ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

I would need much more information before answering that question...like why. what to, etc. dont you think?

dar_clicks Loc: Utah

I'm a Nikon (full-frame) user so I haven't enough knowledge to recommend which Canon models would be best for you, but if you know the specific reasons for wanting a full-frame camera as I did, then I can only say I never regretted getting one for a second. Low-noise characteristics, completely wide results from wide-angle lenses, large viewfinder image -- just some of the important reasons for me. The T4i, a very good camera, might be good to keep for lenses on the long end of the focal-length scale! I'd be a little careful about models that are stripped of features to achieve lower cost. Some of those features turn out to be quite handy even if it takes a while to learn what they are and how to use them.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Maybe an older generation of a 5Dc will help you with your goal of a FF camera? You can get them on eBay in the $500-600 range.

tom hughes Loc: Phila Pa

Upgraded from a T2i to a 5D Mark III. Great Af, great ISO, in camera HDR processing, HD Video. Rent one for a week you won't regret it.

washy Loc: Dorset UK

Since when have full frame images been superior to crop frame images? So a green woodpecker photo taken at 50 yards on f/f would be better than the same on crop using the same 500mm lens. What rubbish the f/f is only then reaching 500mm the crop is reaching 760mm. so how can the f/f be better . So f/f may be better in some situations but the crop is better in some others. Have one of each that both use the same lens would be the ideal situation

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Washy, for you and Balls. IF you had read her post, you would know why she is asking.
She is shooting landscape AND portraits.
She didn't mention anything else.
So FF it is, but which one? SS

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

8-) 8-) Landscape and portraits? None better than Canon's 5D MkII. Check the reviews, the camera probably shoots more weddings than all others combined. :lol: Lacks the precision autofocus the MkIII has, but one excellent still life shooter. :lol: :lol: :lol:

jrsamps Loc: North Jersey

If you had a choice. would you want your eyes to be FF or cropped?

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

I know the mark II has a good following but as a general use FF camera I personally think the 6D has it beat. I would then go to a mark III if I could afford it.

The 6D may not have as many features as the mk II but the features it does have are improved on. It handles noise better and has a faster FPS rate, making it better for sports and wildlife. I think these two things alone make it a better all around FF camera.

Jim D

majeskiphoto Loc: Hamilton, Ontario

Don't forget for half the price of the MKIII, the 6D has higher IQ, lower light metering, WIFI/GPS, and is lighter and more compact.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

:thumbdown: :thumbdown: You still refuse to read what the woman said she wanted. NO sports-NO wildlife!!! Landscapes and portraits!!! You will not be happy tip she buys what YOU want hereto have???

Lorendn Loc: Jackson, WY

The 6D is undoubtedly a quality camera and will serve well for portraits and landscape work.

But, remember the 6D is an entry-level full-frame body and the 5D series is a semi-professional/professional body. As pointed out, the 6D is lighter, smaller and has the bells and whistles of built-in GPS and WiFi and costs half what the 5DIII costs. Now Canon is a great company but they never, ever give away the store so something had to give to make the 6D price at its current level. Weather sealing, the strength of the case, the redundant memory cards, the auto-focus system - to name a few.

The 6D is not built for the outdoor professional but it is a great entry-level full-frame camera that will serve well for portraits and (sunny) landscape work. Finally, in spite of what was stated in another post, the image quality is not better than the 5D series - good, but not better.

washy Loc: Dorset UK

I was not answering her, I was answering you. You stated f/f photographs are better than better than crop photographs. I said have one of each f/f and crop. If this attached pic could be better on a f/f sensor, then why did it win a competition recently, it was taken with a crop sensor Canon. Oh yes I do have them actually Balls that is.

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

WHOA BOY! Who are you writing too? I just read all of this thread and no where did I see where the Op wrote NO sports-NO wildlife! I did see where she wrote mainly landscapes and portraits though, but she stated in her original post she was considering a FF for a variety of reasons. Now this could include sports or wildlife on occasion.

I really don't care if she buys what I have or not, that will be her choice. I never said she had to buy a 6D, I simply stated a couple of facts about the difference between a mk II and the 6D,and I wasn't the first to suggest the 6D. Read all the posts and you will find many here that agree with me and have add a number of other reasons to what I stated.

You need to get off your high horse and give it some water while YOU go back and read all the posts. I don't appreciate being singled out by someone that does not know what they are talking about! Why are you singling me out?

Jim D

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

I think you may be more personally invested in this argument than you care to admit, Washy. The point being made is that from a technical standpoint, full frame sensor cameras DO often (usually) rate higher on the parameters of image quality when tested and compared to crop sensor cameras by those who publish camera reviews. For example, if you read various reviews from such places as Snapsort, the Canon 60D and 7D rates significantly below the 5D Mk ii and the 5D Mk iiii on overall image quality, color depth, noise at low ISOs.

Now, here's the point ... Does that mean that award winning photos can't be taken using a crop sensor camera? Of course not! Does this mean that people are implying that your image is not all that it could be because you used a crop rather than a full frame camera? That is certainly not the case. From an artistic viewpoint, it doesn't matter if the photo was taken with a 50 Mp digital Hasselblad or an iPhone. But from the technical standpoint it is possible to quantify and compare image quality, and when one does the full frames usually win out. From there on it all comes down to how skillfully the photographer can use the equipment they have.