# 6d or 70d



## Luke345678 (Dec 5, 2013)

Hello,

     For a while I had my eyes set on the Canon 70d and I knew that's what I wanted but recently I've decided to look at the 6d as well. I've never used a full frame before so I've never really looked into them until now but I'm still not completely sure if I should upgrade to a 6d instead of a 70d. I know both cameras are great but my question is what are the disadvantages and advantages of going full frame for the kinds of shooting that I personally do? 

     I shoot a lot of sports in High School gyms and outside during the night on some sort of field, I also shoot a lot of portraits and some wildlife/landscape here and there. I know there is a several hundred price difference between the 70d and the 6d but that doesn't really matter for me. I have enough money for either one so that doesn't need to be taken into consideration. If you tell me to go one way or the other, please put why. 

Thanks,

-Luke


----------



## Lumens (Dec 5, 2013)

Unless you have already invested in several EF-S lenses go with the Full Frame (EF-S lenses will not work on a Full Frame).  Bottom line it has a better sensor and will produce better images.  "Outside during the night" I have no doubt you are at a pretty high ISO causing noise.  Full Frame is the best answer for that.  

The 6D does not have the highest fps out there, but is good enough for your needs and about the same as the 70D.  This is important to capture the quick action of sports and wildlife.  I own a 7D and love it for sports and wildlife but get a lot of noise in my images due to the crop frame sensor and low ISO performance, especially early morning and late evening.  That problem goes away with the 6D, but would be the same with the 70D.  The 6D is your best bet for high Image Quality.

The 70D is better designed for video, so if video is a concern then the 70D may be a better choice over the 6D, but for stills and High Image quality there is no competition the 6D reigns over the 70D.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 5, 2013)

Well really I think probably the biggest, most noticeable difference in full frame is going to be the low light performance, with the full frame sensors much larger size they really do make a huge difference in low light conditions, such as shooting in a high school gym.  You will lose the crop factor of course, so something to consider.  The 6d will give you better dynamic range so higher image quality - However the 70d has a better autofocus system and shoots a lot faster - 7 FPS as opposed to the 4.5 of the 6d.

So I guess for me really the question would come down to lowlight shooting - if you shoot enough lowlight and you've found your current images produced in low light inadequate I'd give the 6d a serious look.  If however you are happy with your current IQ even in lowlight then I'd most likely go for the 70d.


----------



## Juga (Dec 5, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Well really I think probably the biggest, most noticeable difference in full frame is going to be the low light performance, with the full frame sensors much larger size they really do make a huge difference in low light conditions, such as shooting in a high school gym.  You will lose the crop factor of course, so something to consider.  The 6d will give you better dynamic range so higher image quality - However the 70d has a better autofocus system and shoots a lot faster - 7 FPS as opposed to the 4.5 of the 6d.
> 
> So I guess for me really the question would come down to lowlight shooting - if you shoot enough lowlight and you've found your current images produced in low light inadequate I'd give the 6d a serious look.  If however you are happy with your current IQ even in lowlight then I'd most likely go for the 70d.



Yeah the FPS maybe faster but the buffer on the 6D is much better. The 4.5 frames can go for about 20 full RAW files where the 70D about 10ish. The AF system is much better.


----------



## KaPOWitsCHRIS (Dec 5, 2013)

I recently bought the 6D and while I haven't had much chance to properly test it out, I am loving it so far!


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 5, 2013)

Juga said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Well really I think probably the biggest, most noticeable difference in full frame is going to be the low light performance, with the full frame sensors much larger size they really do make a huge difference in low light conditions, such as shooting in a high school gym. You will lose the crop factor of course, so something to consider. The 6d will give you better dynamic range so higher image quality - However the 70d has a better autofocus system and shoots a lot faster - 7 FPS as opposed to the 4.5 of the 6d.
> ...



Well in the interest of full disclosure I don't shoot either so I can only go by what I read/research - but I have noticed that buffer overrun is not nearly as bad if you use fast SD cards.  I use Sandisk Pro Extremes that are rated for 95 mps read/write in my trusty Nikon D5100 - and it makes a huge difference in the time it takes for the buffer to overrun and the time it takes to clear the buffer once it is overrun.  

But even so it's good information to have on the buffer sizes.. wtg Juga


----------



## toughsamurai (Dec 5, 2013)

If you shoot sports and wildlife more often then go with 70D.
6D is great on high ISO but it lacks on continues shots with help more on sports and wildlife.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 5, 2013)

For god sake man if you have the money to buy the 6D then get on with it and get it, its a full frame, the real deal.
Nothing can touch this camera in low light and while its not a sport beast it is simply a fantastic camera.
Its like asking do I want a Toyota Corolla or a Mercedes S class.


----------



## Juga (Dec 5, 2013)

Robbins is right though. 70D would be your best bet. Speaking of bets who wants to bet on the number of these '70D vs 6D' threads before New Years?


----------



## Luke345678 (Dec 5, 2013)

I shoot a lot of low light stuff so what I've been grasped from some of the suggestions is that the 6d would be the way to go? I have had lots of noise issues with my Canon T3i and I really want to get rid of that issue. Most games I shoot are at night. I understand the 70d has a better AF system and it has a faster fps but it seems like the 6d would be the way to go. I've got several EFS lenses so that will suck but it seems like it might be the best idea to finally switch to a full frame. If I don't now I'll have to wait like another year or two.


----------



## Juga (Dec 5, 2013)

Well the 6D eats light so low light won't be an issue but you might get frustrated with the number of missed shots due to the AF. Have you looked at a refurbished D600? Cheaper than the 6D, better AF, and low light will be close to the 6D. Since you would be selling all you Canon stuff a full switch might not be bad.


----------



## JacaRanda (Dec 5, 2013)

Juga said:


> Robbins is right though. 70D would be your best bet. Speaking of bets who wants to bet on the number of these '70D vs 6D' threads before New Years?



LOL.  No doubt.  

A little interested in what lenses the OP has.  Hopefully if money is not an issue with the camera choice, that is or will be the same for lenses.

A lot of sports at night and in gyms.  A lot of portraits.  Hmmm,  I would lean towards??????  What lenses? 5D mkIII.


----------



## Juga (Dec 5, 2013)

JacaRanda said:


> Juga said:
> 
> 
> > Robbins is right though. 70D would be your best bet. Speaking of bets who wants to bet on the number of these '70D vs 6D' threads before New Years?
> ...



Me too...only if money grew on trees...:sigh:


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 5, 2013)

Luke345678 said:


> I shoot a lot of low light stuff so what I've been grasped from some of the suggestions is that the 6d would be the way to go? I have had lots of noise issues with my Canon T3i and I really want to get rid of that issue. Most games I shoot are at night. I understand the 70d has a better AF system and it has a faster fps but it seems like the 6d would be the way to go. I've got several EFS lenses so that will suck but it seems like it might be the best idea to finally switch to a full frame. If I don't now I'll have to wait like another year or two.



Well I guess it sort of depends on how many EF-s lenses you have and how much you use them.  If your fast glass that your using for sports shooting now is EF-S that might be a pain - but if not you can certianly hold onto the T3i for a while and use it in conjuction with the 6D for when you use your EF-S lenses, and use the 6D for lowlight.  Then slowly upgrade your glass and then sell the T3I off once you get enough of them replaced.

As Juga mentioned you if you have a ton of EF-S glass and not much else then maybe it wouldn't be a bad time to evaluate the possiblity of switching systems and see if the benefits of doing so would be worth it for you personally.


----------



## Luke345678 (Dec 5, 2013)

Personally, I'd like to stick with canon. To be honest, I don't have that much glass. Currently, this is what I have...
Canon 18-135mm
Canon 18-55mm
Sigma 70-300mm
Sigma 50-500mm

Recently sold some glass off. When you say I'll be missing a few shots because of the AF system do you mean a lot of shots? How much will that effect me? I already am not a fan of the 4.5 fps of the 6d. I know it won't be as good as the 6d in low light but how does the 70d perform in low light situations?

I just feel like at some point I will need to switch over too full frame so I feel like I should do it out now rather than later. What do you think?


----------



## Derrel (Dec 5, 2013)

I was watching this video a few days ago, and what stuck in my mind was how poor the 6D did in his three-part autofocusing test, on a single moving jogger, in bright, clear, Hawaii sunlighted conditions. I was not that impressed with the roughly 30 to 40 percent AF failure rate, especially on stuff as dead-simple as a single jogger moving at a steady pace, in a straight-line direction...I mean...I dunno...just not confidence-inspiring to me.






The 6D has only ONE, single cross-type AF bracket, smack-dead in the center of the frame, and ALL FF d-slr's have pretty much fairly centrally-weighted AF patterns, whereas APS-C cameras often have almost full viewfinder coverage, and many APS-C cameras have 9 to 15 cross-type AF brackets, which tends to make it easier for the AF system to get lock-on on smooth-detail stuff, and/or can be used to help aid the AF system in predictive focus, useful for moving subjects.

I'd start at 5:20 with the focusing system tests, and just watch what he has to say and show.


----------



## runnah (Dec 5, 2013)

EPIC!!!!


----------



## Derrel (Dec 5, 2013)

runnah said:


> EPIC!!!!



Yes...for YouTube, it is epic...34 amazing minutes long! And, it actually has repeated tests, in a familiar format, with actual numbers, and test protocols the user can see being done on-video, as well as evaluation and commentary that makes sense. My point was that in bright light, with a dead-simple target, the 6D's AF system was returning roughly 30 to almost 40 percent out of focus shots...I don't think that's a very good hit rate for a camera to be used as a sports camera. 

I think an APS-C camera body with a higher-level focus system as a design PRIORITY might be a better choice for a sports shooting camera. But then, that's based on my own personal experience of two years of newspaper sports assignments using professional Nikon bodies. I think the 6D's AF system is probably optimized for single-shot AF acquisition, much more so than servo AF. It's got its strengths, but it seems that its servo AF capabilities--in BRIGHT, Hawaii-level light, at what? EV 15,16? is not very good. IT IS However, pretty good at low-light, single-shot AF, which is more what a landscaper or a wedding shooter would demand.


----------



## runnah (Dec 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > EPIC!!!!
> ...



You and I have very different definitions of epic.


----------



## JacaRanda (Dec 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > EPIC!!!!
> ...



Convinced me.  6D and sports, even at night?  Nope.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 5, 2013)

Your video lasts nine seconds, and you call it "epic"? Hmmmmm....quick-draw Mcgraw much?


----------



## runnah (Dec 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Your video lasts nine seconds, and you call it "epic"? Hmmmmm....quick-draw Mcgraw much?



9 seconds in heaven is better than no seconds! amirite?!


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Your video lasts nine seconds, and you call it "epic"? Hmmmmm....quick-draw Mcgraw much?



Derrel, do you post stuff like this intentionally to get me trouble?  Lol - ok, no going down this road.  Yup.. just not going to do it.  Avoiding temptation.  Quick-Draw McGraw.. Lol

But that is great info on the 6d - looks like other than for portrait/landscapes it really isn't that good of a choice it would seem.


----------



## Luke345678 (Dec 5, 2013)

So I decided to go through spec by spec to see the difference between the two cameras. Honestly, the 70d is actually 10x better. The only thing the 6d has the advantage in is the ISO. 
Here is a little comparison of the two cameras that I put together...



                                               D70                            6d
Max ISO                               12,800                        25,600 (Winner)
Focal Points                        19 (Winner)              11
Focal Length Multiplier      1.6 (Winner)              1x  
Touch Screen                      Touch                        No - 
Max Shutter                          1/8000 (Winner)      1/4000
Built in Flash                        Yes (Winner)           No  - Here if you want to fire a flash remotely you need something to trigger it. Having a built in flash help with that vs having to buy a trigger for 6d
Video                                      Way better          OK

Af System                        Better            Not too great


----------



## lennon33x (Dec 6, 2013)

Canon 6D vs 70D - Our Analysis

Side by Side Comparison: Digital Photography Review

I just went from a T3 to a 5Dc. Granted, we're comparing apples to filet mignon at this point (moving from the T3 to the 5Dc), but I absolutely love the full frame low ISO performance. Noise is much more apparent when I get to about 1600+ on the 5D, but noise appeared much worse on the T3 at around 800. 

I'll never go back to crop-sensor. Ever


----------



## lennon33x (Dec 6, 2013)

Luke345678 said:


> So I decided to go through spec by spec to see the difference between the two cameras. Honestly, the 70d is actually 10x better. The only thing the 6d has the advantage in is the ISO. Here is a little comparison of the two cameras that I put together...                                                 D70                            6d Max ISO                               12,800                        25,600 (Winner) Focal Points                        19 (Winner)              11 Focal Length Multiplier      1.6 (Winner)              1x   Touch Screen                      Touch                        No -  Max Shutter                          1/8000 (Winner)      1/4000 Built in Flash                        Yes (Winner)           No  - Here if you want to fire a flash remotely you need something to trigger it. Having a built in flash help with that vs having to buy a trigger for 6d Video                                      Way better          OK  Af System                        Better            Not too great



A couple of things that I would like to touch on...

ISO...I'm not sure of any photographer that would really utilize 12k ISO (much less 25,800). Even for a Mark III, that's going to bring in a considerable amount of noise.   

I'm not sure I've ever needed above 1/4000 of a sec shutter speed either. 

And talking about on camera flash, I've never been impressed with _any_ on camera flash. I would rather put a 430 ex II on the hot shoe than to have pop-up flash. There's more control with it. 

Consider this...I ALMOST purchased a Canon 1D Mark I. It had x-sync of 1/500 and a 1/16,000 second shutter speed. But I realized I would probably never go over 1/4000 sec shutter and I use a trigger system for OFC. The full frame made more sense for me


----------



## jsecordphoto (Dec 6, 2013)

I'll use the higher iso's (6400+) for test shots in low light to check my composition sometimes, thats only when it's basically pitch black out though.


----------



## lennon33x (Dec 6, 2013)

jsecordphoto said:


> I'll use the higher iso's (6400+) for test shots in low light to check my composition sometimes, thats only when it's basically pitch black out though.



I don't disagree. But how many of those shots actually occur? Maybe 10-20 out of every 1,000 at best?  And is that enough to warrant deterring of a purchase of a full frame camera?

Also, how much noise reduction do you have to do in post? I'm asking a serious question here. Depending on my light, I try to stay away from ISO 3200 (the expansion in the 5Dc). It gives me too much noise and I can't get great sharpness (depending on my lens) because of AF discrepancies. I actually get sharper pictures with my Rokinon 85mm manual focus than my 50mm 1.8 II (yeah, yeah I know it's the cheaper one...I just splurged on the 5D instead of a 50mm 1.4).


----------



## jsecordphoto (Dec 6, 2013)

I always have to do some noise reduction in post when shooting at high iso's, but the only time I use 16-3200 iso is when doing astrophotography. I shoot primarily landscapes so the only time I really go above iso400 is when doing landscape astrophotography. I saw that they just dropped the price of the 6D down to around $1500 though

I personally do quite a few test shots at the expansion iso's but that's because I shoot at night pretty often lately. Not something I'd imagine most photographers would have to do


----------



## lennon33x (Dec 6, 2013)

jsecordphoto said:


> I always have to do some noise reduction in post when shooting at high iso's, but the only time I use 16-3200 iso is when doing astrophotography. I shoot primarily landscapes so the only time I really go above iso400 is when doing landscape astrophotography. I saw that they just dropped the price of the 6D down to around $1500 though
> 
> I personally do quite a few test shots at the expansion iso's but that's because I shoot at night pretty often lately. Not something I'd imagine most photographers would have to do



Yeah I agree. For the OP, unless he's doing astrophotography, utilizing a FF camera might be the better option. Or the 7D if he's doing sports/action.


----------



## scorpion_tyr (Dec 11, 2013)

The one word that decides the best camera (out of the two you listed) is "sports". You'll want the 70D. Faster FPS, faster max shutter speed, and it's cropped sensor. In my opinion the 6D is nothing more than a "let's see if noobs with too much money will actually buy this camera". The only real benefit the 6D has over the 70D is the GPS, and that's something only a few photographers would actually need. Get the 70D and put the rest of your money into fast lenses. That'll solve that low light problem.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Dec 11, 2013)

The 6D is one of the best cameras for landscape astrophotography and many photographers who specialize in that swear by it. I realize that is a very specific area of photography but to say it's only a camera foolish and naive people buy is, well, wrong. If you are shooting sports you probably wouldn't be happy with the 6d but for landscapes in general it is a great camera


----------



## ozbot87 (Dec 23, 2013)

The overall conclusion is that even the 6D's full-frame sensor optimal for landscapes and portraits, the 70D is still the better all-around camera? What would I lose by going to the 70D's crop sensor vs. the 6D's full-frame?

Curious because I started photography to capture landscapes, now I'm branching out into other categories and would like to develop a "camera profile" for me (what type of camera would suit me?)


----------



## TCampbell (Dec 23, 2013)

ozbot87 said:


> The overall conclusion is that even the 6D's full-frame sensor optimal for landscapes and portraits, the 70D is still the better all-around camera? What would I lose by going to the 70D's crop sensor vs. the 6D's full-frame?
> 
> Curious because I started photography to capture landscapes, now I'm branching out into other categories and would like to develop a "camera profile" for me (what type of camera would suit me?)



The 6D has noticeably better ISO performance with low noise -- by my estimate about 2 full stops better (and possibly a little tiny bit more.) E.g. the level of noise you'd see in an image taken with the 6D at ISO 12,800 is comparable to the amount of noise you'd see with a 70D taken at ISO 3200.

The 70D has a better focusing system (the 6D has an 11 point system with a center "cross type" point. the 70D has a 19 point system with all 19 cross-type points.) The 70D will be MUCH better at continuous focus during video (it pretty much beats everything on the market.)  The 70D has a faster shooting speed as well.  If you were doing action photography the 70D would win.  But if doing low-light photography the 6D will win.


----------



## ozbot87 (Dec 23, 2013)

TCampbell said:


> ozbot87 said:
> 
> 
> > The overall conclusion is that even the 6D's full-frame sensor optimal for landscapes and portraits, the 70D is still the better all-around camera? What would I lose by going to the 70D's crop sensor vs. the 6D's full-frame?
> ...



Sounds like a good time to wait for the 6D Mark II to be more in-line with the 70D .


----------

