Bogino wrote in post #18397944
If 90%+ of your photography consisted of:
- Macro Photography
- Macro Photography in a lowlight setting (i.e. in the rainforest)
- Wildlife photography in the rainforest (slow moving or near still animals) (in low light conditions off course)
Would there be a "decided
" advantage using either the 7D Mark II or the 6D (either the current version or just released 6D Mark II)?
If you are really going to fill the frame well, and you're going to use shallower DOF, and are shooting faster than f/2.8 a lot, then the 6D will capture a bit more light.
Stopped down, the FF really doesn't have any generic benefit, except that at base ISO, if lighting and stillness allow the longer exposure, allows capture of more total light with the same sensor.
They have about the same read noise at the image level at ISO 100; the 6D gets to a stop better at high ISOs, but 2/3 f that is taken back in equivalence.
For a crop from the 6D2 the size of APS-C, the 6D has less resolution, but a 1/3-stop high-ISO noise benefit. The 7D2 has 2/3 stop DR benefit at ISO 100 compared to a 6D crop.
At f-numbers below 2.8, the larger pixels of the 6D lose less light to microlens compromises, by somewhere around a 1/3 stop less (IIRC) at f/1.4.
The 6D2 has about the same read noise as the 6D at high ISOs, and about 1/2 stop worse at base ISO, if pre-release camera RAWs are the same as official-release cameras.
I own both the 6D and 7D2. I favor the 6D for super-wide, and super-fast f-number shooting. I favor the 7D2 for shooting small birds, as the slightly higher (1/3-stop) extra read noise is offset by more pixels-on-subject and better AF.