Going from Rebel T2i to either Rebel T6i or 80D - Some questions

[Kunze4three]

Seen some good discussion of the upgrading from the Canon T2i. I'm looking to do that. About a year ago I started covering concerts for a website. I'd never shot before so it's been a learning curve. I've been surviving with my Rebel T2i an two lenses. A 24-105mm L series lens and a little 50mm f/1.8 lens. The big outdoor shows with stages that have front lights have been pretty easy. The clubs however, a real battle. Everything is backlit and so much smoke. My L lens does not have the F stop to grab things very easy when it's that dark. The limited ISO on the 2Ti isnt' helping. I am having to decrease the shutter to get the light but if the subject moves, its blurry. So I'm timing lights and when people are still. When you only get 3 songs to shoot, time runs out quick. 

One of the most consistant suggestions have been to get a Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM lens. I been told that would really help, and I understand the glass you use does make a huge difference. I have a friend willing to sell me one of those for $400 bucks. Seems like a good deal. It's been well cared for. 

I realize the full frame is probably the best way to go long term. The bigger sensors allow more light in but the price point on those are steep and then lenes for them add more cost. I've read that not all lenes that fit crop sensor cameras fit on the full frames. I don't know what the future holds in this so investing tha much in camera doesn't make sense right now.

So is it worth jumping into the Rebel T6i or the 80D? It seems the 80D has the better rating and may be better in low light. However, I can get a brand new T6i for about $500 bucks new and the 80D would be over a grand. I've seen used 80D for aroound $700-$900. Is it worth the money to go to the 80D or will the Rebel give me enough to improve my pictures. 

My lenes:  Canon EFS 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM, Canon 24/105mm L Series, Canon 50mm F/1.8  The other lens that has been suggest is the canon 70-200 f/2.8 II USM

I would assume all these will fit on the Rebel 6Ti and the 80D?

The one other thing I like to do is photo my whippets running. About 30-40 mph. I don't know if either of these cameras would be good for that or if there is a specife lens tha would help with that.

Thanks so much

[Waddizzle]

---

@Kunze4three wrote:

I would assume all these will fit on the Rebel 6Ti and the 80D?

---

You can find the 80D in the Canon Online refurbished store at significant discounts that will surprise you.  They can go on sale for cheaper than the used prices you cited, and they come with a one year warranty from Canon.  

The 80D is a much better camera than the T6i.  All of your existing lenses would fit the 80D.  Any Canon lens that has a model number that begins with “EF-S” will not fit a full frame camera, like a 6D.

The 80D has great autofocus tracking, which is a technological generation better than a T6i.  It takes practice to learn how to use a camera to track active, moving subjects.  But, once you find an AF setting that works for you, then the 80D will be easier to use due to its’ increased number of AF points in the viewfinder., 

As a general rule, full frame sensors tend to perform better in low light than APS-C sensors because the FF sensor can have larger pixels on the image to sensor to collect and measure light.  If you want to spend the extra dime for a 6D, then go for it.  

I cannot determine if you purchased the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, or not, but it would not fit a full frame 6D.  If you have, then it would work fairly well your T2i.  Another camera body with a wide aperture, medium telephoto lens would pair up nicely with that combo.  

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is a costly lens, but it has image quality to match the price tag.  Any of the four 70-200mm lenses that Canon offers would do a pretty good job.  Of course, the f/2.8 lenses are faster, and the Mark II IS model is the best.  Any of them would be suitable for action photography.

[ebiggs1]

"I would assume all these will fit on the Rebel 6Ti and the 80D?'

Yes any lens you have will work with either.

"I realize the full frame is probably the best way to go long term."

However, this is not the case here.  The ones marked 'ef-s' will not work here.

This is first,  Buy the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens.  But in reality the 80D will help too. Any current camera is going to work better that your old Rebel.  Simply technology improvements.  Even the T6i is going to perform better and it may be all you need.

"...sell me one of those for $400 bucks. Seems like a good deal. It's been well cared for."

Try it on your camera before you lay your money down.

"The one other thing I like to do is photo my whippets running"

Anything you have will do this.

BTW, don't fall prey to the full frame hype.  Most of it is untrue.

[TCampbell]

From an ISO performance perspective, the 80D is a tiny bit better than a T6i ... but the difference is difficult to notice unless you inspect identical images from each camera very closely.

DPReview lets you do that.  Here’s a page that compares ISO:   https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-80d-review/11

The image you see on that has a tiny box that you can drag around to see a 100% crop (you see every pixel) — slide it around to find an area you want to compare (e.g. I tend to pick the playing cards).

Below the image you’ll see two smaller images and those show the 100% crop detail of the section you picked above.  But you can compare any two cameras.  By default the 80D will be on the left, use the selector to pick a T6i on the right.

I switch it to RAW (not JPEG) because that shows me what the sensor sees without any de-noising.  Now start bumping up the ISO.  You’ll see that they are nearly identical ... but after lots of tests I think my eye believes the 80D is just fractionally cleaner.  It’s really not a difference which is easy to see.

Now pick a full-frame camera.  I went from a T1i to a 5D II (that was my first upgrade) and the difference was HUGE.  You’ll notice if you pick a 5D II for the right-side camera then you can independently set the ISO (if you set the ISO for the camera on the left it changes both cameras — but if you set the one on the left to a high ISO... say 6400... then you can set the one on the right ... to say 12,800.  

When I do these comparisons... the 5D II is not quite a full stop better in ISO performance ... but close.

When I pick the 5D III — it appears to be almost exactly 1 full stop better in ISO performance.

When I pick the 5D IV — it’s probably more like 1.5 stops better (maybe even 1.75).  I tried to go to 2 stops better and it’s almost 2 stops... just not quite.

You can play these games with the 6D & 6D II.

I’ve posted in the past that while there’s no reason that a full-frame camera MUST have better ISO performance than a crop-frame camera... almost any comparison you do of a full-frame vs. crop-frame (assuming the full-frame isn’t an ancient camera) you’ll find that full-frame cameras do have better ISO performance.  

If you go from an f/4 lens to an f/2.8 lens you ALSO get one stop of improvement to ISO performance.  

I’ve done concert shooting with my old 5D II at ISO 6400 and the images actually look pretty clean unless I do 100% crops and inspect them closely... and quality de-noising software easily takes care of it.  I would shoot ISO 6400 without any hesitation using that camera.  With the 5D IV I’d shoot at ISO 12,800 and not worry about it.

The 6D is comparable to the performance of the 5D II (maybe just fractionally better) — but costs a lot less.

A refurbished 80D on the Canon online store is about $800 (body only price).  A refurbished 6D is about $1100 (body only price).  When you buy a refurbished camera direct from Canon you get the same warranty that comes with a “new” retail camera — it’s a 1 year warranty.

[Waddizzle]

“The one other thing I like to do is photo my whippets running. About 30-40 mph. I don't know if either of these cameras would be good for that or if there is a specife lens tha would help with that.“

With a little practice you shou be able to photograph your runnig whippets.  My best advice would be to use a high shutter speed, at least 1/1000, and preferably 1/1600, or 1/2000.  There many examples of shots of R/C, radio controlled, aircraft in the forum pages, and they move well in excess of 100 mph, with some topping out close to 200 mph.

Of course, using a very fast shutter speed will almost certainly necessitate an similar increase in ISO.  This is where you, the photographer, may need to make compromises, like reducing shutter speed so that you do not need as high of an ISO setting. Having a wide aperture lens can help to make these strategic decisions easier.  

If there is such a thing as an “all purpose sports lens”, then a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens would get my vote.  It would be the lens that I would install on my camera to photograph running dogs, even without knowing how close to them I could be.

 In fact, the 70-200mm lens is the second most versatile lens in my camera kit.  My favorite lenses are 35mm and 50mm primes, for general photography.  I should point out that I mostly use a full frame 6D, and that there is no good equivalent to a 70-200mm lens from Canon for n APS-C sensor body camera, like the Rebel Series T2i, or the enthusiast camera body 80D.  The closest equivalent to a 70-200mm is a 50-100mm lens from Sigma.

[RobertTheFat]

---

Waddizzle wrote:

.

In fact, the 70-200mm lens is the second most versatile lens in my camera kit.  My favorite lenses are 35mm and 50mm primes, for general photography.  I should point out that I mostly use a full frame 6D, and that there is no good equivalent to a 70-200mm lens from Canon for n APS-C sensor body camera, like the Rebel Series T2i, or the enthusiast camera body 80D.  The closest equivalent to a 70-200mm is a 50-100mm lens from Sigma.

---

Sigma should step into that breach with an "Art" version of their old 50-150mm f/2.8. (There isn't one, is there?)

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

.

In fact, the 70-200mm lens is the second most versatile lens in my camera kit.  My favorite lenses are 35mm and 50mm primes, for general photography.  I should point out that I mostly use a full frame 6D, and that there is no good equivalent to a 70-200mm lens from Canon for n APS-C sensor body camera, like the Rebel Series T2i, or the enthusiast camera body 80D.  The closest equivalent to a 70-200mm is a 50-100mm lens from Sigma.

---

Sigma should step into that breach with an "Art" version of their old 50-150mm f/2.8. (There isn't one, is there?)

---

Sigma has already done so.  They have the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art lens.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

.

In fact, the 70-200mm lens is the second most versatile lens in my camera kit.  My favorite lenses are 35mm and 50mm primes, for general photography.  I should point out that I mostly use a full frame 6D, and that there is no good equivalent to a 70-200mm lens from Canon for n APS-C sensor body camera, like the Rebel Series T2i, or the enthusiast camera body 80D.  The closest equivalent to a 70-200mm is a 50-100mm lens from Sigma.

---

Sigma should step into that breach with an "Art" version of their old 50-150mm f/2.8. (There isn't one, is there?)

---

Sigma has already done so.  They have the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art lens.

---

A different animal. The APS-C equivalent of a 70-200 is a 50-150, not a 50-100.

[ebiggs1]

"...an "Art" version of their old 50-150mm f/2.8."

That lens which I seriously loved when I shot Rebels was a modified version of their 70-200mil.  Both of them are really nice lenses with attractive price points.  I wonder why Sigma stopped making it?  You can still find them on the used market.

"A different animal. The APS-C equivalent of a 70-200 is a 50-150, not a 50-100."

Yeah, I don't get that either?  Guess it's good I don't run a multi mega buck corporation.  I don't understand a lot of their decisions.  Including Canon! 

[Waddizzle]

“A different animal. The APS-C equivalent of a 70-200 is a 50-150, not a 50-100.”

I would tend to agree.  The 50-150 range is similar to the 70-210mm range from days past.  

But, someone made a design decision to trade 40mm in focal length for an increase in aperture, f/2.8 to f/1.8.  I think having a equivalent focal length of 80-160mm is a pretty good trade off, assuming that it really goes to 100/160mm.

[EDIT]. Please, i called it “the closest equivalent”, not an exact equivalent.