Canon Community Canon Community
 


Reply
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 57
Registered: ‎04-17-2014

Re: Looking into full frame

The 7D Mk II is less expensive that the 6D Mk II.  It is just as capable or better.  It isn't the cameras fault if you guys don't know how to use it. The two cameras, beside sensors, are very similar.  One gets a better spec in some point and the other in a different spec. But the 7D Mk II has the better price as mentioned above.

 

The 6D Mk II is more like a FF version of the 80D, IMHO.  BTW, I would pick the 80D over the 6D Mk II and save $900 bucks,

 

I'm sure you're right in every regard. I don't get why you care what I use. It so happens that I like FF cameras and I don't need to justify that. So I use a 5D IV, and a 6D II. And an M5 (APS-C). I recently gave away my 5D III because it was excess to my needs and I have a friend who can use it. I'm lucky not to have to concern myself with whether the 80D is $900 or $9000 cheaper than the 6D II. The 6D is good enough for my humble needs.

VIP
Posts: 8,119
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Looking into full frame

Robert,

"I'm just trying, as best I can, to help the next generation understand what's going on..."

 

My friend I have no doubt of your sincerity. The point I am trying to make, perhaps poorly, is young ones coming into photography now never used film.  They don't know there was a silly conversion comparison factor involved.  They get a 17-55mm lens and it is a 17-55mm lens.  They don't think now what would this look like on a 35mm FF camera.  It doesn't matter.  

If old guys like us would stop saying, oh, well that would be a 27-53mm if you had a FF camera.  Like they did something wrong.

 

BTW, I still have and use Nikon cameras!  It is just I like my Canon's better.  There are points on the Nikon that are better than Canon. There are points in which the Canon is better.  But overall plus the lens selection, Canon is a no brainer.  It is too bad you can't pull certain things from each and create your own perfect camera.

A lot of Canon stuff. Along with, a lot of other stuff.
VIP
Posts: 8,119
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Looking into full frame

Davoud,

"I don't get why you care what I use."

 

I don't care at all.  Use whatever makes you happy.  If you love your 5D Mk IV and why wouldn't you, fantastic.  I am all in for you.

 

My point to the OP was if you want to save money the 7D Mk II is the choice.  Spending $500 more dollars for virtually no more camera makes little sense to me.  In that same vein I would even opt for the 80D which is really a crop sensor 6D Mk II and save even more.  But than again I really don't care one way or the other.

A lot of Canon stuff. Along with, a lot of other stuff.
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 3,731
Registered: ‎06-25-2014

Re: Looking into full frame


ebiggs1 wrote:

Davoud,

"I don't get why you care what I use."

 

I don't care at all.  Use whatever makes you happy.  If you love your 5D Mk IV and why wouldn't you, fantastic.  I am all in for you.

 

My point to the OP was if you want to save money the 7D Mk II is the choice.  Spending $500 more dollars for virtually no more camera makes little sense to me.  In that same vein I would even opt for the 80D which is really a crop sensor 6D Mk II and save even more.  But than again I really don't care one way or the other.


The simple description of the 7D Mk II is that it's a smaller, lighter 5D Mk III that maybe isn't quite as good in low light. I got one for my wife because it's the heaviest camera she's willing to carry.

 

A couple of summers ago, we were out on my cousin's sailboat. When it was my turn to take the wheel, Martha inadvertently picked up my 5D3 (24-105mm f/4L), thinking it was her 7D2 (17-55mm f/2.8). She took several pictures without noticing her error, because the controls are almost identical and the lenses have a corresponding relationship to the frame size. It wasn't until I sat back down and groped around for my camera that we realized what had happened.

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 3,082
Registered: ‎06-11-2013

Re: Looking into full frame

Although... the 7D series are APS-C size sensors (not full frame) and the 5D series are full-frame sensors.

 

The difference alters the angle of view you would get (assuming the same lens).  Since a full frame sensor alters your angle of view, it means the distance from the subject when using an APS-C size sensor will be a bit farther than the full-frame sensor and that, in turn, alters the depth of field.  So you can think of full-frame sensor cameras as having a shallower depth of field compared to crop-frame sensor cameras and that means they have stronger background blur (which many people fell is an attractive attribute - especially in portraits).

 

Another difference tends to do with the idea that a “full frame” sensor will have less “noise” in an image (when using high ISO) than a crop-frame camera.  This isn’t strictly true... but it tends to be generally true.  

 

Part of the difference is that as a generalization, “full frame” sensors tend to have physically larger “pixels” (technically a pixel has red, green, and blue color attributes which are blended to result in a final color — the “pixels” on your camera sensor are more properly called “photo-sites” and they only have single color values and software will create blended colors by comparing each photo-site’s value to the values of it’s neighboring photo-sites).  Anyway... the larger the photo-site, the more samples of photons it will receive and the less “noise” it should have... but this assumes the technology of the chip between two cameras is similar (it would be fair to compare the technology behind the chip of a very modern camera with the technology of a very old digital camera).

 

But that brings up another point... the larger sensor (full-frame) cameras do cost more AND it’s where camera companies spend most of their research & development dollars.  So the technology in the full-frame cameras tends to be ahead of the technology in the APS-C crop-frame cameras... and then that technology tends to trickle down into the other products over time.  Canon’s flagship camera... the 1D X series, gets the very best tech... then the 5D, 7D, 6D, then the xxD (80D, 70D, 60D, 50D, etc.) line, then the Rebel line.

 

So while there’s no absolute rule that says a full-frame camera must have better ISO performance with lower noise... it “tends” to be true based on the photo-site size on the sensor AND based on where the camera companies spend the majority of their R & D dollars.

 

To be fair... a full-frame camera is not “better” than a crop-frame camera... it’s merely different.  But the difference involves nuances that many photographers appreciate.

 

Tim Campbell
5D III, 5D IV, 60Da
Honored Contributor
Posts: 5,440
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: Looking into full frame


TCampbell wrote:

Although... the 7D series are APS-C size sensors (not full frame) and the 5D series are full-frame sensors.

 

The difference alters the angle of view you would get (assuming the same lens).  Since a full frame sensor alters your angle of view, it means the distance from the subject when using an APS-C size sensor will be a bit farther than the full-frame sensor and that, in turn, alters the depth of field.  So you can think of full-frame sensor cameras as having a shallower depth of field compared to crop-frame sensor cameras and that means they have stronger background blur (which many people fell is an attractive attribute - especially in portraits).

 

Another difference tends to do with the idea that a “full frame” sensor will have less “noise” in an image (when using high ISO) than a crop-frame camera.  This isn’t strictly true... but it tends to be generally true.  

 

Part of the difference is that as a generalization, “full frame” sensors tend to have physically larger “pixels” (technically a pixel has red, green, and blue color attributes which are blended to result in a final color — the “pixels” on your camera sensor are more properly called “photo-sites” and they only have single color values and software will create blended colors by comparing each photo-site’s value to the values of it’s neighboring photo-sites).  Anyway... the larger the photo-site, the more samples of photons it will receive and the less “noise” it should have... but this assumes the technology of the chip between two cameras is similar (it would be fair to compare the technology behind the chip of a very modern camera with the technology of a very old digital camera).

 

But that brings up another point... the larger sensor (full-frame) cameras do cost more AND it’s where camera companies spend most of their research & development dollars.  So the technology in the full-frame cameras tends to be ahead of the technology in the APS-C crop-frame cameras... and then that technology tends to trickle down into the other products over time.  Canon’s flagship camera... the 1D X series, gets the very best tech... then the 5D, 7D, 6D, then the xxD (80D, 70D, 60D, 50D, etc.) line, then the Rebel line.

 

So while there’s no absolute rule that says a full-frame camera must have better ISO performance with lower noise... it “tends” to be true based on the photo-site size on the sensor AND based on where the camera companies spend the majority of their R & D dollars.

 

To be fair... a full-frame camera is not “better” than a crop-frame camera... it’s merely different.  But the difference involves nuances that many photographers appreciate.

 


I switched to a full frame for the reasons Tim cites above.  First and foremost, I wanted the wider angle-of-view, because most of my shooting is landscapes, cityscapes, and street life, not action shots.  All versions of the 5D, 6D, and 7D are more robust than I am, so body build is important, it is not the deal maker or breaker for me.  Neither are dual card slots.

I also frequently found myself in shooting scenarios where the ISO was 1600, and higher.  At the time, the 6D was the reigning low noise champion in the Canon DSLR lineup.  I went to a local camera store, (B&H, lucky me), and compared the 6D and the 7D mark II.  The difference at ISO 3200 was like night and day.  It was not until the 6D hit ISO 12800 did it show similar noise.

 

To be fair, though, there is very little noise difference between a 20MP APS-C 7D Mark II, and a 20MP FF 6D, at ISO 100.  I own both, and have used them extensively side by side.  Unless I need the extra “reach” afforded by the APS-C sensor, I find myself always reaching for the 6D.

I do wish the 6D had a top shutter speed of 1/8000, instead of 1/4000.  But, shooting conditions and scenarios where i need a shutter speed that fast are pretty rare for me.  If you are shooting with at f/1.4, or faster, on a bright sunny day, then you will need 1/8000 more than I would.  Many of my shots are between f/2.8 and f/5.6, half are at f/6.3 or f/8.

But, I like the images out of the 6D FAR more than the images coming out of the 7D mark II.  I love the colors and details.  I also find myself applying more noise reduction to 7D2 images, than 6D images, which reduces detail and dynamic range.  

In fact, I had bought a 7D2 shortly after buying my 6D, with the intent of giving one to my son.  I wound up giving him the 7D2, which totally impressed him, as he was using a T5.  It was spring time, I found that I liked making vain attempts to phtograph birds in flight, so I bought a 7D2 for myself, which is what I have in my bag now.  I had also done the same with an 80D, and gave it to another relative.  Actually, I did it twice.  i guess that might mean I like the 80D better than a 7D2.  Hmm.

I have found the 7D2 easier to use to track birds and athletes.  In fact, I didn’t really have that “AHA” moment until I gave the 6D a rest, and started using the 7D2 in earnest.  But, this year I decided to give the 6D another turn at bat.  I found that I could take very good action photos with the 6D, but I just could tell where the camera was focusing at the time.

The 6D lacks the HUD, heads up display, when using AI Servo mode, that the 7D2 gives you.  As a resull of not seeing the active AF point, you cannot always be sure where the camera is locking focus, except to reset the AF system back to the center AF point, as you track an object, although this is really not necessary.

The 80D gives you a HUD when using AI Servo, but 45 cross type AF points, instead of the 65 cross type AF points in the 7D2.  But, the 80D has 27 f/8 AF points, compared to the one f/8 point, in the center, on the 7D2.  These 27 points are very faster, and seem to be more accurate than the f/5.6 points surrounding the 7D2 center AF point.  

 

The 80D can track just as well as the 7D2, but the 7D2 has a higher frame rate, which is great if your primary use is fast action photography.  The 6D Mark II can track even better than the 80D, and even easier than the 7D2.  My results so far shooting action shots with the 6D2 has been a significantly higher keeper rate than the 7D2, mostly because of the lower noise.  The lower noise also carries with it the side effect of producing sharper looking images.

 

The 80D also produces images that seem to have noticeably lower noise than the 7D2.  Deciding between the two cameras comes down to frame rates [7D2], dual card slots [7D2], noise performance [80D], and Wi-Fi [80D] or GPS [7D2].


If frame rates and dual card slots are of the utmost importance to you, then the 7D2 is an easy decision.  If you need fewer professional features and more consumer features, then the 80D is the easy decision.  If you want low noise photos when shooting at higher ISO, as I did, then the 6D is the easy choice compared to the 7D2.

If you want a full frame version of the 80D, the 6D Mark II is the logical choice, although the 80D does have a top shutter speed of 1/8000, while Canon hobbles the 6D series at 1/4000 maximum speed.  Comparing the 6D2 to a 5D3, I chose the 6D2, mainly because of the vastly improved AF system, which has 27 f/8 AF points, DIGIC 7 CPU, and the 26MP sensor.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
Honored Contributor
Posts: 5,440
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: Looking into full frame

[ Edited ]

The combination of the 6D Mark II and the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM is a good one.  

 

EOS 6D Mark II2017_10_151196.jpg

1/1000, f/5.6, ISO 10000, @330mm - Image cropped to about 33% to remove distracting branches at the edge.

The above shot is the result of someone's dog jumping into the lake off to my right.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
Highlighted
VIP
Posts: 8,119
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Looking into full frame

"... there’s no absolute rule that says a full-frame camera must have better ISO performance with lower noise... it “tends” to be true based on the photo-site size on the sensor AND based on where the camera companies spend the majority of their R & D dollars."

 

While I agree with most of your commentary, I differ in a few points.  Canon spends money on technology. It is aimed at advancing the digital picture.  It isn't, how do I make a FF sensor better.  Later comes a team that figures out how to put that new tech on a sensor. Of course the high dollar flag ship most profitable model gets it first.  In fact, in the beginning there were no FF sensors.  All were cropped, example the EOS 1D or Nikon 1D.  FF sensors were extremely expensive to make and the reject rate was high.  As the technology increased FF became commercially possible. Thus the EOS 1Ds a year or two later at 8 grand mind you in year 2002 money!

 

"... a full-frame camera is not “better” than a crop-frame camera... it’s merely different."

 

A point that most refuse to acknowledge.  Mostly from hype perpetuated on the ole inner web.  If it is there it is gospel, I realize!  In the end, all cameras are full frame.  You get exactly what you see in the view finder.  Select your lenses wisely.

A lot of Canon stuff. Along with, a lot of other stuff.
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 3,731
Registered: ‎06-25-2014

Re: Looking into full frame


ebiggs1 wrote:

"... there’s no absolute rule that says a full-frame camera must have better ISO performance with lower noise... it “tends” to be true based on the photo-site size on the sensor AND based on where the camera companies spend the majority of their R & D dollars."

 

While I agree with most of your commentary, I differ in a few points.  Canon spends money on technology. It is aimed at advancing the digital picture.  It isn't, how do I make a FF sensor better.  Later comes a team that figures out how to put that new tech on a sensor. Of course the high dollar flag ship most profitable model gets it first.  In fact, in the beginning there were no FF sensors.  All were cropped, example the EOS 1D or Nikon 1D.  FF sensors were extremely expensive to make and the reject rate was high.  As the technology increased FF became commercially possible. Thus the EOS 1Ds a year or two later at 8 grand mind you in year 2002 money!

 

"... a full-frame camera is not “better” than a crop-frame camera... it’s merely different."

 

A point that most refuse to acknowledge.  Mostly from hype perpetuated on the ole inner web.  If it is there it is gospel, I realize!  In the end, all cameras are full frame.  You get exactly what you see in the view finder.  Select your lenses wisely.


You keep hammering on that point, Ernie, and I guess I have to admit that you're right. In principle, your definition of the term "full frame" is as good as anybody else's.

 

But your problem is that your definition isn't everybody else's. Everybody else uses the term to mean "a sensor size of 24 x 36 millimeters". Inasmuch as the English language is what it is, your effort to substitute your definition for the generally accepted one is almost certainly doomed to failure. It would be less trouble for you, and less confusing for the newbies in this forum, if you'd simply accept that fact and move on.

Bob
Boston, Massachusetts USA
VIP
Posts: 8,119
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Looking into full frame

Robert please re-read this a few times, sir.

"... a full-frame camera is not “better” than a crop-frame camera... it’s merely different."

 

 

I have no intention to change any vernacular or terminology.  I simply want people to realize that fact.  Call it what you will.

 

Robert, "But your problem is ..." just one of many.  Add it to the list as I will likely not even know it's there.  Smiley Frustrated

 

When Mr Campbell said the newer model is probably more important to better photos is more accurate than the sensor size.

A lot of Canon stuff. Along with, a lot of other stuff.
powered by Lithium

LIKE US on Facebook FOLLOW US on Twitter WATCH US on YouTube CONNECT WITH US on Linkedin WATCH US on Vimeo FOLLOW US on Instagram SHOP CANON at the Canon Online Store
© Canon U.S.A., Inc.   |    Terms of Use   |    Privacy Statement