Any advantages from trading up to a Canon 6d full frame from a 60d for horse photography?

[RonL52]

Hi, I am considering upgrading from my Canon 60d to a full frame (6d),  I generally shoot horses in action and head profiles using a Canon 70-200L non IS lens. I would be interested in feedback as to whether the cost would benefit me with this type of photography. Also any additional lens suggestions would be appreciated.

[RonL52]

This may be a good alternative, I feel that I am getting more focal range that I need most of the time with the 70-200 f4 lens. I also like that it would be an f2.8, I will look into this.

Thanks, Ron

[amfoto1]

The biggest problem with the Sigma 50-150/2.8 is that it's almost exactly the same size and weight as a 70-200/2.8 lens. If size and weight are a primary consideration, might as well get (or keep) the 70-200! OTOH, the 50-150 OS is a good value... less than half the price of the Canon EF 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II.

If your main concern is portraiture work, a 24-70/2.8 works particularly well on a crop sensor camera for that purpose. In fact,  for portraits I like it better on a crop camera than I do on full frame. OTOH, my favorite portrait lenses are all primes with even larger than f2.8 aperture. Bigger apertures are better able to heavily blur less than ideal backgrounds that often are something to deal with, particularly with candid portraits and portraits on the run where you can't control the background. I use 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 a lot for portraiture with crop cameras, sometimes 135/2, though I probably tend to use it more on full frame.

***********
Alan Myers

San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM 

[RonL52]

Alan,

I have been doing a bit of investigating today and the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 seems to be rated well and would be affordabe. I am no ruling out the prime lenses you mentioned, although I would need to keep the price around $1000. I really appreciate you taking the time to provide me with feedback.

Thanks, Ron

[ebiggs1]

Light weight, zoom and f2.8 probably ain't goon happen with todays technology.

[mgiese]

Personally, I would not use the 6D. I currently use the 7D and have been having a great success with this camera. I will be upgrading to the 5D mark III in the next two months. The 6D does not have the shutter speed needed for a high percentage of keepers. I have use my 7D with the 70-200 2.8. Pictures are incredible. A have used the 7D all the way to 3000 ASA without issues. I looked at the 6D because I wanted to save money, but I decided against it. Buy a refurbished 5D mark III from Canon. Just as good a a new one out of the box. Please feel free to see my pics at mikaelpgiesephotography.zenfolio.com. Good luck with your decision.

[RonL52]

Thanks I appreciate the feedback, I have been satisfied with my 60d and a 70-200 L lense for my horse photography. I may upgrade to a full frame at some point in the future.

[ebiggs1]

"The 6D does not have the shutter speed needed for a high percentage of keepers."

WOW, you use 1/8000 over 1/4000 to make this a critical buying point?  With all the other sigmificant differences?  

Just curious!

[TCampbell]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"The 6D does not have the shutter speed needed for a high percentage of keepers."

WOW, you use 1/8000 over 1/4000 to make this a critical buying point?  With all the other sigmificant differences?  

Just curious!

---

Perhaps he was referring to the frame rate (FPS) when using the continuous shooting mode (aka "burst") -- not actually the shutter speed of an individual frame. 

[Skirball]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"The 6D does not have the shutter speed needed for a high percentage of keepers."

WOW, you use 1/8000 over 1/4000 to make this a critical buying point?  With all the other sigmificant differences?  

Just curious!

---

Perhaps he was referring to the frame rate (FPS) when using the continuous shooting mode (aka "burst") -- not actually the shutter speed of an individual frame. 

---

Perhaps.  But in the middle of a post comparing the 7D to 6D he actually seems to imply that the 7D has supperior high ISO performance.  Or at least that 3000 ISO is impressive in this day and age.  I'm guessing he's never actually used the 6D, and doesn't know much about it outside of the internet banter.

Edit: looks like the OP already made his purchase anyway.

[RonL52]

Well after much deliberation I recently purchased the Canon 6d camera, the Mark 3 was out of my range. I was a little nervous about the 4.5 fps, but after checking the specs on the Mark 2 which is 3.9 fps I felt more assured that this would meet my needs. I was right, I am blown away by the picture quality of this full frame and have allready shot some horses in action. The 4.5 fps is plenty fast enough, I was able to get some good quality picures using my 70-200L f4 canon lens.

I want to thank everyone who replied to my original question. The decision was obviously mine, but the feedback was needed to get there.

Thanks, Ron