT ALL for those who know what they are doing.
4. The IQ is literally the same between all 3 cameras, aside from the ISO improvements of the 6D and 5D3
5. You can't beat a 5D2 with 24-105 kit for $2299. IT WAS A STEAL... THANKS AMAZON!!!!!
6. The money saved allowed me to justify a 70-200L IS II.

I am 1000 percent happy with the 5D2, including the AF which a lot of folks love to hate. Having said that, I'm not tracking birds with a 600L or on the side of a football game machine gunning. Possibly those folks need the extra AF points and most likely don't care about the price since their organization pays the bill anyways.

I will use the $h!t out of this camera until the 5D4 is released around 2016 or so. Hopefully we will see a new generation in sensor design (not that the 5D3 and 6D are bad) that is clearly not simply an incremental upgrade in IQ.

[beansauce]

I forgot to mention that, yes, I've used both the 5D3 and 6D for a few days each and STILL went for the 5D2... I particularly can't stand the 6D's ergonomics. The multi directional pad is missing and feels like a cheap rebel. The only feature of both the 5D3 and 6D that I envy is the silent shutter mode. The 5D2 is a loud monster.

[wickidwombat]

I just bought the 5D2 over both the 5D3 and 6D for the following reasons:

1. The 5D3 is not representative of its price pertaining to features compared with 5D2 (other than AF).
2. The build quality of the 6D and ergonomics is in no way better than the 5D2.
3. The 5D2's AF is NOT BAD AT ALL for those who know what they are doing.
4. The IQ is literally the same between all 3 cameras, aside from the ISO improvements of the 6D and 5D3
5. You can't beat a 5D2 with 24-105 kit for $2299. IT WAS A STEAL... THANKS AMAZON!!!!!
6. The money saved allowed me to justify a 70-200L IS II.

I am 1000 percent happy with the 5D2, including the AF which a lot of folks love to hate. Having said that, I'm not tracking birds with a 600L or on the side of a football game machine gunning. Possibly those folks need the extra AF points and most likely don't care about the price since their organization pays the bill anyways.

I will use the $h!t out of this camera until the 5D4 is released around 2016 or so. Hopefully we will see a new generation in sensor design (not that the 5D3 and 6D are bad) that is clearly not simply an incremental upgrade in IQ.

Some valid points however I think you are understimting the image quality differences between the 5Dmk2 and the mk3 I use both all the time and the 5Dmk3 images give alot more latitude in pp than the mk2 and as for high iso... its not even a contest the mk3 kills the mk2.

as you correctly pointed out the current deals for 5Dmk2 and 24-105L are simply awesome and certainly give alot of bang for your bucks