Canon 5d MII or Canon 6D

daz103

daz103

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,417
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
Yes
I recently went from Canon to micro four thirds Panasonic stuff, but really don't get on with it.

I am thinking of going back to Canon, but cannot decide on which route to go. I really want a 24-105 and 16-35, if I went 6d I would probably stretch to the 24-105. Buying the 5d I might be able to get both lenses.

Just wondering what peoples thoughts on both cameras.

I tend to shoot travel and documentary work, rarely pushing iso above 1600.
 
6D, Better ISO, Wifi, GPS. Personal love the GPS feature and for traveling the 6D is lighter, oh and the biggest perk, 6D Dynamic Range is far better than the 5D Mark II :)

BUT if you can't afford the glass if you go for the 6D, then go with the 5D II and have better/more quality glass...
 
6D would be my choice, get quality glass later!
 
Having owned the 5D mk2 and now owning the 6D I can confidently recommend the 6D. IMHO It is by far the better camera in all respects. At low ISO there is not too much in IQ but at high ISO the 6D blows the 5D out the water.
 
I've had both, and apart from the control wheel and marginal less direct control, i preferred the 6D. Not mentioned above but in low light, the AF is substantially better than the 5DII. Prices are so close that unless you have a love affair with CF cards, it's a no-brainer.
 
Definitely 6d. Low light quality is amazing due to focusing and high ISO
 
I'd rather have a 5d mkii and the glass i wanted than a 6d and compromise the glass! The ISO and DR differences in real world use are marginal and the mkii focus in low light is perfectly useable.
 
a1ex2001 said:
I'd rather have a 5d mkii and the glass i wanted than a 6d and compromise the glass! The ISO and DR differences in real world use are marginal and the mkii focus in low light is perfectly useable.
Click to expand...
Actually, the high ISO isn't marginal, the 6d is noticably better in that regard. It would therefore depend if the OP shoots high ISO.
 
Last edited:
+1 for 6D. Just a better all-round camera IMVHO. Personally thaough I would match it with the 24-70f4 which is a great lens.
 
gary43 said:
+1 for 6D. Just a better all-round camera IMVHO. Personally thaough I would match it with the 24-70f4 which is a great lens.
Click to expand...
Just to echo this, it's the exact combo I use for 90% of the time can't recommend it enough :)
 
gary43 said:
+1 for 6D. Just a better all-round camera IMVHO. Personally thaough I would match it with the 24-70f4 which is a great lens.
Click to expand...

I like the extra reach of the 105mm for portraits, but I will have a look at that lens.

How do people find the weather sealing on the 6d compared to the 5d mk2?
 
Definitely speak in favour of the 6D having seen it in action.

And the 6D has weather sealing.... its probably not much compared to the 7Dmk2 but its hard to really know whats inside it. I do know a friend who used his in iceland along side me in severe spray from a waterfall that left us and the cameras soaked and it still functions perfectly.
 
Agree with the 6D, also agree with the suggestion to go for the 24-70 f/4L instead of the 24-105 - the 24-70 f/4 is a much superior lens.
 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

At 24mm with a wide open aperture, the 24-70 f/4L IS bests the 24-105 L IS in sharpness by a modest amount. The 24-105 L delivers a sharper image at 50mm f/4. Sharpness improvement at 70mm brings the 24-70 f/4L IS back up to near equality with the 24-105 L. These two lenses perform more similarly at f/5.6 and at f/8 where their results are nearly comparable. Again, the results are similar at f/11.

The 24-70 f/4L IS shows less distortion than the 24-105 f/4L IS - and significantly less at 24mm. Landscape photographers shooting over a flat horizon (such as water) will especially appreciate the difference at their most-frequently-used focal length: 24mm. Having a distortion-free lens makes leveling the framed scene much easier and reduces the destructive distortion correction needed during post processing.

There will be a small amount of CA (Chromatic Aberration) in the peripheral image circle at 24mm, but the 24-70 f/4L IS is nearly void of CA until the longer end of the focal length range where mild CA becomes apparent at 70mm. The 24-70 f/4L IS has noticeably less CA than the 24-105 f/4L IS at the wide end, but more at 70mm.

The 24-70 f/4L IS has less vignetting than the 24-105 f/4L IS at the wide end at f/4, but more at the long end. By f/5.6, the two lenses are close in this regard. The 24-70 f/2.8L II, with its 1-stop wider aperture, has the comparable-aperture vignetting advantage until about f/8 where the two are nearly equal.

This lens features Super Spectra coatings to reduce flare and increase contrast. While the increased contrast part appears successful, I'm not as amazed with the flare performance from this lens. You will want to avoid the sun in the frame at all focal lengths and apertures - unless you want the artistic effects of flare. The 24-105 L and 24-70 L II show slightly less flare, but not enough less to be a differentiating factor.
 
twist said:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

At 24mm with a wide open aperture, the 24-70 f/4L IS bests the 24-105 L IS in sharpness by a modest amount. The 24-105 L delivers a sharper image at 50mm f/4. Sharpness improvement at 70mm brings the 24-70 f/4L IS back up to near equality with the 24-105 L. These two lenses perform more similarly at f/5.6 and at f/8 where their results are nearly comparable. Again, the results are similar at f/11.

The 24-70 f/4L IS shows less distortion than the 24-105 f/4L IS - and significantly less at 24mm. Landscape photographers shooting over a flat horizon (such as water) will especially appreciate the difference at their most-frequently-used focal length: 24mm. Having a distortion-free lens makes leveling the framed scene much easier and reduces the destructive distortion correction needed during post processing.

There will be a small amount of CA (Chromatic Aberration) in the peripheral image circle at 24mm, but the 24-70 f/4L IS is nearly void of CA until the longer end of the focal length range where mild CA becomes apparent at 70mm. The 24-70 f/4L IS has noticeably less CA than the 24-105 f/4L IS at the wide end, but more at 70mm.

The 24-70 f/4L IS has less vignetting than the 24-105 f/4L IS at the wide end at f/4, but more at the long end. By f/5.6, the two lenses are close in this regard. The 24-70 f/2.8L II, with its 1-stop wider aperture, has the comparable-aperture vignetting advantage until about f/8 where the two are nearly equal.

This lens features Super Spectra coatings to reduce flare and increase contrast. While the increased contrast part appears successful, I'm not as amazed with the flare performance from this lens. You will want to avoid the sun in the frame at all focal lengths and apertures - unless you want the artistic effects of flare. The 24-105 L and 24-70 L II show slightly less flare, but not enough less to be a differentiating factor.
Click to expand...

Wow thanks for the info, I will do some comparisons. Might pop to Harrison's cameras tomorrow for a play.
 
daz103 said:
Wow thanks for the info, I will do some comparisons. Might pop to Harrison's cameras tomorrow for a play.
Click to expand...

Seems it comes down to preferred FL, if you prefer 50mm and up the 24-105 is better, below 50mm the 24-70 is better. Obviously you also get the extra length with the 24-105. Tough choice, good luck with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top