An advice - from 40D to 6D

Hi all,

I am shooting with 40D since last 5 years and want to upgrade the camera body.

I am getting inclined towards 6D and that is where I need your advice. I have the following lenses: 70-200 F/2.8 IS II, 70-200 F/4 Non-IS, 100 mm F/2.8 Non-IS, 50 mm F/1.4 and 18-55mm IS kit lens. Being an amateur/hobbyist I shoot almost everything: landscape, indoors, astro, sports, wildlife, macro.

Will going to 6D FF a justifiable step?

Thanks a lot for your inputs.

For one, I would keep the 40D for the sports, wildlife and macro. The crop factor makes macro easier and a higher burst and crop helps with the other 2.

I love my 6d and, yes, it can do all those subjects. Some are just a little easier with the 40d.

Also, the 18-55 won't work on the 6d. You should sell it (and maybe the 70-200 f/4 non-IS) and get something wide for the 6d, maybe a 24-105.

huntersdad wrote in post #16564510
For one, I would keep the 40D for the sports, wildlife and macro. The crop factor makes macro easier and a higher burst and crop helps with the other 2.

I love my 6d and, yes, it can do all those subjects. Some are just a little easier with the 40d.

Also, the 18-55 won't work on the 6d. You should sell it (and maybe the 70-200 f/4 non-IS) and get something wide for the 6d, maybe a 24-105.

I agree apart from the 24-105.. Maybe get a wide angle lens...
BTW. you are deffo making the right move going FF... (A different world)

All your lenses will feel different. Pick up the 6D and then determine what you want to keep.

The lens you will have to get rid of is the 18-55 (it just doesn't work on the 6D) and replace it with something like a 24-70 if you want a similar range. If I were you, I'd also get rid of the f4 70-200... Not sure why you need that if you have the f2.8ISii.

I went from a 30D to a 6D. Glorious! Still too big for my liking (having been weaned on the OM system), but great handling with improved ergonomics, WiFi, great low light performance, etc. It worked for me, but it really depends on what you hope to achieve.
As pointed out, you will likely need a general purpose zoom, and the 24-105 is a good starting point as it is frequently bundled with the 6D at a significant discount.

huntersdad wrote in post #16564510
For one, I would keep the 40D for the sports, wildlife and macro. The crop factor makes macro easier and a higher burst and crop helps with the other 2.

How does crop factor make macro easier? If anything I'd say the reverse was true. Working distance is the same; maximum magnification is the same at 1:1 (for the OP's 100/2.8); all that changes is that a larger field is captured by the FF, and I don't see that as a disadvantge.
Any advantage of "reach" owing to the higher pixel density of the 40D is going to be minor since the 6D sensor is just about the same density (don't have the figures to hand, but it's near identical for the 30D and the 40D wasn't that significant a leap in this respect).

With your lenses you should definitly do it. Just be aware they will become different than what you are used too.


I also second keeping the 40d for a crop on hand/spare camera.

A 7D or a 70D also would be very nice upgrades from your 40D. Better AF, better high ISO performance, gobs more resolution, among other things.

6D would give even better high ISO performance. But otherwise, it's AF is in some respects a step down from 40D, only better in that the 6D's center AF point can continue to focus in lower light. Both 7D and 70D's AF would be better for sports/action shooting than either 40D or 6D, just not as low light capable as that center point on 6D.

The ideal is to keep a crop camera for sports/action (and, yes, sometimes for macro... though not always).... and to complement it with a full frame model. 60D or 70D and 6D would complement each other particualrly well. 7D plays well particularly with 5D Mark III or Mark II.

How big do you print (or how much do you crop) regularly? To really see full benefit from a FF camera, you need to make big prints.... really big prints. If you only make 8x10s or 11x14s.... maybe even 16x20s... you'll have a hard time telling apart images from the more recent crop cameras or the FF unless you regularly make 20x30", 24x36" or larger prints. You certainly won't see the difference if all you do is post prints online or share them via email.

6D would be a nice upgrade from 40D, too... by all means. But it doesn't stop there... you also have to reconfigure your lenses. You'd need something wider, since you can't use the EF-S lens on the FF camera. But if you wanted to use only the FF camera you'd also need to buy something longer, too. You'll need at least a 300mm lens to come close to the same reach you enjoy with your 70-200. Something that reaches 400mm would be better. Lenses for FF tend to be bigger, heavier and more expensive.

huntersdad wrote in post #16564510
For one, I would keep the 40D for the sports, wildlife and macro. The crop factor makes macro easier and a higher burst and crop helps with the other 2.

I love my 6d and, yes, it can do all those subjects. Some are just a little easier with the 40d.

Also, the 18-55 won't work on the 6d. You should sell it (and maybe the 70-200 f/4 non-IS) and get something wide for the 6d, maybe a 24-105.

Thanks for the prompt reply. Could you suggest me a good place to sell my 70-200 f/4 non-IS? Definitely that cash will go for buying a day-to-day lens to match with a FF 6D camera.

As someone mentioned here, don't bother keeping 40D for the sake of "stronger macro" or "more reach", because there is practically none. 6D has exactly twice number of pixels of 40D; taking into account the 1.6*1.6 difference in surface area of the sensors, the pixel density (and that's the only factor which determines the "macro zoom" and "tele reach") of 6D is only 1.6*1.6/2=1.28x lower than that of 40D (so only 22% less in terms of pixel number; in terms of "zoom factor", it is a square root of 22%, or only 11%) - I'd say totally insignificant.

At 1:1, a camera with higher pixel density will place more pixels on the subject. That is one of the main advantages of crops for macro. The larger FOV of FF is not helpful, since the increase in FOV is outside the subject (assuming the subject fits within a crop sensor dimensions). Second, at longer distances, reach matters in macro as in anything else. If you want to fill the frame with a subject, you can be farther away with a crop.

I shoot more macro than anything else, and I own both formats. IMHO, 1:1 macro is one of two uses for which the crop is superior. The other, of course, is anything where you need reach, e.g., wildlife. I prefer FF for other things, e.g., low-light shooting.

OP: Amfoto makes some good points (as always). FF is better for some people, not for others. It's not clear from your post what is better for you. I would just add one caution: if you are comparing a 6D to a 70D or 7D, the 6D will give you a much inferior AF system. Doesn't matter much for macro, but it might matter for you for sports.

I went from a 40D to 6D earlier this year. Its higher usable ISO therefore low light performance is astounding, while it only has 9 AF points I would not let that worry you the centre AF point works almost in the dark.

Choice of lens comes down to what you shoot, the 24 - 105 f4 while not a perfect lens is a good all rounder.

One thing to have in mind is the 6D does not have a pop up flash.

The only limitation I have found is that of mine as a photographer

paddler4 wrote in post #16564732
At 1:1, a camera with higher pixel density will place more pixels on the subject. That is one of the main advantages of crops for macro. The larger FOV of FF is not helpful, since the increase in FOV is outside the subject (assuming the subject fits within a crop sensor dimensions). Second, at longer distances, reach matters in macro as in anything else. If you want to fill the frame with a subject, you can be farther away with a crop.

I shoot more macro than anything else, and I own both formats. 1:1 macro is one of two uses for which the crop is superior. The other, of course, is anything where you need reach, e.g., wildlife.

Difference in pixel density between 6D and 40D is probably negligible. As you mention, depending on the size of the subject, the additional FoV need not be outside the subject at all, and may allow the entire subject to be encompassed in the frame with FF. No clear advantage for either format really, except that given the near-equivalence of pixel density, one could crop the FF image with little loss of resolution. Same argument applies to "reach" as pixel density is very similar (and isn't a function of sensor size anyway or we'd all be shooting with D30s or 10Ds for cheap "reach").

Just checked: pixel pitch on 40D is 5.7 µm; on 6D it is 6.5 µm so that's about 30% more "pixels on target" for the 40D, so maybe there is an argument there after all.

I have a had a 60D for about 3 years. I had a 5Dc for about 1 year. Last week, I sold the 5Dc and picked up a 6D. After about 300 shots, I am trying to remember why I wanted to keep the 60D. I am sure the improvement over the 40D will be phenomenal.

P.S. I'll keep my 60D for 3 reasons: 10-22, 60 2.8 macro, 100-400L.

Keep the 18-55 for use on the 40d for times when you dont want to risk a > $1500 camera setup.

I struggled with the same decision -- and am an amateur doing the same wide range of photography. When the 6D came out I rented it and found one area I wanted to expand my skills in -- use of more advanced autofocus -- lacking. IQ, resolution, and especially low light ISO were astounding, but it is coming from a 40D so almost any new upgraded camera will be astounding.

I waited to see what would come with either a 7DII or 70D and immediately bought the 70D when it came out. I'm not regretting it -- for a general amateur crop user with a set of lenses you are comfortable with, take a good hard look at the 70D. It too is phenomenal as an upgrade from a 40D