[Icy J]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I don't think you'll have any trouble with AF in those applications on the 6D.

What worries me is you saying you're, "...interested in the greater image quality that a full frame sensor will provide..." That's no necessarily true. EVERY sensor is a compromise between noise and dynamic range. The 1D X has VERY course pixels and produces great files at very high ISOs. The 7D MkII has extremely dense pixels (if it were full-frame, it'd be over 50 MP) that provides incredible detail resolution, but with a compromise to high-ISO performance. The 6D is a (and 5D MkIII) compromise somewhere in the middle.

Shooting the subjects that you mention, I suspect that you'll be using ISOs below 800. At those ISO levels, the 7D MkII will likely yield higher resolution file with no appreciable noise problems.

Bigger pixels have higher dynamic range, smaller pixels have more detail resolution. Every sensor is a compromise between the two.

Build quality of the 7D MkII will be superior compared to the 6D. The 6D is a high end consumer camera and the 7D MkII is a low end pro camera. That may or may not bother you. The build quality of 6D is not even up to your 7D.

Fair enough; the main thing swaying me is that I've tried several full frame cameras and feel like making a change, tbh, but the 5D3 is way out of budget. There's just something that appeals to me about having a full frame body; from my experience there's just something different about it, whether it's image quality or not

Alternatively I'm also considering a used or new 5D2, but I've heard the autofocus is subpar on those...

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Icy J

Fair enough; the main thing swaying me is that I've tried several full frame cameras and feel like making a change, tbh, but the 5D3 is way out of budget. There's just something that appeals to me about having a full frame body; from my experience there's just something different about it, whether it's image quality or not

Alternatively I'm also considering a used or new 5D2, but I've heard the autofocus is subpar on those...

I'd go with the 6D over the 5D2, due to the AF that you mention.

Remember, you're probably comparing newer full-frame cameras to your old 7D, which is three or four generations old. Moore's Law also applies to sensors and processors. The 7D MkII has a brand new sensor and two Digic -Six processors.

I assume you're shooting Raw, but, if not, you need to be. You'll have great control of shadows, contrast, color balance, etc. Those that use in-camera JPEG are using setting decided on by a committee of Japanese engineers. Why would you do that? Plus, properly exposed Raw images will yield another f-stop of dynamic range.

I own both a full-frame and a 7D and have the 7D MkII preordered. I'm looking forward to the new camera's detail resolution and improved dynamic range over the 7D.

Dave

[Itsed65]

Has anyone ever bought a grey market body? Reason I ask is because there are some awful tempting 1DX offers on ebay. I have pre-ordered a 7D2, but I am still really debating just going for the big one.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Itsed65

Has anyone ever bought a grey market body? Reason I ask is because there are some awful tempting 1DX offers on ebay. I have pre-ordered a 7D2, but I am still really debating just going for the big one.

I'd suggest investigating Canada first Ed. The warranty is the same as in the USA, so you don't lose any protection. I haven't checked lately, but a few months back a 1DX was around $5,700 USD.

In the 7D2/1DX comparison the advantages of the 1DX are it's incredible high ISO performance and its ability to handle a 2.0x TC-III on a 500mm or 600mm lens while hardly slowing down at all. If the 7D2 slows down as much as 5D MKIII does with its similar battery, then that can be huge.

OTOH, with the crop sensor, the pixel density does give you significantly more reach with the same lenses. You don't need a 600mm, because the 500mm will do and with the 1.4x TC-III it'll be roughly equivalent to 1,120mm. If you can keep the ISO down, then that might be a better option.

[Icy J]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I'd go with the 6D over the 5D2, due to the AF that you mention.

Remember, you're probably comparing newer full-frame cameras to your old 7D, which is three or four generations old. Moore's Law also applies to sensors and processors. The 7D MkII has a brand new sensor and two Digic -Six processors.

I assume you're shooting Raw, but, if not, you need to be. You'll have great control of shadows, contrast, color balance, etc. Those that use in-camera JPEG are using setting decided on by a committee of Japanese engineers. Why would you do that? Plus, properly exposed Raw images will yield another f-stop of dynamic range.

I own both a full-frame and a 7D and have the 7D MkII preordered. I'm looking forward to the new camera's detail resolution and improved dynamic range over the 7D.

Dave

I shoot raw only if I could afford to keep the 7D then I definitely would. I do own the EOS M as well so if I want the APS-C sensor for whatever reason I still have access to one, just not the AF...


Speed | Porsche Cayman S by - Icy J -, on Flickr

If the 6D's AF is sufficient to take pics like these I'll be happy

[Itsed65]

Originally Posted by dcstep

I'd suggest investigating Canada first Ed. The warranty is the same as in the USA, so you don't lose any protection. I haven't checked lately, but a few months back a 1DX was around $5,700 USD.

In the 7D2/1DX comparison the advantages of the 1DX are it's incredible high ISO performance and its ability to handle a 2.0x TC-III on a 500mm or 600mm lens while hardly slowing down at all. If the 7D2 slows down as much as 5D MKIII does with its similar battery, then that can be huge.

OTOH, with the crop sensor, the pixel density does give you significantly more reach with the same lenses. You don't need a 600mm, because the 500mm will do and with the 1.4x TC-III it'll be roughly equivalent to 1,120mm. If you can keep the ISO down, then that might be a better option.

Yes, it is a paradox I agree. Part of it is also my impatience. Bird season stars now, and the 7d2 won't be available until at least December now from what I hear, whereas I can get a 1dX by next week. Cuz you know my 1d4 is just so awful

Seriously though I have been looking at a lot of 1Dx pictures on POTN, FM, and Flickr, and am pretty impressed. They seem to be able to handle pretty severe crops, and that is not true with the current 7d.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Itsed65

Yes, it is a paradox I agree. Part of it is also my impatience. Bird season stars now, and the 7d2 won't be available until at least December now from what I hear, whereas I can get a 1dX by next week. Cuz you know my 1d4 is just so awful

Seriously though I have been looking at a lot of 1Dx pictures on POTN, FM, and Flickr, and am pretty impressed. They seem to be able to handle pretty severe crops, and that is not true with the current 7d.

The other mark against the 1D X is the age of it sensor and AF system. We're probably 2/3 of the way through its lifespan. With a new 7D2, you'll be at the front of that curve not the end.

I'm pretty happy with my 5D3, but I missed a shot yesterday that I probably would have gotten with a 1D X (maybe with the 7D2). I was shooting a juvenile Cooper's Hawk sitting in a tree and then the bird flew straight at me, just above eye level and went no more than ten-feet over my head. The 5D3 had the 500mm and the 2x TC, so it couldn't even begin to AF on the bird.

Here's the shot before it flew at me:

_Z5A0286_DxO_sRGB by dcstep, on Flickr

That blood is from a vole that it just finished eating.

With the 1D X, I still would have had the 2.0x TC on the lens, but the body would have manhandled the lens into focus. With the 7D2, I'll be using my 1.4X TC and have faster focus than the 5D3, but not as fast as the 1D X.

This light was perfect, so the IQ of the 7D2 is going to stand up to anything, even with a severe crop. (This crop is only around 20%).

Dave

[Itsed65]

Beautiful color on that shot. I know the x is getting old, but I'm afraid what they will charge for its replacement! I'm holding off for now, but I think I will rent one over Veterans Day weekend just to check it out.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Itsed65

Beautiful color on that shot. I know the x is getting old, but I'm afraid what they will charge for its replacement! I'm holding off for now, but I think I will rent one over Veterans Day weekend just to check it out.

Canon loaned me a 1D X and it's really special at high ISO and manhandling a 2.0x TC-III; otherwise, the 5D MkIII matches it and may be superior at low ISO scenic shots.

I'm hoping that the 7D MkII will match it with a 1.4x TC. The AF system is improved with way more X type AF points (all 65) and the crop--sensor gives you more reach with less powerful TCs.

Hopefully, and the jury is out, the 7D MkII will match the 5D MkIII and 1D X at ISO 800 and be very close at ISO 1600.

Dave

[Itsed65]

I left my 1D alone yesterday and mounted my 500 on the 7D, as well as slapping the 2X on my 300 2.8 and putting that combo on the 5D3. I shot a lot of the same stuff with both, and thought it would be interesting to compare. I'm heading out again today, but should have some examples later on.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Itsed65

I left my 1D alone yesterday and mounted my 500 on the 7D, as well as slapping the 2X on my 300 2.8 and putting that combo on the 5D3. I shot a lot of the same stuff with both, and thought it would be interesting to compare. I'm heading out again today, but should have some examples later on.

The old 7D does very well in good light. I find that the AF failure rate for birds-in-flight is only half as good as the 5D3.

Is the AF still pretty fast with the 2X and 300mm on the 5D3? I'd suspect that it's pretty good. I've been shooting my 500mm with the 2X on my 5D3 and it can be really frustrating if you don't pre-focus right and the AF point slips off the subject for a second.

[Itsed65]

From the seat of the pants feel, the 2X on the 300 feels pretty quick on both bodies, but I would give the edge to the 5d3. Probably since the 300 is a 2.8 to begin with, there is more light to work with compared to the 2X on the 500 so it would make sense to be faster.

I doubled down this morning at my camera shop and paid for the 7d2 in advance which bumped me to the front of the line, for whatever that is worth. They are selling it at the same price as B&H etc, so the advantage is that I am in the local market versus the national.

I meant to process yesterday's shots for comparison, but then I went out and shot more today, and then also stopped in Yountville on the way home (Napa wine country), so I am pretty much done for the night

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Itsed65

From the seat of the pants feel, the 2X on the 300 feels pretty quick on both bodies, but I would give the edge to the 5d3. Probably since the 300 is a 2.8 to begin with, there is more light to work with compared to the 2X on the 500 so it would make sense to be faster.

I doubled down this morning at my camera shop and paid for the 7d2 in advance which bumped me to the front of the line, for whatever that is worth. They are selling it at the same price as B&H etc, so the advantage is that I am in the local market versus the national.

I meant to process yesterday's shots for comparison, but then I went out and shot more today, and then also stopped in Yountville on the way home (Napa wine country), so I am pretty much done for the night

With the 500mm and the 600mm, the difference is huge, so if the 300mm were comparable, you'd know it. With my 70-200mm, there's no problem with either TC on the 5D MkIII.

Congrats on the 7D MkII. I think we'll both love it.

I had so many great shots on Thursday and Friday, that I got behind and I'm almost caught up. It take discipline to keep up.

[Itsed65]

Well after looking at yesterday's shots, the 5D3 is the big winner, but that is not really a surprise. The 7D does well with lots of light, and much better without the TCs, either on the 500 or 300, but really the 300. Of course, I had the 2X on the 300 so that's not really a fair comparison, but it lost a lot of detail viewed at 100%. Still, the 300 and 2X on the 5D was a nice lightweight package, and I will be using it more this winter, and keep the 500 tied to the cropper, with and without the 1.4.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Itsed65

Well after looking at yesterday's shots, the 5D3 is the big winner, but that is not really a surprise. The 7D does well with lots of light, and much better without the TCs, either on the 500 or 300, but really the 300. Of course, I had the 2X on the 300 so that's not really a fair comparison, but it lost a lot of detail viewed at 100%. Still, the 300 and 2X on the 5D was a nice lightweight package, and I will be using it more this winter, and keep the 500 tied to the cropper, with and without the 1.4.

Your findings are consistent with mine.

[M_Six]

Some BIF shots with a pre-production 7D MkII. Looking good.

http://www.romyocon.net/2014/10/bird...canon-eos.html

[ddk632]

Originally Posted by Icy J

I shoot raw only if I could afford to keep the 7D then I definitely would. I do own the EOS M as well so if I want the APS-C sensor for whatever reason I still have access to one, just not the AF...

Speed | Porsche Cayman S by - Icy J -, on Flickr

If the 6D's AF is sufficient to take pics like these I'll be happy

Nice rolling shot.

This is with my 6D:


Miami Sunset Drive by ddk632, on Flickr


We Be Rollin by ddk632, on Flickr

Btw that was my first ever attempt at rolling shots. Any limitation surely was mine and not the camera.

Anyway I've been real happy with my 6D, for what it's worth.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Some BIF shots with a pre-production 7D MkII. Looking good.

http://www.romyocon.net/2014/10/bird...canon-eos.html

He posted lots of shots that I would have shit-canned. Still, you can see that the AF works pretty darn good. Based on his OOF shots, I'm guessing about an 8 out of 10 success rate, which is pretty darn good.

All the shots he showed were at low ISO. I'm more worried about high-ISO performance than AF. I did see a 50-minute video of a sports photographer using a 7D MkII on auto-ISO. His shots in the locker room were at ISO 16,000 and looked pretty darn good, so far as you could tell on a video. Everyone was raving. If so, then it's a substantial step forward from the 70D, which is barely better than the 7D.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by dcstep

He posted lots of shots that I would have shit-canned. Still, you can see that the AF works pretty darn good. Based on his OOF shots, I'm guessing about an 8 out of 10 success rate, which is pretty darn good.

All the shots he showed were at low ISO. I'm more worried about high-ISO performance than AF. I did see a 50-minute video of a sports photographer using a 7D MkII on auto-ISO. His shots in the locker room were at ISO 16,000 and looked pretty darn good, so far as you could tell on a video. Everyone was raving. If so, then it's a substantial step forward from the 70D, which is barely better than the 7D.

I think he mentioned an 8 out of 10 success rate. And I agree, the ISO performance is going to be the big issue here. The 7D is no slouch with AF, so there needs to be substantial improvement with high ISO performance to get me to upgrade.

[dcstep]

Here's the video that I mentioned:

The whole thing is useful to watch, but at least scan through to see two things. First, look for them holding up a print. I forget the ISO and exact print size, but it's pretty impressive. Next, scan forward looking for locker room scenes. Those were shot at ISO 16,000! Even though they're relatively small on our computers and we're seeing a video, I think that the blow away the 7D.

Also, keep in mind that all images shown are in-camera JPEGs. No Raw conversion and no added NR.

Dave

[BrokenVert]

I just casted that video onto my 52" tv. I just hit that 1600ISO wedding photo and apart from be a little soft the preproduction photos look pretty impressive even on my large screen!

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

I just casted that video onto my 52" tv. I just hit that 1600ISO wedding photo and apart from be a little soft the preproduction photos look pretty impressive even on my large screen!

Go further in to see the locker room images at ISO 16,000 and tell us what you see. (Your TV's only 1080p, right? Go buy a 4k )