Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 30 Apr 2013 (Tuesday) 00:49
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sorry, but..... 6d vs. 7d

 
Yasick
Member
Avatar
183 posts
Joined Nov 2012
     
Apr 30, 2013 04:01 |  #16

Those are 100% crops. b&w is more forgiving with noise i think. I expose somewhere in the middle, more to the right requires higher iso in darker shoots, no? I use Evaluative metering.

When they arent cropped they arent that bad, here is a 16000 shot. No editing what so ever

IMAGE: http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7302/16000e.jpg

flickr (external link)
500px (external link)
5Dmk3 || EF 17-40mm f/4L USM || Carl Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 || EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
JeremyKPhoto
Goldmember
1,633 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Apr 2012
     
Apr 30, 2013 04:40 |  #17

You said 2 things that make me say get full frame. Low light and portraits.


5D Mark III / 70-200 2.8L IS II / 24-105L / 50 1.8 stm / Tamron 70-300 VC / Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,005 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5835
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Apr 30, 2013 05:55 |  #18

Yasick, your images can be much better if you learn some post processing techniques of first cleaning up the noise, then work on the rest of the image. Get the exposure correct or even to the right more in-camera makes a difference, than if you just move exposure sliders around during post.

The 7D does well enough at ISO 6400 for low light events, it would be a major improvement over the 30D in all ways except 100% crop sharpness checking, however, the 7D has a huge resolution upgrade over the 30D, so resizing down to 8mpx would get that back. However based on what is being described as the goal, I don't see where the 7D provides any advantages over a FF and would even consider a 5D2.

ISO 12800 out of camera, no post, 7D

IMAGE: http://gracesummit.smugmug.com/Spirituality/2013-Services/i-kbBLjG6/0/X2/7D1_0626-X2.jpg

Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Yasick
Member
Avatar
183 posts
Joined Nov 2012
     
Apr 30, 2013 06:14 |  #19

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15881997 (external link)
Yasick, your images can be much better if you learn some post processing techniques of first cleaning up the noise, then work on the rest of the image. Get the exposure correct or even to the right more in-camera makes a difference, than if you just move exposure sliders around during post.

The 7D does well enough at ISO 6400 for low light events, it would be a major improvement over the 30D in all ways except 100% crop sharpness checking, however, the 7D has a huge resolution upgrade over the 30D, so resizing down to 8mpx would get that back. However based on what is being described as the goal, I don't see where the 7D provides any advantages over a FF and would even consider a 5D2.

ISO 12800 out of camera, no post, 7D
QUOTED IMAGE

You judging by the pix on this thread of the once on my flickr?


flickr (external link)
500px (external link)
5Dmk3 || EF 17-40mm f/4L USM || Carl Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 || EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,005 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5835
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Apr 30, 2013 06:48 |  #20

I am commenting on your crops. It is evident that you are sharpening before doing noise reduction, so the reason you see all the speckles is that you have sharpened the noise. But that is my opinion, and what do I know about post processing high ISO shots? :)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,005 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5835
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Apr 30, 2013 07:03 |  #21

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #15881834 (external link)
Maybe not worthless, but nothing to write home about either. Even at this small web size that image looks soft to me and the color looks very muted.

Any truly low light shot will have muted colors, no matter the camera. You have to post process color back into low light images. No or low light = no or little color (or hue anyways), also different types of lighting will also affect colors. You cannot compare your results against others unless both images were shot side by side for the same situation. If someone has great colors on a really low light shot, most likely they manufactured those colors during post, or lighting was actually pretty good to draw out the hue and saturation.

Oh, and the cat is black and white, with little in the way of colored objects other than some earth tones, so your comment seems quite odd for that example.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Yasick
Member
Avatar
183 posts
Joined Nov 2012
     
Apr 30, 2013 07:37 |  #22

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15882065 (external link)
I am commenting on your crops. It is evident that you are sharpening before doing noise reduction, so the reason you see all the speckles is that you have sharpened the noise. But that is my opinion, and what do I know about post processing high ISO shots? :)

:rolleyes: I said it was un edited at all. Nothing was done to those photos at all to show noise before post work :P


flickr (external link)
500px (external link)
5Dmk3 || EF 17-40mm f/4L USM || Carl Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 || EF 100mm F2.8 L IS USM Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
boerewors
Goldmember
Avatar
1,948 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Sep 2009
Location: South African living in Indonesia
     
Apr 30, 2013 08:08 |  #23

Ya its just so much easier to get a 6D and be done with noise issues. I have a 60D and have learnt not to be afraid of high ISO's thanks to teamspeeds threads, but after downloading a few 6D RAW samples that were taken at high ISO, im most certain that my next upgrade will be a 6D. The 7D is capable at low light imaging but it takes a bit of time and skill to get it right. A 6D can achieve better results even by someone who doesnt know much.


The most important piece of gear you own, resides in your head and its called your brain.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mavgirl
Senior Member
647 posts
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Dallas area
     
Apr 30, 2013 08:21 |  #24

g-Know? wrote in post #15881601 (external link)
Yes, I've searched and searched and searched. On here, and just about every other site. I've also looked through the numerous comparisons as well.

After five years, my trusty 30d's shutter has finally died. It's definitely been through hell and back, and has proven itself worthy. Although I'm still nothing more than a hobbyist, I feel that I'm due for a nice upgrade. So now, I'm still between the 6d and 7d. I can afford to buy either or, but just trying to justify buying the extra dough for the 6d.

I'll primarily be using it for social functions, event coverage at our art shows, urban and city life, travel, portrait work, and food/beer events. I prefer to shoot without using flash, so obviously low-light capabilities is a big plus for me. Based on what I've read, seems that there's no contest. I also don't plan on shooting much or any action or sports. IQ is also another selling point, although I've been reading about how the 7d with some nice glass, can be comparable to the IQ of the 6d.

While it seems like the 6d is the obvious choice, I keep questioning myself as to whether the 7d would be enough camera to meet my needs. I currently have a tamron 17-50, Sigma 70-300, and a nifty fifty, so I'll be OK for the time being, if I go FF.

I know it'll ultimately be up to me, but would appreciate hearing some feedback from you guys. :cool:

The 7D can do what you need, the 6D can do it better.

The 6D is going to be noticeably better at higher ISO settings in these situations. It has a broader ISO range than the 7D which is helpful at events. Not that the 7D can't pull events off, but the 6D will be better. Having that wider field of view will be nice at events as well. And you don't plan on shooting action. Even if you do, while the 6D's burst rate isn't ideal for sports shooters it doesn't prohibit you from pulling off action shots.

Add studio work and dance in there and I shoot much of the same things you do. I currently have a 50D and it is functional in most higher ISO situations but I want cleaner images. Since the technology is there I'm getting the 6D as soon as I have the cash in hand. But that's me, and you have to figure out what is right for you.


6D/50D/350D with too many lenses
Calumet 4x5, Pentax SV 35mm, Canon A-1, Rebel G and many more toys...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,005 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5835
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Apr 30, 2013 08:30 |  #25

Yasick wrote in post #15882170 (external link)
:rolleyes: I said it was un edited at all. Nothing was done to those photos at all to show noise before post work :P

So this was a JPG from the camera? If so, it is edited. Even raw converters apply either in-camera settings or some default settings. Your crops seem to show no color noise, and sharpened luminescent noise. In any case, it is not difficult to create a good post processing batch action that can turn high ISO images that are mediocre into something that is much better. Even better is being careful in the exposures you run at high ISOs (ETTR, for example), so that when you post process, you have as much as possible to work with.

There is alot of good advice and technique and experience here on POTN, but it won't do you any good unless your attitude tones down a bit and you become more receptive.

In any case, a 5D2 (or 6D if the budget allows) would work well for what the OP wants to shoot, as many of us have already stated. A 7D and a 5D2 make for great buddies too, which might be a good option.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Copidosoma
Goldmember
1,017 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 69
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Edmonton AB, Canada
     
Apr 30, 2013 09:34 as a reply to  @ TeamSpeed's post |  #26

low light, no fast action, no wildlife... get the 6D. No brainer IMHO.

The 7D CAN be used for all of those but you have to be careful and know how to handle your files. I'd think the 6D would be vastly easier to get high quality images out of under those conditions. Having said that, I haven't used a 6D myself (but would certainly like to).


Gear: 7DII | 6D | Fuji X100s |Sigma 24A, 50A, 150-600C |24-105L |Samyang 14 2.8|Tamron 90mm f2.8 |and some other stuff
http://www.shutterstoc​k.com/g/copidosoma (external link)
https://500px.com/chri​s_kolaczan (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
automag928
Member
240 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Tampa
     
Apr 30, 2013 10:10 |  #27

having owned both 7d and 6d, and based off your requirements I would say 6D hands down.


Canon 5D4 | Canon 6D | Canon 24-70 f2.8 L II | Canon 70-200 f2.8 L II | Canon 24-105 f4 L | Canon 70-300 L | Canon 85 f1.8 | Canon 50 f1.8 | 430EXIII

Gear / Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Calicajun
Goldmember
Avatar
2,931 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 104
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
     
Apr 30, 2013 10:11 as a reply to  @ Copidosoma's post |  #28

I'm confused about the 7D not being any good for low light shots. Is Canon making the current 7D camera with less low light capability than the first run of 7D cameras? After going back and reading all the posts when the 7D first came out and everyone was thrilled with the 7D light light capability and now I read it's no good. Just glad my 7D is one of the earlier runs.:lol:


Remember, Stressed spelled backward is Desserts.:)
Suggestions welcome.
5DIII, EF 50 1.4, EF 40 f2.8, EF 24-105L IS , EF 70-200 f4L IS, 580EX ll

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gfspencer
Member
179 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 17
Joined Dec 2008
     
Apr 30, 2013 10:21 as a reply to  @ Calicajun's post |  #29

I have both cameras. The 7D is decent in low light. The 6D is better. Both the 6D and the 7D are good cameras. The 6D might better meet the OP's needs.


Canon 50D - Canon 7DII - Canon 6D - 16-35mm f/2.8L - 24-105mm f/4[COLOR="red"]L IS - 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - 50mm f/1.2L - 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS - 100-400mm II f/4.5-5.6L IS - Extender EF 2x

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
g-Know?
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
49 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: So. Cali
     
Apr 30, 2013 10:30 |  #30

Wow, this is some great stuff! Exactly what I was looking for,to hear from both sides. As this debate has narrowed down to low-light abilities, it sounds like it is possible to produce some good looking photos with minimal PP with the 7d. Although there is that sense of ease and improved IQ from the 6d (and all that other good stuff, like the wifi, gps, etc.).

So it seems like it's going to come down to whether I want to spend the extra $1300 on the 6d and lens, or just keep it simple and pick up a 7d body. I have a feeling I'm going to end up flipping a coin.......

automag928 wrote in post #15882608 (external link)
having owned both 7d and 6d, and based off your requirements I would say 6D hands down.

gfspencer wrote in post #15882639 (external link)
I have both cameras. The 7D is decent in low light. The 6D is better. Both the 6D and the 7D are good cameras. The 6D might better meet the OP's needs.

^^^^^seeing that both of you own both cameras, you sound pretty adamant about going with the 6d. Do you both feel that the 6d is that much more capable than the 7d?


I'm not a photographer, I just take pictures...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,215 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sorry, but..... 6d vs. 7d
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is KathKirk33
980 guests, 306 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.