Upgrade from 70D, 7DmkII or 6D?

Strauss wrote in post #17781106
My current train of thought is I would like to have two bodies, and having the 70D for the extra reach from the crop sensor along with the full frame 6D will make myself a nice combo.

I have months before I make the purchase, so my decision may change. But if I was buying right now, I think I'd pull the trigger on a 6D. Even so, if I find the 6D lacking and my photography keep expanding, I can always upgrade the following year to another full frame with better AF.

Just want to thank you all for your insight and help. I greatly appreciate it. And maybe this thread can help others in the future if they find themselves in a similar situation.

Heya,

Ask yourself this: why do I need a full frame sensor?

I see a lot of mention of autofocus, as if the 5D2, 6D, etc, all have inferior autofocus or something. They don't. Panning with a car, or doing still shots in portraiture, has been happening a long time on these autofocus drives prior to the 7D/7D2/5D3 and that doesn't even include the 1Ds series if you're into what the 5D3 was born from (AF + full frame sensor). I think you're reading into too much when you think the 5D2 or 6D have some kind of inferior autofocus. I use far lesser cameras than those, and they seem to autofocus just fine on birds in flight let alone a 2 year old toddler running around, let a lone a panning car, a standing still portrait, etc. My point is, do you think you really need the juggernaut AF from some of these cameras? I will say, this is from a center point shooting point of view. I do use the outer points in good light with servo just fine. In portrait/studio, outer points are totally fine as the subject isn't moving much. And I do feel the difference when I'm using one of my 1D's and tracking with servo from an outer point versus something like my 5D where the outer point struggles with AF on a moving subject in poor light. That's a given. But the 6D isn't a slouch here. The 5D2 has the same AF as the original 5Dc, so there was no change there. But the 6D has a slightly better AF system and better low light AF (on center point).

I can totally see the appeal for a 5D3. I shoot full frame, APS-H, and APS-C. I have 1D series, 5D series, and lots of other APS-C's. I absolutely love the AF aggression of the 1D series. This would translate to the 7D/7D2/5D3 in the non-1D. Even the 70D has a hint of it. But I also use a 5D with manual focus and I'm fine with that too. I go both ways on that. It's all about what you're comfortable with.

Personally for what you're describing, full frame isn't going to give you some kind of advantage. I will say this though, I like full frame for one real reason: EF lens lineup. I just like how the focal lengths and FOV work on full frame, compared to smaller sensors. EF-S glass has come a long way. But, I like the FOV of telephoto on full frame, as I can work more closely to subject, with longer lenses, for the look that provides. Other than that, full frame has no real advantage to me or to many people in regards to a lot of aspects of photography these days. You'll hear otherwise from others, I'm sure. But it's a simple truth if you've looked at a photo and thought it was great, and found out it wasn't from a full frame sensor, would you change your mind, right?

In your shoes, the 6D seems like a good budget full frame option. It doesn't replace your entire system.

Other options include things like a 1Ds Mark II or a 1Ds Mark III if you want the AF of the 1D series, with a full frame sensor, and minus the price tag of the 5D3. Just a thought.

I too keep multiple cameras for multiple reasons. I appreciate full frame, APS-C and APS-H alike. I definitely like having both sensors with me on any shoot I do.

Very best,

raynard wrote in post #17784349
If you shoot sports and portraits witch one.

I'd go with the 7D2 if trying to get the best general-purpose solution. Portraiture with controlled lighting is no problem. I do portraiture right now with a 6D + 50/85/100 but if I had a 7D2 the only major difference would be that I'd use slightly shorter focal length lenses and my kit would more likely be 35/50/85 primes. The full-frame camera is going to have a bit of a bokeh advantage with outdoor or shallow DoF portraits, and a more considerable advantage in low-light, available light shooting. In a studio setting it won't make a bit of difference.

On the flip side, I would just not pick the 6D for anything involving sports, action or wildlife. I tried doing some birds in flight with it, and it was frustrating compared to using a 7D. The slow frame rate, lack of reach and non-action-oriented AF system all come into play significantly here.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17784366
Heya,


Personally for what you're describing, full frame isn't going to give you some kind of advantage. I will say this though, I like full frame for one real reason: EF lens lineup. I just like how the focal lengths and FOV work on full frame, compared to smaller sensors. EF-S glass has come a long way. But, I like the FOV of telephoto on full frame, as I can work more closely to subject, with longer lenses, for the look that provides. Other than that, full frame has no real advantage to me or to many people in regards to a lot of aspects of photography these days. You'll hear otherwise from others, I'm sure. But it's a simple truth if you've looked at a photo and thought it was great, and found out it wasn't from a full frame sensor, would you change your mind, right?

Very best,

Thank you for contributing to my thread, your advice is greatly appreciated. I have read MANY of your posts on here and value your opinion very much so.

With that being said, I agree with you in regards to the FOV on full frame. That will be a big help for me on car shoots, as I love shooting with my 85 f/1.8 and or 70-200 f/2.8. And many times it's tough fitting everything in frame with that much reach on my APS-C sensor.

And I personally think lots of the allure from full frame is seeing photos taken by full frame cameras. But the thing is, many of the people who own full frame cameras are very skilled at photography and produce great results, more so than crop cameras. Most beginners or amateurs don't go out and spend $2-5K on their first camera. So we see lots of sub par images from the crop bodies, simply because many owners of them are not as experienced as your general full frame user.

I see this right here in this forum. There are a few members that have 70D's that are VERY good behind the lens(I follow the 70D thread). Most of their photos look just as good as something taken with a full frame sensor. And that just proves that it's more about the person behind the lens, than it is the gear itself. User rebelsimon is one who comes to mind. His work is fantastic, although he just recently upgraded to a 5D3.

Like I already said, for what I need it for I think the 6D will suit me just fine combined with keeping my 70D. And I plan on buying the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC to pair up with my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC. Should make a great combo on the 6D.

gqllc007 wrote in post #17778678
I have both plus the 5Dmk3. The 6D I use for static objects and low light. I use the 7Dmk2 for wildlife and action. The 7Dmk2 can do it all. The 6D will limit you with the focusing. I also have the 5Dmk3 and if I had to pick one body to do everything then the 5Dmk3 would be my choice. It isn't amazing at wildlife and action but it is indeed better than the 6D

The 5d3 is quite good for action, almost as good as the 1d4, I have used it across a couple of NBA seasons. The 7d2 is working well too, and feels much like the 5d3.

ISO12800 works much better on the 7D2 than the 7D, I am getting very respectable results after developing a new set of NR actions. The only issue I have at this point is coloration/saturation. If I run a neutral picture style, the colors are entirely too saturated still, and I have to back off contrast and saturation. I had to go through all 300-400 pictures and mass update the raw to bring down settings below zero in the picture styles. The base styles are too aggressive on my copy, which is strange, I have never encountered that before with any other Canon body.

A sample fan photo from the evening at 12800 from the 7D2...

Teamspeed you are the high ISO king! You do amazing work...

Thank you, web sized final results always look better than the 70-100% view though.

The lighting in the venue has changed from last year. Now they have a ton of high intensity LED lights. I don't think it is throwing down more light, it is just a different temperature, and now they can change the colors which is frustrating. I think I see maybe 1/3 to 2/3 more light than before, because my ISO levels are still sitting in the range of 6400 to 12800 using the same exposure settings as last year. The lighting is more harsh on the floor, but the fans in the stands are now more evenly lit than before.

A couple other fan shots at high ISO, from the stands. I haven't done the game shots yet, the office wanted fan shots immediately.

Haha, and not having any SD cards was a big reason i didn't get a 6D, or maybe it's the dozen big CF cards I have that steered me to another 5D series.

As I'm a big MF lens guy, I rarely use the great AF that I apparently own.

Are "fan photos" a real gig? Or a series you have going?

They asked that I take shots of the fans for some of the promos they do with vendors that market with the league. Usually the other photog would do these, and I concentrate on the close up action.

Glad I found this thread!

I currently have a 70D and am thinking of either buying a 6D as a second body or selling my 70D and moving to a 5D3. If I were to add a 6D, I would also add a 24-70 f/2.8 lens.

Like the OP, I am interested in adding the 6D mostly for portrait photography, maybe landscapes. I already have a couple FF lenses, 70-200 F/4L, 85 1.8, 40 STM.

My dilemma is trying to decide if I should just go all in on FF and sell my 70D and all my EF-S lenses. From a cost standpoint, I would only end up spending about $300 more by only having the one 5D3 body versus the 70D/6D combo.

I like the added reach of the APS-C body for some of my photography, mostly sports & auto racing. I do have a 1.4X teleconverter for my 70-200 which I don't even use that much as the tracks I shoot, the 70D already give me 320mm of reach. When I also add the 1.4X teleconverter, I get 448mm. Often times that is too much reach for what I normally shoot.

If I used the teleconverter on the 5D3 with my 70-200 lens, I'd be at 280mm, a bit shy of just shooting my 70D w/o the teleconverter.

Other things I would be loosing are WiFi, on camera flash, flip out touch screen. I don't use the on camera flash much, but do occasionally use the WiFi connection to view shots right away on my iPad/iPhone. I use the flip out touch screen all the time though.

I've had the 70D for about 2 years now and it's always done a nice job, it's only really shortcoming is high ISO, personally I don't shoot above ISO 3200.

Of course the disadvantages of just adding the 6D as opposed to going only with the 5D3 as a second body is the AF system. Not only does it have fewer points and only 1 cross-type point, the AF system is slower with the same lens under the same conditions. This I know as I have personally tested it. I don't care at all about dual card slots so that's a non-issue.

I don't think a 7D2 is the right way to go for me, I don't see any significant advantage moving to a new APS-C body. I see this suggestion often in this thread which is not what me or the OP is asking.

So, I would be happy to contribute to and take suggestions from others. Please continue the discussion.

For sports AF and Canon lens corrections, the 5D3.
For everything else, including sheer value, the 6D

Teleconverters are no answer, get get a good sharp image and crop the hell out of a full frame image.
Things like flip-out screens and WiFi are non-issues.
Save your lens money; the 24-70 lens is generally un-needed, except for wedding guys.

My disclaimer is I prefer MF for everything except sports and journalism. I use my Canon zooms and 5D3 for Clients, but for everything else I use primes and could care less about the AF of the 5D3.

My 2 cents on this debate...

I shoot a lot of the same stuff the OP shoots.

I've currently got a 70D and a 6D.
I only recently picked up the 6D, but I got it to complement the 70D, not replace it. Wanted to dabble in full frame, and I'm happy with the decision so far.
After using it for a couple months now, some things I like and don't like about the 6D compared to the 70D

1. Autofocus is quicker to lock on the 70D - critical for motorsports and action shots in general.
2. The fps of the 70D is quite a bit quicker than the 6D. Nice for action and motorsports.
3. The low light performance of the 6D is worlds better than the 70D, and likely quite a bit better than the 7DII as well.

I like the reach of the APS-C, but there's something about the image quality of the full frame that I like - hard to describe.

Lenses I'm using:
On the 70D: 55-250 STM, 15-85 EF-S, 10-18 EF-S
On the 6D: 50 1.4, 24-105L

You are using faster lenses on the ff and most likely are noticing the dof pop you get with that combo. Try using the 50 1.4 on the 70d at f1.4 to get close to the same effect.

Strauss wrote in post #17785405
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC to pair up with my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC. Should make a great combo on the 6D.

Makes a great combo on both bodies!

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17785429
If I run a neutral picture style, the colors are entirely too saturated still, and I have to back off contrast and saturation. I had to go through all 300-400 pictures and mass update the raw to bring down settings below zero in the picture styles. The base styles are too aggressive on my copy, which is strange, I have never encountered that before with any other Canon body.

I ran into the same thing on my SL1...or maybe my 70D is under saturated? Anyway, I set them both to the same exact picture style and the SL1 images come out with much more saturation.