6D or 7D mkII

[fastfrag]

I vote for 6d too. Use it wif 24-105. Believe at 24mm, it should b quite wide enough else get another wider lens

exactly what im planning
1st 24-105 f4L for about 2 to 3 months
then 16-35 f208L
then 50mm F1.4 or 85mm f1.8
lastly 70-200f2.8L
by end of 2015 should have all these lens

 

[fastfrag]

Go mark iii instead of 6d. You will not regret it.

That depends on my bonus haha... at the moment only 6d is within range

 

[fastfrag]

I don't trust DXO. Not that whatever DXO said is untrue, but they are only looking at a single aspect of the camera. If you believe everything DXO tells you, then you shouldn't have jumpship. Also... I see heaps of professionals using Canon camera and achieve excellent results, I have seen heaps of professionals using other brands camera and achieve similarly excellent photos... that is why I say, they are the same.

But you can believe what you will, that is not for me to say or try to change your guts feeling. And I have always said and will maintain, sensor is not the only thing that made a good camera.

Finally, let me quote you a finding in DXOmark,

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...sus-Sony-A7R-versus-Nikon-D800E___919_917_814

Okay, let see,

Seemed like Nikon D5300 has a 13.9ev, while Sony A7R only had a 14.1ev... Sony having thus lesser than 0.5ev better than Nikon D5300... and as we all know, D5300 with kit lens is going off at pretty low prices nowadays, why the heck would anyone go to A7R if you just look at DXO? Secondly... the famed D800E is also only thrump the D5300 with 0.4ev... and so, people shouldn't spent that massively much on D800E, right?

well Really Thanks to all for sharing
to be honest, if i were to buy an apsc, i would settle for a pentax K3 instead. So im pretty sure im going full frame this time round.
i think no matter what, all camera's has it's pros and cons. i guess the most important thing is still the person behind the camera, accept the flaws of the camera and still take great pictures.

 

[brapodam]

I don't trust DXO. Not that whatever DXO said is untrue, but they are only looking at a single aspect of the camera. If you believe everything DXO tells you, then you shouldn't have jumpship. Also... I see heaps of professionals using Canon camera and achieve excellent results, I have seen heaps of professionals using other brands camera and achieve similarly excellent photos... that is why I say, they are the same.

But you can believe what you will, that is not for me to say or try to change your guts feeling. And I have always said and will maintain, sensor is not the only thing that made a good camera.

Finally, let me quote you a finding in DXOmark,

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...sus-Sony-A7R-versus-Nikon-D800E___919_917_814

Okay, let see,

Seemed like Nikon D5300 has a 13.9ev, while Sony A7R only had a 14.1ev... Sony having thus lesser than 0.5ev better than Nikon D5300... and as we all know, D5300 with kit lens is going off at pretty low prices nowadays, why the heck would anyone go to A7R if you just look at DXO? Secondly... the famed D800E is also only thrump the D5300 with 0.4ev... and so, people shouldn't spent that massively much on D800E, right?

Yes, I know that sensor performance is not everything. I am using Canon because of Magic Lantern firmware, fully aware that Canon sensors perform poorer than Nikon/Sony sensors. But my comment was based on TS's lack of mention of the main reason he's going FF, so I assumed that he wanted to go FF for the better sensor performance and not for other reasons. In such a case, his decision is flawed, because there is no conclusive evidence that a Canon FF camera will have significantly better performance than his current setup.

People taking excellent photos with Canon cameras does not make their sensor performance trump Nikon/Sony sensors. It simply means the photographer is good. Good photographers can also take good photos with iPhone, doesn't mean iPhone sensor is better than DSLR sensor.

Comparing individual metrics makes sense if you know why you're doing it. For instance, if your main reason for switching to something is to take advantage of a better sensor, then you better make sure that the sensor of the camera you are switching to has a better sensor. I'm not saying that the DXOMark score tells you something about how good a camera is. I'm saying that if you're going FF for better high ISO performance and dynamic range, you're better off sticking with a crop camera from Nikon/Sony/Pentax. If you're going FF just because you can afford it and want it (nothing wrong with that), then DXOMark scores are meaningless.

 

[rhino123]

Yes, I know that sensor performance is not everything. I am using Canon because of Magic Lantern firmware, fully aware that Canon sensors perform poorer than Nikon/Sony sensors. But my comment was based on TS's lack of mention of the main reason he's going FF, so I assumed that he wanted to go FF for the better sensor performance and not for other reasons. In such a case, his decision is flawed, because there is no conclusive evidence that a Canon FF camera will have significantly better performance than his current setup.

People taking excellent photos with Canon cameras does not make their sensor performance trump Nikon/Sony sensors. It simply means the photographer is good. Good photographers can also take good photos with iPhone, doesn't mean iPhone sensor is better than DSLR sensor.

Comparing individual metrics makes sense if you know why you're doing it. For instance, if your main reason for switching to something is to take advantage of a better sensor, then you better make sure that the sensor of the camera you are switching to has a better sensor. I'm not saying that the DXOMark score tells you something about how good a camera is. I'm saying that if you're going FF for better high ISO performance and dynamic range, you're better off sticking with a crop camera from Nikon/Sony/Pentax. If you're going FF just because you can afford it and want it (nothing wrong with that), then DXOMark scores are meaningless.

Since we cannot seemed to agree with this, I will agree to disagree. All I am saying is that sensor is not everything in a camera and I stay at that.

I believe more in working with what I have and I don't care for what brand I am using - be it iphone, Nokia, Samsung, Canon, Nikon or whatever. As long as I get the result I want, that is all I go for. And if hoping that a sensor is really that important for you to get great result (which is also not wrong), then go for it.

Photography is something for many of us to enjoy, if getting a camera with (what you call better sensor) is something that you think will help you, then fine. And I still think that to compare camera using some statistic from a company to measure the performance of a camera is complete and utterly wrong. But that is just me.

This is my final reply here. If you want to have the last words, go for it

Peace. And have a nice evening

 

[Turbonetics]

Yes, I know that sensor performance is not everything. I am using Canon because of Magic Lantern firmware, fully aware that Canon sensors perform poorer than Nikon/Sony sensors. But my comment was based on TS's lack of mention of the main reason he's going FF, so I assumed that he wanted to go FF for the better sensor performance and not for other reasons. In such a case, his decision is flawed, because there is no conclusive evidence that a Canon FF camera will have significantly better performance than his current setup. People taking excellent photos with Canon cameras does not make their sensor performance trump Nikon/Sony sensors. It simply means the photographer is good. Good photographers can also take good photos with iPhone, doesn't mean iPhone sensor is better than DSLR sensor. Comparing individual metrics makes sense if you know why you're doing it. For instance, if your main reason for switching to something is to take advantage of a better sensor, then you better make sure that the sensor of the camera you are switching to has a better sensor. I'm not saying that the DXOMark score tells you something about how good a camera is. I'm saying that if you're going FF for better high ISO performance and dynamic range, you're better off sticking with a crop camera from Nikon/Sony/Pentax. If you're going FF just because you can afford it and want it (nothing wrong with that), then DXOMark scores are meaningless.

"I'm saying that if you're going FF for better high ISO performance and dynamic range, you're better off sticking with a crop camera from Nikon/Sony/Pentax."

Please elaborate what do u mean?

 

[Turbonetics]

Sensor may not be everything but it can be consider the most important part in a camera.

 

[richiemccaw1]

There's more to a camera system than the sensor alone, such as lens line-up, type of photography you're interested in, usability and weather resistance. I mean.. technology nowadays is so advanced that 99% of the people out there really cant tell the difference between a picture taken with a sensor that is top ranked at DXO or one that is in the mid range.

There's no end to going after the latest technology, super high ISO or uber large DR. Yes, there would be some pros who constantly shoot in super bad lighting and require good DR even at high ISOs but outside of that group, I doubt most of us would need such awesome equipment most of the time. It becomes a good to have rather than a must have. Then again the money is yours so feel free to do whatever you want with it!

 

[fastfrag]

I guess the point now is that im a pentax k30 apsc with a lens that pretty much done for.
and pretty much im looking to move out of pentax
For me it's not a profession but more of self satisfaction on the pictures i take especially when traveling.
I don't really look at specs a lot, i based my findings mainly on reviews.
from that I think 6D is pretty decent, of course i will also look at 7DmkII as well when more reviews of it appear.

 

[brapodam]

"I'm saying that if you're going FF for better high ISO performance and dynamic range, you're better off sticking with a crop camera from Nikon/Sony/Pentax."

Please elaborate what do u mean?

I'm saying that (according to DXOMark's results), the Nikon/Sony crop sensors present in Nikon, Sony and Pentax cameras perform better than Canon full frame sensors in terms of high ISO performance and dynamic range.

Sensor may not be everything but it can be consider the most important part in a camera.

I actually disagree with this; like mentioned by richiemccaw1, other considerations such as ergonomics play a huge part because differences in sensor performance these days are not as noticeable as before. This is also why some people say that there's not much of a point going for full frame these days because FF offers little advantage over crop sensors with current technology. Most of the advantages are getting smaller, and workarounds exist. For instance, shallower DOF can be achieved by getting longer lens with faster aperture, higher dynamic range can be achieved by bracketing, etc.

The basis for my previous comments was not a consideration of other factors, as my assumption was that TS was mainly concerned about image sensor performance and not other factors.

I guess the point now is that im a pentax k30 apsc with a lens that pretty much done for.
and pretty much im looking to move out of pentax
For me it's not a profession but more of self satisfaction on the pictures i take especially when traveling.
I don't really look at specs a lot, i based my findings mainly on reviews.
from that I think 6D is pretty decent, of course i will also look at 7DmkII as well when more reviews of it appear.

Well then I guess if you've already made up your mind to jump ship to Canon and it has to be between 6D and 7D2, then 6D would be better for your needs. A lot of the extra features of the 7D would appeal to a sports shooter, but that's only your side interest, so I think the choice here is clear.

 

[Turbonetics]

I'm saying that (according to DXOMark's results), the Nikon/Sony crop sensors present in Nikon, Sony and Pentax cameras perform better than Canon full frame sensors in terms of high ISO performance and dynamic range.

I actually disagree with this; like mentioned by richiemccaw1, other considerations such as ergonomics play a huge part because differences in sensor performance these days are not as noticeable as before. This is also why some people say that there's not much of a point going for full frame these days because FF offers little advantage over crop sensors with current technology. Most of the advantages are getting smaller, and workarounds exist. For instance, shallower DOF can be achieved by getting longer lens with faster aperture, higher dynamic range can be achieved by bracketing, etc.

The basis for my previous comments was not a consideration of other factors, as my assumption was that TS was mainly concerned about image sensor performance and not other factors.

Well then I guess if you've already made up your mind to jump ship to Canon and it has to be between 6D and 7D2, then 6D would be better for your needs. A lot of the extra features of the 7D would appeal to a sports shooter, but that's only your side interest, so I think the choice here is clear.

It is still unbelievable that crop sensor present in Nikon,Sony,Pentax are better than Canon's FF.
FF and crop sensor are different to be compared and not replaceable.
I still believe that sensor is important and using a longer lens with faster aperture on a crop sensor?
how about comparing a same lens on a crop and FF? what are each pros and cons?
go and figure out why FF cameras cost higher than crop sensor in general.

 

[SilentSeth]

If one believe sensor is the most important, so be it.
If one believe sensor is NOT the most important, so be it also.
To each his own.

TS, for portrait,landscapes and travel photography, I believe 6D will serve you very well. But for "occasional sports photography".. Well I don't know what kind of sport you want to shoot, so can't comment much. Just that the AF is probably not the best in tracking subject movement.

 

[Turbonetics]

If one believe sensor is the most important, so be it. If one believe sensor is NOT the most important, so be it also. To each his own. TS, for portrait,landscapes and travel photography, I believe 6D will serve you very well. But for "occasional sports photography".. Well I don't know what kind of sport you want to shoot, so can't comment much. Just that the AF is probably not the best in tracking subject movement.

To prevent any misunderstandings,I meant sensor is considered as the most important part in a camera but doesn't mean it is the most important thing to consider when making a purchase,my main camera is not a FF. I agree with u that importance of sensor is subjective but the truth is that it can't be replaced with crop sensor.

 

[doodah]

I'm saying that (according to DXOMark's results), the Nikon/Sony crop sensors present in Nikon, Sony and Pentax cameras perform better than Canon full frame sensors in terms of high ISO performance and dynamic range.

That is absolutely false.

Canon high ISO performance is still right up there. And there is no way a Sony APSC sensor performs better at high ISO than Canon FF sensor. Please get this fact right.

Sony sensors really shine at base ISO dynamic range. Not at high ISO.

Also at base ISO, shadow recovery up to 2 stops poses no challenge for Canon sensors. Problems surface only when one tries to go beyond that.

IMHO the greatest advantage of FF sensor is the ability to control DOF. They are also less demanding on lenses than APSC sensors.

 

[SilentSeth]

IMHO, let's say that.. if we talk about sensor and only sensor (not considering lens, body weight, power usage, photographer's requirement etc), then yes, I agree that FF sensor is simply different with crop sensor. That is a fact.

 

[voice123]

this 2 camera hard to compare...I like 6D cos full frame , i like 7dmk2 cos 65-point All Cross-Type ...
i also need wifi and gps
they need to combine both..

wait 6dmk2 maybe full frame + 65 af point gua

 

[SilentSeth]

this 2 camera hard to compare...I like 6D cos full frame , i like 7dmk2 cos 65-point All Cross-Type ...
i also need wifi and gps
they need to combine both..

wait 6dmk2 maybe full frame + 65 af point gua

Normally it's hard to happen. Manufacturers don't produce a "perfect" product so there's always room for improvement & makes you buy another one.

If it does, usually the price won't be cheap.

 

[fastfrag]

Normally it's hard to happen. Manufacturers don't produce a "perfect" product so there's always room for improvement & makes you buy another one.

If it does, usually the price won't be cheap.

Totally with you... no such thing as a perfect product, there will always be something missing
6D for me is ok i guess, since im used to centre focusing, there are other techniques when it comes to focusing off centre subjecst so i guess that is ok.
likely i will get a cheaper APSC for sports maybe a 2nd and 50 or 60D, might even stay on with my k30.

 

[fastfrag]

but many thanks to all for providing so much info
with all these debate about sensor vs other features vs competitor's sensor
i pretty much have an idea what i want
I will go to NIkon and have a play with the D610, since their svc centre is right above me
but likely i will stick with canon

 

[Turbonetics]

Normally it's hard to happen. Manufacturers don't produce a "perfect" product so there's always room for improvement & makes you buy another one.

If it does, usually the price won't be cheap.

yes,I agree with u.
but the FF + 65 AF points is far from being a perfect camera,it is a realistic specs I would say.
but then i don't think it will be on the 6D2 rather 5D4,probably more AF points.