Full-frame for low-light - 6D or D750?

I currently shoot with a Sony A6000, and although it's a great little camera, it's low light capabilities are just horrible, plain and simple. The focus is very slow and takes forever to acquire, if at all, and also there is a LOT of noise at high ISO. I was thinking of adding a full-frame camera to the A6000 for low light shooting, and maybe later switch altogether. After a lot of reading on the web I've chosen these two models. However, the 6D is currently very outdated, and the D750 has (or had?) a lot of QC issues, which gets the whole thing even more complicated....
I've also thought about the Sony A7 series but don't trust them for customer support if needed.

I usually shoot on trips, and sometimes on family events. Need to shoot more I know...

So, which one would you recommend?

TIA

Heya,

Why not Sony A7S or A7SII? Can't beat 'em for low light right now.

Not sure how you don't trust their customer support, but some how trust Canon's....

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17833271
Heya,

Why not Sony A7S or A7SII? Can't beat 'em for low light right now.

Not sure how you don't trust their customer support, but some how trust Canon's....

Very best,

Hi

Don't know, these cameras are mainly for video as far as I know. And, 12 megapixels is not enough (and yes, I know that great photos have been made with even less, bla bla bla). Even my first DSLR, the Canon T2i, had 18 megapixels.

rfe777 wrote in post #17833274
Hi

Don't know, these cameras are mainly for video as far as I know. And, 12 megapixels is not enough (and yes, I know that great photos have been made with even less, bla bla bla). Even my first DSLR, the Canon T2i, had 18 megapixels.

They are stills cameras, with video capabilities. Not the other way around.

18MP is meaningless.

What do you do with your images? Print large 30x20's? Ever? Do you print anything greater than 16x20? Or even 8x10?

Being serious, what you do with your image at the final display is what matters, and if it's not a large print, and unless you're doing seriously big greater than 75% crops or something, you'd be hard pressed to need more than 8~9MP for most applications today. Printing, more megapixels can be helpful, if you're not cropping significantly already.

I have a 4MP and 6.3MP pair of cameras that still take excellent quality images for general display and reasonable print size (upwards of 8x10).

Again, if you print, I can see the argument for more and more megapixels.

Anyhow to the more important point, lower resolution on a large sensor means bigger photo buckets. This is why the A7S and cameras like it (1DX, etc) have lower resolution. They do it to gain significant ISO performance and signal to noise ratios. If you really want a low light performer, this is more the category you're looking at.

12MP can print 16 x 24 very nicely.

I print big 16's from my 13MP 5D all the time with sharp eyelashes.

So what are you doing with your 18MP or higher files ultimately at the end of the day? That's what matters.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17833280
They are stills cameras, with video capabilities. Not the other way around.

18MP is meaningless.

What do you do with your images? Print large 30x20's? Ever? Do you print anything greater than 16x20? Or even 8x10?

Being serious, what you do with your image at the final display is what matters, and if it's not a large print, and unless you're doing seriously big greater than 75% crops or something, you'd be hard pressed to need more than 8~9MP for most applications today. Printing, more megapixels can be helpful, if you're not cropping significantly already.

I have a 4MP and 6.3MP pair of cameras that still take excellent quality images for general display and reasonable print size (upwards of 8x10).

Again, if you print, I can see the argument for more and more megapixels.

Very best,

I rarely print, only viewing my images on my PC and online. However, what does concern me is the tonal range of the 12 megapixel sensor, which MAKES a difference between this one and a 20 or 24 megapixel one.

rfe777 wrote in post #17833287
I rarely print, only viewing my images on my PC and online. However, what does concern me is the tonal range of the 12 megapixel sensor, which MAKES a difference between this one and a 20 or 24 megapixel one.

Heya,

Ok.

I hope you find the camera that is great for you.

Very best,

I'd say a 6d or a used a7s if you're looking for picture in low light. Thats what i'm currently on the fence of now. I was planning on getting a a7 because the af is better than the a7r and s and i don't have enough to spend for the mark 2 versions. but if you do shooting at night i think those 2 cameras are the best at the moment. you can get a 6d body for 1000. the a7s is still a lot more than that.

I would go with the Nikon D750 super fast focus and super clean images always sharp images.

I also have a a6000 two of them and you are right they suck in low light i am working on a way to use a AF assist to focus beter in low light but then i still need to keep the iso under 800 or less or the images are noisy.
I had a Nikon D750 i used for a few weeks and have older Nikon cameras all that work better then the a6000 i just like the size of the a6000 and how it works.

But i will most likeley end up with anoher D750 to go with it to for darker weddings and receptions as we get closer to the wedding time of year here.

Here is one from the D750 for a sports event i shot a MMA fight i shot them every month for a few years.

Other advantages of the D750 are you can shoot in the cropped mode shooting 12MP raw files all you even need for a wedding reception and at any time just in a half second swith back to FF for wider shots.

I have a 6D so I'd recommend that since for my shooting it's the perfect camera.

But you are cross-shopping cameras from 3 different manufactures, and 1 of them also happens to be a mirrorless. This isn't exactly one of those old do I go with a T5i or T4i type comparisons.

I got to think their feature sets are different enough that one has to win FOR YOU because of something. Maybe price dictates you go for the 6D. Maybe you need the D750's more advanced AF system. Maybe you like the video functions of the A7s or the slightly superior low light ability (although from what I"ve seen and read online, the A7s's low light abilities aren't that far ahead of the other two if you downscale to 12 mp. I think dpreview addressed this).

My sister has a A6000 and I shot it at 12,800 no problem(no focus issues either in p*** poor light). It's on par with my A7 as far as ISO. I have also shot a 6D and it had a totally usable 25,600.

I went from the 6d to the d750, trust me the d750 is much better. Cleaner at high ISO, better shadow recovery, more dynamic range in general

Love shooting my 6D at night. I don't think you could really go wrong with either of those bodies.

DigitalEd wrote in post #17833415
I would go with the Nikon D750 super fast focus and super clean images always sharp images.

I also have a a6000 two of them and you are right they suck in low light i am working on a way to use a AF assist to focus beter in low light but then i still need to keep the iso under 800 or less or the images are noisy.
I had a Nikon D750 i used for a few weeks and have older Nikon cameras all that work better then the a6000 i just like the size of the a6000 and how it works.

But i will most likeley end up with anoher D750 to go with it to for darker weddings and receptions as we get closer to the wedding time of year here.

Here is one from the D750 for a sports event i shot a MMA fight i shot them every month for a few years.

Other advantages of the D750 are you can shoot in the cropped mode shooting 12MP raw files all you even need for a wedding reception and at any time just in a half second swith back to FF for wider shots.

Hosted photo: posted by DigitalEd in
./showthread.php?p=178​33415&i=i21249273
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

NICE SHOT! What is the EXIF data?

Thank you all for your replies

I forgot to mention that I don't shoot video, at all.

I've held the D750 in a camera store a while ago, and can't tell if the grip is quite comfortable enough. Can't decide on that... I would say it's quite narrow, but maybe I'm too picky here? maybe it's something you get used to?

Another thing is the tilting LCD, which the 6D lacks. There are some shoots with the A6000 which I couldn't have taken without it.

However, the price is all the way in favor of the 6D.

Choices choices... can't decide...

jsecordphoto wrote in post #17833464
I went from the 6d to the d750, trust me the d750 is much better. Cleaner at high ISO, better shadow recovery, more dynamic range in general

May I ask why did you do that?