topic Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

6D Mark II vs. 90D

dylanmacz — Sat, 14 Mar 2020 21:57:10 GMT

I currently have a Rebel SL2 and an 80D with an EF 70-200 f2.8, EF 35mm f1.8, EF 50mm 1.8, EF-S 10-18, and the EF-S 18-55mm kit. I mostly shoot sports and street photography and I am looking to upgrade the SL2. The 11fps of the 90D sounds very appealing but so does the full-frame of the 6D mk ii. If anyone could help me out in my decision that would be great.

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

rs-eos — Sat, 14 Mar 2020 22:54:43 GMT

You'd probably be better off with the 90D. If you went for the 6D, you wouldn't be able to use your EF-S lenses.

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

shadowsports — Sun, 03 May 2020 18:58:43 GMT

Tough call for me.

Where do you shoot the majority of your sports events?

If indoor, I'd be ok with a 6D2 coupled with the 70-210, 35mm and 50mm

If outdoor, probably the 90D

While the 11fps is attractive for sports, your EF lenses are a better match for a FF body.

The 90D coupled with the shorter focal length EF-S lenses will do the majority of your city scapes without issue. In a pinch the 35 will give an equivlent 56mm at f1.8 which you could find limiting from a FOV perspective, but it wouldn't be on a 6D2 day or night.

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

RobertTheFat — Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:15:02 GMT

@dylanmacz wrote:
I currently have a Rebel SL2 and an 80D with an EF 70-200 f2.8, EF 35mm f1.8, EF 50mm 1.8, EF-S 10-18, and the EF-S 18-55mm kit. I mostly shoot sports and street photography and I am looking to upgrade the SL2. The 11fps of the 90D sounds very appealing but so does the full-frame of the 6D mk ii. If anyone could help me out in my decision that would be great.

If you were not considering a move to full-frame, the 90D would be a nice upgrade to your SL-2. However, that's not what I'd recommend in that circumstance. Instead, I'd suggest that you upgrade from your 18-55 kit lens to the much superior EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. I think it might make more difference in the overall utility of your equipment.

But since you evidently are considering FF but haven't made a final decision (a situation in which I once found myself), I'd recommend a different approach. Whichever way you decide between the 90D and the 6D2, resolve to buy only full-frame (EF, not EF-S) lenses in the future. They'll work on your APS-C cameras (even though their focal ranges may not be ideal in all cases), and you'll still be able to use them when/if you do buy a FF camera.

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

ebiggs1 — Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:39:04 GMT

I am sorta in the same camp as Robert. I thing the upgrade to the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is the first way to go. Sell these lenses EF 35mm f1.8, EF 50mm 1.8 and the EF-S 18-55mm kit. You'll never use them again if you get the lens we suggested.

Now to carry this a bit further, I would go for the 90D all day long over the 6D2. And, if I was to think I really wanted the new camera, I know the feeling, I would buy the 90D along with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens. In which case I would not buy the f2.8 Canon.

However, the 80D and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens would be a great combo. Keep in mind your 70-200mil zoom will not be as effective tele on a 6D2. You will likely need a longer tele lens for sports.

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

dylanmacz — Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:47:59 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
I am sorta in the same camp as Robert. I thing the upgrade to the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is the first way to go. Sell these lenses EF 35mm f1.8, EF 50mm 1.8 and the EF-S 18-55mm kit. You'll never use them again if you get the lens we suggested.
Now to carry this a bit further, I would go for the 90D all day long over the 6D2. And, if I was to think I really wanted the new camera, I know the feeling, I would buy the 90D along with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens. In which case I would not buy the f2.8 Canon.
However, the 80D and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens would be a great combo. Keep in mind your 70-200mil zoom will not be as effective tele on a 6D2. You will likely need a longer tele lens for sports.

I'm leaning more towards the 90D for the reason of extra reach and higher fps but it's a hard decision to spend that much on a crop camera when the 6DM2 is sometimes equal or less used. The EF 35mm is a Tamron SP and I find myself using that more than any lens I own and I am not sure if I would be willing to get rid of that anytime soon lol. What are the reasons that would make you choose the 90D over the 6DM2?

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

ebiggs1 — Mon, 16 Mar 2020 16:02:39 GMT

I have never been a fan of the 6 series cameras. The 90D is a wonderful camera at a good price point for a new buy. If you are on the used market that may not be the case. The 90D and the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens will at least equal the IQ of the 6D2 depending on what lens you select.

If you buy the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens, it will do everything your 35mil prime does so you don't need it any longer. Plus you have the benefits of a zoom over the limited use of a prime.

You can read the specs to compare the two cameras. You will see the 90D beats the 6D2 almost every one. Plus the 90D is two years newer and newer tech almost always trumps older tech. Now I know somebody is going to say larger pixels (6D Mk II) is better in low light, that is mostly BS in this case so don't believe it.

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

rs-eos — Mon, 16 Mar 2020 17:22:23 GMT

Given two sensors in either APS-C or full frame built around the same time, you'll typically see better low light performance with the version with larger square area of those sensor sites. But yes, there are other factors such as that newer sensors can often match or even beat sensors with larger sensor sites. And, other surrounding tech (AD converters, processors).

Examples:

When I moved from a Rebel T4i (20 MP) to the first-gen 6D (also around 20 MP), the 6D had around 2 stops better performance when looking at noise levels. i.e. a 6400 ISO 6D image matched quite closely a 1600 ISO T4i image. How much of that gain was purely from the larger sites vs. other factors is unknown.

When I then moved up to the 5D IV, even with 50% more sensor sites (thus smaller) as the 6D, it offered slightly more (1/3 stop?) better low-light performance.

Side note: I wish the industry would stop using the term pixel regarding sensors. Pixels on displays/monitors are made up of three components: R, G and B. So a 14 MP display has 14 million each of R, G and B components. But a 14 "MP" sensor, while it does have 14 million sensor sites to capture light, it must use interpolation to reconstruct color. You definitely don't truly have 14 million each of R, G and B there. Exception is for any unit with 3 CCDs (think those only exist for video) where you now have one sensor for each component.

Final note on the 6D... for my needs, when upgrading from the first-gen 6D, I contemplated both the 6D II and the 5D IV. The 5D IV ultimately won out due to in part these four features: dual card slots, 100% viewfinder coverage, 1/8000 shutter option, and sync speed of 1/200 (vs. the 6D's 1/180). As I do lots of off-camera flash work, I really wanted the higher sync speed. I would thus recommend just analyzing what you shoot and what you may be interesting in shooting in the near future. The 90D specs (higher sync speed, I think I saw 1/8000 shutter option too) may really help out with your vision.

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

ebiggs1 — Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:35:07 GMT

"...you'll typically see better low light performance with the version with larger square area of those sensor sites."

I knew it would come but not so quickly. You can't say which will do better if you don't know the entire package. And that's just what you did. Consider a 90D with the recommended Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens vs the 6D Mk II with a f2.8 or f4 lens. Still think you will get 2 stops better low light performance? We both know you won't.

"...there are other factors such as that newer sensors can often match or even beat sensors with larger sensor sites."

Thank you!

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

rs-eos — Mon, 16 Mar 2020 20:31:10 GMT

Sorry ebiggs1, but I think you're confused about what I wrote.

My very first sentence was specifically prefixed with a phrase mentioning "two _equally-sized_ sensors released around the same time". i.e. with those two factors being equal, a sensor with larger sensor sites typically gives better low light performance.

Of course the 90D and 6D II share different sensor sizes, and were also released to market a decent time apart. I also didn't claim you'd get 2 stops better with the 6D II. Instead, the 2 stops I wrote about was very specific to my example of moving from a Rebel T4i to the first-gen 6D.

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

ebiggs1 — Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:43:22 GMT

"...but I think you're confused about what I wrote."

I can't argue that point!

But my point was just the comparison of the 90D vs the 6D Mk II. And, that somebody would bring up the low light benefit of the FF over the 90D. I wanted to make sure the OP considers the total package. The age difference and the tech.

However,

"Instead, the 2 stops I wrote about was very specific to my example of moving from a Rebel T4i to the first-gen 6D."

You may not have seen a 2-stop benefit if you had selected different lenses for instance. It is unlikely the way companies manufacture gear, you will ever see two cameras, a cropper and FF come out in nearly the same time frame with nearly the same innards. Except one has a big FF sensor with big pixels and the other a crop sensor with tiny pixels.

To give you your due, I agree FF will "usually" do better in low light all else being equal. But you always need to consider the total package. More clear I hope!

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

Davoud — Wed, 18 Mar 2020 03:18:53 GMT

I wonder how many of those talking against the 6D II have actually owned one and have experience with it. I have owned a 6D and now I have a 6D II. Both have been superb cameras and I wouldn't trade either for any of the crop frame Canons that I have owned.

Also: 5D IV, RP, M5, ton of lenses, from 8 to 1400mm. Lighting by Profoto.

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

RobertTheFat — Wed, 18 Mar 2020 13:12:43 GMT

@Davoud wrote:
I wonder how many of those talking against the 6D II have actually owned one and have experience with it. I have owned a 6D and now I have a 6D II. Both have been superb cameras and I wouldn't trade either for any of the crop frame Canons that I have owned.

Also: 5D IV, RP, M5, ton of lenses, from 8 to 1400mm. Lighting by Profoto.

I don't doubt that you are absolutely correct and that the 6D is an excellent camera for its intended purpose.

But there is a sensible argument on the other side. The 6D series is the entry level to full-frame DSLRs. And those who go FF are apt to be considerably more serious about photography than those who don't. (Otherwise they'd stick with one or more of the high-quality APS-C cameras that Canon makes. Note that their good lenses are much cheaper.) And such a user is more likely to soon get annoyed by his camera's missing features than someone who buys, say, a T7i. Much of the talk against the 6D isn't that it's an inferior camera, but just that do you really want to buy a camera that you may get tired of before you wear it out. That argument can be, and sometimes is, tinged with unnecessary pomposity. But there is some validity to it.

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

Davoud — Wed, 18 Mar 2020 16:36:38 GMT

...such a user is more likely to soon get annoyed by his camera's missing features than someone who buys, say, a T7i. Much of the talk against the 6D isn't that it's an inferior camera, but just that do you really want to buy a camera that you may get tired of before you wear it out.

That's an interesting perspective. I take it you have a 6D or 6D II. As I noted, I have a 5D Mark IV, as well. It's heavy and has a number of features that I don't often use. I use my 6D II (or EOS RP) when I need to carry a lighter camera about for field nature photography and I get results that are equivalent to those of the 5D IV. I suppose that, for some, the 6D series has "missing features," but that simply never occurred to me. I've been using the 6D II since the day it went on sale and it has also never occurred to me that I would tire of it before it wears out. With four interchangeable-lens Canon bodies, I don't have to have a hard favorite. But I very often favor the 6D Mark II for its ease of use, ruggedness in the field, and high-quality raw photos. The price of lenses is not an issue for me. When looking at body specs, I pay attention to my specific needs. I do pro bono nature macrophotography for scientific and educational institutions. GPS is a must for a nature photographer. Two card slots? Not important to me in the least; I use only one of the two on my 5D IV. Video? 1080P @ 59.94 fps produces the high-quality short videos of arthropods that I sometimes make. ISO 6 zillion? Nope. 100 megapixels? Waste of money for me.

That argument can be, and sometimes is, tinged with unnecessary pomposity.

Bingo. I do photography, not pomposity. I show photos, not cameras. I'm not in the least abashed if I'm on a field trip where everyone else has a 1DX and I have brought my little M5. No one has ever looked at a photo from my M5 and said "too bad you didn't use a (whatever)." Frankly, there's not a commonly available camera that I know of, at least up through Phase One (heavy, not suitable for macrophotography), that I couldn't own if I wanted it. Ergonomics, weight, high-quality raws, ability to remotely control my Profoto B1s (which I also take into the field).

This is what I'm looking for, and the 6D Mark II doesn't disappoint. Cicada-Killer Wasp, Sphecius speciosus.

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

ebiggs1 — Wed, 18 Mar 2020 18:16:49 GMT

"I wonder how many of those talking against the 6D II have actually owned one and have experience with it."

I admit I have no desire to own a 6D Mk II and even less desire for a 6D. However, the question was "6D Mark II vs. 90D."

I tried a 6D and fopund out it is not for me. I tried out the 90D and found it to be a super good camera. So when someone asks "6D Mark II vs. 90D", I am going to give my honest opinion.

If you are fond of your 6D, more power to you. I am glad you have what you like. But in this thread, 90D all the way. Again it is the total package a person needs to consider.