7D Mark II or 6D?

If 90%+ of your photography consisted of:

• Landscape
  
• Macro Photography
  
• Macro Photography in a lowlight setting (i.e. in the rainforest)
  
• Wildlife photography in the rainforest (slow moving or near still animals) (in low light conditions off course)
  

you already use the 7DII...how are you not able to achieve what you want with your current set-up?

It depends upon what you term 'macro' photography...

If the 'classical' definition of scaled reproduction (.e.g at 'lifesize' or 1:1)

• the 6D would permit photographiing a larger subject at lifesize vs. the 7DII photographing only 60% of that same subject at lifesize (24 x 36mm vs. 15 x 22.5mm)...the classic advantage of using larger format for macro work.

If the contemporary unscaled definition of macro, meaning 'fill the frame with the subject'

• both 6D and 7DII would put the same number of pixels on the 'fill the frame' subject
  
• the same lens performance, measured in 'lines of detail resolution per millimeter' of sensor, would favor the FF because to total millimeters translates to more total detail in the frame. If lens can provide 100 line-pairs/millimeter, FF image is capturing 3580 line-pairs vs. APS-C image is capturing 2240 line-pairs from the lens....the APS-C image is lens-limited in performance, while the FF image is pixel-limited in its performance.
  
• if the whole-subject image is enlarged to same 8x12" print, the FF image has captured more total detail from the lens
  

If you are thinking of ditching the 7D2 for the 6D you already own I'd say keep it.
However if you are looking to acquire a 6D I think it's a great FF camera for your intended subjects.
The 6D/7D2 combo is really great.

I mainly shoot birds and wildlife and I have the canon 7D mark ii and absolutely love it! Great AF system for fast moving birds and easy settings adjustment for taking shots faster.

Bogino wrote in post #18397944
If 90%+ of your photography consisted of:

• Landscape
  
• Macro Photography
  
• Macro Photography in a lowlight setting (i.e. in the rainforest)
  
• Wildlife photography in the rainforest (slow moving or near still animals) (in low light conditions off course)
  

Would there be a "decided" advantage using either the 7D Mark II or the 6D (either the current version or just released 6D Mark II)?

Thank You.

If you are really going to fill the frame well, and you're going to use shallower DOF, and are shooting faster than f/2.8 a lot, then the 6D will capture a bit more light.

Stopped down, the FF really doesn't have any generic benefit, except that at base ISO, if lighting and stillness allow the longer exposure, allows capture of more total light with the same sensor.

They have about the same read noise at the image level at ISO 100; the 6D gets to a stop better at high ISOs, but 2/3 f that is taken back in equivalence.

For a crop from the 6D2 the size of APS-C, the 6D has less resolution, but a 1/3-stop high-ISO noise benefit. The 7D2 has 2/3 stop DR benefit at ISO 100 compared to a 6D crop.

At f-numbers below 2.8, the larger pixels of the 6D lose less light to microlens compromises, by somewhere around a 1/3 stop less (IIRC) at f/1.4.

The 6D2 has about the same read noise as the 6D at high ISOs, and about 1/2 stop worse at base ISO, if pre-release camera RAWs are the same as official-release cameras.

I own both the 6D and 7D2. I favor the 6D for super-wide, and super-fast f-number shooting. I favor the 7D2 for shooting small birds, as the slightly higher (1/3-stop) extra read noise is offset by more pixels-on-subject and better AF.

I would see the 6D as a step backwards from the 7D2 on petty much every level. You might get slightly better low light noise IQ, but you would give up all the other aspects that make the 7D2 a better camera.

As for wide angle work, there are a host of nice and affordable 10mm - zoom options that will make the 7D2 able to shoot very wide.

6D in some cases slightly better IQ, and shallower depth of field ( which doesn't make or break your subject matter)

7D2 Better AF, better controls, better speeds, better durability for outdoor weather related use, etc..

Yet still use my 6D about 80% of the time.

My opinion would steer you towards the 6D as the image quality and low light performance is still ahead of the 7D2.

6D2 would be even better but in a totally different price bracket...

Patbil10 wrote in post #18400178
My opinion would steer you towards the 6D as the image quality and low light performance is still ahead of the 7D2.

6D2 would be even better but in a totally different price bracket...

Inside the worlds of equivalence and focal-length-limited photography, the IQ advantage of the 6D drops off. For the latter, focal-length-limited photography, the 7D2 gives 2/3 stops less read noise (more DR) at base ISO, with about 1/4 stops more at high ISOs, and more subject resolution at all ISOs.

You can improve on the focal-length-limited aspect with the 6D with TCs, but the 6D runs into AF inability before the 7D2, even without a TC, and it gets worse *with* a TC. For manual focus, or very fast lenses, then yes, the 6D will pull ahead again for focal-length-limited use, with lower read noise at higher ISOs.

If the 6D2 is on the radar, then it will have better AF than the 6D and allow more TC usability, and put more pixels-on-subject.

DxO mark Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Canon-EOS-6D

I have found that while the 7D2 is good for a crop to have high ISO, the IQ doesn't reach the FF IQ of the 5D3/6D. I use it for situations where I'm using a longer telephoto then what I can frame with FF. For features, the 7D2 is better then the 6D for having a more robust AF, faster fps, and customizable interface.