picturemom

Would it be wise to own both of these cameras at the same time? Or do not waste my money?

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

What are your reasons for wanting both?

picturemom

I already own a canon 80 D and I wanted to get a full frame camera for a little clearer crisp pictures

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Honestly, unless you make really huge prints from your images, there won't be see much.... if any... difference between a 24MP image from an 80D and a 26MP image from a 6D Mk II. You'd have to be comparing prints bigger than 13x19".

In fact, you might see bigger "improvement" in your images investing in better lenses to use on your 80D. I have no idea what lenses you're using, so can't really say... but certainly some lenses are better than others. Other things that can help included making sure you "fill the viewfinder" as much as possible with your subject, to minimize cropping. Also, look at things like your focusing techniques, focus accuracy of your lenses on your camera (use Micro Focus Adjustment feature of your camera, if need be). It might even be that "protection" filters on your lenses are making your images less sharp than they could be.

A mistake a lot of people make is evaluating their images "too large" on their computer monitor. There's nothing wrong with displaying an image "at 100%" or even bigger to do careful retouching. But it's silly to compare sharpness, high ISO noise, even focus accuracy so large. On the typical modern computer monitor, displaying an image "at 100%" is like making a print that's around five feet wide.... 40x60" in the case of a 24MP camera like 80D. Even then, a computer monitor isn't nearly as sharp as a print can be. Plus, a print that large would never be viewed as closely as you sit to your computer monitor.

Do you ever make prints that large? Most of us don't. The photographer is usually the only person who ever sees their images that large. By the time they've resized it for printing or online display it's probably more like 24 or 33%, at the largest.... and often a lot less than that. So, by all means zoom in to 100% or more while retouching out a spot in an image... but back off to more like the actual size the image will be used, before deciding if it's "sharp".

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The 6D will not by itself address "a little clearer crisp pictures". You'd be better off posting some example images that demonstrate your issues, being sure to store original files directly from 80D, and asking for analysis, tips and suggestions. Tell us too about your lenses as they may not be transferable to the Canon full-frame mount.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

If you do large prints? (16x20 and up) Or if you do a lot of wide angle work than the FF 6DII makes sense. Also for high ISO/dim light photography. Normal macro without much cropping also goes better with FF. (my opinion)

If you use long lenses for birds and wildlife or other distant subjects then the aps-c/crop sensor makes sense. But you can do birds etc by using a blind or just work at getting closer. Also macro of living things that scare, or are dangerous (Do you really want to get that close to that Black Widow?) works better with either longer macro lenses or on aps-c.

I have one FF and two APS-C bodies:
5DIV - wide angle, 24-105L, macro, one of my long lenses on occasion.
7DII - long lens work, usually with my 100-400L mk2 (sometimes with 1.4x III extender) esp birds - the AF choices and speed are great - also usually handheld with a pistol grip on
the tripod mount.
80D - long lens work, usually with my Tamron 150-600 G2 on a tripod with gimbal head set up more or less permanently where I can shoot the birds in the yard out the family room
sliding doors.

"Crisper Pictures", the problem is probably camera movement - aps-c cameras are a bit more sensitive to that than FF. Use a tripod/monopod, higher shutter speeds, learn to use things for a rest etc.

Could I get by with just one of these cameras? Of course I could, but I can afford them so I got them. After I retired my wife decided I needed to do something besides read, listen to music and watch news and the history channel. Just going out to the railway museum on Sunday to be a streetcar motorman and train conductor wasn't enough in her opinion. She said "You should get back into photography more like you used to be." OK Honey, of course I will!
Now it is several thousand dollars worth of gear later!!!!!
And I got her a couple of cameras also. Trying to get her away from her video cam which same videos she almost never watches - and guess who is expected to download and do any editing needed? Next step, upgrade her computer, put the PP apps on it and teach her to use them.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I have a 6D and an 80D and a few others. If you can afford them and are going to use them then why not. It's your money...

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

If we knew the lenses you have and might get that would be good input too.

steve49 Loc: massachusetts

I would say one set up is enough.
Add the 6D and after a couple of months you will end up asking...
Which camera should I bring on a trip, the 80 or the 6D?

Save yrself... Both are capable cameras.

Neverlost99 Loc: Sarasota

Great explanation. I will look at my shots on a retina iPad in the future.

DanCulleton

For me the best investment in camera gear is a good lenses or two.
You want crisp and clear, go for L Series lenses.

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

I'll second what others have said: invest in L series lenses. I have a 6DM2 and noticed a big improvement in image quality when I started shooting with L series lenses.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

The 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 IS II are awesome lenses and cover a wide range of shooting. They are my most used lenses. You can even throw on a 2x extender to the 70-200 for some extra “reach”.

The 85 f/1.8 is a very sharp fast focusing EF lens for a relatively low price that can be used for portraits and fast action. It is a great value if you don’t or can’t spend $2k each on the above lenses. The f/4 versions of the above are also very good and much less expensive if you don’t want the fast lenses and added weight.

Tex-s

I'll 'ditto' several of the answers you have already received. Strictly for image quality, there is no justification for having both of these cameras. However, there are artistic reasons, possibly, for having a full frame camera. A good example is the flawed, but impressive, swirly bokeh of some vintage glass, or the interesting effects of modifying old glass..... All of these artistic effects are most seen at the edges of full frame captures, and trying them on crop sensors will crop the biggest bit of the effect. Short of that, though, there just is not a compelling need, in my opinion, for both cameras.

Also, the ef-s 10-18mm that I have on my 80D is roughly equivalent to 16-35 on the 6D, and the 16-35mm 'L' glass is twice as expensive used and triple the price new. The improvements in I.Q though is far from 100% or 200% The price of improved glass for your 80D will be lower, and the lenses lighter, too.

Finally, there is the question I had to answer for myself. Am I happier with a 1000 dollar super-zoom but limited to shooting the oil rigs near my home or am I happier scheduling a big trip around Utah and/or the Grand Canyon? I went for travel expenses over glass.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Pay very close attention to this summary !