Looking into full frame

[Noka]

Good Evening Everyone

I'm new to the Canon world and very excited to be apart of the Canon community.

I started out with a Nikon D90 and decided to upgrade to a full-frame camera.

I hope I don't come across as an obnoxious newbie, but I figured the best place to get answers was straight from the source!

I'm looking into purchasing a new camera, however I keep going back and fourth on save up and purchase the DM4 or save some money and purchase DM3 and put the extra coin towards glass, or should I consider another body?

I know I have a wide array of photo interest cause I really haven't locked down what I like to focus on.

I do know I not interested in
1. Portraits
2. Sports
3. Weddings

My photo interest include,

1. Travel my wife and I travel allot (the occasional street life, historical architecture and landscape)

2. Landscape/and possibly astro-photography

Any guidance on this dunce would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you all.

Noka!

[diverhank]

It's a common understanding out there that the 6D sensor is just as good as the 5D Mark III so I'd imagine that the 6D Mark II sensor has to be better than the 5DIII and I have the 5DIII...it's pretty good up to ISO 25,600 with aggressive post noise filtering.

The 45 focus points for the 6DII is closely bunched up in the middle (covering less than half of the total area) but then for what you need to do (and most other types of shooting), it will be more than adequate.

Between the 6DII and the older 5DIII, if it were me, I'd go for the newer model, which is the 6D...the 5DIII is a bit old in the tooth, so to speak.

[Waddizzle]

---

@diverhank wrote:

It's a common understanding out there that the 6D sensor is just as good as the 5D Mark III so I'd imagine that the 6D Mark II sensor has to be better than the 5DIII and I have the 5DIII...it's pretty good up to ISO 25,600 with aggressive post noise filtering.

The 45 focus points for the 6DII is closely bunched up in the middle (covering less than half of the total area) but then for what you need to do (and most other types of shooting), it will be more than adequate.

Between the 6DII and the older 5DIII, if it were me, I'd go for the newer model, which is the 6D...the 5DIII is a bit old in the tooth, so to speak.

---

To be fair, the 6D2 AF points are not “bunched” in the center of the image.  It is the same AF system as the 80D, and you are seeing an “uncropped” view of the AF points.  Those same AF points would seem to cover more of the viewfinder with the 80D, but the focusing systems seem to be essentially the same.

And they do cover about the center 2/3 of the image.  Overall, the 6D2 tracks youth football VERY well.  It tracks at least as well as my 7D2, and I can shoot at higher ISOs, meaning faster shutter speeds.  It is too late in the season for me to judge how well it tracks birds, but I have gotten some great shots of a few so far.  

What I think gives the 6D2 an edge over a 7D2 is the in-camera, 5-axis stabilization.  The only reason to use the 7D2 is for the extra reach, on a bright sunny day.  The 7D2 cannot keep up with either the 6D or 6D2 shooting Friday Night Lights.

[Waddizzle]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@diverhank wrote:

Between the 6DII and the older 5DIII, if it were me, I'd go for the newer model, which is the 6D...the 5DIII is a bit old in the tooth, so to speak.

---

To be fair, the 6D2 AF points are not “bunched” in the center of the image.  It is the same AF system as the 80D, and you are seeing an “uncropped” view of the AF points.  Those same AF points would seem to cover more of the viewfinder with the 80D, but the focusing systems seem to be essentially the same.

And they do cover about the center 2/3 of the image.  Overall, the 6D2 tracks youth football VERY well.  It tracks at least as well as my 7D2, and I can shoot at higher ISOs, meaning faster shutter speeds.  It is too late in the season for me to judge how well it tracks birds, but I have gotten some great shots of a few so far.  

What I think gives the 6D2 an edge over a 7D2 is the in-camera, 5-axis stabilization.  The only reason to use the 7D2 is for the extra reach, on a bright sunny day.  The 7D2 cannot keep up with either the 6D or 6D2 shooting Friday Night Lights.

---

What I mean about the AF points is this.  If I were to use a 50mm lens to look at a scene with an APS-C 80D, I would see AF points covering an object at the edges of the AF display. 

If I were to use that same lens on a full frame 6D2, my angle of view would seem wider, but the AF display would be covering the identical part of the scene as what I observed through the viewfinder of the 80D.  I want to point out that the amount of coverage in the viewfinder is not anything new for Canon DSLR bodies.

In fact, when Canon offered both full frame and APS-H 1D bodies at the same time, the same AF system was used a couple of the bodies.  The APS-H bodies seemed to fill the viewfinder more than the FF bodies, although the coverage of the subject was identical with either body.

[Waddizzle]

---

@Noka wrote:
Good Afternoon

So I've been doing some research on the 6D2 and I have some questions. There are sime things that stand out that i really like, however i see the big complaint is the DR and the auto focus points seem to clumped in the center.

Should I be concerned about the DR complaints or is this driven by pixel nerds who are getting way more techical than I plan on doing, especially since this is my first FF body?

What ya think?

Thanks

---

No.

Like I said.  People are to picky, IMHO.  I think the complaints about Dynamic Range are nonsense.  The specifications say that the 6D has slightly better Dynamic Range compared to the 6D2.  In practice, the difference goes unnoticed.  The 30% increase in resolution does get noticed.  The improvements to the AF system, make the 6D2 a very capable camera.

[TCampbell]

Dynamic range is just one of a great many data points that you might consider.  Look around at the top sports events at the massive number of photographers shooting with Canon gear — not too concerned about dynamic range impeding their photography.

I am ok if my camera is more capable than I am... I don’t want the reverse (to be capable, but have a camera that is holding me back).  I do not use all of the capabilities of my camera (but I do use many of them.)

So the #1 thing we can all do to get better photos ... is to learn more and become better photographers.  Skill is king.  Skill is a result of a bit of learning... and a LOT of practice.

The #2 thing is lighting.  To have good light, you need good shadow.  So the term “lighting” really applies to the combination of both the light and the shadow.  You’ll see references to the quality of light... that’s mostly a reference to how “hard” or “soft” it is... but this is referring to those points where both shadow and light meet.  Does your light have a “hard” edge (rapidly transition from light to shadow with a well-defined line) or does your light have a gradual transition from light to shadow (this is what is meant by “soft”).    A tiny pin-point source of bright light creates hard edges.  A very large broad area that emits the light (not a pinpoint) creates soft lighting (especially if it is placed close to the subject because it’s relative size will seem smaller if it is placed farther away.)

The #3 thing is the lenses.   Using zoom lenses and long focal length lenses is less about being too lazy to just walk closer to the subject... it’s more about the “angle of view” that these lenses create and some of the side-effects that come with it.  Long lenses have shallower depth of field and they create an effect called “compression” where it becomes difficult to tell how far away objects really are.  Background objects will seem like they are not very much farther than your subject ... even if they are actually much farther away.   The reverse happens with short focal length (wide angle) lenses.  These have a naturally broad depth of field and they “stretch” the depth of the scene.  This makes room interiors seem larger.   Objects behind your intended subject will seem farther away.  But there are many other qualities of lenses... the “quality” of the out-of-focus blur can be radically different from lens to lens.  Some lenses produce nicely “flat” focus planes which very good corner to corner detail.  Others have more rounded focus planes such that objects near the edges and corners are falling out of focus.  Lenses can have “breathing” issues (all lenses technically have a little) but some lenses have severe breathing problems.  “Breathing” refers to the notion that as you change focus... the true focal length of the lens changes.  Good quality lenses minimize this issue.

And #4... pretty much in last place is the camera body itself.   (I suppose we could pick on other things like tripods and other bits of gear).  You don’t want a dated camera that holds you back.  But most any modern camera is amazing.  The higher end bodies tend to be more “technical”... you gain a lot of interesting functionality but the cameras are not necessarily simple and exploiting these cool features will require a bit of learning (and practice).

While I am not casting any disparaging remarks toward other brands (they make fine gear too), I am particularly impressed with Canon’s glass.  There are a number of Canon lenses that are basically the top lenses in the industry AND these happen to the most commonly used lenses such as the 24-70 and the 70-200 and the 100-400 (to name a few).

There are other areas where some reviews argue the competition leads the industry... but I have run into problems suggesting the competition is using a bit of trickery to pull off better scores when they aren’t really better (this does NOT surprise me.  I work in the computer industry and learned years ago that when certain industry benchmarks would come out, the vendors would design chips that were specifically designed to do well on those benchmarks even though they didn’t actually perform better with real-world workloads).   When I inspect real-world images, they aren’t as good as some of the reviews would claim.

I suspect some reviewers are also part of the problem.  Lately the new thing is to test “ISO invariance” — it’s something no real photographer does (certainly no serious photographer) and it also displays a lack of knowledge regarding how the imaging sensors work on a camera.   I don’t expect consumers to know that... but I ABSOLUTELY DO EXPECT reviewers and testing labs to know that stuff.  To use an analogy, it is NOT OK for someone to claim they are a cardiac surgeon... and not know anything about how the human heart works. 

I see this problem is the industry today... reading some articles will leave you knowing less than when you started because they get so much wrong.

[ebiggs1]

"There is a lot of hype, myth and down right lies about crop size cameras vs FF cameras.  Make sure you are not falling prey to that!"

Now you see what I meant.  Be smart and do not fall for the ole inner web hype.

[TTMartin]

---

@Noka wrote:
Good Evening Everyone

I'm new to the Canon world and very excited to be apart of the Canon community.

I started out with a Nikon D90 and decided to upgrade to a full-frame camera.

I hope I don't come across as an obnoxious newbie, but I figured the best place to get answers was straight from the source!

I'm looking into purchasing a new camera, however I keep going back and fourth on save up and purchase the DM4 or save some money and purchase DM3 and put the extra coin towards glass, or should I consider another body?

I know I have a wide array of photo interest cause I really haven't locked down what I like to focus on.

I do know I not interested in
1. Portraits
2. Sports
3. Weddings

My photo interest include,

1. Travel my wife and I travel allot (the occasional street life, historical architecture and landscape)

2. Landscape/and possibly astro-photography

Any guidance on this dunce would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you all.

Noka!

---

When you say you travel a lot, to me that is a red flag for going to a full frame camera.

Full frame cameras require larger and heavier lenses than APS-C cameras. So before you go full frame you need to include that in your decision. Canon's STM lenses have superb image quality, rivaling that of L lenses from less than 10 years ago, so image quality isn't an issue.

When it comes to Astro-photography depending on what your definition of it is you might want avoid the 80D and 5D Mk IV, stick with the 7D Mk II or 6D Mk II since they have a RAWer RAW file.

[Noka]

Ebiggs

I assume you saying to take a longer look at crop before going ff.

I guess my thought about jumping to ff was the lens selection would be better.

If you suggesting crop what you roccomend. I believe right now I'm seriously considering the 6D2, mostly due to price ( I can get a lense and the body for the price I the 5D) and it's newer.

What ya thoughts

[diverhank]

---

@Noka wrote:
Ebiggs

I assume you saying to take a longer look at crop before going ff.

I guess my thought about jumping to ff was the lens selection would be better.

If you suggesting crop what you roccomend. I believe right now I'm seriously considering the 6D2, mostly due to price ( I can get a lense and the body for the price I the 5D) and it's newer.

What ya thoughts

---

I can only tell you from my own experience, I own both a 5D Mark III (full frame) and a 7D Mark II (cropped) and I find that for any kind of shooting outside of wild life (Birds in Flight), I keep reaching for the 5D Mark III...it's better even for wild life (if reach and speed is not a factor).

[Waddizzle]

---

@diverhank wrote:

---

@Noka wrote:

---

I can only tell you from my own experience, I own both a 5D Mark III (full frame) and a 7D Mark II (cropped) and I find that for any kind of shooting outside of wild life (Birds in Flight), I keep reaching for the 5D Mark III...it's better even for wild life (if reach and speed is not a factor).

---

I agree with you on that point.  Just about the only time I reach for the 7D2 is when I want to use the super telephoto on a bright sunny day.  Otherwise, the 7D2 is not the first or second choice.  I go with the 6D and the 6D2, now.  It used to be the 6D and a 1D4.

in my short time with the 6D2, it seems to track at least as well as the 7D2.  I have been shooting high school football at night, and water fowl during the day.  The 6D2 vary rarely misses focus.  And, it focuses rather quickly, too.  The 6D2 also has in-camera stabilization, which really helps when fast panning, no matter the direction.

All I can say about the 7D2 is that the 7D3 has big mountain to climb to top the 6D2.