Considering move from Canon 80D to 6DMk2 Merits/demerits

Twigman

Twigman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
238
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
On paper the 80D and the 6D2 look like very similar cameras (apart from the FF v APS-C )
I have the 80D - I mainly use it for stills
I am considering the 6D2 as an 'upgrade' - I'd like better low light performance.
Another reason is I find my EF lenses to be tighter than I expect, despite having used Canon APS-C for a few years now I still find I'm stepping back or trying to go wider than my lenses want to go.

The downside is that, of my 9 lenses, 5 of them won't fit the 6D2....I suppose I could flog them to fund the 6D2 and perhaps add 1 EF lens - I'd be lacking a sub 24mm wide angle if I went FF

Do people think I'll
1) resolve my low light performance issue
2) miss anything about the 80D that I've not thought of

?????

DIscuss the merits or demerits of migrating from 80D to 6D2

Thanks


ps: Pockets aren't deep enough for 5DIV and I'm not keen on going secondhand on bodies.
 
How bad is the low light performance on the 80d ?

Gaz
 
cargo said:
How bad is the low light performance on the 80d ?

Gaz
Click to expand...
I'm finding that even at f/2.8 and shutter speed as slow as 1/30 the camera often chooses ISO6400
ISO6400 is a bit grainy
Maybe I'm expecting too much without flash?
 
Take it out of auto iso and set the i.s.o yourself ,it will just need a longer exposure and I should think at 1/30th sec your tripod mounted anyway ,,
 
A 6D MkII would still choose ISO6400 for that particular lighting scene. Yes an FF sensor will probably handle noise slightly better but is that really worth the huge financial outlay and losing half of your lenses? As others have said I assume you're shooting somewhere quite dark on a tripod at those shutter speeds anyway, so pick the ISO yourself and use an even slower shutter speed, and either pocket the circa £1000 you've just saved or buy some lovely new glass with it
 
What 9 lenses do you have?

You could sell the lot and get he 17-40mm, 24-70 2.8 or f4, 70-200 f4 or 2.8 and be fully covered. Unless you shoot primes, or longer than 200 :D
 
jerry12953 said:
Whatever do you need 9 lenses for, though? I'd sell a few of them and go FF.
Click to expand...
Oh you know
these things accumulate

and actually only 4 of them won't fit the 6D2 - forgot the crappy 75-300 is EF not EF-S

My 9 (and how I acquired them are)
EF-S:
18-55 STM - kit lens came with a Canon 100D
10-18 - love it fantastic vfm wide angle
18-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM - got it for video shooting (with the motor zoom)
Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS HSM - got it because I wanted wider than f/4 on a 'walkabout' zoom to replace the kit lens

EF
50mm f/1.8 STM - hasn't everyone got one?
24-70 f/4L IS - got it cheap - 1st L lens - got it to see what the fuss about L lenses is
75-300 kit lens came with a Canon 100D - really don't like it at all - no IS and small apertures poor IQ
100-400 L f/4.5-5.6 IS mk2 - I like to shoot airshows and motorsports - I got it cheap(ish) - it's great for airshows but a bit long for motorsports so I got a
70-200 L f/2.8 IS mk2 - the only lens anyone really ever needs :)
 
Tom Green said:
What 9 lenses do you have?

You could sell the lot and get he 17-40mm, 24-70 2.8 or f4, 70-200 f4 or 2.8 and be fully covered. Unless you shoot primes, or longer than 200 :D
Click to expand...
All i'd need from that list is the 17-40 which is what i had in mind in my opening post (or maybe a 16-35 f/2.8 IS ??) when i said I could sell the EF-S lenses and get a wider than 24mm EF.....

that said - i wouldn't get enough for the lenses I'd be getting rid of...
and inevitably I'd want to swap the 24-70 f/4L for a f/2.8 version.....
 
Last edited:
Well i went from the 6D to the 80D which i like better.:)
 
Last edited:
Twigman said:
Oh you know
these things accumulate

and actually only 4 of them won't fit the 6D2 - forgot the crappy 75-300 is EF not EF-S

My 9 (and how I acquired them are)
EF-S:
18-55 STM - kit lens came with a Canon 100D
10-18 - love it fantastic vfm wide angle
18-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM - got it for video shooting (with the motor zoom)
Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS HSM - got it because I wanted wider than f/4 on a 'walkabout' zoom to replace the kit lens

EF
50mm f/1.8 STM - hasn't everyone got one?
24-70 f/4L IS - got it cheap - 1st L lens - got it to see what the fuss about L lenses is
75-300 kit lens came with a Canon 100D - really don't like it at all - no IS and small apertures poor IQ
100-400 L f/4.5-5.6 IS mk2 - I like to shoot airshows and motorsports - I got it cheap(ish) - it's great for airshows but a bit long for motorsports so I got a
70-200 L f/2.8 IS mk2 - the only lens anyone really ever needs :)
Click to expand...

Lens-wise you might need to buy a 16-35 (f4) for full coverage at every focal length with an FF body but I reckon you could sell 6 of those.

viz:

18-55
10-18
18-135
17-50

50 (who needs one?)
75-300

i question whether you really need f2.8 versions of any of those lenses.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
Lens-wise you might need to buy a 16-35 (f4) for full coverage at every focal length with an FF body but I reckon you could sell 6 of those.

viz:

18-55
10-18
18-135
17-50

50 (who needs one?)
75-300

i question whether you really need f2.8 versions of any of those lenses.
Click to expand...
I was thinking much the same...but I'd keep the 50 myself...it'd not make a significant contribution to the FF funding
 
I found the 6D AF quite slow,the 80D is much more responsive,no difference in IQ.
Everything about the 80D is just so much better.
 
The 6D,some people who have the Mk2 say it is not that good.
 
I went from an 80d, which I really really loved to a 6d2 and have not regretted it at all. DR on the 6d2 is a slight issue but not as much as has been made out I think. I haven't tested it in low light yet as not had a good orportunity so far but hoping it does well.
 
jockwav said:
The 6D,some people who have the Mk2 say it is not that good.
Click to expand...
Ive only seen people who don’t have the mkII say its not good.
jockwav said:
I found the 6D AF quite slow,the 80D is much more responsive,no difference in IQ.
Everything about the 80D is just so much better.
Click to expand...
Then this one makes the first statement look even dafter; the only reason to upgrade from the 6d to the mkII is the improved AF.

Back to the OP, they’re 2 completely different cameras, if you really need the AF and FPS of the 80d, the 6DII isn’t an ‘upgrade’, but if you dont need those things, and you’d like better low light performance in a lightweight body, the 6DII is the camera for you.

Let us remember there’s no such thing as a perfect camera, that’s why there’s such a wide range of them.
 
whatever:banana:
 
Just to put some context round the 6dII ‘DR problem”.

It doesn’t have as good DR as the latest Sony sensors, but then no Canon sensor does.
It doesn’t have as good DR at base ISO as the Mk1, but then it has better DR at higher ISO’s and the original also has better DR at base ISO than most other Canon cameras.

It’s a Canon, if you want magic DR numbers, you need to buy a different brand. Frankly I’ve never considered measuring DR, I’m too busy making pictures. Lets be honest, great DR is of most use to those people who can’t expose properly.
 
My mum is dead,thanks
 
As Phil says if you want to do Astro etc. I'd get a Nikon FF body.

I had a 6D and thoroughly enjoyed using it, even did some Milky Way stuff with it and it handled it ok.

I wouldn't go from FF to APS-C Canon either, not for my sort of photography.
 
Phil V said:
Just to put some context round the 6dII ‘DR problem”.

It doesn’t have as good DR as the latest Sony sensors, but then no Canon sensor does.
It doesn’t have as good DR at base ISO as the Mk1, but then it has better DR at higher ISO’s and the original also has better DR at base ISO than most other Canon cameras.

It’s a Canon, if you want magic DR numbers, you need to buy a different brand. Frankly I’ve never considered measuring DR, I’m too busy making pictures. Lets be honest, great DR is of most use to those people who can’t expose properly.
Click to expand...
When I used a 6D I thought it was a very nicely balanced camera (in some ways I preferred it to the 5DMkIII - in others the 5DMkIII was preferable). As for DR I do think that is over played some, all modern DSLRs have more than adequate DR, whilst it is nice having a bit extra it would come an awful long way down on the list of requirements for me. (I shoot Nikon which apparently has some of the best DR ... ho-hum)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top