6D or 7D.

I think the cheaper and faster option is to learn how to set up the camera and post processing techniques/tools to allow you to shoot over ISO 800. This experience then can be taken to any future camera upgrade.

Based on the input, the 6D would give you nearly 2 stops of improvement, so you would shoot the 6D at nothing higher than 3200. People love to tell others to upgrade equipment, but it is often not really necessary. Glass perhaps, bodies, not so much unless you have really exploited all its capabilities.

Your 600D should have pretty clean ISO 3200 with minimal effort.

http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …3H5c/0/X3/IMG_9​739-X3.jpg
http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …vHqN/0/X3/IMG_6​431-X3.jpg
http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …fQzC/0/X3/IMG_9​883-X3.jpg
http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …wrgW/0/X3/IMG_2​195-X3.jpg

Or higher, like 4000 or 6400?
http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …8f4/0/X3/7D1_72​19a-X3.jpg
http://teamspeed.smugm​ug.com …x4H8/0/X3/IMG_2​696-X3.jpg

If you have some raw files at 1600 or 3200 that you don't like, try uploading to dropbox and drop a link here. I have no doubt we can at least get you up 1 stop to 1600.

Sometimes I have been known to shoot at 12800.

With strobes it is harder to tell even 10 yr old camera from newer ones, FF or not doesn't matter For outdoors natural light you don't need past ISO3200 unless you talking after sunset shots. (assuming you got a fast lens). FF definitely better for portraits.

Sports, 6d might do if center point.

I have both, each with its own strong points. If I had to choose one it would be the 6D going away.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16991444
I think the cheaper and faster option is to learn how to set up the camera and post processing techniques/tools to allow you to shoot over ISO 800. This experience then can be taken to any future camera upgrade.

...

Your 600D should have pretty clean ISO 3200 with minimal effort.

...

I totally agree with above. You should be able to shoot above ISO 400 without a problem with the 600D. Over the past few years my post processing skills have improved sufficiently that I have no problem shooting my 7D at ISO up to 3200 (same sensor as 600D). Biggest bang for buck is shoot raw and improve pp.

If you want to shoot jpg and/or minimize raw pp then the 6D is a good, but expensive choice.

Bayard wrote in post #16991320
You are able to push your post editing capabilities much further on the 6d shots than the 7d. I’ve owned both and the grain on the 7d gets bad quick. If you do a lot of autofocus your not gonna like the 6d though. I do a lot of spot focus and it works for me. You miss having the popup flash when flying with minimal gear and the joystick on the back that a lot of cameras have. If you use a lot of flash with your portraits the 7d would be fine as it even has a faster sync than the 6d.

This may seem to be out in left field, but in the interest of solid auto focus and files that are easy to work with, the 1D3 should be considered as well. I upgraded from a 550D, I use mine for exactly the kinds of photos OP is taking, and I'm extremely happy. My next body upgrade will be a 1D4, but that will be after I spend a few thousand on lenses and lighting. The 1D3 performs great. I am more on the sports side of OP's equation, but portraits are important to me too. I've only done one wedding, but I'm happy with the results from the 1D3.

I do not think the 1D3 does any better than the 7D for noise handling, but somehow the noise you get is a MUCH more pleasant, film-style grain. I don't know how to explain the files being easier to work with, but they just are, and many POTN posters have said so.

If you want to shoot at ISO 800 or ISO 1600, you will not have any frustration with the RAWs coming out of the 1D3.

FWIW, here's the 1D3 at ISO 6400 from this weekend. This is an indoor pool (University of Texas), with half the dang lights off. I shot 1/3 over exposed, then brought exposure back to the left. I only slightly corrected the noise, because I like the look. I'll just share the link, since this isn't a photo sharing thread.

Then there's the handling of a 1D. There is just no beating it. Many complain of the weight, but I'm fit, strong, active, and motivated -- I have carried the 1D3 with a 70-200 f/2.8 for 9 hours several times and not regretted it. I ski with it all day (though not every day), haul it all over for triathlons and soccer tournaments, stand with it, sit with it, etc. It's just a joy to have around.

What makes the 1D3 easier to work with is the fact that the images are very sharp even with noise, so you have plenty of detail to work with after you remove the noise. The noise at 6400, raw to raw, as compared to the 7D is very, very similar in nature. You just end up with less detail on the 7D after cleanup due to its more aggressive AA filter than the 1D3. At least, that is my conclusion after having compared both side by side with same lens/same exposure.

There is quite a bit of luminescent noise in that 1D3 image though at the expanded view, but if you just concentrate on the subject material in focus, you don't notice it much (there is no detail at all on the skin). The chroma noise has been cleaned out pretty well.

UserM4 wrote in post #16991436
5d3. Save up or sell something for it.

I owned the 7D and 5DII together for about a year. People say that's a great combo, but increasingly I wanted a camera that had the strong points of both of those bodies, so I did indeed get the 5DIII (but kept the 5DII also!)

From what I've read the 6D's AF is better than that of the 5DII, but it's still not going to be the same as being able to put a reliable off-centre cross-point on an athletic subject.

If funds put the 5DIII out of the question, then surely the 1DIII could be a good move - if you can live with the smaller files & extra bulk, and avoid getting one with tracking issues.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16995414
What makes the 1D3 easier to work with is the fact that the images are very sharp even with noise, so you have plenty of detail to work with after you remove the noise. The noise at 6400, raw to raw, as compared to the 7D is very, very similar in nature. You just end up with less detail on the 7D after cleanup due to its more aggressive AA filter than the 1D3. At least, that is my conclusion after having compared both side by side with same lens/same exposure.

There is quite a bit of luminescent noise in that 1D3 image though at the expanded view, but if you just concentrate on the subject material in focus, you don't notice it much (there is no detail at all on the skin). The chroma noise has been cleaned out pretty well.

Agreed on both counts. I really don't think there's less noise on the 1D3, just easier to deal with and easier to look at. The noise looks less digital

Skin detail is probably not present because he still has a mm of water falling off his skin, although there's not a lot of detail in the goggles either. The next improvement to a tough AF challenge (shallow DoF) like this combined with tough lighting, is going to be spending another $1500-$2000 in the form of a 5D3 or a 1D4. I think the 7D will keep up fine with the 1D3 on the AF side, but both are challenged by the high ISO. I guess a 200mm f/2 could probably help too

I should also drop the cash on Nik and spend some time working on my noise correction workflow. The chromatic stuff is easily handled in LR4 for me, but the luminance noise is a bear, and I end up over-flattening the image in LR4 if I get too aggressive.

As it is though, I like the gritty look of this photo.

One other point is that the 1D3 is brilliant in low light AF. It's really amazing. Where my 550D will hunt around and settle on crap, the 1D3 snaps right to it every time. Not sure how the 7D does in this area.

It's a good photo, watersports are a bit tough from what I can tell.

Have you tried Noiseware? There is a free community version that you can send your JPG to, and you can play with sliders, etc. The paid version has much, much more control, at least 3 tabs of various sliders to nail down exact NR algorithms.

The 1D3 was the king of low light AF for a very long time, even the 1D4 was worse (noticeably so). The 5D3, 6D and 1DX have now finally exceeded what the 1D3 could do.

The 7D and 5D2 were very similar, and were not close to the 1D3 either. I will say that lenses play a bit part in all of this though. One lens may allow AF, another on the same body will hunt.

This was very, very dark (the image is actually brightened up from the real scene), and I had the center point on the boy, and it snapped right to him.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16995480
It's a good photo, watersports are a bit tough from what I can tell.

Have you tried Noiseware? There is a free community version that you can send your JPG to, and you can play with sliders, etc. The paid version has much, much more control, at least 3 tabs of various sliders to nail down exact NR algorithms.

I'll give noiseware a try. Hadn't heard of it. Thanks. Focus in that dark shot is perfect. Interesting too that you were able to push exposure in post.

Watersports are tough, and that was the main driver to for me to get either a 1D3 or a 7D. It's great to be able to pull off shots like this. This girl is moving at me very fast, and then disappears between each stroke, yet I have the customization ability to tell the camera to sit tight and not focus on the background until she pops back into view.

Love it, great shot! The spray locked in air just adds to the ferocity of the shot.

thanks

70D or 6D, wouldn't even consider the 7D for your needs.

I may be a little late to this party, but I'm putting my support behind the 6D given the choice between the two originally offered up.

Here's some shots throughout the ISO range of the 6D. My post processing skills aren't the best though.
These high ISO's will be unnecessary once I upgrade to a 2.8 70-200

EF 70-200 f/4L USM, ISO 12800