topic Re: Aspiring photographer. in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

Aspiring photographer.

adam_mateo_ — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:31:08 GMT

Looking to buy a camera for my trip to Europe this summer and I've narrowed my options to the EOS 6D, 7D Mark II, 7D, 70 D, and 60 Da. Which one is the best suit, please provide your reasoning behind your choice.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

adam_mateo_ — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:54:53 GMT

I've taken the EOS 7D off the list and it's come down to the EOS 6D, 7D Mark II, 60Da and the 70D. I only have an issue w/ the 6D because it's not compatible w/ the EF-S lenses.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

adam_mateo_ — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:31:41 GMT

Alrighty, it's now between the EOS 6D or 7D Mark II. I really need advice as to which one is better.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

ScottyP — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:58:20 GMT

What is your budget?

The typical reason to get a 7d2 would be if you frequently shoot fast action sports, or maybe if you use it very roughly. Very roughly.
If you are not either of these shooters, and you want to shoot a crop with EF-s lenses, save your money and get a T5i or even better wait for the T6s.

The 6d is a full frame camera and will give you better high ISO low light performance without as much ugly noise and grain. Less-than-bright light is pretty much THE major struggle in photography, so having a camera that works well in dim light is going to be useful almost every day. What you think of as "dim" and what the camera thinks of as "dim" are not the same. The camera really needs more light to "see" than your eyes do. The loss of EF-s lenses is by no means the end of the world. The AF on the 6D is not very complex, but it is as good enough for ordinary shooting, and I use mine for kids sports with pretty good success, actually.

If a trip to Europe is really a major factor, and assuming you want a big camera rather than going for small portable ones, I think the 6d is the winner unless daylight soccer matches are to be a really big part of the trip. A lot of what you will be shooting will be indoors in dim light.

Remember lenses are more important than bodies. Also allow yourself time before the trip to learn your camera, and to learn photography if you are not already pretty knowledgable. You don't want to be on the trip trying to figure that stuff out or you may miss some irreplaceable shots due to user error.

Just my 2 cents.

Good luck and enjoy your trip.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

ebiggs1 — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:07:03 GMT

If it were me in your shoes, the 7D Mk II is the choice. Don't get caught up in the "this camera is better than that for whatever."

This is a fantastic camera and will make a great traveling partner. The 6D will do nothing better than the Mk II that you can readily see.

The 7D Mk II has way better features and the fact it can use less expensive ef-s lenses is just another plus.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

Skirball — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:18:37 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
If it were me in your shoes, the 7D Mk II is the choice. Don't get caught up in the "this camera is better than that for whatever."

That's hysterical. Don't get caught up in it, just buy the top of the line crop camera.

@ebiggs1 wrote:

The 6D will do nothing better than the Mk II that you can readily see.

It's a shame to waste all that knowledge in your head by being so biased for and against certain things. Go look at the data again, the 7d2 is nowhere close in low light performance, despite how badly you want to believe otherwise. It's also 60% the cost of the 7d2.

OP: That said, I wouldn't recommend the 6D, or the 7d2, or even the 70D. If you're a beginning photographer what's wrong with getting a "beginner" camera. The Rebel series is a fine camera and capable of producing "professional results" if you know what you're doing. Which you don't. So get a Rebel, and if you're really itching to spend money then spend it on lenses. They'll be there long after you've upgraded your camera.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

TCampbell — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:45:17 GMT

Hopefully you've permanently scratched the 60Da off your list. The "a" stands for "astrophotography" and it's a special-purpose camera with a modified IR cut filter to allow vastly more reds (specially they're going after the Hydrogen alpha band at about 656nm). While the camera can still attach normal lenses and be used like any other camera, you'd notice ever image is is very strong in reds.

The 6D and 7D II are VERY different cameras.

The 7D II is an APS-C sensor camera, but in every other respect it's a pro body. It's very durable. It's heavily optimized for action photography. It also has a very sophisticated auto-focus system which is not necessarily intuitive. Anyone buying such a camera really sould plan to sit down and go through it's features and especially spend some time understanding the focus system. I do know of at least one person who owns a 5D III (which has nearly the same focus system) and was surprised to learn they pretty much found a way to get the camera to use a single center point and have never changed modes... ever. They admitted it's because they don't understand the focus system. I pointed them to the docs & videos on it (Canon has a special document on just the focus system.)

I think I'd love a 7D II... but if you're looking for a camera that can be used by a casual user... the 7D II might be a bit much.

And then there's the 6D.

The 6D has extremely good ISO performance and a focus system that can focus down to -3 EV. It's an outstanding camera if you have to shoot in low light. The focus system is relatively simple... it has an 11 point system which very strongly resembles the system you'd find on the Rebel bodies. The focus system is friendlier toward casual shooting and this is considered an "entry" full-frame body (but "entry" for full frame is still very high end).

But it is also a "full frame" camera so you can't use the EF-S lenses (those only work on crop-frame sensor bodies). This means every lens you use will have a wider angle of view as compared to an APS-C crop-frame sensor body (like a 7D II). It's also able to generate stronger background blur (full frame cameras naturally have a narrower depth of field.)

This makes the 6D a better camera for things like (a) low light, (b) portraiture, (c) landscape, (d) architecture (especially interiors). But it would be a worse camera for sports & wildlife (action photography).

Re: Aspiring photographer.

cicopo — Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:53:54 GMT

I'm with Skirball on this one. As a new DSLR enthusiast it's easy to overspend but get very little extra for all the money spent. Until you settle on what fields interest you start with a decent body & lens combo, learn how to use them properly (as in forget about using Auto) & expand your interests by adding better or more versatile lenses. A whole lot of new photographers can get by with a Rebel, a superzoom & an UWA. When you hit the limits of those you'll know why & what you need to do to improve. Remember you'll probably need some good software to edit with, and maybe a quality monitor or even a good Photo Grade printer.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

adam_mateo_ — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 01:47:27 GMT

I've taken all into consideration and I think I'm going to go w/ the 7D Mark II because of its fps, although the 6D works better in lower lighting, I wouldn't want to miss the perfect shot.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

adam_mateo_ — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 02:10:18 GMT

Oh, if you have anything to say about my decision please feel free to express yourself, I'm happy to know why. I suppose I have one remaining question, I plan to use the 7D Mark II extensively, it's more durable than the 6D correct?

Re: Aspiring photographer.

ScottyP — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:15:44 GMT

10fps is more than you need, even for sports, really.

The durability of the 6d, or even of a Rebel is more than enough for being used extensively. The 6d is made on a metal frame almost as strong as the 7d, but you really don't need a metal frame. Or weatherproofing. Most people don't have it, particularly not on a first camera?

Lenses are more important. Mediocre lenses on a great body will not make good images, though good lenses on a nothing-special body will. Budget for a good lens or two first then see how much money you have left for a body. A T5i or (when available) a T6i or T6s will be like $700 to $900. A 6d is like $1500. A 7d2 is $1800.

If you get a Rebel with an inexpensive kit lens included that is ok to get started but do strongly consider budgeting enough to also get a bright "prime" lens so you will have ability to shoot in low light, and the prime will also give better IQ than any kit zoom can.

You don't really say what you will be shooting other than the trip. Once you get back, what will you mostly shoot? That will help decide what lenses, and then what camera, you need.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

cicopo — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:41:02 GMT

No offense but for an "aspiring" photographer I think you're trying to buy skill. It's not included in the box, no matter which camera you buy. I have a need for a 7D2 because I shoot action, & lots of it every summer but I've done that with several other bodies including one which I still use that shoots 4 FPS. Learn the rules of photography & the inter relation of camera & lens settings before spending big money on a camera that's most likely overkill for athe majority of new DSLR buyers.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

adam_mateo_ — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 06:23:04 GMT

Yeah, it's my first camera, I have $5,000 set aside for both the body and a good lens, when I go to college next year I want to take some photography classes so this'll come in handy. Through the duration of my trip to France and Spain I'll be capturing people, you're typical monuments, and a few indoor shots. When I ruturn I'll use it for my hikes, taking photos of animals (mainly birds and insects), before this I'll use it for my last track season.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

ebiggs1 — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:08:53 GMT

You have made a fine choice. Exactly what I would do. No matter what you are never hurt by getting the best. This camera will stay with you a long time and save you money in the long run. You won't have to ditch a Rebel realizing it is not what you wanted or needed.

Skill may not be in the box but this box but it will have a ton a possibilites included for free.

You do need to pair it with a same quality lens. Try to keep your outfit basicly equal or level. I am a big fan of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM right now. It is pretty impressive. And of course the best buy in a Canon "L" lens, the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. Not quite as wide but you get a moderate tele on the other end. Just some suggestions, check them out.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

TCampbell — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:17:14 GMT

@adam_mateo_ wrote:
Oh, if you have anything to say about my decision please feel free to express yourself, I'm happy to know why. I suppose I have one remaining question, I plan to use the 7D Mark II extensively, it's more durable than the 6D correct?

Durability is different between them in two ways.

1) Expected shutter life

The most aggressively moving part on the camera is the shutter mechanism. This incluces both the focal plane shutter itself, as well as the reflex mirror that has to swing clear of the image path when you take a photo. The cameras have an estimated shutter life and, not to confuse... this is NOT a guarantee... it is an ESTIMATE.

The 6D has an expected shutter life of 100,000 actuations. That's the predicted statistical mean (the middle of the bell-curve). That means that while half the cameras will last longer... the other half wont quite make it to that number. But it gives you a rough idea of how many actuations you'll probably get before you might expected to send in the camera body for service.

The 7D (the original... not the II) had an estimated shutter life of 150,000 actuations. This is better than the 6D and the Rebel bodies. Keep in mind that as a camera optimzied with action photography in mind, it can click away at 8 frames per second. That very rapid moving shutter means there's more stress on it's shutter than a typical DSLR would have, so it needs to be a better shutter to handle that performance.

The 7D II got an improvement. It's shutter has an expected life of 200,000 actuations. Also it can shoot at 10 frames per second (If I'm not mistaken, I think this makes it the fastest APS-C DSLR on the market.) The 1D X can do 12 frames per second, but that's Canon's flagship camera and is also a full-frame camera, not APS-C.

So that's the shutter life.

2) Build quality

The 7D series bodies (and the 5D series and 1D series) have magnesium alloy bodies. This makes them rather strong, while avoiding putting on too much weight in the process. They can physically take a bit of knocking around. They'll get cosmetically scratched as a result of being knocked around (like anything), but they'll be substantially harder to cause serious damage (not impossible, but more difficult.)

DigitalRevTV did an episode where they heavily abused a 7D (original... not the II). They knocked it over, threw it down stairs, froze it water, shot at it, and set fire to it. In the end it was one sorry looking camera. They shattered the LCD screen. There were burn marks on it. It looked really bad. But they put a battery in, switched it on, pressed the shutter button and camera enthusiastically started clicking away!

Rebel series and mid-level bodies use a polycarbonate plastic body which is fairly strong and durable, but not as durable as magnesium alloy.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

adam_mateo_ — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:55:04 GMT

ebiggs1: Yeah I've been comparing lenses and I have a top three list, EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM (now Inwant it even more since you suggested it), the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM and the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM (but this one I'll buy later on, I won't be needing soon).

Tcampbell: Thanks for the clarification, it helped a lot. I have seen their YouTube videos, they're great. I've been watching various channels to learn about cameras, lenses etc. most of them are helpful but others are kind of repetitive in the information given/provided.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

adam_mateo_ — Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:21:05 GMT

If someone could answer my question in the lenses forum that would be great, I've narrowed my list to two lenses now.

Re: Aspiring photographer.

Skirball — Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:29:11 GMT

@adam_mateo_ wrote:
Yeah, it's my first camera, I have $5,000 set aside for both the body and a good lens, when I go to college next year I want to take some photography classes so this'll come in handy. Through the duration of my trip to France and Spain I'll be capturing people, you're typical monuments, and a few indoor shots. When I ruturn I'll use it for my hikes, taking photos of animals (mainly birds and insects), before this I'll use it for my last track season.

The photography class won't care if you're using a 6 MP relic with crappy glass. In fact, your teacher would probably have more respect for doing the class that way then coming in with a state of the art kit.

Don't underestimate the size and weight of a high end dSLR and good glass. For things like travel and hiking, smaller is better - to a point. As is not looking like you have $5000 of camera gear at your side. I've done an extensive amount of travel, mostly through hostels with my world in a backpack, and never had a problem, but met many, many, many travelers that weren't so lucky.

You sound like you've made up your mind, and that's fine, it's your money. Or your parents. But just to state it one more time. Even if you insist on spending $5000, spend $4000+ of that on lenses, they'll still be up to date in several years when you figure out what you're doing. The camera won't.