Upgrade to full frame

I am thinking about upgrading from a Canon T5i Rebel to the 6dmkii. Does anyone have any feedback about the camera. I already have L series lenses. The biggest hit the camera seems to have taken has been due to the lack of 4k video. I am not interested in video at all.

Please let me know what you think.

I appreciate your input.

 

Brian

What are all the lenses that you have now?

What type(s) of photography do you do ?

Do you make large prints?

What do you think are the limitations of your 700D / T5i ?

 

Thanks

 

WW

Not sure what to say. - I suppose enjoyability will depend on your subject preferences? - Will you get along with AF spots clustered in the image center? - I haven't handled any 6D but do use the far outer spots on my 5D IV. - Focus & recompose demands static subjects, "Nail something now & crop later" eats megapixels. But sure, shooting these ways has been done before.

 

The other usual laments about 6D II, dynamic range and single card slot seem less relevant to me. Agreed, due to the swivel screen it would become my wide body and more likely to need more dynamic range. OTOH we took pictures with worse older cameras too.

 

MILC vs. DSLR is an open question. - I assume shooting frame by frame, with the wide open 85mm f1.4 / 1.2, MILC would be preferable? - Firing sequences, somewhat stopped down, the DSLR (right now).

Thank you for the feedback. I currently have the 24-105L 70-200 F4L and 70-300L.

I do mostly outdoor photography animals, birds, etc. but now I want to get into landscape photography.

My wife and I also attend a lot of family events with our three grandsons so I want to be able to shoot indoors at higher ISO if needed. Not sure if I will upgrade just yet.I need to dor more homework. I like the idea of the 5dmkiv but that is out of budget range for right now.

No clue, since inexperienced, but wouldn't grandsons be a reason to pick the 6D II to shoot them in LV, to get the camera on their eye level?

Have you researched if higher ISO will be enough to cut your cake?

Flash might annoy others but gives great results.... - 2 wirelessly controlled Yongnuos in different corners of the room should get you far. While the 5D IV's AF is impressive (to me), I noticed it utilizing AF assist beams successfully in the dark.

I do LOTS of grandkid candid photography. However, I rarely do this with high ISOs. I mostly do it with bounced flash. I use a 5D III for this, but I think a 6D would be fine, as I don't use most of the fancy AF features of the 5D III for this. The one feature I do use is this: I always use single-point AF with kids, and I use the joystick on the 5D to move that AF point around. Not essential at all, but a convenience.

 

For landscapes, in my opinion, the 5 has no big advantages over the 6. For wildlife, it certainly does because of the powerful AF system.

 

However, you didn't answer one of William's questions, which I think should be your starting point. Do you print, and if so, how large? If you are not printing large, there is one less reason to go with full frame.

I do LOTS of grandkid candid photography. However, I rarely do this with high ISOs. I mostly do it with bounced flash. I use a 5D III for this, but I think a 6D would be fine, as I don't use most of the fancy AF features of the 5D III for this. The one feature I do use is this: I always use single-point AF with kids, and I use the joystick on the 5D to move that AF point around. Not essential at all, but a convenience.

 

For landscapes, in my opinion, the 5 has no big advantages over the 6. For wildlife, it certainly does because of the powerful AF system.

 

However, you didn't answer one of William's questions, which I think should be your starting point. Do you print, and if so, how large? If you are not printing large, there is one less reason to go with full frame.

My apologies I did forget to answer. I do print on occasion. My wife likes to make wall calendars and send them as Christmas gifts.

I think the only real upgrade here is to get more pixels. Otherwise APS-C or "full frame" is a matter of what you prefer, what lenses you have, and what you do, not an "upgrade" in terms of format.

@William Michael's questions (and your answers) are very relevant. I upgraded from a Canon EOS 40D (crop) to a 6D (FF) some years ago for better performance at higher ISO levels (low-light photography) and I've never had any regrets. Your EF lenses will of course have a wider wide-angle and less telelens reach on a FF compared to a 1.6 crop camera.

 

It's worth googling 'FF vs crop camera' to see some 'real world' differences. These are just two examples:

-

-

 

It's also good to do a bit more homework. This article summarises some differences. I suspect that nature photographers (animals, birds) and daylight sport photographers often like that extra bit of tele 'reach' (x 1.6) that crop cameras give them. Photographers who do a lot of low-light (outdoor or indoor) photography often like the lower noise level at higher ISO that FF cameras give. I also like the wider 'wide angle' on my walk-about lens for my FF.

 

When I decided to buy a FF, my impression was that FF photos had a more subtle dynamic range and showed finer details (skin, hair, textures) than crop sensors. For portaits, macro, etc. this is important. But IMHO, whether you actually notice any differences depends a lot on 'how close up you are' to your subjects.

 

If the 'real-world' examples are to be believed, there's often little noticeable difference (on a computer screen) between photos taken with a FF and with a crop camera, for many types of photo and under many common photographic conditions. But low-light (high ISO) photos taken with a crop camera may require more noise reduction PP than for a FF that comes with less ISO noise out of the camera.

 

For the photos you now take of your grandkids with a high ISO, you should be able to see how much noise the photos have and how work you need to do PP to reduce this to an acceptable level. If either of these are significant or if you want wider angles (home, landscape) from your current lenses and don't mind less tele reach, then a FF might well be a good choice.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Mike

 

PS. I kept using my 40D too in situations where the benefits of a 'longer reach' outweighed the 6D advantages. But for me, there were very few.

Edited March 8, 2019 by mikemorrell

With your widest FOV equivalent to 38mm (FF), I think that a FF upgrade would likely make sense, and would expect a significant improvement in high ISO and DR (and resolution) compared with the 18mp APSC camera you are currently using. I would also agree that for indoor family events, a Canon (or compatible) flash set to bounce off the ceiling will produce better images, in many situations, than available light. Picking up the cheap/good 50mm f1.8 STM would dramatically improve available light candid images, over the slow zoom lenses you currently use. The 6DII is the likely choice, though I would also look at the new RP mirrorless, which uses the same sensor. Not sure how well the RP plus adapter would handle the larger "L" lenses, but a 1lb FF camera would appeal to me.

Thank you again for all of your feedback. I am looking for a wider range with my lenses and better low iso performance. I have just heard so many negative reviews about the 6dmkii that I am not sure if I want one. I do have the 501.8, nifty fifty, and I think it is a great little lens. My thought process is better iso performance in high iso or long exposure with the full frame and use my crop sensor T5i for the reach. I really appreciate the feedback from everyone.

I have always preferred a crop body for telephoto subjects like sports and wildlife, since generally they have higher shooting rates and much denser sensors for detail. So, I have always tried to have a two body system because full frame cameras are much more appropriate for wideangle subjects like architecture and landscapes because the best lenses for this are made for full frame. Plus the added advantage of better dynamic range. I think the T5i and 6D II would be a good combo, although upon closer inspection the 6D II may outperform it even for telephoto photography with it's sensor and it's shooting speed.

 

 

AF is never a big concern for me so that is the one area I have no opinion on. My landscape setup is a new to me 5DS R and 17 TS-E, and my sports setup is the 5DS R and 70-200/4 L and Sony A6000 with 35 year old 400/2.8.

@William Michael's questions (and your answers) are very relevant. I upgraded from a Canon EOS 40D (crop) to a 6D (FF) some years ago for better performance at higher ISO levels (low-light photography) and I've never had any regrets. Your EF lenses will of course have a wider wide-angle and less telelens reach on a FF compared to a 1.6 crop camera.

 

It's worth googling 'FF vs crop camera' to see some 'real world' differences. These are just two examples:

-

-

 

It's also good to do a bit more homework. This article summarises some differences. I suspect that nature photographers (animals, birds) and daylight sport photographers often like that extra bit of tele 'reach' (x 1.6) that crop cameras give them. Photographers who do a lot of low-light (outdoor or indoor) photography often like the lower noise level at higher ISO that FF cameras give. I also like the wider 'wide angle' on my walk-about lens for my FF.

 

When I decided to buy a FF, my impression was that FF photos had a more subtle dynamic range and showed finer details (skin, hair, textures) than crop sensors. For portaits, macro, etc. this is important. But IMHO, whether you actually notice any differences depends a lot on 'how close up you are' to your subjects.

 

If the 'real-world' examples are to be believed, there's often little noticeable difference (on a computer screen) between photos taken with a FF and with a crop camera, for many types of photo and under many common photographic conditions. But low-light (high ISO) photos taken with a crop camera may require more noise reduction PP than for a FF that comes with less ISO noise out of the camera.

 

For the photos you now take of your grandkids with a high ISO, you should be able to see how much noise the photos have and how work you need to do PP to reduce this to an acceptable level. If either of these are significant or if you want wider angles (home, landscape) from your current lenses and don't mind less tele reach, then a FF might well be a good choice.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Mike

 

PS. I kept using my 40D too in situations where the benefits of a 'longer reach' outweighed the 6D advantages. But for me, there were very few.

Good morning Mike, thank you for the feedback. One of the driving factors is the low light high iso performance. We were on a cruise last fall, I took photos in an area that was dimly lit but flash would not work and the photos came out very noisy. The homework continues. I have even considered buying an old 5dmkii from a relative but I do not know how well he maintains his gear and I really do not want to go too far backward in technology.

@Brian Murphy, your reasons for upgrading to a FF (keeping your crop for extra reach) sound very solid and I'm sure that a 6D mk ii would be a big improvement.

 

I haven't read any 'negative' reviews of the 6Dmk ii in an absolute sense. The ones I've read all conclude that the 6D mk ii is a very good FF camera and a real improvement on the original 6D (which I have). Any question marks in reviews seem to focus on whether the 6D mk ii was/is enough of an improvement over the 6D, relative to the improvements that competitors had/have also made. To me, these question marks seem especially relevant for:

- original 6D owners like me who might be thinking of upgrading to the 6D mk ii (is it worth it?)

- new buyers into the 'camera system' market who are considering the 6Dmkii alongside similarly priced competing systems

 

Reviewers can place the same question marks about any upgrade (including the 5D mk iv). Sometimes they're delighted with upgraded features, sometimes disappointed that other features are not or only marginally upgraded. It's always worth asking yourself how important the different features are to you.

 

From the (few) 6D mk ii vs 5D mk iv comparisons I've read, the advantages of the 5d mk iv over the 6D mk ii would be marginal for me (as an amateur) compared to the vast difference in price. Even if you could the 5D mk ii - which is way out my range too - I might still prefer the 6D mk ii for other reasons (smaller size, less weight - the flip-out screen).

 

Good luck!

 

Mike

 

 

Thank you again for all of your feedback. I am looking for a wider range with my lenses and better low iso performance. I have just heard so many negative reviews about the 6dmkii that I am not sure if I want one. I do have the 501.8, nifty fifty, and I think it is a great little lens. My thought process is better iso performance in high iso or long exposure with the full frame and use my crop sensor T5i for the reach. I really appreciate the feedback from everyone.

@Brian Murphy, your reasons for upgrading to a FF (keeping your crop for extra reach) sound very solid and I'm sure that a 6D mk ii would be a big improvement.

 

I haven't read any 'negative' reviews of the 6Dmk ii in an absolute sense. The ones I've read all conclude that the 6D mk ii is a very good FF camera and a real improvement on the original 6D (which I have). Any question marks in reviews seem to focus on whether the 6D mk ii was/is enough of an improvement over the 6D, relative to the improvements that competitors had/have also made. To me, these question marks seem especially relevant for:

- original 6D owners like me who might be thinking of upgrading to the 6D mk ii (is it worth it?)

- new buyers into the 'camera system' market who are considering the 6Dmkii alongside similarly priced competing systems

 

Reviewers can place the same question marks about any upgrade (including the 5D mk iv). Sometimes they're delighted with upgraded features, sometimes disappointed that other features are not or only marginally upgraded. It's always worth asking yourself how important the different features are to you.

 

From the (few) 6D mk ii vs 5D mk iv comparisons I've read, the advantages of the 5d mk iv over the 6D mk ii would be marginal for me (as an amateur) compared to the vast difference in price. Even if you could the 5D mk ii - which is way out my range too - I might still prefer the 6D mk ii for other reasons (smaller size, less weight - the flip-out screen).

 

Good luck!

 

Mike

Thank you Mike.

@William Michael's questions (and your answers) are very relevant. I upgraded from a Canon EOS 40D (crop) to a 6D (FF) some years ago for better performance at higher ISO levels (low-light photography) and I've never had any regrets. Your EF lenses will of course have a wider wide-angle and less telelens reach on a FF compared to a 1.6 crop camera.

 

It's worth googling 'FF vs crop camera' to see some 'real world' differences. These are just two examples:

-

-

 

It's also good to do a bit more homework. This article summarises some differences. I suspect that nature photographers (animals, birds) and daylight sport photographers often like that extra bit of tele 'reach' (x 1.6) that crop cameras give them. Photographers who do a lot of low-light (outdoor or indoor) photography often like the lower noise level at higher ISO that FF cameras give. I also like the wider 'wide angle' on my walk-about lens for my FF.

 

When I decided to buy a FF, my impression was that FF photos had a more subtle dynamic range and showed finer details (skin, hair, textures) than crop sensors. For portaits, macro, etc. this is important. But IMHO, whether you actually notice any differences depends a lot on 'how close up you are' to your subjects.

 

If the 'real-world' examples are to be believed, there's often little noticeable difference (on a computer screen) between photos taken with a FF and with a crop camera, for many types of photo and under many common photographic conditions. But low-light (high ISO) photos taken with a crop camera may require more noise reduction PP than for a FF that comes with less ISO noise out of the camera.

 

For the photos you now take of your grandkids with a high ISO, you should be able to see how much noise the photos have and how work you need to do PP to reduce this to an acceptable level. If either of these are significant or if you want wider angles (home, landscape) from your current lenses and don't mind less tele reach, then a FF might well be a good choice.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Mike

 

PS. I kept using my 40D too in situations where the benefits of a 'longer reach' outweighed the 6D advantages. But for me, there were very few.

@William Michael's questions (and your answers) are very relevant. I upgraded from a Canon EOS 40D (crop) to a 6D (FF) some years ago for better performance at higher ISO levels (low-light photography) and I've never had any regrets. Your EF lenses will of course have a wider wide-angle and less telelens reach on a FF compared to a 1.6 crop camera.

 

It's worth googling 'FF vs crop camera' to see some 'real world' differences. These are just two examples:

-

-

 

It's also good to do a bit more homework. This article summarises some differences. I suspect that nature photographers (animals, birds) and daylight sport photographers often like that extra bit of tele 'reach' (x 1.6) that crop cameras give them. Photographers who do a lot of low-light (outdoor or indoor) photography often like the lower noise level at higher ISO that FF cameras give. I also like the wider 'wide angle' on my walk-about lens for my FF.

 

When I decided to buy a FF, my impression was that FF photos had a more subtle dynamic range and showed finer details (skin, hair, textures) than crop sensors. For portaits, macro, etc. this is important. But IMHO, whether you actually notice any differences depends a lot on 'how close up you are' to your subjects.

 

If the 'real-world' examples are to be believed, there's often little noticeable difference (on a computer screen) between photos taken with a FF and with a crop camera, for many types of photo and under many common photographic conditions. But low-light (high ISO) photos taken with a crop camera may require more noise reduction PP than for a FF that comes with less ISO noise out of the camera.

 

For the photos you now take of your grandkids with a high ISO, you should be able to see how much noise the photos have and how work you need to do PP to reduce this to an acceptable level. If either of these are significant or if you want wider angles (home, landscape) from your current lenses and don't mind less tele reach, then a FF might well be a good choice.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Mike

 

PS. I kept using my 40D too in situations where the benefits of a 'longer reach' outweighed the 6D advantages. But for me, there were very few.

Mike, I did watch the videos. Manny did say there is more detail on a full frame photo than the crop sensor.The angry photographer Theorias made a similar comment. I want to delve more into landscape photography and both of them said a full frame is better even if not by much. Right now I will most likely go with the 6dmkii to give FF a try. The 5div is a great camera but out of my budget boundaries.

Manny did say there is more detail on a full frame photo than the crop sensor.

 

This is why I asked how large you print. The greater resolution one can get out of a FF camera (holding all else constant) is more apparent as the size of the image increases. If you are displaying online or printing 8x10, I doubt you would see much if any difference in detail unless you had cropped severely.

 

It depends on the particular camera models, but for the ones I have, the difference in low light performance between FF and crop is quite noticeable.

This is why I asked how large you print. The greater resolution one can get out of a FF camera (holding all else constant) is more apparent as the size of the image increases. If you are displaying online or printing 8x10, I doubt you would see much if any difference in detail unless you had cropped severely.

 

It depends on the particular camera models, but for the ones I have, the difference in low light performance between FF and crop is quite noticeable.

I reread your first post. I use single point most of the time. I T5i has nine points and I do not think I have used anything but center point. My wife likes to do large wall calendars with prints of about 14x18,I think.

Good morning Mike, thank you for the feedback. One of the driving factors is the low light high iso performance. We were on a cruise last fall, I took photos in an area that was dimly lit but flash would not work and the photos came out very noisy. The homework continues.

 

You have to be realistic in your expectations.

 

I am guessing that you used your 24-105 L.

That is a f/4 lens. f/4 is marginal for low light.

 

In DIM lighting FAST glass wins.

But FAST glass is big, heavy and expensive.

f/2.8 was the fastest zooms, before Sigma came out with their f/1.8 lenses. And the Sigma f/1.8 zooms only have a 2:1 zoom range.

At a certain point, you have to switch to fast primes, to get a faster lens than the fast pro zooms.

 

Just because you can see a scene with your eyes does not mean the camera can capture the image.

At a certain point, even with a FF and a fast lens, you will need to use a flash.

As an example of "FAST glass wins."

I shoot high school gym sports; basketball and volleyball.

With a consumer zoom my exposure is ISO 12800, ss 1/500 sec, ap f/5.6

With a 35/1.8, my exposure is ISO 3200, ss 1/800 sec, ap f/2.

As flexible as the zoom is, vs. the single focal length prime, I ditched the zoom for the prime.

 

My 35/1.8 has a 3 stop advantage over my f/5.6 zoom, and a 2 stop advantage over your f/4 zoom. And 2 stops is a lot.

Yes it is a prime and I am stuck at one focal length. But that loss of focal length flexibility is the cost of a fast lens, so pick the focal length with care. But there is nothing that says you must have only one prime. One of the old standards for 35mm film cameras was a 35 + 85 (or 105), 2-lens kit.

You have to be realistic in your expectations.

 

I am guessing that you used your 24-105 L.

That is a f/4 lens. f/4 is marginal for low light.

 

In DIM lighting FAST glass wins. But FAST glass is big, heavy and expensive.

f/2.8 was the fastest zooms, before Sigma came out with their f/1.8 lenses. And these zooms are big, heavy and expensive. And the f/1.8 zoom only has a 2:1 zoom range.

At a certain point, you have to switch to fast primes, to get a faster lens than the fast pro zooms.

 

Just because you can see a scene with your eyes does not mean the camera can capture the image.

At a certain point, even with a FF and a fast lens, you will need to use a flash.

I agree. I do have the 50mm f1.8 as a start. .

As an example of "FAST glass wins."

I shoot high school gym sports; basketball and volleyball.

With a consumer zoom my exposure is ISO 12800, ss 1/500 sec, ap f/5.6

With a 35/1.8, my exposure is ISO 3200, ss 1/800 sec, ap f/2.

As flexible as the zoom is, vs. the single focal length prime, I ditched the zoom for the prime.

 

My 35/1.8 has a 3 stop advantage over my f/5.6 zoom, and a 2 stop advantage over your f/4 zoom. And 2 stops is a lot.

Yes it is a prime and I am stuck at one focal length. But that loss of focal length flexibility is the cost of a fast lens, so pick the focal length with care. But there is nothing that says you must have only one prime. One of the old standards for 35mm film cameras was a 35 + 85 (or 105), 2-lens kit.

I always knew the prime fast lens made a difference but your information really gives me a good understanding of how much. Thank you

You have to be realistic in your expectations.

 

I am guessing that you used your 24-105 L.

That is a f/4 lens. f/4 is marginal for low light.

 

In DIM lighting FAST glass wins.

But FAST glass is big, heavy and expensive.

f/2.8 was the fastest zooms, before Sigma came out with their f/1.8 lenses. And the Sigma f/1.8 zooms only have a 2:1 zoom range.

At a certain point, you have to switch to fast primes, to get a faster lens than the fast pro zooms.

 

Just because you can see a scene with your eyes does not mean the camera can capture the image.

At a certain point, even with a FF and a fast lens, you will need to use a flash.

I think I used an 18-55 efs but you are right it is not the fastest.

I think I used an 18-55 efs but you are right it is not the fastest.

 

The 18-55 is NOT a low light lens.

What you got is what I would expect from that lens in low light.

 

I shot a senior night presentation at school, and they turned OFF most of the gym lights :mad:

In that DIM lighting with my zoom, as I expected, I got less than a 5% keeper rate. And those that I got were marginal/poor IQ. It was WAY TOO DIM for my slow zoom (max f/3.5-5.6) even at ISO 25600.

I did not have my flash. But, even so, a flash would not have worked in that situation.

This year if they want pics, they have to keep most of the lights ON. No lights = No pictures.

I plan to have a meeting with the event organizers to work out the lighting. And we will probably have to do some experiments in the gym to see just how many lights they can turn off, before it becomes impossible to shoot with a fast prime.

 

The problem is, the human eye can see in a lot dimmer conditions than the camera can record.

Edited March 9, 2019 by Gary Naka

Why don't you look on Canon 5D Mark 3, if you can get lightly used or refurbished one, it will fit your needs. I had original 6D and while it was good camera overall, autofocus was just OK for static subjects, lack of joystick was limiting factor, and continuous AF wasn't good enough when used on moving subjects, like my grandkids.

Why don't you look on Canon 5D Mark 3, if you can get lightly used or refurbished one, it will fit your needs. I had original 6D and while it was good camera overall, autofocus was just OK for static subjects, lack of joystick was limiting factor, and continuous AF wasn't good enough when used on moving subjects, like my grandkids.

Hi Nick, I did consider that option. But I am leary of buying used from someone I do not know. Just my quirk. I did check into Canon refurbished and they had a 5diii for around 2400.00 but it comes with a lens. If I am spending that amount, I may as well throw in another 500.00 for a new 5dmkiv. But honestly the 6dii is within my budget range at this time. Thanks for the suggestion.