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]

If you're really serious about photography and are willing to invest significant effort in learning to do it well, buy the 6D. (We'll leave the lens recommendation until later, after you've gone into a bit more detail about your priorities.) The 6D is the most expensive and requires more expensive lenses, but it has the most growth potential. And if you're eventually in a position where you need and can afford a 5D3, you'll want to be able to use all your lenses.

Otherwise, buy the 7D (and the 17-55mm f/2.8 lens). It lacks some gaudy modern features of the 70D, but it's a better camera overall. You won't outgrow it anytime soon.

All this assumes that you've done your homework and ruled out lesser cameras, of which there are many good ones, because your interest in photography is keen enough to require a serious camera.

[Skirball]

The 6D is in a different league than the other two.  It has a completely different sensor (bigger) and thus is far more capable in low light.  If you really have the money (don't forget you need lenses), then the 6D is the best pick for your uses.  I have one, I also have 6 month olds and I'll tell you that it's a fantastic camera for little ones.  However, I can, and do, make great photos of them with my old 450D Rebel.  More important is your skill with both the camera, and the files it produces.

My recommendation wouldn't be any of those cameras.  It'd be to get the latest Rebel, the 700D (or better, a refurbished 600D).  With the money you save get a couple good lenses - you'll want several for kids.  Later, once you've gained some experience you can reassess your camera.

I'll reiterate, because it's important: there's little point in getting a 6D if you're not going to invest in good lenses.  Once the kids get mobile you'll need a telephoto lens, and for the 6D they start at about $1000, and goes up.  If you can swallow that, fine, if not, the other cameras offer more affordable options.

As far as lenses.  For a 8 month old you're going to want a fast prime for low light, somewhere around 50 - 85mm, and a macro lens for closeups of all those pudgy baby parts.  Then a standard zoom for basic use.  In a year you'll want to add a telephoto.

[lalaknight]

Thanks so much. Now that I think about it. A 6D may not be in the budget for me at this time. I'm still fairly new to photography and I'm learning everything on my own. I also have a baby and we all know those aren't cheap. I did some research on the 700D and that was also in the running. I'm still learning about lenses and how they work (every time I research a lense I feel like I'm working on a algebraic equation.) 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

[ebiggs1]

There is virtually no modern DSLR and even most P&S's that don't take fantastic pictures.  

So it comes down to what you actually want in a camera.

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. If you are just going to do snap shots a Rebel is the way to go. And the Rebel with a kit will please most and even most discriminating photographers. Old or new!

[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.

[Skirball]

---

@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.

[cale_kat]

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 mention this because the 7D is a very good camera for still photography and the sensor size, not to be confused with sensor performance, TYVM, presents the opportunity to "reach" onto stage for better close ups. You will be able to frame pictures of music acts without the necessity of investing in the longest and most expensive telephoto lenses. The autofocus abilities are a touch better than those found in either the 6D or 70D, with the exception of video noted below. The updated camera will improve upon the original's already strong feature set. There will be a ton of 7D's that flood the used camera market with a new model introduction so if you are interested in bargain prices, those are all but assured. (More money for lenses, flashes, ... you get the picture.)

A person with a very young child might find that the movie features of a DSLR are actually great fun to use. If you think this is the case, you should give the 70D a good look because it has a great live focus system which can track and autofocus with great precision. It is the 70D's standout feature, IMHO.

Good luck.

[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.

[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.