Best body for my needs? [yet another 6D vs 70D thread, sorry]

[Random Orbits]

Second but ... based on your "usage list" I'd also have a serious look at a secondhand 5DII, instead of the 6D camera. I'm saying this, because I don't think the 6D offers anything much better than the 5DII ... for instance, I read up on how the GPS part works and, based on the literature, I feel it is badly implemented and will lead to severe headaches for the serious geotagger ... but I'm probably wrong, as usual.

-1. When the 6D was first announced, it was trashed by many in forums who said that they would buy the 5DII over the 6D, but now that it is out, very few would say that unless they had a specific requirement that would be satisfied by the 5D (i.e. ergonomics, better weather resistance). The 6D has much less banding than the 5DII, has greater center point light sensitivity and the outer AF points work better.

 

[Marsu42]

The 6D has much less banding than the 5DII, has greater center point light sensitivity and the outer AF points work better.

Banding only occurs after a lot of postprocessing, and only the op can know how much he's into it and if he's able to ettr or use bracketing ... as for the af, the -3lv center point sensitivity is a big plus over the +0.5lv 5d2 (afaik) if you need it, but you're the first one to discover that the outer af points are a significant step forward

There's no doubt in my mind the 6d is the "better" camera and that's why I bought it - but the main showstopper for getting used 5d2s is their still very high price & a cheap offer might be attractive for this semi-pro body. At least you can shoot xxl stock photography with the 5d2 which for you-can-guess-what reasons seems to start @21mp...

 

[Random Orbits]

Banding only occurs after a lot of postprocessing, and only the op can know how much he's into it and if he's able to ettr or use bracketing ... as for the af, the -3lv center point sensitivity is a big plus over the +0.5lv 5d3 (afaik) if you need it, but you're the first one to discover that the outer af points are a significant step forward

I'm assuming you're referring to the 5D2 above; the 5D3 has -2ev sensitivity, although the darkest I've tried and kept with the 5D3 is closer to -1.

 

[Marsu42]

I'm assuming you're referring to the 5D2 above

Yes, it's a typo, corrected - thanks for spotting it.

 

[tntwit]

Let me start by saying I generally agree that the 6D is the optimum choice for your needs.

But if you do go crop, here is another thought. Considering the needs, many of what the 70D has over the 60D probably don't matter for your needs.

The main benefits are more AF points, which probably don't matter much for static objects, AF in video, which you don't do, WiFi, which you expressed no opinion about (I don't think) and AF micro-adjust which I'm not sure if it may or may not benefit. I would think this type of photography is mostly manual focused anyways where I would guess the micro adjust wouldn't matter? Not sure - I don't have the feature.

I brought up the 60D because it is half the cost of the 70D right now and would leave a good $500 towards a lens.

I guess the question is, have you been disappointed with the image quality from the Rebel? If so, then you probably won't be happy with any of the Canon crops because from what I have seen, they haven't improved much since the T2i. I'm not saying they are bad - I was happy with mine as long as the ISO stays down - but they haven't made any great strides in improvements.

I don't recall if you stated anywhere about what your old camera lacked that you hoped for in the new camera, but that's where you should make comparisons.

I'm in a similar boat with different needs/desires. I just sold my T3i and have been looking at the 6D, 60D and 70D. However, my main subjects are my kids (my daughter plays soccer as well) so I have some concerns about the focusing of the 6D for my needs. But also, I really want to use it for video and I haven't found my skill levels up to manually focusing in video, so I usually just don't. Also, I have the 15-85 and 10-20 Sigma crop lenses and I figure to replace them with say the 24-105 and 17-40, I'll probably spend another $1200+ over the 70D and the glass I already have (and this is a hobby for me) just to get back to the lenses I have now (of course they would be much better lenses).

For these reasons I am leaning toward the 70D, but what I really want (and probably everybody else) is the 70D with a full frame sensor. Another words, I prefer everything about the 70D over the 6D except the FF part and I fear the 6D2 will have dual pixel tech and then I'll be wanting that one. So part of me says get the 60D (better than the T3i I had and I didn't have AF video anyways) and wait for that one. In the mean time keep building glass (and lighting).

Anyways, maybe what you should do, if you can, is rent a 6D and see if it is what you really want. I thought about renting one, but I already know the outcome. :

 

[gigabellone]

Serious wide angle lens for landscapes? Didn't feel any necessity there yet. And no, no stars. Yes, I do own the 100/2.8L Macro lens and yes, I did use it for portrait in the past. I also have a 50mm/1.4 which is better for portraits in most cases. Yes, the EF 24-70/2.8L II sure must be nice. But also quite expensive as you say. I basically know I've got to get it if I go FF but not sure that will be right now. Any recommendations for a standard zoom lens that is in the <$1000 price range?

Sorry, i wasn't aware that you already have a 50/1.4 and a 100/2.8 macro. That would make the switch to FF much more affordable. If you don't mind going all primes, you have a 50/1.4 as a general purpose/street photography lens, and a 100/2.8 as your macro/portrait tool; if you ever feel the need of a wide angle, you can add a 24mm or 28mm IS, and you've got a highly efficent and cost effective lens setup. If you need a midrange zoom without braking the bank, both the sigma 24-70/2.8 hsm (the newer one) and the tamron 24-70/2.8 seem to be viable choices, according to several online reviews. I can't vouch for them, having never owned one.

 

[bholliman]

Yet another vote for the 6D, whose low light performance is so good you may find yourself doing more photos of interiors than you do right now. I don't agree that you might as well get a second-hand 5DII - while a 5DII certainly has better image quality than any crop sensor camera, the 6D is better in terms of dynamic range (much less shadow noise and banding if you push shadows; the same is true compared to the 5DIII) and high ISO performance, and it focuses better in low light (than just about anything).

Nor do I see why you would miss your 17-55 - it may be the best such crop zoom, but in my experience it's not as good as the 24-105 on FF, even though the latter is "only" f4.

+1. The 5D2 really has no advantages over the 6D other than price. To me the 6D is easily worth the difference in what you will pay.

f/2.8 on a crop is roughly equivalent to f/4.5 on FF, so you are not giving anything up in aperture going from a EF-S 17-55 2.8 on a crop to a 24-105 f/4 on a FF body. I think the 24-105 is optically as good and has the added advantages of better zoom range - both wider and longer, and superior build quality. You can buy a white box 24-105 for less than what 17-55's sell for.

 

[Marsu42]

+1. The 5D2 really has no advantages over the 6D other than price.

It's not "just" the price, it *is* the price - so as the worth of one $/€ is very subjective, the only possible basis for comparison is someone buying a cheaper body + more expensive lens or vice versa.

We all know the op will end up with the 6d anyway and this thread is just for fun - very few people (one is the CR memeber Paul as far as I remember) can resist the magnetism of is premium products ... so I have to re-post this, I didn't post it for some days now

Pro DSLR + Cheapo Lens vs "Cheapo" DSLR + Pro Lens