Canon 7D v New 6D v 5D MK2
Discussion
Hi folks, I was looking to upgrade from a bridge camera (Lumix G3) to full DSLR and was was originally looking at the 7D, until I found the new 6D and read a few reviews. Though given very few retailers have the 6D at the moment the price is quite a bit more than the 7D and brings the 5D mk2 into the picture.
I'm interested in thoughts on these cameras in particular:-
1) Anyone any hands-on view of the new 6D?
2) Is the 6D worth that much more then a 7D?
3) If it is then does the older 5D mk2 make a better option?
I don't have any lenses for Canons, so that has no influence on the consideration. I mainly take macro or static wildlife shots, so the speed of the 7D isn't a high factor to edge me that way.
I'm interested in thoughts on these cameras in particular:-
1) Anyone any hands-on view of the new 6D?
2) Is the 6D worth that much more then a 7D?
3) If it is then does the older 5D mk2 make a better option?
I don't have any lenses for Canons, so that has no influence on the consideration. I mainly take macro or static wildlife shots, so the speed of the 7D isn't a high factor to edge me that way.
Like a lot of people I currently use a 5D mkII and a 7d. I like both for different resasons.
First though, you say you don't have lenses, these are important, a good body with a cheap lens is a waste of time. Both Canon and Nikon make very nice 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 offerings (which cover a good usable focal length range) that will serve you well for a long long time. As you're not tied into a system its worth looking at Nikon too. I swapped to Canon back with the 5D Mk1 but i loved Nikon and still do, they just didn't do what i needed at the time.
7D AF is great, and a crop body is someitmes usefull for that extra reach. Noise above 1000iso is not handled well. IMO my 5D mk1 is better up to 1600 (and in many circumstances 3200iso which is the H setting on the Mk1) than the 7D. However, i do a lot of work in low light conditions so its pushing the limits sometimes.
Downsizing images from the 7d gives very pleasing results though, but that depends on what your eventual output is destined for of course. My main bugbear with the 7d is the high ISO noise and awful sharpening artifacts that you can't really get away from at higher ISO.
5dmkII has great noise performance, full frame gives normal 35mm FOV with your lenses and for portraits is much more pleasing due to the shallower depth of field you can get and the afore mentioned FOV. AF is same as 5dMk1, although its often slated, I've always found the centre AF point very good.
You say you do a lot of macro and wildlife, a crop body might be a good solution for you IF you dont have required funds for the long (very espensive) lenses required on a full frame AND/OR you dont need the low light capability. Only you know if you do or don't.
If you do video (or want to) its a similar story (albeit the AF performance is not part of the equation). Dont be fooled into thinking that a shallow depth of field that the 5d/6d can provide with the right lens is all thats required for the 'film look' like a lot of people say, as it isnt. In fact the 7d crop sensor size is closer to most 35mm movie formats than the 5 or 6D. But video is a whole other thread in itself.
No commments to add for the 6D but I'm sure it will turn out to be a very capable machine.
For the time being I'm happy with what ive got. If i had to keep one it would be the 5D mkII without a doubt.
It's easy to get hung up on gear, the 7d or 5D mk II make storming value right now, if finances aren't endless id be tempted to save some cash over a new 6D body and put it towards some good lenses, much more important long term.
First though, you say you don't have lenses, these are important, a good body with a cheap lens is a waste of time. Both Canon and Nikon make very nice 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 offerings (which cover a good usable focal length range) that will serve you well for a long long time. As you're not tied into a system its worth looking at Nikon too. I swapped to Canon back with the 5D Mk1 but i loved Nikon and still do, they just didn't do what i needed at the time.
7D AF is great, and a crop body is someitmes usefull for that extra reach. Noise above 1000iso is not handled well. IMO my 5D mk1 is better up to 1600 (and in many circumstances 3200iso which is the H setting on the Mk1) than the 7D. However, i do a lot of work in low light conditions so its pushing the limits sometimes.
Downsizing images from the 7d gives very pleasing results though, but that depends on what your eventual output is destined for of course. My main bugbear with the 7d is the high ISO noise and awful sharpening artifacts that you can't really get away from at higher ISO.
5dmkII has great noise performance, full frame gives normal 35mm FOV with your lenses and for portraits is much more pleasing due to the shallower depth of field you can get and the afore mentioned FOV. AF is same as 5dMk1, although its often slated, I've always found the centre AF point very good.
You say you do a lot of macro and wildlife, a crop body might be a good solution for you IF you dont have required funds for the long (very espensive) lenses required on a full frame AND/OR you dont need the low light capability. Only you know if you do or don't.
If you do video (or want to) its a similar story (albeit the AF performance is not part of the equation). Dont be fooled into thinking that a shallow depth of field that the 5d/6d can provide with the right lens is all thats required for the 'film look' like a lot of people say, as it isnt. In fact the 7d crop sensor size is closer to most 35mm movie formats than the 5 or 6D. But video is a whole other thread in itself.
No commments to add for the 6D but I'm sure it will turn out to be a very capable machine.
For the time being I'm happy with what ive got. If i had to keep one it would be the 5D mkII without a doubt.
It's easy to get hung up on gear, the 7d or 5D mk II make storming value right now, if finances aren't endless id be tempted to save some cash over a new 6D body and put it towards some good lenses, much more important long term.
As an alternative you could also look at a Sony Alpha A77, although they do not have the same amount of lens options as a Cannikon the list is growing all the time and doubtful you would struggle, plus they have the Carl Zeiss AF lenses which are meant to be excellent. I have the A77 with the 16-50mm lens and it is excellent and love the EVF it has.
7D is a great camera in general. New firmware added some nice features also. As above, noise perhaps could be handled better. Certainly in RAW images I wasnt totally stoked with its noise performance. However its only there in the lower ISO's if you go looking for it. There is an odd behaviour whereby ISO 160 is better than 100, 320 better than 200 etc etc. Not sure why, it was discovered during video usage that ISO 160 was much better and it turns out to be true for stills as well IMO. Shooting JPG's you won't even notice until you are high up in the ISO numbers.
Penta-Prism is great, 100% view. Fast AF with 19 cross type points. 8fps drive mode, live view, movie shooting... its all there and its all good. You won't be disappointed. For me all the 6D offers is that Full Frame sensor. Up to you if you feel thats worth paying for. If I was a pro, it probably would be.
Happily... for you. I am looking to sell my lightly used 7D on account of I just dont use it. I have lenses and a flash that I want to get rid of as well so if you want to know more PM me.
Penta-Prism is great, 100% view. Fast AF with 19 cross type points. 8fps drive mode, live view, movie shooting... its all there and its all good. You won't be disappointed. For me all the 6D offers is that Full Frame sensor. Up to you if you feel thats worth paying for. If I was a pro, it probably would be.
Happily... for you. I am looking to sell my lightly used 7D on account of I just dont use it. I have lenses and a flash that I want to get rid of as well so if you want to know more PM me.
I have both the 7D and the 5DmkII - I've never touched a 6D so have no opinion of that.
I prefer the 7D, filming is much better, shutters per second is much higher so great for high speed stuff, the only 'downside' is lack FF but to be honest for what I'm doing that makes no difference.
I prefer the 7D, filming is much better, shutters per second is much higher so great for high speed stuff, the only 'downside' is lack FF but to be honest for what I'm doing that makes no difference.
I had a 7d own a 5d2 and have a 6d sat next to me right now (on loan from canon for review).
They are all great cameras with their own strengths, and weaknesses. Coming from a G3 you will be blown away by any of them.
I think people have summed some stuff up well so far but heres my thoughts.
7D
Great consumer level autofocus. By consumer level I mean not 1d or 5d3 level. 19 great focus points with all the toys, 8fps, great IQ , build and ergonomics. Noise is there but it often cleans up ok, I found it fine up to ISO 3200.
18mp at 1.6 crop means you get a lot of 'reach', and a lot of magnification for macro.
A 400mm lens (which is about the limit of sensible wallets, and the minimum for decent birding) is kinda like 640mm.
What this really means is that you would need a 600mm lens on a 5d2/6d to frame the subject the same. IMO the difference isnt quite that because you can crop a FF sensor a bit more aggressively. A 5d2 though cropped to the same framing with the same lens will leave you 8mp of image and little room for more cropping. Even with a 400 on a 7d you will be cropping for birds.
Also for wildlife 7d has 'spot' af which helps a ton when there is clutter/branches etc.
For macro the 7d has a funky AF supersample mode that works with canon USM macro's and the onboard flash can trigger other canon flashes making it a good cheap macro setup (3rd party wireless ettl flash and your off). 18mp crop sensors are a TON better for macro.
Note the 7d is also well capable of landscapes/portraits etc..
I prefer the build and ergonomics of the 7d over the 5d2 (a lot) and the 6d.
5d2 is a great landscape and portrait camera. The autofocus is pants. The centre point is usable , the others are a joke. Build is poorer than the 7d. Image quality and detail at ISO 100 is better than the 7d but only noticeable on large prints. It remains clean up to ISO 800 or so though and after that the noise is easily over a stop better.
Basically thats the 5d2's 'trick'. I wouldnt own one for wildlife. It (in operation) is slow and clunky (compared to the other 2).
6d is an interesting mix though I havnt used it for wildlife yet or anything that would challenge its autofocus system
Build is nice, its smaller than the other 2 and lighter. Buttons seems a bit 'spongy' but in a good way, feels good in your hand and with a nice grippy texture. It uses SD cards.
Its very very similar to the 5d2 in terms of spec and output (tho no 1/8000th or pc synch) , image quality is about as good as canon can make it ( matching the 1dx, little better than the 5d3).
4.5fps and overall , AF seems ok ( impressive -3 ev on the centre point, focus in moonlight!) , focus system control etc is more 5d2 like than 7d like but seems more solid.
Has a bunch of modern features, wifi, gps, remote control app. Though I think it lacks the 7d's spirit level
Ergonomics are simpler than the 7d, I miss the joystick for af point selection.
TBH for macro and wildlife (even static wildlife) I would pick the 7d. Probably the 6d next and the 5d2 last.
They are all great cameras with their own strengths, and weaknesses. Coming from a G3 you will be blown away by any of them.
I think people have summed some stuff up well so far but heres my thoughts.
7D
Great consumer level autofocus. By consumer level I mean not 1d or 5d3 level. 19 great focus points with all the toys, 8fps, great IQ , build and ergonomics. Noise is there but it often cleans up ok, I found it fine up to ISO 3200.
18mp at 1.6 crop means you get a lot of 'reach', and a lot of magnification for macro.
A 400mm lens (which is about the limit of sensible wallets, and the minimum for decent birding) is kinda like 640mm.
What this really means is that you would need a 600mm lens on a 5d2/6d to frame the subject the same. IMO the difference isnt quite that because you can crop a FF sensor a bit more aggressively. A 5d2 though cropped to the same framing with the same lens will leave you 8mp of image and little room for more cropping. Even with a 400 on a 7d you will be cropping for birds.
Also for wildlife 7d has 'spot' af which helps a ton when there is clutter/branches etc.
For macro the 7d has a funky AF supersample mode that works with canon USM macro's and the onboard flash can trigger other canon flashes making it a good cheap macro setup (3rd party wireless ettl flash and your off). 18mp crop sensors are a TON better for macro.
Note the 7d is also well capable of landscapes/portraits etc..
I prefer the build and ergonomics of the 7d over the 5d2 (a lot) and the 6d.
5d2 is a great landscape and portrait camera. The autofocus is pants. The centre point is usable , the others are a joke. Build is poorer than the 7d. Image quality and detail at ISO 100 is better than the 7d but only noticeable on large prints. It remains clean up to ISO 800 or so though and after that the noise is easily over a stop better.
Basically thats the 5d2's 'trick'. I wouldnt own one for wildlife. It (in operation) is slow and clunky (compared to the other 2).
6d is an interesting mix though I havnt used it for wildlife yet or anything that would challenge its autofocus system
Build is nice, its smaller than the other 2 and lighter. Buttons seems a bit 'spongy' but in a good way, feels good in your hand and with a nice grippy texture. It uses SD cards.
Its very very similar to the 5d2 in terms of spec and output (tho no 1/8000th or pc synch) , image quality is about as good as canon can make it ( matching the 1dx, little better than the 5d3).
4.5fps and overall , AF seems ok ( impressive -3 ev on the centre point, focus in moonlight!) , focus system control etc is more 5d2 like than 7d like but seems more solid.
Has a bunch of modern features, wifi, gps, remote control app. Though I think it lacks the 7d's spirit level
Ergonomics are simpler than the 7d, I miss the joystick for af point selection.
TBH for macro and wildlife (even static wildlife) I would pick the 7d. Probably the 6d next and the 5d2 last.
RobDickinson said:
For macro the 7d has a funky AF supersample mode that works with canon USM macro's and the onboard flash can trigger other canon flashes making it a good cheap macro setup (3rd party wireless ettl flash and your off). 18mp crop sensors are a TON better for macro.
Possibly taking this off topic, but could you expand a bit on that? I don't recall seeing anything in the manual about specific AF for macro?I've got a 7D, non-L 100mm f2.8 Macro lens and MR-14EX ring flash. What should I be doing with this setup to take advantage of this mode? Also, what actually is the advantage of it?
Also, could someone complaining about the 7D's high ISO performance post up some examples, and some comparisons? I've come from a 450D to the 7D, and have been amazed at how much better it is at higher ISO!
Otispunkmeyer said:
There is an odd behaviour whereby ISO 160 is better than 100, 320 better than 200 etc etc. Not sure why, it was discovered during video usage that ISO 160 was much better and it turns out to be true for stills as well IMO. Shooting JPG's you won't even notice until you are high up in the ISO numbers.
Thats interesting, because I've always been told it was the other way around (i.e. full stops on ISO are better).The 1/3rd stops like 160 etc are not "true" settings, apparently its done by software manipulation of the exposure.
So, for example 160 the sensor actually works the same as 100 ISO, but then software pushes the exposure a bit to get the equivalent of 160. I've also seen it said that it actually uses 200 ISO and pulls back to 160 via software.
Not sure which way round the 7D does it.
Can't really add any advice, other than being a happy 7D owner, just the plonker behind it to improve now
Crafty_ said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
There is an odd behaviour whereby ISO 160 is better than 100, 320 better than 200 etc etc. Not sure why, it was discovered during video usage that ISO 160 was much better and it turns out to be true for stills as well IMO. Shooting JPG's you won't even notice until you are high up in the ISO numbers.
Thats interesting, because I've always been told it was the other way around (i.e. full stops on ISO are better).The 1/3rd stops like 160 etc are not "true" settings, apparently its done by software manipulation of the exposure.
So, for example 160 the sensor actually works the same as 100 ISO, but then software pushes the exposure a bit to get the equivalent of 160. I've also seen it said that it actually uses 200 ISO and pulls back to 160 via software.
Not sure which way round the 7D does it.
Can't really add any advice, other than being a happy 7D owner, just the plonker behind it to improve now
LongQ said:
Crafty_ said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
There is an odd behaviour whereby ISO 160 is better than 100, 320 better than 200 etc etc. Not sure why, it was discovered during video usage that ISO 160 was much better and it turns out to be true for stills as well IMO. Shooting JPG's you won't even notice until you are high up in the ISO numbers.
Thats interesting, because I've always been told it was the other way around (i.e. full stops on ISO are better).The 1/3rd stops like 160 etc are not "true" settings, apparently its done by software manipulation of the exposure.
So, for example 160 the sensor actually works the same as 100 ISO, but then software pushes the exposure a bit to get the equivalent of 160. I've also seen it said that it actually uses 200 ISO and pulls back to 160 via software.
Not sure which way round the 7D does it.
Can't really add any advice, other than being a happy 7D owner, just the plonker behind it to improve now
Obviously we don't have different sensitivity memory cards or anything like that to create a hardware variable, and there's no physical change on the sensor for different ISO settings, is there? I had always assumed it was just an electronic setting which made all the difference.
Kermit power said:
LongQ said:
Crafty_ said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
There is an odd behaviour whereby ISO 160 is better than 100, 320 better than 200 etc etc. Not sure why, it was discovered during video usage that ISO 160 was much better and it turns out to be true for stills as well IMO. Shooting JPG's you won't even notice until you are high up in the ISO numbers.
Thats interesting, because I've always been told it was the other way around (i.e. full stops on ISO are better).The 1/3rd stops like 160 etc are not "true" settings, apparently its done by software manipulation of the exposure.
So, for example 160 the sensor actually works the same as 100 ISO, but then software pushes the exposure a bit to get the equivalent of 160. I've also seen it said that it actually uses 200 ISO and pulls back to 160 via software.
Not sure which way round the 7D does it.
Can't really add any advice, other than being a happy 7D owner, just the plonker behind it to improve now
Obviously we don't have different sensitivity memory cards or anything like that to create a hardware variable, and there's no physical change on the sensor for different ISO settings, is there? I had always assumed it was just an electronic setting which made all the difference.
Now for one post on a forum somewhere I noted posts of some noise response charts (happened to be for Canon 30D and 5DII) that suggested a "well controlled" curve for increased noise levels at regular ISO values - so 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 - the traditional 1 full stop differentials.
The intermediate ISO positions were not on the curve but the nominal 1/3rd stop increments (125ISO and 160ISO etc. gave different effects.
The +1/3 value was set ABOVE the nominal graph line indicating a greater noise level than might be expected whilst the +2/3 value was below the line.
The implication here is that ISOs 125, 250, 500, etc. might appear realtively noisy compared to expectations. In fact on the graph is seemed to suggest that they might be noisier than the next full step ISO value - so 500 ISO noisier than 800 ISO for example.
On the other hand the +2/3rd ISO value was less noisy than the the next "full" ISO up and indeed less noisy than the previous full ISO down!
An example:
https://www.box.com/s/zj3mfdcqclw9omxpfkb3
Now I don't think these results can be taken as absolute values since the graph header suggests (I have not investigated the background to the chart work so use this "analysis" with caution) that the results were from a fairly long exposure (1 second) pushed +3EV - presumably to maximise the effect for "visibility" and aid measurement - and passed through Adobe Camers Raw. So there are some variables in the mix but nevertheless an interesting graph.
In terms of out of camera results seems to be to know how well the manufacturer (and/or the 3rd party software developer in the case of RAW files) has profiled the camera through its entire dynamic range for all channels. It's probbaly safe to assume that the higher a particular model sits in the manufacturer's product pecking order the more attention it will have had lavished on it and so, relative to the other products in the range at the time it was released, the more likely it is that the performance it offers will be superior.
For anyone with an especially strong technical constitution and good conceptual understanding of maths (both of which let me out) this threa at the darktable forum may be of interest.
http://www.darktable.org/2012/12/profiling-sensor-...
At a more understandable level for most of use this article about the improvements for the noise reduction tools in the new Capture One software may be more accessible.
http://blog.phaseone.com/2012/12/20/improved-high-...
Note here that they have used a file from an older camera to illustrate what has been acheived thus showing that it is a software rather than camera technology enhancement. The primary point seems to be that they are profiling (or re-profiling) each camera the software supports and then applying adjustment values for each image based on the camera and available ISO setting. I assume that the characteristics of some sensors mean that lower end values may not need to be too far adjusted, if at all, from a projected graph based on the primary ISO values. However the higher the ISO the more likely it is that specific tailoring of the profile would be required. Even then the results provided with the software will be generic to a model. One's own camera may benefit from being individually profiled. Could get even more anal and say that might need to be doen for different sensor temps and, worse, shoot by shoot for prevailing conditions.
On the other hand if the end result is for relatively low res output to screen based social media sharing facilities it may well be not worth the effort - or any consideration at all.
All of this might be a good reason for shooting jpg ...
Kermit power said:
I may be displaying my ignorance here, but aren't all ISO values on digital cameras the result of electronic manipulation?
Electronic yes, but not software.I always took it that It worked something like this:
The sensor captures the image. . This capture is then given to a processor to record on to the card, which is basically a bit of software, it does stuff like set the white balance or apply exposure compensation etc even on a RAW.
If shooting at 100 ISO a setting on the sensor says so, nothing to do with the processor.
If shooting at 200 ISO that setting is changed, maybe by varying the voltage or something.
When shooting at 160 ISO the sensor actually works at 100 ISO, the processor then pushes the exposure to be 160 before recording.
I don't know if that's right or not though.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff