Probubly the 500th 6D vs 7DII Thread

For video i have the GX8 which does awesome 4k I do rather like it for what its used for after all..

Probubly getting the 7DII, I just cant feel the "Yes the 5DIII is worth $1000 more" itch from it.. Theres even part of me that thinks i should watch a few months from now in case theres a 6DII or something...but birding season will be past at that point.... but more likely when i decide to indulge in a FF body it will maybe be a Sony or Canon mirrorless as a sort of replacement for the GX8, As thats really the camera "suited" to FF better.. But thats not for a while (Im quite happy with my GX8 as I said) I've found 8fps to be useful after all

Once you have decent AF, I think even the better image quality of 6D may not out rule having better AF.

Nothing is more frustrating for me, than to hear the lock, it looks ok, get back to the computer and find out we were not even close to sharp on those outer points, and really, unusable past websize. Give me grain any day over blur. Now, I do love the 5D3 files, but for everyday and sports, I pull out the 7D2.

Ksbal's comments makes sense. Missing a shot due to AF is simply a bad shot regardless of how good the IQ is from that body.

Today on a casual family outing at a petting zoo/pony ride farm I brought my 5d3, 16-35 f/4IS, 70-200 and for "testing purposes" I brought my Fuji with 18-55 kit lens and 16mm f/1.4 prime.

I'll have to say the 5d3 was effortless with incredible IQ as usual. The keeper rate is virtually 100% as far as IQ is concerned and human/user error was the "bad" images.

The fuji is "off topic" but IMO IQ substantially surpasses my old 5dc, 50D and friends 60D and your 7D. The fuji can't touch my 5dmk2, 5dmk3 as far as IQ and sharpness is concerned. However the quality of the fuji files is some how so pleasant looking that it's incredibly pleasing to my eyes.

The Fuji simply fails in some ways but for my casual use I'm fine with it. For the horse/ride and running goats LOL!! if I brought my 5dmk2 (just like 6d) I would have had more keeper rates than my fuji.

The "fail" I speak of with my fuji isn't an totally epic fail but I did have missed shots because of the sluggish AF on my X-T10. My 5d3 was on my hip using my spider holster pro. The 5d3 was virtually flawless in capturing everthing I threw at it.

For my family documentation the Fuji has actually been better in keeping a high level of IQ in all of the files I've produced with that camera. I do not own a GX8 but my Panny Gh3 w/ 12-35 f/2.8 or previous E-m5 did not produce the level of quality files compared to my fuji.

My point..... Miss any shots due to AF you'll be extremely annoyed especially if it's a paid gig and your playing with a clients "pivotal moment" of their life. A 5d3 or 7 dmk2 will deliver.

The 6d may possibly miss a shot here and their due to AF but I'd still be happy with the performance for a paid gig. Lack of dual memory cards is always a possibility of an issue.

If we are strictly casual you may accept missed shots. I'd rather take some missed shots but having the bulk of my photos with High IQ. Even with the GX8 DFD AF you may land the shot but the IQ will not be equivalent to a 6d/7dmk2 in lower light.

Accept compromises as you select your tools from your toolbox.

Same train of thought can be applied to the 7dmk2 vs 6d. If your constantly in a low light environment you may prefer a 6D. There's a possibility of missing AF shots for faster action but better IQ for the bulk of your shots. The 7dmk2 may land the shots but you may prefer the IQ of the 6d.

I'd prefer a 6d for a challenging reception over a 7dmk2 if you want the best IQ from your canon gear. Probably not the best example because in many cases you'd supplement the lighting with strobes. The 7dmk2 will do fine but in this case a 5dmk3 would be more "ideal".

You must analyze your shooting situations......

I've decided the 7DII is the next member of my family.. the number of shots the last few days where i simply went "This isnt possible on a slower camera" is what pushed me over the edge.. I had a series of a robin chowing down on a worm for instance that I KNOW the 6D could not capture with such certainty.. then theres stuff like this:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GtVL​uQ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GtVM​S9

Obviously I'm late to the thread but I believe the 7DII is a great choice. You mentioned ergonomics of the 5DIII and that was the only thing that had me confused, the two cameras are basically identical ergonomics wise.

I own both and to be honest since I got the 7DII I find myself using it more than 5DIII for several reasons, its a fun camera to use, the files are very clean compared to any crop camera I've owned. The biggest difference between 7DII and 5DIII is that full frame look you can get for portraits. Both cameras compliment each other.

I am no longer in a position to upgrade my full frame so the 7DII is now the main camera to save the wear and tear on 5DIII.

I love my 5DIII for serious landscapes and portraits but for everything else the 7DII is in my opinion as good and in some cases better, the focus system is great and beats 5DIII. I think you have made a great choice personally. Id have only got a 6D for a back up to my 5DIII, its a nice camera but just cant match the 7DII for what you need your camera for.

aladyforty wrote in post #18011902
Obviously I'm late to the thread but I believe the 7DII is a great choice. You mentioned ergonomics of the 5DIII and that was the only thing that had me confused, the two cameras are basically identical ergonomics wise.

I own both and to be honest since I got the 7DII I find myself using it more than 5DIII for several reasons, its a fun camera to use, the files are very clean compared to any crop camera I've owned. The biggest difference between 7DII and 5DIII is that full frame look you can get for portraits. Both cameras compliment each other.

I am no longer in a position to upgrade my full frame so the 7DII is now the main camera to save the wear and tear on 5DIII.

I love my 5DIII for serious landscapes and portraits but for everything else the 7DII is in my opinion as good and in some cases better, the focus system is great and beats 5DIII. I think you have made a great choice personally. Id have only got a 6D for a back up to my 5DIII, its a nice camera but just cant match the 7DII for what you need your camera for.

I am in the same boat. I picked up a 7D2 last fall, and I have pulled out the 5D3 twice since, once for Christmas portraits, and also for a senior shoot. However, I know for both, I could just use the 7D2.

The fully working auto ISO in manual mode (ie. AvTv mode) on the 7D2 is one of the main reasons, but also, the multi frame burst at high ISO where the camera merges the shots together yields very clean high ISO shots on the 7D2, better than the single shots from the 5D3. Not good if there is movement, but otherwise great.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18011933
the multi frame burst at high ISO where the camera merges the shots together yields very clean high ISO shots on the 7D2, better than the single shots from the 5D3. Not good if there is movement, but otherwise great.

Not sure I understand that??? did not know it existed

It is one of the high ISO NR settings, but only shoots jpg, raw has to be turned off.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18012139
It is one of the high ISO NR settings, but only shoots jpg, raw has to be turned off.

Thanks, will have to check that one out

Also coming to this late, but...

I think the 7DII choice was the right one.

I was also a 7D owner (really annoyed by the 7D's inability to shoot anything above ISO400 without totally ridiculous amounts of noise), although, to be fair, I brought it for the 8fps for motorsport and probably used it above ISO100 maybe 20 times in 3-4 years...

I was also looking at choosing between the 5DIII and 7DII.

While in a perfect world, I would have brought both, the 7DII for sport and reach and the 5DIII for portrait and higher ISO shooting, I had all but decided to go FF with the 5DIII (the 6D wasn't even considered due to it being, basically, a low spec, entry level FF), but price and reach were issues and I went 7DII in the end...

Still limit my ISO to under 1000, I never shot above this with a film camera, no need to with digital, but I find the 7DII an amazing step up from the 7D...

Got it bundled with the 15-85 IS USM and I've gotta say, it's a great lens (vastly superior to the old 17-85 I had with the 40D).

My only concern about the 7DII is having to muck about to get an equivalent 50mm...

Looking at a Sigma 30mm f1.4 which will, near as damn it, be a 50mm on the 7DII.

STIC wrote in post #18013136
Also coming to this late, but...

I think the 7DII choice was the right one.

I was also a 7D owner (really annoyed by the 7D's inability to shoot anything above ISO400 without totally ridiculous amounts of noise), although, to be fair, I brought it for the 8fps for motorsport and probably used it above ISO100 maybe 20 times in 3-4 years...

I was also looking at choosing between the 5DIII and 7DII.

While in a perfect world, I would have brought both, the 7DII for sport and reach and the 5DIII for portrait and higher ISO shooting, I had all but decided to go FF with the 5DIII (the 6D wasn't even considered due to it being, basically, a low spec, entry level FF), but price and reach were issues and I went 7DII in the end...

Still limit my ISO to under 1000, I never shot above this with a film camera, no need to with digital, but I find the 7DII an amazing step up from the 7D...

Got it bundled with the 15-85 IS USM and I've gotta say, it's a great lens (vastly superior to the old 17-85 I had with the 40D).

My only concern about the 7DII is having to muck about to get an equivalent 50mm...

Looking at a Sigma 30mm f1.4 which will, near as damn it, be a 50mm on the 7DII.

I routinely use my 7DII at ISO 2000 to 3200, noise is not an issue contrary to what one reads online. Lightroom cleans up noise really well. Ive never understood the pixel peeping mentality, we dont view photos with out eyeball right on top of the shot

I go the other way, I just can't understand the current trend to ramp the ISO up to ridiculous heights...I just don't get it.

When I shot film, I would occasionally but the odd roll of 1000 B&W but for every day shooting, nothing above 400...

With digital, I do the same (well, couldn't with the 7D because of it's abysmal noise above ISO200), 99 percent of my shots are at ISO100, the remaining 1 percent are around 320-400 with one or two at 1000...

As I have been an automotive photographer for publications for many years, I'm used to making sure my images are clean for printing, it's not pixel peeping, it's just acceptable quality...

I always shoot jpeg + RAW, and find the 7DII is pretty good up to ISO1000 with raw file conversion in photoshop, but I just don't get some of the images I see posted on forums taken at ISO10,000 etc...they just look like arse...


If anything, i'd like the option to go down in ISO and have ISO50...

STIC wrote in post #18013163
I go the other way, I just can't understand the current trend to ramp the ISO up to ridiculous heights...I just don't get it.

When I shot film, I would occasionally but the odd roll of 1000 B&W but for every day shooting, nothing above 400...

With digital, I do the same (well, couldn't with the 7D because of it's abysmal noise above ISO200), 99 percent of my shots are at ISO100, the remaining 1 percent are around 320-400 with one or two at 1000...

As I have been an automotive photographer for publications for many years, I'm used to making sure my images are clean for printing, it's not pixel peeping, it's just acceptable quality...

I always shoot jpeg + RAW, and find the 7DII is pretty good up to ISO1000 with raw file conversion in photoshop, but I just don't get some of the images I see posted on forums taken at ISO10,000 etc...they just look like arse...


If anything, i'd like the option to go down in ISO and have ISO50...

a lot of my photos are ISO 100 however there are times when especially with wildlife in low-lit areas that high ISO is needed, this is where I have noticed the biggest improvement with the 7DII over the original, the ISO seems to get better the higher it goes, I never go over ISO 6400 with either of my cameras as a rule. I just like that I'm not tied to a flash the way I was with film. Most of the film photos I had at ISO 400 were as grainy as 3200 on the 7D original so digital has made a huge difference I guess

STIC wrote in post #18013163
I go the other way, I just can't understand the current trend to ramp the ISO up to ridiculous heights...I just don't get it.

When I shot film, I would occasionally but the odd roll of 1000 B&W but for every day shooting, nothing above 400...

With digital, I do the same (well, couldn't with the 7D because of it's abysmal noise above ISO200), 99 percent of my shots are at ISO100, the remaining 1 percent are around 320-400 with one or two at 1000...

As I have been an automotive photographer for publications for many years, I'm used to making sure my images are clean for printing, it's not pixel peeping, it's just acceptable quality...

I always shoot jpeg + RAW, and find the 7DII is pretty good up to ISO1000 with raw file conversion in photoshop, but I just don't get some of the images I see posted on forums taken at ISO10,000 etc...they just look like arse...


If anything, i'd like the option to go down in ISO and have ISO50...

It is quite obvious you are not shooting the type of events that require high ISOs, so it is understandable that you don't feel the need for high ISO.

I can also state that printed material with what seems to be noisy images will mask alot of that noise naturally, what you see when you are zoomed in at any level on the digital image won't necessarily ever be seen in the print.

80% of what I shoot is at ISO 6400 and higher, and we print posters from those results with no discernible noise in the final product, of course after I have post processed.

The 7D was about 1 2/3 stop worse than the 5D3, and the 7D2 sits right in the middle of that gap, just as a general measurement of where these 3 aforementioned bodies rank.

I get that, but, editors are very keen to point out ANY imperfection in an image (even when it won't impact on the printed image) and you often get on better with them if you keep your images clean...

I do think it's about time the camera companies started reigning in the High ISO's though, and gave us the options at the other end...