6d vs 7d Mk II

[Tintin124]

I have an option to get both of these great cameras for the same price UK stock.

Mulitple choices allowed up to 3... for obvious reasons.

So which one do I choose.... I have done each question in the list of my priorities being;

1. Macro --- (does include inflight)
2. Birds --- (will include inflight)
3. Landscapes

Its all a bit of fun too (no arguments) , so if you can state your reasons on which you would choose would be very grateful.

 

[TimmyG]

Birds and landscape are easy (7D Mk II & 6D respectively). I would hope you will have researched both of these cameras enough to already understand my reasoning for this!

Macro is a bit more tricky. There is an argument for a crop sensor for these, but I often find I would like a bit wider field of view (especially with my MP-E) and it may give you easier access to wide-angle macro photography. I couldn't tell you how well the 7D II autofocus system copes with inflight shots of insects, or if you have to shoot manually anyway... The low light capabilities of the 6D may also be beneficial.

If it were me I think I'd go for the 7D Mark II. The build, auto focus and FR appeal to me. It's more like a machine gun than a canon.
If I had the cash, I would look to supplement it at some point with a full frame camera. Possibly a second hand Sony mirrorless option...

 

[odd jim]

Don't you already have a thread on this?

These cameras couldn't be more different! Totally different animals.

For what you've mentioned I'd go for the 6d.

- Much better IQ
- more detail and dynamic range for landscapes
- for macro you'll be using manual focus 99% of the time, so the AF doesn't matter here.
- however, the AF on the 6d is good enough to catch bees and smaller insects in flight (images available if you want to see them!) and more than good enough for birds in flight, with the right lens.
- high ISO far better than the 7dii, crucial for stopping the lens down when hand holding macro (ISOs 1600 upwards) due to the magnification / DOF issues.
- I don't necessarily buy into the crop factor being an advantage for shooting macro. You can easily fill the frame when shooting macro so why not have a fill a full 35mm size sensor than a cropped one?

For field sports and Motorsport, I'd buy the 7dii however...

 

[Tintin124]

Don't you already have a thread on this?

These cameras couldn't be more different! Totally different animals.

For what you've mentioned I'd go for the 6d.

- Much better IQ
- more detail and dynamic range for landscapes
- for macro you'll be using manual focus 99% of the time, so the AF doesn't matter here.
- however, the AF on the 6d is good enough to catch bees and smaller insects in flight (images available if you want to see them!)
- high ISO far better than the 7dii, crucial for stopping the lens down when hand held (ISOs 1600 upwards).
- I don't buy into the crop factor being an advantage. You can easily fill the frame when shooting macro so why not have a fill a full 35mm size sensor than a cropped one?

For field sports and Motorsport, I'd buy. 7dii however...

No this is a different subject Chris was asking about 6d he just happened to throw in 7d mk II. This thread is about my requirements and my list of importance I have no idea about Chris's bar he likes Macro but I don't personally know what other photography he is into. Though saying that I should have added portraiture as No 2 but guess the 6D would win on that point.

How about in flight dragons and damsel if you have images of those would love to see as that is what I want to achieve this year without massive cropping and this is the issue I believe I would have with FF.

See below link about pixel density.

https://photographylife.com/macro-photography-tutorial

 

[Tintin124]

If I had the cash, I would look to supplement it at some point with a full frame camera. Possibly a second hand Sony mirrorless option...

Welcome devils adovcate... guess you know Sony is in my eye line.

So seeing that you have a crop sensor already you would still go with 7d?

I really need to find out if you can reverse a 18-55mm on full frame @odd jim maybe able to answer. Obviously with aperture set on crop sensor first.

My gut does say go FF but I have feeling for macro I would constantly return to my crop for magnification purposes and fact I don't have any specialised lens such as MPE and rely on my 18-55 for that experience.

 

[odd jim]

No this is a different subject Chris was asking about 6d he just happened to throw in 7d mk II. This thread is about my requirements and my list of importance I have no idea about Chris's bar he likes Macro but I don't personally know what other photography he is into. Though saying that I should have added portraiture as No 2 but guess the 6D would win on that point.

How about in flight dragons and damsel if you have images of those would love to see as that is what I want to achieve this year without massive cropping and this is the issue I believe I would have with FF.

See below link about pixel density.

https://photographylife.com/macro-photography-tutorial

That's an interesting article and most is spot on, however, I disagree massively that the magnification is down to the pixels / pixel density, the magnification for me is wholly down to the lens. If you start cropping and playing with pixels, it compromises the image from the get go. That's not to say that you shouldn't do it (I do when my composition is off, which is most of the time!), just dont rely on it to 'get closer'.

There are plenty of ways, optically, to get closer, of course starting with a macro lens (or Raynox attached to a prime). Then you can add extension tubes etc, even adding extension tubes and a Raynox to a macro lens for supreme magnification, all increasing magnification without cropping or relying on pixel density assuring the IQ is unaffected.

Anyway, unfortunately I don't have any Damsel Flies in flight, you've set me a mission now!

Here are a few others shot on my 6d, some stuff in flight, AF and MF;

Fly on flower 3 April 14 by Odd Jim, on Flickr

Bee in flight 1 by Odd Jim, on Flickr

bee in flight 3 by Odd Jim, on Flickr

Wet bee 2 by Odd Jim, on Flickr

 

[odd jim]

Welcome devils adovcate... guess you know Sony is in my eye line.

So seeing that you have a crop sensor already you would still go with 7d?

I really need to find out if you can reverse a 18-55mm on full frame @odd jim maybe able to answer. Obviously with aperture set on crop sensor first.

My gut does say go FF but I have feeling for macro I would constantly return to my crop for magnification purposes and fact I don't have any specialised lens such as MPE and rely on my 18-55 for that experience.

I've not tried reversing the 18-55 on FF but I'd imaging due to it being an EFS lens it would vignette quite badly?

 

[Tintin124]

Anyway, unfortunately I don't have any Damsel Flies in flight, you've set me a mission now!

Look forward to it Jim, I do really appreciate the effort and detailed responses.

I've not tried reversing the 18-55 on FF but I'd imaging due to it being an EFS lens it would vignette quite badly?

I suspect that too but want to know for definite and Google turns a blank on the issue.

If you do have one could you try it for me? even more so with a 1.4x TC before the lens too would match my 5x mag setup

 

[odd jim]

Look forward to it Jim, I do really appreciate the effort and detailed responses.



I suspect that too but want to know for definite and Google turns a blank on the issue.

If you do have one could you try it for me? even more so with a 1.4x TC before the lens too would match my 5x mag setup

I only have a (broken but optically fine) 18-135 EFS but I can try, though it'll be hand held as I don't have the reversing mount!

 

[Tintin124]

I only have a (broken but optically fine) 18-135 EFS but I can try, though it'll be hand held as I don't have the reversing mount!

I imagine it will be the same either.... so if you could it would be much appreciated.

 

[odd jim]

Ok, technically it does work! Both at the 18mm end (reveresed so the 'long' end here) and 135mm).

The result arent great but this was me hand holding the lens to the camera so please excuse the camera shake, this is really to see if vignetting affects it. Of course, no aperture control, so its wide open.

Quick, non processed attempts;

18-135 test b by Odd Jim, on Flickr

18-135 test a by Odd Jim, on Flickr

It works, but I'd say optically its flawed (note the bad CA which isn't evident when the lens is used in its normal function), and you'd be far better off with a prime (50mm plus) with a Raynox if a full macro lens isn't an option straight away. I used to get great results on my 50d with an 85mm with a Raynox!

 

[ChrisA]

I have voted - 6d for all but bird photos where fps and af are important. Really you should go the the latest 1D...

 

[Orville]

I moved from a 7D Classic to 6D. The IQ from the 6D is a huge leap, and for the vast majority of my indoor and outdoor usage it was the clear winner.

However, the one area where I missed the 7D was for sports. It was not so much the AF and tracking ability which was lacking, but the range. Obtaining good quality lenses of >300mm becomes very expensive on FF so I was left feeling inadequate in the length department. With the 7D >300mm is pretty easy, and for outdoor + well lit sports (and a little birding) it is a very capable tool.

So, I purchased another (used) 7D and mated it to my 6D for best of both worlds. 7D for long range work or when high FPS is needed and 6D for everything else.

Perhaps consider a 6D and a used 7D. This will provide many more options than a single 6D or 7D II, and will enable you to cover two zoom ranges at once if you carry two bodies.

 

[TimmyG]

So seeing that you have a crop sensor already you would still go with 7d?

Yes, because I would want it for the general wildlife photography and be interested in the the AF/FR capabilities (plus something i can rely on in all weathers).

If I wanted to go FF (which I still do) it would be purely for the sensor and the ability to shoot wider. If I was to choose a camera based on the sensor alone I would probably look to a Sony as things stand at the moment (they have the reputation for better DR and noise control). I could see myself shooting low light wildlife shots with a FF camera too, but I would most likely want to pair it with Canon's 400mm F5.6L (as it's within a reasonable price bracket for me at the moment, and I much prefer primes over zooms). I've got an old FD mount 400mm F5.6 and it lets in very little light on my crop sensor. Adding a TC makes matters worse and it's very difficult to shoot hand held. I suspect I would have to rely on a tripod and good lighting. If I was serious about going FF however, I would do some research into Sony's latest offerings with IBIS, as I suspect this could add some great advantage for using this lens.

Typically though, as soon as I had decided and invested in the latest Sony technologies, Canon would release their 400mm F5.6 IS Mark II. Either way the camera companies would be taking all my money!

That's an interesting article and most is spot on, however, I disagree massively that the magnification is down to the pixels / pixel density, the magnification for me is wholly down to the lens. If you start cropping and playing with pixels, it compromises the image from the get go. That's not to say that you shouldn't do it (I do when my composition is off, which is most of the time!), just dont rely on it to 'get closer'.

I agree with what you are saying however I suspect the article is confusing "magnification" with "resolution" and with a higher pixel density, your ability to crop and retain detail should be higher (although maybe not significantly; I'm awaiting a new 24mp crop sensor to compare with my current 18mp one and see if I can find any real world evidence of this..)

 

[odd jim]

Yes, because I would want it for the general wildlife photography and be interested in the the AF/FR capabilities (plus something i can rely on in all weathers).

If I wanted to go FF (which I still do) it would be purely for the sensor and the ability to shoot wider. If I was to choose a camera based on the sensor alone I would probably look to a Sony as things stand at the moment (they have the reputation for better DR and noise control). I could see myself shooting low light wildlife shots with a FF camera too, but I would most likely want to pair it with Canon's 400mm F5.6L (as it's within a reasonable price bracket for me at the moment, and I much prefer primes over zooms). I've got an old FD mount 400mm F5.6 and it lets in very little light on my crop sensor. Adding a TC makes matters worse and it's very difficult to shoot hand held. I suspect I would have to rely on a tripod and good lighting. If I was serious about going FF however, I would do some research into Sony's latest offerings with IBIS, as I suspect this could add some great advantage for using this lens.

Typically though, as soon as I had decided and invested in the latest Sony technologies, Canon would release their 400mm F5.6 IS Mark II. Either way the camera companies would be taking all my money!

I agree with what you are saying however I suspect the article is confusing "magnification" with "resolution" and with a higher pixel density, your ability to crop and retain detail should be higher (although maybe not significantly; I'm awaiting a new 24mp crop sensor to compare with my current 18mp one and see if I can find any real world evidence of this..)

I agree, I think that's what they mean, but that ignores the fact that the more, tightly packed together you place the pixels, the more artefacts, noise and loss of detail it creates.

 

[Tintin124]

Ok, technically it does work!

Thanks Jim.... CA I can handle does appear to be a Tad worse than I get on my 500d. But what a quick turn around on results.

Saying this, this setup could remain on my 500d.

It works, but I'd say optically its flawed (note the bad CA which isn't evident when the lens is used in its normal function), and you'd be far better off with a prime (50mm plus) with a Raynox if a full macro lens isn't an option straight away.

I should clarify I do own some specific macro setups... and a 2:1 lens (Venus 60mm) so I am covered for what I need also a 50mm + Raynox 202/250 etc etc...

Perhaps consider a 6D and a used 7D.

Ideally I would have both as part of a 2 body kit but money can't be stretched that far and I have a 500d which I do like but holds no value for swapping

@TimmyG as you know my head is going around and around on the subject, at the moment the Sony's are fleeting ideas that don't seem to stick for long... I like the handling on DSLR but that maybe something I'm convincing myself I need.

Typically though, as soon as I had decided and invested in the latest Sony technologies, Canon would release their 400mm F5.6 IS Mark II. Either way the camera companies would be taking all my money!

This is something that will happen to me 6d MK II will come out or something like that. But sometimes you need to bite the bullet. Had the 5d Mk IV come out then think the Mk III would have been in the running. @ChrisA (think that is a kinda reply to your 1d comment )

Down points to 6d is it is not really improving my AF options over the 500d (yes it will be an improvement but not a lot) but the IQ would be immense over the current situation.

However the 7d will improve that but will only slightly increase IQ over the 500d why couldn't canon just mix the technologies for same cost.

 

[Orville]

why couldn't canon just mix the technologies for same cost.

That would be something akin to a Nikon D610. Have you considered moving to the other side?

 

[TimmyG]

However the 7d will improve that but will only slightly increase IQ over the 500d why couldn't canon just mix the technologies for same cost.

Ha ha! It's because they are not daft

TBH it's sounding like the 6D is the right option for you. It's comes down to the same question that we always bandy around this forum.. At what point is it "good enough?" I think the AF system on the 6D will likely cope well with the vast majority of situations you put it in. Although you might miss focus on the occasional BIF shot, if there's one thing macro shooting should have taught you, it's "perseverance." You may just have to work harder for certain shots (but they will likely be more fulfilling for that reason).

The IQ advantages and wider field of view are big plus points for you and if you are not interested in the mirrorless options, the 6D would seem to cover what you need. Just remember you have to lug it up all those mountains for those amazing landscape shots

 

[TimmyG]

That would be something akin to a Nikon D610. Have you considered moving to the other side?

Oof! Fighting talk!

 

[Tintin124]

Just remember you have to lug it up all those mountains for those amazing landscape shots

lmao.... cause I'm regularly shooting up my local mountain... I live on the biggest hill around my parts

That would be something akin to a Nikon D610. Have you considered moving to the other side?

I think I would go D810 if I did but it would mean chopping in all my kit... plus I hate how expensive Nikon lenses and Nikon stuff is especially when compared to Canon plus they release a new camera every 5 seconds. I have no doubts in their credentials and capabilities just I'm pretty tied in now.

If I still only had 500d + Kit lens I would have no issues with changing sides.

 

[Tintin124]

TBH it's sounding like the 6D is the right option for you

Not sure still mate, maybe all this indecision suggests that I should get neither ....

 

[odd jim]

Ha ha! It's because they are not daft

TBH it's sounding like the 6D is the right option for you. It's comes down to the same question that we always bandy around this forum.. At what point is it "good enough?" I think the AF system on the 6D will likely cope well with the vast majority of situations you put it in. Although you might miss focus on the occasional BIF shot, if there's one thing macro shooting should have taught you, it's "perseverance." You may just have to work harder for certain shots (but they will likely be more fulfilling for that reason).

The IQ advantages and wider field of view are big plus points for you and if you are not interested in the mirrorless options, the 6D would seem to cover what you need. Just remember you have to lug it up all those mountains for those amazing landscape shots

That's the other good thing about the 6d, it's quite small and light, it's significantly smaller and lighter than my 50d!

 

[LCPete]

Hi Bryn I've never had a full frame camera so can't really comment too much but just had a couple of thoughts
For macro with flash you will be at low ISO anyway so I wouldn't have thought that having full frame wouldn't have that much of an improvement in IQ
for natural light shooting if you wanted to use smaller apertures then a full frame camera may be better
I mostly do natural light macro as you know and am very happy with the image quality my 7D mk 1 up to ISO 800
Most of the time with natural light macro the shots that I take at least don't have a really wide dynamic range I just don't see how having a full frame camera would improve image quality but I may well be wrong

Edit just to add that i have thought about getting the 6D tho

 

[LCPete]

My friend shoots with the MPe 65 a lot and changed to full frame to get a larger field of veiw to be able to get the larger insects all in the frame

 

[Tintin124]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/canon/6d/vs/canon/7d-mark-ii/

The 7D II gives more for the money, but the 6D can yield the best images
At the end of our comparison, it's become pretty clear that the Canon 7D II is the better camera for most experienced photographers, with a huge raft more features, and much more room to grow. That's not to say that the Canon 6D isn't still a great camera, though, and if maximal image quality is your main goal -- especially in low light -- or if you have lots of 35mm full-frame lenses whose wide-angle capabilities you don't want to sacrifice, the Canon 6D could still be the better choice.

Our money, though, would almost certainly go on the Canon 7D II, and chances are that sub-frame or not, yours should too.

Everything is still clear as mud for me as I want both but that being the case would the 5d mk III be the best of all though I would have to save up a little more.

 

[TimmyG]

Everything is still clear as mud for me as I want both but that being the case would the 5d mk III be the best of all though I would have to save up a little more.

No 7D II trumps the 5D Mark III with regard to features. @ChrisA was right, what you really want is a 1DX

Look, how pretty it is:

 

[Tintin124]

No 7D II trumps the 5D Mark III with regard to features. @ChrisA was right, what you really want is a 1DX

Look, how pretty it is:

Lol, look how pretty you are but I don't want to marry you!

Just found one on ebay for £300 no feedback but my I will go for it!

 

[odd jim]

It's the lens that looks pretty to me

 

[Orville]

All life is a compromise. I have only one wife because more would become far too expensive. The current model can cook, hold a conversation, and even looks quite pretty (more so after a few beers). Sure there are higher performing models available, but few will perform great within all areas, and the ones which do will be very very expensive.

Choose your model based upon it's primary usage. Look at you current album and note which pictures are better suited for FF or crop.

 

[Tintin124]

Choose your model based upon it's primary usage. Look at you current album and note which pictures are better suited for FF or crop.

Nothing more wiser than that.

 

[ChrisA]

What I'd really like is a FF camera that performs well in low light / low noise on ISO up to 4000, shoot 10 fps and have great fast autofocus, retingulated liveview, 4k Video, and weigh the same as my 650D or less. ( and cost under £1K)

I don't ask for much really. EV viewfinder would be nice too.

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Hi Bryn, if it was me looking at the 2, I would probably go with a second hand 5D mk3. Similar AF to the 7D2, FF sensor, so all the high ISO, DOF and larger pixel benefits of the 6D. Apart from landscapes, you shoot similar to me and the 5d3 suits all my requirements.