-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Canon 6D or 7D MKII?
- Thread starter Hitchcock
- Start date
Not sure what sort of nature photography you want to do but aviation and sports would tend to point towards the 7Dmk2 - faster frame rate and better AF.
I read up about the 6D a lot a while back, I was really interested in its great low-light ability. Biggest thing that put me off it was that its autofocus system is really outdated, and won't be great for action photography. It's however great for low light/landscape/still/portrait photography. Some people get it, and then a 70D as a second camera.
So if I was looking at aviation, nature and sport photography I'd go for the 7D. Plus, you can use any lens on it, whereas with the 6D you can only have full frame (EF) lenses. So you'll have a bigger range of lenses to choose from, and you can get away with it for much cheaper. ALSO, it has a crop factor of 1.6, so you're reach with any zoom is much greater, which is good for most nature or sports photography.
In the end I decided on the 70D after looking at the differences between it and a 7D Mark II, vs the price difference. There wasn't much function wise that made the additional expense worthwhile for me personally. (Although I must add, 7D mark II was kind of outside my budget, so my opinion might have been skewed
)
Happy research!
So if I was looking at aviation, nature and sport photography I'd go for the 7D. Plus, you can use any lens on it, whereas with the 6D you can only have full frame (EF) lenses. So you'll have a bigger range of lenses to choose from, and you can get away with it for much cheaper. ALSO, it has a crop factor of 1.6, so you're reach with any zoom is much greater, which is good for most nature or sports photography.
In the end I decided on the 70D after looking at the differences between it and a 7D Mark II, vs the price difference. There wasn't much function wise that made the additional expense worthwhile for me personally. (Although I must add, 7D mark II was kind of outside my budget, so my opinion might have been skewed
)Happy research!
Last edited:
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
I would agree with bwana on this. For Avian and sport in particular, the extra reach, and high frame rate, not to mention the high-end focus system, seals the deal. It's still a very good camera in every other respect. Heck, even the mkI is still very good.
If, by nature, you are thinking of nice wide landscape shots, there are very good ultra-wide angle lenses for the 7D (better value for money, IMHO, than on full frame). The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is outstanding, and so is the Sigma 8-16mm. The Sigma 10-20mm lenses (there are two models) are both excellent too - I had one of them.
If, by nature, you are thinking of nice wide landscape shots, there are very good ultra-wide angle lenses for the 7D (better value for money, IMHO, than on full frame). The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is outstanding, and so is the Sigma 8-16mm. The Sigma 10-20mm lenses (there are two models) are both excellent too - I had one of them.
As someone with a 5D and 30D, I'd also give the 7D mk II another vote.
Or rather, after checking the prices, I'd rather go for the mk I and spend more of the budget on lenses. Good telephoto lenses are pricey, and you can never have enough reach
Or rather, after checking the prices, I'd rather go for the mk I and spend more of the budget on lenses. Good telephoto lenses are pricey, and you can never have enough reach
garyc
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 5,324
- Reaction score
- 3,891
The aviation and sports photography roles point towards the longer focal lengths, maybe the nature as well. As the others have mentioned, the crop sensor acts in your favour under these scenarios. Advantage 7D MKII.
Focusing is a critical aspect of aviation photography when shooting aircraft in flight. If you have to wait for the focus to hunt then you will probably miss the shot. You need either a very good autofocus or to switch to manual focus for this. The 7D MKII has an obvious advantage here.
For aviation photography you often need to up the ISO even in good light to get the high shutter speed required to reduce camera shake while panning with a long telephoto on. Unless of course you have a really expensive tele lens with a good maximum aperture. On the one hand this could favour the 6D due to it's lower sensor noise. The 7D MKII would have the advantage of less cropping being required while using the same lens. Which of the two would be best here is open to debate.
For aviation ground displays and photographing aircraft flying close by the 6D would be in it's element.
I have not tried these two cameras side-by-side for a direct comparison in specific roles. The (perhaps uninformed) impression that I get is that the 6D is the camera that will return some really good pictures under a more limited range of circumstances. The 7D MKII appears to have been designed as the camera that will always allow you to get the shot. Since some of your requirements appear to be the capturing of family memories the 7D MKII looks like the one to go for.
Coming back to aviation photography, here are some suitable lenses that most of us can not afford: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/canon/artist/paul-bowen
Focusing is a critical aspect of aviation photography when shooting aircraft in flight. If you have to wait for the focus to hunt then you will probably miss the shot. You need either a very good autofocus or to switch to manual focus for this. The 7D MKII has an obvious advantage here.
For aviation photography you often need to up the ISO even in good light to get the high shutter speed required to reduce camera shake while panning with a long telephoto on. Unless of course you have a really expensive tele lens with a good maximum aperture. On the one hand this could favour the 6D due to it's lower sensor noise. The 7D MKII would have the advantage of less cropping being required while using the same lens. Which of the two would be best here is open to debate.
For aviation ground displays and photographing aircraft flying close by the 6D would be in it's element.
I have not tried these two cameras side-by-side for a direct comparison in specific roles. The (perhaps uninformed) impression that I get is that the 6D is the camera that will return some really good pictures under a more limited range of circumstances. The 7D MKII appears to have been designed as the camera that will always allow you to get the shot. Since some of your requirements appear to be the capturing of family memories the 7D MKII looks like the one to go for.
Coming back to aviation photography, here are some suitable lenses that most of us can not afford: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/canon/artist/paul-bowen
Thank you all for your decent explanations, probably the best I have read anywhere.
Yes, I will mostly shoot aircraft landing or taking off and then sports, so it seems the 7D is the better contender. I was not sure about the full frame, as I believed you will get better quality in images, but not so sure about using it in conditions where people or airplanes will be moving quite fast and some distance from me.
Yes, I will mostly shoot aircraft landing or taking off and then sports, so it seems the 7D is the better contender. I was not sure about the full frame, as I believed you will get better quality in images, but not so sure about using it in conditions where people or airplanes will be moving quite fast and some distance from me.
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
That really depends on how far away you will stand
The is an increase in image quality, but it's nowhere near as dramatic as people think. It mostly shows in the extremes.
I was just checking the camera body prices:
Then you still need to add a general purpose lens, and if you're going to be doing nature/aviation shots, you'll definitely want a telephoto zoom as well. If the school sports are indoor sports, you'll want a lens with reach AND speed (e.g. f/2.8 rather than f/4) and those cost more.
Don't forget to add in the cost for a memory card or two, a decent bag, and maybe an extra battery or tripod.
For the diminishing returns of improvements in image quality (on the camera body side) going from the 7D mk I to the 6D, personally I'd say you'd see a bigger improvement if you put that R8k difference towards a lens.
- 6D: R20 495
- 7D mk II: R20 795
- 7D mk I: R12 695
Then you still need to add a general purpose lens, and if you're going to be doing nature/aviation shots, you'll definitely want a telephoto zoom as well. If the school sports are indoor sports, you'll want a lens with reach AND speed (e.g. f/2.8 rather than f/4) and those cost more.
Don't forget to add in the cost for a memory card or two, a decent bag, and maybe an extra battery or tripod.
For the diminishing returns of improvements in image quality (on the camera body side) going from the 7D mk I to the 6D, personally I'd say you'd see a bigger improvement if you put that R8k difference towards a lens.
His go to lens is actually pretty affordable.
garyc
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 5,324
- Reaction score
- 3,891
True. I just looked on the Outdoorphoto site and this lens is R12.9 k. This is also the favorite lens of their featured travel photographer.
Looking at the prices a bit further I see that he has taken the cheaper of the 400mm tele lenses. It is R23.4k, which does not seem too bad for a lens of this type.
Looking at the prices a bit further I see that he has taken the cheaper of the 400mm tele lenses. It is R23.4k, which does not seem too bad for a lens of this type.
A lot of aviation photographers love the 100-400 - makes sense since the generally have a lot of light to play with and it's relatively compact… at least compared to my 400mm.
When I went up and shot the Albatros a few weeks ago I had the 24-105 on the camera and the 70-200 in my lap - wish I'd left it behind. There was just no room in the cockpit to use it. In fact there was barely room to manoeuvre the 24-105. At times I was holding it upside down and triggering it via the grip.
A lot of aviation photographers love the 100-400 - makes sense since the generally have a lot of light to play with and it's relatively compact… at least compared to my 400mm.
When I went up and shot the Albatros a few weeks ago I had the 24-105 on the camera and the 70-200 in my lap - wish I'd left it behind. There was just no room in the cockpit to use it. In fact there was barely room to manoeuvre the 24-105. At times I was holding it upside down and triggering it via the grip.
Yes, that sounds great! Would love to see some of your shoots.
I suppose you are a professional photographer looking at your replies and general photography knowledge, right?
I posted one here - http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ke-a-photo?p=14080515&viewfull=1#post14080515 I'll have to dig out the archive for the rest.
I'm not really an aviation photographer but I have been asked in the past to shoot some planes. I mostly shoot sports.
7dMkII , Sigma 120-300 f 2.8 + 1.4 & 2x TC. Add a Nifty Fifty / Fantastic Plastic 50mm Canon .
That's a R45k lens - quite a commitment for someone to make and almost twice the amount of the new Canon 100-400 which might be better suited to the task at hand.
garyc
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 5,324
- Reaction score
- 3,891
I posted one here - http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ke-a-photo?p=14080515&viewfull=1#post14080515 I'll have to dig out the archive for the rest.
I'm not really an aviation photographer but I have been asked in the past to shoot some planes. I mostly shoot sports.
Nice shot. It made me think of the film days when some of the aviation photographers used to use gyro-stabilized camera mounts for reasons you are no doubt aware of. With the stabilization now being in-camera it makes this type of photography more accessible.