Kids photographs on FF (6D or 5D M2 or 5D M3)

[ashishgarg]

<p>I have had 10D since long time and T2i along with variety of lenses from Canon (28-105, 50 f/1.8, 70-300 non-L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 II IS and Sigma 15-30, 70-300 non-IS). Now I have reduced the lens set a little by trying to keep "better" of the lot. I am a hobbyist and intend to go FF eventually mainly for landscapes and portraits/kids photographs (also planning to keep one crop sensor camera as a backup for occasional bird and wildlife photography).<br>

<br /> I would like to understand which out of the aforementioned FF cameras will suit my purpose better and why? I intend to get the kit lens (24-105 L IS) considering it's decent image quality and good value as a kit. My main subject (and the biggest reason for getting FF and wife's approval for it) is kids who are always on move although I do like landscape and night photography a lot.<br>

<br /> Considering my varied interests (with crop as well as FF), which FF body would you recommend. I consider myself informed hobbyist and pretty much never use the green box (auto) settings on my DSLR, always the adanced/manual controls and usually get good reviews from friends and family for the sharpness, composition and lighting of the images I take.<br>

I appreciate your responses as always!</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>To be perfectly honest, a 7D would probably suit you fine. </p>

<p>However, if you are bound and determined to go with a FF unit, You may very well want to consider the 5D3. It will replace the T2i for everything and more that you shoot now, and is fast enough to keep up even when shooting birds and wildlife (though missing the 1.6x zoom of course). In other words, it is likely able to provide almost all the services a 7D can, plus all the services a 5D2 or 5D3 can. </p>

<p>The only reason to consider a 6D or 5D2 is for a matter of cost, (that or the 6D's superior ultra low light AF capability) but if it's affordable to you, the 5D3 is probably your best choice.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>5D MkII.</p>

<p>Why? Because outright image quality from all 3 cameras is virtually the same and the 5D MkII is the cheapest camera. Only the 6D has marked improvement in very low light (ISO 6400 and above). If you're shooting at ISO 3200 or below then you may as well use the cheapest of the 3 cameras. You don't need lightning fast AF and 6fps for portraits and landscape so forget the 5D MkIII.</p>

<p>Even with the 5D MkII, you will see a monumental difference in image quality and build quality compared to your current cameras. The AF of the 5D MkII may not be the best but is still superior to the cameras you are currently using.</p>

[ashishgarg]

<p>Thank you both.</p>

<p>Marcus: I have considered 7D as well but will that be a good choice for landscapes?<br>

I will probably get a used 7D as a backup (selling 10D as well as T2i at some point) but a FF will still be my preference for landscapes and night photography due to its low light ISO performance.</p>

<p>Jamie: I like the idea of saving some money by going 5D II, and the current prices (used as well as new) are pretty good (less than what I paid for my new 10D a while back), but the moving kid pictures may be a frustrating situation considering the AF performance from 5D II AFAIK. I agree it will be a BIG upgrade for me to go with either of these three cameras but I usually do not upgrade that often and try to keep the camera for many many years (4-5+ years usually) and want to invest in something that will allow me not to think about changing/upgrading for a while and focus on more glass or actual shooting.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>If you are worried about the AF then your only option is the 5D MkIII. I've used the 5D MkII since it was first released and it can cope with just about any portrait situation with the possible exception of fast moving pets e.g. dogs.</p>

<p>Unless you print very large (above A3) or drastically crop your images you will notice very little difference with the 7D as far as image quality is concerned. Low light shooting is a different matter though.</p>

[devon_mccarroll]

You could photograph birds and wildlife with the 5d Mk iii as well, because the resolution will be light years better than your 10D so you'll

have the option of cropping those images and still getting a great photo.

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>I have considered 7D as well but will that be a good choice for landscapes?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1197369</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Low light shooting is a different matter though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it's not - the 7D is excellent in low light.</p>

<p> </p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>No, it's not - the 7D is excellent in low light.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, but still not as good as the 5D2, 5D3 and 6D hence my comment.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I own the 5D MkIII and the 7D and used to own the 5D MkII. For birds and wildlife, which is my main focus, the 5D MkIII is, by far, the better body because its AF is in another league from the 7D. Your keeper rate will double or triple, going from the 7D to the 5D MkIII. The 5D MkII is accurate, but slow.</p>

<p>I don't know the 6D's AF. Forget about crop vs. FF, the AF trumps any theoretical advantage of one over the other. If a 7D MkII comes out with the same AF system as the 5D MkIII, then I might change my story and opt for the crop sensor, but the current 7D doesn't compare to the 5D MkIII.</p>

<p>Typical BIF shot with the 5D MkIII.<br>

<a title="Red-tail hawk flies by by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8098/8407329578_51c226fa1f_c.jpg" alt="Red-tail hawk flies by" width="800" height="800" /></a><br>

For portraits and landscapes, with no birds, I'd suggest the 6D.</p>

[derek_porter]

<p>I've used both the 6D and the 5D Mark III. For kids, I would strongly recommend the Mark III. I have a 7 month old and a 3 year old and I had a tough time tracking them with the 6D. It was great when they were still, but as you're probably aware, kids don't stay in one place for too long. It's so much easier to track them with the AF system on the Mark III than it is on the 6D. The price difference was really tough to swallow for me, but I'm so happy with the results. </p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>Yes auto-focusing on a moving kid with a prime set at F1.8 could be difficult. However, i shoot basketball games with a 5d2 and Canon 70-200 F2.8 at F2.8 all the time with no problems. I must say I also shoot with an old 30D and still have no problems shooting kids at F4 or above. <br>

First a flash will help with low light auto-focusing more than anything. I really don't see much of a difference between a 5D2, 6D, 7D or 30D. Shooting kids and static landscapes is more about good photography than camera body. <br>

If you have the money to spend get the 5D mark III and the new Canon 24-70 F2.8 II. then you can say you have the best chance possible of getting those fast moving kids and night shots of landscapes. <br>

<br />However, as many here have said in most cases you won't be able to tell much of a difference from someone shooting with a 5D2 or 7D and a Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR or 70-300 VR 4-5.6 getting similar results but spending a whole lot less money. If you do photogrpahy for a living shooting NFL football games where the action moves a whole lot faster than kids and failures will cost you a whole lot more then the choices are simple. But, when you don't get paid do what makes you the happiest.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Only get the 5d MkIII if you can afford it, otherwise save your money and get the MkII or the 6D. I don't know what sorts of kids you have but a really great servo AF system is not a prime requirement in my book. You might need it by the time they get to playing sports at school, but by then there will be a whole new set of bodies available. I shoot my kids running track and basketball and find the MkII just fine. In terms of quality of output I don't think there is anything to pick between them for most people for most of the time.</p>

[brendan_s]

<p>I got a 6D for xmas. Previously using a 10D. Main subjects at the moment are children. Typically the 6D's full frame is better than the 10D's crop for kids because a lot of shots of kids are inside and the crop puts extra distance between you to get the same shot - distance I don't always have.</p>

[tobee]

<p>Brendan S that is only the case with EF lenses <br>

Apart from sigma 30mm 1.4(new version coming soon) or EF primes 24-28 there aren't many alternatives for tight space and asp-c.</p>

<p>To be honest i have similar dilemma right now. <br>

Using 30D with 10-22,24-105,50 1.8 + yn565. The main problem for me is poor low light performance(800-1000ISO). I managed to do some shots with 24-105 and 50 during communion as a emergency photographer in quite dark church but it was all on the edge(iso + aparture + EV + IS + post processing).<br>

Came out quite well and family has my picture well exposed in their house.</p>

<p>Flash I bought lately didn't solve problem instead created new one since my wife refuses to use that heavy setup(24-105+body+flash). <br>

50mm is nice if your kid doesn't move but that happens rarely and with flash attached camera loses balance + my older daughter is faster then it's focusing ring :P.</p>

<p>My main use is shooting kids photos and while we travel. Maybe when kids grow up a bit i will find more time to do some more landscape/architecture on my own. I don't play with macro and don't need long lens 10k out of 14k shots I checked are in 24-50 range of 24-105. Around 10% of pictures i did with 50mm but as Brendan mentioned it is bad in tight space.</p>

<p>Choices from my perspective:<br>

7d - heavy, best af, moderate high iso performance<br>

5dmk2 - heavy , moderate AF, good high iso performance<br>

6d - light weight, good AF, best high iso performance<br>

another option that comes to my head is <br>

RX100 - best for traveling light and good IQ and high iso performance + new 35mm sigma and swap body when it breaks :P<br>

5dmk3 - out of scope - price (i'm not a pro nor willing to waste that much cash)<br>

70d/7d mk2 - not sure when and what they will offer <br>

650D - i would find it downgrade in ergonomy and battery life would suffer compared to 30d for travelling<br>

50D(60D) - don't think it would be such big "upgrade"</p>

<p> </p>