Used 6D or used 7D + 17-55 2.8

[jaime_duarte]

<p>Hey guys,<br>

<br />I am at a cross roads.<br>

I had a 5D (classic) with a 24-105. Sold the 5D, decided it was about time and I would look for either a 5D mark II or a 6D.<br>

5D mark II used prices are ridiculous. Supply and demand I guess. Anyway, 6D is a much better deal. So I go out and find a 6D for 1000€ still under warranty of course. I think it's a decent deal. But...<br>

I also find a deal for the same 1000€ for a 7D (I know, quite a different camera) + a 17-55 2.8 (a lot more interesting than my 24-105).<br>

<br />So I'm torn. I think the 7D deal is fantastic but i'd be going from Full frame to APS-C. On the other hand I'd be rolling with a 2.8 zoom vs my good old 24-105 and I'd like that as I keep hearing fantastic things about the 17-55.<br>

<br />If I do go for the 7D I'd be seeling the 24-105 and I can get around 500€.</p>

<p>So I guess my question is, which kit would give me better photographs? (I dont shoot ANY movies at all)<br>

<br />6D + 24-105 for 1500€ kit or,<br>

7D + 17-55 for 1000€?</p>

<p>Which would you pick and why?<br />I shoot mostly portraits.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>I don't think you can go wrong with either kit. I have the 6D with the 24-105mm lens. I don't think the 24-105mm gets enough respect, possibly because it is sold as a kit lens. On the 6D with it's higher ISO capability you won't need 2.8 very often. I also have the T2i with the 17-55mm 2.8 lens and it is a very good smaller kit. The sensor in the T2i is pretty much the same sensor as the 7D. I'd have to say that the image quality of the 6D is much better than the T2i/17-55mm combo, better dynamic range, better out of focus area with a larger viewfinder and much better high ISO capability. For me it would be a no brainer, I'd get the 6D and use the 24-105mm, I keep thinking I'll sell off the T2i with the three lenses; 10-22mm, 17-55mm and 55-250mm but it does make a really small light kit and the image quality is not too shabby. I'd Buy another 6D. Good luck either way you go.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I went from a 7D to a 6D last winter and man what a difference in IQ. ISO 12800 on the 6D is better than ISO 1600 on the 7D. Seriously! And the that 6D center point will focus in dim caves the 7D can only hunts and fail. I miss the 7D's grid on demand and the peppy FPS but I mainly shoot landscape, theatre and travel so I don't need to gunsling too often. I don't miss the 7D's small V, heft and patterned noise in shadows.</p>

<p>I also sold my 17-55 2.8 IS and don't miss it a lick. It's very sharp in the center but prone to flare--forget about sunsets--and not wide or long enough for me. The 24-105L is as close to a compromised perfect as it gets: great range, weather seals and very sharp save for corners. </p>

<p>I can't say the 6D will give you better photographs but it will certainly work better in low light and allow larger prints with a lot less noise.</p>

<p>My 6D review: http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_eos6D.htm</p>

 

[JamesFarabaugh]

<p>I recently went from a 60D with 17-55 f/2.8 IS as my main lens to the 6D with 24-105 f/4L. The first thing I noticed was the far superior IQ. And the high ISO performance just can't be beat. If you were shooting action or wildlife I think the 7D would be the front runner, but otherwise I'd give the nod to the 6D. As someone else mentioned, that "kit" lens is no slouch, either!</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I also find a deal for the same 1000€ for a 7D (I know, quite a different camera) + a 17-55 2.8 <strong><em>(a lot more interesting than my 24-105) . . I shoot mostly portraits.</em></strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why do you think that you will find the EF-S 17 to 55/2.8 IS <strong><em>“a lot more interesting than” </em></strong>an EF 24 to 105/4 IS on a (modern) 135 Format camera (‘full frame camera)?</p>

<p>A few quick thoughts -</p>

<p>> Apropos FoV:24 to 105 has a FoV both wider and longer. (which would be a plus?)<br>

> Apropos ‘Equivalence DoF’: F/4 on 135 Format allows a tad more Shallow DoF capacity than F/2.8 (which would be a small plus?)<br>

> Apropos System compliance: an EF lens will mount to all EOS cameras, and EF-S will not (which might be a consideration, later?)</p>

<p>The first two factors reckon to me, as the 24 to 105 (on FF) as being “more interesting” than the 17 to 55 (on APS-C), for shooting Portraiture.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[William Michael]

<p>Afterthought - Maybe the “F/2.8” is capturing your imagination regarding Shallow DoF for Portraiture? In case you were not aware, one also has to take into account the Sensor Size of the camera. Hence my above reference to ‘equivalence’, so for practical purposes, the F/4 lens on FF is capable of making a slightly SHALLOWER DoF, for any given FRAMING of The Shot’ – not much in it though.</p>

<p>BUT - I think that the kicker is. . . IF you are really interested in exploring VERY Shallow DoF Portraiture then you can always buy a couple of inexpensive fast Primes (EF 50/1.8MkII and EF 85/1.8 spring to mind) – you’ll never, ever get that shallow, with any F/2.8 EF-S lens and APS-C combination.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>I have both 7D and 6D, and they are both great. Pros and Cons to both. The 6D a bit of an edge on low light hi ISO noise, and ISO can go to 50. 7D has the edge on number of focus points and menu/control layout, faster shutter speed. I use them both. They are both good.<br /> I had posted a high ISO comparison a few months back, comparing the two cameras with identical image, two good fast lenses, light, f-stop and ISO taken side by side at the same time. Compared ISO 1600 and ISO 2500.Test 1 <a href="http://ppcdn.500px.org/72858297/7d52d9bd394469f0a73e3ad8e651f6f9d4c7a3da/2048.jpg">LINK</a> test 2 <a href="http://ppcdn.500px.org/72867483/8d3eed19b09384214afd1ed424f36b0696644be6/2048.jpg">LINK</a><br /> Here was a link to the discussion about the two cameras in low light. <a href="/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00ccvt?start=10">LINK</a></p>

<p>I really like the full frame and IQ of the 6D. It's all what you want.</p>

[jaime_duarte]

<p>First of all, thanks a lot by the depth each of you put into your responses. I really appreciate it.<br>

Unfortunately however, by the time I made a decision and left the house to meet the seller there were no answers and I thought the thread would go forgotten. My bad.<br>

I went with the 6D! It seems that most of you would have me go 6D so I feel very assured on top of being thoroughly impressed with the camera.<br>

My 5D is a POS in comparison, no joke! Given the fact that I got 400€ for my 5D and got the 6D for 1000€ is basically a bargain but it might just be my gear lust speaking.<br>

To Mr William W, thanks for your answer, I did know that full frame allowed a shallower dof but I wasn't aware (and to be perfectly honest, I'm still not convinced) that f4 on full frame was actually shallower than f2.8 on crop. I'll be looking into that later tonight.<br>

I do have a 70-200 2.8 and I had several primes over the years but I kept on leaving them at the house and always grabbing the do-it-all zoom so I ended up selling the primes. I do keep to the longer and of the zoom though, I tend to not care where I am as much as I care who I'm with. I always go in and grab people's faces more than the places.<br /><br /><br>

Not sure where the forum is based but I'm guessing US so sorry for my English, am not a native speaker although I try really hard!</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I did know that full frame allowed a shallower dof but I wasn't aware (<strong>and to be perfectly honest, I'm still not convinced) that f4 on full frame was actually shallower than f2.8 on crop. I'll be looking into that later tonight.</strong> . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is about 1? Stops difference, so as I wrote, there is not much in it.<br /> But F/4 on a FF camera does allow a tad shallower than F/2.8 on APS-C Camera - for the SAME FRAMING of an image.<br /> It is good that you check my statements.</p>

<p>*</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>[i am]</em> always <strong>grabbing the do-it-all zoom</strong> so I ended up selling the primes. I do keep to the longer and of the zoom though, I tend to not care where I am as much as I care who I'm with. <strong>I always go in and grab people's faces more than the places.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Getting a good distance from Subject to Background makes an impact, <a href="/photo/16546073&size=lg">this is the 24 to 105 used at F/5.6.</a></p>

<p>Have fun with your 6D.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>Jaime, congrats on the 6D and enjoy. </p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>6D for full frame, WiFi, GPS,...unless you shoot lots of birds and wildlife.</p>

[angkordave]

<p>If you are going for a 7D and want great bokeh from a fast lens; the Sigma 18-35 1.8 is stunning: tack sharp even wide open minimal distortion the best bokeh of any similar lens Ive used.<br>

I dont use my 24-105 L on my 5D2 at all now as the 18-35 is superior in every way. I never liked my 24-105 lens much anyway due to excessive distortion and vignetting at the wide end and poor bokeh. Its not worthy of the L tag and one of the most disappointing lens purchased Ive ever made. The only virtue is that its sharp.</p>