Need opnion on Canon Upgrade from 60D to 6D

[mr_z]

Hi, having just 1 cross point for AF system is

serious weakness issue for 6d? Pls advice. Tnx

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I have been involved in <strong><em>taking photos of a religious place</em></strong> and the photos are taken in low light condition. PLEASE RECOMMEND ME LENS FOR LOW LIGHT CONDITION.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Rob: use the lenses you have (the Ultra Wide Angle I expect would be more suitable) and a Tripod.<br>

Add to that a remote release and also “Mirror-Up Technique”, when releasing the Shutter.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>However, IF you mean taking photos of PEOPLE, in a religious place, then, if you can move around and ae a a typical portrait shooting distances from the people, then you will probably gain little by buying another lens.</p>

<p>The Tokina can be used at 16mm to give you a wide angle for example, for a Group Portrait: and the Kit Zoom Lens can be used at F/3.5 from a8mm to about 24mm to give you slightly tighter Portraits – and both have the flexibility of being zoom lenses.</p>

<p>The aforementioned Sigma F/1.8 zoom does provide <em><strong>more than</strong></em> ONE STOP of lens speed – and that would be the only ZOOM lens replacement that I would consider.</p>

<p>If I were considering a PRIME lens – then would be looking at a VERY fast lens in the range of 24~35mm, depending upon (a) the typical size of the venue; (b) the typical shooting distance and © my ability to roam or not.</p>

<p>Additionally, taking into account that one can always shoot wider and crop in post-production, my most used fast prime on my APS-C cameras for indoor lo light work is my 24 F/1.4L. But I also use a 35F/1.4 and the 35F/2 is used often in our shared "travel kit" and is an excellent "budget" and "light weight" and "unobtrusive" option for low light work in religious places - as shown here when it was used several years on an EOS 400D - <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=937138">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=937138</a></p>

<p>*</p>

<p>On another matter, you informed that the venue is low-light, but you have not stipulated that FLASH is prohibited: if not prohibited, then Flash is an option</p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><br /> I got my 50/1.4 way back when I first adopted the EOS system, and have had no issues with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did too.</p>

<p>I cut over to Digital EOS in 2004 and my EF 50 F/1.4 has performed very well for 10 years used regularly in a professional kit, for at least 8 of those years.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Just a word for the advantages of having both an APS-C format camera, of which the 60D is a fine example, AND eventually adding the <em>other</em> format, 35mm-sized sensor, to the mix.<br>

As said the lenses for 'full-sized' (that is, NOT EF-S) will work fine on the smaller format, but the smaller (EF-S) lenses or other lenses labelled for 'digital only' will not cover the 35mm-sensor even if they can sometimes be mounted. You will get a 'boost' on the APS-C body for the longer lenses (the 1.6X factor), but that means 35mm-sized wide-angle lenses will just be closer to normal lenses in their effect.</p>

<p>Despite frequent claims to much higher quality with "full-frame", I own both and I'd love to see a double-blind test showing that the differences are detectable at normal ISOs. I just can't see the differences that others claim.</p>

 

[angkordave]

<p>Ive used both APS and FF and can say without reservation that under normal conditions I cannot see any difference between my 70D or 5D2 or 6D. But as I stated earlier and also commented by others. If you are shooting in very low light FF is much better due to comparative lack of noise.<br>

<br />Canons 50mm F1.4 It worked being used occasionally for over a year then focus locked up on a wedding shoot in the dark. I had it fixed 3 times and the focus was still unreliable and before i Gave it away it would not a/f properly and the manual focus was stiff and graunchy. Just as I am about it I guess.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Just a comment on, as we say down here: “Monday cars” –</p>

<p>As an example - my EOS 5D dropped its Mirror Box Assembly around Frame 64. I had it fixed under warrantee and it is still going fine today.<br>

I also have no doubt that accurate reportage of gear problems exists – and (as a response) I accept that Dave provided that.<br>

I also agree that the WWW is a wonderful carriage of hyperbole.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[dcstep]

<p>"Normal ISOs" are not the same for all of us. Those of shooting wildlife and live sports, live at ISO 800 and above, so it's easy to see the difference in noise between FF and APS-C; however, the higher pixel-density of an APS-C camera, like the 7D MkII, results in improved reach shooting with the same focal length super-telephoto.</p>

<p>I own the 7D MkII and the 5D MkIII and reach for the 5D for landscapes and portraits and the 7D for wildlife, even though its high-ISO performance is not as good. The extra reach and resolution trumps the 5D's noise performance, most of the time.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p><strong>IF</strong> you compare the same generation of APS-C and so-called 'FF', AND you shoot above 800, as I frequently do, you <em><strong>will</strong></em> be able to tell a difference when examining an image at 100% at nosetip distance.<br>

I would still like to see anyone who can demonstrate that you can tell the difference in a 8x10 print without the viewer or the person showing the print knowing which was taken on which format (double blind).<br>

Expectations are worth at least a 1000 ISO of quality in my humble opinion.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>JDM, an 8x10" print is hardly relevant these days, when we're routinely viewing on 24", 27" and 30" monitors. I easily see the noise difference between an uncorrected 7D MkII image and a 5D MkIII image, both at ISO 1600. That's not at 100%, but simply viewing at full-screen, which I do routinely. Also, at only 1080p, I can see the difference across the room on a 55" HDTV monitor.</p>

<p>That said, it doesn't keep me from shooting my 7D MkII at ISO 1600 and higher. Noise reduction programs have improved to the extent that I can reduce noise to tolerable levels without destroying feather and fur detail. Also, the higher pixel-density of the crop sensor yields more effective reach.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Well, <em>I</em> don't see clear differences when viewing on <em>my</em> 27" (2560x1440) Apple monitor (actual size on screen of <em>whole</em> image, at 50% to fit on screen, is roughly 12x21", viewing at roughly 17-20" distance)<strong>. </strong>Of course<strong>, </strong>underexposed images show more effect after trying to pump it up in post processing.<strong><br /></strong><br>

I shoot up to 25,000+ ISO on occasion, but both formats are a little noisy at that level. At 1000-2000, on newer models even at 3200, not very noisy unless viewing really close up. As an old high-speed slide film user, I embrace noise when it does occur, and I need it to get the shot, just as you do too.</p>

<p>Just had my eyes upgraded a couple of years ago (to version 2.5) so that's not my problem.</p>

<p>Apparently your mileage does differ, but I'd still like to see double-blind tests at intervals above ISO800 to be convinced.<br>

So many "known" things are simply not verifiable, and anyone <em>can</em> bet on that.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>JDM, yes my friend, your mileage may vary. Congrats on the eye update.</p>

<p>Where I routinely see noise at ISO 800 is in a properly exposed bird-in-flight against the blue sky type of shot, where luminance noise is easily seen in the blue sky. I too, am like you and embrace it as part of the process. If I were going to print a 48", I'd take the effort to put the blue sky in its own layer and CRUSH IT with NR. I guess it's because of my old film experience, a little luminance doesn't bother me much at all, reminding me of film grain. Chrominance is a different story and really bothers me, but I can take it out of most properly exposed images globally without destroying important detail. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Abso-***-lutely.<br /> Blue sky is difficult for any imaging system and any noise at all will be obvious there, I quite agree.</p>

<p>But my tolerance of noise is somewhat explained by the following 100% 'sky' crop from a 4000ppi scan of a Kodachrome slide of San Francisco .<br /> Kodachrome, mind you, the least grainy of all film in the day. Here also shown un-'spotted' with the usual tiny bits of dust on the slide. Note that the dust is sharp, so the 'grain' is not an artifact of the scanning. Just a straight scan with no unsharp mask or nuttin'</p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>Nice demonstration JDM.</p>

[thomasly]

<p>So what is the Verdict here... is the OP going to get rid of the Eos 60D for the Canon 6D<br>

or just purchase New Glass ;)</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Since some spoilsport is always trying to keep everyone rigorously to topic, the lesson to be drawn is that there are</p>

<ol>

<li>some advantages for 35mm-sized sensors for <em>some purposes</em>, but not all purposes.</li>

<li>it is really nice to have one of each format body</li>

<li>the OP does not NEED a new camera, but it is always nice to have a rationale for buying one</li>

</ol>