Canon 80d v 6d

[MandieS]

So hubby is coming round to me upgrading, currently have a 600d, which frustrates me with the very low ISO tolerance. I was thinking the 6d but that would mean I only had 2 lenses to begin with until I could afford more. Then tonight I saw a review for the 80d and thought that might be a better option, although I wonder about the ISO? I am only a hobbyist who shoots mainly landscapes and enjoying some pet photography which I guess the extra focal points & faster shooting rate of the 80d might be useful for. Portraits are just odd pics for friends & family. If I got the 80d I could maybe get a flash? Any thoughts/advice welcome please......this camera would have to last a while

[Brian]

Before we talk camera bodies, let's talk about what lenses you currently  have now. We also should talk budget. Photography is a slippery slope. LOL! 

[MandieS]

Ok so I have the 2 kit ones: efs 18 - 55 & efs 55 - 250, ef the nifty 50 (love), efs 18 - 22 3.5/4.5 (love) & ef 100 macro (non L - love) - am thinking next lens would probably be 24 - 70 & get rid of 18-55. Would love the 70 - 200 'one day'!!!

 

[MandieS]

Oh forgot to say hobbyist & limited budget so 6d or 80d price range then hopefully a new lens when I sell my 600d & save a wee bit....darn expensive hobby lol!

[Brian]

The "average" cost to switch to full frame, in my humble opinion is around $4000. ANY EF-S lenses you have are really only meant for crop body / APS-C cameras. It's the EF Lenses that are full frame, but it sounds like you know this, since you only mentioned two lenses.

Now, here is where things get a little tricky. Because the Angle of View changes with the smaller crop sensor, your 50mm on your 600D acts more like a 85mm lens would on a full frame body. So in order to get that "look" that you love, you'll need to purchase a 85mm lens. Now here is the kicker, the 85mm f/1.8 suffers from really bad chromatic aberration. (The purple fringes that you see around tree branches against a bright sky.)  A better lens would be the non-macro Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 portrait lens, but you already have a 100mm non-L macro, so that's the same focal length.

I also wound NOT PURCHASE THE ORIGINAL CANON 24-70 F/2.8 L LENS. It sucks. I know several photographers both online and in-person who have a hate relationship with their 24-70. I even know of a camera store in NJ that won't sell you the 24-70, they make you take it out for a weekend to see if there are problems with it. Basically, 3-4 out of 5 lenses had issues and they were tired of the returns/exchanges. Fortunately, Canon came out with the newer EF 24-70 f/2.8 L VERSION II Lens. That lens seems to have addressed most, if not all of the quirks, that the original 24-70 had. That said, I know photographers who got a good copy of the original 24-70 and it's fine. However, the downside is the Version II of the 24-70 is more expensive, and the current price is $1749, which is down from the original price of $2399. A cheaper alternative would be the well regarded 24-105 f/4 L lens, which retails for $999. Right now there is a bundle for the Canon 6D and 24-105 f/4 L for $2099. Which isn't a bad price.

The only downside to the Nikon D600/D610 and Canon 6D is that it's a "Entry Level" Full Frame body that's meant to be outgrown. So in a sense it is an upgrade from your 600D, but to really get a true upgrade that will last you for years, you are looking at a Canon 5D Mark III. A 5DMK3 with a 24-105 f/4 L lens will set you back $3200.

The Canon 80D is the latest and greatest in the advanced amateur class. It's not that much better than the Canon 70D, but the 70D seems to have issues and really wasn't well regarded, at least from what I've heard of through the grape-vine. I feel a better alternative might be a Canon 7D Mark II, but since you have mostly EF-S lenses and the Canon 80D body-only is $1199, it might fit your needs better. So it really boils down to what you want to spend.

It seems that there are a bunch of photographers that are suffering from what Thom Hogan calls "The Last Camera Syndrome." People are longing for the days of having a camera that will last for years that they won't have to upgrade. Kinda like inheriting Grandpa's Nikon F2 and a box of prime lenses from the 1970's. Unfortunately, cameras today are computers that think they are cameras. You really only get about 4 years or so out of them. Sometimes more, sometimes less. In order to have a camera that you won't outgrow quickly, you need to pony up the dollars. As in 5DMK3 dollars. Or more. Since you are mostly into landscapes and treating this as a hobby, you could go in either direction and I feel that sticking with the Crop Bodies might be a better fit for you and in my opinion, I feel you should give a Canon 7D Mark II a hard look. Yes, it's more expensive than a 80D, but the body has more robust features and better focusing system, so it may ultimately last you a bit longer. As for an alternative, a great lens to replace the 18-55 kit lens, is to get the older Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 lens. It's the "24-70 f/2.8" for the Crop Bodies and is a very nice lens for the money ($749 new.)

If it were me, I'd pair up the 17-55 f/2.8 with a Canon 7D Mark II. That will give you the best bang for your buck and give you a body that you could grown into. Here is a thought, buy used from KEH.com to save a little.

[MandieS]

Wow thanks for all the info, wish budget wasn't an issue, 5dmk111 is out of reach ha ha! I was originally thinking between the 6d and 7d mk11 but went away from it, not really sure why?! Will have another look. Worth knowing about the original 24 - 70.

Am I right in thinking for action pics of dogs one of the 70 - 200's would be my best bet? I know the f4 is a fair bit cheaper than the f2..........

[Samantha LaRue]

7 hours ago, MandieS said:

Wow thanks for all the info, wish budget wasn't an issue, 5dmk111 is out of reach ha ha! I was originally thinking between the 6d and 7d mk11 but went away from it, not really sure why?! Will have another look. Worth knowing about the original 24 - 70.

Am I right in thinking for action pics of dogs one of the 70 - 200's would be my best bet? I know the f4 is a fair bit cheaper than the f2..........

The 6d is an awesome camera. I upgraded to that when I ditched my 70d and have been completely satisfied. You'll be using it for a long time. I'm sure by the time you are ready to upgrade again and have out grown it, there will be a new technology out there better than the 5dmkiii.

I don't know why Brian is hating on it so much. I mostly do studio and then pictures of my family out and about. Haven't run into an issue yet! The biggest difference that I am aware of between the 5dmkiii and the 6d are the multiple focus points. The 5d has a bazillion of them that you can use. The 6d really only had the one in the middle that is the most reliable. So if you use multiple focus points often, they would be my only consideration. I don't mind it because I'm not coordinated enough to use them and take a photo in a timely manner lol. I think that's a bit of an acquired skill haha! 

The other consideration would be of course if you shot weddings. The 5dmkiii has dual card slots, one of them being a cf card. Having that built in backup system is something I know a lot of wedding photographers wouldn't want to do without. But since you're a hobbyist, I'm guessing you won't be doing many weddings.

[Samantha LaRue]

And as for glass, my favorites have been my 35mm for inside, and my 100mmL macro lens for outside. I'd really like a 50mm again just for a little less distortion whenever I do portraits in my studio, but I can live without. If and when you do decide to get either a 50mm or a 35mm, I'd be sure to check out the Sigma Art line of lens. They are about $900 each, but their quality is amazing! And it will save you over the equivalent name brand lens by close to 50%. I do agree with the recommendation to check out KEH too! They have some great sales around black Friday that you'd really benefit from!

 

 I wouldn't buy an 85mm if you have a 100mm unless you are intending to replace it, or just have money to blow. I am eyeing the 135mm however, because I think the dramatic bokeh you can get with that is a pretty good step over the 100mm. But again, not a necessity.

The other lens I adore is my fish eye. Probably the most expensive lens I own and one of those weird specialty lens that not a lot of folks have a use for or even like. But I adore it. I know it's probably not what you are looking for, but I can never resist telling folks how awesome it is. So here I am - it's awesome. Hehe

And when it comes time to look for an ultrawide angle lens upgrade, I would consider the canon 16-35mm. It's a great landscape lens and one I have my eye on as well. A little pricier at around $1400USD, but it will last you a long time. Good glass will take you a lot further than an expensive camera! 

[Brian]

I dislike the 6D as much as the Nikon D600/D610. I'm not wasting $1500 on a "Entry-Level" anything. I've done the whole, "Well...I can only afford this, even though I really should buy that..." scenario. Multiple times. Within a year, I'm regretting my purchase and am kicking myself for not saving up and getting what I truly want. Plus, I hate the fact that Canon forces you to the 5DM3 to get a reliable focusing system. The only Cross-Type AF point is the center one. The others aren't. Sure, the other AF points will work for you, but to have the best chance to have consistent focus, you need to use the center one. Now, for those who are used to Full Frame bodies, this probably not that big of an issue, especially 5D Mark II users, as they had the same problem with the center AF point being the only reliable one. Coming from a crop body and discovering just how small the AF area is...it's a bit of an adjustment. Since the Crop Sensors are physically smaller, the AF points cover more surface area, so you can easily go out to the edges and select a AF point. Not with full frame. Those AF points are usually clustered in the center in the viewfinder and that takes getting used to.

I'm sure there are lots of people who disagree with me and that's fine. The Canon 6D will be an upgrade and will most likely meet or exceed her requirements. But it boils down to the lenses she has. The Canon 16-35 f/4 lens will run you about $1000. The 16-35 f/2.8 lens is $1450, on top of the $1500. Both are fine lenses for photographing landscapes.  That said, she is pushing that $3000 mark fairly quickly and could easily hit $4000 without much effort going the full frame route. That's why I recommended that she take a hard look at a Canon 7D Mark II, it's a upgrade to her current body, which is in a difference class of body, and she can use all of her current lenses.

 

[Samantha LaRue]

I really think you are over stating the "entry level"-ness of the 6d. I think it really just comes down to preference of the user. Maybe renting a couple different bodies would be good for her? To see what she prefers? And plus, shooting landscapes - isn't it preferred to manual focus anyways? I don't think the numbers of focal points really matters much for that? 

As for her glass, I know you've said this before too - spend the money on good glass. If you are going to go over budget or have a limited budget, glass comes first. I think she's more likely to outgrow a "cheap" lens than she is to outgrow the 6d.  Of course, how she spends her budget is up to her, but if she can eek out a few more for the good lens I would do it. Or even hang onto her current camera for just a little bit longer so she can afford the better glass. If she gets the 7dmkii, I feel she is also more likely to outgrow it sooner simply because it's a crop sensor. You can't really appreciate the awesomeness of ultrawide lenses for landscapes on a crop sensor. The look is different.

Anyways, i hope i've given you somethings to think about, @MandieS . I don't usually pop into this section, but I saw my beloved 6d mentioned and I couldn't resist. My biggest regret was getting my 70d - wasted so much money on that. Wish I would have just gotten the 6d first since it isn't that much more expensive. But oh well! Live and learn!

[MandieS]

Hi Samantha - thanks for your input Just reading all this now! The lenses  I guess are the biggie at the mo & I LOVE my 10 - 22mm so if i go 6D will miss that until I can get a 17 - 40 or whatever. As I'll only have a 50 & 100 until I sell my old gear my next lens would need to be something more multi purpose I think?

[Samantha LaRue]

3 minutes ago, MandieS said:

Hi Samantha - thanks for your input Just reading all this now! The lenses  I guess are the biggie at the mo & I LOVE my 10 - 22mm so if i go 6D will miss that until I can get a 17 - 40 or whatever. As I'll only have a 50 & 100 until I sell my old gear my next lens would need to be something more multi purpose I think?

Well, the 50 and 100 are a pretty good range to have. With a good wide angle zoom lens, you're pretty much covered. (until you want to move onto crazy telephoto sizes lol)

[Brian]

22 hours ago, MandieS said:

get a 17 - 40 or whatever.

Get a 16-35 instead. Either the f/4 or f/2.8 version. Do not cheap out on glass. Glass BEFORE body!!! I can not stress this enough. With today's newer sensors being in the 20-24MP range (on the average, conversationally speaking) the older 17-40 really doesn't perform that well with the higher MP sensors.

"But it's so expensive!!"

Believe it or not, it's not as expensive as you would think. Yes, you are out a higher up-front cost, but in the long run it will save you money. Which is cheaper? A lens that costs you $1800 and will last you 20+ years? Or a cheap lens that you will replace sooner rather than later? That $1800 lens will out-live those 4-5 camera bodies @ $1200-$1800 each in that time-frame. Think about it...in 20 years time, at 4-5 years for each camera body @ $1500 (give or take,) that cost is between $6000-$7500. The costs go up if you spend $2000-$3000 on a camera body. So paying a single payment of $1800 that lasts a long time isn't so bad. Plus, if you decide to sell your gear, the expensive glass holds onto its value more. 

For landscape photography, a single AF point is usually all you need, but using the center one (only) will not help you composition-wise, especially if your foreground element that you want to nail focus on is towards the edge of the frame. When you focus and recompose, you really can only move a few inches at most. Focusing on a rock and then moving your camera 30 degrees in a different direction will usually yield poor focus results. That said, you really don't need cross-type AF focus points on something stationary. Just keep in mind, crop-shooters are also spoiled (myself included) having AF points all over the view-finder. I just picked-up a D700 about a month ago and am now starting to really get comfortable with the AF points clustered in the center and not along the edges.

As far as lenses, a 35 and a 85 is a good combo, just like a 50 and 100. Something wide and something long. So I think you are fine in that dept. For your next lens purchase, you have to ask yourself, what is on your camera the MAJORITY of the time? If it's the 10-20, then look at getting the 16-35 f/4 at the very least. If you are using your 50 a lot, you might end up using your 100 more on a full frame body, due to the angle of view change.

If you can, pick up a Canon 6D and give it a spin. Sometimes a local camera store or even a Flagship Best Buy store will have them on display. Make note of how the AF points are clustered in the viewfinder, go into the menus and see how things are laid out. Camera bodies are a personal thing and I'm just some guy on the interwebz. LOL!! In the end, it's your personal experience and wallet that matter...but keep in mind,

"Buy it Right - Buy it Once."

[Brian]

One of the biggest problems I have with the whole D600/D610 and Canon 6D, is that the manufacturers' marketing teams really have emphasized,

"Full Frame=Good! Crop=Bad!" or "Full Frame is Professional!! Crop is Amateur!!!"

So people desire full frame cameras, but they really don't know why and technically do not need upgrade full frame. With the release of the Nikon D500, Marketing has reversed course, because now they have something to sell. I'm sure Canon will follow suite with a D500 killer. Plus, especially on the Nikon side, DX (crop) lens updates really have taken a back seat, which leads people to believe that crop is a bad investment long-term.