Canon 6D

[michaellinder]

<p>Any users of this camera out there? I'm strongly considering taking a jump from my T1i to a full-frame instrument, and affordability is an issue. I've also been a devoted Canon user since I started with an AE1.</p>

[dmitriy_aseev]

<p>Hi, I use 6D. It is a great body. What are your concerns, besides the price?</p>

[phule]

<p>[[i'm strongly considering taking a jump from my T1i to a full-frame instrument, and affordability is an issue]]</p>

<p>Why? What problem(s) will be solved by buying a 6D?</p>

 

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Why? What problem(s) will be solved by buying a 6D?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Everybody knows <em>everything </em>in life is better with a FF camera, Rob..!</p>

<p>(<strong>There'd be a smiley face right here if we had 'em..!</strong>)</p>

<p>Joking apart Michael, Rob's question really is a big, important one - what doesn't the T1i not for you do that the 6D will?</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Don't let anyone dissuade you from going full frame Michael. If that's what you want, go for it. You don't need to justify it. You'll often find that those who ask if you really NEED full frame are the same people that shoot FF themselves.</p>

<p>The 6D looks to be a fantastic camera. Extremely good in low light with it's superb high ISO performance and it's ultra sensitive centre AF point. If you can find a new discounted 5D MkII I would also seriously consider it, especially if it is much cheaper than the 6D. The larger body of the 5D MkII is a bit nicer to hold in the hand and AF and image quality are very similar with the exception of extreme low light (ISO 6400 and above).</p>

[johnkenthill]

<p>Love my 6D - especially the low light capabilities!</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Don't let anyone dissuade you from going full frame Michael. If that's what you want, go for it. You don't need to justify it.]]</p>

<p>Your comment could not be further off the mark. </p>

<p>[[You'll often find that those who ask if you really NEED full frame are the same people that shoot FF themselves.]]</p>

<p>This comment is just absurd.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Any users of this camera out there?

<P>

I use one regularly. A nice upgrade from my 5DII. Feel free to ask any questions. <a href=

"http://citysnaps.net/2013%20photos/6D%20Gallery/">Here's a small sampling of photos from mine.</a>

More are on my blog which you can find clicking on my name.<P>

 

>>> Don't let anyone dissuade you from going full frame Michael. If that's what you want, go for it. You

don't need to justify it. You'll often find that those who ask if you really NEED full frame are the same

people that shoot FF themselves.

<P>

 

Absolutely. What Jamie said...

[wgpinc]

<p>The Canon 6D is the best Canon Camera I have owned, even better than the 5D Mark II I replaced it with. It is so good I'm considering getting rid of my T2i and three EF-S lens kit and getting another 6D body. Full frame lenses can be expensive but they don't necessarily have to be. Good luck!</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Jamie, we're not asking for justification - we're asking for <em>clarification</em> - very different thing.</p>

<p>And - along with Rob, it would appear - I have <em>no idea</em> what you're trying to say here:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You'll often find that those who ask if you really NEED full frame are the same people that shoot FF themselves.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brad seems to be reading things that haven't actually been written too, I see...</p>

<p>If either of you were to trouble yourselves to visit <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4164596">Michael's personal page</a>, you'll see that the three images that display on that page are <em>bird </em>images: there is a <em>very </em>strong argument against FF for bird photography, given the potential "hit" to effective focal length that FF can imply unless the lens collection is also added to.</p>

<p>That's why<em> I</em> don't shoot FF; and why I ask <em>why FF?</em> in Michael's case - none of the images he has on PN scream out as being candidates for needing FF in order to improve them.</p>

<p>Is that OK with you both?</p>

[phule]

<p>.</p>

[Dave410]

<blockquote>

<p>I use one regularly. A nice upgrade from my 5DII.<br>

<br /> The Canon 6D is the best Canon Camera I have owned, even better than the 5D Mark II I replaced it with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow, those comments really surprised me because I haven't been paying attention to new Canon cameras for awhile. Is the 6D generally considered an improvement over the 5DII? I saw a 6D kit at Costco for a very reasonable price the other day. Cheers.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p> and affordability is an issue</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If affordability is an issue, Rob's question becomes very important. Keith is correct that a crop camera will give you an advantage for most bird photography. I also see a number of shallow depth of field shots in your portfolio, for which FF might give you an advantage. If you don't do a lot of low-light photography, which it appears you don't, and if you're not keen to make a regular practice of printing 20x30 posters, you might consider adding an original 5D to your outfit. It's is very affordable now. A dual format rig (the T1i and the 5D) would give you a lot of flexibility.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I like dual format as well, which I guess is okay if one can swing it. (I swing it by driving a 1995 Honda Civic.) FF certainly is not for birding, unless you are willing to buy and carry around massive lenses. I do a lot of low-light shooting myself, and I do think that FF has the advantage there--although not by so much as used to be the case. Crop sensor cameras are really quite sophisticated now.</p>

<p>I have an old T2i that I can't bring myself to part with. With good glass, it produces extraordinary results.</p>

<p>Shooting wide? Well, let's not get into that. There are some surprises there, and again crop sensor cameras often do very, very well--although I personally tend to use FF to shoot very wide. </p>

<p>I do think that my purchase of the 5D in 2006 was a milestone for me. For the first time, I gave up my FD equipment and started shooting EOS for the very first time. I also just liked the quality of the 5D and 5D II. I am told that the 6D is very good with high ISO and low light, but I have never used one myself.</p>

<p>I guess that I would say, Hang onto your crop sensor cameras if you jump to full frame. You might find yourself picking up the crop sensor cameras more frequently when you walk out the door.</p>

<p>Lenses? I have owned at least two different Digital Rebels, but I never once bought the EF-s lenses. I always used the same lenses that I used with full-frame. That can be rather limiting, especially when shooting wide.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[bri1]

<p>I just went from a 50D to a 6D this month. My first FF camera. </p>

<p>First, one thing I enjoy is shooting birds. Moving to FF, I miss the 1.6x crop factor. I understand I didn't loose an actual 240mm on the long end of my 100-400, but I lost that much field of view. I also lost 1.5 FPS. I have still been able to get some great shots, but I'm still on the fence as to whether I feel disappointed. One thing is for sure. While I got excellent IQ with the 50D, the 6D is better. And cropping to the 1.6x, I like the IQ of the 6D more. But shooting is different. I might just have to get used to it. I was really dialed into my 50D. I "saw" at the focal length of the 50D, now it's different. I kept trying to get closer to hummingbirds, to match the field of view, and found I was too close to focus. I'm considering getting a 7D body just for birds.</p>

<p>I also love land/ocean scapes. In this regard, the 6D is better for me in every regard. 17mm is now 17mm and seems like a huge difference. I absolutely love the 6D for this. The IQ is outstanding. I'm very pleased with it here.</p>

<p>The feel of the camera is actually less than the 50D to me. It feels "cheaper". The button tops are flat and feel weird compared to the tougher feeling rounded buttons on the 50D. Are they actually cheaper? I don't really know, that's just how they feel to me. It could be that I was just so used to the 50D I had been shooting for 5 years. I could do everything easily with the camera on my face. Since the layout is different, I have to fumble a little now. The ISO button is in a different spot, so I keep pushing the wrong one. This is not the camera's fault, but it is something I didn't consider.</p>

<p>When it's all said and done, I really like the 6D. The more I use it the more I like it. I would say that I should have kept the 50D for birds. What I got for it on ebay doesn't justify what I lost. I kind of regret selling it. But if I don't like how the 6D handles birding for me, I'm going to get a 7D body in a few months. So my suggestion would be to keep your crop camera, and get the 6D if you can afford to. I got mine refurbished from canon with a 1 year warranty.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Keith & Rob... no offence intended. My comments weren't really directed at you. I just get tired of some full framers who seem to go out of their way to tell others that they don't need full frame and I was anticipating some of them joining this thread. If we were all honest with ourselves, 90% of us could probably manage with a 1.6 crop DSLR but FF is pixel peeping heaven! </p>

[ronhartman]

<p>Thought I'd jump in with one specific question on 5DII vs. 6D.<br>

I've owned the 5DII for a few years. Happy with the IQ. But the size and weight of camera (and lenses) limits how much I use it. I'm mostly shooting with m4/3 now. I still like to take the FF out for a garden or other short trip. Do people find the 6D noticably smaller and lighter? </p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>Do people find the 6D noticably smaller and lighter?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The 6D is definitely a bit smaller but, considering you'll be using the same lenses, I hardly think it's worth considering changing cameras for any size and weight issues. The difference is really not that great.</p>

[ronhartman]

<p>Thanks Jamie. Guess I'll stick with what I have for now.</p>

[michael_h4]

<p>If affordability is an issue and you're determined to go FF, I recommend investing the time to rent a 6D and a 5D Mark II and compare for yourself. That's what I did. I can honestly say that there's no better way to tell which one better suits your particular lens collection and needs. Or whether a FF "instrument" makes sense for you at all.<br /><br />I personally found the 6D a disappointment: I didn't like the ergonomics, the AF system, or the way the viewfinder info display affected my aging eyes. Coming from a 7D, it just wasn't for me. But that was purely my own bias. Depending on your goals, expectations, and lens collection, it may be just the camera for you.<br /><br />Finally, my own $.02 on the issue of affordability: Photography is strictly a hobby for me. Consequently, I didn't <em>need</em> a FF camera. Having one has definitely brought me plenty of joy. It has enabled me to get more low-light shots, more beautiful blurred backgrounds, and more stunning wide shots out of my existing lens collection than would have been possible otherwise. But it's definitely a luxury rather than a necessity. I could have gotten years of photographic happiness sticking with crop sensor cameras.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Do people find the 6D noticably smaller and lighter?

 

Noticeable, but then I mostly shoot with a 40mm pancake lens. What I like about my 6D over the 5DII I

used to own is:

 

- Much better auto-ISO system. I can specify a minimum shutter speed. I use this all the time.

 

- Better ergonomics with respect to control layout, and hand-holdability (I shoot with one hand)

 

- Better AF performance, especially in low light

 

- Better high-ISO performance, great in low light

 

- Optional quiet shutter mode is nice in some environments

 

- I prefer SD card memory

 

Nice: Smaller size/weight, WiFi file transfer, GPS. Better grip-ability. Build feels better, though there was absolutely

nothing wrong with the 5DII. I gave up 1/8000 sec shutter speed - OK for what I shoot.

[Nick D.]

<p>I got one last week for travel, it is light, good performance in low light and 24 is 24 on my 24-70, it is big in my opinion. Ability control it from smartphone, another freeby. Free GPS is not hurt ether. <br /> I could not resist get kit from Futureshop, $2400 with 24-105 is a steal, sold lenses, kept body.<br /> With 6D and 1D3, I set for life.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>The 6D is definitely, noticeably, smaller than the 5DIII which is itself a little larger than a 5DII. I have no idea why the MkIII had to be bigger than the MkII. It actually rather puts me off it. I am very tempted by the 6D myself. Wish it had the 1/8000th but probably not a deal breaker. I wonder whether the non-glass LCD will scratch on the 6D...</p>

[james_de_h]

<p>I think Sarah Fox - yet again - hits the nail on the head. </p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>@Jamie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you can find a new discounted 5D MkII I would also seriously consider it, especially if it is much cheaper than the 6D. The larger body of the 5D MkII is a bit nicer to hold in the hand and AF and image <a id="itxthook1" href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00c1R5" rel="nofollow">quality<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> are very similar with the exception of extreme low light (ISO 6400 and above).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have been kicking around the idea of FF, I would like to know how the 6D and 5D MKII stack up against each other at the higher ISOs. So which is better at high ISO, 6D or 5D MKII?</p>