5d mark ii or eos 6d?

James Crockett wrote in post #18430515
I'm currently using a 5dmkii. It had roughly around 4k shutter count I believe when I bought it off ebay. It's in nice shape. I'm new to this forum and learn with this stuff everyday. I see these awesome pictures and was curious if I needed to upgrade since this camera was released in 08' I think it was. I don't do any studio work or use any special lighting outside. Thanks Alan!

If what you have works and you find that you are not hampered by the equipment, then I would just stay with what you have. Alot of photo results you see are post processed, and not knowing your skills or tools, perhaps taking some time with online tutorials on LR or Photoshop or GIMP, or whatever you use to see how you can enhance digital imagery might be a good way to spend time instead of money.

If you find that you have any of these situations, then the 5D2 should be upgraded:
o You have issues focusing in low light, the 6D seems like it can see in the dark, it is that good (and the 5D4, and 7D2, etc now)
o You notice that AF just doesn't always latch on and stay on target, even if you have the helper assist points turned on
o You would love wifi access to the camera to see and shoot remotely
o You want a better out of camera JPG than what you are getting (the 5D2 has an old JPG engine, the newer models produce better results)
o You want to go to SD cards
o You want longer battery life
o You want better high ISO (3200+) results
o Probably a few other things I am missing...

The later gen FF bodies really stepped up their game as a whole package over the 5D2, which was more of a evolutionary upgrade over the 5D. The 5D3 and 5D4 introduce 1D series AF, the 6D introduced a smaller, lighter FF offering with great IQ.

AlanU wrote in post #18430227
I do not own a 6D but just yesterday I took my kids out to Cates Park in North Vancouver, British Columbia with my 5dmk2 and 85Lmk2.

Even using the lowest ISO settings I was well over 1/4000 shutter speed shooting wideopen in open shade. I choose to shoot f/1.2 for a specific effect I wanted. Stopping down or slapping on ND filters is not an option I want to take.

If I was using a 6D indoors or where 1/4000 isn't an issues the 6D is simply a better performer in low light.

"If" I'm outdoors and owned a 6D I'd rather be shooting with my Fuji X-t2 with 56mm f/1.2 for an almost similar effect I get with my 5dmk2/3 with 85L for portraits outdoors. I just cannot tolerate 1/4000 cripped shutter speeds. My preference is a 1/8000 headroom camera body. It all depends on your needs/wants.

Or you could just stop the lens down to f1.8/f2 for the same effect with the 6D.

James Crockett wrote in post #18430276
Thanks everybody for the replies. I'm currently using the 5d mark ii and I see really nice photos with the 6d. Looking at the two on dxomark they are very similar. If I'm using my camera for portrait photography and considered upgrading what do you recommend? Hope all is well.

They're not different enough to warrant switching in my opinion. I would only do it if WiFi is really important to you (I personally couldn't own another camera without it). Image quality is basically a wash between them, 6D is better, but not leaps and bonds. Same story for AF.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18430720
If what you have works and you find that you are not hampered by the equipment, then I would just stay with what you have. Alot of photo results you see are post processed, and not knowing your skills or tools, perhaps taking some time with online tutorials on LR or Photoshop or GIMP, or whatever you use to see how you can enhance digital imagery might be a good way to spend time instead of money.

If you find that you have any of these situations, then the 5D2 should be upgraded:
o You have issues focusing in low light, the 6D seems like it can see in the dark, it is that good (and the 5D4, and 7D2, etc now)
o You notice that AF just doesn't always latch on and stay on target, even if you have the helper assist points turned on
o You would love wifi access to the camera to see and shoot remotely
o You want a better out of camera JPG than what you are getting (the 5D2 has an old JPG engine, the newer models produce better results)
o You want to go to SD cards
o You want longer battery life
o You want better high ISO (3200+) results
o Probably a few other things I am missing...

The later gen FF bodies really stepped up their game as a whole package over the 5D2, which was more of a evolutionary upgrade over the 5D. The 5D3 and 5D4 introduce 1D series AF, the 6D introduced a smaller, lighter FF offering with great IQ.

This.

James Crockett wrote in post #18430276
Thanks everybody for the replies. I'm currently using the 5d mark ii and I see really nice photos with the 6d. Looking at the two on dxomark they are very similar. If I'm using my camera for portrait photography and considered upgrading what do you recommend? Hope all is well.

If you have no issues with your MKII AF and using it for portraits (this is where I had problems with my MKII) here is absolutely no reason to update. If you want better pictures, get better lens, improve light technique and learn how to PP.
Our older daughter is paid photographer who does portraits. Most of the time she is working in low light with MKII, L 24-105 F4 IS zoom and Canon TTL on camera flash. Her digital PP makes very big difference from RAW photos on final image. She is not over processing and two+ hundreds shots are processed by her within four or less hours.

In your case 6D only makes sense for environmental, reportage portraits. Rain, snow blast.

From what i have seen here, no one mentioned one thing that makes 6D a no go for me. A skin tone. 5Dmk2 blows 6D into smithereens in that regard. Like 5Dc before it, skintones are amazing (yes 5Dc is even better). I can only assume that 6D in quest to make it even higher ISO reaching camera, was pushed too much and skintones are not like on 5Dmk2. Even 5Dmk3 has worse skintones then mk2, but considerably better then 6D.

My 2c.

mihazero wrote in post #18454074
From what i have seen here, no one mentioned one thing that makes 6D a no go for me. A skin tone. 5Dmk2 blows 6D into smithereens in that regard. Like 5Dc before it, skintones are amazing (yes 5Dc is even better). I can only assume that 6D in quest to make it even higher ISO reaching camera, was pushed too much and skintones are not like on 5Dmk2. Even 5Dmk3 has worse skintones then mk2, but considerably better then 6D.

My 2c.

Examples? You're literally the first person I've ever seen make that claim and I've been a member of this forum since before the 6D was even announced.

I just got my new-to-me 6Dc. I will be very interested to see how the colors compare the my 1D IV, which I love.

Every camera body seems to handle colors in a slightly different fashion... including skin tones, obviously.

James Crockett wrote in post #18430276
Thanks everybody for the replies. I'm currently using the 5d mark ii and I see really nice photos with the 6d. Looking at the two on dxomark they are very similar. If I'm using my camera for portrait photography and considered upgrading what do you recommend? Hope all is well.

Future repair issues is probably the main issue at this point. The 5D II will be abandoned by canon at some point. Probably pretty soon I would think.

mihazero wrote in post #18454074
From what i have seen here, no one mentioned one thing that makes 6D a no go for me. A skin tone. 5Dmk2 blows 6D into smithereens in that regard. Like 5Dc before it, skintones are amazing (yes 5Dc is even better). I can only assume that 6D in quest to make it even higher ISO reaching camera, was pushed too much and skintones are not like on 5Dmk2. Even 5Dmk3 has worse skintones then mk2, but considerably better then 6D.

My 2c.

The 5D classic did have a very good organic film look that was definitely beautiful. However due to the dynamic range limitations of the old technology highlight Bloom was quite common if you are not careful.

Canon sensors always had a nice magenta when pushed hard. I'm being sarcastic when I say nice magenta by the way. Seems like the 6d and 5D Mark III reduced that sort of magenta bandIng but not fully resolved that issue.

mihazero wrote in post #18454074
From what i have seen here, no one mentioned one thing that makes 6D a no go for me. A skin tone. 5Dmk2 blows 6D into smithereens in that regard. Like 5Dc before it, skintones are amazing (yes 5Dc is even better). I can only assume that 6D in quest to make it even higher ISO reaching camera, was pushed too much and skintones are not like on 5Dmk2. Even 5Dmk3 has worse skintones then mk2, but considerably better then 6D.

My 2c.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18454132
Examples? You're literally the first person I've ever seen make that claim and I've been a member of this forum since before the 6D was even announced.

I would like to see a couple examples as well. I have seen claims that the default colors between Canon and Nikon are a bit different but not really within the same camera line. Also, next to exposure, color is the simplest adjustment to make, well, maybe contrast then color, but all three, exposure color and contrast and about as easy to adjust.

gjl711 wrote in post #18454194
I would like to see a couple examples as well. I have seen claims that the default colors between Canon and Nikon are a bit different but not really within the same camera line. Also, next to exposure, color is the simplest adjustment to make, well, maybe contrast then color, but all three, exposure color and contrast and about as easy to adjust.

That is my problem... well, one of them. I'm color blind. I can't do color adjustments without my wife looking over my shoulder and helping. That's why I fell in love the with 1D IV. What I was seeing when I took the photo... I get with the 1D IV.

With that in mind, I am looking forward with more time with the 6Dc. I'm hoping it's close.. or between my wife and I, that it isn't hard to figure out what to do.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18454132
Examples? You're literally the first person I've ever seen make that claim and I've been a member of this forum since before the 6D was even announced.

Gladly, but i did comparison of this some time ago. Those files are long gone.

I can explain tho. 5Dmk2 files have both nicer skin color out of camera as well better color detail (more colors on the face and less banding due to limited color range). With 6D colors looked similar, but washed out a bit and color detail was lacking and banding was more pronounced. This was obvious even on 16bit image, but due to how PS 16->8bit works, i was able to make it almost impercivable after conversion. But out of LR and out of PS in 8bit ... upon closer look we could see difference.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

I can't say I have ever read someone state that the 6D has MORE banding than the 5D2.
The contrary has been written many times.

Try this, Google 5D2 banding issue.

eg:
http://cameras.reviewe​d.com …rk-ii-banding-issue-19629

Conversely, if you Google the same for 6D, you get lots of hits talking about how the banding issue was fixed and DR added to the 6D.

I wonder if you perhaps had a problematic camera, or were having issues with your post processing/color management that you were unaware of?

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18454300
I think you are the only person ever to say that the 6D has MORE banding than the 5D2.

Try this, Google 5D2 banding issue.

eg:
http://cameras.reviewe​d.com …rk-ii-banding-issue-19629

Did i say banding as in lack of detailed when file is being pushed or pulled or i was refering to less color range in skin tone out of camera? I kinda see the difference. One excludes the other. Also, on 5Dmk2 banding was mostly in shadows, not on skintones.

I had both. Personally I hated the 5DMKII. It was big and clunky. I hated the LOUD shutter sound. I like the form factor of the 6D better and the ISO is better (IMO).

All comes down to a personal preference.

Question regarding these two cameras. Yes, I'm a rookie bare with me. I seen the other day a guy was running a 5dmarkii with an 580 ex ii flash. Yes, I understand the 6d is better for higher iso performance but if your using the 5dmark ii with that flash does it matter how well the 6d works in low light? thanks and hope all is well your way.