Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Towlersonsafari

Cannon eos 6d get thee behind me....

15 posts in this topic

Now I am trying very hard not to be tempted by a 24 month interest free limited time offer only 10% discount offer on the above-or indeed other cannon dslr's . i have a very fine cannon 7mark11 and I am of course a rubbish photographer, and I fear that may not change, but I wondered whether another body as per the above might hep with next years trip to find some dancing aardvarks at night, also landscape and getting those lovely subject only in focus shots that a full frame camera does so much better . Of course I might be just kidding myself but would the quality be a bit better than the 7mk11 even though it is a much older camera? I don't think we can afford the next full frame camera in the canon line up.Any helpful views?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Some typically randome thoughts.......

 

If you want to go full frame and all that specifically for things that it will do better than a 7D style camera (i.e. this would be your "specific situations" and "slow shooting" camera and not your everyday camera) in my mind you kind of need the fast lenses* to make the full frame sing. If you have those, fine. If you can resist the temptation (always knowing they are there, offering better performance and often not as far out of reach as those big telephoto primes so DANGEROUS) fine (but not really).. But if you are prone to moments of weakness you'd better factor in some addtiional expense. That is the thing with full frame - it really is better but you need to know what you want it for and you may need the lenses to take advantage of what you find most atttractive about it.

 

What you'll probably get is....

Wider angles of view and so more ability to get exciting and interesting perspectives or huge panoramic views (if you have the lenses)

The ability to shoot inside buildings/ rooms etc. or groups of people without horribly distorted edges (lens dependent though)

A significant advantage for astrophotography.

Narrower depth of field to create creamy backgrounds or beautiful bokeh and sudden drop=off of focus within pictures - all very advantageous for stuff like portraits, but you need to really be willing to go the extra mile with lighting (both artificial and natural) and precision focuising to take full advantage

Better performance in low light (both reduced noise and faster focus acqusiiton)

Generally speaking an improved dynamic range - but you really have to check the specific camera on that.

An overall higher quality of picture with a more 3D-ish look, but in 75% or more of cases you or I may struggle to see any difference at all. It can be a personal thing or it can be an absolute minimum requirement for a certain type of photographer.

Admiring glances when you tell people your camera is full frame and beautiful women begging you to help them update their portfolio**

......and etc.

 

Another thing is that while the 6D looks like a great little camrea and has very good high ISO performance of course it is no longer among the very top performers, despite the low megapixel count. You will almost certainly be envying your neighbour's "extra stop or two of light" before long, if not already - especially if she has a faster lens as well.

 

 

In other words... of course you need it. (But if you aren't really interested in having some fast or very wide glass to go with it, that 75% above might be much higher and it might honestly not really be worth it).

 

 

*I am talking of a world where people say things like "Yeah, it's not a bad lens I suppose, but it is only f2.8."

** No, sorry - I am afraid/ glad to inform you (depending on which Towler-on-safari I am addressing) that one is all in the imagination :)

Edited by pault
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@Towlersonsafari, before I raise my opinion, please tell me what lenses you currently own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are quite right @@Peter Connan I don't think my L series 400m is going to be fast enough anyway and that is about the heaviest lens i can hold due to arthritic elbows, so anything quicker apart from being outside my price range would be too heavy and I would need to change the wide angle lens i have. So I think common sense prevails! As for your strange words @@pault i try to get by not by impressing people with my equipment (!?) but by impressing them with my wit charm and general cuteness. Of course that doesn't work either. the only beautiful woman whose views i have canvassed about my photography -Jane-thinks i ma easily the worst photographer she has ever seen so there is alas no hope!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the 6D @@Towlersonsafari, it's a nice little camera but the autofocus system (essentially equivalent to a Rebel AF system, with 9 points and only the center one being cross-type) isn't great for moving subjects. I can attest to this, since I bought the 6D to take portraits of my newborn son - now that he's 2 and running around, it struggles to keep up with him. If you do end up thinking about going full-frame, the rumor is that the 6D Mark II will be announced next month and for sale during the summer, and it is suggested it will have 45 AF points, so I'd suggest at least waiting for that announcement to make a decision.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've owned the 6D for a few years and only use it for landscapes and nightscapes that I dabble in when not taking wildlife images. A 24-105mm is a good all rounder lens to use with it and for nightscapes & astro shots you can purchase some cheap but quite good manual focus lenses. I use a Rokinon 24mm but there are others. Both those lenses weigh far less than the 400 f/5.6 too. If you couple it with a 100mm macro it is ok for those sort of images too.

 

You don't need 45 AF points if you're taking landscape & family snapshots either.

 

EDIT: One good thing from your perspective is the 6D and 7D ii use the same batteries but the 6D uses SD cards instead of CF cards.

Edited by Geoff
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@Towlersonsafari, in principle the 6D and 7D2 are a great combo that compliment each other very well.

 

But the difference in DOF between full frame and crop frame is only about 1 stop, and you lose most of that anyway due to the redjction in effective focal length.

 

Thus it remains a tough question, but my personal preference is to have one camera and spend the rest of fhe money on better glass...

 

I don't know which 400 you have but if it's any of the others, have you considered the 400 f4 DO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone for your helpful comments. @@Geoff mentioned a 100mm macro lens and funnily enough I was spending part of lunchtime looking at the canon 100mm 2.8L macro also evilly at 24 months interest free credit! I could then take poor macro shots and its speed would help with low light but would is it going to work with the smaller sensor? Macro a whole new world to be frustrated by! @@Peter Conman my 400 is the cannon L series f5.6 so an old model but I do like it.I also have a battered 70-300 L series zoom.My sister in law wants some butterfly pictures on her wall it's good to have ambitions

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@Towlersonsafari...a different question for you. Will you still love the camera in a year when you still have another year of payments on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@Towlersonsafari

There is nothing that a crop camera cannot do as good as the full frame one. Also the selection of wide primes and zooms are good for any enthusiast photographer. 7DII is excellent piece of photo machinery, instead of throwing money into last year snow (which every camera body became as soon as it hits the stores) buy more/better lenses. Or go on photo travels!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are quite right @@Peter Connan I don't think my L series 400m is going to be fast enough anyway and that is about the heaviest lens i can hold due to arthritic elbows, so anything quicker apart from being outside my price range would be too heavy and I would need to change the wide angle lens i have. So I think common sense prevails! As for your strange words @@pault i try to get by not by impressing people with my equipment (!?) but by impressing them with my wit charm and general cuteness. Of course that doesn't work either. the only beautiful woman whose views i have canvassed about my photography -Jane-thinks i ma easily the worst photographer she has ever seen so there is alas no hope!

Sortry, I did not mean to imply this was among your reasons - I never thought it was. However, in the interests of not stereotyping I thought I should mention the "cool" aspect.

 

Really it's just whether you want to have the wider point of view, narrower depth of field or the subtle but (to me noticeable) look that a full frame camera offers. In your case the 6D will also offer you better pictures at high ISO, but if that is your main reason, if I were you I would also look at more modern and more compact cameras which might match or even easily beat that performance and would be very light and easy to handle. If that sounds like I am advising you to move downmarket I am not - if anything the opposite.

 

But of course if you want a second body for use in all circumstances then a 6D makes sense and undoubtably it is still a good value camera.

 

Hope that is less gnomic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank you @@pault for your advice, and I do like your sense of humour if you don't mind me saying so. Also nice use of the word "Gnomic" although speaking as someone who Julian Clary once called, much to my wife's my brothers and several friends continual amusement, even though it happened 20 years ago "A funny kind of Gnome man" i say the more Gnomic the better! . As for buying cameras on instant free credit, alas that is the only way i can afford or try to justify it @@marg so yes i still love all my camera stuff even when still paying for it. Thanks to everyone for taking the time to offer comments. Also apologies to @@Peter Connan as i see that I spelt your name wrong in my earlier post

Edited by Towlersonsafari
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@pault wrote "Really it's just whether you want to have the wider point of view, narrower depth of field or the subtle but (to me noticeable) look that a full frame camera offers." and I have to add that from the technical aspect, this is not entirely true.

 

One has to look at the crop sensor as a cut-down version of a full frame sensor. Wider point of view is reality ... if using same lens on both sensors; but apart from the fish-eye a dedicated DX (crop) type of lenses matches even the widest lenses. Narrower depth of field entirely depends on the lens, so using the same lens will give you the same depth of field on crop and on full frame body. The subtle look is debatable but yes, sensors are different between full frame and crop bodies and thus also end result might be different. About the only significant benefit of a full frame sensor lies in the size of the pixel sensors and thus the ability of each to gather more light then the smaller counterpart on the crop body (if comparing a 24 MP full frame and 24 MP crop sensor). Usually the difference is about 1 stop.

 

And there is one other benefit of the full frame bodies. All the full frame bodies that I have looked through have larger/brighter/bigger viewfinders then those on crop bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@@pault Narrower depth of field entirely depends on the lens, so using the same lens will give you the same depth of field on crop and on full frame body.

 

@@xelas, actually, full frame does give a narrower depth of field with the same lens and aperture. But, again, this is only about 1 stop, and can uaually be made up by using a better/faster lens. And thus, unless you already have the fastest lenses on the market, it probably isn't a worthy reason for buying a new camera.

 

@@Towlersonsafari, many dedicated Macro photographers prefer a crop-sensor camera, for exactly the same reason that many bird photographers do. The 100mm f2.8 Macro is a fine lens which will work well on your 7D2.

 

But, if you want to concentrate on insects rather then stationary objects like flowers, consider the Tamron and Sigma 180mm macro lenses. These allow you considerably more working distance and thus you are less likely to spook the insects.

 

If on the other hand you are interested in very high magnifications of mostly static subjects, have a look into the Canon MPE65...

Edited by Peter Connan
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do appreciate the time and advice you have taken @@Peter Conman thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


© 2006 - 2017 www.safaritalk.net - Talking Safaris and African Wildlife Conservation since 2006. Passionate about Africa.