rebel or 6d? for all round photography

Started May 15, 2013 | Discussions
soapstar Regular Member • Posts: 267
rebel or 6d? for all round photography

would you recommend a rebel or 6d? they both have advantages and disadvantages not least the price and size difference. However i still ponder about stepping up to the 6d. The low light low noise benefit over the rebel when it comes to indoor concerts/shows is tempting. If i crank the rebel 650d up to 1600 to get the shutter speed up the noise is on the high side as is the loss of detail. 3200 is a no-no to me. The 6d looks like it has the rebels 1600 noise at iso 6400. That would be really handy. But then again i find the rebel quite big enough for me. I also shoot a lot of 100-400mm l lens long zoom bird shots. The 6d having just one central cross hair  seems to lose out here as well as offering less pixels on the subject giving the rebel a zoom advantage if i crop in on the subject.
Would you choose a 6d over a rebel? if so why.

ta.

Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS Rebel T4i (EOS 650D / EOS Kiss X6i)
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
Darren N Regular Member • Posts: 345
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

if you are getting high noise levels at 1600 iso on a 650d then something is wrong, 1600 iso on my 600d is very low.

OP soapstar Regular Member • Posts: 267
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

Darren N wrote:

if you are getting high noise levels at 1600 iso on a 650d then something is wrong, 1600 iso on my 600d is very low.

well have you turned off noise reduction? high for me may not be high for you. So perhaps i should say unacceptable to me. Either way the 6d has a big advantage in this key area for indoor no flash environments.

Pacific462
Pacific462 Regular Member • Posts: 122
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

If I took a lot of landscapes and low light photo's, and had funds for some good glass, then I'd go with the 6D.

if I needed to carry my camera around all day without specialising in oaky particular field, and funds were. More limited, then I'd stick with the 650D.

it also depends on how large you generally print, or view, your pictures. After it's, it's what you actually need that counts.

 Pacific462's gear list:Pacific462's gear list
Canon EOS 30D Canon EOS 70D Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM +3 more
Darren N Regular Member • Posts: 345
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography
2

soapstar wrote:

Darren N wrote:

if you are getting high noise levels at 1600 iso on a 650d then something is wrong, 1600 iso on my 600d is very low.

well have you turned off noise reduction? high for me may not be high for you. So perhaps i should say unacceptable to me. Either way the 6d has a big advantage in this key area for indoor no flash environments.

Then you have answered your own question, go for the 6D.

Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 17,995
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography
1

Darren N wrote:

if you are getting high noise levels at 1600 iso on a 650d then something is wrong, 1600 iso on my 600d is very low.

The OP is able to ascertain a difference in noise and loss of image quality even between ISO320 and ISO400. I would suggest no less than the 6D for his use.

-- hide signature --

It's nice to say that nice pictures are nice.

rwl408 Senior Member • Posts: 1,829
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography
1

You need both.

OP soapstar Regular Member • Posts: 267
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

rwl408 wrote:

You need both.

i fear you are correct!

Timbukto Veteran Member • Posts: 4,988
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

soapstar wrote:

would you recommend a rebel or 6d? they both have advantages and disadvantages not least the price and size difference. However i still ponder about stepping up to the 6d. The low light low noise benefit over the rebel when it comes to indoor concerts/shows is tempting. If i crank the rebel 650d up to 1600 to get the shutter speed up the noise is on the high side as is the loss of detail. 3200 is a no-no to me. The 6d looks like it has the rebels 1600 noise at iso 6400. That would be really handy. But then again i find the rebel quite big enough for me. I also shoot a lot of 100-400mm l lens long zoom bird shots. The 6d having just one central cross hair  seems to lose out here as well as offering less pixels on the subject giving the rebel a zoom advantage if i crop in on the subject.
Would you choose a 6d over a rebel? if so why.

ta.

Already have.  Yes there is a high ISO advantage.  There is also a lens/focal length advantage in normal focal lengths.  There is a *huge* weight/expense penalty past 300mm, but up to 300mm you do have at least 2 affordable options (canon 70-300 non-L or Tamron 70-300).  Crop however gets you those options to 480 equivalent! (taking the 300 and multiplying by 1.6).  Consider that the new 200-400 is so expensive and heavy!  If you want range and quality that is good enough for cheap, you can save a lot of money/size/back with APS-C.

40mm f2.8 pancake is wonderful as is 85mm 1.8 on FF.  Don't believe the hype about requiring L lenses, it takes the cheap EF lenses and shoots them with more resolution and less CA.

If you do not feel your shooting is reach limited in any regard and you can afford the up-front cost of the 6D, it should be a viable option.

 Timbukto's gear list:Timbukto's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
jrkliny
jrkliny Veteran Member • Posts: 3,701
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

I would really like the improved resolution and lower noise at high ISO which can best be provided by a full frame sensor.  Regardless I have chosen to compromise and stick with APS-C cropped sensor cameras.

There is a huge reduction in costs.  The costs are not just the camera bodies.  Lenses are even more important.  FF lenses often cost at least double the cost of the equivalent cropped sensor lens; e.g., compare the costs of a 10-22 and 16-35.  Weight is an even bigger factor.  I hike a lot and it is already difficult to carry a Rebel with two or three lenses.  I really cannot carry the FF equivalents when I hike all day.

Cropped sensor cameras are better for telephoto use.  I can afford the 100-400 but beyond that the costs go way beyond my budget.

Cropped sensor cameras provide better DOF.  This helps a lot for landscape photography and even more for macro photography.

-- hide signature --

Jim, aka camperjim. www.specialplacesphoto.com

 jrkliny's gear list:jrkliny's gear list
Canon EOS 600D Canon EOS Rebel T6s Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +6 more
biza43 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,327
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

jrkliny wrote:

Cropped sensor cameras provide better DOF.  This helps a lot for landscape photography and even more for macro photography.

This is just wrong. there is no "better" or "worse" depth-of-field. Plus, on a crop-sensor camera, the aperture at which the effects of diffraction start to be noticeable and to impart softness to the image is reached earlier than for full frame cameras.

To the OP: for your intended uses, a crop sensor camera is more than enough. If you want to have a bit better improvement on things like ergonomics and robustness, you can always go for a 60D or 7D, these are excellent cameras.

The advantage of full frame is clear, but for lots of people, they will not see a difference.

-- hide signature --

www.paulobizarro.com

 biza43's gear list:biza43's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-H1 Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR +1 more
OP soapstar Regular Member • Posts: 267
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

biza43 wrote:

jrkliny wrote:

Cropped sensor cameras provide better DOF.  This helps a lot for landscape photography and even more for macro photography.

This is just wrong. there is no "better" or "worse" depth-of-field. Plus, on a crop-sensor camera, the aperture at which the effects of diffraction start to be noticeable and to impart softness to the image is reached earlier than for full frame cameras.

To the OP: for your intended uses, a crop sensor camera is more than enough. If you want to have a bit better improvement on things like ergonomics and robustness, you can always go for a 60D or 7D, these are excellent cameras.

The advantage of full frame is clear, but for lots of people, they will not see a difference.

then theres the micro focus adjustment Personally im fed up of having to send cameras and lenses for calibration because canons tolerances for the rebel are imho too liberal.

SystemAgnostic Contributing Member • Posts: 745
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

jrkliny wrote:

There is a huge reduction in costs.  The costs are not just the camera bodies.  Lenses are even more important.  FF lenses often cost at least double the cost of the equivalent cropped sensor lens; e.g., compare the costs of a 10-22 and 16-35.  Weight is an even bigger factor.  I hike a lot and it is already difficult to carry a Rebel with two or three lenses.  I really cannot carry the FF equivalents when I hike all day.

Cropped sensor cameras are better for telephoto use.  I can afford the 100-400 but beyond that the costs go way beyond my budget.

FF has a higher cost for telephoto above 300mm, or for primes above 100mm.  For wide primes, there are a lot of options for FF which are not available or more expensive for crop sensors.

It seems to me that for all other lenses, prices are virtually equal for similar lenses.  Your example is unfair – you pick a 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and compare to a 16-35 f/2.8.  A much better comparison is the 17-40 f/4 – which is very similar in price to the 10-22.

So as others have written – if you are focal length limited, and need above 300mm, then a crop sensor might be the best way to go.  But for under 300mm, it seems to me that the main difference in price is the camera cost itself, and not lenses.

 SystemAgnostic's gear list:SystemAgnostic's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Panasonic GH5 Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC APO OS HSM Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS +5 more
Dave Throgmartin
Dave Throgmartin Contributing Member • Posts: 877
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

The 6D is a wonderful camera, but is also expensive.  You have the 100-400 so you are already quite invested in your camera system. If you are willing to put good lenses in front of the 6D I think you'll be happy with what you get for the money.

The Rebel is much smaller, lighter, and less expensive.  EF-S lenses are also generally speaking smaller and less expensive.

I'm a recent buyer of the 6D and greatly appreciate full frame so far, but your mileage may vary as the saying goes.  APS-C cameras have good image quality too.  Will you appreciate full frame enough to support the cost difference?  I think only you can answer that.

Dave

OP soapstar Regular Member • Posts: 267
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

so im wondering. The 6d as a crop would be around 14mp. So if i take a long shot with the 100-400 which even on the rebel i make a big crop of, would the extra mp's of the rebel equate to more detail in a big crop. Im talking detail on the subject,

i know the 6d has more mp, but it has a wider view meaning less pixels actually on the subject when its a long shot and the subject may only be a small part of the overall image.

Dave Throgmartin
Dave Throgmartin Contributing Member • Posts: 877
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

soapstar wrote:

so im wondering. The 6d as a crop would be around 14mp. So if i take a long shot with the 100-400 which even on the rebel i make a big crop of, would the extra mp's of the rebel equate to more detail in a big crop. Im talking detail on the subject,

i know the 6d has more mp, but it has a wider view meaning less pixels actually on the subject when its a long shot and the subject may only be a small part of the overall image.

If you cropped the 6D image to the same size as the Rebel image you'd have 9 MP. Based off my experience and what I've seen posted elsewhere, the image at low ISO will be roughly equivalent. Some will argue because you have 18 MP vs 9 MP you should see more detail.  As the ISO goes up the 6D image will have less noise.

This may change with a truly superior lens such as the 500mm or 600mm primes.  I'd expect in that case the Rebel image would be be significantly better.

You may find lots of samples back to back by googling,etc..

Dave

OP soapstar Regular Member • Posts: 267
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

Dave Throgmartin wrote:

soapstar wrote:

so im wondering. The 6d as a crop would be around 14mp. So if i take a long shot with the 100-400 which even on the rebel i make a big crop of, would the extra mp's of the rebel equate to more detail in a big crop. Im talking detail on the subject,

i know the 6d has more mp, but it has a wider view meaning less pixels actually on the subject when its a long shot and the subject may only be a small part of the overall image.

If you cropped the 6D image to the same size as the Rebel image you'd have 9 MP. Based off my experience and what I've seen posted elsewhere, the image at low ISO will be roughly equivalent. Some will argue because you have 18 MP vs 9 MP you should see more detail.  As the ISO goes up the 6D image will have less noise.

This may change with a truly superior lens such as the 500mm or 600mm primes.  I'd expect in that case the Rebel image would be be significantly better.

You may find lots of samples back to back by googling,etc..

Dave

no im struggling to find examples. Most comparisons are wit the 5d m111. tx for the input anyways.

Out of interest, does the 6d apply noise reduction even from iso 100? I see the rebel 650d i have been using sets nr even at iso100. Turning it off does give more details but i dont like the grain it leaves. Does the 6d show nr set in dpp even at low iso? If it doesnt need nr at low iso that would result in more detail compared to leaving in applied for the rebel.

Dave Throgmartin
Dave Throgmartin Contributing Member • Posts: 877
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

soapstar wrote:

Dave Throgmartin wrote:

soapstar wrote:

so im wondering. The 6d as a crop would be around 14mp. So if i take a long shot with the 100-400 which even on the rebel i make a big crop of, would the extra mp's of the rebel equate to more detail in a big crop. Im talking detail on the subject,

i know the 6d has more mp, but it has a wider view meaning less pixels actually on the subject when its a long shot and the subject may only be a small part of the overall image.

If you cropped the 6D image to the same size as the Rebel image you'd have 9 MP. Based off my experience and what I've seen posted elsewhere, the image at low ISO will be roughly equivalent. Some will argue because you have 18 MP vs 9 MP you should see more detail.  As the ISO goes up the 6D image will have less noise.

This may change with a truly superior lens such as the 500mm or 600mm primes.  I'd expect in that case the Rebel image would be be significantly better.

You may find lots of samples back to back by googling,etc..

Dave

no im struggling to find examples. Most comparisons are wit the 5d m111. tx for the input anyways.

Out of interest, does the 6d apply noise reduction even from iso 100? I see the rebel 650d i have been using sets nr even at iso100. Turning it off does give more details but i dont like the grain it leaves. Does the 6d show nr set in dpp even at low iso? If it doesnt need nr at low iso that would result in more detail compared to leaving in applied for the rebel.

I found a couple from this past winter where there were similar images taken from 6D and 70-300 IS and 60D and 70-200 f/4 L USM with 1.4X extender.

First, 6D:

Second 60D:

Neither is a perfect world wild life rig, but both worked pretty well that day.  The shots were from a similar distance and within similar time frame of each other.

Both are good, but full frame can give outstanding image quality when you aren't limited by focal length.  My wife took this one and was able to get explorer on Flickr.

Bottom line is both cameras are really nice and I don't think you could go wrong either way.  You can get thinner DOF on full frame and it'll handle high ISOs better.  Here's one from 6D at ISO 3200 with SOOC noise reduction.

I have bunches more on Flickr.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/68255851@N05/tags/6d/

Dave

mariadc Regular Member • Posts: 136
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

You have read my mind.  Ever since deciding to upgrade from my 30D, I've had quite a journey.  I purchased a 6D, then decided to try out a 7D, and as of tonight - an SL1.  Here are my impressions so far:

6D:  lovely.  Just lovely.  I've done many BIF shots with my 100-400, and even with cropping, I'm getting great detail.  I love this camera.  Wish it were cheaper - and I miss the reach of a cropped sensor.

7D:  not as impressed as I wanted to be.  I was hoping for less noise.  And honestly, after a month of well over a thousand BIF shots with the 6D (I practiced on swallows - good training - haha), I prefer that center point of the 6D than the so-called sophisticated AF of the 7D.

SL1:  love the size of this thing!  From what I tested earlier this evening, I think it's every bit as good IQ wise as the 7D.  It would make a great travel camera.  Case in point:  we took Amtrak across the country last summer, explored the Grand Canyon and SoCal, before heading back home.  We packed light and limited ourselves to one backpack each (even the kids had to carry their own stuff).  As a result, I regrettably left my 30D at home and took a point-and-shoot.  If I had had something like the SL1, I wouldn't have hesitated to take it along.  It would fit in my purse even.  I will never take a trip again without a DSLR - it's just that the SL1 would be so much lighter than any other Canon DSLR.

So here I sit as well, like you, trying to decide.  I don't like the Rebel line - because I'm so used to the control buttons vs menu items (my main reason for the 30D instead of a Rebel years ago).

(We have a busy weekend but if I have time, I may do some comparison shots with the SL1).

 mariadc's gear list:mariadc's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Canon EOS 30D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
OP soapstar Regular Member • Posts: 267
Re: rebel or 6d? for all round photography

mariadc wrote:

You have read my mind.  Ever since deciding to upgrade from my 30D, I've had quite a journey.  I purchased a 6D, then decided to try out a 7D, and as of tonight - an SL1.  Here are my impressions so far:

6D:  lovely.  Just lovely.  I've done many BIF shots with my 100-400, and even with cropping, I'm getting great detail.  I love this camera.  Wish it were cheaper - and I miss the reach of a cropped sensor.

7D:  not as impressed as I wanted to be.  I was hoping for less noise.  And honestly, after a month of well over a thousand BIF shots with the 6D (I practiced on swallows - good training - haha), I prefer that center point of the 6D than the so-called sophisticated AF of the 7D.

SL1:  love the size of this thing!  From what I tested earlier this evening, I think it's every bit as good IQ wise as the 7D.  It would make a great travel camera.  Case in point:  we took Amtrak across the country last summer, explored the Grand Canyon and SoCal, before heading back home.  We packed light and limited ourselves to one backpack each (even the kids had to carry their own stuff).  As a result, I regrettably left my 30D at home and took a point-and-shoot.  If I had had something like the SL1, I wouldn't have hesitated to take it along.  It would fit in my purse even.  I will never take a trip again without a DSLR - it's just that the SL1 would be so much lighter than any other Canon DSLR.

So here I sit as well, like you, trying to decide.  I don't like the Rebel line - because I'm so used to the control buttons vs menu items (my main reason for the 30D instead of a Rebel years ago).

(We have a busy weekend but if I have time, I may do some comparison shots with the SL1).

will be very interested to here how the sl1 stacks up against the 6d. I have a 70-300 is, that thing is so light and easy to handle its almost toy like. I can see that lens on the sl1 making an awesome travelzoom.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads