|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
6D vs 5DmkII
Hello Photogs I've been looking to upgrade from my 40D to a full frame camera. I was all set to purchase a used 5DmkII for $1700 when I saw that the 6D is $1900. Is the 6D work the $300? Things to know about me is that while I have a degree in video, I don't shoot video. Don't care for it so all those features are irrelevant to me. I could care less. My focus is on image quality, low light situations and focus. In regards to focus I hear many people complain about the focus on the 5DmkII. Since I'm upgrading from a 40D I reasoned that I wouldn't really notice. The 6D lacks focus points so I'm not sure which camera would focus better. The image quality from what I've seen look negligible and the ISO on both cameras go up to numbers that, coming from a 40D, I can't even fathom so I'm not worried there either. So basically it comes down to image quality and focus. So based on that which should I get? Thanks May 21 13 03:08 am Link SNAPPEDBYSNAP wrote: Imagine quality on my 5DII is excellent. May 21 13 03:24 am Link As you can see from the DPReview forum, the differences are not huge. As a guy that sells them, I have a hard time telling them apart in terms of performance. They have essentially the same AF system. Canon claims the central AF point is more accurate on the 6D, but I never found the central point to be bad on the 5DII - it was all the other ones I had a problem with. The 6D also supports Wi-Fi, etc. The 5DII is a little better built (not the the 6D isn't solidly built too - they're both heavy), and has an extra megapixel. The 6D has a video function that is much more convenient to use. With upgraded or hacked firmware, the 6D video is better; directly out of the box, the 5DII video is a little more crisp, even if it's a little more complicated to use. There is a claimed ISO performance increase in the 6D, but I don't see it - it must be incremental. The 5DII is supposed to have a slightly better tonal range, at least in the highlights. Again, without taking them home and using them a lot more, I couldn't tell. I'd say that if you plan on really beating the hell out of it, the 5DII is a slightly better choice. Otherwise, six of one, half dozen of the other. May 21 13 05:28 am Link Zack Zoll wrote: I don't shoot digital, but that was a really nice, concise, informative comparison with real world examples from someone who has used both bodies in question. If only more A vs. B reviews were so well done. May 21 13 08:11 am Link My 40D was great. I was recently thinking that I wish I still had it. I hate waiting for large files to load and process and in Lightroom at preview size, I don't really see a difference between my 40D images and newer cameras. One possible reason is that I never shoot at 100 ISO now and my 40D images were always at 100 ISO. I'm not saying don't upgrade, but unless you zoom in, you may not see a big difference with the exception of shooting at higher ISOs. I'd go with the 6D over a 5DII. May 21 13 09:02 am Link i'm good in the studio so long as i have my modeling lights on. without modeling lights i might have to keep the house lights on but then i'd be picking up some ambient most likely. i've done a lot of shoots with my 5DII (including 7 weddings) and a/f really hasn't been an issue for the most part. in complete darkness you might have to use a flashlight or the assist beam from an on-camera flash. i shot with a 40D at xmas (step-mom's present and she made me do family shots) and at ISO 1600 the noise was ghastly. at the events i shoot i'm often at 1600, 3200 or even 6400. Drew Smith Photography wrote: May 21 13 10:11 am Link If you don't shoot video and don't care for it, that is where the significant difference between the two cameras show. I would pass on the 6D not because it isn't good, just because I would rather save a few bucks considering I wouldn't notice the difference... May 21 13 10:21 am Link Marin Photography wrote: That is sort of what I was thinking. I don't care about the video. I'm purely stills. Coming from the 40D I'm not sure I'd really notice the auto focus. The 40D doesn't focus well in low light either. ontherocks wrote: I would never dare pushing my ISO past 800. I don't shoot events with my 40D for that very reason. Ghastly noise. May 21 13 10:32 am Link the 5D MK I still takes pretty pictures and does well up to ISO 1600. i use it as my 2nd body at weddings. the MK II definitely had some improvements, though. for what i get paid to shoot ISO is everything. can't have too much. i was thinking about a 6D or 5D MK III just to get another stop up from my 5D MK II. SNAPPEDBYSNAP wrote: May 21 13 02:51 pm Link The 6D's center focus point is rated at -3EV, which is apparently a bit of a first. DPreview reports that shooting in ridiculous low light yielded very fast and accurate AF consistently with that camera. Others who I know have tested the camera have confirmed this - it is crazy good acquiring focus. It is not at all the same AF module that has appeared in other cameras. I'll take fewer 'useful' focus points over a large number of 'dumb' focus points any day of the week. May 21 13 03:02 pm Link Plus you can find the 6D on the web for $1600 new. or even less at about $1300 for the import model. I'm actually looking to buy one myself. May 23 13 07:00 am Link SNAPPEDBYSNAP wrote: But the biggest reasons to go with a larger sensor are high ISO and wider angles of view, what else were you expecting? May 23 13 07:07 am Link Thank you all for your help and comments on this. I've decided to sell my current gear (40D, 17-55 2.8 and 28-135) for about $1400 and then I'll buy a refurbished Canon 5DmkII from Canon for $1450. With the money I'll save on the camera I'll buy a wide angle lens. Thanks. May 23 13 04:16 pm Link If you don't care about video I'd just get the 5Dclassic with warranty from keh or B&H. I'd imagine the 5Dc can be pushed up to iso 12,800 in PP and produce more noise than the 5Dmkii would but also less than say a 7D or 60D. 40D is very capable in the right hands and you can go wide with it as long as you get the 10-22 and a fisheye lens. From my experience it can even handle up to iso 3200 pushed to iso 6400 in PP fine as long as you're not making crazy huge prints or pixel peeping. May 23 13 05:48 pm Link Warrenjrphotography wrote: Everybody has different ideas of what cameras can and cannot do, based on their shooting styles. I used to think my camera was awful at 1600 ISO ... now I shoot nighttime street photos, and it doesn't bother me anymore - I even use 3200 sometimes. May 23 13 08:38 pm Link Zack Zoll wrote: Most reviewers also shoot B&W charts and pixel peep @ 100% which I do not do. May 23 13 09:04 pm Link I have both the 5D MKII and the 6D. I much prefer the 6D. There are little things that annoyed me about the 5D MKII like the selection wheel on top left of the camera didn't have a lock and my hand would sometims move it while shooting The LED display in the viewfinder which I use a lot is so dim on the 5D MKII that outside in bright sunlight you can't see it. The 6D is much better focusing in low light, and there is much less noise at 3200 ISO on the 6D. I don't shoot video either. Although I have taken some great pictures with the 5D MKII I will be selling my 5D MKII and buying another 6D (I like to have a backup) Photo from 6D.  May 24 13 06:57 am Link the focus issues with the 5dmkll are extremely overblown, probably a rumour started by a Nikon employee. and by the way, don't hesitate to look at Pentax or Sony cameras, they are superb. turn off your frekin focal points, and (never) let the camera decide what will be in focus. choose the center focus point, half click to hold and recompose as needed. done. this is how pro's shoot. making cameras is a business, new models come out every year, because they have to (just like cars) it doesn't mean the new camera makes a better end result picture. David Bowers is 100% right, the wheel on the 5dmkll drives me bonkers, changing the settings while shooting. the 6d or 5d are excellent cameras, either is the right choice. because, at the end of the day, it is more about the lens, finding or creating perfect light, working with great models, understanding color contrast and color depth, being able to see in b&w, composition composition composition, than the camera body...... May 24 13 07:56 am Link I ALWAYS use the center focus point and also use back button focus, but I can tell you from experience that my 6D will focus in much lower light levels than my 5D MKII ever did!! May 24 13 09:11 am Link David Bowers wrote: I defer to your experience, and thank you. mainly shooting fashion, low light is relatively rare to me. the low light/ natural light I have worked in, has not been an issue, but, everyday is different. a good friend just got a 6d, so dying to see how that performs. May 24 13 09:48 am Link It all varies on what you are shooting May 24 13 09:59 am Link for me I just jump to snapsort, I'm more into color depth & dynamic range than focus points & speed. - 5d Mkii - Image quality 79.0 Color depth : 23.7 bits Dynamic range: 11.9 EV Low light performance: 1,815 ISO - 6d - Image quality 82.0 Color depth 23.8 bits Dynamic range: 12.1 EV Low light performance: 2,340 ISO for me, it's about color depth and dynamic range. - a99 - Image quality: 89.0 Color depth: 25 bits Dynamic range: 14 EV Low light performance: 1,555 ISO so far feels accurate the a99 is a bit more noisy, BUT the Color and dynamic range is something I notice between taking photos with my 5d mk ii & the a99  better skin tone, color, shadow & highlights, looks medium format to me May 24 13 10:29 am Link Canon 5DmkII, 10,180 Shutter accusations. $1400. I am now a full frame shooter. Thanks you all for you words and advice. May 28 13 07:45 pm Link Best of luck with the 5DmkII only thing id point out that i didnt see in other posts is the Ai servo on the 5DII isnt great, so if you're shooting runway or other moving objects, its a little hit and miss but apart from that, my 5D was bullet proof. May 29 13 05:25 am Link |
