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

[adhocphotographer]

Sell the EF-S lens, you'll get a good price for it! lenses hold their value! Pick up the 6D and enjoy the joys of FF!

Put the cash from the EF-S to the 6D or even better yet, some new FF glass! But be warned... getting a FF DSLR is a gateway to some expensive glass!

 

[Click]

+1 for the 6D

 

[FTb-n]

Get the 6D and you won't look back.

I upgraded from the 7D to the 5D3. High ISO for sports and indoor events were the main motivation. But, I'm glad that I did so before a trip to Yellowstone. My 'L' lenses are sharper on the full frame body and the color latitude is deeper. If action isn't a priority, the 6D is a great choice. It would have been mine had I not needed the focus benefits of the 5D3.

For what it's worth, if you do go 70D, the 17-55 is a great lens for it. Still, since your considering the 6D, I'm betting that it's the camera that you really want, but just need some confirmation that full-frame is what it's cracked up to be. IT IS!

 

[gigabellone]

• Landscapes
• Long time exposures at nightfall / night
• Temples / Shrines / other interesting buildings (no, I don't have or want shiftable lenses)
• Flowers / insects / small animals (close-up and macro)
• Portraits and Cosplay (from close-ups to groups)

Based on that: stay with your 550d at least it runs Magic Lantern (timed bulb exposures, unlimted hdr bracketing, focus stacking for macro).

The 70d sensor isn't a significant upgrade, and you don't seem to have the need for a better af system. A full frame isn't really better in all cases, as it has a more shallow dof and this is what you *don't* want for macro, and for landscape it depends on how much you want to boost the shots in postprocessing.

Marsu42 got a serious point. The switch to FF is going to cost a heap of money. You need a serious wide angle lens for landscapes, even more than serious if you're going to take pictures of stars. To save some money, you can do double-duty with a 100/2.8L for both macros and portraits. That said, i would get a 6D body, an EF 24-70/2.8 II and 100/2.8 macro, for a total of about 4200€, 4500 if you throw in a decent tripod, but i assume you already have one. Of course you can spend a lot less, but what's the point of getting a brand new shiny full frame camera and skimping on lenses?

 

[Sella174]

Looking at the pictures on your website and based on your "usage" list, I suggest you have a serious look at the micro-4/3 offerings.

Thanks for the input, I appreciate it. But really, for my needs? Doesn't seem to fit anything but maybe the macro thingy. I will probably consider this instead of an APS-C to complement the full frame sensor - if I decide to go with the 6D. But as my primary camera? Really don't see that. Happy to hear your more detailed arguments based on my "usage list", though. I'm probably missing something here.

The strength of the Canon system lies in its telephoto lenses and fast AF for sports, wildlife and surveillance. In the sub-200mm range, apart from the (manual focus) tilt-and-shift lenses, Canon offers very little that micro-4/3 doesn't as well. Canon has better video (than Olympus, but not Panasonic), but you stated that video wasn't a primary requirement. OK, sure, Canon has those spectacular L primes, but they're really heavy and quite expensive ... not something to lug around on a tourist visa. And ultimately a FF camera needs these glass bricks.

But, yeah, get the 6D ... everybody else did, but me.

 

[Marsu42]

This comment is from someone who's only had a 6D for about 18 hours. Compared to my previous XTi the noise performance is incredible.

So what? What does the op need high iso for - posed portraits? no. (tripod) macro? no. architecture? nope, not with vanilla lenses. landscape? only for the superior postprocessing leverage of ff - and in this case, a used 5d2 might be even or better (a bit more mp, a bit sharper at base iso).

The other advantage of the ff is thinner dof, looking at the op's gallery he could profit from that - but expensive zooms or primes are needed for it ... much more than just a camera body upgrade. Last not least the infamous 5d2/6d af plus missing crop factor isn't made for shooting squirrels or alligators from a distance, so what he ends up is our popular setup: either a 5d3 or 70d/7d+6d combination. That's a lot of $$$ for camera bodies that loose value in no time, it might be smarter to get some nice primes first.

 

[Longexposure]

I'd suggest the new fuji xt1 if you don't mind changing system. Its image quality is great and it's much lighter and smaller than either dslrs. Otherwise i'd get the 6d.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

• Landscapes
• Long time exposures at nightfall / night
• Temples / Shrines / other interesting buildings (no, I don't have or want shiftable lenses)
• Flowers / insects / small animals (close-up and macro)
• Portraits and Cosplay (from close-ups to groups)

Based on that: stay with your 550d at least it runs Magic Lantern (timed bulb exposures, unlimted hdr bracketing, focus stacking for macro).
The 70d sensor isn't a significant upgrade, and you don't seem to have the need for a better af system. A full frame isn't really better in all cases, as it has a more shallow dof and this is what you *don't* want for macro, and for landscape it depends on how much you want to boost the shots in postprocessing.

Although the picture quality is much better on full frame at ISO 6400, APSC has some advantages. Before someone say I'm delirious, here we go:

Lighter weight, including lenses for the same viewing angle.
More compact size, including lenses for the same viewing angle.
Lowest price on the body.
Much lower price in general purpose zoom lens.
Built-in flash can be useful in unexpected moments.
Depth of field wider is beneficial in macro and landscape.
AF system (through the viewfinder) more agile and precise in 70D.
All cross-type AF points on 70D, including a dual cross-type.
AF dual pixel in live view is excellent for macro and landscape.
Articulated LCD is very useful for macro and landscape.
Image quality at low ISO is indistinguishable between 6D and 70D.

 

[tron]

Just get the 6D after selling any EF-S lens(es). You will not regret the IQ and high ISO performance.

Now, If you hadn't put any clarification in brackets I would answer to your question as follows:

The one that you both like and is offered to you ;D

Back to the question: I believe the 6D is a wonderful body ;D

 

[Random Orbits]

So what? What does the op need high iso for - posed portraits? no. (tripod) macro? no. architecture? nope, not with vanilla lenses. landscape? only for the superior postprocessing leverage of ff - and in this case, a used 5d2 might be even or better (a bit more mp, a bit sharper at base iso).

The other advantage of the ff is thinner dof, looking at the op's gallery he could profit from that - but expensive zooms or primes are needed for it ... much more than just a camera body upgrade. Last not least the infamous 5d2/6d af plus missing crop factor isn't made for shooting squirrels or alligators from a distance, so what he ends up is our popular setup: either a 5d3 or 70d/7d+6d combination. That's a lot of $$$ for camera bodies that loose value in no time, it might be smarter to get some nice primes first.

The OP mentioned night shots. If this includes starscapes, then higher ISO capability is welcome.

He also only has 1 EF-S lens, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, which retains its value and can be sold easily. His other lenses are EF. The same EF lens on FF will seem to have better sharpness, and he would also get an immediate DOF benefit by moving to FF even keeping the same EF lenses. If anything, APS-C cameras place a higher premium on lens quality.

 

[Sella174]

His other lenses are EF. The same EF lens on FF will seem to have better sharpness, and he would also get an immediate DOF benefit by moving to FF even keeping the same EF lenses. If anything, APS-C cameras place a higher premium on lens quality.

Unless I missed it somewhere, the OP never states what EF lenses are in the equation ... and there's lots of iffy EF lenses that actually perform quite decently on APS-C, but sucks on an astronomical level on FF.

 

[Marsu42]

The same EF lens on FF will seem to have better sharpness, and he would also get an immediate DOF benefit by moving to FF even keeping the same EF lenses. If anything, APS-C cameras place a higher premium on lens quality.

He would also get an immediate dof and working distance malus for macro when moving to ff.

Unless I missed it somewhere, the OP never states what EF lenses are in the equation ... and there's lots of iffy EF lenses that actually perform quite decently on APS-C, but sucks on an astronomical level on FF.

+1 - I've got both crop & ff, the lenses perform differently esp. center vs. corners, but not better or worse. Unless shooting with top-notch glass, using just the best part of the lens with the current crop sensor resolution is usually neutral or even beneficial unless it's a "wide open" dud like the 17-40L or completely outdated models like the 50/1.8.

 

[iron-t]

If you're anything like me you're going to miss the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 if you move up to FF. I loved that lens on my 60D. The 24-105mm f/4L that I replaced it with upon moving to 5D3, while serviceable, is far from lovable, and it'll be awhile before I can afford a good FF f/2.8(L II) zoom to replace it.

Which brings me to my point: if cost is a factor, don't be too quick to jump to the 6D. Not only will you need a new normal zoom, but the high quality wide angle zooms available for FF are much costlier as well. Consider this: while I adore my 5D3, I'm thinking down the line of also picking up a 70D and EF-S 10-22mm (which if you've never used one is superb). At that point it'd be hard not to think about getting Sigma's 18-35mm f/1.8 just because.

Just thought I'd give my counterpoint to all the full frame fanatics out there. There's no question that full frame does provide certain benefits. For landscapes and macro, you can stop down more before diffraction starts to rear its head. You have a little more dynamic range overall and much less noise at high ISO. You can get shallower depth of field for portraits. But there's also no question you can capture great images with a 70D. Indeed, take a stunning shot on APS-C and make a big print out of it, then challenge any gear snob to tell you how big the sensor was.

 

[red_trela]

Thanks for all the replies, comments, suggestions, experience reports, etc. I'm going to respond only just where I have to add something that might add to the discussion. Still, I really appreciate all of them and I'm happy that there were also some voices against the 6D/FF now.

This comment is from someone who's only had a 6D for about 18 hours. Compared to my previous XTi the noise performance is incredible. I'm not a pro nor am i interested in performing super detailed testing, but playing around last night with a friend's 2 year old has me really excited.

ISO 6400 looks better than ISO 800 in my XTi (maybe even similar to ISO 400). The 24-105 F4L is marvelous. I spent a lot of time making this choice and am very pleased with the result. I plan to post an amatuer review comparing the difference between these two systems.

I really don't need high ISO much - or at all. And I wouldn't call f/4 marvelous but at least it's a stable value over the whole zoom range so it's decent.

Based on that: stay with your 550d at least it runs Magic Lantern (timed bulb exposures, unlimted hdr bracketing, focus stacking for macro).

The 70d sensor isn't a significant upgrade, and you don't seem to have the need for a better af system. A full frame isn't really better in all cases, as it has a more shallow dof and this is what you *don't* want for macro, and for landscape it depends on how much you want to boost the shots in postprocessing.

I really got rid of the 550D already (before I expatriated, recently). Right, I've got to give ML a try once in a while. Agreed, that FF is not what would be ideal for macro but then again that's not my priority but just a nice thing I do now and then. And I really like to keep my postprocessing down.

Marsu42 got a serious point. The switch to FF is going to cost a heap of money. You need a serious wide angle lens for landscapes, even more than serious if you're going to take pictures of stars. To save some money, you can do double-duty with a 100/2.8L for both macros and portraits. That said, i would get a 6D body, an EF 24-70/2.8 II and 100/2.8 macro, for a total of about 4200€, 4500 if you throw in a decent tripod, but i assume you already have one. Of course you can spend a lot less, but what's the point of getting a brand new shiny full frame camera and skimping on lenses?

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?

So what? What does the op need high iso for - posed portraits? no. (tripod) macro? no. architecture? nope, not with vanilla lenses. landscape? only for the superior postprocessing leverage of ff - and in this case, a used 5d2 might be even or better (a bit more mp, a bit sharper at base iso).

The other advantage of the ff is thinner dof, looking at the op's gallery he could profit from that - but expensive zooms or primes are needed for it ... much more than just a camera body upgrade. Last not least the infamous 5d2/6d af plus missing crop factor isn't made for shooting squirrels or alligators from a distance, so what he ends up is our popular setup: either a 5d3 or 70d/7d+6d combination. That's a lot of $$$ for camera bodies that loose value in no time, it might be smarter to get some nice primes first.

Actually, high iso might be useful in macro (think of things that might fly away, etc). But I still try to avoid it and never went higher then ISO 800 - and that is already unusual. So both options should be fine I guess.

Thinner DoF sure is a argument for the FF. Again, except when shooting macros. Figure I really need to either get a cam for macro alone (well, maybe plus some lighter travel photography) or stop doing it at all. If I go FF, that is and you guys are convincing in that point.

Oh, Squirrels and Alligators. (US) Gray Squirrels do get really close. Actually, in NYC or Boston, you have to pay attention they don't come bite you in the finger if you're eating a sandwich on a bench in a park. So getting close is really easy here. And Alligators. Well, it's not like that one had been free to go anywhere further away. Unfortunately (for him) :/

Nice primes first, maybe second (APS-C) body later. Understood.

Unless I missed it somewhere, the OP never states what EF lenses are in the equation ... and there's lots of iffy EF lenses that actually perform quite decently on APS-C, but sucks on an astronomical level on FF.

There's actually only a few lenses. They are:
EF-S 17-55mm/2.8 IS USM
EF 50mm/1.4 USM
EF 100mm/2.8L Macro IS USM
EF 70-200mm/4L IS USM

If you're anything like me you're going to miss the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 if you move up to FF. I loved that lens on my 60D. The 24-105mm f/4L that I replaced it with upon moving to 5D3, while serviceable, is far from lovable, and it'll be awhile before I can afford a good FF f/2.8(L II) zoom to replace it.

Which brings me to my point: if cost is a factor, don't be too quick to jump to the 6D. Not only will you need a new normal zoom, but the high quality wide angle zooms available for FF are much costlier as well. Consider this: while I adore my 5D3, I'm thinking down the line of also picking up a 70D and EF-S 10-22mm (which if you've never used one is superb). At that point it'd be hard not to think about getting Sigma's 18-35mm f/1.8 just because.

Just thought I'd give my counterpoint to all the full frame fanatics out there. There's no question that full frame does provide certain benefits. For landscapes and macro, you can stop down more before diffraction starts to rear its head. You have a little more dynamic range overall and much less noise at high ISO. You can get shallower depth of field for portraits. But there's also no question you can capture great images with a 70D. Indeed, take a stunning shot on APS-C and make a big print out of it, then challenge any gear snob to tell you how big the sensor was.

Thanks for the warning and tips. Looking through the lenses on the market it really is as you say - I'd miss the 17-55mm/2.8 if I can't afford the 24-70mm/2.8L II right away. Get's one thinking.

 

[Random Orbits]

Thanks for all the replies, comments, suggestions, experience reports, etc. I'm going to respond only just where I have to add something that might add to the discussion. Still, I really appreciate all of them and I'm happy that there were also some voices against the 6D/FF now.

<Wall of text>

The Tamron 24-70 VC would satisfy your mid-range zoom requirement for <1k, or if want to go prime, then the 24 f/2.8 IS and 35 f/2 IS would work well too. The focal lengths of your lenses will also be more useful on FF (100, 70-200) for portraiture.

Macro can still be done with FF handheld. The advantage that Marsu is claiming with APS-C is not as significant as it might seem. There are plenty of cases where DOF is not deep enough in either case and focus stacking is required. Besides, people were taking macro shots for years FF with film before APS-C came along.

 

[Marsu42]

Actually, high iso might be useful in macro (think of things that might fly away, etc). But I still try to avoid it and never went higher then ISO 800 - and that is already unusual. So both options should be fine I guess.

Remember that with high iso, you loose a lot of dynamic range even on ff: http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS_6D.html

Still, I really appreciate all of them and I'm happy that there were also some voices against the 6D/FF now.

We're happy to help you rationalize every decision, whatever it'll be :->

 

[Sella174]

Unless I missed it somewhere, the OP never states what EF lenses are in the equation ... and there's lots of iffy EF lenses that actually perform quite decently on APS-C, but sucks on an astronomical level on FF.

There's actually only a few lenses. They are:
EF-S 17-55mm/2.8 IS USM
EF 50mm/1.4 USM
EF 100mm/2.8L Macro IS USM
EF 70-200mm/4L IS USM

Based on your current investment in lenses, yes, go full-frame. But ... the 50mm will not be suitable for portraits anymore and will become your general purpose, walking lens; the 100mm will be excellent for individual portraits and, of course, macro; and the 70-200mm for group photos and a walking lens when outside the city.

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.

 

[dppaskewitz]

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.

I'm not a serious geo-tagger, but the GPS on the 6D actually is a lot of fun and easy to use. If I am out in the boonies for the day, I leave it on and still have plenty of battery (with grip or switching once during the day). The image locations then pop onto the map in Light Room without any other action needed. The only issue is that it sometimes appears to lose position, even when there are no obstructions. I haven't used the separate Canon GPS equipment so can't compare.

So far, I haven't felt the need to figure out how to use the WiFi function of the 6D, but some on this forum have reported favorable results from that feature as well.

 

[sdsr]

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. The EF lenses you have will likely perform better on a FF body too, at least in the middle of the image (crop sensors hide flaws at the edges, of course). The comparisons you can make at The Digital Picture are pretty reliable. Here, for instance, is a comparison of the 100L on crop and FF:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=674&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=674&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The suggestion that you go with m43 instead would be fine if you want to add a new system and don't mind the disadvantages of the smaller sensor (hardly any compared to a crop dslr); I love my Olympus OM-D - many of the lenses are marvelous, and the small size/weight combination is nice, but you may find it more of a sideways move than a progression in terms of image quality.

And if you are interested in looking outside Canon but still want to be able to use your EF lenses, and have lots of patience for focusing, the cute little Sony A7 (A7r too, of course) makes superlative images with Canon lenses - I haven't owned mine long enough to make extensive comparisons, but I'm tempted to conclude that they make even better images on that FF camera than they do on FF Canon bodies (I own both 6D & 5DIII and used to own a 5DII and a crop Canon).

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I concur with most here, the 6d is your best bet.