7D vs 6d for bird photography

I keep reading statements (a ew) that say "If you don't know the reason for buying a FF camera, you don't need one.

So, in this case we have a FF vs CF inherent in this answer - so, maybe those folks who own the FF 6D will explain why they have it.

We know the 'reach' on the CF appears longer when shooting conditions are the same. So, why would one buy/use the 6D at all. Does it change between 'small birds' (reach) and FF frame for a portrait or mountain scene, for example. Or, did I just answer my own question?? Not sure, haven't shot with either one, but am contemplating one or the other soon.

Don't want to hijack this thread, but that answer seems relevant to the OP question too.

Full frame generally gives better imag quality and less post processing when
you are not focal length limited. Like landscape and portraits are slightly better in general on a FF.

If you can't get close and need to crop your photo substantially the crop bodies generally do slightly better than FF.
Again it comes down to the photographer and lenses though.

monkey44 wrote in post #16480002
I keep reading statements (a ew) that say "If you don't know the reason for buying a FF camera, you don't need one.

So, in this case we have a FF vs CF inherent in this answer - so, maybe those folks who own the FF 6D will explain why they have it.

We know the 'reach' on the CF appears longer when shooting conditions are the same. So, why would one buy/use the 6D at all. Does it change between 'small birds' (reach) and FF frame for a portrait or mountain scene, for example. Or, did I just answer my own question?? Not sure, haven't shot with either one, but am contemplating one or the other soon.

Don't want to hijack this thread, but that answer seems relevant to the OP question too.

For the same lens, FF gives you approximately 1.6x more sharpness. If you are a landscaper, probably you can appreciate the extra sharpness/detail

My guess is that most people who buy a 6D don't buy it with the intention of using it for a lot of wildlife or bird shots... instead they would be buying it for the wonderful portrait and landscape image quality. I'd be interested in seeing if anyone actually did buy a 6D primarily for wildlife, but I think that number would be pretty low since if you're shooting wildlife with a FF you'd need some very expensive glass to go with it, and if you can afford that kind of glass then you can probably also afford more camera than the 6D.

I was also contemplating one or the other (6D or 7D) and quickly realised that for what I like to shoot I should probably get both!

amfoto1 wrote in post #16478614
Be patient... I bet we see a 7D Mark II sometime next year. I expect that will be a great birders' camera.

It had better have high-ISO read noise as good or better than current Sony and Toshiba sensors, or I am going to be very upset. Canon has not made any significant improvements in APS-C high-ISO read noise since the 7D.

John Sheehy wrote in post #16480173
It had better have high-ISO read noise as good or better than current Sony and Toshiba sensors, or I am going to be very upset. Canon has not made any significant improvements in APS-C high-ISO read noise since the 7D.

Well prepare to be upset.

It will 99.99% use the same sensor as in the 70D imo...

monkey44 wrote in post #16480002
We know the 'reach' on the CF appears longer when shooting conditions are the same. So, why would one buy/use the 6D at all. Does it change between 'small birds' (reach) and FF frame for a portrait or mountain scene, for example. Or, did I just answer my own question?? Not sure, haven't shot with either one, but am contemplating one or the other soon.

I am an outlier here; I use my 6D for most bird shooting, and the 7D stays home most of the time. The only time I choose the 7D is when I know that I will be shooting birds in bright sun, or really need the better AIServo or burst speed. The 6D with 1.4x of quality TC magnification has less detail loss due to the TC than the 7D's much stronger AA filter does, and a lot less high-ISO noise, even with the doubled ISO. I am unusual, of course, in the fact that I manually focus most of the time, as I can't tolerate hunting and cameras refusing to take a shot when the subject is clearly in focus. For someone with more reliance on AF, the higher potential subject quality of the 6D with TC may, of course, not be realized in practice.

I shoot with both and usually opt for the 6D when I bring along the 1.4x TC (which is quite often). I've found the 6D will focus more accurately and faster when using the 1.4x TC (either my Kenko or the Canon 1.4x TC III with taped pins). The 7D hunts like crazy with the Kenko TC before finally focusing and it won't focus at all with the Canon TC with pins taped. Also, with either camera using the 400 5.6 and 1.4x TC, you're at f8. Keeping a decent shutter speed for a moving bird (~1/1250s) at f8 usually requires high ISO. That's when the 6D outperforms the 7D once you start cropping down.

If there is decent light and I'm using the 400 5.6 without the 1.4x TC, then the 7D comes into its own, if I need the reach.

I shot an airshow last year with the 7D and this year with the 6D. Both worked well. Hard to say which was better because the light conditions were quite different as was my lens of choice for the day.

I recently tried the 5D MkIII with the 400 5.6 and Canon 1.4x TC III. Far superior in performance and results to either the 6D or 7D with that combo. No need to tape pins for one thing.

So, my budget called out for the 6D or the 7D - and I don't care about FF CF as I've shot with both for long enough...

I do a combination of wildlife and scenic - but my true love it the wildlife hard to get and moving - like a ten point Mule Deer Buck jumping a stream instead of simply grazing.

But, the discussion between these two cameras pushes me more toward the 5D M 111 ... as it will do both well, and the FF doesn't bother me - The 100-400 will take care of that pretty well and it can handle a 1.4ext too. And if I pair that with a new 24-105 IS L, and keep my 20-35 for wide, should end up with a nice bag.

Lots of folks choose two cameras - and then lenses that interchange ... but I like one, and travel around too much in the 'bush' to begin adding more weight ... and changing cameras on the fly is bothersome too ... so - maybe hit on a different answer than the 6D - 7D I began asking about.

Wallet will sure take a hit though ...

The extra 1.6 reach of crops is surely missed. My 70-200 f/4 on my T1i has great reach. Now with 6D, it's only 200mm, no more

gabebalazs wrote in post #16478577
I have both plus a 70D. For birds, keep the 7D. Reach and AF are the reasons. I do shoot birds occasionally with my 6D, and shot a whole air show with it too with great results. Yes, IQ is better from the 6D but even that IQ difference can't make up for the 1.6x advantage the 7D has in focal length-limited situations (most bird shooting scenarios are that.) If you shoot the exact same photo with the same 400 5.6L lens, the 7D image will be better than the cropped 6D image.

I have both a 7D and 5D3, and agree with this (and others in this thread) assessment. The additional "pixels on target" that the crop sensor provides will give better results than cropping the full frame image. Since getting the 5D3, my 7D gets used exclusively for wildlife for this reason. The 5D3 gets used for everything else.

l89kip wrote in post #16480433
The extra 1.6 reach of crops is surely missed. My 70-200 f/4 on my T1i has great reach. Now with 6D, it's only 200mm, no more

Why not do a small investment on a 2x TC. Seriously which would you rather have

1) cropped (1.6) on a 200? 1.6 x 200 = 320
or
2) FF (1X) + 2X TC on a 200? 2 x 200 = 400!

Plus since you have a 70-200 f4 the TC 2x II can be bought for less than $250. Only downside is you'd have an f8 but you have a tool that has awesome low-light capabilities to compensate.

OuttaCtrl wrote in post #16481553
Why not do a small investment on a 2x TC. Seriously which would you rather have

1) cropped (1.6) on a 200? 1.6 x 200 = 320
or
2) FF (1X) + 2X TC on a 200? 2 x 200 = 400!

Plus since you have a 70-200 f4 the TC 2x II can be bought for less than $250. Only downside is you'd have an f8 but you have a tool that has awesome low-light capabilities to compensate.

that's true but you need to take into consideration that good, accurate AF is not easy at f/8, plus no lens + 2x TC is very good at wide open, so you need to stop down 1 stop that makes it f/11.

In this specific case, I'd opt for a good crop body (e.g. 7D, 70D) + 1.4x tc an the 200 lens (especially if its an f/4 lens) = 448mm equivalent FoV.

I've used a 1.4 with a 70-200 f4 and got good results. Not sure I'd want to do the same with a 2x.

Beg, steal or borrow a 1.4 first to see if that gives you what you want.

I bought the 6D as an upgrade from rebel xt. 6d is a FANTASTIC camera, but it does struggle with AF tracking fast moving objects. I use the 100-400L with a 2x for birding, but that combo requires manual focusing of everything, which i struggle with, so much so that I often leave the 2x off, just so I can use autofocus (something further away in focus is better than a blurry closeup).

I am anxiously awaiting the release of the 7DII and if the specs and price are decent I may pick one up for birding, airshows, and sports and use the 6D for portraits and scenics, where it ROCKS!

Point is, if you can afford both, get both. Totally different tools for totally different shooting scenarios.