Replacement 400d - 650d vs. 6d

[swannd]

Hi Radiopath,

Have a read of Ken Rockwell's review of the 5D MkIII. There is a demonstration of the lens correction about half-way through. It will vary between lens models, but you'll get the idea.

Swanny.

For anyone about to rant about Ken - yes I read his site, and I agree with a lot of what he says, and I strongly disagree with some stuff as well. At least we both started with a Minolta SR-1

 

[tomscott]

It depends, if you want to shoot. In low light you need fast glass and relatively good ISO, 3200 is usable on the 7D, 6400 is pushing it. But depends what you want, if you were printing at A3 fair enough but at A4 the 400D should be good enough to make ok prints at that size at 1600.

I used two 40D for magazine/newspapers for 5 years. Had no issues at all, you just have to know what you are doing post process in regards to noise reduction.

If you buy a F2.8 lens for a crop camera it has a relative F4.5 DOF because of the field of view compared to FF. For me moving from a 7d with 17-55mm F2.8 to a 5DMKIII and a 24-105mm F4 I see barely any difference in the DOF because of the above. But with my 70-200mm F2.8 the DOF at 2.8 is so fine, its a huge difference and you have to be very careful making sure you nail the focus or your pics will be disappointing.

Whereas if you continue using the 28-135mm on a FF camera you will find DOF is thiner and its sooo much wider. Although I wouldn't advice using that lens as the sensor of the 6D need better glass to resolve. Which is where you get problems, you need expensive glass to resolve the better FF sensors, costs start to spiral.

The 7D has better AF than all the cameras you have outlined. The only advantage the 6D has is that it has one cross type -3EV sensitive AF point. But as its the only cross point its difficult to compose with fast glass as you get focus shift if you focus and re-compose.

The 7D can output A3 and bigger prints natively and for amateur use it has more than enough low light performance. The tech has moved a long way from the Digic 3 era the 7D is an impressive camera. The images are nearly twice the size of your 400D so when you scale them down to A4 the prints will look good.

I had one but sold it because not because of its low light performance it was a huge upgrade from my 40Ds but it was the base ISO like 100-400 I found annoying. The expectation from publishers is high so I swapped it for a 5DMKIII as it is like a FF 40D and the AF system is incredible. But the 7D is pretty much a perfect camera. It may not have the best low light capabilities on the market but it is a great package. But quite a big camera.

Going FF is not necessary for everyone, it is expensive and can be a hard learning curve for many.

But the 650D has a lower score sensor wise than the 600D but they are pretty much identical in IQ/noise performance.

I would wait and see what the 70D offers.

Half of your problem is that you shoot JPEG. Shoot RAW on your 400D it will completely revitalise the camera. JPGs if not shot perfectly are very difficult to edit in comparison to RAW. Especially in Noise reduction, the JPGs are compressed and they dont hold as much info. Editing is much easier with a Raw workflow.

TBH im not sure the camera is really the area that needs improving. Do some reading on PP and Raw and this will improve your images. Throwing money at kit isnt always the answer.

 

[RadioPath]

@Swanny: Just read the review; sounds pretty cool, he seems to claim, that this feature would even beat better lenses. Sounds too good to be true, but since my 28-135 is on the list it might make the wait for more cash somewhat sweeter.

@Tomscott: The problem would still be, that I can't go higher than ISO 1600 on my current body and often the cam won't even take a picture then, or only at shutter speeds where both my hands and my subject would cause to much motion blur.
I'm sure transitioning to RAW and learning how to use it would help, though.
For prints I just LOVE having a great, pic, not an OK one. I just feel a better camera might help, even though technique is more important. Real life off-topic example: My attending will be way more accurate with a 10 y/o ultrasound scanner than me on a brand new model, but either of us would still perform much better on the newer machine.
I will definitely have a look at the 7D as well, though. Wish there was the 7Dii yet, to get a bargain

 

[paul13walnut5]

If you want decent AF then you need to ditch the medium/slow max aperture zoom.

Period.

You don't need to shoot wide open to get the AF benefits of a faster lens on any EOS body.

Seriously. Ditch the slow zoom.

I'm not sure if I understand correctly (not a pro and no optical engineering background ) Would a 24-105 also be slow in AF, since max aperture would be similar to my current zoom (3.5 vs. 4.0)?
Thanks

Yes. And nowhere have I advocated the 24-105 or any other f4 lens. Your 28-105 will get progressively slower until it reaches f5.6 wide open at the 105 end. At least a constant f4 would be, well, constant. F2.8 better. Especially for your application of tot chasing.

 

[tomscott]

Sorry I disagree. These were taken at 1600 on my 40D


Ferrari Wheel by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


Aston Martin Badge by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

If you can edit properly noise can be made minimal even on old cameras.

These were taken on a 50mm 1.8 basic lens.

You shouldn't have problems with the camera not locking n unless it was pitch black and even you cant see.

 

[RadioPath]

If you want decent AF then you need to ditch the medium/slow max aperture zoom.

Period.

You don't need to shoot wide open to get the AF benefits of a faster lens on any EOS body.

Seriously. Ditch the slow zoom.

I'm not sure if I understand correctly (not a pro and no optical engineering background ) Would a 24-105 also be slow in AF, since max aperture would be similar to my current zoom (3.5 vs. 4.0)?
Thanks

Yes. And nowhere have I advocated the 24-105 or any other f4 lens. Your 28-105 will get progressively slower until it reaches f5.6 wide open at the 105 end. At least a constant f4 would be, well, constant. F2.8 better. Especially for your application of tot chasing.

Got it. Unfortunately not all that many EF-options at 2.8 (16-35, 24-70 and some pricey Sigma glass as far as I can tell). Seems like primes are the way to go then.

@TomScott: Those are really nice! As I was saying, skill beats equipment. Not buying a new camera does not unfortunately turn me into a professional photographer either
I had the problem with not locking on the other day, though: Was at an aquarium with my son the other day, took some very nice shots (to me at least), but sometimes AF wouldn't work even at 1.4 aperture. Granted it was pretty dark there, but I could see

 

[bholliman]

As Tom pointed out, with proper post processing, even high ISO (1600) can be usable with an older APS-C body. However, this will require shooting RAW, as PP on JPG's is difficult and limited.

I'd suggest you experiment with RAW using Canon's free DPP software to start with. I think LR4 is better, but DPP isn't bad. This will give you an idea of how much noise can be cleaned up with PP and may change your decision about what new body (if any) you pursue.

If low-light photography is really your primary need, I still suggest looking into a 6D as its low-light capabilities far exceed anything you can get off a current APS-C sensor. With my 6D I get cleaner (low noise) shots out of the camera at ISO 3200 then I do from my 7D at 800 in the same environment.

 

[tomscott]

It depends on your needs and wants. It's an expensive want but is it nessasrily a need?

True a 400D is an entry level camera and it is designed to work well in most conditions. Most cameras will struggle in an aquarium environment. Last time I was at an aquarium I was shooting at 6400-12800 F1.4-4 on full frame. But your depth of field struggles on FF. Thats whats nice about APC you get more DOF, low DOF is great in portraiture but not in all other shooting. You have to step FF cameras down further to get the same DOF. Great yes we can now do that but again 6400 and 12800 on FF have similar complaints as 3200 on the 400D so really you might be frustrated with the DOF with a FF camera and you will be spending double the amount for a fairly niche amount of shooting.

Here is an example at F4 (24-105mm) on FF


IMG_0651 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

This is F2.8 (70-200mm) on APC shot at 1600 and cropped.


Snake by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

The DOF is not that different. As F2.8 is roughly F4.5 on APC.

I firmly believe FF is not for everyone and APC is great. The cost outlay for the camera and glass to go with FF is expensive and people seem to have this "if I don't have full frame I can't shoot in low light" and FF is a must! But it's not, it's just the next best thing.

The 5DMKIII is my first full frame camera, main reason I bought it was I make a living with it, print big and the agencies and clients want the best IQ. So the cost outlay isn't really an issue as it makes it's money pretty quickly in a few jobs.

Would I go back to APC now I have full frame? No not with current offerings. Why? Im very happy with every quality of the 5D it's fast, light, small, reliable, IQ kicks ass, print big, feels like it would survive an earthquake and it shoots very well under low light. So I answered most of your want with that answer. But upgrading to FF costs a lot add 50% to a 6D for the 5DMKIII and if I wasn't reliant and printing A3 or less APC kicks ass, you get deeper DOF lenses are longer, 70-200 is a 110-320mm add a 2x extender 220-640mm!!! It costs a lot to get 600mm on FF. Current EFS lenses are as good as the FF counterparts 17-55mm and 10-22mm were 2 of my favs. In fact the 10-22mm is hard to replace 17-40 is soft and the 16-35 not much different. The main thing I miss on FF is the reach of my 70-200mm it's doesn't feel as useful.

I loved my 40Ds and I kept one as a back up. Reason I sold the 7D was because I felt it wasn't a big enough upgrade, the difference IQ wise wasnt the leap I needed for my work. The two side by side IQ wise there wasn't a great difference apart from you could shoot to 12800 it's not great but you can if you needed to, but high ISO was much better than my 40D and gave way to a lot of opportunity I couldn't before. But at 100-400 it seemed noisier than it should, but the image output was twice the size so you can print big!

I found 3200 ok 6400 useable after a lot of PP, which meant more time at the computer.

But the camera a huge huge leap, screen res, features, AF incredible! In fact I have no idea how I used 9 points for so long. It's the king of APC and I would have kept it but wanted to put the money back into the 5D and I kept a 40D a very good backup and didn't need 3 cameras.

Heres a couple with the 7D, 1000 is pretty clean. I dont have any high ISO 7D stuff at hand.


IMG_8341 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


IMG_8284 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


Porsche Museum, Porscheplatz, Stuttgart by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

With the 5D I find 6400 good, 12800 useable after a lot of PP. So it does give you leeway and you get shots you wouldn't believe. 6400 I find about the same as 1600 on the 7D.

I made this as a test at 12800 at 2.8 with the 100mm L macro, they are very clean


BMW F30 3 Series interior by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


BMW F30 3 Series interior, light console by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


BMW F30 3 Series interior, centre console climate control by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

You can make incredible shots with any DSLR if you know how to get the best out of it. My fav shot taken with my 40D 17-55mm and a rig.


BMW Z4M Coupe by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

What I would do is learn more about PP and shoot RAW exclusively and wait for the new announcements, if they arent to your liking a 650D, 60D or 7D is where I would be aiming. Awesome cameras, yes older but you should be able to get them for a good price. The 7D will solve your AF problems and the 650D has all cross type. But all can be used at 6400 ISO with good PP.

Hope this helps.

 

[RadioPath]

It depends on your needs and wants. It's an expensive want but is it nessasrily a need?

True a 400D is an entry level camera and it is designed to work well in most conditions. Most cameras will struggle in an aquarium environment. Last time I was at an aquarium I was shooting at 6400-12800 F1.4-4 on full frame. But your depth of field struggles on FF. Thats whats nice about APC you get more DOF, low DOF is great in portraiture but not in all other shooting. You have to step FF cameras down further to get the same DOF. Great yes we can now do that but again 6400 and 12800 on FF have similar complaints as 3200 on the 400D so really you might be frustrated with the DOF with a FF camera and you will be spending double the amount for a fairly niche amount of shooting.

Hi,
it is in absolutely no way a need. I don't make any money on this and at the end of the day I also took a number of nice pics with my iPhone. One could argue that I do NOT need a DSLR at all. I took pictures before on a P&S and I'm sure a pro would have taken way better pictures with it than I. I did take much nicer pictures with my 400D than before, though and over the years I picked up a few tricks.
The question is therefore more are my wants (more wide angle, more low light possibilities, better AF) better served with a tiny bit newer crop body and some new glass or by replacing the somewhat aging body? There just isn't all that much ISO I can squeeze out of it, I'm already using 800 when necessary and am content with it, but that camera doesn't go over 1600. So with all post-processing I could still only gain 1 stop.
Fast zooms that I would need for crop seem to require Ef-S; the 17-55 2.8 you mentioned is 900 € around here; add an affordable crop body for 600€ and a 6D body is not that far off and I wouldn't have to deal with a (expensive) lens that I couldn't use if I decided to move to FF at some point in the future. Plus to me as a non-pro a few of the 6D features seem very cool, such as the iPhone app as a remote and GPS tagging without having to deal with different devices, Silent mode, etc. although those I'd basically only regard as a bonus, not deal makers or breakers.
And yes I realise, that shooting at an aquarium is difficult, but these situations do pop up and are those in which I want better ISO. Outside I'm quite happy with the 400D (with good light even with my cell phone ), just put on the 50 1.4 when it gets darker. (Also outside I can usually just take a step or two back, so less need for wide angle).
Thanks for the advice, though. Maybe I can borrow my sister-in-law's 600D and play around with some RAW files. The thing is, that I really enjoy shooting much more and do not have hours to PP next to a day (and often night) job and wanting (actually needing) to spend quality time with my family.

P.S.: Love your pics!

 

[rizenphoenix]

you could also look at the 5dmk2

The 5d ii is pretty much the same price here, unfortunately. Also, not having used either, the 6d seems to be considerably better for what I need (High-ISO), the Auto Focus migh and I personally find GPS and WiFi to be really neat features (still don't understand why Canon didn't put them in the 700D). Also: I'm used to a Rebel so I'd like the Body to be as small as reasonably archievable...
Forgot to add: Wouldn't want to buy used gear and I don't think they have Refurb stuff here.

They didn't put wifi/gps on the 700D so you will buy the 6D.

That being said the 6D is a great camera, especially in low light situation and you'd be able to take a lot of great photo's with just your 50mm. As far as weight goes, the 6D with a fifty on it feels almost rebel like in weight(but not build quality). If you can swing it though get the 24-105 at the same time because it most cases it's a substantial discount.

 

[mdmphoto]

I've had 300D, 400D, 40D, 50D, 7D, and recently bought a 6D. I really, really like the 7D; it is clearly superior to all the xxD bodies I've owned, and it is a fantastic outdoor camera for sports, nature, wildlife and so on. On the other hand, the FF 6D outperforms the 7D in IQ, low-light, and iso noise. The 7D has a superior AF system, but to me that just means it is my go-to for the activities listed above. For indoor shooting, city- and landscapes, portraits, and other instances where any movement is relatively predictable I expect I'll use the 6D. You mentioned iso 800 or 1600 (?); try very useable 25000 with the 6D! I mean seriously. I'm still learning this body's capabilities, but when I shoot with auto-iso at night the body doesn't hesitate to go there and produce great images that are almost completely useable out of the camera. If iq is your main concern, there is no contest. Keep in mind that the newer crop-frames will provide better iq than your 400D, but again, they will not match up to the iq of the 6D. The 6D's AF system requires a bit more diligent patience but your effort will be rewarded with greater dynamic range and all the other things I've already mentioned. If you decide to stay with crop frames, you might wait and check out the 70D which rumor has it will be released soon, or even just wait a while longer and check out the 7D II which is supposed to come along later this year. For a wider angle on a crop frame I would seriously consider a 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It yields fantastic iq, provides some wide angle. However, it is a 1000. lens not offered in a kit. Seems we are back to simply buying the 6D 24-105 kit...

 

[RadioPath]

you could also look at the 5dmk2

The 5d ii is pretty much the same price here, unfortunately. Also, not having used either, the 6d seems to be considerably better for what I need (High-ISO), the Auto Focus migh and I personally find GPS and WiFi to be really neat features (still don't understand why Canon didn't put them in the 700D). Also: I'm used to a Rebel so I'd like the Body to be as small as reasonably archievable...
Forgot to add: Wouldn't want to buy used gear and I don't think they have Refurb stuff here.

They didn't put wifi/gps on the 700D so you will buy the 6D.

That being said the 6D is a great camera, especially in low light situation and you'd be able to take a lot of great photo's with just your 50mm. As far as weight goes, the 6D with a fifty on it feels almost rebel like in weight(but not build quality). If you can swing it though get the 24-105 at the same time because it most cases it's a substantial discount.

Who knows, might be the reason, but then again adding these features would have been significant improvements over the 650D; as it stands now, if I were to decide on a rebel again, I would pass the 700D and go for the 650D (or even 100D, as it's cheaper and looks so cute )

Guess I'll wait for the rebates and see if there is a way to justify the 24-105. The thing is, I'm afraid it might not be good enough when I upgrade next time (in let's say 4-6 years). Maybe better save a bit more and go for the Sigma 24-70 2.8 then? Would also give me a faster lense, although I would have to add a longer prime or a 70-200 for portraits then.

@mdmphoto: The closest thing to wild life photography I did was taking pics of my dog and a few snap shots at the zoo Zero interest in birding and I don't follow any sports (although a few years down the road I might if my son would get into soccer or sth.). How many stops of ISO would you say a 6D has over say a 7D or your 50D? Thanks!