Picture Quality - Canon 6D vs. Canon 70D

[iDesignGraphics]

Hello everyone,

I would like to know from people who have experience using one or both of these cameras how their image quality stacks up. I know the 6D features a full frame sensor compared to the 70D's cropped sensor, but I've seen sample shots from both cameras and I can't decide whether there is much of a difference. I am very concerned with the sharpness, color, and resolution of the photographs these cameras produce, including for video.

Bottom line, I need to know whether the 6D is better, or they produce nearly identical images.

Thank you guys in advance for your help!
John

 

[ecoleman]

Hi john,

I have the 6D but never used the 70D I'm afraid.
Coming from a 40D I can see an improvement in both image quality and colour rendition, however, saying that you have to look hard to see the differences. The 6D also has twice the resolution and of course a larger sensor.

The one thing where the 6D wins hands down is low light, high ISO photography.
My 40D produced pretty noisy images at 800iso plus, 1600 ISO was awful and 3200 was pretty much unusable. With the 6D I am quite happy to push the ISO to 12500

 

[Bernie174]

Not what you're asking I admit.
But 7D v 6D, 6D wins hands down.
If I can assume that the &D is at least the same quality as a 70D, then it's a kind of guide.
Bernie

 

[Sharky]

Huge amount of variables will come into play to answer the question fully and tbh there probably isn't a definitive answer as such. I have a wall full of images from a 40D, 50D and 6D, i know which camera took which shot but a good image, well shot, nicely composed etc. its really moot point which one produced which.

 

[andrewc]

especially when one consider that the lens has an awful lot to do with how an image is formed on the sensor.

 

[odd jim]

I've used both.

The 6d and 70d are leagues apart in IQ, even at base ISO. They should be, the 6d (IMO) has Canons best ever sensor, a sensor far larger.

The main part of note is that you can bring all the shadow detail out of the 6d image with practically no loss of IQ or even noise, you simply can't do this with the 70d, or any other cropped body at this moment in time (not that I've used). Not only that, the 6d shadow detail is all there . Perfect for landscapes.

The 6d image is far better to crop too, if you need to, retaining far more fine detail (you wonder if the 70d is throwing away the detail).

As said, so many variables but the 6d is the very clear winner, as it should be!

That's without even going into low light, where even at silly ISO's the 6d has barely any noticeable noise unless you view at 100%.

TBH I didn't find the 70d IQ any better than my 50d, which now is 6 years old! In fact, the two share characteristics which can punish the photographer if the exposure isn't right.

 

[Phal]

The 6d image is far better to crop too, if you need to, retaining far more fine detail (you wonder if the 70d is throwing away the detail).

Isn't that more down to the lens though? Crops use less of the lens surface so everything is focused on a smaller area which highlights poor lenses even more or at least that's my limited understanding?

 

[odd jim]

Isn't that more down to the lens though? Crops use less of the lens surface so everything is focused on a smaller area which highlights poor lenses even more or at least that's my limited understanding?

No, not at all.

Of course a rubbish lens will render poorly to start with.

 

[fred_bt]

Isn't that more down to the lens though? Crops use less of the lens surface so everything is focused on a smaller area which highlights poor lenses even more or at least that's my limited understanding?

Tends to work more the other way if anything. An EF lens will always tend to be good in the centre, so will perform very well on a crop body. It's keeping good images over a larger image area that is hard (ie the edges of the full field). That's why a lens like the 17-40 which is only decent on a FF due to edge distortions can be really good on a crop body. A good EF-S lens is actually easier to make since it only needs to image onto a smaller area.

 

[Vertigo1]

An average lens which has poor edge performance will do better on a crop due to the "sweet spot" effect. A pro-grade lens which has good edge performance will generally do better on FF due to the larger sensor area.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

All things equal 6D sensor will eat 70D for breakfast. A lot will depend on photographer and lenses, so stop worrying and just spend your cash. Or just buy Phase One IQ250 if you are that obsessed.

 

[arad85]

Tends to work more the other way if anything. An EF lens will always tend to be good in the centre, so will perform very well on a crop body. It's keeping good images over a larger image area that is hard (ie the edges of the full field). That's why a lens like the 17-40 which is only decent on a FF due to edge distortions can be really good on a crop body. A good EF-S lens is actually easier to make since it only needs to image onto a smaller area.

This is an often quoted reason, but not IMHO true.

The reason the larger sensors do well is that the "better" lenses are designed for the larger sensor and are designed to resolve the level of detail a large sensor produces in photos - which is actually lower than the smaller sensor needs. The larger the sensor, the less hard the lens has to work for a given printed picture size. If you look at any of the lens test sites, you'll see the full frame lenses are actually relatively poor at resolving details (you need to look at the line-pairs per mm figure which is a measure of how well the lens can resolve detail) when compared to lenses specifically designed for smaller sensors. It is precisely this fact that enables smaller sensor systems - such as micro 4/3rds - to punch above its weight if you use decent glass which is designed specifically for the sensor size. They certainly punch higher than you would expect if you were simply to go by sensor size alone.

On the better images question - if they 70D and 6D are both well exposed and not fighting ISO, there's going to be very little in it. It is when you get outside the "well exposed" settings that the FF camera will show the crop up.

 

[odd jim]

I can vouch for the 6d in respect of resolved detail like for like. Even a well exposed 70d shot at base ISO falls short of the detail and richness of the 6d images.

Not unexpected though and TBH I can't see why we are debating it.

 

[Vertigo1]

Basically, to answer the OP's question, yes full frame really does produce markedly better quality than a crop sensor (of equal age/generation at least), it's not just marketing hype.

 

[Phal]

Anyone aware of any comparisons that have been done for this with some side by side shots etc to illustrate the differences at ISO 100 or something? Never really looked so I'm curious

 

[Vertigo1]

Not aware of any direct comparisons myself but personally I just feel FF images seem to "pop" more than crop ones. Very subjective I know

That's not to say crop cameras aren't very good and are still a better bet in some situations, such as when you need the best reach or "pixels per duck". The one thing that amazed me more than anything about FF was how much the crop factor actually affected the field of view. My 70-200 is a totally different lens on FF compared to crop - it's practically a walkabout in some situations.

 

[odd jim]

There aren't that many direct comparisons simply because it's never something that needs much questioning (IQ wise at least)

(Though there are some out there!)

Here's one

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-6D-vs-Canon-EOS-70D

"Significantly better image quality". But again, are we surprised?!?

Also I hate DXO scores, but the 6d again scores significantly higher on DXO. Not surprising!

 

[Phal]

82vs68? What does that even mean? lol That website is handy for a quick comparison of features but I'm not sure how they come to those IQ figures or what they even mean.

Don't get me wrong, there's definite perks too a full frame sensor over a crop but what I'm interested in is the difference in quality at ISO 100 shots where light isn't an issue.

 

[odd jim]

82vs68? What does that even mean? lol That website is handy for a quick comparison of features but I'm not sure how they come to those IQ figures or what they even mean.

Don't get me wrong, there's definite perks too a full frame sensor over a crop but what I'm interested in is the difference in quality at ISO 100 shots where light isn't an issue.

Those numbers are pulled from the DXO scores.

I've been looking, but can't find any sites that have side by side comparison shots, for those that are interested.

I'd post some myself but the 70d I've used is my dads and he lives a few counties away!

I think the reason there aren't any side by side image tests is because everyone knows the answer before the questions even asked

I can do 100% crops of my 6d vs my 50d at 100 ISO? It may sound silly, but I found the 70d practically identical to my 50d image and noise profile wise.

Edit - actually, no, I can't be bothered, lol!

 

[Vertigo1]

The charts at Digital Picture might be useful as a direct comparison between crop and full frame with the same lens as they have results for both the 1Ds III and the 60D.

24-70 f/2.8L II: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

70-200 f/2.8L IS II: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mpleComp=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

300 f/2.8L IS II: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...9&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

(I picked three of the sharpest lenses Canon currently make and for which there are both 1Ds and 60D results)

 

[Sharky]

Not aware of any direct comparisons myself but personally I just feel FF images seem to "pop" more than crop ones. Very subjective I know

That's not to say crop cameras aren't very good and are still a better bet in some situations, such as when you need the best reach or "pixels per duck". The one thing that amazed me more than anything about FF was how much the crop factor actually affected the field of view. My 70-200 is a totally different lens on FF compared to crop - it's practically a walkabout in some situations.

Some good full frame vs crop quality footage in this video (no 70D inc):

And a 70D video along similar lines:

 

[arad85]

Anyone aware of any comparisons that have been done for this with some side by side shots etc to illustrate the differences at ISO 100 or something? Never really looked so I'm curious

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Can do 70D vs 6D directly there on a couple of controlled scenes and ISOs. Not a lot in it when at "normal" ISOs and exposure IMHO...

Enjoy!

 

[odd jim]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Can do 70D vs 6D directly there on a couple of controlled scenes and ISOs. Not a lot in it when at "normal" ISOs and exposure IMHO...

Enjoy!

There's quite a lot in it when you're processing the raws!

Tbh I don't think anyone has really improved significantly their APSC sensors for the last few generations (IMO). I really couldn't see much difference between 50d and 70d. Don't get me wrong, I love my 50d and wouldn't be without a fast responsive crop.

But really the two cameras are worlds apart when it comes to IQ and pushing the boundaries of your raw files (6d and 70d).

 

[wave01]

Lots depends on the glass in front and what you take pictures of. I would say that In the real world you would be hard pressed to see the difference. If you pixel pep then you might tell.

 

[odd jim]

So we're saying there's no real world difference between FF and crop? That's defeating the laws of physics!

Personally I can tell the difference on a landscape even at web sizes.

The FF image is simply cleaner if that makes sense. And as for fine detail you can't beat the 6d images.

I've already mentioned shadow detail.

 

[Vertigo1]

Tbh I don't think anyone has really improved significantly their APSC sensors for the last few generations (IMO). I really couldn't see much difference between 50d and 70d. Don't get me wrong, I love my 50d and wouldn't be without a fast responsive crop.

But really the two cameras are worlds apart when it comes to IQ and pushing the boundaries of your raw files.

Yep - I never really considered my 7D to have any better image quality than my old 40D, just higher resolution and slightly better noise handling at high ISO. The 5D is in a different league.

Lots depends on the glass in front and what you take pictures of. I would say that In the real world you would be hard pressed to see the difference. If you pixel pep then you might tell.

Have a look at the links I posted above and it's clear to see the difference. Same picture with same lens under same conditions, only the body changes.

 

[arad85]

There's quite a lot in it when you're processing the raws!

There wasn't that much in it when I was processing 5D2 raws TBH...

 

[woof woof]

So we're saying there's no real world difference between FF and crop? That's defeating the laws of physics!

Personally I can tell the difference on a landscape even at web sizes.

The FF image is simply cleaner if that makes sense. And as for fine detail you can't beat the 6d images.

I've already mentioned shadow detail.

Then maybe either someone's doing something wrong or you're Uri Geller.

The cameras I've owned may not be the very best (300D, 10D, 20D, 5D, GF1, G1, GX7, A7) but at low to mid ISO's no one I've challenged can reliably tell what camera took what final image. You could say that it's because I b****r them all up but I'd rather believe that at low to mid ISO's and mid apertures just about any modern camera is good enough.

I went through a phase of testing gear against gear and roping in family and friends to see images on screen and in prints up to and including A3 and the last time I tried was with two pictures, 5D and G1, taken from the same spot and when I showed someone the first picture which happened to be the G1 picture they interrupted me with an excited "I want that picture" and at that point I gave up and these days I just don't bother.

If you can really tell the difference in web images then I'm pleased for you but I think that the vast majority of humans can't at web size and in fact the majority can't at A3 either, not unless other factors come into the mix like ISO 6400 or f1.4.

 

[odd jim]

Then maybe either someone's doing something wrong or you're Uri Geller.

The cameras I've owned may not be the very best (300D, 10D, 20D, 5D, GF1, G1, GX7, A7) but at low to mid ISO's no one I've challenged can reliably tell what camera took what final image. You could say that it's because I b****r them all up but I'd rather believe that at low to mid ISO's and mid apertures just about any modern camera is good enough.

I went through a phase of testing gear against gear and roping in family and friends to see images on screen and in prints up to and including A3 and the last time I tried was with two pictures, 5D and G1, taken from the same spot and when I showed someone the first picture which happened to be the G1 picture they interrupted me with an excited "I want that picture" and at that point I gave up and these days I just don't bother.

If you can really tell the difference in web images then I'm pleased for you but I think that the vast majority of humans can't at web size and in fact the majority can't at A3 either, not unless other factors come into the mix like ISO 6400 or f1.4.

I agree, I don't think, on a general level, you can tell a camera from an image, that's nearly impossible!

What I'm saying is, like for like I can certainly tell the 6d and 50d shot apart (and to a degree the 70d shot, though I'm less experienced with the 70d) when uploaded to Flickr (for example), but then I'm so used to the outputs of both cameras I know what I'm looking for.

To the layperson, at 100 iso, on a well exposed image someone not connected with the images wouldn't be able to tell which body they came from

However, if you told someone one shot was from FF and the other crop (or smaller format) they might be able to take an educated guess.

 

[Phil V]

I don't understand why the question got this far.

If the OP genuinely needs 'the best IQ', surely he knows enough to understand 'why'. And if he knows why, the obvious answer lies in physics, all things being equal the 6d is the obvious winner.

But I suspect the OP, is looking for an answer in totally the wrong place; for great IQ, the camera is just the starting point. A 40d with a good lens on a really good tripod in great light will wipe the floor with a 6d with a crap lens in flat light hand held.

 

[odd jim]

I don't understand why the question got this far.

If the OP genuinely needs 'the best IQ', surely he knows enough to understand 'why'. And if he knows why, the obvious answer lies in physics, all things being equal the 6d is the obvious winner.

But I suspect the OP, is looking for an answer in totally the wrong place; for great IQ, the camera is just the starting point. A 40d with a good lens on a really good tripod in great light will wipe the floor with a 6d with a crap lens in flat light hand held.

Likewise, I can't believe it's got this far, it's a question with an obvious answer!

 

[Vertigo1]

I don't understand why the question got this far.

If the OP genuinely needs 'the best IQ', surely he knows enough to understand 'why'. And if he knows why, the obvious answer lies in physics, all things being equal the 6d is the obvious winner.

But I suspect the OP, is looking for an answer in totally the wrong place; for great IQ, the camera is just the starting point. A 40d with a good lens on a really good tripod in great light will wipe the floor with a 6d with a crap lens in flat light hand held.

Indeed. Glass before body, always.

 

[Nawty]

I agree, I don't think, on a general level, you can tell a camera from an image, that's nearly impossible!

What I'm saying is, like for like I can certainly tell the 6d and 50d shot apart (and to a degree the 70d shot, though I'm less experienced with the 70d) when uploaded to Flickr (for example), but then I'm so used to the outputs of both cameras I know what I'm looking for.

Even this isn't a fair test - if you already know which camera took what then it is human nature to look for the differences you already 'know' are there. The fact you know skews the test.

That aside, testing things side by side will often yield differences that in real world usage you are unlikely to see - there are too many other variables throughout the day to reliably spot one camera from another.

Edit: says the FF owner

 

[Vertigo1]

There's a reason none of the professional DSLRs use crop sensors

 

[Nawty]

There's a reason none of the professional DSLRs use crop sensors

That is simply not true.

 

[Vertigo1]

Which use crops? Honestly thought they were all full frame these days.