90D or 6D mkII?

[TonnySmith]

I am currently using a T6 and hoping to upgrade and capitalize on some black friday/boxing day sales. I am bouncing back and forth between the 90D and 6D mkII. Both are in my price range and I have already invested quite heavily in L glass, so I am not looking to switch systems. My shooting is fairly eclectic, from sports and wildlife (point 90D) to landscape, portraiture and some astro (point 6D mkII). I must admit I thought there would be more reviews out on the 90D already and am a little surprised by the lack of feedback I have been able to find. DxOMark has yet to release a review of the 90D, and while the 6D mkII has quite strong reviews, I am wondering if it still holds up to the 90D after 2 years on the market.

Any input, experiences, and/or opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

[Waddizzle]

I am not going to be of much help. What is going to happen to your T6? I think you have identified two valid use cases.

You may need two bodies, one for each use case. This is why I typically carry two bodies. Maybe you need to keep the T6, and figure which role it could fill best. That’s your answer.

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

If it were me I'd use the following as my guide.

Sounds like you have outgrown your T6.  You said you have a bunch of EF glass.  Get a 6D2.

Why do I recommend this.  EF is designed for a full frame body.  Its more of a matched system.  Can you use EF with the 90D, sure, but in the end I think you will realize and appreciate the full potential of a "better matched" shooting system (solution).

I'm not saying this because I have one.  If i were going to buy APS-C, I'd grab a 90D in a heartbeat.

Here is a side by side comparison 

When I moved to FF, I maintained 2 kits for about 8 months.  I sold my T6S and one of its kit lenses in about 2 weeks.  Got half what I paid for it after owning for 2 yrs.  It took another 7 months to sell off my remaining EF/S lenses.  I had a Sigma 17-70 that really kicked some butt on the T6s.

   

So when I moved to FF, I purchased the 24-70 Art and started shooting.  No editing, its a little washed out I know.

Have no regrets with my decision and have added some additional EF "L" and Sigma glass to compliment the FF solution.  Me personally, I didn't want to have 2 bodies.  2 different battery types, etc.  A real pro though might carry both armed differently to catch the shot.  I'm not that guy.  I was also able to offset some of the cost of my migration to FF by selling off my APS-C rig.  For me this made financial sense.

[Waddizzle]

---

@shadowsports wrote:

So when I moved to FF, I purchased the 24-70 Art and started shooting.  No editing, its a little washed out I know.

Have no regrets with my decision and have added some additional EF "L" and Sigma glass to compliment the FF solution.  Me personally, I didn't want to have 2 bodies.  2 different battery types, etc.  A real pro though might carry both armed differently to catch the shot.  I'm not that guy.  I was also able to offset some of the cost of my migration to FF by selling off my APS-C rig.  For me this made financial sense.

---

Great shots, but not a fan of the composition of these two.  It feels like the bottom of the frame has been cropped out.

BTW, all of Canon's mid-range and semi-pro bodies use the same battery.  I sold off my Rebel T5 after a year of little to no use, especially after I picked up the M3.

[shadowsports]

Wadizzle,

Good eye.  Neither were cropped.

The first is the walk to Chateau de Chenonceau in the Loire Valley France.  There were some people waliking a head and I didn't want them in the photo.

The second was in the gardens of the Peterhof Palace in St Petersburgh Russia. I skipped my wife's boots.  Agree her feet might have made the shot better.

[Waddizzle]

---

@shadowsports wrote:

Wadizzle,

Good eye.  Neither were cropped.

The first is the walk to Chateau de Chenonceau in the Loire Valley France.  There were some people waliking a head and I didn't want them in the photo.

The second was in the gardens of the Peterhof Palace in St Petersburgh Russia. I skipped my wife's boots.  Agree her feet might have made the shot better.

---

Here is a really good YouTube channel, [The Photographer Academy].  This short video discusses the "perfect crop" points.  Notice how he does crop just above and below the knee, but it is done in such a way that your eye is drawn upward to her folded arms.  [Your crop of your wife is too low below the knee.  As Ernie says, you're cutting off her feet.]

https://youtu.be/SCUTYDEv7TQ 

Sometimes people in a photo tell the story.  There was little chance of getting a shot of the sculpture without people.  So, I used people as a way to convey a sense of the scale of the sculpture, which stands over six stories.

[ Another great YouTube channel is the Photoshop Training Channel,   https://www.youtube.com/user/photoshoptrainingch 

[ebiggs1]

"Agree her feet might have made the shot better."

I think so too.  Remember framing is just as important as cropping later. Otherwise it is a very nice shot.

[ebiggs1]

"...not a fan of the composition of these two.  It feels like the bottom of the frame has been cropped out."

I thought the exact same thing.  Great shots, the cropping is just off.  Never, never ever cut people's feet off.

Now about full frame!  A lot of folks seem to think FF is an end. It is not. First off all cameras are FF, You get exactly what you see in the VF. Nothing more and nothing less.  I still have and use my 1D Mk IV which is a crop camera even though I have a full frame 1DX.

Now, every camera has specs. Do these specs agree with what you are wanting to do?  That's your decision not whether it is FF or not. It is simply ludicrous to think a 90D can't shoot landscapes or a 6D2 can't shoot sports. A spec that is almost always more important than FF vs Crop is which is newer tech.  Newer tech will again almost always win out.

So what is the answer?  I don't know for sure but I am sure it ain't, "I got a FF camera so I have arrived."

My personal reasons for owning 1 series cameras is their extreme build. I don't care one bit there might be a camera with better specs out there if it doesn't have the build. I could have bought a 5D Mk IV but it doesn't have the build for instance. I would choose my 1D4 crop camera over it every time. So, what is your main most important thing?  That is what should drive your answer more than FF vs Crop.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@TonnySmith wrote:

I am currently using a T6 and hoping to upgrade and capitalize on some black friday/boxing day sales. I am bouncing back and forth between the 90D and 6D mkII. Both are in my price range and I have already invested quite heavily in L glass, so I am not looking to switch systems. My shooting is fairly eclectic, from sports and wildlife (point 90D) to landscape, portraiture and some astro (point 6D mkII). I must admit I thought there would be more reviews out on the 90D already and am a little surprised by the lack of feedback I have been able to find. DxOMark has yet to release a review of the 90D, and while the 6D mkII has quite strong reviews, I am wondering if it still holds up to the 90D after 2 years on the market.

Any input, experiences, and/or opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

---

Buy the 90D. Basically, your question is whether to go full-frame or not. If you have to ask, you're probably not ready. When you've advanced to the point where your requirements dictate a FF body, you'll know.

That said, the very fact that you brought it up indicates that you;don't want to preclude FF in your future. So from now on, buy only EF (not EF-S) lenses. They won't match your 90D and your T6 quite as well, but it will keep you from spending money on glass you eventually won't need.

One way of easing into FF would be to buy an EOS R. With the proper adapters, all your current lenses should work. I think it's still a bit early to take the step into mirrorless, but I guess not everyone feels as I do.

[Waddizzle]

---

@TonnySmith wrote:

My shooting is fairly eclectic, from sports and wildlife (point 90D) to landscape, portraiture and some astro (point 6D mkII).

Thanks!

---

I have used my 6D/6D2 for all of those scenarios.  I have also used my 7D2 for all of them, too.  They both performed equallly well.  Which one I would choose would depend on the details of each shooting scenario.  I used a 1D4 for wildlife before I picked up a 7D2.  I switched only because of the much quieter shutter on the 7D2 is less disturbing to wildlife.

For most sports and wildlife, I ask myself what will I be shooting, where will I be shooting from, and what focal lengths would I want to use.  A focal length range of 100-400mm on a FF body is great for most filed sports when you are shooting from near the edge of the field of play.  That same focal range is good on a crop body for wildlife, where your effective focal lengths would be 160-640mm.  An even better focal length for wildlife is 600mm, and more if you can afford it.

For landscape and portraiture there is no rule that says use this type of camera.  You use the type of camera that gives you the results that you want with the lens you are using.  The bridge photo was taken with a crop body with a medium telephoto lens, because the bridge was over a mile away.  The sculpture was taken with a full frame body with a 24-70mm zoom.  I think the focal length may have  been around either 35mm or 50mm.

As for astrophotography, your smaller, lighter T5 would be my first choice on a tracking mount.  For a long exposure shot from a conventional tripod, I would want the full frame body, but only so that I could capture longer exposures with the same focal length lens.  But, there countless examples of great shots of the night sky that were captured with crop sensor cameras.

If you have noticed that I keep tying my choice of camera body to the focal length of the lens I want to use, then you are seeing my point.  Whether or not a full frame or a crop sensor body is best for you is up to you, and what you want or need to do.