Canon 70d v 6d

i also recommend this thread (prosxcons FF vs crop) :

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1344486

For sports shooting with limited budget, 70D or 7D is better than 6D with higher pixel density at the middle of frame, better reach and much better AF, which is IMHO pretty crucial.


Few pictures from floorball game (lowlight test, AF zone tracking test, ISO 6400)

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Been there, done that as a student with limited funds and I would definitely go with the 70D....

The reason is simple. To outfit a full frame camera properly for sports photography, you will have to spend a lot more money on lenses. For example, with 70D you can pretty effectively use a 300/4 IS lens for a lot of sports, which is a quite handholdable lens. Need a bit more reach? Slap on a 1.4X. In order to have the same reach with a FF camera, you'll need to drop around $10K on a 500/4 IS. Plus you'd better plan on another $1000 to $1500 for a solid tripod and gimbal head. So, $1500 for a handholdable tele? Or more than $10,000 for a tele and a tripod to use it on? Your choice. Similarly, you can use a 70-200/2.8 instead of a 300/2.8. Or you can use a 135/2 instead of a 200/2. All in all, if you need teles for your work a crop sensor camera can be a whole lot cheaper than FF. And your lens kit will be a lot lighter and more portable, as well.

The 70D is perfectly capable of making landscape and architecture shots. Sure, eventually you might want a FF camera for those... but if your "nature" photography is wildlife, 70D is a better choice for that, too. Especially smaller critters, birds, etc. Anything that requires telephotos.

So get the 70D now, and start building your lens kit. It's a bonus the 70D leaves you an extra chunk of money to put toward lenses. The lenses you choose are going to make much more of a difference than the camera you choose, anyway.

You might want to minimize the number of "crop only" lenses you get. But also don't shoot yourself in the foot by not getting necessary crop only lenses, such as an ultrawide for those landscape & architecture shots. The Canon 10-22mm is an excellent lens, for example. If eventually you switch completely over to FF, you won't have any trouble selling off any crop only lenses you might get to use now. (Personally I use both formats and I have two ultrawides and a macro lens that are crop only. All the rest of my lenses are FF capable, so can be used on both).

Eventually you might want to complement the crop camera with a FF camera, perhaps for those landscape and architecture shots. Just don't expect to see a whole lot of difference unless you make big prints - really big prints - from your images. There will be little noticeable difference from, say, 16x24" and smaller. You'll really have a hard time telling any difference between images posted online. The FF cameras do tend to be helpful for low light shooting, often can handle one or two stops lower light. Personally I prefer them for portraiture and some macro, too.

But 70D is quite capable and you should start there, putting more toward your lens kit instead of tying all your money up in the camera body.

amfoto1 wrote in post #16478857
Been there, done that as a student with limited funds and I would definitely go with the 70D....

The reason is simple. To outfit a full frame camera properly for sports photography, you will have to spend a lot more money on lenses. For example, with 70D you can pretty effectively use a 300/4 IS lens for a lot of sports, which is a quite handholdable lens. Need a bit more reach? Slap on a 1.4X. In order to have the same reach with a FF camera, you'll need to drop around $10K on a 500/4 IS. Plus you'd better plan on another $1000 to $1500 for a solid tripod and gimbal head. So, $1500 for a handholdable tele? Or more than $10,000 for a tele and a tripod to use it on? Your choice. Similarly, you can use a 70-200/2.8 instead of a 300/2.8. Or you can use a 135/2 instead of a 200/2. All in all, if you need teles for your work a crop sensor camera can be a whole lot cheaper than FF. And your lens kit will be a lot lighter and more portable, as well.

The 70D is perfectly capable of making landscape and architecture shots. Sure, eventually you might want a FF camera for those... but if your "nature" photography is wildlife, 70D is a better choice for that, too. Especially smaller critters, birds, etc. Anything that requires telephotos.

So get the 70D now, and start building your lens kit. It's a bonus the 70D leaves you an extra chunk of money to put toward lenses. The lenses you choose are going to make much more of a difference than the camera you choose, anyway.

You might want to minimize the number of "crop only" lenses you get. But also don't shoot yourself in the foot by not getting necessary crop only lenses, such as an ultrawide for those landscape & architecture shots. The Canon 10-22mm is an excellent lens, for example. If eventually you switch completely over to FF, you won't have any trouble selling off any crop only lenses you might get to use now. (Personally I use both formats and I have two ultrawides and a macro lens that are crop only. All the rest of my lenses are FF capable, so can be used on both).

Eventually you might want to complement the crop camera with a FF camera, perhaps for those landscape and architecture shots. Just don't expect to see a whole lot of difference unless you make big prints - really big prints - from your images. There will be little noticeable difference from, say, 16x24" and smaller. You'll really have a hard time telling any difference between images posted online. The FF cameras do tend to be helpful for low light shooting, often can handle one or two stops lower light. Personally I prefer them for portraiture and some macro, too.

But 70D is quite capable and you should start there, putting more toward your lens kit instead of tying all your money up in the camera body.

Thank you for this reply. I am thinking 70D as well. Now when it comes to lenses should I get the Kit with the 18-135 f/4-5.8 or get body only and use my lenses I have. and then purchase a L lens. What L lens would work on the CF?

magoosmc wrote in post #16478440
I think that this misconception is addressed here:

Great shots, do you have any examples where your moving subject isn't composed in the center of your frame?

tagnal wrote in post #16479685
Great shots, do you have any examples where your moving subject isn't composed in the center of your frame?

I think we can all agree that non-centered subject from the 6D is pointless but at the same thought I've read/heard more than once that most sports photographers only use center AF.

OuttaCtrl wrote in post #16479702
I think we can all agree that non-centered subject from the 6D is pointless but at the same thought I've read/heard more than once that most sports photographers only use center AF.

Yeah, but the OP isn't only concerned with shooting sports. He also mentioned shooting "40% motion photos including wildlife". And since his camera is going to be used in pretty much all situations since he says he shoots pretty much everything, I think examples of non-centered moving subjects are a valid request in this case.

tagnal wrote in post #16479782
Yeah, but the OP isn't only concerned with shooting sports. He also mentioned shooting "40% motion photos including wildlife". And since his camera is going to be used in pretty much all situations since he says he shoots pretty much everything, I think examples of non-centered moving subjects are a valid request in this case.

Tagnal you are right. and OuttaCtrl you are right though, I only use center AF in football games.

So what do you think Tagnal? Thanks for the help

erictheengstrom wrote in post #16480167
Tagnal you are right. and OuttaCtrl you are right though, I only use center AF in football games.

So what do you think Tagnal? Thanks for the help

If you use center point 99% of the time you'd be very happy with the 6D.

kin2son wrote in post #16480181
If you use center point 99% of the time you'd be very happy with the 6D.

well that is only if i am doing football and sports which I dont do a lot of compared to my landscape, wildlife, and other photo like that. I would like to use it for both motion and still photos. Center AF is the way I would shoot football with any camera

erictheengstrom wrote in post #16480201
well that is only if i am doing football and sports which I dont do a lot of compared to my landscape, wildlife, and other photo like that. I would like to use it for both motion and still photos. Center AF is the way I would shoot football with any camera

If you shoot actions with center AF, then I'm sure you'll manage with static subject.

Well, I'm biased against anything with only one cross type AF point. I often shoot moving subjects in low light and 95% of everything I shoot, I never use the center point. I had a horrible experience one time when I was with a crew in SF at night and the 5D2 they were using wasn't working with the mic system and had to relinquish my 5D3 for them to record the commercial with. They gave me the 5D2 to shoot the stills with and the outer points couldn't lock onto anything.

That being said... in other threads, some, or at least one person swears that he has absolutely no issues tracking moving subjects in low light with the 6D's outer points and that they are in fact way better than the ones in the 5D2. Wonder if we can get someone here who has a 50D/60D and a 6D to do a comparison on how well the outer points perform on moving subjects in low light.

Personally, if I needed a "do everything" camera, I would go with the 70D. Especially if you don't have your lens collection built out yet.

Magoosmc, just wanted to thank you for allowing EXIF data to be seen on the awesome race pics!

Help a newbie....OK, I jumped into the Canon world not very long ago and have several (probably too many Canon bodies). Concerning autofocus it seems that it all boils down to the center focus point, even if using the 5Diii in AI servo I think you're supposed to have autofocus begin with the center point....and I've seen many excellent BIF/sport action shots capture with the 6D.
My point/question---is it not really on the shoulders of the photographer and his/her skill with that center point and getting it on target?

For university newspaper, this is a layup decision: 70D.

Considering the benefits the 6D provides over the 70D (IQ, low light)
and the benefits the 70D provides over the 6D (everything else, e.g., price, speed, AF, size...)
and that the camera will be used to create images for a university newspaper where, presumably he will never need anything larger than (about) and 8x10 and print quality is (typically) pretty poor (i.e., the IQ advantage the 6D offers will be lost in the low quality printed output anyway, the IQ of the 70D far exceeds the capabilities of newspaper print or the downsized images made for online viewing).. To me this seems like an easy decision in favor of the 70D.

The 70D will be much better for sports. Considering the excellent and inexpensive wide angles available for crops, I even believe it will be better for the group shots in small rooms that the school paper shooter inevitably need to shoot.

The only real advantage the 6D has (for a university newspaper application) is low-light. But, for much of that, a flash will fill the gap. And where a flash won't fill the gap (e.g., basketball, indoor sports) the 70D is the better choice anyway, because of its AF. So with the 6D, you pay a premium for IQ, which you won't be able to take advantage of anyway....

If you plan to contribute to the yearbook too, where print quality is higher, you might be able to make a case for the 6D, but even there, I'd probably go with the 70D. Even in the yearbook, you won't be doing any large prints; the 70D IQ is more than adequate.

erictheengstrom wrote in post #16477754
Hey,
I have look at multiple forums and specs comparisons, but I am still stuck on whether I should get the 6D or 70D. I would love to have a FF but the 70d might have more to offer for my needs. I am just stuck and need some opinions.

So I shoot basically everything. I work for my university's school newspaper making me cover everything from portraits to sports.

Landscape/architecture​, nature, and abstract photography is my cup of tea but i have been doing more with sports and motion so idk how the 6d would do.

If i basically taking 60% landscape, wildlife and photos with no motion and 40% motion photos including wildlife WHICH one should I go with.

PS: I would need to upgrade my glass for the 6d (something for me to put into consideration)

Thanks for your help...just need a new toy

I asked the same question a cpl of weeks ago. https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=16442478#po​st16442478

I went with the 70D.

Faster focus, less IQ (only noticeably in low light) > Slower focus, better IQ.