80D or EOS 6D Mark II

Many of you suggested in a previous thread I move to a full frame camera due to lenses I already own.

 

My current gear:

Canon 20D body (Dead)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8

Canon Speedlite 420EX

 

Are all the above lenses compatible with a full frame camera like a 6D II or would I have to lose some of them?

 

Originally I was going to purchase 80D with Canon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, but i think 18-135mm is an EF-S lens which means its not compatible with full frame cameras. Anything I buy from now on I want to make sure is compatible with full frame in case I go that route in the future.

 

I think regardless of what I buy, I’m just going to get the body only and use my existing lenses for now. Maybe purchase one more lens fast prime or ultra wide angle lens.

 

So I narrowed my choice between 80D and EOS 6D Mark II, What is everyones thoughts on Canon eos 80d vs 6d? Some have said EOS 6D Mark II is like a Full frame 80D. Better in low light, full frame, etc…The bad news is it is almost negative is almost double the price of the 80D.

 

I have around $900 in Amazon credit plus another $1,000 I have saved up. Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

 

The type of photography I like to shoot: portraits, night scenes, indoor, landscapes, sports(my kid's basketball/soccer games), low light and creative photography.

Canon EF lenses can be used on both cameras. I use the Tamron on my (not mk II) 6D so it should be fine with a FF. So lenses are not an issue. The same applies - as far as I know - to the Speedlite.

 

There's often some debate whether FF sensors really do produce photos with (noticeably) better quality. I've read that FF sensors - being physically bigger - do perform better especially in low light situations (using a high ISO). Whether the improvement is worth it? I'll let others comment. I moved from a crop camera (40D) to a FF years ago and I've had no regrets.

 

An important point in making your choice is - given the lenses you have and might buy - when does the 'crop factor' (20D/80D) or lack of it (6D) help and hinder you?

The 'crop factor' gives your lenses 40% more reach. Fine for shots in the 'tele range'' (sport, wildlife, etc.) but so good when you want the widest angle. 200mm on a FF is 200mm but is almost 300mm on a crop camera. Similarly 28mm is 28mm on a FF but about 40mm on a crop camera.

 

A couple of links I came across that might help:

- crop vs FF

- Do you really need FF?

- 80D vs 6d mk ii

 

I hope others will chip in!

 

Mike

Which was better in the old days: 2 1/4" medium format or 24x36mm film?:confused:

 

"Full frame" and "crop" are just different formats. I carry one of each, a long telephoto on the "crop" and a wide-to-short tele on the FF. Lots of people do the same for the reasons Mike points out

 

I doubt that most people could tell the difference between shots with each if the pixel count is the same.

This question can't really be answered fully unless you say more about what types of photography you want the camera for. The 80D has a better AF system, for example. If you do mostly landscapes, that nets you virtually nothing, but if you do sports or candids of kids running around, it would. I haven't checked the 80D in this regard, but the 6D has one of Canon's best sensors in terms of low-light performance. Does that matter for your photography? Are you doing bug macros? then the greater pixel density of the 80D is a plus. Ditto, if you are doing wildlife photos.

 

Having used both formats extensively--I still own both--I agree with JDMvW, with a few caveats. Assuming you are only displaying on the web or printing small and don't work a lot in low-light conditions, I don't think people will be able to tell the difference when looking at the images. I don't think people can tell when looking at my smugmug gallery. However, I find my FF body a few stops more tolerant of low light than my crop body. (Neither of my bodies is one of the ones you are considering.)

 

Another issue is size. Some people prefer the size of crop cameras.

 

For my uses, the set of lenses you have is a very good mix for a FF camera. In fact, I have three of the same lenses for use with mine.

Just to throw more into the question for the same price as the Canon 6D Mark II you can buy the new mirrorless Canon EOS RP. The RP comes with an adapter so you can use your existing EOS lenses. It is newer in function and design than the 6D II and it is smaller. It will set you up for the coming switch over to mirrorless that I believe is coming. Good luck.

Many of you suggested in a previous thread I move to a full frame camera due to lenses I already own.

 

What previous thread? Your history appears to have only three posts? Please supply a link as background information to this new question, thanks.

 

***

 

 

My current gear:

Canon 20D body (Dead)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8

Canon Speedlite 420EX

Are all the above lenses compatible with a full frame camera like a 6D II or would I have to lose some of them?

 

Yes. All those lenses are compatible.

 

***

 

I narrowed my choice between 80D and EOS 6D Mark II, . . . Maybe purchase . . . ultra wide angle lens. . . . The type of photography I like to shoot: portraits, night scenes, indoor, landscapes, sports(my kid's basketball/soccer games), low light and creative photography.

 

You'll lose the narrower Field of View if you choose the 6DMkII, on the other hand there are not many lenses wider than 17mm, with an EF Mount, that are not pricey. I think this summarizes one of, if not the main consideration for you.

 

WW

You have nice set of full frame lenses, get 6D Mark II or 6D Mark I if budget is tight.

You have nice set of full frame lenses, get 6D Mark II or 6D Mark I if budget is tight.

+1

There will be a 90D released soon. That said I moved from an APS-C 7D to a FF 6D and have no regrets. Gave the 7D away as it was not being used.

The first 6D has one of the best sensors Canon ever put in a camera, very clean and film-like in lower light: nice used examples are now selling at fire sale prices ($600 or less). The 6DmkII is not that dramatic an improvement to spend double, esp if you aren't sure you will even like full frame. With the original 6D now bottomed out in price, you could buy one, shoot it a couple months, and if it doesn't thrill you it can be resold at just a slight loss (which you could think of as a "rental fee").

 

As others have said, with full frame sensors you trade the added tele reach of DX sensors for more versatility with wide angle lenses. That could be a plus or minus, depending on your style. Other than this, the only real drawback of the 6D is its AF: fine for most of the tasks you mentioned, but you might struggle a bit with the soccer and basketball.

Edited August 30, 2019 by orsetto

Where are you, OP?

6D is a very nice camera. 6DII is marginally better. Pick whichever fits your price range. All your lenses will fit perfectly.

6D is a very nice camera. 6DII is marginally better. Pick whichever fits your price range. All your lenses will fit perfectly.

6D is a very nice camera. 6DII is marginally better. Pick whichever fits your price range. All your lenses will fit perfectly.

Where are you, OP?

 

I don't get why people post a question, then disappear . . . :confused: