6D or 70D?

[superliu]

I am surprise to see this post here (MacRumors). I am a regular at this forum, but for Mac related stuff and not Camera. I am going through the same dilemma - 70D or 6D, and was quite shocked to find the best discussion online is here on MacRumors.

I want to add in my 2 cents having done a week of so research on this very question.

As a few people already mentioned, the 6D is a full frame sensor and the 70D is crop sensor. That's the biggest different between the 2 cameras. So the question now becomes do you want a full frame or a crop sensor.

This question was really easy for me, I have 2 segma DC lenses. I got the 10-20mm f/4 and 18-70mm f/2.8-4. Although they are considered cheap lenses, they are bloody expensive already. I guess I consider kit lens cheap, but anything above that is expensive.

Both of them will not work on the full frame camera at all (correct me if I am wrong). Getting the 6D is therefore simply not an option - unless I will the lottery tomorrow.

If you don't have any lens already and has the option to go with 6D or 70D, the question is how much money are you will to spend down the road. For quality the 6D will win but that's because you are spending more money.

The 70D actually have more bell and whistle, like the touch screen and flash. And better video recording capability. If you are not a Pro go with the 70D. Unless you are a Pro doing some professional work, you won't be able to tell the quality difference between these 2 good camera to start off with.

Not sure where you are located but the 70D body-only just dropped to $1150 Canadian dollar. It's much cheaper than the 6D. I am waiting for an even more attractive offer (like free memory card or free 1000 photo development) then I will pick the 70D up

This is a good reference - http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-6D-vs-Canon-EOS-70D

 

[DragonJade]

I just got my 70D in the post a few days ago. I haven't had time to play with it (hopefully I will tomorrow), but I've been flicking though the manual on the train. Damn, there are so many new functions and features compared to my 20D. Well worth getting. My only gripe has been that there's no GPS built into it.

Yes, you're right about the lenses. Some/many people (pros?) think about the lenses over the body. I already have a very decent Sigma lens 18-50mm 2.8 EX DC which will only work with a cropped sensor, and two lenses which are full frame. I didn't really want to buy a full-frame and have to buy a new lens. Also, the 6D is looking old in the features area compared to the 70D, and there are some things I want in the 70D which aren't available on the full-frame cameras. The tilt and swivel display is one, for a start. No more lying down in the snow to get that shot any more!

 

[ChrisA]

As the eye only sees approximately 12 stops of light at a time, is it necessary to go beyond that?...

Yes because it allows for post process and not "nailing" the exposure.

If the scene as 12-stops and your camera can record 1-stops then you have ron for a small error in exposure.

if the camera records more than the eye can see (or more then a monitor can display) then you have some creative options and can create an image that cold not be seen by the eye maybe one that includes detail in the sky and details in the shadows.

You don't really need 14-stops of dynamic range for product shots made in a studio but in nature where the light is uncontrolled you really can use all the range and more.

Remember A. Adam's "Zone System"? He would measure the scene using a hand held spot meter and figure out the dynamic range. Then he thinks about the tomes he can print on paper and maps the scene into the paper tones. and makes the film with a number like "-2" or "+1" that tells him how much contrast to create in the processing step. We can do this now in Aperture, lightroom or photoshop and we don't need to make the film holders if you shoot raw. Put you DO need very wide dynamic range, just like Adams had with his film

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

if the camera records more than the eye can see (or more then a monitor can display) then you have some creative options and can create an image that cold not be seen by the eye maybe one that includes detail in the sky and details in the shadows.

You don't really need 14-stops of dynamic range for product shots made in a studio but in nature where the light is uncontrolled you really can use all the range and more.

Remember A. Adam's "Zone System"? He would measure the scene using a hand held spot meter and figure out the dynamic range. Then he thinks about the tomes he can print on paper and maps the scene into the paper tones. and makes the film with a number like "-2" or "+1" that tells him how much contrast to create in the processing step. We can do this now in Aperture, lightroom or photoshop and we don't need to make the film holders if you shoot raw. Put you DO need very wide dynamic range, just like Adams had with his film

Thanks for the response, Chris. I am confused though as to when we ever get to see this 14 stops of dynamic range, it can't be seen in print, it can't be seen on any screens...

Didn't Mr Adams zone system only cover 11 stops, two of which were unusable because they contained no data as such?

Adams (1981, 52) distinguished among three different exposure scales for the negative:

• The full range from black to white, represented by Zone 0 through Zone X.
• The dynamic range comprising Zone I through Zone IX, which Adams considered to represent the darkest and lightest “useful” negative densities.
• The textural range comprising Zone II through Zone VIII. This range of zones conveys a sense of texture and the recognition of substance.

He noted that negatives can record detail through Zone XII and even higher, but that bringing this information within the exposure scale of the print is extremely difficult with normal processing.

This is great to discuss, because I am finally starting to edit some of my images in readiness to print them and really want to get the most bang for my buck, so to speak.

I understand the concept of seeing more details like cloud details and shadow details, but wonder how it comes into play, when it all gets squished down to say 11 stops of data when printed.

My iMac can only display about 10.5 stops of dynamic range, so how can I harness the extra detail from a 14 stop sensor?

I feel like I am missing some simple piece of information here and I probably am!

 

[mtbdudex]

I have a 5 year old T1i with 60k shutter clicks on it.
Went back n forth 6D or 70D, settled on 70D.

In the end, I felt the advancement of FF is still evolving and did not want to put $$$$ into that, so the 70D will suit my ongoing needs till a FF buy in 3-4 years.

btw, this being a Mac forum, truly go to Canon POTN for countless threads on 6D vs 70D (vs 7D vs 5DmkIII etc).
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9

 

[26theone]

70d

I upgraded from a 50D to the 70D a few months ago. I shoot youth sports mainly and use a Tamron SP 70-200 F/2.8 mostly. I also considered the 6D but struggled with the 4.5fps speed of the 6D vs 7fps for the 70D. The rep at the camera store actually recommended the 70D over the 6D due to it having all the latest improvements. I may get a full frame camera next time but for what I currently shoot I need the extra reach that the crop body provides.