Canon 6D vs Canon 70D vs Canon 7D

[lalaknight]

Hi,
I'm new to photography and I love it. I'm having a hard time choosing between the 6D, 7D, and 70D. What's the significant differences between these 3? I want to start doing family portraits in natural light, mostly outside in natural surroundings. I also have a 8 month old who's moving all over the place and I want to get LOTS of photo's of her. I'm interested in photo's that have a high depth of field. I work at alot of music festival's (day and night, indoor and outdoor) and I really want to shoot at those. So basically I need a camera for
Natural light
Family Portraits
Baby/Infant
Concerts
Festivals
Action
Outdoor
Headshots

I'm just so confuse as to what to pick. I can't afford a Mark III. These are the only ones in my budget. Thanks so much for all the help and advice in advance.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Skirball wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@cale_kat wrote:

To the OP... There are strong indications that a 7D Mark II is in the works and could be released in the coming months. ...

---

I'd be interested to hear what those "strong indications" are. The 7D2 speculation has been going on for well over a year, with nothing forthcoming.

---

Here's a rumor from CanonWatch, speculating the announcement of the 7D2:

http://www.canonwatch.com/rumor-eos-7d-mark-ii-specs-moving-upmarket/

You'll note it's from May 2012.

---

I particularly like the speculation that the 7D2 will have a 100% viewfinder, given that the 7D already had it.

[cale_kat]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@cale_kat wrote:

To the OP... There are strong indications that a 7D Mark II is in the works and could be released in the coming months. ...

---

I'd be interested to hear what those "strong indications" are. The 7D2 speculation has been going on for well over a year, with nothing forthcoming.

Not that I have a dog in that hunt. I went FF a couple of months ago and won't be buying any more APS-C gear.

---

One indication is the activity and promotions on Canon's Online Store. The 7D has strong promotions, including an apparent continuous supply of refurbished 7D's at prices that are strangely higher than the new camera prices??, that suggest a certain amount of clearance is taking place. (The summer is a slow period, to be certain, and these could be normal promotions tied to a older/less popular model. IDK.)

I guess the rumors may be just that but the 7D isn't the volume seller that the 70D is and as a result there isn't a strong argument to jump start sales with promanent advertising. Note, the 7D link on the Canon Store sale page: http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/specials?cm_sp=HmpgBotTagText-_-estore-_-Sale. The $500 off a new body is one of the best Canon Store prices I've ever seen. Retailers are undoubtedly receiveing similar discounts.

My speculation contines with an observation that the practice of "flooding the market" with a model will undermine its value. As a strategy for the sale of a durable good, it doesn't make much sense.

Just my $.02.

PS: Oh, did I mention that I have also read online rumor stories. 🙂

[pdqgp]

---

I'd be interested to hear what those "strong indications" are. The 7D2 speculation has been going on for well over a year, with nothing forthcoming.

---

I think the strongest indicators are the recent rebates, lower pricing and the fact that many places like Amazon and their sellers have low to no inventory and some even list it as discontinued.

[cale_kat]

---

@Skirball wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

The 6D and 7D are both entry level cameras. The 6D is a entry level to full frame and the 7D entry professional level.

The 70D is an advanced amerture camera.

---

 That's the biggest ball of fluff I've read in awhile.  Those terms mean nothing.  Doesn't represent the performance, doesn't represent how they're used and by whom.

---

Buyers that associate themselves with different categories of cameras will frequently aspire to join the next category above. This improves the sale of L lenses, etc. So there's a psycological quality to photography that exists jointly with the technical qualities.

Never mind that the photographer takes the picture.

[Skirball]

---

@lalaknight wrote:
 Out of the cameras you guys recommended (7D or 700D) which would be the best lense? Do you think I shoot outdoor portraits with it? Thanks again you both have been so knowledgeable

---

They use the same lenses.  I would get a Rebel with a kit.  They come with standard lenses.  Nothing amazing, but they work just fine for someone to learn the ropes.  Buy them from a reputable company like B&H.  It looks like they even still have 600D kits, with a telephoto, for cheap ($650):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=rebel+kit&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

The 600D has the same sensor as the 700D.  The 700D has some extra features, the most noticable is autofocus for video.  Not sure if you're going to use that or not.  Personally I'd get the 600D and put the extra cash to lenses, but the 700D is a fine choice.  IF you think you might do video then either the 700D, or actually the SLR kit would be a nice choice.

I would not recommend the 7D.  It's a great camera, it is much better built than the 700D, it has a better AF system.  But it's older and most of it's benefits are geared towards pro photographers (the image quality really isn't that different).  On the other hand, the Rebels are new and I think you'll like things like the flip screen, or in-camera HDR, or video auto-focus etc.

I would take whatever money you save going this route and get a 50mm 1.4 prime, either Canon or Sigma (not the $1000 sigma, the $350 one).  It's a prime, it doesn't zoom.  But it's very sharp, and lets a lot of light in for dim shooting.  Great for sleeping babies, family portraits, general photography.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Skirball wrote:

---

@lalaknight wrote:
 Out of the cameras you guys recommended (7D or 700D) which would be the best lense? Do you think I shoot outdoor portraits with it? Thanks again you both have been so knowledgeable

---

They use the same lenses.  I would get a Rebel with a kit.  They come with standard lenses.  Nothing amazing, but they work just fine for someone to learn the ropes.  Buy them from a reputable company like B&H.  It looks like they even still have 600D kits, with a telephoto, for cheap ($650):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=rebel+kit&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

The 600D has the same sensor as the 700D.  The 700D has some extra features, the most noticable is autofocus for video.  Not sure if you're going to use that or not.  Personally I'd get the 600D and put the extra cash to lenses, but the 700D is a fine choice.  IF you think you might do video then either the 700D, or actually the SLR kit would be a nice choice.

I would not recommend the 7D.  It's a great camera, it is much better built than the 700D, it has a better AF system.  But it's older and most of it's benefits are geared towards pro photographers (the image quality really isn't that different).  On the other hand, the Rebels are new and I think you'll like things like the flip screen, or in-camera HDR, or video auto-focus etc.

I would take whatever money you save going this route and get a 50mm 1.4 prime, either Canon or Sigma (not the $1000 sigma, the $350 one).  It's a prime, it doesn't zoom.  But it's very sharp, and lets a lot of light in for dim shooting.  Great for sleeping babies, family portraits, general photography.

---

I pretty much second everything Skirball said, with one dissenting point: Your list of requirements appears to include a fair amount of use under questionable lighting conditions. For that, you may want your primary "walking around" lens to be a "constant aperture" zoom, i.e. a lens that allows the same maximum aperture at all focal lengths in its range. Kit lenses aren't CA, so they tend not to be very good in low light at the telephoto end. The best CA mid-range zoom for a Rebel is Canon's image-stabilized 17-55mm f/2.8, for about $900. If that's more than you want to spend, there are some pretty good 3rd-party equivalents for somewhat less. And if you get a CA zoom as your kit lens, you can arguably leave off the 50mm f/1.4. Yes, the latter is two stops faster, but its very narrow depth of field at maximum aperture can be hard to handle. (I have a 30mm f/1.4, but I rarely use it, because f/2.8 is usually fast enough.)

That said, the actual amount you save by leaving off a kit lens is usually pretty small. So if you leave it on and decide in a year that you need something better, you don't have to feel too bad about putting it on the shelf. 

[cale_kat]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@Skirball wrote:

---

@lalaknight wrote:
 Out of the cameras you guys recommended (7D or 700D) which would be the best lense? Do you think I shoot outdoor portraits with it? Thanks again you both have been so knowledgeable

---

They use the same lenses.  I would get a Rebel with a kit.  They come with standard lenses.  Nothing amazing, but they work just fine for someone to learn the ropes.  Buy them from a reputable company like B&H.  It looks like they even still have 600D kits, with a telephoto, for cheap ($650):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=rebel+kit&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

The 600D has the same sensor as the 700D.  The 700D has some extra features, the most noticable is autofocus for video.  Not sure if you're going to use that or not.  Personally I'd get the 600D and put the extra cash to lenses, but the 700D is a fine choice.  IF you think you might do video then either the 700D, or actually the SLR kit would be a nice choice.

I would not recommend the 7D.  It's a great camera, it is much better built than the 700D, it has a better AF system.  But it's older and most of it's benefits are geared towards pro photographers (the image quality really isn't that different).  On the other hand, the Rebels are new and I think you'll like things like the flip screen, or in-camera HDR, or video auto-focus etc.

I would take whatever money you save going this route and get a 50mm 1.4 prime, either Canon or Sigma (not the $1000 sigma, the $350 one).  It's a prime, it doesn't zoom.  But it's very sharp, and lets a lot of light in for dim shooting.  Great for sleeping babies, family portraits, general photography.

---

I pretty much second everything Skirball said, with one dissenting point: Your list of requirements appears to include a fair amount of use under questionable lighting conditions. For that, you may want your primary "walking around" lens to be a "constant aperture" zoom, i.e. a lens that allows the same maximum aperture at all focal lengths in its range. Kit lenses aren't CA, so they tend not to be very good in low light at the telephoto end. The best CA mid-range zoom for a Rebel is Canon's image-stabilized 17-55mm f/2.8, for about $900. If that's more than you want to spend, there are some pretty good 3rd-party equivalents for somewhat less. And if you get a CA zoom as your kit lens, you can arguably leave off the 50mm f/1.4. Yes, the latter is two stops faster, but its very narrow depth of field at maximum aperture can be hard to handle. (I have a 30mm f/1.4, but I rarely use it, because f/2.8 is usually fast enough.)

That said, the actual amount you save by leaving off a kit lens is usually pretty small. So if you leave it on and decide in a year that you need something better, you don't have to feel too bad about putting it on the shelf.

+1 re constant aperature lens, very versatile and quick to the point of usefulness. I do, however like the high speed primes because you can get superb results at F2.8 where the lens isn't so completely challenged. 

[Skirball]

---

@cale_kat wrote:

+1 re constant aperature lens, very versatile and quick to the point of usefulness. I do, however like the high speed primes because you can get superb results at F2.8 where the lens isn't so completely challenged. 

---

Meh.  Constant aperture is nice, but it's not a huge selling point, IMHO.  Not as important as the absolute aperture size. I appreciate not having my DoF or exposure change because I mostly shoot in manual.  But for the averature beginner shooting in auto and semi-auto, it's not really a big deal.  Maybe you get 2/3 a stop less light on the long end, so what?  The camera will adjust the exposure and most beginners, even intermediates, won't notice the difference 2/3 stop makes on their DoF.

[lalaknight]

Thank you so much. I made up my mind to go with the Rebel t5i! I was just about to get the f/1.4 lens but I really want a zoom lense. Do you think the f/2.8 will be okay in catching quock snaps of my daughter. She's a fast mover and I don't want to miss a thing.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@lalaknight wrote:
Thank you so much. I made up my mind to go with the Rebel t5i! I was just about to get the f/1.4 lens but I really want a zoom lense. Do you think the f/2.8 will be okay in catching quock snaps of my daughter. She's a fast mover and I don't want to miss a thing.

---

f/2.8 should be fast enough, especially if you use flash. One thing I should have mentioned, though: The 17-55 f/2.8 lens I recommended doesn't work well with a camera's onboard flash. It's so big that it casts a shadow in the flash's coverage area. So if you don't want to buy an external flash unit, you probably don't want that lens. The much smaller kit lenses shouldn't have the problem.