80D a better choice than the 6D mk2?

[benhasajeep]

I agree, Canon is significantly better than Nikon for "IQ" image quality, lens selection, sharpness, etc. but the 80D vs full frame Canon 6D question .... depends. Do you shoot sports? indoor weddings?

HUH???


Canon may have had a lead in DSLR and Lenses in years past. But not any longer. The top 31 lenses tested were neither Nikon OR Canon. Sigma, Zeiss, Sony, and 1 Tamron! Nikon beat out Canon with it's first lens at #32. Canon came in with it's first at #51! This is only IQ. Not build, feel, longevity, af speed, etc. Just IQ!

huh... ??
there is a reason most pros shoot with Canon
(and mirrorless cameras are smaller and lighter)

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

I don't know the statistics for pro's between the systems. I am a Pro (part time) and have been since 1991. But if they are anything like me. You don't change systems very often. It's extremely expensive to change systems (if you have a lot of equipment that is). Though I did try Canon over a decade ago with the 20D. I kept my Nikon gear at same time. Canon performance was not enough for me to sell all my Nikon and go all out Canon. And now for the time being. I am glad, as I truly feel Nikon has the advantage between the two. At the moment!

I under stand there are feel differences, and button locations. I learned a good lesson swapping between Nikon and Canon bodies for those years. But I trust DXO as they do use scientific analysis to make their ratings. And right now. Nikon clearly has the better equipment out when comparing similar pricing levels for each level of photography. Except at the very top end pro bodies. They are very close to one another.

 

[beagle100]

I agree, Canon is significantly better than Nikon for "IQ" image quality, lens selection, sharpness, etc. but the 80D vs full frame Canon 6D question .... depends. Do you shoot sports? indoor weddings?

HUH???
Canon may have had a lead in DSLR and Lenses in years past. But not any longer. The top 31 lenses tested were neither Nikon OR Canon. Sigma, Zeiss, Sony, and 1 Tamron! Nikon beat out Canon with it's first lens at #32. Canon came in with it's first at #51! This is only IQ. Not build, feel, longevity, af speed, etc. Just IQ!

huh... ??
there is a reason most pros shoot with Canon
(and mirrorless cameras are smaller and lighter)

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

I don't know the statistics for pro's between the systems. I am a Pro (part time) and have been since 1991. But if they are anything like me. You don't change systems very often. It's extremely expensive to change systems (if you have a lot of equipment that is). Though I did try Canon over a decade ago with the 20D. I kept my Nikon gear at same time. Canon performance was not enough for me to sell all my Nikon and go all out Canon. And now for the time being. I am glad, as I truly feel Nikon has the advantage between the two. At the moment!
I under stand there are feel differences, and button locations. I learned a good lesson swapping between Nikon and Canon bodies for those yenow. Nikon clearly has the better equipment out when comparing similar pricing levels for each level of photography. Except at the very top end pro bodies. They are very close to one another.

right, I once used Nikon and eventually upgraded to Canon for better image quality and lens selection. yes, it's true Canon is used more by professionals and has "better equipment" and is used by photography "enthusiasts" but it's all about choices. And Nikon is certainly fine for beginners
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[benhasajeep]

maybe you missed "Canon 6D and 80D" !
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

Actually I discussed them in my original post. Saying I don't know the 6d mk II but did say it should be the better at ISO since it was full frame. Then I said the D80 had lower performance numbers than the D3400 Nikons most basic camera. So, I did not say it. But inferred that the 6D would be better.

I have come out as Nikon fanboy in the post but I am really not. Yes, I shoot Nikon often. But in my time, I have cameras from many manufacturers. Bronica, Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Cambo, Sinar, Noblex, Horizon, Kodak, Polaroid, Agfa, Mamiya, and I am sure a couple others. I just like cameras and have since a kid.

 

[beagle100]

maybe you missed "Canon 6D and 80D" !
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

Actually I discussed them in my original post. Saying I don't know the 6d mk II but did say it should be the better at ISO since it was full frame.
I have come out as Nikon fanboy in the post but I am really not. Yes, I shoot Nikon often. But in my time, I have cameras from many manufacturers. Bronica, Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Cambo, Sinar, Noblex, Horizon, Kodak, Polaroid, Agfa, Mamiya, and I am sure a couple others. I just like cameras and have since a kid.

camera fanboys (and girlz) unite !
I believe I inferred the 80D might be better in some circumstances

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[benhasajeep]

right, I once used Nikon and eventually upgraded to Canon for better image quality and lens selection. yes, it's true Canon is used more by professionals and has "better equipment" and is used by photography "enthusiasts" but it's all about choices. And Nikon is certainly fine for beginners
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

There is a big difference between more and most!

Thank you for your replies.

If I was forcing my opinion over yours I apologize. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes.

And to the OP.

Choose the 6D over the 80D.

 

[beagle100]

right, I once used Nikon and eventually upgraded to Canon for better image quality and lens selection. yes, it's true Canon is used more by professionals and has "better equipment" and is used by photography "enthusiasts" but it's all about choices. And Nikon is certainly fine for beginners
ss

and most!

Thank you for your replies.
If I was forcing my opinion over yours I apologize. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes.
And to the OP.

Choose the 6D over the 80D.

OK, I choose the 80D ... for some situations .......... but everyone has opinions and choices !

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[beagle100]

I agree, Canon is significantly better than Nikon for "IQ" image quality, lens selection, sharpness, etc. but the 80D vs full frame Canon 6D question .... depends. Do you shoot sports? indoor weddings?

HUH???N. Canon came in with it's first atfeel, longevity, af speed, etc. Just IQ!

Please, don't try to confuse fan boys with facts. Fan boys and politicians come from the same vein. Fact just cause their brains to spew more nonsense.

right, there is no "confusion" with the pros
and "enthusiasts !
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[bribrius]

uh. i agree withe dual memory cards.... and.. whatever

 

[jakechris]

Ok, since I know nothing about Nikon, could you guys make a recommendation on a good body/lens combo with a 3k budget for portraits/wedding type photography? The conclusion I was coming to regarding Canon was that an 80D and Sigma 18-35 Art would be a great combo to start with just as good as what the 6D mk2 could offer, but now I'm curious to what Nikon has to offer.

 

[benhasajeep]

Ok, since I know nothing about Nikon, could you guys make a recommendation on a good body/lens combo with a 3k budget for portraits/wedding type photography? The conclusion I was coming to regarding Canon was that an 80D and Sigma 18-35 Art would be a great combo to start with just as good as what the 6D mk2 could offer, but now I'm curious to what Nikon has to offer.

D610 - $1,500 entry level nikon full frame camera. Rated by DXO at #9 camera under $40k.
D750 - $2,000 mid level Nikon full frame camera. Rated by DXO at #10 camera under $40k. More features than D610. But D610 slightly better sensor performance.
D810 - $2,800 upper mid level Nikon full frame camera. Rated by DXO at #2 camera under $40k. Basically a pro model full frame camera.

Now with full frame cameras your 18-35 will not be a good lens for wedding / portraits. Nor on a crop sensor either. A 24-70 would be more to the liking for a crop sensor. And a combination of 24-70 and 70-200 for a full frame camera. 85mm to about 135 mm is about standard for portraits on 35mm film and full frame dslr's. I have gone up to 300mm on some portraits. Also used a 180mm fairly often for portraits. As for weddings. You will want a range of lenses for different situations. One lens will not do!

With a crop sensor camera you will want similar range with the crop factor. So about 50mm to 90mm for portraits. The Sigma Art lenses gets pretty good reviews. But apart from them stick with the branded lenses. As the regular Sigma's are good but not as good as the branded lenses. Yes, many do get good shots with them. And can use corrections in post processing.

 

[Derrel]

Ok, since I know nothing about Nikon, could you guys make a recommendation on a good body/lens combo with a 3k budget for portraits/wedding type photography? The conclusion I was coming to regarding Canon was that an 80D and Sigma 18-35 Art would be a great combo to start with just as good as what the 6D mk2 could offer, but now I'm curious to what Nikon has to offer.

Well, I shot Canon digital concurrently with Nikon digiial for a few years. I simultaneously owned and shot the Canon 20D and 5D and a Nikon D2x and D70, back when these were "GOOD camera" models. I had some good lenses too, 70-200/2.8 stabilized for both Nikon and Canon, 24-105 f/4-L for the Canon, and 50, 85mm and macro lenses for both systems, and a big Nikon system with many more lenses up to 400mm. Honestly: right now, and since 2009 or so, Nikon has had a big lead in dynamic range and sensor performance, and has now moved into "ISO invariant" sensors, meaning the ability to under-expose, even by 3,4,5 stops, and then the ability to "lift" the shadows in post-processing software; this makes the Nikon D750 and D810 two of the top wedding cameras. Period. BETTER sensor, BETTER image-making capbilities than Canon has in the 5D Mark III or IV sensors...just better for the ability to radically expose, or accidentally under-expose, and then "rescue" or "re-align" really bad/radically highlight-protecting exposures made in raw mode, in software.

Anywhooo...I'd say Nikon D750, maybe refurbished, 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR-G used ($740 here from private sellers); 24-70 Tamron f/2.8 VC, some 150 Watt-second battery-powered monolights, some stands, reflectors,a few umbrellas, a couple MIC softboxes like 28x28-inch models, there's your $3k. Do not buy a lot, but buy good stuff and learn to use it well. Work with a small, efficient kit....24-70,70-200. And YES, the f/4 is the lens to get.

I would give the smaller, lighter, newer, sharper f/4 zooms from Canon and Nikon very STRONG consideration....it's no longer 1992...f/2.8 is no longer that big of an asset, and in fact MOST images shot on modern, high-megapixel sensors will show the deficiencies of most zooms when shot at f/2.8. The f/4 versions are mostly all newer and better than the older 2.8 models.

I personally prefer the full-frame sensor cameras for people pictures, because of the hugely greater number of LENSES that were designed to work best on FF/FX Cameras, from both Canon and Nikon.

 

[jakechris]

Such great information I really appreciate it! I'll give Nikon a serious look, I like the article about wedding lenses, getting a 35 and 85 combo may be a great start into portraits with the 24-70 and 70-200 being on the horizon as I get better and ready for events like weddings.

 

[Derrel]

Such great information I really appreciate it! I'll give Nikon a serious look, I like the article about wedding lenses, getting a 35 and 85 combo may be a great start into portraits with the 24-70 and 70-200 being on the horizon as I get better and ready for events like weddings.

On full-frame, a modestly-priced 35mm f/2 or f/1.8 autofocus lens is VERY useful for reception/candids/environmental portraiture. And there's no really 'need' to buy the expensive 35mm lenses either. Sue Bryce's favorite glamour portrait/environmental portrait prime lens? Her 35mm f/1.4 Canon L-series lens. The 35mm! Some say it's too short, some say it's not wide enough; I think 35mm on FF is a **classic** focal length, very useful. Save the money, get an older 35/2 AF-D Nikkor...there's not a lot of "value" in the f/1.4 35mm lenses, in my book. The older 35/2 AF-D is like $200 used...plenty good for people work.

There's too much emphasis on test chart sharpness, which is why Sigma excels at making "the best" lenses; razor sharp, over-corrected sperical aberration, designed to differentiate fine test chart lines and to score high on DxO mark tests, I persaonlly think the Sigma 35/50/85 ART series lenses have a hard, ugly look to their pictures. Again, test chart sharpness does nothing to tell a person how ugly the ART series bokeh is.

You want pretty pictures? Just buy the Nikkor lenses that Nikon has designed for picture-taking, not test chart scores. As Thom Hogan mentioned a few months back, Nikon has been making a lot of new lenses that are better real-world picture-makers than "test chart" scores would otherwise indicate. But...in this Internet Age, many people buy based on "sharpness", ignoring other qualities.

 

[jaomul]

I may have missed it, but if your shooting weddings, you really probably need two cameras in case one has issues, this would be considered normal.

 

[fred76]

No matter the brand. The photographer makes the photography. The camera is just a tool.

Define what you really need, what is your budget, what is the maintenance cost and delay. Compare the different models vs these parameters. And you will converge to some solutions.

Nikon, Canon, Pentax all make really good cameras. Sony makes good sensors but not good cameras : they are really behind in terms of ergonomic and client respect (a camera is obsolete after two years, repairs takes months, updates in firmware alters the cameras to encourage you to buy another camera...). Choose the one you prefer !