XSi, 7D and 6D

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by proust, Aug 9, 2014.

  1. I currently have 3 DLSRs - Canon Rebel XSi, 7D and 6D. I want to keep the 6D and sell one of either XSi or 7D. I can't decide which one, though. I realize this is a personal decision but I'm looking for alternative perspectives on how to approach this. I primarily use these cameras for nature photography and sell prints online through a POD service.
    I feel like keeping the XSi and selling the 7D - that gives me a small, lightweight DSLR to carry around in situations where I don't feel comfortable carrying the 6D. If I break/lose it, it's not as big of a financial damage as the 7D. Selling the 7D will raise more cash than the XSi and I can use the cash for future gear. However, the XSi is of much lower quality than the 7D, so...
    However, I also feel like keeping the 7D is a good idea as it's a great camera and can be a good substitute for the 6D, quality-wise (which the XSi isn't). However, selling the XSi isn't going to raise as much $ as the 7D. I can definitely use the extra $ to buy a new lens.
    Any perspectives on this subjective topic are welcome and appreciated :)
  2. Sell them both and get another 6D as back up. Nature work wants the best image quality you can muster. I know cost is often an issue but don't tip-toe around your gear. Use common sense precautions and get that full framer working for you.
  3. I think the key question is this: "the XSi is of much lower quality than the 7D, so...". Lower quality in which ways? I'm not a Canon user and hence not intimately familiar with all details, so I may overlook a few things. What lower quality aspect of the XSi is potentially holding you back?
    If part of your nature shots are wildlife, I'd keep the 7D, no doubt, for the AF (plus APS-C crop factor). If you hike through very rough areas, the durability of the 7D could be a key aspect too. Long hikes, the weight of the XSi. In my hands, a 7D would handle loads better for quick action, but for tripod-based slow shooting, handling issues are much less of a point. If the quality means the amount of megapixels, then it really only matters how this relate to the sizes you print, and whether or not the somewhat lower megapixel count will mean a loss of sales. I doubt it does.
    So, define which quality matters most first.

    But most of all what Louis said; no need to babysit the 6D either. Yes, it's more expensive but compared to a 7D, not THAT much more, really. Maybe a second 6D, which will also allow you to rationalise your lenses to a single format, could work out best. It depends on a bit on what kind of nature shots you mean, and which qualities you are most looking for in a camera.
  4. Thanks for your responses. I should've clarified that by nature photography, I meant landscape. Also, by 'lower quality' of the XSi (entry-level DSLR), I was referring primarily to resolution and ISO noise (ISO especially for star photographs)
    That being said, I was curious why you suggest I should get a 2nd 6D. What would I do with 2 cameras that are the same? Willemse, you said that I can rationalize the lenses to a single format...do you mean I can get rid of EF-S lenses and keep only EF lenses? But still, what would I do with 2 of the same cameras? :)
  5. With rationalising, I not so much meant getting rid of EF-S lenses - don't know if you have any - but rather having something as a 17-40 as single wide angle, rather than also needing a 10-22 alongside to fit the second sensor format.
    Why the second 6D? I guess the answer to that question is: why do you have 3 DSLRs at the moment? Aren't they purely as backup? If it's mainly landscape and you don't need a backup camera, personally I would shift entirely to a single 6D, and a solid set of lenses for that body.
  6. Indeed. Sell both and focus on lenses for the 6D
  7. Recently sold my 7D: great camera but I rarely shoot action anymore and it was larger and heavier than the 6D (& 5D MKII). I find the combo of 6D and Rebel SL1 to be ideal for my style of photography--landscape, street, travel and macro. When I shoot travel or shoot landscape I bring my 6D and a couple lenses. I carry the SL1 with 24 2.8 IS USM in my messenger bag, even when going to work or shopping, and get lots of candids and street shots I would otherwise miss with my heavier gear.
    I would never want two of the same cameras. EOS designs are very similar so it only takes a couple days to get used to the small differences and smoothly move from one body to the next.
  8. If your selling wildlife prints, I don't understand how you can even consider accepting the lower quality than the 7D. I'd sell them all and get a 5D MkIII.
  9. I don't think the 5D MKIII will yield better print quality than the 6D. If anything, the 6D bests the 5D3 a notch at high ISO and noise control in low mids and shadows.
  10. Puppy Face, he says he's shooting "nature photography". I'm assuming that includes mammals and birds; otherwise, he would have said landscapes. The AF system of the 5D MkIII will run rings around all the other bodies he's mentioned and the 6D's high ISO performance isn't really a big difference since most shots will be at ISO 800 and below. For landscapes, he can dump everything else and keep the 6D, but if you want to shoot fast moving stuff, then the 5D3 is the way to go.
  11. Sorry, I clarified in my later post that it's landscape.
  12. John Smith said
    Sorry, I clarified in my later post that it's landscape.​
    Sorry, I missed that.
    Well then, by all means, stick with the 6D. I don't understand how your can have any indecision after looking at the files. My 5D MkIII blows away my 7D at any ISO above 800. I only keep the 7D because I need a two-body set up to go quickly from 1,000mm down to a shorter focal length.
  13. I have the T2i and have been amazed at what it can do when I put L series glass on it. I personally think that the latest members of the Rebel series have plenty of pixel density and can be very good for telephoto work--a nice complement to the strengths of the 6D.
    The problem is that the XSi is not quite up there with the latest Rebels in terms of megapixels or pixel density. The 7D, on the other hand, has the same number of megapixels as the most recent Rebels, but it is overall a much better camera.
    So. . . I would keep the 7D. That would give you the 6D and the 7D, which is a pretty versatile pair to have, in my opinion.
    Of course, if you are shooting moving objects or animals, you might want to look higher up the chain so that you can have the best AF possible. It really depends on what you are shooting, as David points out above.
    Oops! Now I, too, see that you have specified landscapes. The 7D would still beat the XSi in terms of detail.
  14. To pile on what Lannie says, the 7D is the CHAMP when it comes to details, thanks to its super high pixel-density; however, that comes at a price of noisier high-ISO performance. It's very good up to ISO 800, but then you'll start losing that detail as you need to apply more and more NR.
    The 7D is a great wildlife body and, with the right lenses, it's a great landscape shooter at low ISO. Unfortunately, the ideal lenses for the 7D are not the ideal lenses for the 6D.
    I'd go down to one body, for the uses you've specified, and concentrate on upgrading my lens arsenal.
  15. Thanks all for your replies. It helps to get alternate perspectives!
    I think I'm going to keep the 7D and sell the XSi. I would still have the EF/EF-S lens issue but that would be true with keeping the XSi too. Keeping the 7D gives me better ISO capabilities and pixels than the XSi. Selling both 7D & XSi doesn't leave me with any backup camera which I would like to have, even though it would provide for a newer lens.
  16. I would keep the 7D, I have a 6D, 7D and a 40D. Keep the 7D. If you were to give up the 7D you are going to lose that excellent focusing system for birds in flight and action, of course if you sell the 7D and the XSI, pick up the 5D MK III so you still have a great action focusing camera.
  17. My 5D MkIII blows away my 7D at any ISO above 800.​
    Yes, as a 5d3 owner, I appreciate the high-ISO performance, but how often do you shoot landscapes at ISO >800?
    My second body is an old 50D. I don't shoot the same things you do, but I find having both formats helpful. I like the lower weight and longer reach of the crop for some purposes, and crops are in some respects superior for macro work. If I had a 7D rather than a 50D, I would be even happier with having both formats. The 50D entails much more of a sacrifice relative to the 5D3: much less capable AF than the 7D, and a sensor that is one generation behind.
  18. That being said, I was curious why you suggest I should get a 2nd 6D. What would I do with 2 cameras that are the same?​
    The short answer to this question is to give you a backup that is equally capable as your primary unit. If you typically shoot at very high ISOs, for example, a 7D as a backup for a 6D is utterly useless - Since it is incapable of giving equivalent performance. Or, if you shoot at UWA FLs on your 6D (say / a 17-40), but don't have a 10-20/22/24 for your 7D - The backup unit is useless since it is incapable of shooting at your preferred FLs.
    An identical unit is the very best backup. However, many people choose 'flexibility' over true 'redundancy' - you should choose whatever suits you. - The decision should be based on things like how you shoot, and what you shoot, and your lens selection, and your technique.

Share This Page