1dsmk2,6d, 5dmk2 or 7dmk2

I'm looking for something to replace my 40d. My photography is all over the place! My kids, wildlife and nature. Wanting something to do it all and one with good low light performance. The title has my choices. Trying to stay under 700.00.
Thanks.

6D > 5DMKII > 1Ds Mk2


6D vs. 7D2 <<<< this the question your left with

It's less about better, and more about what you want to do with it.

The 7DMkII on the whole is a far more advanced and capable piece of camera than everything else listed. It's the second most rugged body listed, fastest AF, and has a ton of bells and whistles the others don't. It's AF selection lever alone makes it a great body to use.

6D has the best image quality overall. But it's the lowest end body feature wise, and the least rugged. I'd still take it over the aging 5D2 in nearly all cases just for it's sensor. BUT that said, when I wanted a full frame body to add to my existing kit at low price, I was faced with 6D vs 5D2 at the same price and I chose 5D2 just for uniformity of controls. The 6D feels different, with controls a little more like a rebel than the 5D2/5D3/40D etc.

1Ds MkII, yeah this was an amazing camera,... back in 2005! You don't want to start with that old NiCD battery now in 2020. Worse, the pre "3" 1D bodies had the worst menu system. Canon finally merged the development it had been evolving on the 10D line with the 1D3, before that, it's a like a different thing all together. And the 5D2 has it beat on most everything except tank like build and AF, and of course that means the 6D is even more capable.


If you want the AF speed, and ruggedness of the 7D2 combined with Full Frame sensor, you need to jump up to the 5D3.

Thanks for the reply. Looks like i will be saving up a little more money!

Note, if your coming from 40D and have EF-S lenses, then think hard about whether you really want to move to Full Frame. Any EF-S lenses will need to be replaced, and on the whole, FF lenses tend to be more $ than EF-S equivalents.

7D2 is a favorite for all things wildlife.

In addition, if you are seriously considering a 6D, I'd suggest you also look at the Canon EOS RP.

With the free adapter you can use all of your EF and EF-S lenses, be it EF-S in crop mode.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

I have a 5d2 and a 7d2. I like the 5d2 more as a general use camera. For me I find I prefer the image quality with full frame, its subtle but I feel it's there, even with an older camera like the 5d2. That being said I do feel the 7d2 is a bit better with higher ISO's. When it comes to autofocus the 7d2 is worlds better.

For my personal use I prefer the 7d2 for tele and the 5d2 more for landscapes and portraits but mainly because I have EF lenses so I like having the wider end ( which is what I shoot more often )

- as mentioned above an RP may be a considerable choice as well. Not only can you use all of your lenses it will be much smaller and lighter.

Which lenses do you have? If you're on a budget and so can't splash out on more/replacing glass, that has to be an important factor and may make the choice between crop and FF more or less obvious.

Atrawick wrote in post #18963414
I'm looking for something to replace my 40d. My photography is all over the place! My kids, wildlife and nature. Wanting something to do it all and one with good low light performance. The title has my choices. Trying to stay under 700.00.
Thanks.

1Ds II, avoid. Nice old full frame sensor. Horrible menu and controls, ancient horrible batteries. Slow FPS. Really not the strengths of a 1D other than the body and weather sealing (which will be ancient and not as good at sealing out weather anyways). The menus alone are so bad to operate through that I would avoid anything older than a 1D Mark III.

6D would be excellent for everything. Still pretty modern.

5D2 is a good camera, but the 6D would be better in general with a slightly better sensor and better low light AF. The 5D2's AF system is the same system from the original 5D, it's pretty crude. So while it's affordable, I would get a 6D over a 5D2.

7D2 would be excellent for everything. Not sure I've seen 7D2 at $700 though?

1D Mark III is $400~500, modern batteries and menus, great camera, just limited pixel array, but if you're thinking of a 7D (original) I would get a 1D3 over a 7D1.

Not knowing anything, the 6D would be my choice for "do all." Good low light AF, sensitive, good high ISO performance, full frame, good noise performance, WiFi control so you can use it remotely via Wifi, modern menu & batteries, small and light for a full frame. It's really an excellent all around camera for $600 these days.

If considering a used full frame, as others mentioned, it may be worth looking at a used Canon Mirrorless like the M50 (APS-C, you could buy this new near your budget or close) and RP (full frame, $1k new, sub-$1k used).

Really though, you need good glass too. So that needs to factor in. Good fast glass on a full frame comes at the highest cost. Glass designed around APS-C will cost less and still be excellent. Something to consider there. Plus all the 3rd party stuff (Sigma, Tamron).

Very best,

I agree with everything that’s been said about the cameras. Including that I was weighing the 6d vs 5d2 and went 5d2 for uniformity- having already used a 7d and 5dc, I didn’t want to give up the joystick or the dual-function top buttons. And I already had tons of CF cards. So... yeah.

I do want to mention that for $700 you’re generally looking at pretty high-mileage 7d2s- I got mine from LensAuthority for $650, and it’s been great in the year I’ve had it. It does have over 230,000 on the shutter (only 10k of which are mine), but I’ve heard of people going over 500k on these shutters with no problems, so I haven’t let it bother me. But I always have a backup camera for anything important anyway.

I went from 2 7Ds to 2 6Ds. I wanted to go FF & my 7Ds were getting old. At this point, I would only "loose" 1 lens by going FF so I made the leap. Very tough transition as I am a sports photographer & I went from 7 FPS to 4 FPS. For me it really came down to 2 things, lighting vs speed. If lighting is no problem with what you shoot, I'd get the 7D II. However, if you are concerned about higher ISOs, I'd get the 6D. At 7 FPS it's a little easier to "spray & pray" (the FPS of the 7D II is 10!). The slower frame rate of the 6D has made me slow down & choose my shutter release a little more carefully. For right around $1,000 you can find 6D II & it's FPS is 7. The majority of my sports assignments for the newspaper are high school. Lighting at these athletic fields & gymnasiums are horrendous!!. The high ISO abilities of the 6D far outweighed the problem of a slower frame rate.

Thanks for all the info! I only have a 70-200mm f4 and a 18-55mm kit lens. I will be getting more lenses.

The 70-200mm F/4 is a stellar lens, & will work on a full frame. The kit lens isn't the best lens, but as far as kit lenses go, is supposedly very good.

Honestly, I can't believe how prices on the 24-105 have come down. I've seen them listed on FM for $350. Heck, there's a 24-105 mk2 on Boston Craigslist for $450... so if you go FF and want to replace the kit lens, that lens has become a no-brainer to me.

I would start by upgrading the wider end of lens with a fast prime. After that a clean 5DIII would be a good choice.

I looked at both versions of the 24-105mm. Everything I've read was saying the Mark II was not a real upgrade from version I. I then read that the 24-70mm F/4 was a better choice than the 24-105 F/4 M I. I had the chance to buy the 24-70mm F/4 @ $799. Jumped on it & very happy ever since.