Can Simpler (Single Focus Point) Be "Better" - Canon 6D?

[sdsr]

Given your success rate with your current camera and focusing system/technique, I suspect that you would be disappointed by an upgrade to any other APS-C; you certainly won't get a "wow" inducing improvement in image quality, even if you prefer the focus system. As neuro and others have explained, you will see a significant improvement if you move to a 6D, especially in low light/high ISOs; but you should also see (albeit to a lesser extent) improved detail in good light, too - your EF lenses will perform better (go to thedigitalpicture and do some comparisons). You will also likely find that processing RAW images works better too - there's more detail to play with, which helps with repairing under/over-exposed bits, for instance.

(Of course, as someone else noted, there may be a wow factor you're looking for that has nothing to do with camera body performance and may instead be related to composition, lighting and so on but most of that's subjective. For instance, I think some of your photos would have benefited from being taken at a time of day when the sun wasn't overhead - but of course sometimes there's no choice - or otherwise being less bright, but that's just me.)

And while the 6D doesn't have as good a focus system as the 5DIII or 1Dx, it's not as bad as some keep saying - I use outer points in even low light pretty successfully when I don't want to focus/recompose (the one time I compared them directly, I found that if my 6D won't focus in low light on an outer point, chances are my 5DIII won't either), and while the 5DIII/1Dx have far more focus points to choose from, they don't occupy a significantly larger portion of the image area (for that you need mirrorless).

Anyway, as you seem willing to rent, why not rent a 6D and judge for yourself? You may (or may not) be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Cory]

Given your success rate with your current camera and focusing system/technique, I suspect that you would be disappointed by an upgrade to any other APS-C; you certainly won't get a "wow" inducing improvement in image quality, even if you prefer the focus system. As neuro and others have explained, you will see a significant improvement if you move to a 6D, especially in low light/high ISOs; but you should also see (albeit to a lesser extent) improved detail in good light, too - your EF lenses will perform better (go to thedigitalpicture and do some comparisons). You will also likely find that processing RAW images works better too - there's more detail to play with, which helps with repairing under/over-exposed bits, for instance.

(Of course, as someone else noted, there may be a wow factor you're looking for that has nothing to do with camera body performance and may instead be related to composition, lighting and so on but most of that's subjective. For instance, I think some of your photos would have benefited from being taken at a time of day when the sun wasn't overhead - but of course sometimes there's no choice - or otherwise being less bright, but that's just me.)

And while the 6D doesn't have as good a focus system as the 5DIII or 1Dx, it's not as bad as some keep saying - I use outer points in even low light pretty successfully when I don't want to focus/recompose (the one time I compared them directly, I found that if my 6D won't focus in low light on an outer point, chances are my 5DIII won't either), and while the 5DIII/1Dx have far more focus points to choose from, they don't occupy a significantly larger portion of the image area (for that you need mirrorless).

Anyway, as you seem willing to rent, why not rent a 6D and judge for yourself? You may (or may not) be pleasantly surprised.

Thanks. I think I'm going to do that - rent a 6D for the minimal # of days.

 

[Cory]

Two last questions - Do many find 35mm wide enough most of the time and would adding a 50 be redundant?

:-*

 

[BL]

After using the 40mm pancake for the better part of a year, I don't miss either

But if I had to pick one, I'd pick 35mm over the 50mm (all else the same, aperture, etc.)

 

[Skirball]

Two last questions - Do many find 35mm wide enough most of the time and would adding a 50 be redundant?

:-*

Both those questions are entirely subjective. Though I think many would agree 35 isn't very wide.

 

[sdsr]

Two last questions - Do many find 35mm wide enough most of the time and would adding a 50 be redundant?

:-*

Do you mean for FF or crop? On crop 35m isn't wide at all. On FF I usually find 35mm too wide, unless I'm in certain interiors or fairly cramped spaces (alleys etc.), when it probably isn't wide enough, or want a really wide angle, in which case it's nowhere near wide enough. But that's neither here nor there - what matters is whether it's wide enough for you. If you're asking about crop, how often have you wanted to go wider? If you're asking about FF, consider this - if you've been using 35mm a lot on your crop and like that angle of view, to get something similar in FF you'll need c. 55mm. There were plenty of such lenses in the film era (I just bought a couple), but few make them today; the closest is 50mm. So if you want a familiar view through your viewfinder, a 50mm won't be redundant at all (I find 50mm much more useful than 35mm, but again, that's just me). But you don't need to decide any of this now - if you rent a 6D, try your lenses on it and find out if you like how their "native" field of view looks to you. You might discover new "needs" instead....