lesroll Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 <p>Hi all,</p><p>I have a (brief) opportunity to upgrade from my 40D while my wife is convinced. I've spent some time poking around while daydreaming and know that my options are realistically a 6D, the 7D Mark II, or to wait until I can swing a 5D Mark III (which may be Summer or later).<br>Right now, I shoot primarily community events, my toddler / family stuff, and high school sports. I have enjoyed macro / wildlife and some landscape / abandoned building photography as well, and would like to do more of that again. I'm shooting primarily with the the 50mm 1.4, the 24mm pancake, and the 17-55 EFS 2.8 IS. My long lens is the 75-300 4.5 5.6 IS.<br>I know that any of the three will be an improvement over my 40D. I have just about settled on the 7D Mark II for affordability, frame rate, and AF speed, but have concerns about the noise level at high ISO and low light performance since I'm shooting some high school sports and evening community events. (I'll admit to some curiosity that there doesn't seem to be a lot of commentary on the 7D Mark II on photo.net.) <br>I guess my question is this: Are these concerns valid for me, given that I'm stepping up from the 40D (which doesn't do well much above 500 really)? Should I go ahead and upgrade to the 7D Mark II or give the 6D a second look? (Or wait for something else down the road altogether?)</p><p>Any help and advice is appreciated. <br>Thanks,<br>les</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 <p>The 6D is a great camera for "normal" photography with excellent image quality and really excellent low light performance (I shoot at 6400 quite a lot and 12800 is usable too). It's center point AF is great, but the others very much less so. The 7DII has great AF and will be very much better for sports or fast action and of course has a much higher frame rate. Unless you are shooting a great deal in very dark environments then the 7DII will be fine for you and a considerable improvement over the 40D: you also won't have to buy a new 24-70mm equivalent as you have the 17-55mm already. On the other hand, if you are not shooting much fast action (birds in flight, sports involving running) and hanker after full frame then the 6D is definitely worthy of consideration. I find the 6D is great for dance, but it is definitely inferior for fast action when off-center AF points are needed.</p> Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerry_grim Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I used a 40D for high school sports (mostly running events) when my kids were in school. It did well in bright light. I've since gone to a 6D and have used it for running events. For this, the frame rate is high enough and I have taken photos of runners in the rain (camera protected) in low light and the focusing was excellent. So I would say, unless you are a pro sports photographer, a 6D works very well. No doubt a 5dIII has more capability, but for me this is not necessary. My focus is more on landscape with some wildlife so I went with a 6D. I like the choice of more lenses for wide angle as well. If I owned a super telephoto and was more into bird photography than I would have chosen a 7DII. Months after using the 6D, I went back to the 40D and was shocked at how loud the shutter was...embarrassingly so when in a crowd of people. Only you can decide whether to wait for a 6DII, or go with a 7DII. The 5DIII is now very reasonable, and if that model is in the picture you might want to wait to see if Canon will offer rebates, or you may want to consider a refurbished model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerry_grim Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I want to second what Robin says about the 6D focusing point. Center is great, others not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lesroll Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 <p>Thanks y'all for offering some thoughts. I'm still just struggling between the noise in the 7D Mark II images I've seen vs having to replace lenses to go to 6D.<br> I have been shooting high school soccer, so the frame rate, AF speed peaks my interest, but I probably shoot more "normal" photography, and in scenarios with low light / high ISO - live cooking demos, etc. I hate to give up the reach, and I just bought the 24mm pancake for wide shots.<br> Making decisions is hard! Lol.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member69643 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 <p>I bought the 7DMkII solely because it will AF with my 100-400mm with the 1.4x TC attached. Other than that, there's nothing I like about the 7DMkII. I was recently annoyed and then angered that it didn't have wi-fi control. Seems cheap of Canon to leave it out - everyone else has it. The high ISO output is simply dreadful. If you need high FPS it will do that.</p> <p>OTOH, I love my 6D EXCEPT for the fact it won't AF with my 100-400mm with the 1.4x TC attached. Canon seemed, with these two models, the give me enough to want to buy them but end up loathing them for what they lack.</p> <p>Well played, Canon.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgpinc Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 <p>Les, Sounds to me like your needs would be pretty much satisfied with a 70D. Better autofocus, bigger sensor and faster processor. Fits your 17-55mm and only $899 for the body at the New York mail houses. I use a 6D and it is all I want or need. I just read a review in Pro Foto by a guy who got a 5DS R and still uses his 6D a lot because the image quality is so good. I considered getting rid of my T2i and 17-55mm, 11-22mm and 55-250mm but the senses are so good that I just upgraded to the T5i instead. I have a good set of full frame lenses for my 6D including the 24-70mm 2.8 II and the 70-200mm 4.0 plus a few good primes that work on both the 6D and T5i. Don't stress too much on these things. All the current crop of Canon cameras are so good that any of them will do what you want them to do which is take pictures. Good luck</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_kennedy2 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 <p>I have the 7D2 and 5D3. I use both to shoot high school basketball and volleyball. While the 5D3 gives cleaner images at the higher ISO the 7D2 is more than acceptable. I routinely push the ISO to 8000 shooting the 7D with a 70-200 2.8 and a 50 1.8. I clean up the noise noise in Lightroom and its hard to tell which body I used. </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 <p>I own the 7D MkII, the 5D MkIII and the 5DsR. For your usage, I'd suggest the 5D MkIII. You get all the AF benefits and significantly better high-ISO performance. You only give up a few fps and a little bit of pixel-density. I use my 7D MkII, in combination with my EF 500mm f/4L IS II for bird and wildlife photography. I have no reservations about shooting it at ISO 1600 and 3200 to achieve the required shutter speed. If sport were your primary focus, I'd suggest the 7D MkII, but I sense that it's ancillary and, therefore, the loss of a few fps will not be an issue. Your 70-300mm should be fine with either body for sport.</p> <p>BTW, the 70D has the same size sensor as the 40D, Gil.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arie_vandervelden1 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 <p>For soccer, I'd upgrade from the 75-300</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn McCreery Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 <p>One advantage of the 6D over the 5D III, other than economic, is lighter weight (1.6 lb versus 2.1 lb for the bodies). This makes a difference if you are hiking or just carrying your camera around for hours at a time.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 <p>I upgraded to the 7D from a 40D over 5 years ago. The 7D is the best camera I have ever owned, by far! It's super rugged (a must for me) and a SUPERB tool. The 7DII is only better. Best of luck.<br> I'll be in the market for a new body next year. I am simply hoping for something awesome from Canon in the next several months that costs under $2,000.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 <p>Ken, the street price of the 7D MkII is $1,500. I think you'll be overjoyed with it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 <p>I don't think that the 6D will cut it as a sports camera; otherwise, I'd recommend it over the 5D MkIII, given the OP's planned usage.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 <p>David -- thanks -- we'll see how it goes with Canon the next few months. Excellent!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw_overton Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 <p>I have both the 7DII and 6d. The 6D mostly sits on the shelf as the 7dII does better at most everything except total darkness.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddler4 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 <blockquote> <p>For your usage, I'd suggest the 5D MkIII. You get all the AF benefits and significantly better high-ISO performance. You only give up a few fps and a little bit of pixel-density.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not "a little bit." The 7DII sensor is 22.4 x 15 mm, so 336 mm^2. The 5DIII is 36 x 24, so 864 mm^2. The 7D II is 20.2 MP; the 5DIII, 22.3. therefore, the pixel density of the 5DIII is .0258 MP/mm^s, which is 43% of the 7DII's .0601 MP/mm^2. </p> <p>I'm not saying which is better. I'm just pointing out that the difference in pixel density is large, so if that is an issue for you, you might give it some consideration. I have a 7D (not a II), which has a lower density than the 7DII, as well as a 5D III, and the main reason I keep the &D is for applications where I want the greater pixel density.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 <p>Dan, you're calculating pixel-density incorrectly. For instance, the 7D MkII and the 5DsR have the same pixel-density. On the larger, full-frame sensor, that results in over 50MP. With the same size sensor as the 5DsR, the 5D MkIII has less than half the pixels. </p> <p>I own the 7D MkII, the 5D MkIII and the 5DsR and can tell, from experience, that the high-ISO performance of the 5D MkIII is only a stop or so better than the 7D MkII. That's "significant" in my book. For most users, it's not a big deal.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddler4 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 <p>David,</p> <p>My numbers are correct for the comparison I was quoting, which was with the 5DIII, not the 5DsR:</p> <blockquote> <p>For your usage, I'd suggest the <strong>5D MkIII</strong>. You get all the AF benefits and significantly better high-ISO performance. You only give up a few fps and a little bit of pixel-density.</p> </blockquote> <p>My numbers are just multiplication and division using the numbers for the 5DIII and 7DII from the Canon website.</p> <p>Les, I'll weigh in with one other consideration. Two of the uses for which pixel density really can matter are wildlife (for reach) and macro. I don't do much wildlife, but I do a great deal of macro, and field-based macro (read--chasing bugs) is the primary reason I bought a 7D when I already had a 5D3. At minimum working distance, the size of the image on the sensor is the same regardless of sensor, and therefore, higher density means more pixels on the subject, which can be really handy when you can't get enough magnification with whatever extension you are using. The smaller size and slightly lighter weight are a plus as well for that use. For everything other than field-based macro and my occasional wildlife efforts, I use my 5D3.</p> <p>However, I'm still not recommending one or the other--just raising an issue to consider.</p> <p>Dan</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lesroll Posted December 5, 2015 Author Share Posted December 5, 2015 Thanks everyone for the thoughts. I appreciate that many of you brought up stuff I hadn't even gotten around to considering. I'd like to amend what I said earlier: making decisions on a budget is hard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 <blockquote> <p>Dan said:</p> <p>My numbers are just multiplication and division using the numbers for the 5DIII and 7DII from the Canon website.</p> </blockquote> <p>You're right, I read what you said wrong. The 7D MkII (and now the 5DS and SR) have much higher pixel-density than the 5D MkIII. The linear pixel-density of the 7D MkII is 244p/mm and the 5D MkIII is 160p/mm.</p> <p>When focal length limited (shooting birds with a 500mm or 700mm lens/TC combo) higher pixel-density gets more pixels on the subject. Shooting sports from the sidelines is usually not focal length limited. Hence, of the OPs choices, I recommend the 5D MkIII and live with the slight loss of fps. Of course, that assume that cost is not a major issue, then I recommend the 7D MkII and live with the slightly inferior high-ISO performance.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lesroll Posted December 7, 2015 Author Share Posted December 7, 2015 So, the resolution of my question: after much debate internally, I fell victim to the bundled sale on B&H of the 7D Mark II with the Pixma Pro 100 for $1049 after the $350 rebate. I'm getting the printer and accessories for less than the anticipated cost of the camera. I'm excited, and very appreciative of all of your input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 <p>Les, that's a great value. I'm looking forward to seeing your images with the new rig.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy_petersen Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 <p>Sorry in advance for the wall of text...<br> I had to create an account in order to respond on this. I am currently going through the same struggle (7DII vs 6d vs waiting for a 5DIII to be affordable) and I am being pulled in by the exact same B&H deal that got Les. They also have a very similar bundle that comes with the 18-135 IS STM lens for $350 more (but with a 16G SD card instead of a 32G). A very good deal to say the least.<br> I am upgrading (finally) from a Digital Rebel XT after almost 10 years of use. My biggest problems with it are its fairly pathetic low light/high ISO performance, the lack of video features, and the limitations of the auto-focus system when it comes to action shots. I plan to use the camera heavily for video as well as stills over the next 10 years. I'll be shooting mostly candid family shots and sporting/racing events (hockey, drag racing, formula one). The family includes two very little ones so there will be a considerable amount of action from them, but I still want to be able to do portrait type shots and indoor pictures at night without having to blow it out with flash as well.<br> I know that the 7DII is considerably above my current capabilities, but it has some features I very much prefer over the 70D (like 1080p60, the improved AF and metering systems, rugged construction to name a few). And, considering the current price through B&H mentioned above, the 70D seems less and less like the "best" option. <br> I feel like the 6D would be the answer were it not for the AF limitations (especially around filming video or taking action shots). I think the 5DIII would be the best solution functionally, giving many of the advantages of both worlds; however, the 5DIII is a bit above my own budget still I think, even used/refurbished.<br> I just wanted to put this out there for any advice or input from the community. I appreciate all the time and effort you all put into this and similar sites, and into helping people like myself learn and grow.</p> <p>Is the 18-135 IS STM lens worth the $350 extra, for a decent general purpose walk around kind of lens? I will be investing in other, better glass in the near future, but will need something to tide me over until I can pick up a good prime or two and a 70-200 f/2.8 (some flavor). The fact that it works well with video is important, so it seems like an STM lens would be ideal. Any good alternatives to the 18-135 IS STM that anyone can suggest?<br> Any other input or suggestions are appreciated. Thanks!!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 <p>You're not going to give up a thing by going with the 7D MkII vs. the 6D or the 5D MkIII. It's a great, fast camera, with incredible resolution.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now