CCC Forum

For the 6D owners out there.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... spect.html

He's not wrong

I've got some images from the Night Safari over here that were shot at iso 25600 in ambient light roughly equivalent to moonlight - once I've got them off the camera I'll show you what they are like but I was amazed to see how capable it was.

I will admit to getting a little smug when I was taking photos in the dark and other people tried with their Nikons etc. and couldn't even focus, never mind get a shot handheld at -3EV

Definitely love it

Must admit the 6D has sort of passed me by... but from what I'm reading it's really capable. Made me wonder if it's an ideal camera for the sort of event photography I often do at work, where I don't really want to have to use flash but the lighting is not great. SD card and wifi too, which could make it easier to get images off the camera quicker for publication. Hmmmm... Now I have a dilemma... do I spend my money on a 6D, or a 70-200 f/4 IS ....

What camera body do you have and what lens are you using in place of the 70-200?

Not so fast, The Online Photographer now reckons that the 6D is boring.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... e-fun.html

If I recall, Rose has a 5D MkII, which I imagine will perform similarly to the 6D. The main differences are a slightly smaller and lighter body albeit with less rugged build quality, and better AF in low light conditions. For some people size and weight are important. The first 6D I saw shortly after its launch was in York Cameras when someone was trading in his 5D Mk III to buy it as he wanted a more compact camera.

The 70-200L f/4 IS is a fine lens and tack sharp. The 70-300L f/4-5.6 IS for a bit more money also gets good reviews and is very compact, but a bit slower at the longer focal lengths. Only Rose can determine her priorities, but a new lens would be my choice.

The sensor in the 5d2 is very different to the 6D - while I normally don't care much about technical tests/MTF curves and all that stuff, this side-by-side comparison of the higher ISO images really made a point I thought - this will open in a new window because of forum limitations.

http://blog.planet5d.com/wp-content/upl ... oise-2.jpg

Granted this was performed at longer exposures to make it a little clearer to see but I routinely shoot at upto iso 10,000 without batting an eyelid and the 6400 region barely needs any PP afterwards at all.

The AF works down as low as moonlight (-3EV) which is the best in any current canon SLR - whether you will use it is another question but any time I've been out in the street at night or a moonlit night safari it was unbelievable.

The wifi has been useful and I can see it being more so when I tackle some nature shots but the GPS, personally, less useful - if you want your shots to be highlighted by search engines and photosharing sites it could benefit though as their algorithms prefer shots with embedded GPS data. I've used the wifi a fair bit and the GPS only a couple of times.

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compar ... _eos5dmkii

Here's the side by side review showing many of the differences. Bear in mind it takes SD rather than CF cards though.

Is it a big enough upgrade from a 5D2 to justify? I can't personally say either way (and with my finances I 'd struggle to justify it if I already had a full frame camera) but the guys I used to work with DID upgrade and unanimously they loved it and definitely thought it was worth it. Take that anecdotal evidence from people who are hardly likely to say they made a bad decision how you will

As for the lens, I don't think f4 indoors will cut it overly much personally, especially on the longer end. Even though the IS might be handy it still doesn't stop your ministers from moving - I'd be more inclined to look at the 70-200 Tamron which also has IS and is f/2.8. It's also cheaper than the Canon version.

Generally speaking I'd advise investing in the glass and in this case I still probably would, I just think the 6d is such a step up it doesn't make it such a cut and dry decision

Mike Farley wrote:Not so fast, The Online Photographer now reckons that the 6D is boring.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... e-fun.html

A tired, arrogant argument from both the person who commented and the bog post that highlighted it. After writing a rather large tirade about it I realized that a couple of words sum them up - what a pair of pompous asses. The author seems to simply like posting things that either inflate his ego or to stir up a bit of argument and generate comments/traffic for his site rather than actually have an opinion about photography worth listening to.

What's the betting he's just bought a pretty new Sony/Fuji or something and he's trying to make himself feel better about it by telling all of us how little fun we are having compared to him? It wouldn't surprise me - the whole "my camera is newer/prettier/smaller/more expensive than yours therefore I have more fun with it" is not a new cliché. Yet another blog to add to the ignore list

davidc wrote:The sensor in the 5d2 is very different to the 6D - while I normally don't care much about technical tests/MTF curves and all that stuff, this side-by-side comparison of the higher ISO images really made a point I thought

Granted that the 5D Mk II sensor is older technology, but generally improvements have been in regard to performance at higher ISOs rather than overall image quality especially when, as in Canon's case, MP has remained unchanged for a number of years. Given that dynamic range drops off as ISO increases, even for the best performing sensors, most people will prefer to shoot at lower ISOs where the differences are much less perceptible. There is a case for choosing the 6D for anyone regularly shooting in low light conditions.

If a second camera is required for backup and the need to avoid switching lenses, the 6D would be a good choice. I believe the controls on both cameras are sufficiently similar to allow use alongside each other.

davidc wrote:As for the lens, I don't think f4 indoors will cut it overly much personally, especially on the longer end. Even though the IS might be handy it still doesn't stop your ministers from moving - I'd be more inclined to look at the 70-200 Tamron which also has IS and is f/2.8. It's also cheaper than the Canon version.

Generally speaking I'd advise investing in the glass and in this case I still probably would, I just think the 6d is such a step up it doesn't make it such a cut and dry decision

Both good points, although despite its nomenclature in independent tests the Tamron has only been measured as reaching 175 mm at the long end.

davidc wrote:

Mike Farley wrote:Not so fast, The Online Photographer now reckons that the 6D is boring.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... e-fun.html

A tired, arrogant argument from both the person who commented and the bog post that highlighted it. After writing a rather large tirade about it I realized that a couple of words sum them up - what a pair of pompous asses. The author seems to simply like posting things that either inflate his ego or to stir up a bit of argument and generate comments/traffic for his site rather than actually have an opinion about photography worth listening to.

What's the betting he's just bought a pretty new Sony/Fuji or something and he's trying to make himself feel better about it by telling all of us how little fun we are having compared to him? It wouldn't surprise me - the whole "my camera is newer/prettier/smaller/more expensive than yours therefore I have more fun with it" is not a new cliché. Yet another blog to add to the ignore list

Certainly not one of Mike Johnston's finer moments, I agree, although normally he is one of the more respected commentators on the net. The comments to the post were tedious as well and I gave up after reading a few as they all seemed to be saying the same thing and reiterated the points made in the article.

I'm not actually thinking of replacing my 5D MKII with a 6D but it could be a good supplementary camera that would perform well in indoor corporate events. For which I generally use the 5D and 24-105 lens... And that's where the 70-200 comes in as I often find that I could do with a longer telephoto but my 100-400 is far too big and heavy. I really would like to do more corporate photography after I retire from the Civil Service next year.

David - do you have the Tamron 70-200 ? How does it perform ? F2.8 would certainly be an asset but I can't afford the Canon 2.8