50D user looking into FF (5D2 or 6D)

As title states, I've a 50D with a variety of lenses (see below), enjoy shooting mainly landscapes/nature, concerts, sports, and starting to learn macro & portrait.

For the value/price, for an amateur shooter, best to look more at the 5DmrkII (used body w/ grip & <5k activations @ ~$1200) or the 6D?

Thanks

EDIT to add: I would be keeping the 50D, for 2nd body, for the family to use, for sports, etc.

5dii is great for anything other than fast sports tracking. However the 6d isn't all that much better with a fairly similar AF system (I'm sure 6d owners will complain about me saying that). IQ wise they are very similar, with the 6d having about 1 stop better raw noise performance. I really prefer the control layout of the 5dii, especially coming from a 60d. They both will be a big step up from your 50D and you probably can't go wrong with either.

I'd probably go with the 6D over the 5D2.

Why? Because the 5D2 is like a new 2012 car still sitting unsold on the dealers car lot today. Canon has already stopped making new 5D2s in favor of the 5D3, and introduced the 6D to capture the 'mid 2s' price-point market. Also consider that at some point in the future, Canon will stop supporting/repairing 5D2s several years sooner than 6Ds. 5 years from now? 10 years from now? Who knows?

But at the same time, right now is a perfect time to buy a 5D2. The price/performace 'bang for the buck' can't be beat.

If I were in the same situation, I'd have to check my finances. That would be the decision maker for me. But then, I'm me, and my needs/wants/desires don't necessarily reflect yours.

edit: You may find the the wireless features of the 6D very appealing!

6D offers better low light AF performance and wifi.
Why would you want wifi in a camera, what a useless feature? Well no, you get remote liveview shooting from your iPad/phone, and ability to instantly show people on an iPad a shot you just took. These are big deals IMHO.

Thanks for the replies, helpful… but, lol, still in the proverbial darkness.

I like the additional features (esp. the low light aspect, if true) PLUS the newer/ more modern components of the 6D, whereas the 5DM2 is indeed a very capable professional body with an attractive price (savings of >$900, in this instance of the very slightly used 5DM2 + batt grip, etc., vs. new 6D).

As to the wireless feature advantage that the 6D offers, what about https://triggertrap.co​m/products/triggertrap​-mobile/?

Honestly, being I'm doing this mainly as hobby, I doubt I can swing the extra cost of the 6D… but it is quite attractive, maybe when I can locate a good used / refurbed version.

Not to throw a monkey wrench into your thinking, but if macro is one of your things, are you sure you want FF? I do more macro than anything and am planning to replace my 50D next year, so I have thought a lot about this. Here is my take:

FF gives you better high-ISO noise performance. I would love to have that, but not for macro, which I often do with diffused flash or on a tripod.

FF will do better if you print very large. I don't. I've been printing 11 x 14 and plan to do 13 x 19, but that is about it for me.

FF will do better if you want to go very wide. I don't. I am very happy with my 15-85 for landscapes, but I can go somewhat wider with a crop if I want to.

FF will give you narrower DOF, by about a stop, which is helpful if you are shooting at wide apertures and want the extra separation. I don't need it.

FF has a higher minimum diffraction-limiting aperture--if I am right, by somewhat over a stop comparing the 7D and 5D MK II or II. If the new 7D rumored for next year has even higher pixel density, this contrast will be greater. I would very much like this aspect of FF.

For macro, at minimum working distance, shooting at 1:1, a FF is not as good, in that it will give you a lot fewer pixels on the subject because of the much higher pixel density of the crop sensor cameras. For example, say you had a subject that at MWD exactly filled the sensor of your 50D, giving you 15 MP. If my arithmetic is correct, this would fill (1/1.6)^2==39% of a FF sensor. On a 5DMKII, that would give you .391 x 21.1 = 8.3MP. The comparison would be more extreme with a 7D.

FF gives you much less reach for a given FF. People will say that you can get the same FOV with a FF by cropping, and that is exactly right, but gain, with half as many pixels as your 50D.

I want better AF than my 50D, which means either a 7D or a 5D MK III.

FF is much more expensive, all other things being equal (e.g., for fast AF, 7D vs. 5D Mk III), and that difference could go into other stuff, like more glass.

So, I decided to hang tight and see if the rumors of a 7D II this year are correct. The rumors are around 21 MP very fast burst rates, and less noise than the current 7D (which is not all that much better than our current cameras). The rumors may be nonsense, of course. If the 7D II is as rumored, I will probably buy it. If not, the decision is not an easy one, at least for me.

Just my two cents. Lots of folks will disagree. But IMHO, it is not an entirely easy choice.

Yeah but for portraits and landscapes, it excels. Its not like a 5d2 sucks at macro, it only sucks at tracking fast subjects. Even then it doesn't suck, there are just better options available.

If af is important get a 7d, if not get a 5d2 while you still can. The price difference, to me, isn't worth going to the 6d while 5ds are still available.

Thanks guys. However, just fyi / clarification, my main passion is landscape / nature and concerts, so hence my interest / leanings towards FF (along with getting even more into 'higher-quality' portraits) to get that IQ and low-light capabilities that I much desire, and find my 50D lacking to extent. Macro is something that I'm definitely wanting to do more shooting (w/ the recently acquired 100 L IS), and will be using the 50D for that… along with for sport's (youngest boy's football & track).

Here are couple recent concert shots (should have used slightly higher ISO to freeze the motion & get bit more depth, but didn't want too much noise either… durn that need to balance that triangle):

6D, in a heartbeat. Better noise handling and wifi + GPS is extremely useful

I just got my 6D and have been playing around with it this evening indoors. I won't be shooting any concerts until the 19th, but from the pictures I've taken so far I don't think I'd have any problems shooting at ISO 12,800 with it. I hated going much above 3,200 with my 7D. My only concern is the AF. I miss having spot and expansion modes on the 6D already.

paddler4 wrote in post #15448768
Not to throw a monkey wrench into your thinking, but if macro is one of your things, are you sure you want FF? I do more macro than anything and am planning to replace my 50D next year, so I have thought a lot about this. Here is my take:

FF gives you better high-ISO noise performance. I would love to have that, but not for macro, which I often do with diffused flash or on a tripod.

FF will do better if you print very large. I don't. I've been printing 11 x 14 and plan to do 13 x 19, but that is about it for me.

FF will do better if you want to go very wide. I don't. I am very happy with my 15-85 for landscapes, but I can go somewhat wider with a crop if I want to.

FF will give you narrower DOF, by about a stop, which is helpful if you are shooting at wide apertures and want the extra separation. I don't need it.

FF has a higher minimum diffraction-limiting aperture--if I am right, by somewhat over a stop comparing the 7D and 5D MK II or II. If the new 7D rumored for next year has even higher pixel density, this contrast will be greater. I would very much like this aspect of FF.

For macro, at minimum working distance, shooting at 1:1, a FF is not as good, in that it will give you a lot fewer pixels on the subject because of the much higher pixel density of the crop sensor cameras. For example, say you had a subject that at MWD exactly filled the sensor of your 50D, giving you 15 MP. If my arithmetic is correct, this would fill (1/1.6)^2==39% of a FF sensor. On a 5DMKII, that would give you .391 x 21.1 = 8.3MP. The comparison would be more extreme with a 7D.

FF gives you much less reach for a given FF. People will say that you can get the same FOV with a FF by cropping, and that is exactly right, but gain, with half as many pixels as your 50D.

I want better AF than my 50D, which means either a 7D or a 5D MK III.

FF is much more expensive, all other things being equal (e.g., for fast AF, 7D vs. 5D Mk III), and that difference could go into other stuff, like more glass.

So, I decided to hang tight and see if the rumors of a 7D II this year are correct. The rumors are around 21 MP very fast burst rates, and less noise than the current 7D (which is not all that much better than our current cameras). The rumors may be nonsense, of course. If the 7D II is as rumored, I will probably buy it. If not, the decision is not an easy one, at least for me.

Just my two cents. Lots of folks will disagree. But IMHO, it is not an entirely easy choice.

I also have 50D and do quite a bit of macro. I will likely be upgrading to another body soon and would really like to buy a 5DII, but will run into issues with macro. I use my 100L for macro shots and find myself "too close" to the subject (generally jewelry) as jewelry is highly reflective and I can see myself and the camera / lens reflected from the subject. My thought is, by switching to full frame, I will now have to get even closer to the subject, bringing about even more reflection issues. I guess I could always counteract this by switching from the 100L to the 180L, but I just don't think it'll be in my budget.

ShadowCaver wrote in post #15449068
Thanks guys. However, just fyi / clarification, my main passion is landscape / nature and concerts, so hence my interest / leanings towards FF (along with getting even more into 'higher-quality' portraits) to get that IQ and low-light capabilities that I much desire, and find my 50D lacking to extent. Macro is something that I'm definitely wanting to do more shooting (w/ the recently acquired 100 L IS), and will be using the 50D for that… along with for sport's (youngest boy's football & track).

Here are couple recent concert shots (should have used slightly higher ISO to freeze the motion & get bit more depth, but didn't want too much noise either… durn that need to balance that triangle):

5D2 or 6D would work fine, if you've got the budget the 6D might be better

watt100 wrote in post #15451260
5D2 or 6D would work fine, if you've got the budget the 6D might be better

In a nutshell - this is my issue with this decision: the 5D2 is great and less expensive, the 6D is modern + interesting features but higher $. There will be others I know, but right now there is a guy in my area that has a very slightly used 5D2+battery grip for <$1200, so makes this route very attractive, for now. Thanks for the feedback / info.

If what you're shooting is concerts in low light up to ISO 12800, then your choice must be the 6D. The AF system's low light sensitivity will make a big difference, in fact it's AF outperforms the 5D3 and 1DX in low light. It's high ISO is also cleaner and with less noise than the 5D2.

6D just because you mentioned concerts.