6D or 70D?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Prodo123, Aug 31, 2013.

  1. macrumors 68020

    Prodo123

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    #1
    Now that I've seen the 70D's performance I'm curious which one would be better for me.
    Right now I shoot an old T2i. I've long since felt its limitations, primarily in the focusing department.

    In that respect the 70D offers a much better performance than 6D, with both the very usable live view dual-pixel tech and the 7D's 19-point focus system. It also has a better burst rate as well as a built-in flash.
    But the 6D has the dynamic range and the full-frame sensor. It forgoes the touchscreen for a semi-magnesium body and GPS.

    With the 6D priced so similarly nowadays as the 70D's release price, I don't know which to get!
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    AT06

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Location:
    Winwick, UK
    #2
    In the UK you can get the 6D now for £1399 with a 2 year warranty, £150 cashback, and Adobe Lightroom 5 and Premiere Elements 11. Pretty good deal.

    The choice really is whether you need full frame, or if crop can deliver what you need.

    The focus system, burst rate, and the improved sensor on the 70D makes it a fantastic upgrade over your t2i. Combined with the crop factor this makes an excellent camera for sports, macro and wildlife photography.

    The 6D offers a better build quality, GPS, a larger viewfinder and the associated benefits of a full frame sensor - great for landscape work, street photography and portraiture where the maximum possible detail is needed.

    However before you upgrade, do what I did and everyone else on this forum always says - get yourself some good glass, and ONLY upgrade when you keep running into problems, and you really begin to feel your pictures are being held back by your camera. For instance I craved a larger viewfinder, wider angle shots, and better highlight/shadow recovery in PP - so I bought the 6D a couple of days ago.

    Don't rush into things - after a while, what you truly need will become obvious.
     
  3. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Location:
    Delaware
    #3
    How about a 60D

    Last month I bought a 60D from Adorama for $899 with an SD card, Canon case, and monopod. That's a lot less than you are looking at for 70D. Sometimes it pays to be off the cutting edge.
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
  5. macrumors 65816

    ijohn.8.80

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Location:
    Adelaide, Oztwaylya.
    #5
    As the eye only sees approximately 12 stops of light at a time, is it necessary to go beyond that? When we look at a real world scene we see about 12 stops of definition and then we blink and look somewhere else and the same thing occurs, we see 12 stops of dynamic range but the range may have shifted to higher or lower frequencies of light within the 24 stop range we can see across.

    Looking at a picture that covers more than the 12 stop range we see with at any one moment, that picture would have to be incredibly big for our eye to make out the extremes of the range. If all you are doing is posting pictures on the net and sharing them digitally with folks, I don't know that you would notice a bigger dynamic range at all.

    Preparing to be ripped apart here for my limited understanding of this at a superficial level... :eek:
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #6
    Canon's lack of dynamic range is quite obvious to me. With Canon and images with dynamic range extremes, clouds, highlights, light sources will be blown out/enlarged OR shadows and dark tones will be black and lack detail. This is true of all cameras, but Canon images are much worse in this regard. Anyone should be able to see that.
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    ijohn.8.80

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Location:
    Adelaide, Oztwaylya.
    #7
    Seriously dude? It's a p!ss!ng match for you. Plain and simple.

    Have you ever looked at Phrasikleia's pictures?
     
  8. thread starter macrumors 68020

    Prodo123

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    #8
    It's quite the common knowledge that DxOMark has some sort of bias against Canon, despite their denials. For example, lowlight performance on the 5D Mark III looks better to the eye than the D800, but still DxOMark gives the D800 a higher score.
    And even with this weird bias that they have their results do show that the 6D has some dynamic range advantage over the 70D.
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
    #9
    I'm holding out for the 70D when the price drops a bit in the next few months. I'm not a professional, full frame would be fantastic as I mostly do landscapes. GPS would be fantastic as sometimes I shoot in the middle of nowhere and would like to know where I am exactly later on, but I suppose I can get some wifi GPS thing I can hook up to the 70D. This will at least save on the camera's battery. A huge advantage of the 70D over the 6D is the articulated screen. There have been plenty of times where I haven't wanted to lie down on the snow to get the shot I wanted so just had to hold the camera low, click and hope for the best. I also have lenses for a crop sensor, so don't fancy spending money on buying a bunch of new lenses.
     
  10. macrumors 6502

    AT06

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Location:
    Winwick, UK
  11. macrumors 68000

    TheReef

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Location:
    NSW, Australia.
    #11
    Think about what you shoot most and work backwards from there.
    Newer tech sure is nice, but will it have an effect on what you shoot?

    Landscapes > 6D (Better sensor / dynamic range?)
    Portraits > 6D (Full frame - nice larger OOF regions in your shot for portraits, which will be cropped out on the 70D)
    Sport/Wildlife > 70D (I can really only see all those autofocus points and FPS being useful on tracking an animal, sports player or perhaps highly active child :p)
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
  13. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 2, 2009
  14. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #14
    +

    I shoot a lot of still subjects and the 'better' AF of the 7D was driving me crazy. The 6D is so much more natural for what I do. But were I shooting moving subjects that don't respond to panning, it would be the other way around.
     
  15. macrumors 68040

    acearchie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    #15
    Just to throw my hat in...

    What sort of stuff do you shoot? That will really help you decide whether FF or crop is best for you.

    Things like AF need to be taken with a pinch of salt depending on their use. I mostly take portraits and spur of the moment photos and the focus on my 6D has never missed a beat. Bare in mind as well that it's centre cross-type focus point can focus in the least amount of light compared to the rest of Canon's range.

    I have both a 6D and 600d if you have any specific questions?
     
  16. thread starter macrumors 68020

    Prodo123

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    #16
    Well that's where the dilemma comes in because I shoot everything. Sports, portraits, street, etc. whatever comes my way. I'd really like a 5D Mark III (who wouldn't?) but of course that's out of the pricing range...
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #17
    In practice, the 6D is kind of a mini 5D. See if you can rent/borrow one for a weekend. If it does enough of what you need, you're all set. I love mine.
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Location:
    Yorba Linda, CA
    #18
    I am very interested in this discussion as well.
    Much like the OP, I shoot a bit of everything, from landscape (when I find myself somewhere interesting) to street/backyard/flowers/pets/portraits, etc.

    I too have considered the 6D (and the notion of going full frame) as well as the 70d. I decided to focus instead on spending my money on more/better lenses for the time being (I shoot with a T3i which i think is the 600 in non US parlance?) So for now, the body upgrade is on hold, while I learn more about what I want (because I'm fairly new at this, and because I don't really know what I want, if that makes sense).
    So threads like these are very useful to my ongoing education.

    It sounds like you have both a 600 and a 6d so you're very close to what I'm interested in and have the same camera I have now. What would you say are the pros/cons of each - not in technical terms, but rather in how you would use this one or that? Do you see yourself preferring the FF for your usage? If so, why?
     
  19. macrumors 68040

    acearchie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    #19
    I honestly don't see the 5Diii as a big step up from the 6D and in my case it would actually be worse than the 6D.

    Look at it another way, since you shoot all these different things, find out how you would like to improve each genre of photography and then figure out if FF or crop will help you out the most.

    To be blunt. I don't use the 600D at all. It sits in a draw most of the time. I have one client that requires two camera setups for interviews so that is what it is used for.

    In fact, soon I am moving it off my insurance policy and replacing it with a sigma 35mm f1.4 as I am pretty sure I won't be using it that much longer.

    It did serve me really well and did help me learn a lot about photography. When I bought it as well Canon were in between body cycles and since it is a lot of money for some of these bodies I persuaded myself I would want to buy one new if I did. I have now had my 6D 7 months and I am happy that I waited out for it over jumping for the 5Dii like a lot of my peers did.
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Location:
    Yorba Linda, CA
    #20
    Fair enough. The 600d is more an entry level body. Hard to compare to 6d.
    Which brings us back to the 70d which the OP is interested in. As am I.
    So let me rephrase the question this way:
    Why did you choose the 6d over say the 60d or 70d?
    What was your reasoning?
     
  21. macrumors 68040

    acearchie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    #21
    I wanted FF. I really like shooting people and natural light is my favourite (and easiest!). My requirements were low noise at high Iso for natural light portraits.

    This picture highlights a shot that would have not been as possible on my 600D:

    [​IMG]
    Paris by acearchie, on Flickr

    It was taken at ISO 4000 and through further experimentation I know that I can push it to easily ISO 6400 (as in the image below) and still really not have to worry about noise.

    [​IMG]
    Alex by acearchie, on Flickr

    In fact, I love the fact that my 6D can pretty much see better than my own eyes. The scene below was darker in real life yet at ISO 12,800 there is still low noise and it is definitely acceptable for a web use shot. This was the first shot I took from my camera after I took it out the box!

    [​IMG]
    Home At Night by acearchie, on Flickr

    Linked with this is the AF on the 6D. My 600D would search quite a bit but my 6D is great at hitting the mark (by default I stick it on centre focusing and recompose if need be). The centre point is the best at focusing in low light compared to the rest of Canon's range:

    This is something that a lot of people gloss over when comparing focusing types. To be honest, I have shot with a 1Div and found that I did not need all the focusing points it had to offer. In my opinion, 9 is the sweet spot and I only use the outers for portrait orientated photos when there is enough light.

    The other main reason for me was I wanted a shallower depth of field. I like being able to separate the subject from the background and depth of field is the quick way to do this. Having now got lenses from 11mm all the way up to 85mm I am able to use my lens selection to aid how much depth of field and perspective distortion I want.

    The DOF is the main reason that I have been shooting MF film for quite a while. Whilst the lenses I have are slower the DOF adds a really different look and helps pop the subjects out from the scene.

    The 70D wasn't out when I bought my 6D but I didn't even consider the 60D as it is the same sensor as the 600D and in essence apart from a few buttons changing around (which in itself can be quite important) it was practically the same camera.

    It wouldn't have allowed me to take any different pictures from the 600D as the focus points weren't my requirement and on the 70D I view the video AF as gimmicky as in a professional video environment you always focus manually and I have therefore invested in kit to aid me with this.

    Feel free to ask anything else!
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #22
    To answer the question, yes, it does matter and it is important. Regardless of what you can see, more is better because it gives you more room to play when post processing. It lets you recover more highlights and more shadow detail without getting white or black detailless blobs.
     
  23. ijohn.8.80, Sep 9, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2013

    macrumors 65816

    ijohn.8.80

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Location:
    Adelaide, Oztwaylya.
    #23
    OK. The folks over at Cambridgeincolour say the following:
    They also mention:
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    Netherlands
    #24
    Correct. And that is why higher DR and great bit depth is good for post processing. I.e., if you take images form my previous camera, 5D with 8 stops DR and my current camera, D800 with 12+ stops of DR, there are situations where with the 5D I would require multiple shot HDR for something that I can do with a single shot using the D800.

    If we would have a fictitious camera with 24 stops DR, you would barely ever have to shoot a multiple exposure stacked HDR anymore.

    Same with bit depth. 14b color images produce more colors than any screen or printer can display, so going to 16b color doesn't seem to matter much. Except when you go to edit these photos that difference can produce a visibly more accurate result after editing.
     
  25. macrumors 65816

    ijohn.8.80

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Location:
    Adelaide, Oztwaylya.
    #25
    There in lies the clincher... 12 stops is not HDR. I don't know why anyone gets their knickers in a knot over technical details when they still have to take two or more shots to achieve genuine HDR.

    For the spec. freaks out there, you have the best camera available, but I still continue to see spectacular shots taken with middle of the road cameras every day. :cool:
     

Share This Page