need help choosing between a 6d and a 7dmark2

[aratari10]

Hello, I have been shooting for 3 years beginning with a t3i and now use a 60d.

I do photography of events and general news stories for three different newspapers which typically consists of gala events, festivals, and then other small events at restaurants, book stores, and places of business.

I also shoot real estate in which i typically use my 17-40 l lens and my 10mm-16mm which has not so good distortion on corners. I initially wanted to go full frame until i found out my 10mm lenses will not fit.

My other glass includes a 50m 1.4 and an 85mm 1.8 I know only 3 of my lenses will fit on the 6d while all four will work on the 7d mark 2. I also shoot sports often and do weddings here and there.

I am looking for the best bang for my buck based on this info? Things that i am having trouble with the 60d is low iso performance and soft focusing occasionally. What would you do if you were me please.

[cale_kat]

I wouldn't let your existing lenses determine your upgrade path. The 6D would give you a big boost in low light performance. (Not sure if that's what you mean by "low iso performance" but I'm guessing that you're looking for better images when shooting indoors.)

The larger sensor size in the 6D is well suited to make the best of available light. From what you've written, I think this consideration is more important to your photography than the action-oriented features of the 7Dmark2.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@aratari10 wrote:

Hello, I have been shooting for 3 years beginning with a t3i and now use a 60d.

I do photography of events and general news stories for three different newspapers which typically consists of gala events, festivals, and then other small events at restaurants, book stores, and places of business.

I also shoot real estate in which i typically use my 17-40 l lens and my 10mm-16mm which has not so good distortion on corners. I initially wanted to go full frame until i found out my 10mm lenses will not fit.

My other glass includes a 50m 1.4 and an 85mm 1.8 I know only 3 of my lenses will fit on the 6d while all four will work on the 7d mark 2. I also shoot sports often and do weddings here and there.

I am looking for the best bang for my buck based on this info? Things that i am having trouble with the 60d is low iso performance and soft focusing occasionally. What would you do if you were me please.

---

The 6D, a full-frame camera, has better growth potential; the 7D2 is a better value. If your next camera (after the one you're about to buy) will be a 5D Mark III (or Mark IV), and the camera you're about to buy will become your backup, you might want to buy the 6D. Otherwise, buy the 7D2.

That said, the 7D2 would itself be a fine backup camera for a 5D3 or 5D4 for most purposes (including newspaper photography, which doesn't require high resolution). So it would not be at all irrational to buy the 7D2 now, even if you hope to go FF in the future. Just be sure to buy only FF-compatible lenses from now on.

[Skirball]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

The 6D, a full-frame camera, has better growth potential; the 7D2 is a better value.

---

Not sure I understand your line of reasoning on this. What do you mean by growth potential?  And isn't the 6D currently cheaper than the 7D2.  By quite a bit if you go gray market.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Skirball wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

The 6D, a full-frame camera, has better growth potential; the 7D2 is a better value.

---

Not sure I understand your line of reasoning on this. What do you mean by growth potential?  And isn't the 6D currently cheaper than the 7D2.  By quite a bit if you go gray market.

---

Canon lists them both at $1800, which is a bit of a surprise. I could have sworn that the last time I looked, the 6D was $200 more than the 7D2.

By growth potential, I meant that it gets you into FF at an affordable price, allowing you to defer the decision to commit to the much more expensive 5D line. If you later decide to go for a 5D3 or 5D4, your 6D will smoothly fit into the role of a secondary or backup camera.

I guess I consider the 7D2 a better value because I'm more concerned with accurate focus than with low-light performance (though I admit that the excellent LL performance of my 5D3 has been beneficial). Each time I've upgraded (50D -> 7D -> 5D3), the percentage of shots that I've had to throw out on focusing grounds has gone down dramatically. With the 5D3 it's almost always composition, not focus, that causes me to throw a picture out.

[Skirball]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@Skirball wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

The 6D, a full-frame camera, has better growth potential; the 7D2 is a better value.

---

Not sure I understand your line of reasoning on this. What do you mean by growth potential?  And isn't the 6D currently cheaper than the 7D2.  By quite a bit if you go gray market.

---

Canon lists them both at $1800, which is a bit of a surprise. I could have sworn that the last time I looked, the 6D was $200 more than the 7D2.

By growth potential, I meant that it gets you into FF at an affordable price, allowing you to defer the decision to commit to the much more expensive 5D line. If you later decide to go for a 5D3 or 5D4, your 6D will smoothly fit into the role of a secondary or backup camera.

---

THe 6D is a couple years old now.  They'll never change the MSRP, but the actual street price will drop.  You can get it from official dealers like B&H for $1500, and I've seen gray market deals as cheap as $1200 and change.

You're second paragraph is the point I was driving at.  It's frequently referred to as "getting into full frame", or "upgrading to full frame".  Implying a hierarchy or evolutionary pathway with full frame on top.  Even as a FF shooter I find this concept to be exaggerated, at the least.  Full frame will always have the potential for better high ISO performance and resolution (something Canon doesn't currently offer, but may soon), but that's just two performance indicators out of dozens.  I like FF, and it suits my style and needs, but I disagree that it is higher on the evolutionary scale of the photographer.  I think it'd be more appropriate to call it a different branch of the family tree. For many photographers crop cameras offer them better performance and options for their photography, and they may never 'upgrade' to FF.

[Skirball]

---

@aratari10 wrote:

I do photography of events and general news stories for three different newspapers which typically consists of gala events, festivals, and then other small events at restaurants, book stores, and places of business.

I also shoot real estate...

---

For events, on location, and other indoor photography the 6D will offer marked performance increase; especially when you're shooting off the cuff with no prep time.  In that regards the 6D is much better choice.

The one caveat to that is that the 7D2 has a far better AF system.  And if a shot isn't in focus it doesn't matter how much better your low light performance and recovery is.  I'm sure someone will be by shortly to tell you the 7D2 is also more 'professional'.  Nonsense, but the AF system is in a different league entirely.

I find the 6D's AF system to be totally sufficient for my photography; portraiture, product, studio, real estate, and a bit of event, wedding and some sport.  The low light performance and recovery is absolutely specatular.  Others prefer the absolute best AF system they can get as they don't want to miss a shot.  If that's the case then either go crop sensor with the 7D2, or pony up and get the 5D3.

I wouldn't factor in the lenses very much, a single lens isn't that big of a deal, and you already have an ultrawide lens for FF.  Choose the camera based on your needs and uses.

[ebiggs1]

There isn't really a choice here, 7D Mk II all the way.  Really, there is no place the 6D bests the 7D Mk II.  Except the single desire to have a full frame camera.    IMHO, of course, as always.   Buy the 7D Mk II, you will love it.

[Skirball]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

There isn't really a choice here, 7D Mk II all the way.  Really, there is no place the 6D bests the 7D Mk II.  Except the single desire to have a full frame camera.    IMHO, of course, as always.  

---

Opinion is saying that the 7d2 is better.  That's fine, and you're free to your opinion, obviously.  But saying that there are no places that the 6D bests the 7d2 is an objective measure, and it's simply incorrect.  I know, I know, you don't like to actually discuss or defend you claims.  And when I call you out on your BS you seem to think I'm attacking you.  But if someone comes on here looking for advice on purchasing a camera they should have facts and correct information. 

The image quality will be markedly better on the 6D.  It's one of the best in Canon's lineup as far as pure IQ is concerned.  Once the ISO goes up the 7d2 will be left in the dust.  As far as specs are concerned the 6D has more color depth and a larger dynamic range.  Small, but they add to the IQ.  And then you have small points like features: the 6D has a larger viewfinder, which is hard to go back on once you get used to it.  And of course WiFi, which many may not use, but I find it quite useful. 

I don't doubt the 7D2 is a great camera, and for many people it would be the better choice.  But making a blanket statement that it always bests the 6D is just poor advice. Especially for someone who stated from the start that they primarily do event, journalistic, and real estate work. 

[TCampbell]

The 6D will perform better if you need to use high ISO and want to keep noise levels low.  It will also focus in less light than the 7D II would require.   So if you're doing a lot of low-light shooting, the 6D has an advantage.

The 6D is "full-frame".  Whether or not you prefer full-frame is subjective (I prefer it for the types of shooting I do).  It does mean all lenses offer a wider angle-of-view.  Also you cannot use any of the Canon "EF-S" type lenses on a full-frame camera body.

The 7D II is heavily optimized for sports & action photography.  It has an amazing focus system in terms of the number of AF points (65 cross-type points), the AF modes, AF tracking, etc.  It will vastly outperform the 6D focus in every category EXCEPT focusing in very low light (the 6D will win in low-light.)  The 6D, in almost stark contrast has 11 AF points, but only the center point is cross-type.  The 7D II AF points are also spread out widely across the field of view whereas the 6D's don't stray too far from the middle area of the field of view.

Since the 7D II is heavily optimized for action photography, not only does it have the more advanced and configurable focus system, it is also has a BLAZINGLY FAST shooting speed and a huge in-camera buffer so that it can take a LOT of images while the camera tries to feed all that data to the memory cards (memory cards are always the bottle-neck so by using a huge internal buffer, you can keep shooting at full speed for a while before that bottle-neck becomes a problem.)

If you're doing a lot of action/sports type shots at these events, then there's no question the 7D II is the better way to go.  But if you're doing a lot of low light and forced to use high ISO, then I think you'll probably find the 6D is the better way to go.