There is no "extra reach". There may be higher pixel density which makes the cropped sensor image have a higher resolution than the full frame image cropped, but that depends on the cameras. In this case, that advantage is very small, and it is simply a smaller angle of view with no benefit to the image quality.

It depends on how you shoot portraits. :-)

Yes, the 6D would be much better. Unless the AF is more effective than the 40D, I think you would do better using only the 6D all the time. There is no "extra reach" benefit with the 40D.

A used SB800 would work well, for around $300.

A factor in this might be shooting style. If you are doing "precision" shooting, it does make sense to process each image individually. But if the subject is changing enough that it makes sense to take a lot of shots to get some great ones, then it is easier to look through batch processed images to pick out the ones to work on further.

I think both focusing speed and accuracy are important, and they are not the same thing. A system can be very fast at getting close, and then take more time getting "perfect".

Perhaps the next question is, "do you use both?"

When I got a full frame camera, I didn't use the APS-C for 6 months so I gave it to a family friend who is still using it 5 years later.

The 40D came out in 2007, and at 10mp has only a slightly higher pixel density than the 6D, which has about 8mp in the APS-C portion of the image. I think the difference between 8mp and 10mp is much less important than the difference between 2007 and 2013 technology.

Call around to whom?

You have gotten a lot of useful answers, most of them accurate, so this is only a summary of the options and what they mean:

1. Each raw file includes an embedded jpeg which is visually identical to the camera jpeg you would get if you shoot "raw+jpeg". This jpeg can be extracted with a program like Instant JPEG From Raw, as already mentioned. This is effectively instantaneous (hundreds of raw files per minute).

2. The camera manufacturer's software (Canon DPP) can process the CR2 file and produce an image which is visually identical to the camera jpeg. This will require more time than extracting the embedded jpeg, but the result can be higher quality.

3. Using any other software (LR, PSE, FastStone Image Viewer, IrfanView, Picassa, etc) will require processing of the raw files using some preset. This will not produce an image which is visually identical to the camera jpeg. If the software displays the embedded jpeg by default, then this can be quick for picking out the keepers.

When I have 1000 raw files to work with, I use Instant JPEG From Raw and cull these images. When I get it down to a more manageable number I take the corresponding raw files and start processing them. For me this makes the culling process quicker because the IJFR files are much smaller than the raw files, and it lets me keep the "keepers" organized better.

I think this was a great topic to post here. Many of us are amateurs who wonder how much to charge for the occasional picture, and the answer is always, "it depends". In this situation, we can hear the conversation about what it depends on and how a conclusion is reached. Thank you for sharing.

My comment was poorly phrased. When I said to not worry about the actual pixels, I meant to not worry about changing (reducing) them.

"What's hers is hers, what's his is hers." :lol:

:thumbup:

The Nikon AF-S 20mm f/1.8G might be an interesting goal, if that focal length appeals to you. I'm looking forward to seeing how it tests.

For your trip you may also want to consider renting the 14-24mm f/2.8.

Congrats on the decision! The D7100 would have been very good, the D600 is better.

Nikon's new f/1.8 lenses seem worth a look, as well as Sigma's f/1.4 Art lenses, if you have one or two focal lengths you tend to use a lot. They are not cheap, but one is less than the f/2.8 zooms.