Canon Community Canon Community
 


Reply
Highlighted
New Contributor
Posts: 2
Registered: ‎03-14-2020

6D Mark II vs. 90D

I currently have a Rebel SL2 and an 80D with an EF 70-200 f2.8, EF 35mm f1.8, EF 50mm 1.8, EF-S 10-18, and the EF-S 18-55mm kit.  I mostly shoot sports and street photography and I am looking to upgrade the SL2.  The 11fps of the 90D sounds very appealing but so does the full-frame of the 6D mk ii.  If anyone could help me out in my decision that would be great.  

Highlighted
Super Contributor
Posts: 183
Registered: ‎02-23-2020

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

You'd probably be better off with the 90D. If you went for the 6D, you wouldn't be able to use your EF-S lenses.

--
Ricky

EOS 5D IV, 50mm f/1.2L, 135mm f/2 L, 600EX-RT (x6), ST-E3-RT, Vixia HF G50
Highlighted
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 2,584
Registered: ‎11-19-2017

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

[ Edited ]

Tough call for me.

 

Where do you shoot the majority of your sports events?

 

If indoor, I'd be ok with a 6D2 coupled with the 70-210, 35mm and 50mm

 

If outdoor, probably the 90D

 

While the 11fps is attractive for sports, your EF lenses are a better match for a FF body.

 

The 90D coupled with the shorter focal length EF-S lenses will do the majority of your city scapes without issue.  In a pinch the 35 will give an equivlent 56mm at f1.8  which you could find limiting from a FOV perspective, but it wouldn't be on a 6D2 day or night.

~Rick
Bay Area - CA
~6D2 ~Many Lenses ~DxO PhotoLab Elite ~Windows10 Pro ~EVGA RTX 2080 FTW3 Ultra ~Pixma Pro-100
Highlighted
Honored Contributor
Posts: 5,558
Registered: ‎06-25-2014

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D


@dylanmacz wrote:

I currently have a Rebel SL2 and an 80D with an EF 70-200 f2.8, EF 35mm f1.8, EF 50mm 1.8, EF-S 10-18, and the EF-S 18-55mm kit.  I mostly shoot sports and street photography and I am looking to upgrade the SL2.  The 11fps of the 90D sounds very appealing but so does the full-frame of the 6D mk ii.  If anyone could help me out in my decision that would be great.  


If you were not considering a move to full-frame, the 90D would be a nice upgrade to your SL-2. However, that's not what I'd recommend in that circumstance. Instead, I'd suggest that you upgrade from your 18-55 kit lens to the much superior EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. I think it might make more difference in the overall utility of your equipment.

 

But since you evidently are considering FF but haven't made a final decision (a situation in which I once found myself), I'd recommend a different approach. Whichever way you decide between the 90D and the 6D2, resolve to buy only full-frame (EF, not EF-S) lenses in the future. They'll work on your APS-C cameras (even though their focal ranges may not be ideal in all cases), and you'll still be able to use them when/if you do buy a FF camera.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA
Highlighted
VIP
Posts: 13,303
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

I am sorta in the same camp as Robert. I thing the upgrade to the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is the first way to go. Sell these lenses EF 35mm f1.8, EF 50mm 1.8 and the EF-S 18-55mm kit.  You'll never use them again if you get the lens we suggested. 

Now to carry this a bit further, I would go for the 90D all day long over the 6D2.  And, if I was to think I really wanted the new camera, I know the feeling, I would buy the 90D along with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens. In which case I would not buy the f2.8 Canon.

However, the 80D and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens would be a great combo. Keep in mind your 70-200mil zoom will not be as effective tele on a 6D2.  You will likely need a longer tele lens for sports.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!
Highlighted
New Contributor
Posts: 2
Registered: ‎03-14-2020

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

[ Edited ]

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I am sorta in the same camp as Robert. I thing the upgrade to the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is the first way to go. Sell these lenses EF 35mm f1.8, EF 50mm 1.8 and the EF-S 18-55mm kit.  You'll never use them again if you get the lens we suggested. 

Now to carry this a bit further, I would go for the 90D all day long over the 6D2.  And, if I was to think I really wanted the new camera, I know the feeling, I would buy the 90D along with the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens. In which case I would not buy the f2.8 Canon.

However, the 80D and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens would be a great combo. Keep in mind your 70-200mil zoom will not be as effective tele on a 6D2.  You will likely need a longer tele lens for sports.



I'm leaning more towards the 90D for the reason of extra reach and higher fps but it's a hard decision to spend that much on a crop camera when the 6DM2 is sometimes equal or less used.  The EF 35mm is a Tamron SP and I find myself using that more than any lens I own and I am not sure if I would be willing to get rid of that anytime soon lol.  What are the reasons that would make you choose the 90D over the 6DM2?

Highlighted
VIP
Posts: 13,303
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

I have never been a fan of the 6 series cameras.  The 90D is a wonderful camera at a good price point for a new buy.  If you are on the used market that may not be the case.  The 90D and the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens will at least equal the IQ of the 6D2 depending on what lens you select.

If you buy the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens, it will do everything your 35mil prime does so you don't need it any longer. Plus you have the benefits of a zoom over the limited use of a prime.

 

You can read the specs to compare the two cameras.  You will see the 90D beats the 6D2 almost every one. Plus the 90D is two years newer and newer tech almost always trumps older tech. Now I know somebody is going to say larger pixels (6D Mk II) is better in low light, that is mostly BS in this case so don't believe it.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!
Highlighted
Super Contributor
Posts: 183
Registered: ‎02-23-2020

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

Given two sensors in either APS-C or full frame built around the same time, you'll typically see better low light performance with the version with larger square area of those sensor sites.  But yes, there are other factors such as that newer sensors can often match or even beat sensors with larger sensor sites.  And, other surrounding tech (AD converters, processors).

 

Examples:

 

When I moved from a Rebel T4i (20 MP) to the first-gen 6D (also around 20 MP), the 6D had around 2 stops better performance when looking at noise levels.  i.e. a 6400 ISO 6D image matched quite closely a 1600 ISO T4i image.   How much of that gain was purely from the larger sites vs. other factors is unknown.

 

When I then moved up to the 5D IV, even with 50% more sensor sites (thus smaller) as the 6D, it offered slightly more (1/3 stop?) better low-light performance.

 

Side note: I wish the industry would stop using the term pixel regarding sensors.  Pixels on displays/monitors are made up of three components: R, G and B.   So a 14 MP display has 14 million each of R, G and B components.  But a 14 "MP" sensor, while it does have 14 million sensor sites to capture light, it must use interpolation to reconstruct color.  You definitely don't truly have 14 million each of R, G and B there.  Exception is for any unit with 3 CCDs (think those only exist for video) where you now have one sensor for each component.

 

Final note on the 6D... for my needs, when upgrading from the first-gen 6D, I contemplated both the 6D II and the 5D IV.  The 5D IV ultimately won out due to in part these four features:  dual card slots, 100% viewfinder coverage, 1/8000 shutter option, and sync speed of 1/200 (vs. the 6D's 1/180).   As I do lots of off-camera flash work, I really wanted the higher sync speed.   I would thus recommend just analyzing what you shoot and what you may be interesting in shooting in the near future.   The 90D specs (higher sync speed, I think I saw 1/8000 shutter option too) may really help out with your vision.

--
Ricky

EOS 5D IV, 50mm f/1.2L, 135mm f/2 L, 600EX-RT (x6), ST-E3-RT, Vixia HF G50
Highlighted
VIP
Posts: 13,303
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

"...you'll typically see better low light performance with the version with larger square area of those sensor sites."

 

I knew it would come but not so quickly. You can't say which will do better if you don't know the entire package. And that's just what you did.  Consider a 90D with the recommended Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens vs the 6D Mk II with a f2.8 or f4 lens.  Still think you will get 2 stops better low light performance?  We both know you won't.

 

"...there are other factors such as that newer sensors can often match or even beat sensors with larger sensor sites."

 

Thank you!

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!
Highlighted
Super Contributor
Posts: 183
Registered: ‎02-23-2020

Re: 6D Mark II vs. 90D

Sorry ebiggs1, but I think you're confused about what I wrote.

 

My very first sentence was specifically prefixed with a phrase mentioning "two _equally-sized_ sensors released around the same time".  i.e. with those two factors being equal, a sensor with larger sensor sites typically gives better low light performance.

 

Of course the 90D and 6D II share different sensor sizes, and were also released to market a decent time apart.   I also didn't claim you'd get 2 stops better with the 6D II.  Instead, the 2 stops I wrote about was very specific to my example of moving from a Rebel T4i to the first-gen 6D.

--
Ricky

EOS 5D IV, 50mm f/1.2L, 135mm f/2 L, 600EX-RT (x6), ST-E3-RT, Vixia HF G50
powered by Lithium

LIKE US on Facebook FOLLOW US on Twitter WATCH US on YouTube CONNECT WITH US on Linkedin WATCH US on Vimeo FOLLOW US on Instagram SHOP CANON at the Canon Online Store
© Canon U.S.A., Inc.   |    Terms of Use   |    Privacy Statement