6D- An amateur's review

[Marsu42]

but is it dramatically better for monitor viewing / moderate size prints, or only fine fur details noticeable at 100%?

Ah, now I though that would be a given - for downsizing to the usual sizes crop is really fine, otherwise they wouldn't sell tons of them, would they?

That's why I was so reluctant to make the ff jump as you can get a stellar lens for €1500, but the sensor iq is just one part, it's the combination with shallower dof and different lens performance that matters as all my lenses are ef and perform better on ff.

 

[roguewave]

but is it dramatically better for monitor viewing / moderate size prints, or only fine fur details noticeable at 100%?

Ah, now I though that would be a given - for downsizing to the usual sizes crop is really fine, otherwise they wouldn't sell tons of them, would they?

That's why I was so reluctant to make the ff jump as you can get a stellar lens for €1500, but the sensor iq is just one part, it's the combination with shallower dof and different lens performance that matters as all my lenses are ef and perform better on ff.

Well, there is a difference between being just "fine" and being "almost as great as FF" .

I assume most 6D buyers don't make large prints on a regular basis. If the difference with crop is only apparent under magnification, it might make more sense to go with the 70D, which is cheaper and better in almost every other way - unless you really need low light capabilities and / or shallow DOF.

If, on the other hand, a viewer could immediately tell a FF shot from a crop sensor shot of the same scene under normal viewing and shot using comparably good lenses, then yeah, the jump to 6D is totally worth it.

That's exactly what I am trying to find out .

 

[Marsu42]

If, on the other hand, a viewer could immediately tell a FF shot from a crop sensor shot of the same scene under normal viewing and shot using comparably good lenses, then yeah, the jump to 6D is totally worth it.

Imho the only correct answer won't make you happy: it depends on the scene.

Some crop shots are indistinguishable from ff or respond very well do noise reduction (not that there are great new algorithms like DxO's PRIME around), and for me some crop macro shots look even superior to ff because the crop "crisp" look goes along with the subject's texture.

Then again, if shooting gradients crop quickly falls apart after some postprocessing because downsizing cannot restore a smooth color transition, or with skin tones and skin texture every bit of nr smudging given an instant plastic look even at low magnification.

If you are not sure about 6d or 70d, my advise definitely would be 70d because it's the better all-around camera, the 6d specializes and excels in some areas but is crippled in others. Just be sure you know what "low light" means (try to meter the LV with your current gear) because even in cloudy daylight crop shooting can become a constant struggle to decide between lower iso or higher shutter speed, resulting in less keepers - the higher iso capability of ff relieves you of that tradeoff and you can concentrate more on the actual shot.

What's your current gear btw? If on a budget it might make sense to go with a 60d and get a better lens, or if you're looking for good iq Canon crop isn't a good choice at all and you should have a look at Nikon...

 

[MichaelHodges]

It's clear that 6D would produce better IQ than crop sensor if high ISO or shallow DOF is required. I'm curious how much difference there is in other situations. Do you really get significantly better detail, colour, etc at "normal" ISO? I'd appreciate if anybody could post a comparison shots taken with 6D and a crop.

The difference is enormous. I think the closest crop camera is the 40D, which seemed to have a very nice balance of pixels/DR. But as far as the 7D, 60D, 70D, there's no comparison. No noise in the blue channel at ISO 100, no fear off using auto ISO, much sharper image, better color separation, more consistent exposure, etc.

 

[CarlTN]

Got my 6D the other day and the only thing i'm disappointed so far it's the ergonomics and the cheap feel of the body and buttons. It simply doesn't compare with my 5D II. Ofcourse i was not expecting the same build quality as the 5DII ( that's 5D3 territory) but i was expecting something better than this.
I plan getting the battery grip, hopefully the extra size will help balance out my 70-200

I have a Meike battery grip, and I like it pretty well. No doubt it pales by comparison to the Canon one, but at 1/4 the price, I can more than live with that. It feels a lot less solid than the body alone, but the grip itself is very nice when you need to shoot in portrait mode. I actually have mostly only used it with the one battery, rather than two...so the weight/balance isn't as ideal as with two batteries. I still enjoy using it on occasion, when the need arises.

As for your opinion of the lack of solidity, I disagree. I've tried a 5D2 in the past. It's simply a matter of the amount of force it takes to press buttons and move dials. With the 6D, they wanted less force applied, and I happen to like that decision. It feels no less solid to me. The clicks of the dials feel very snappy and definite. Certainly it makes the 5D2 and 5D3 feel like bricks by comparison, but if that's what you want, you should have bought the 5D3. Weight does not equal rigidity, though...not at all. Not saying the 6D is more rigid, just saying rigidity is not its problem.

Specifically on the feel of the shutter button, I happen to like the feel of the 6D's better than all other Canon cameras I've owned, rented, or tried including an older Rebel, a 50D, 60D, 7D, 5D2, 5D3, 1D4, 1Ds3, and 1DX. Worst of all, at least to my memory, was the shutter button of the 7D, with the 5D3 being very similar. Far too mushy and no transition between half pressing and fully depressed. Hopefully they will fix this with the 5D4.

 

[roguewave]

Imho the only correct answer won't make you happy: it depends on the scene.

Some crop shots are indistinguishable from ff or respond very well do noise reduction (not that there are great new algorithms like DxO's PRIME around), and for me some crop macro shots look even superior to ff because the crop "crisp" look goes along with the subject's texture.

Then again, if shooting gradients crop quickly falls apart after some postprocessing because downsizing cannot restore a smooth color transition, or with skin tones and skin texture every bit of nr smudging given an instant plastic look even at low magnification.

If you are not sure about 6d or 70d, my advise definitely would be 70d because it's the better all-around camera, the 6d specializes and excels in some areas but is crippled in others. Just be sure you know what "low light" means (try to meter the LV with your current gear) because even in cloudy daylight crop shooting can become a constant struggle to decide between lower iso or higher shutter speed, resulting in less keepers - the higher iso capability of ff relieves you of that tradeoff and you can concentrate more on the actual shot.

What's your current gear btw? If on a budget it might make sense to go with a 60d and get a better lens, or if you're looking for good iq Canon crop isn't a good choice at all and you should have a look at Nikon...

Your answer makes a lot of sense - in fact, those are my thoughts exactly. I agree that it depends on the scene, and that 70d is a better all around camera, whereas 6D is crippled in some ways. For me, its better low light and shallower DOF capabilities are not enough to offset the 70D's price, better AF, frame rate, cheaper lenses, etc. Now, if the IQ is substantially better as most posters claim, that would be an important factor. Else, if it's a slight difference that most people won't notice without pixel peeping, then I can live with that.

I can afford either of them, but since I don't make money out of my hobby, I don't want to spend more than I need to. I also want to make sure I am happy with my choice for a few years ahead, because I don't like to resell gear. Speaking of gear, I have too many lenses to make a switch to Nikon, both crop and FF: Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55 f2.8, Canon 17-40, Canon 24-105, Sigma 30 f1.4, Canon 85 f1.4, Canon 70-200 f4 IS, and a few more . Depending on which camera I get, I may sell the crop lenses and get Sigma 35 f1.4, Tamron 24-70 f2.8, or both.

 

[roguewave]

It's clear that 6D would produce better IQ than crop sensor if high ISO or shallow DOF is required. I'm curious how much difference there is in other situations. Do you really get significantly better detail, colour, etc at "normal" ISO? I'd appreciate if anybody could post a comparison shots taken with 6D and a crop.

The difference is enormous. I think the closest crop camera is the 40D, which seemed to have a very nice balance of pixels/DR. But as far as the 7D, 60D, 70D, there's no comparison. No noise in the blue channel at ISO 100, no fear off using auto ISO, much sharper image, better color separation, more consistent exposure, etc.

The 40D was a great camera, although I'd ocasionally see blue channel noise even at ISO 400. I know 7D has the same problem, but other than that, you mean it's worse than the 40D in terms of IQ despite being a later and higher-end model?

 

[CarlTN]

Well, what exactly do you want to see and what lens do you want the samples made with?

1) If you will try to compare 'camera JPEGs' the huge difference will be the DIGIC brains that do RAW -> JPEG conversion (with lens correction, ALO, etc.). (In case of XTi to 6D comparison, 6D is the Einstein and XTi is the caveman )

2) If you will try to compare 'camera RAWs' you will be at mercy of RAW conversion software camera presets (and number of bits in RAW data -- 6D has more than XTi).

PS: In my experience it's the FOV that makes the main difference. I used to shoot with XTi and 10-22 + 24-105 lens pair for years, and I always considered '24-105' as normal-to-tele lens (and I did not use it very often). The 6D changes the picture, now all my EF lenses make very (and I do mean 'VERY!') different pictures...

I agree with you. So yeah, I didn't consider JPEG. I also didn't mean FOV, because that's an obvious difference.

Other than that, I didn't have anything specific in mind. Because several reviewers mentioned that IQ is a BIG upgrade from crop, I just wanted to see an example, whatever shots they choose (other than high ISO) and see for myself how big the difference is.

I remember a landscape scene comparison on POTN between 7D and 5DII. While FF looked slightly better with color and detail / contrast, at web resolution it was not a huge difference by any means.

The only way you can justify for yourself if you like the improvement the 6D has over the 70D, is if you use both cameras for yourself, in the situations you shoot in, with the lenses you use. You can't depend on just looking at the work or tests of other people to decide. Plenty of people take great shots with iPhones and compact cameras, especially if it's just content that's displayed at websize. Doesn't mean those are as good as a 6D, but it does mean it depends on WHAT YOU WANT to get out of it, and if you prefer the ergonomics and experience of using a full frame or any specific camera or system.

I used my 50D for 4 years and had over 25,000 shutter cycles. I loved that camera to death, and planned to keep it a bit longer after buying the 6D. After the first couple of days of using the 6D, I had decided to sell the 50D. Eventually a kind gentleman from those internets saw my sale ad, and paid me handsomely for it!

Frankly, if you only shoot birds in very bright daylight with a very high quality telephoto lens (perhaps any of the "big whites"), a 70D very likely makes more sense. The autofocus is no doubt as good or better than the 6D's in bright light, and you get a ton more reach. In the dark, the 6D's center point works where all others in the world do not...and even seems to work better on an f/4 lens in these conditions than an f/2 lens, like my 135L.

For most other stills photography situations, the 6D will excel over the 70D. Perhaps the 70D's image quality is better than the older 7D's, but keep in mind the 7D has generally better AF performance than both the 70D and the 6D...or at least that's what I gather. But the 7D has luminance noise that looks like a gravel driveway overlaying the image starting at about ISO 400. I'll grant you that it isn't as obvious until just above there, but that's not saying much. At ISO 1000 the 7D basically equals the S/N ratio of a Powershot G15 at its own ISO of about half that. That doesn't speak well for the 7D.

Also, one of the main advantages such a high quality image from the 6D is important, is the ability to crop into an image...even one that is shot at high ISO. You can't do that with as much success with the 70D. At the time of shooting, you don't always know or realize, exactly the framing you want...or that a slight or moderate crop winds up looking better when you look at it later on the computer.

For video, the 70D might be better, depending on the situation.

So, if your work is mostly going to be displayed at web sizes, AND YOU HAPPEN TO NEVER EVER CROP INTO AN IMAGE...then you have a lot of affordable choices at your disposal. If you need the flexibility of a Ferrari at Hyundai prices where image quality is concerned, go for the 6D.

 

[Marsu42]

No noise in the blue channel at ISO 100, no fear off using auto ISO, much sharper image, better color separation, more consistent exposure, etc.

To put things into perspective: Using auto iso 100-800 on crop seems fine to me, the sharpness of an image is more dependent on the lens (think ff+cheap lens or crop+expensive lens, not $1000 vs. $5000), and exposure in eval at least on the 6d seems to be more erratic than on 60d and has nothing to do with the sensor - the dynamic range is about the same.

I do agree about color & noise as I wrote above, though my answer is intended for roguewave and he was asking about downsized shots, so the even iso performance isn't paramount for him.

Now, if the IQ is substantially better as most posters claim, that would be an important factor. Else, if it's a slight difference that most people won't notice without pixel peeping, then I can live with that.

Crop sensor performance of Canon is a bit beyond Nikon and the 70d's 20mp has't advanced much vs. 18mp, I guess that makes many people bash it in *relative* terms - but in *absolute* terms it's really fine, I've been using the 60d for 2.5 years an 150k shots and the only real "no go" area is shooting motion indoors.

Last not least if people spend a hilarious amount of money on a gadget I'd wager to say it's tempting to rationalize a fun purchase (and the 6d has great iq) as essential even when in many situations crop would deliver the same result for standard print/view sizes.

Tokina 11-16, Canon 17-55 f2.8, Canon 17-40, Canon 24-105, Sigma 30 f1.4, Canon 85 f1.4, Canon 70-200 f4 IS, and a few more . Depending on which camera I get, I may sell the crop lenses and get Sigma 35 f1.4, Tamron 24-70 f2.8, or both.

I'm also not a big fan of the sell & buy game and rather stick to what I have and purchase other things that are also important (esp. lighting gear (flashes, diffusers), but also monitor, color calibration, tripod, filters, printer, software ... repairs!). For crop your 11-16, 17-55, 70-200 should indeed about cover it, the 17-40 & 24-105 are really ff lenses in sharpness & zoom range even if they add weather sealing.

 

[MichaelHodges]

It's clear that 6D would produce better IQ than crop sensor if high ISO or shallow DOF is required. I'm curious how much difference there is in other situations. Do you really get significantly better detail, colour, etc at "normal" ISO? I'd appreciate if anybody could post a comparison shots taken with 6D and a crop.

The difference is enormous. I think the closest crop camera is the 40D, which seemed to have a very nice balance of pixels/DR. But as far as the 7D, 60D, 70D, there's no comparison. No noise in the blue channel at ISO 100, no fear off using auto ISO, much sharper image, better color separation, more consistent exposure, etc.

The 40D was a great camera, although I'd occasionally see blue channel noise even at ISO 400. I know 7D has the same problem, but other than that, you mean it's worse than the 40D in terms of IQ despite being a later and higher-end model?

When I mentioned the 40D, it was in a positive light. Looking back at my images, it seemed to come closest to the full frame "look", with very nice colors and lesser noise than the models that followed, at least what I could see when viewing RAW's in DPP and LR.

 

[MichaelHodges]

To put things into perspective: Using auto iso 100-800 on crop seems fine to me,

I found that to be the case for the 40D, but things started sliding downhill with the 50D and 7D, IMHO.

the sharpness of an image is more dependent on the lens (think ff+cheap lens or crop+expensive lens, not $1000 vs. $5000),

Sensor quality plays a huge role in sharpness. When using my lenses on 5D III, 1DX, and 6D, it is like I'm using all new gear with better color and sharpness.

Last not least if people spend a hilarious amount of money on a gadget I'd wager to say it's tempting to rationalize a fun purchase (and the 6d has great iq) as essential even when in many situations crop would deliver the same result for standard print/view sizes.

There's no question that a user can produce outstanding images with crop. But that same user will produce even better images with FF. The images just simply "pop" more due to being cleaner, sharper, and more colorful.

I'm also not a big fan of the sell & buy game and rather stick to what I have and purchase other things that are also important (esp. lighting gear (flashes, diffusers), but also monitor, color calibration, tripod, filters, printer, software ... repairs!). For crop your 11-16, 17-55, 70-200 should indeed about cover it, the 17-40 & 24-105 are really ff lenses in sharpness & zoom range even if they add weather sealing.

I agree about the buy and sell game. People get addicted to it. *But* there is validity to it in certain cases, and going from crop to FF is one of those.

 

[roguewave]

The only way you can justify for yourself if you like the improvement the 6D has over the 70D, is if you use both cameras for yourself, in the situations you shoot in, with the lenses you use. You can't depend on just looking at the work or tests of other people to decide. Plenty of people take great shots with iPhones and compact cameras, especially if it's just content that's displayed at websize. Doesn't mean those are as good as a 6D, but it does mean it depends on WHAT YOU WANT to get out of it, and if you prefer the ergonomics and experience of using a full frame or any specific camera or system.

I used my 50D for 4 years and had over 25,000 shutter cycles. I loved that camera to death, and planned to keep it a bit longer after buying the 6D. After the first couple of days of using the 6D, I had decided to sell the 50D. Eventually a kind gentleman from those internets saw my sale ad, and paid me handsomely for it!

Frankly, if you only shoot birds in very bright daylight with a very high quality telephoto lens (perhaps any of the "big whites"), a 70D very likely makes more sense. The autofocus is no doubt as good or better than the 6D's in bright light, and you get a ton more reach. In the dark, the 6D's center point works where all others in the world do not...and even seems to work better on an f/4 lens in these conditions than an f/2 lens, like my 135L.

For most other stills photography situations, the 6D will excel over the 70D. Perhaps the 70D's image quality is better than the older 7D's, but keep in mind the 7D has generally better AF performance than both the 70D and the 6D...or at least that's what I gather. But the 7D has luminance noise that looks like a gravel driveway overlaying the image starting at about ISO 400. I'll grant you that it isn't as obvious until just above there, but that's not saying much. At ISO 1000 the 7D basically equals the S/N ratio of a Powershot G15 at its own ISO of about half that. That doesn't speak well for the 7D.

Also, one of the main advantages such a high quality image from the 6D is important, is the ability to crop into an image...even one that is shot at high ISO. You can't do that with as much success with the 70D. At the time of shooting, you don't always know or realize, exactly the framing you want...or that a slight or moderate crop winds up looking better when you look at it later on the computer.

For video, the 70D might be better, depending on the situation.

So, if your work is mostly going to be displayed at web sizes, AND YOU HAPPEN TO NEVER EVER CROP INTO AN IMAGE...then you have a lot of affordable choices at your disposal. If you need the flexibility of a Ferrari at Hyundai prices where image quality is concerned, go for the 6D.

Thank you for your points!

Using the cameras myself would indeed be better than relying on shots from other people and I may end up doing so. However, renting both would set me back at least a couple of hundred bucks, which negates most of the savings I could realize by going with the 70D. If somebody could show a few shots where 6D blows crop out of the water (same conditions and not high ISO), that would make my choice much easier. Everybody claims that to be the case, but a picture is worth a thousand words .

 

[Marsu42]

Using the cameras myself would indeed be better than relying on shots from other people and I may end up doing so. However, renting both would set me back at least a couple of hundred bucks, which negates most of the savings I could realize by going with the 70D.

Best thing is to find a shop where both cameras are on display side by side, I am lucky to have found such a shop and took a lot of test shots 6d vs 5d3 and played around with them for hours. Next to the iq, the overall "feel" of the camera is very important, at least to me.

Btw just today I looked at the 70d in the same shop ... seems nice enough and funny thing the lv af suddenly works unlike on 60d, but they did cut back from the 7d in body build and features: af expansion (so the larger amount of points is really only for tracking) and spot af (the af points of the 70d seem to be *very* big).

 

[roguewave]

Crop sensor performance of Canon is a bit beyond Nikon and the 70d's 20mp has't advanced much vs. 18mp, I guess that makes many people bash it in *relative* terms - but in *absolute* terms it's really fine, I've been using the 60d for 2.5 years an 150k shots and the only real "no go" area is shooting motion indoors.

Last not least if people spend a hilarious amount of money on a gadget I'd wager to say it's tempting to rationalize a fun purchase (and the 6d has great iq) as essential even when in many situations crop would deliver the same result for standard print/view sizes.

Marsu42, that's exactly what I mean. Aside from some obvious specific situations, does FF has clear IQ advantage in most cases, or is it just a marginal improvement at pixel level, exaggerated in perception by people trying to justify their purchase . According to everybody so far, there is a significant real improvement, but I am yet to see sample shots.

I'm also not a big fan of the sell & buy game and rather stick to what I have and purchase other things that are also important (esp. lighting gear (flashes, diffusers), but also monitor, color calibration, tripod, filters, printer, software ... repairs!). For crop your 11-16, 17-55, 70-200 should indeed about cover it, the 17-40 & 24-105 are really ff lenses in sharpness & zoom range even if they add weather sealing.

The 17-40 has not seen much use after I got the 17-55, but I use the 24-105 on crop quite often, instead of swapping the 17-55 and 70-200 all the time.

 

[roguewave]

Best thing is to find a shop where both cameras are on display side by side, I am lucky to have found such a shop and took a lot of test shots 6d vs 5d3 and played around with them for hours. Next to the iq, the overall "feel" of the camera is very important, at least to me.

Btw just today I looked at the 70d in the same shop ... seems nice enough and funny thing the lv af suddenly works unlike on 60d, but they did cut back from the 7d in body build and features: af expansion (so the larger amount of points is really only for tracking) and spot af (the af points of the 70d seem to be *very* big).

That's an option, but then I'd end up buying the camera from the local shop and likely pay their much higher prices. I'd feel bad just "showrooming" for hours and then buying online .

I have to admit that the feel of the camera is important, but not critical - definitely lower on my priority list than IQ, AF, sensor noise, camera responsiveness, etc.

At least the 70D AF points are all cross-type. I am really suspicious of how 6D's non-center AF points would work with large aperture, when focusing precision is important.

 

[kkelis]

Got my 6D the other day and the only thing i'm disappointed so far it's the ergonomics and the cheap feel of the body and buttons. It simply doesn't compare with my 5D II. Ofcourse i was not expecting the same build quality as the 5DII ( that's 5D3 territory) but i was expecting something better than this.
I plan getting the battery grip, hopefully the extra size will help balance out my 70-200

I have a Meike battery grip, and I like it pretty well. No doubt it pales by comparison to the Canon one, but at 1/4 the price, I can more than live with that. It feels a lot less solid than the body alone, but the grip itself is very nice when you need to shoot in portrait mode. I actually have mostly only used it with the one battery, rather than two...so the weight/balance isn't as ideal as with two batteries. I still enjoy using it on occasion, when the need arises.

As for your opinion of the lack of solidity, I disagree. I've tried a 5D2 in the past. It's simply a matter of the amount of force it takes to press buttons and move dials. With the 6D, they wanted less force applied, and I happen to like that decision. It feels no less solid to me. The clicks of the dials feel very snappy and definite. Certainly it makes the 5D2 and 5D3 feel like bricks by comparison, but if that's what you want, you should have bought the 5D3. Weight does not equal rigidity, though...not at all. Not saying the 6D is more rigid, just saying rigidity is not its problem.

Specifically on the feel of the shutter button, I happen to like the feel of the 6D's better than all other Canon cameras I've owned, rented, or tried including an older Rebel, a 50D, 60D, 7D, 5D2, 5D3, 1D4, 1Ds3, and 1DX. Worst of all, at least to my memory, was the shutter button of the 7D, with the 5D3 being very similar. Far too mushy and no transition between half pressing and fully depressed. Hopefully they will fix this with the 5D4.

I do agree with you that the shutter button feels better than the 5D2( havent tried out a 5d3) but the dials certainly do not feel as snappy. On the 5D2 every dial click can be heard on the other side of the house and certainly it does take alot more force to move, it sort of gives me the assurance that "yes this is one click at a time" By all means i am not saying the 6D dials are bad, i just prefer the 5D2 better and this is just my opnion, i am sure other people will agree with you.

I was also looking at the Meike grip it really is a bargain compared to the BG E13. Have you tried it out on a tripod to see how much flex there is? Would you feel comfortable attaching a blackrapid strap on it?

 

[OmarSV11]

I moved from a t3i (600D) to the 6D and I REGRET NOTHING about it. I was heavily tempted to buy the Fuji XE2, tested it, touched it, smelled it. But the feeling of working with a FF sensor weigh in my decision.

Paired with the EF 100mm f/2.0 for portraits it's just plain awesome. Even with the nifty fifty worked like a charm during my trip to NY.

Night folks!

 

[Marsu42]

That's an option, but then I'd end up buying the camera from the local shop and likely pay their much higher prices. I'd feel bad just "showrooming" for hours and then buying online .

I'm not talking about an owner's small camera shop on the edge of bankruptcy here, but about large electro discount chains that have 20-30 "throw-away" cameras on permanent display, so personally I've got no problem with trying there and then buying online, I'm not using any of their personnel time for that.

I am really suspicious of how 6D's non-center AF points would work with large aperture, when focusing precision is important.

It's simple: They don't. You can read all about it in the relevant threads, for large aperture or low light the 6d is a one-point af camera (and even then the center point is *non-cross* below f5.6, the f2.8 precision is only a line). That's also part of the "feel" I'm talking about you can only get from the real thing and not from the spec lists: If you feel the af is too annoying it will impact your photographic results.

 

[Zlyden]

For me the main 'perceptual' difference in images after APS-C to FF switch could be put as 'FF images look more natural':

- I used to shoot with manual and SLR film cameras in 1980s-90s, so I still remember what aperture numbers like f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6... 'mean' and what type of pictures you get in each case.

- When I got digital compact in early 2000s it turned out that changing f-numbers does not make much difference (except adding more camera shake at tele-end of zoom range).

- Switching to APS-C DSLR (XTi in 2007) made me relearn f-numbers again because the images were different from both old film cameras and digital compacts. This also added some crazy thoughts like 'Do I need to use very-very bright prime lens, because at f/4 I got a picture that looks more like film's f/6.3-7.1?', 'But if I use the bright lens at f/1.4-2.8 it seems that I (or camera's AF?) can't make razor-sharp pictures with focus where I want?', 'Can I shoot with f/16, probably not -- diffraction?'

- Now with 6D I do feel more 'at home' as in old film camera times: f/4 aperture value once again is a pretty good large aperture, f/2.8 is great for sharp-soft contrast, f/8 is very sharp but you still can easily see where is the 'subject' and where is 'background', etc.

With APS-C camera you have to buy weird lenses like 17-55/2.8 (or new Sigma 18-35/1.8 ) to make better images. I never used 17-55/2.8, but judging by various charts and reviews -- 24-105/4 on FF camera outperforms 17-55/2.8 on APS-C in all and every aspect (including the price, at least in our parts in past 5 years 24-105 was usually $100-300 cheaper than 17-55/2.8 ).

FF is also 'more forgiving' and easier on lenses and shooting technique: 6D pixels are larger and there are much more of them -- when I make the same size images the result is more sharp and clean.

So, yes, in my opinion: 6D is better than any APS-C camera. Not because of ISO, DR and other acronyms -- but because FF images are more 'natural' and it's easier to make them.

PS: 70D? it has the same bulk and weight as 6D, but better AF system for shooting birds, running kids and movies? and it's price is only $1000, while 6D is $1500? No, thank you!

 

[abcde12345]

It seems like everyone is commenting on the post regarding FF versus crop frame IQ. My honest opinion: there is a difference. The difference comes in sharpness, which is not available through just manipulating through sharpness in Photoshop. It has a more distinctive line (thinner outline as compared to 550D). Even when I'm using ISO100, the image quality has a sense of creamy bokeh and dreamy feeling, which I have never achieved using 550D. It was a shock for me right away. Such quality may not be apparent to those who are unfamiliar with their cameras, but if you've been looking at your camera shots for quite a while, it will actually be very obvious. I've reviewed more than ten thousand shots of my 550D, so definitely the jump is obvious and I can guarantee that. However, it might be due to a sudden spike of technic right after my purchase, so I wouldn't know. : The sharpness that I mentioned? People who loves portrait would love it.