40D vs. 6D AF

[mariusx1]

I'm currently living in South America, but will be returning to the U.S. in June and plan to upgrade my aging 40D. I've got a budget of $4000. Current lenses are 17-40mm f4L, 85mm f1.8, 70-300mm IS (non-L). I teach yearbook at a private K-12 school down here and do much of the photography myself (sports, events, mugshots, candids, etc). My 40D has started to show its limitations. ISO performance is by far my biggest reason for upgrade. Given my budget, these are the two options I've been looking at:

Option 1 - 5D Mark III Kit
- 5D Mark III Kit w/ 24-105mm f4L
- 50mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.8 (depending on kit price)
- Accessories (CF/SD cards, filters, etc)

Option 2 - 6D Kit
- 6D Kit w/ 24-105mm f4L
- 135mm f2L
- 50mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.8 (depending on kit price)
- Accessories (SD cards, filters, etc)

So, the 6D option also gets me an awesome lens. Lenses first, right? I use my 85 1.8 a TON, so I imagine the 135 f2L will see a lot of use. I love everything about the 5DIII and it would be a great all-around camera for me, but I'm starting to wonder if the 6D + 135mm might do more for my photography in the long-term.

So, I'll get to my question. I would certainly love to have 61-point AF, but if the 6D AF is equivalent to or better than the 40D AF, that'd probably be good enough for me. Has anyone upgraded from a 40D to a 6D who could share some thoughts? How are the outer points? The 40D has 9 cross-type, the 6D has only one. In actual practice, has that been noticeable?

Thanks so much!

 

[Haydn1971]

I've yet to experience a problem with the AF on my 6D - the 135mm L really does do the business for me for portraits, I upgraded from the 450D rather than the 40D though.

 

[bholliman]

I upgraded from a 550D and 7D to a 6D and am very happy with that decision. The 6D's 11-point AF system is certainly good enough for what I shoot. I shoot mostly kid/family shots, portraits, landscapes and kids sports.

Unless you are doing a lot of fast action sports and wildlife photography, I think you will not have a problem with the 6D's AF system. I use the center point most of the time, but the off-center points work well also.

BTW, the 6D and 135L are a terrific combo. I use this pair for most of my portraits and for plenty of sports photography also. Awesome lens!

 

[elflord]

So, I'll get to my question. I would certainly love to have 61-point AF, but if the 6D AF is equivalent to or better than the 40D AF, that'd probably be good enough for me. Has anyone upgraded from a 40D to a 6D who could share some thoughts? How are the outer points? The 40D has 9 cross-type, the 6D has only one. In actual practice, has that been noticeable?

Thanks so much!

I haven't done exactly that upgrade. I have a 5DII I upgraded from an older rebel (the former is pretty similar to the 6D). The outer points are usable, but I usually go with the center and focus-recompose.

Having more AF points and some more advanced features for AF tracking would be useful for sports shooting, but for one shot AF mode it works quite well. I've even found servo quite good with the center point -- I recently took shots of the finish line in a 5K race (subject running straight at the camera) and didn't bother with several shots per subject and it turned out I didn't need to. Keep rate was very good. I used center point with servo. Most of the misses were "user error" (subject "fell off" the AF point) which could have largely been fixed by taking more shots. The lens by the way was the 135L.

In your case it seems like a no-brainer -- your overall system will be much more usable if you spend the extra money on glass (and a flash if you don't have one yet)

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

I think they're both equal for AF but in different regards. Like, 40D has better AI servo capability for action shots IMO, I didn't complain about it much back when I used one extensively. But with a 6D I can shoot a decent portrait indoors with the center point, something that was more challenging with the 40D.

 

[mariusx1]

Thanks for the responses, all. Sounds like the two AF systems are pretty comparable. After doing a little more research, I think I've decided on the 6D option. For action shots, the 5D3 AF could very well get me 90% keepers, but I think I'll be ok with the 50-60% that I've heard the 6D offers.

And the 135L looks and sounds awesome...I can't wait to get my hands on it!

 

[Rocguy]

I recently upgraded from a t4i(650?) to the 6D. One thing to keep in mind, as you go to the FF camera, is that the "outer points" don't fill up as much of the frame as on the crop camera. There's a big periphery around the AF points where there are no points. If that makes sense. I had kind of thought they would be more spread out to fill up more of the FF frame. But they are not. I still love mine, and still recommend it. But something to keep in mind. And you can always focus in live view too if you want to focus on something in the corner of the frame.

 

[dewa]

I just upgraded from 40d to 6d 2 months ago. I have the 135mm already and bought the sigma 35mm 1.4.
I take many pics of little children active running around, and in term of focusing speed, it seems to be no significant different, but the accuracy is better(?). Anyway it's an upgrade worth the money. The high iso performance also improve my image when shooting moving objects at low lights, something I have had hard time with 40d.

Good luck.

 

[sdsr]

I can't help with the body decision (I haven't used a 40D but own a 5DII and 6D; and for what I photograph don't see any advantage in the 5DIII over the 6D; you might). I would note, though, that while the 5DIII has a ton of focus points, they're all lumped in the middle of the frame (I think this is true of all FF DSLRs, isn't it?) in an area not much different from that covered by the far fewer points on the 6D, rather than usefully spread all over it. I'm inclined to suggest that you hold off on buying a 50mm prime until you've tried your 85mm on your new FF body - you may not feel any pressing need for a wider one (you can experiment with your 24-105). And while the 135L is a fantastic lens, 135mm isn't much different from 105mm; for a bit more variety you might want to consider the 200 2.8, which creates images that are very similar to those taken with the 135mm but gives you extra reach. Either way, you can't really lose....

 

[mariusx1]

I'm inclined to suggest that you hold off on buying a 50mm prime until you've tried your 85mm on your new FF body - you may not feel any pressing need for a wider one (you can experiment with your 24-105). And while the 135L is a fantastic lens, 135mm isn't much different from 105mm; for a bit more variety you might want to consider the 200 2.8, which creates images that are very similar to those taken with the 135mm but gives you extra reach.

Thanks for the sound advice sdsr. You're right that my 85mm might be enough for what I need. I'll probably just buy the 50 1.8 for now. It's cheap and seems like one I should have in my bag. If I like the focal length, I can always upgrade to a more substantial 50mm in the future.

The 135L is pretty close to 105, but the 2 extra stops of light and the background blur are what I'm after. I had initially ruled out the 200 2.8 because I think the reach would be a bit too long for indoor shots (indoor volleyball, basketball, etc). But, I'm also used to crop, so I'll give it another look. Thanks!

 

[Kengur]

You can't go wrong with 135!

 

[danjwark]

I have both the 40D and the 6D. The only real difference I have noticed is that the 6D is able to focus with way less light. Now in all fairness, I typically am a centre point shooter most of the time and the 6D is definitely better at that. If you are happy with your 40D, they you will have no issues with the 6D.

 

[DaveQ]

I would go with the 6D anytime. I own one, as well as a 40D, 7D and 5DII. The centre AF point on the 6D is far superior than that on the 40D, and is more sensitive than that on the 5DIII, allowing AF at -3EV.

 

[Skirball]

I've had no issues with my 6D AF in real life. On the internet, I've found that it can't even capture pyramids in focus, and forget about getting a clean shot of a bride walking down the aisle.

 

[darshan4eos]

I am also in the same boad as you are and itching to upgrade my 4 years old 40D, only the "on-paper" inferior AF system is holding me back from pulling the trigger (and ofcourse I will have to re-plan the path for my lenses).
It will be intersting to read your experience when you make this upgrade .

 

[Sporgon]

I've had no issues with my 6D AF in real life. On the internet, I've found that it can't even capture pyramids in focus, and forget about getting a clean shot of a bride walking down the aisle.

+1. ;D

 

[DaveQ]

The centre AF point focus on the 6D is one of its strong points. I have 2x 6D bodies for my work, and have yet to have bad focus with any of my lenses, L or otherwise.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I just got my 6D plus 300 2.8 II and TC's back from Canon warranty. They say well within specs and only loaded new firmware for the 300 (bought in Feb. but maybe older manufacture). To sub for a month I bought a used 40D and played with my 24-70 F4 and the 70-300 non L. Yesterday was my first shots with the 6D after one month away and boy let me tell you I was shocked at the difference since I'd gotten used to the 40D (still a nice camera).

So here's a couple photos taken after sunset in pretty low light - ISO 12500 and focus was extremely fast and all things considered it's still a decent photo that I could never get with the 40D (300 with 2X III). Low light as others have said is super! Four males were fighting over one female!

After all my fussing I'd still buy the 6D and I'll be looking to add a 7D II if and when.

Jack

 

[jdflute]

I have had a 40D for years now and it has been a lovely camera. Like you I take shots of varying subjects, but the thing that has let me down is low light performance and image quality when trying to shoot my son's evening hockey matches. In all honesty I have been waiting for the 7D Mark II to come out in the hope that this would address the issue, but given that this doesn't appear to be happening until 2014 I am tired of waiting and so will be upgrading at the end of this month.
I looked at both the 6D and 5D Mark III and have chosen quality over cost for a couple of reasons which I think will be important for your consideration.
Firstly the 40D has a great auto focus with 9 cross points, (the existing 7D has 19), the 5D has 41 and the 6D only 1. I have had a fair few times where the cross type focus hasn't been sufficient in the 40D and I have had to re-frame a shot, focus lock and then reframe. The thought of only 1 cross point becomes a real issue especially in sports.
The other killer is fps, the 40D has 6.5fps, the 5D 6fps and the 6D 4.5fps not an awful lot of difference I know but enough to cause annoyance when trying to shoot sports or wildlife.
I wanted my next camera to be more than an incremental upgrade, hence I have waited so long before making the leap. The existing 7D isn't enough and the 6D is a downgrade (in part) for the reasons above. That has left me with the 5D Mark III, which in every which way you look is a pretty amazing upgrade (but at a cost).
Ps. I am looking forward to messing around with Magic Lantern once they issue a RC for the 5D.

I should also note that I don't intend to upgrade for a long time after this, but I suspect that I would be tempted to if I chose the 6D

Jd

 

[mariusx1]

...I looked at both the 6D and 5D Mark III and have chosen quality over cost for a couple of reasons which I think will be important for your consideration...
...The existing 7D isn't enough and the 6D is a downgrade (in part) for the reasons above. That has left me with the 5D Mark III, which in every which way you look is a pretty amazing upgrade (but at a cost)...

Jd

You make some good points JD, and trust me, I've gone back and forth MANY times over the past 8 months. Since I'm living in South America right now, I've needed to wait till I return to the U.S. to pull the trigger. If I were still stateside, I would've made a decision long ago! =)

But I agree - compared to the 40D, the 6D is a downgrade in the two key areas that you mentioned (FPS & AF). And that had me hung up for a while. I feel like I can live with the slightly lower FPS - 4.5 vs. 6 is close enough for my purposes. But AF has been the sticking point for me, hence my original question. If it's similar to or better than the 40D, then that would be ok with me. I know on paper, it's not...except for the -3EV center point, but it sounds like it does pretty well in real life.

To be honest though, the other major sticking point for me is price. In nearly every way that counts, the 5DIII is the better camera, but I've been increasingly frustrated with Canon's pricing structure. As of right now, the 5DIII kit is $4099 at B&H. The 6D kit is $2599. If the difference were $500, it's a no-brainer, I'd be getting the 5DIII. If the difference were $1000, I'd be on the fence, but might still end up justifying the 5DIII. But a $1500 difference?!? It's not THAT much better. I can get a new L lens, a grip and other accessories for the price difference and I'm starting to believe those items will have more of an impact on my photography than the extra features of the 5DIII. Everyone has different priorities though...

I should also note that I don't intend to upgrade for a long time after this, but I suspect that I would be tempted to if I chose the 6D.

Even with all my reasoning so far, this one still gives me pause. I will likely outgrow the 6D faster than the 5DIII. And, I can see the 5DIII holding it's value better than the 6D. So, does that make it worth the extra cash? Not sure.