Welcome to the forum!

As an adjunct to the Tangents blog, the intention with this forum is to answer any questions, and allow a diverse discussion of topics related photography. With that, see it as an open invitation to just climb in and start threads and to respond to any threads.

Canon 6D

Well, after a couple of months of watching and waiting, I finally took the plunge and purchased a Canon 6D. Very excited! I got it off EBay for a price I could handle (somewhat). When it arrived, most of the accessories wrapped in plastic had not been opened. The seller described the camera as mostly used for video, very lightly for photos. I downloaded a free program to get the shutter count, and the description was accurate - less than 2100 shutter clicks. I have only had a few moments to check out basic functions, but the camera appears to be in excellent shape. The proof will be when I save some shots are really look at them in LR

Funny, when I bought my Canon T3i/600D in February 2014, I thought to myself "this is all I'll need for a long while". Then, a vendor at a volunteer thing I did in April who saw some of my photos, wrote me an email and asked "How much do you charge?" Yikes, what?? So, I've been making a little bit of money for the past 6 months, the hobby is now a little bit more than that, and I started to notice some limitations in the T3i. Don't get me wrong, I love the camera. But in some event situations it needed to perform just a bit better.

Now, I wonder how long the new thought "this is all I'll ever need for a long while" will last? Thanks for listening to me ....



  • Neil vNNeil vN Administrator
    The Canon 6D has superb image quality - on par with the 5D mk3.  So you're set for now. How long *now* would be, I can't even guess. 

    But I do think we're at the point now where we are seeing sensor quality plateau a bit. 
  • Good to have your opinion, Neil. I probably would have been OK with the T3i for a bit longer, but as I tracked prices and condition of the used cameras over the past month-or-so, I jumped on this one. Now I have to get used to it. I have a volunteer thing next Monday, and a paying gig the following Sunday. Not that I take the Monday job any less seriously just because it's volunteer, but I'm hoping to really get used to the camera during that one.

  • Dave, you'll love the improved image quality of the 6D and most of all the great iso capability compared to a crop sensor.

    You'll need to get some decent glass on it to do it justice, its a great camera for the bucks, whilst it might be entry level FF its image quality like Neil says is on par with the 5D Mk3.
  • Thanks, Tony. What I have for lenses that I use for jobs are the Sigma 17-50 mm f2.8, Canon 24-105 mm f4.0L. The Sigma lives on my camera, and I love it for indoor events. The Canon I picked up at the end of August, and have used it for an outdoor event and a recent indoor event where I needed some reach. I also have the Canon 40 mm f2.8, and the Canon 28-105 mm f3.5-4.5 "Macro". These I will keep with my T3i, as it will most likely become my "vacation camera".

    The one advantage I can see with a crop-sensor camera is that a lens with some falloff in performance at the edges is not so worrisome. I feel as though the Sigma and the Canon L-series are going to perform pretty well, but I will look at the MTF charts (I like charts).

  • Houston, we have a problem. I think my Sigma lens is not compatible with the 6D. Oh, boy .....
  • So, here's a question - I have seen snippets about putting a crop-sensor lens on a full-frame camera using a converter/extension tube, with mixed results. Is this a possibility for my trusty Sigma? I should probably call a local camera store, but figured I'd ask here.
  • Dave
    I don't know anything  about the sigma lens, in fact didn't realise they made crop only (EF-S) lenses which  won't work on full frame cameras something to do with distance to the sensor being different if I remember correctly.

    You're right about the lens fall off  being less noticeable on crop sensors but the gains you get in FF iso performance outweigh this overwhelmingly imo.
  • Just realized it myself, unfortunately, that I was a bit short-sighted when I bought the Sigma, but the price and lens condition was fantastic. I'm hoping my F4.0 lens will be sufficient to photograph the couple of events I have coming up. I have to figure something out after that. The penny jar is empty after the 6D purchase, and there's no way I can buy another lens.

    The only thing I can think of doing in the short term is use my 40 mm F2.8 for some of the shots. In the long term, selling a couple of the lenses and going after a Canon 24-70 mm F2.8L. *Maybe* all I would need for the types of events I do. It's really the aperture I'm going after because of the low-light settings. I have zero experience with full-frame, but maybe I'm worrying a little too much about F4 vs. F2.8?
  • At least you can use the sigma with the 600D
    The 24-105 will serve you well, f/4 vs f/2.8 yes I think you are over worrying it a bit. Whilst its nice to have f/2.8 available, decent fast glass comes with a hefty price tag. I did wrangle with splashing out on the 70-200 f/2.8 IS which at the time was  around £1600 but in the end opted for the f/4 IS version which was a little over half the price of the f/2.8 version that's lot of money to splash out on a stop extra light. If I was making money from my photography then would have gone for the f/2.8 version.

    Your 6D will give you the opportunity for better pictures in low light conditions compared to the rebel.
  • Thanks Tony, for the fair amount of reassurance. It's not only the low-light performance at 2.8, but also the backgrounds, you know?
  • TonyTTonyT Member
    edited October 2015

    No worries Dave, happy clicking.

    Also the canon 85mm f/1.8 is a superb lens for the money, it might not be L glass but you'd think it was by the images it gives.

  • Hey Bruno, I'm about to respond to our other post. But it looks like we are in similar boats. I use the 6D and love it. It will last you a long while. The only reason I want to upgrade in the next 2 years is because I am a 2 person photography team and I want both of us on full frame. Also, I want to get audio monitoring out of camera when I expand to video. I will keep the 6D for second shooting though. The ISO handling is insane compared to crop sensors and it really is sufficient for capturing weddings and events.

    On your second concern, I know why your concerned about the fast lens difference. I personally find that F4 vs F2.8 is a big difference for me in receptions. I'm tired of using my 50 1.4 so much during the reception and shooting at 2.8 to get the look and quality I want. I am about to take the scary dive to the canon 24-70 F2.8. Don't get me wrong, the 24-105 is great. Very accurate and very sharp. And the bokeh is great if your at the telephoto end (Background Blur). But it has some really harsh and hard to fix barrel distortion at the wide end. And F4 just doesn't have the same "wow" effect on images during a reception. While I use flash in receptions, I also try my best to make sure the background looks decently exposed because I don't like seeing it really dark if you know what I mean.

    Your sigma must have an EF-S mount and the 6D only uses an EF mount. I personally wouldn't try to rig it together but I have no experience in trying to do so.
  • Jozuna - I have looked briefly at the Tamron 24-70 mm F2,8. It is the only one out there with image stabilization. I saw a new one on EBay for $708.

    I'm not buying any more lenses right now until business hopefully picks up.

    I wish Sigma would make an exact copy of the 17-50 lens I have but in a full-frame. I would buy it in a second. I'm not sure why they don't have one, but I'm not a lens designer.

  • Yes, I have been fighting between canon and tamrons version for a long time. I love the idea of stabilization for video but don't care for it in photography. And if I need the stabilization, j can always pull out my 24-105. The only reason I am strongly considering the canon version is simply because it's the industry standard and I really do want to move towards "being professional". I know that sounds vain but if it is going to be my main go to lens for what I do, I would rather have it be the best glass out. And that red ring is too sexy to resist. :p

    That's a great price for the tamron. It has good testing and reviews but I personally am nervous about buying off of eBay for a discount that big. Just paranoia on my part I guess. It really is a great lens for the price though, if you don't really care about the red ring, I would go for it.
  • The 24-105L will do a perfectly acceptable job in the short term. The 24-70 2.8L II is a very, very good lens. I bought mine at a mental price (I bought ex-demo, and can part ex and make a profit should I so choose). Figured I'd take it while it was there and see if the image quality was worth the outlay.

    Categorically, yes. It was. 100%. But... It makes me want to work with the primes more, because the depth of field is shallow, and bokeh is very good also, but it shows me what I can do with faster apertures, and I like that. I look at the focal lengths I use, and 35 / 50 /70 are the ones I mostly use.

    So I will rent some prime lenses and see whether I prefer it, which might make me sell the 24-70. Tbh I might end up selling my Canon gear for Nikon or Sony, because Nikon's range of low-cost primes has such good reviews and is sufficiently inexpensive that it would allow me to switch to primes for essentially zero cost.

    Therefore, my advice is that you are fine with the 24-105 for now, but when the piggy bank has had a refill, primes might be worth a look over the 24-70.
  • Thanks, Mr. Logic. I will have to get used to adjusting things to get the same sort of out-of-focus background with an F4. I like having to understand all the stuff that goes into it, and have found a couple of good on-line tools.

    And, you are right about checking the different focal lengths used. When I look back at "typical" shots at "typical" events I've worked, I'm in the 40-60 mm range. That's why I will keep my 40 mm F2.8 with this camera. But it also has me thinking about getting the "nifty 50" because of the price, and it's F1.8 I believe.

    But having said that, I will repeat how I feel about that Sigma lens I can't use: please, Sigma, make one of these for full frame!

  • Oh, and this: I cannot wait to put my new camera through it's paces Monday night!
  • I have the 50mm 1.8 II. It's a fast 50, and that's about all it has going for it. The AF motor is noisy and the bokeh harsh. I'm not sure about the 50mm 1.8 STM though, which is similarly priced and will at least be quiet.

    The 50mm 1.4 is meant to be OK but I've not shot it. Friend of mine is a full time studio and wedding photographer and she shoots it extensively though.
  • Dave, the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 does look appealing especially considering it's a lot less than (almost half price) than the cannon, as Jozuna says if you can live without the red ring then it would be a good buy.

    The nifty fifty will give good results , personally I wouldn't use it for a gig  as it does struggle with focus in low light because it doesn't have a US motor to drive it.
  • Thanks, Tony and Mr. L for the tips. The one thing I wonder about is: why is there only one 24-70 mm lens that is stabilized? What is it about that focal length? Do lens companies feel it is not necessary? The Sigma 17-50 mm (for the cropped sensor) has it, but their full-frame 24-70 mm doesn't. I guess I need a gear-head type to maybe explain this stuff to me.

    The 50 mm 1.4 I think is on the pricey side, much more than the "nifty fifty".

  • in that case, I'd say give the STM a go rather than the older model 1.8.
Sign In or Register to comment.