6D & 1.4X -or- 7D Mk II?

[RustyTheGeek]

For those that say you can't use a 1.4 TC with 50mm lenses, you can. Simply use a 3rd Party Kenko TC.

I just installed about 10 different lenses on my 5D3 using the Kenko DGX 1.4 TC. This includes the following lenses and their results...

- 50mm f/1.4 WORKS FINE
- 50mm f/1.8 WORKS FINE
- 70-200L f/4 IS WORKS FINE
- 70-200L f/2.8 IS-II WORKS FINE
- 24-105L f/4 IS WORKS FINE
- 70-300L IS WORKS FINE
- 16-35L f/2.8 v1 WORKS FINE
- 28mm f/1.8 WORKS FINE

- 24-70L f/2.8 -II THROWS 'IRREGULAR' ERROR (Says something like "What the Heck are you doing fool!?")
- 15mm f/2.8 FishEye LENS WILL NOT TURN TO LOCK (Yes, silly to try to use a TC with a FishEye but I thought it was funny to try.)

I've got a few other lenses but I lost interest at this point. I was actually surprised that the 24-70 v-II lens didn't work. Something about the pins or the electronics because it mounts fine. Whatever. Obviously not a big deal. The point is, you can mount just about any lens on a 3rd party TC and it will most likely work fine. The actual benefit gained is still up for debate however.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Personally, I'd chose the 6D. The advantage of the 7D Mark II is for wildlife shooters.

The 6D is better for wildlife, too, except tiny birds. Whenever I compare my FF wildlife images to my high mega-pixel 1.6x images, there's quite a difference. The FF images are smooth and clean. The 1.6x images contain a rough, digital quality. Almost cartoonish. The crops do fine when you can fill the frame and have the Light of the Gods. Then again, so will an iPhone.

 

[Otara]

I think the 6d+7d MkII combo only works if you think in two 'mindsets', the 6d for landscapes and the 7d MkII for long reach and wildlife. So pair wide lenses for the 6d and long for the 7d MkII. I have the 7d MkII and currently use a 70d for landscapes- just so I'm not changing lenses all the time in the field but I find too often I set out on a day and wind up being either in 'landscape' mode or 'wildlife (birding) mode' and fail to use the other that much. I don't know that there's a 'lens duplication' problem' if separate the tasks for each body. But I would never consider a body based on using a 1.4x with it on a continuous basis. (You can get the Kenko 300 series extenders to work with just about any Canon lens and their 1.4x is very good, but I wouldn't recommend using a 'short lens' with any extender as someone pointed out, the 85mm 1.8 is a very good lens and used is around $300- so why an extender on a 50mm?)

Thats the kind of thing Im talking about - you end up either carrying two cameras, or you end up only using one and not being able to use the other options, but at least wih 2 crop theres no lens mismatches. If you are in a situation or mindset for your shooting where that works its great - I too often find myself wanting a camera and two lens options, and the splitting became more of a pain then.

For me the main reason to go with the 7D2 is I already have a fair few crop lenses. I guess the 6D is cheap enough to try before considering a 5D instead, given a 7D is already in the picture, its the 6D/7D2 combo Im mostly warning against.

 

[Steve]

Wouldn't an extension tube prevent focusing at infinity? Non-AF?

Yes it would prevent infinity focus (though why that would matter, I'm not sure) and af should still work if you have tubes with pass through contacts.

The 6D is better for wildlife, too, except tiny birds.

Only if the wildlife you shoot is tame and/or slow. High burst rate and solid tracking AF are really important for a ton of wildlife shooting, not just small birds. I would absolutely rather have a 7DII over a 6D for wildlife shooting because I would rather have sharp shots of peak moments with slightly worse IQ than soft shots of missed moments with slightly better IQ.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

For image quality, which would you prefer/recommend: 6D (FF & low-light capability) with a 1.4X converter or the new 7D2 (at native resolution, without a converter).

I have the 300/4L, 135/2L & 50/1.4 - it is the 50mm performance that I am most interested in (70mm @ 2.0 with converter, versus effective 80mm @ 1.4).

Short story:
I have the 7D and will almost certainly upgrade to the 7D2. I mostly use the 135L lens, although the 300 would be more useful to me on FF than it is at the moment. I find the 7D/300 combo limiting due to the lighting situation, and believe the 7D2 would give a significant improvement for my typical use.

If I buy the 7D2, I will sell the 7D, but I am also considering the 6D "at some stage". What are your thoughts?

Long story:
I used to have numerous items of 35mm kit, including AE-1, AV-1 & various typical and mediocre lenses. My former favourite was the T90 & 85/1.8 prime. I am fairly used to judging my required shot with a prime, rather than a zoom.

Having moved up through various digital models, including early 'point & shoot' to the 20D & 7D, I am now looking for my final camera body. I've rented the 5D3, and would love a 1Dx, but have ruled that out financially.

As for lenses, I thought I wanted the 400/2.8L, but after using it, I know it's too big. The 200/2.0L was also on 'the list', but again is too bulky. My future lens purchases are now probably the 35/1.4L (for FF) or temporarily the new EF-S 24/2.8. The 70-200/2.8 non-IS is also a possibility.

Based on my existing lenses, and possibly the wish list, which combination will give me the best quality images: the 6D with converter, or the 7D2? I've ruled out the 2.0X, the 5D3 and most other zooms/primes. Having two bodies offers an advantage, and I realise there are other considerations (AF being the main one).

Maybe the question should be, which do I buy first: the 6D or the 7D2? I know the 7D is more suited to my typical shoot.

Many thanks.

I just sold all my APS-C lenses along with my 7D and bought a 5D3. Hence, I started to build my lens kit based on one system. 5D3 doesn't have the AF and burst rate of the 7D2 but come somehow close and fit my needs.
6D will give you better IQ but 7D2 sports new technology and features no other budget oriented Canon camera has.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Only if the wildlife you shoot is tame and/or slow.

I shoot grizzly bears, bighorn rams and other wild animals. The crop IQ just lags behind. The center point on the 6D will get the job done.

High burst rate and solid tracking AF are really important for a ton of wildlife shooting, not just small birds. I would absolutely rather have a 7DII over a 6D for wildlife shooting because I would rather have sharp shots of peak moments with slightly worse IQ than soft shots of missed moments with slightly better IQ.

For me, lower noise and overall aesthetic quality supersede a few extra fps. Also, most of the prime wildlife is crepuscular, and in those conditions crop cameras have serious trouble.

I have the 5D III and 6D side by side with 70D (and formerly the 7D). I would only use the crops over the FF for tiny birds. Fur and feather looks too rough, even at lower ISO.

 

[MichaelHodges]

I think the 6d+7d MkII combo only works if you think in two 'mindsets', the 6d for landscapes and the 7d MkII for long reach and wildlife. d out, the 85mm 1.8 is a very good lens and used is around $300- so why an extender on a 50mm?)

Most of the popular wildlife in the U.S. is crepuscular, where crop cameras struggle. Extra FPS and "reach" won't matter if you can't achieve acceptable shutter speeds and noise levels.

 

[awair]

Many thanks for all the constructive replies. Several of the answers helped me re-evaluate what question I was trying to ask, and what answers I needed for my next purchase.

I wasn't aware that the 1.4X was not supported on the 50mm, but wasn't really planning on that solution (6D+50mm+1.4X versus 7D+50mm), just curious as to the relative quality. My initial thought was that, if I had both FF & crop I would effectively have 2 focal lengths for every lens (roughly equivalent to the 1.4X). Alternatively, switching solely to FF I would lose some reach that could be compensated by a 1.4X converter.

The 'two mindsets' consideration made me refresh my view. However (for me), worse than having 'the wrong two camera/lens combos' would be only having one body.

Anyway, as expected, I've purchased the 7D2, I'm now considering selling my 7D (possible takers for $650) and will reconsider the second body next year (another 7D2, 6D or 5D4???).

Next up will be a new lens (70-200 or 100-400), which will eventually prompt another complete re-evaluation; but so far really impressed by the low light results of the 7D2 & 300/4L (much better than the 7D), so my desire for 'fast glass' may be diminished...

My only remaining question is whether to sell the 7D (pays for ½ a 6D now, or wait a while for the 5D4). My current feeling is that the 7D & 7D2 are just different enough for me to treat the original 7D as a 'second-class citizen', which it really doesn't deserve.

Thanks again for the advice.

 

[Skirball]

The 1.4XTC lowers aperture by a stop and slightly degrades the image. So, the advantage of FF having better iso noise is lost by having to use a 1.4x higher f number. My choice, therefore, would be the 7D II.

This.

Plus the AF degradation. Plus the sheer silliness of considering putting a 1.4x on a 50mm.

 

[Nethawk]

Mt. Spokane, I agree with you about the 6D (and the lenses) but if sports is the subject being captured, I think the 7D2 has a pretty significant list of important features the 6D lacks. There's more to a camera than simply the sensor IQ and size. I have finally shot an event with the 7D2 and it's pretty amazing to use for sports, esp indoors with funky lighting. I agree that the 6D with 24-105mmL kit is a great place to start if one is shooting a myriad of things EXCEPT sports.

But sports wasn't mentioned. Nor was any other subject for that matter. If the OP is primarily interested in anywhere near 50mm then the 6D would seem the obvious choice. Both choices have an impressive list of pluses and minuses, but the 7Dii pluses don't really add up to what awair was looking for.

CanonOregon, +1 on your reply. Excellent comment.

I was in a similar situation and really wanted to upgrade my 7D to the new model. However, I was more than a bit disappointed after 5 years that there was little improvement in high ISO or IQ. If I were exclusively a sports or BIF photographer I'd jump in a heartbeat for the AF system alone, otherwise paying full price seemed a waste. So, I did myself one better - add a 6D and when 7Dii prices drop (a lot) I will trade up.

Congrats on the new purchase awair!

 

[awair]

Well the story unfolds...

After checking some of the results on the 7D2 with 300/4L, I was happy with the improvement in exposure/noise, but still disappointed with the focus. Wasn't sure if it was (completely) a user issue, or anything technical.

I also found that my new lens purchase bumped up quicker than expected, a 24-70/4L (which included a 6D!)

After checking the 300 on the 6D, I realised that AFMA was needed. Both cameras needed around +10.

Following the adjustment, I had two different opportunities for shooting some sports, indoor swimming (25m) and outdoor cross-country. I used both the 135 & 300 lenses on swapping them between the 6D & 7D2. I really appreciated the flexibility that gave me, although of the 4 options 6D/135 was a little short. The results from the 300 on both bodies are a huge improvement over the 7D, and I may have new favourite lens!

Next (outdoor) event will be with the 7D/135 & 7D2/300, but I'll definitely be using the 6D combo for indoor events. There's just enough difference between the camera settings to have me completely confused, and in the manuals for months. However, I've seen enough improvement in keeper rate to appreciate the investment. Now I just need to find a computer with an internal 4TB SSD.

In short, I would recommend the 7D2/6D combo with the lens I have. The 24-70 on either body can cover 'normal' photography, while the two primes effectively give me 135/216/300/480 coverage.

 

[awair]

As an update to anyone interested in a similar comparison. I have "answered" my own question.

After upgrading to both the 7D2 & 6D earlier in the year, I was achieving better results for sports in low-ish light than with my original 7D.

To top this off, I recently purchased the venerable 70-200/2.8L IS USM II. This was to be used (at an indoor swimming gala) under similar conditions that I had encountered previously.

The lighting conditions were not entirely favourable, but I had previously settled on:
ISO 800 f/2 1/500 or 1/250 for the EF 135/2L &
ISO 3200 f4 1/500 or 1/250 for the EF 300/4L.

Under these conditions I was compelled to use the 135 with the 7D2 & the 300 with the 6D. With a not dissimilar effective focal length (216 vs 300), the 6D produced the better quality shot, despite the higher ISO, with the 7D2 getting better images due the focussing and frame rate. So for my initial question of image quality, the 6D was nudging ahead, but with obvious difficulties capturing the best action shot.

A visiting pro advised me to couple my new 70-200 to the 7D2, as the more effective option. However, after half a day (of a two-day gala) I switched to the 6D with 70-200 and was considerably impressed with the results.

The extra reach of the 200mm (over 135) gave me more of the result that I was looking for. It also convinced me to re-visit my original 7D and use that with the 135 for more difficult focus cases, while leaving the 7D2/300 combo virtually redundant.

In good lighting conditions all of my lens and bodies produce results that I am more than happy with, however I should re-phrase my original question:
"Under poorer light conditions which option produces the better quality image - 7D2, or 6D cropped to achieve the same effective focal length?" My inclusion of the 1.4X converter was probably a distraction?

The results from a cropped full frame sensor (if I can capture the desired image) have generally been of better quality. This has convinced me that despite the additional "zoom" of a crop body, under the lighting conditions that I normally find myself in, the full frame is the better option for me. I also realised that carrying 2 bodies was not as convenient, with wildly differing (focus) features/switch layout.

With the prices of the 5D3 & 1Dx dropping due to upcoming replacement, I 'settled' on the 1Dx to pair with my 70-200. This will probably give me 95% of the shots I am trying got get at most swim meets. I'll leave the 7D2 attached to the 300, for days when that extra reach is needed at better-lit venues.

Thank you for the valuable tips that you've provided, I hope this post is of use to others:
I would thoroughly recommend the 6D as great introductory camera, the price/performance is hard to beat.
If you can stretch to the 5D3, that would be the perfect camera for most Canon users (and what I should have bought instead of the 7D2).

As for the 1Dx, I'm not sure if it's the right camera for me, but a 5D3 after the 7D2 & 6D combo did not provide a big enough difference. I'll post again in a year, but if I can get just one great shot of my kids then it's a win.

So for my next thread... should I get the 1.4X or 2X converter, and which of L lenses & bodies should I drop...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28629.0

 

[awair]

A further update...

I believe that I have now definitively answered my original question, whether to use a 6D & 1.4X or 7D(2) for better image quality.

My scenario related to sports use in less than perfect lighting.

As a background, my 7D2 has been returned to Canon. They have finally admitted that it is faulty, and it is being replaced. I currently have (only) the 1Dx and original 7D.

I went to my 'usual' venue for a swim gala last week and setup using the 1Dx with the 70-200. After the initial races, I switched to the 300/4, and found the extra reach more appropriate (even though this was a 25m, Short-Course event). I then used used the 70-200 on the 7D.

For the most part, this combination was effective, except when swimmers got too close and I was then limited with the 1Dx/300 combo.

I finally selected the 1Dx with the 70-200 & 1.4x for an experimental trial. To maintain the same exposure, I upped from ISO 1600 to 3200 (as I had used with the 300/4).

Reviewing the results from the various combinations of body/lens that I used over the meet, showed better results with the 1Dx at ISO 3200 than the 7D at ISO 800 (I dropped the shutter speed to get this, a compromise). The results were also at least as good as using the 7D2 on an earlier occasion.

1Dx: ISO 1600, 1/1000, f/2.8 or ISO 3200, 1/1000, f/4 with 1.4x III.
7D: ISO 800, 1/640, f/2.8
(7D2: ISO 1600, 1/1000, f/2.8 - previous event)
(6D: ISO 3200, 1/1000, f/4 - previous event)

Even though I wasn't using the 6D (as per my original question), I would have to say that the combination of Full-frame & converter, despite the loss of 1-stop and increased ISO, produced better quality than the crop camera (both 7D & 7D2) in the lighting conditions available.

The effective 98-280 focal range on the 1Dx was just about ideal, suggesting a look at the 100-400...
I'm just not sure I can get by with f/5.6 at the long end with the resulting 6400 ISO.

Anyway, next event is 'long-course' (50m) and I'm expecting to rent the 400/2.8

 

[bananaboat83]

Does anyone know if 6D2 will work with canon 2x teleconverter + 400f2.8?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Does anyone know if 6D2 will work with canon 2x teleconverter + 400f2.8?

No, it will not. But that's mainly because there's no such camera as a 6D2. Otherwise, 400/2.8 + a 2x TC yields an 800mm f/5.6 lens that will work 'properly' (i.e. full AF functionality, except that the AF will be slower) with any Canon camera including the entry level Rebel/xxxD models.

 

[wsmith96]

I came to the same conclusion regarding crop vs. ff when I'm shooting my daughter's dive meets. I have a 6D and the results it produced compared to my 60D were superior. I also found for my use that the 70-200 f2.8 mk ii was the perfect lens for that. Most of my shots were around 135mm so our next meet I'm going to try the 135 f2 to see how it compares. I'm expecting the image quality to improve by allowing me to drop the iso one stop. I keep my camera set to iso 3200 and the shutter speed at ~1/1000-1250, which is sufficient to stop action on most of the divers. It gets harder for the 6D with our seniors who twist really fast - limitation of the camera as it loses focus lock and won't re-aquire.

Congratulations on your 1dx! I may be following your footsteps for an action camera, but I want to see the next 5D first before making a decision. I don't need the 14 fps, but the 4.5 is pretty slow if shooting something other than youth sports. It's more about perfecting your timing with a camera that slow (which can be done).