Canon 90D vs 6D Mark II Decision (owning L-series EF lenses)

[ree28278]

I have been going around in circles trying to decide whether to purchase the 90D or 6D Mark II.  I am looking to replace my 60D.  Most of my shooting is sporting events (horse shows) both outdoors and indoors without flash.  Indoors is challenging because of low-light situations.  I never used the 60D for video, and used an iPhone 13pro instead.  I am conflicted with the 90D shooting 90% of photos and 10% of video (instead of the iPhone), or the 6D?  

These lenses I have in the order that I use them are:

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 L IS USM

EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM

Any help will be appreciated.  I have read reviews and YouTube videos of comparisons, but wanted to ask here.  The 6D would probably match up better with the lenses I have, but the 90D has newer technology.

Thanks.

[jrhoffman75]

The lenses you have will fit and function on both cameras. The 60D you currently have and the 90D are both APS-C sensor cameras (generally known as crop sensor). The 6D Mark iI is a full frame camera. You will see a significant loss in telephoto effect with the 6D. If you rely on and need the long end of your telephoto zoom lens you will probably be disappointed with the 6D. 

While the high megapixel design of the 90D can introduce issues it also gives you the ability to do significant cropping in post and still have a good megapixel size image. 

https://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/canon/6d-mark-ii/vs/canon/90d/

[ree28278]

Thanks John, that helps. One think I haven't been able to determine if the 90D is sealed and protected from dust and dirt.  It is quite dusty on hot days in the arena.

[Tronhard]

I agree with John's assessment.   For me, the issue seems to be pivotal on the low light situation.  A FF sensor should be able to render better low-light performance and dynamic range than the 90D.   If you were guaranteed to be shooting outside in good light, I would then swing in favour of the cropping effect of the 90D's APS-C sensor.

The thing is you can always crop, but you can't overcome the effects of dim light.  It might be worth considering selling the 70-300 and possibly the 70-300 units to get a 100-400L MkII. I adore my own 70-300L unit, but don't use it that much since getting the 100-400. That would mean that in two lenses you have a range from 24-400mm.  The 100-400 MkII is an excellent unit,  That said, you could keep the 70-200 for its low light performance.

I would suggest renting both cameras, and perhaps the 100-400 for an event to see how they perform.  This will give you genuine hands-on, in-field experience for your specific situation, which no-one else can supply.

Much depends on your budget!

[ree28278]

Thanks Trevor, I like your quote "The thing is you can always crop, but you can't overcome the effects of dim light".  In a sense, it comes down to cropping before the image is captured (in the case of the 90D) or after it is taken using editing software in the case of the 6D.  I rented the EF 100-400, but wasn't a fan of the push/pull lens.  It looks like that changed with the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II.

One thing I have been kicking around with is going with the 6D, and in the next 2-3 years looking at the mirrorless "R" series cameras with the RF lenses.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Tronhard · Accepted solution]

As I implied, the challenge that comes with crop sensors is that while they do crop before shooting, and I make huge use of that myself for my own shooting. It was to overcome the loss of compact FoV that is offered by the crop sensor that I suggested a two-prong solution to give you the best combination.    One has to consider that while there is a 1.6 cropping benefit for the sensor's FoV, that also impacts the actual effective aperture of the lens.  While a lens has a given physical focal length and aperture, and they do not change, the result of the combination of the lens projecting onto a crop sensor does impact DoF in particular.

If you harness the DR benefits of the full-frame sensor, and they are not insignificant, the adoption of the longer lens will offset the benefits that are lost from the 1.6 crop factor.   If you were to use the existing 70-300 on the 90D, your equivalent FL range would be 112-480mm, the solution I am suggesting is the FF 6DII with the 100-400, so while you are losing 80mm at the long end, you are gaining the dynamic range benefits as well.

While I agree with your comment about the MkI version of the 100-400, but the MkII is a very different beast.  I sold my 100-400MkI to get the MkII as soon as it came out - it is an awesome optic.

I reiterate that nothing can provide the same result as using the gear in the field yourself, under your conditions, so renting is a good way to establish within your context the viability of one solution over another without commitment.

[shadowsports]

Late to the game.  I agree with the guys.  The 90D is great if you could always be guaranteed adequate light, but a FF sensor is hard to beat in dim / low light. Both body's are weather sealed BTW. 

If you will be shooting indoors (low light) of something moving (horses) even a little, I believe you are going to want at least 1 lens which is f2.8.  For me this would be your 70~200.  I'll tell you why in a minute.  The 100~400 is f4.5~5.6 variable.  Its exceptional, but handheld shots at high FL without light or tripod can be tricky, even with IS.  

This is really a matter of you and personal preference.  How steady is your hand, etc.  You can use a faster shutter to handle motion if you can get a little more light  inside.  While this could also require slightly higher ISO, the DR of the FF sensor will win over a 90D.  

Today I am at a crossroads with my 6D2 which I am reluctantly planning to unload with many of my EF lenses.  I have captured so many great memories with this camera and have never bothered to put a flash on it.

Trevor's advice regarding renting is very good.  lens rentals dot com should have everything you need to help you decide.        

[ebiggs1]

My two cents is go with the 90D. The low light thing is pretty much over exaggerated IMHO. Otherwise the 90D is the better choice considering your goals especially coming from the 60D. If low light performance is of great concern buy the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens. It and the 90D will hold it own against any of your current lenses on a 6D Mk II. Matter of fact the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens and the 90D will hold its own against any camera/lens out there.

[jrhoffman75]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

My two cents is go with the 90D. The low light thing is pretty much over exaggerated IMHO. Otherwise the 90D is the better choice considering your goals especially coming from the 60D. If low light performance is of great concern buy the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens. It and the 90D will hold it own against any of your current lenses on a 6D Mk II. Matter of fact the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens and the 90D will hold its own against any camera/lens out there.

---

I agree with Ernie.

While it is true you can always crop to increase the telephoto effect you are throwing away pixels.

It is true that, all things being equal, larger pixels (which would result with a full frame sensor and a lower megapixel size sensor) things aren't always equal. The 90D has a newer DIGIC 8 (vs 7) processor which can help with higher ISO processing,

If a good bit of your shooting is at the long end of your telephoto lenses do you want to be needing to crop your images just to get back to where you were with the 60D? You would be spending money on a new camera and likely be getting poorer quality end product since you cropped away the additional megapixels.

There are now several very good AI enhanced noise reduction software products that can be used as well.

I support the suggestion to rent and determine for yourself in your real world shooting conditions.

[Tronhard]

The perspective that John and Ernie put forward is a valid one, especially if one does not consider changing out the 70-300 for the 100-400 to mitigate the loss of pixels as I suggest.   Honestly, I think the answer still is: Borrow or rent the gear you are considering and see the results for yourself from the precise conditions under which you will work.

We don't know the budget or the output, or even the exact conditions under which the OP will be shooting - challenging low-light conditions could cover a lot of range.