franbires

I am considering upgrading to a new camera. I currently have a Canon 60D and before that a 30D. I was hoping to get some insight on which Canon camera I should consider, the 6D II or the 7D II? For the most part, I shoot wildlife, birds and mammals, landscapes and on occasion sporting events such as high school football and basketball games. There's a lot of experience on Ugly Hedgehog and was hoping to get some feedback. Thank you very much. Fran. PS. Great point. I should have cited my lenses. They are: EFS 18-200 3.5-5.6 IS; EF 70-300 4-5.6 IS and Tamron SP 150-600 F/5-63. Fran

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Given you have two older cropped-sensor cameras, the first important question about a full-frame 6D II model is what lenses do you already own? You'll need at least 1 EF lens, currently or when purchasing a full-frame camera or the 6DII will be of no use.

A more modest investment that is still an valid upgrade is the 80D. Excellent image quality for a general purpose camera capable of handling the occasional sporting events. You can apply the money saved over a 7DII and get another lens, either longer or faster (or both).

BB4A

Adding to CHG_CANON’s comments, the 7D Mk ii scores highly on:
1. The speed (genuine 10 Frames per second) for birds in flight and sports shooting,
2. Auto-Focus performance (one of the best performers in the Canon line with 65 AF points),
3. Weather-sealed, professional, “Built like a Tank” Quality (definitely a Camera that performs on a rainy day),
4. Price to capability ratio; at current new discount prices around $1,550, this is a great buy,
5. Lastly, it performs VERY well with all the EF-S, EF, and EF “L” lenses I’ve owned and used; a very versatile body.

Only major disadvantage I can think of (other than it’s a bit more expensive, but has a lot more features than the 80D), is that, because of its professional build quality, it is a heavier beast than the 80D, and the 6D.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Fram, get the 6dll, it’s a way more updated camera for what you will do, including the fully articulating screen. It will shoot everything better except hard core sports. It will do easy sports just fine which is what you will likely shoot.
If you need more reach, just crop it back. You’re starting with way more megapixels! Good luck
SS

Fotoserj Loc: St calixte Qc Ca

Mostly action? No brainer 7d mk II

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

For those types of pictures the 7DII is the better choice. Or the 80D to save a little $ and wait to see when and what we have in the 7DIII. The 6DII will do it, esp with the AF system it has. But must have FF EF lenses and will not have quite the "reach". I did a lot of birds etc with a 6D using the old pre AF techniques but had a lot of rejects. That is why I got a 7DII and used the two alternately depending on what I was doing. In Nov and Dec I traded the 6D and 7DII, replacing them with a 5DIV and a 80D as a place holder until the 7DIII comes out (80D has 27 f/8 focus points vs only 1 with the 7DII) My go to lens for birds etc is the 100-400L mk 2 (had a mk 1 before trading up) plus a 1.4x III extender.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

I have a 7DII. Excellent camera for sports and action, provided you have good lighting. I have never been satisfied with the way mine handles high ISO/low light situations. If I am shooting in a gym, most of which have marginal lighting it seems, I use my 5DIV and get better results. The 6DII would give similar results. If you shoot much BIF (Birds In Flight) then the 7DII is the way to go. Otherwise, I agree with SharpShooter: Get the 6DII.

ltj123 Loc: NW Wisconsin

I went from 7D2 to 6D2 and very happy today. But I already had EF lenses, and selling my 7D2 was easy as still the "current" Canon model. Nothing wrong with 7D2 but after 2 years with it I wasn't really happy (personal opinion)....

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

My answer is "neither".

APS-C cameras are best for sports and wildlife: 7DII (20MP) or, for that matter, 80D (24MP).

Full frame are best for landscape and architecture: 6DII (26MP), 5DIV (30MP), or 5DS/5DS-R (50MP).

I would recommend you spend as little as possible on the camera, in order to improve your lenses... Specifically, I'd replace the EF-S 18-200mm with....

If you purchase an APS-C camera: EF-S 15-85mm IS USM ($800)... or with an EF-S 10-18mm IS STM ($280) and EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ($830). I recommend a wider lens for landscape photography, especially. On an APS-C camera, 18mm isn't very wide. The 15-85mm alone gives a bit wider and would be an upgrade in most respects. But the combo of the 10-18mm (or EF-S 10-22mm USM, $600) with the mid-range EF-S 17-55mm would give you even wider. The 17-55mm also may be helpful with it's larger f/2.8 aperture, for lower light conditions (though the newer camera will help, too, with higher usable ISO). And alternative mid-range zoom is the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM ($600). If you keep the EF-S 18-200mm... you could just add the EF-S 10-18mm or EF-S 10-22mm.

Or if you purchase a full frame camera: EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM ($900) or EF 24-105L f/4L IS USM II ($1100) as a mid-range zoom. You didn't mention, but if you ever want shoot macro/close-ups, get that 24-70mm. It's able to do an amazing .70X magnification on its own (most of the other lenses here can do .21X or .25X, at best). With either of those, a wider lens for landscape and other purposes I'd recommend is the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM ($1000). Note: with a full frame camera, your EF-S 18-200mm would NOT be usable... so you would definitely need to replace it.

So your first decision is APS-C or full frame. For most of your purposes, APS-C would work fine. In fact, for sports and wildlife full frame would be less desirable becauseyour telephotos will "act a lot shorter". If you ever feel you "don't have enough telephoto" now with your current camera, that will happen more often with full frame. You'll either need to get closer or buy a longer, bigger, heavier and probably much more expensive telephoto lens.

OTOH, if you do a lot of landscape & scenic shots (also architecture, cityscapes, seascapes, etc.).... a full fame camera is ideal. Especially if you make really big prints (upwards of 16x24") from your image.Full frame also may be a little better for low light shooting (but recent APS-C are a lot better than older ones were).

I suspect that you'd be happiest with a Canon 80D. It's a significant upgrade from your 60D. It has 24MP... which is almost as much resolution as the full frame 6DII with 26MP... and 20% more than the 20MP 7DII and 33% more than your current 60D. While the 7DII has a faster continuous shooting rate of 10 frames per second, the 80D is no slouch with a very respectable 7 fps (up from 5 fps with your 60D). The 7DII also has an excellent, high performance 65-point AF system... but the 80D's 45-point is quite good and very capable, too (either would a BIG step up from the 9-point system of your current camera). There's a lot more that the 80D offers, but the bottom line is that it would be a very solid upgrade from 60D, better than 7DII in some ways and very close to it in a lot of others.... and at $1000 for 80D, you'd be tying up less money in the camera (it would leave you $500 more to put toward lenses!). With either 80D or 7DII you don't need to buy any lenses, though I'd recommend something wider, in particular.

In comparison, to "go full frame" you'll need to spend $1900 on the 6DII PLUS at least $900 for a lens (24-70/4L to replace your EF-S 18-200mm, which isn't be usable on any FF camera). In other words, the minimum you'd need to spend for a 6DII would be $2800... $1800 more than the absolute min. possible with an 80D. I'd sure like to see you put that money to work with lenses instead of FF... but you'll need to choose what's most important to you. 6DII has control layout similar to 60D/80D and it's AF system and frame rate (6.5 fps) are nearly identical to 80D's. (In fact, one relatively minor complaint I've heard about the 6DII is that it's AF system seems rather concentrated in the center of the image area, not as nicely "spread out" in the viewfinder the way the same 45-points are with the 80D.)

I'm not commenting on your EF 70-300mm or Tamron 150-600mm lenses... There are newer versions of both available, but I haven't used them and really cannot say if they would be worthwhile upgrades. Either way, they are both "full frame capable" if need be, too, so there wouldn't be immediate need to replace them if that's the route you choose. Just be aware that if you do opt for FF, you'll be "giving up a lot of reach" with both those telephotos. (Someone earlier suggested you could just crop the full frame camera's images to compensate... but if you crop a 6DII's 26MP images down to the size of APS-C you are only left with around 10MP.... less than half the resolution of the 24MP 80D and little more than half the resolution you have now with your 18MP 60D. Sorry, but no... that's not a good solution!)

You asked 6DII or 7DII... and my answer is neither. I'd recommend 80D instead. I honestly think it would be your best choice.... a significant upgrade from your 60D for most of your purposes and only a slight compromise from 6DII in certain other respects, superior to it in some other ways. A bonus... the 80D also will seem familiar to you since it uses generally similar controls and design as 60D (so does 6DII, BTW... while OTOH, 7DII has slightly different control layout and is more complex, perhaps more "pro-oriented" in some respects). And since the 80D costs less than 7DII and considerably less than 6DII, you'd have more to put toward some improvements in your lens kit, which would ultimate;y make more difference in your images than the camera you use them upon. (Note: On any of these cameras, for optimal autofocus performance for sports and active wildlife, stick with Canon USM lenses or third party equivalents such as Sigma HSM or Tamron USD. STM is great for video and certainly better than micro motor in most respects, but not quite as good as USM for active subjects.)

P.S. Personally I do most of my shooting... sports... with a pair of 7DII. I also have full frame 5DII that I'll eventually upgrade to 5DIV or 5DS, but I don't need or use FF anywhere near as much as I do APS-C. Previous Canon I've used include 7D, 50D, 30D, 10D as well as EOS-3, Elan 7E (EOS-33) film cameras. To a lesser degree, at times I've used several 1D, 1Ds other 5D models, as well as some of the other EOS film cameras. I've got about 20 lenses I that use on my Canon cameras, ranging from 10mm to 500mm.

mikedidi46 Loc: WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA

I am in the process of evaluating my upgrade, and since I do not shoot sports, I am going with the 6D MK2, as I already own 3 FF lens. So all I need is the body

Gampa

I agree with amfoto1’s comprehensive response. I bought the 80D over the 7D II for all the reasons he cited ... and it’s been great ... for all the type of pictures you said you wish to take.

DutchTouch

Some of my best images were taken on a 6D until I was caught in the rain and that was the end of it! I purchased a 7D MK II and it is a well sealed camera and I get marvelous images as well! I have no idea if Canon Improved the body seals on the 6D II but the 6D had nothing!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

OP didn't mention low light/high ISO as a concern, but since it's on the table, let's talk about it.

I shot for five years with a pair of original 7D.... same 18MP as OP's 60D, though her camera is slightly newer and got some tweaks. The highest ISO I'd use with it was 6400. And with those cameras whenever I used 3200 or 6400 I knew it would mean more post-processing work to make images usable.

Now shooting with a pair of 7DII, I use 3200 and 6400 freely... little to no concern. In fact, I use 8000, 12800 and even 16000 at times... usually with some add'l post-processing. Now, I have no doubt that the much newer 5DIV is even higher ISO capable... and the 6DII may be about the same (some say it's not much better than original 6D, but that camera was widely regarded as one of the best high ISO models in it's day).

But neither 7DII's nor 80D's high ISO is anything to sneeze at. 80D is capable of about same as 7DII high ISO... with 20% more resolution to boot.

Decide for yourself... Following is a test shot I did with 7DII at ISO 16000. It was shot RAW with care to avoid under-exposure, lighting was from single lamp with a 60 watt bulb about 10 feet away and indirectly from a small window about 8 feet away. Image was converted in Lightroom 6 with default levels of noise reduction and sharpening, a slight crop to 4:5 aspect ration and a little boost in contrast were the only adjustments done....



As you can see by pixel-peeping with the greatly enlarged detail on the right, there is some noise in the image. But IMO it's pretty well controlled. I'd have no problem making a quality 8x10 print from that image. I've made even larger prints from high ISO 7DII images by doing a little extra post-processing in Photoshop with a Noiseware plug-in.

I hardly think 7DII or 80D are limited to "good lighting". They're at least 1-1/3 to 2 stops "better" than the models they replaced. Heck, compared to another generation older 60D, it might even be more than that. Of course, recent full frame with less crowded sensors and larger individual sensor sites are even more high ISO capable. But I really think FF have seen a little less improvement compared to earlier FF models, than the current crop of APS-C have compared when to earlier APS-C.

You're probably already aware of it.... Shooting "in a gym", I'd also make a point of using the 7DII's new Anti-Flicker feature. Introduced on 7DII and avail. on many or most models since (incl. 80D, 6DII, 5DIV), that's proven to be really effective dealing with fluorescent, sodium vapor and similar types of lighting that were so notorious for causing a lot of exposure issues in earlier cameras. Anti-Flicker detects the cycling off those types of lighting and times the shutter release to coincide with the peak output of the lighting. Prior cameras without it, I had to take lots of extra shots because I knew the lighting would "fool" the camera and cause a lot of badly underexposed image. Now with Anti-Flicker enabled on my 7DIIs, I rarely see any problems. Works great! (Nikon has it on some models, too... I know for sure D500 and D850 have it. They call it "Flicker Free" and it's a little more complex. Canon's is simply off or on and it auto detects the cycle of the light. Nikon gives users choice of 50 Hz, 60 Hz or Auto settings. I hear it works similarly well, though.)

Photocraig

Alan, again, thanks for the comprehensive and thoughtful insight.
My experience with my new 77D which is very closely similar to the 80D confirms the ability to capture moving subjects and deal with low light, higher ISO scenes. The anti flicker is great at the Jr. Hi gyms my grandson plays at. Also the focus system is the same. Moving from an EOS 50D was intuitive with a similar control/button layout but with 5 times more focus points I sometimes have to stop to figure out what I'm aiming with.

Fran, you have some good choices. I've stayed with the APS-C bodies because of the size, weight and cost. My 50D kit was stolen and I replaced the same lenses with an upgraded 70-300 IS II f3.5-4 USM. It has the new nano USM (see Ken Rockwell's review) and it is great. I also replaced my EF-S 10-18 and my Sigma 17-70. With 24 Mega Pixels, I agree with Alan (presumptuous at that is) that you'll enjoy the 80D (or 77D) and spend the money on lenses.

lhardister Loc: Brownsville, TN

I have both the 6Dii and 7Dii. I bought the 6Dii about 3 months ago as my first foray into full-frame photography. Both are great cameras. But based on my limited experience, I agree with "robertjerl" (above) that for the types of shooting that you describe, the 7Dii would be the better choice. Additional considerations may be that the 7Dii costs less, and you could still utilize your efs 18-200 lens with the 7Dii.

Best regards,