Okay so I've been meaning to upgrade to full frame (from my 1.6x crop 500D) for a while now. I've had my current camera for 3 years and I feel like it's time!
I have been doing bits of research here and there, including having a tinker with the 5D Mark II (my sister's - thanks @csimonetti !), but that camera just doesn't fit right in my hands, and the controls don't feel quite right.
Then I came upon Canon's new EOS 6D (released September last year). It's smaller (I have tiny hands), lighter, and the controls seem a bit more intuitive to me (from what I've seen on YouTube at least!) compared to the 5D Mk II, and it also has some cool features (GPS, WiFi), and superior ISO rating (up to 26,500 I believe, vs the 5D Mk II which goes to 6,400). And it's actually relatively affordable.
I was just wondering if anyone has had any experience with this camera, and if anyone had any advice :)
I am so glad you asked this question, because I have been saving for the Mark II and am now considering the 6D. I have the 60D cropped sensor body and have read the controls are very similar, which would be nice!
@agima Yeah, I have pored over reviews and side-by-side spec comparisons and it does look quite good!! I was wondering if anyone here on 365 had used it first-hand, although chances are slim since it was only released a few months ago.
In the same boat. Tried it in store... feels great in hand. Wifi function works really well with my iphone! wondering whether to get the kit or just a prime with the body. And which prime.. 50 1.4? 40 2.8? Decisions.. decisions..
They really did some odd things with the naming of these cameras.
The 6D should really be the successor to the 5D Mark II. It has better low-light capability, has some useful add-on features like GPS and Wifi (although bear in mind they really hurt battery life if you leave them enabled), and is nice and compact. It carries over some limitations of the 5D2, like having a fairly basic autofocus system and relatively slow frame rate.
It's an ideal camera to upgrade to if you want to go to full-frame for cheap, and/or if you do primarily landscape photography. You are not sacrificing image quality at all -- it's as good as the 5D3 in real-world use.
The 5D Mark III should really be called something else, as it has taken the previous 5D range (which, like the 6D, were primarily aimed at landscape photographers) and made it much more general-purpose. It has a top-of-the-range autofocus system, and increases the framerate to something that, while not groundbreaking, is a bit more useful for sports photography, wedding photography, etc.
The 5D Mark II is a great camera -- it does only natively go up to ISO 6400, but it does have extension modes H1 and H2 which are equivalent to 12800 and 25600 (although the 6D has these as well, going as high as 102,400). But don't worry about this too much, you don't really want to go above ISO 6400 with any of these.
Get the 5D3 if you want an awesome general-purpose camera (and it really is awesome). Get the 6D if you want a smaller camera and don't care about the better autofocus system in the 5D3 (or if you really want the GPS and Wifi, as they're crazily expensive to add t to the 5D3). Get the 5D2 if you can get an awesome deal on it from somewhere selling their last few, as it's still an incredibly good camera.
Note that the 6D is still overpriced, due to being new. In the US, the 6D hasn't dropped below $1900 yet, and Canon have been selling refurbished 5D3s (Canon US's refurbishment is by all accounts superb) for $2250 -- with that little difference it's hard to justify buying the 6D. Also keep an eye out for cheap 5D2s, again Canon have been selling these refurbished for as low as $1350.
Remember to take into account lens costs, lenses designed for crop-frame cameras will not work on full-frame cameras. It's no use getting a top-of-the-range camera and having to put a cheap lens on the front.
@abirkill lol - I definitely agree with you with the naming thing!!
I have been thinking about this long and hard - and you've given me more to think about, which is great :)
I don't see the limited autofocus points as a huge disadvantage for me - I either use MF or the "focus and recompose" method using the centre point (which is the most sensitive anyway - down to -3).
Yeah, I had a look at some of the test shots for the ISO and even 25,600 is looking pretty terrible up close! Would be alright for small-to-medium-sized print, though.
Yup, I own 3 lenses at the moment - 18-55mm, 55-250mm and the 50mm f/1.4. I never use the 55-250mm, as I have access to a Sigma 70-300mm (which I think does work on full-frame cameras?), and I understand I'll have to replace the 18-55mm with something else (I'm thinking 24-70mm f/2.8, although I also have access to a 24-105mm f/4).
I have found the 6D online new for $1,750 (Australian), which I think is decent? I really don't want to spend more than $2,000 for a new body.
To be honest, the 5D Mk III has many frills and bells and whistles that I really don't need and will never use, and won't want to pay for. At least not at this stage of my photography "career". :D I just want to go full-frame with a body that feels right in my hands - and the 5D Mk II doesn't quite do that for me.
@bajoni If you're buying retail (i.e. not refurbished) it's usually a no-brainer to get the 24-105mm kit lens -- typically you pay $600 more than body-only, and the lens will sell easily for $800. So that will go a decent way to paying for a 50mm prime (and more than cover the cost of the excellent 40mm f/2.8). Or if you want to keep it, it's a superb general-purpose lens (somewhat maligned by some on the Internet).
@pocketmouse Be careful using focus-and-recompose. It very easily leads to focus errors if you use lenses with a narrow depth of field (like the 50mm f/1.4).
Even the best lenses don't have a flat field of focus -- it curves (typically towards the camera) at the edges of the frame, and more so (because you get closer to the actual edge) with a full-frame camera.
By focusing with the centre point and then adjusting the framing, you are not taking this into account, and your subject will be slightly out of focus. This is why high-end cameras have more (and better) focus points at the edges of the frame.
If you bear this in mind and use manual focus (or use the other focus points, which are OK on the 6D in good light) you'll be fine.
The Sigma 70-300 will work fine on full-frame cameras, but don't expect miracles -- it won't be all that sharp, especially in the corners.
The 24-70mm f/2.8L is a very nice lens, but not in production any more (and easily damaged by ill-treatment, so buying one second-hand is a bit of a gamble unless you plan to send it to Canon for recalibration). The 24-70mm f/2.8L II is an even better lens, but is *very* expensive. I'd be tempted (and indeed, have been tempted) to stick with the 24-105mm kit lens -- you get image stabilisation, lacking on the 24-70mm, a better range, and remember that an f/4 lens on a full-frame camera appears to have the same depth of field as an f/2.8 lens on a crop-frame camera.
@abirkill I use the f/1.4 regularly with focus and recompose, and, well, you can look at my photos, but I don't think my focusing is terrible with the f/1.4... Maybe it's too subtle for me to see though.
Yeah, I am kicking myself... when I first became interested in the 24-70mm, it was still available, and for around $1,300. I left it too late though. The thing is, however, I prefer the lower aperture because I want to be able to shoot in low-light situations, and quite a lot of my photography involves shallow depth of field. I have used the 24-105mm and while it is a great lens, it doesn't quite do what I want/need.
What sort of wide-angle lens for landscapes would you recommend? I've been looking around and the 16-35mm f/2.8 sprang up on my searches.
@pocketmouse Focus-and-recompose gets worse when you go full-frame (because you are using the 'bad' parts of the lens, which are out of the field of view of a crop-frame camera). Not something to be concerned about, just to be aware of. It's one reason some pros are a bit wary of the 6D for non-landscape work, as the only really good focus point seems to be the centre point.
Remember the 24-105mm has 3-stop IS -- obviously no good if you're shooting moving subjects, but for stationary subjects in low light and handheld, it will be 2 stops better than the 24-70mm (that's the equivalent of, for example, ISO 1600 instead of 6400). Not that the 24-70mm II isn't an awesome lens -- it is -- but you might have a better overall package going with the 24-105mm and getting the 70-300L to replace your Sigma, for similar cost to the 24-70 alone.
Wide-angle, it's a tricky one. The 16-35mm is a fine lens, but it's really intended for wedding photography, where you need the wide aperture to freeze motion in low light. It's not a great lens for sharpness, especially in the corners, until stopped down, as you can see on these charts:
The 17-40mm is a fraction of the price and just as sharp wide open (i.e. not particularly, in the corners at least), and for landscape use you'll typically be at f/8 or above anyway. As you can see, at f/8 the 17-40mm is possibly even slightly sharper (move your mouse over the image to swap between the 16-35mm and 17-40mm):
I have the 16-35mm as you need the extra stop of light for star photography, but it's a hard lens to recommend for the price if you're not doing that or people photography. It does do *awesome* starbursts when stopped down, though, better than the 17-40mm.
Here's a full-res link to one of my photos taken with the 16-35mm at f/8 -- you can see that the left and right sides do not have the clarity of the centre (to the point where I'm considering sending it back to Canon to see if they can improve it, although it seems fairly par-for-the-course with this lens):
The Canon 14-24mm f/2.8, rumoured to be announced any day now, is assumed to be up there with the Nikon 14-24mm, a landscape lens so good many pro Canon users convert it to use on their cameras. The likely downside is cost -- Canon's recently L zoom lenses (like the 24-70mm II) have stepped the price up, and it might be considered a bargain if it comes in under $2,500.
The other wide-angle lens worth considering is the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm f/2.8. It's a manual focus lens but the quality is top-notch, up there with the Canon 14mm L prime, but costs under $400. A combination of the Rokinon 14mm and Canon 17-40mm gives you the best of both worlds is a very strong alternative to the 16-35mm.
Edit: Also, based on another recent thread, you might find your 50mm f/1.4 too wide on a full-frame camera for your use (behaving as a 31mm lens would on your current camera). So you might wish to budget for something like the 85mm f/1.8 to augment or replace it.
Apologies if this has been covered, I haven't read the replies. If you can get the 6D for a decent price, I would get consider it over the Mark ii. It would certainly be lighter than the 5D Mark iii. I wouldn't consider the Mark ii as it's over four years old now, and old technology. Wi-Fi built-in is very attractive and considering the type of photos I've seen you take over the last couple of years, I don't think you need the lightning fast autofocus of the Mark iii.
The high ISO performance of any camera, when they state that you can expand to 25,600 or whatever it is, should be ignored. Who uses images at that high an ISO and expects something usable? However I recently shot a wedding and took many photos at ISO 6400 and they came out fine. I would suggest you could do the same with the 6D, which has a very similar sensor (but NOT the same - it's a fraction smaller so not technically full frame but the difference is marginal). The other tech inside is similar too, but again more comparable to the Mark ii than the Mark iii.
I considered the 6D, but with it being so new the price difference between it and the 5D Mark iii made it worthwhile to throw an extra couple of hundred and get the latter. If the price difference is the same, you may want to consider it too. The other reason I went from the 7D to the 5D Mark iii is the extremely similar feel and button layout. As you're considering moving from the 500D to the 6D, it will feel like a more seamless transition.
@abirkill slightly off topic, although i upgraded from a 550d to a 7d and would love to get a 5d mark3 as i feel it would work well with the 7D keeping that for wildife, sports and airshows and the 5d for portraits and landscape., but you mention about focus recompose which is what i do using centre point but i came across something the other day that recommends back button focussing, is this something you have come across?
@abirkill Thank you, thank you, thank you for your expertise and considered opinion here. You add so incredibly much to the 365 community and are always so willing to share, instruct and advise.
@markyl Back button focusing refers to using a button on the rear of the camera (typically the AF-ON button on Canon cameras) to focus the camera, rather than a half-press of the shutter button.
The purpose of this is to separate the act of focusing the camera from the act of taking a photograph. This can be useful in a few scenarios:
1. Focus-and-recompose. By using the rear AF-ON button to focus the camera when it's pointed at the subject, you can then recompose the image without having the focus position change when you press the shutter.
This is a lot quicker and easier than either having to hold the shutter half-way down to keep the focus locked (which also stops you reviewing the photos without losing the focus lock), or switching the lens into manual focus mode each time. You simply point the camera at the subject, press the AF-ON button to focus, and you can then recompose and press the shutter button safe in the knowledge that your focus will not change until you use the AF-ON button again.
2. Sports photography. Sports photographers typically have AI Servo (continuous autofocus) enabled so that the camera tracks the object they are photographing and keeps it in focus. However, what if you suddenly need to take a shot of a non-moving subject, or disable focus tracking for another reason? It's fiddly to switch from AI Servo to One-shot mode, but the AF-ON button can be used to temporarily disable focus tracking with a single button push, allowing sports photographers to get the shot quickly and without having to peer at camera settings.
There are various other uses for back-button focusing, but these are two of the most common. Many people simply use it because it gives a higher level of control, but there is a learning curve -- if you disable autofocus on the shutter button, expect to have a fair few unfocused shots while you remember to hit the AF-ON button every time you need to focus.
There's an article from Canon here that goes into it in much more detail, and explains how to activate it (by default, the AF-ON button is just a secondary focus button and doesn't offer any benefits -- you need to explicitly decide how you want to use it and enable it in the camera's menu):
Note that only higher-end models have an AF-ON button, but that (I think) all Canon DSLRs can perform this function (it just gets assigned to a different button on the back of the camera).
@abirkill Thank you :) (That shot is amazing!) You've convinced me! The 17-40mm looks like pretty good value for what it can achieve. You're right - I'd probably never shoot below f/8 or so for the sorts of landscapes I want to use it for, so it should be pretty good all the way to the edges.
I will definitely be hanging onto my f/1.4 - it's just a question of which other lens I will purchase to complete the further end of the focal range. I think for budget's sake I will stick to the Sigma 70-300 for now, until I can afford something better :) (the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is just way to pricey for me at the moment).
I think I will be going for the 6D, if only because the controls look and feel more intuitive to me (coming from a lower-end DSLR), and I do have access to a Mk II if I ever need it, and the 6D is just a bit more modern.
@vikdaddy Yup... my mind is pretty made up! lol. I've seen the 6D here for as low as $1800 Australian - I may wait a few months and see if it drops more, or I may get too impatient and buy it tomorrow. xD
I bought my 6D a week ago. I researched the 5D Mark II, 5D Mark III, D600, D800 and the 7D. Actually, initially I was only going to get the 7D because it was less money. I researched for 3 months and drove my girlfriend crazy! haha
You will have so much fun with this camera like I am having. The WiFi with iPhone app makes it so easy to share my photos on facebook, twitter or instagram and email them right after I took a photo! And the really cool thing is, only ppl with this feature can do it, but on a FF DSLR, you and other 6D owners in town are likely the only ppl that can do this... unless 5D Mark III users buy the $600 WiFi adapter.
I like the menu system; less buttons and eventhough ppl talk about the WB menu because it takes a couple more steps to change it, but I just leave my WB on auto because its actually really accurate.
The Low Light capabilities still amaze me... really, really amazing.
Have fun with it!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
On paper it does look like a good camera
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-6D-vs-Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II/specs
The 6D should really be the successor to the 5D Mark II. It has better low-light capability, has some useful add-on features like GPS and Wifi (although bear in mind they really hurt battery life if you leave them enabled), and is nice and compact. It carries over some limitations of the 5D2, like having a fairly basic autofocus system and relatively slow frame rate.
It's an ideal camera to upgrade to if you want to go to full-frame for cheap, and/or if you do primarily landscape photography. You are not sacrificing image quality at all -- it's as good as the 5D3 in real-world use.
The 5D Mark III should really be called something else, as it has taken the previous 5D range (which, like the 6D, were primarily aimed at landscape photographers) and made it much more general-purpose. It has a top-of-the-range autofocus system, and increases the framerate to something that, while not groundbreaking, is a bit more useful for sports photography, wedding photography, etc.
The 5D Mark II is a great camera -- it does only natively go up to ISO 6400, but it does have extension modes H1 and H2 which are equivalent to 12800 and 25600 (although the 6D has these as well, going as high as 102,400). But don't worry about this too much, you don't really want to go above ISO 6400 with any of these.
Get the 5D3 if you want an awesome general-purpose camera (and it really is awesome). Get the 6D if you want a smaller camera and don't care about the better autofocus system in the 5D3 (or if you really want the GPS and Wifi, as they're crazily expensive to add t to the 5D3). Get the 5D2 if you can get an awesome deal on it from somewhere selling their last few, as it's still an incredibly good camera.
Note that the 6D is still overpriced, due to being new. In the US, the 6D hasn't dropped below $1900 yet, and Canon have been selling refurbished 5D3s (Canon US's refurbishment is by all accounts superb) for $2250 -- with that little difference it's hard to justify buying the 6D. Also keep an eye out for cheap 5D2s, again Canon have been selling these refurbished for as low as $1350.
Remember to take into account lens costs, lenses designed for crop-frame cameras will not work on full-frame cameras. It's no use getting a top-of-the-range camera and having to put a cheap lens on the front.
I have been thinking about this long and hard - and you've given me more to think about, which is great :)
I don't see the limited autofocus points as a huge disadvantage for me - I either use MF or the "focus and recompose" method using the centre point (which is the most sensitive anyway - down to -3).
Yeah, I had a look at some of the test shots for the ISO and even 25,600 is looking pretty terrible up close! Would be alright for small-to-medium-sized print, though.
Yup, I own 3 lenses at the moment - 18-55mm, 55-250mm and the 50mm f/1.4. I never use the 55-250mm, as I have access to a Sigma 70-300mm (which I think does work on full-frame cameras?), and I understand I'll have to replace the 18-55mm with something else (I'm thinking 24-70mm f/2.8, although I also have access to a 24-105mm f/4).
I have found the 6D online new for $1,750 (Australian), which I think is decent? I really don't want to spend more than $2,000 for a new body.
To be honest, the 5D Mk III has many frills and bells and whistles that I really don't need and will never use, and won't want to pay for. At least not at this stage of my photography "career". :D I just want to go full-frame with a body that feels right in my hands - and the 5D Mk II doesn't quite do that for me.
Even the best lenses don't have a flat field of focus -- it curves (typically towards the camera) at the edges of the frame, and more so (because you get closer to the actual edge) with a full-frame camera.
By focusing with the centre point and then adjusting the framing, you are not taking this into account, and your subject will be slightly out of focus. This is why high-end cameras have more (and better) focus points at the edges of the frame.
If you bear this in mind and use manual focus (or use the other focus points, which are OK on the 6D in good light) you'll be fine.
The Sigma 70-300 will work fine on full-frame cameras, but don't expect miracles -- it won't be all that sharp, especially in the corners.
The 24-70mm f/2.8L is a very nice lens, but not in production any more (and easily damaged by ill-treatment, so buying one second-hand is a bit of a gamble unless you plan to send it to Canon for recalibration). The 24-70mm f/2.8L II is an even better lens, but is *very* expensive. I'd be tempted (and indeed, have been tempted) to stick with the 24-105mm kit lens -- you get image stabilisation, lacking on the 24-70mm, a better range, and remember that an f/4 lens on a full-frame camera appears to have the same depth of field as an f/2.8 lens on a crop-frame camera.
Yeah, I am kicking myself... when I first became interested in the 24-70mm, it was still available, and for around $1,300. I left it too late though. The thing is, however, I prefer the lower aperture because I want to be able to shoot in low-light situations, and quite a lot of my photography involves shallow depth of field. I have used the 24-105mm and while it is a great lens, it doesn't quite do what I want/need.
What sort of wide-angle lens for landscapes would you recommend? I've been looking around and the 16-35mm f/2.8 sprang up on my searches.
Remember the 24-105mm has 3-stop IS -- obviously no good if you're shooting moving subjects, but for stationary subjects in low light and handheld, it will be 2 stops better than the 24-70mm (that's the equivalent of, for example, ISO 1600 instead of 6400). Not that the 24-70mm II isn't an awesome lens -- it is -- but you might have a better overall package going with the 24-105mm and getting the 70-300L to replace your Sigma, for similar cost to the 24-70 alone.
Wide-angle, it's a tricky one. The 16-35mm is a fine lens, but it's really intended for wedding photography, where you need the wide aperture to freeze motion in low light. It's not a great lens for sharpness, especially in the corners, until stopped down, as you can see on these charts:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412
The 17-40mm is a fraction of the price and just as sharp wide open (i.e. not particularly, in the corners at least), and for landscape use you'll typically be at f/8 or above anyway. As you can see, at f/8 the 17-40mm is possibly even slightly sharper (move your mouse over the image to swap between the 16-35mm and 17-40mm):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
I have the 16-35mm as you need the extra stop of light for star photography, but it's a hard lens to recommend for the price if you're not doing that or people photography. It does do *awesome* starbursts when stopped down, though, better than the 17-40mm.
Here's a full-res link to one of my photos taken with the 16-35mm at f/8 -- you can see that the left and right sides do not have the clarity of the centre (to the point where I'm considering sending it back to Canon to see if they can improve it, although it seems fairly par-for-the-course with this lens):
The Canon 14-24mm f/2.8, rumoured to be announced any day now, is assumed to be up there with the Nikon 14-24mm, a landscape lens so good many pro Canon users convert it to use on their cameras. The likely downside is cost -- Canon's recently L zoom lenses (like the 24-70mm II) have stepped the price up, and it might be considered a bargain if it comes in under $2,500.
The other wide-angle lens worth considering is the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm f/2.8. It's a manual focus lens but the quality is top-notch, up there with the Canon 14mm L prime, but costs under $400. A combination of the Rokinon 14mm and Canon 17-40mm gives you the best of both worlds is a very strong alternative to the 16-35mm.
Edit: Also, based on another recent thread, you might find your 50mm f/1.4 too wide on a full-frame camera for your use (behaving as a 31mm lens would on your current camera). So you might wish to budget for something like the 85mm f/1.8 to augment or replace it.
The high ISO performance of any camera, when they state that you can expand to 25,600 or whatever it is, should be ignored. Who uses images at that high an ISO and expects something usable? However I recently shot a wedding and took many photos at ISO 6400 and they came out fine. I would suggest you could do the same with the 6D, which has a very similar sensor (but NOT the same - it's a fraction smaller so not technically full frame but the difference is marginal). The other tech inside is similar too, but again more comparable to the Mark ii than the Mark iii.
I considered the 6D, but with it being so new the price difference between it and the 5D Mark iii made it worthwhile to throw an extra couple of hundred and get the latter. If the price difference is the same, you may want to consider it too. The other reason I went from the 7D to the 5D Mark iii is the extremely similar feel and button layout. As you're considering moving from the 500D to the 6D, it will feel like a more seamless transition.
Good luck!
The purpose of this is to separate the act of focusing the camera from the act of taking a photograph. This can be useful in a few scenarios:
1. Focus-and-recompose. By using the rear AF-ON button to focus the camera when it's pointed at the subject, you can then recompose the image without having the focus position change when you press the shutter.
This is a lot quicker and easier than either having to hold the shutter half-way down to keep the focus locked (which also stops you reviewing the photos without losing the focus lock), or switching the lens into manual focus mode each time. You simply point the camera at the subject, press the AF-ON button to focus, and you can then recompose and press the shutter button safe in the knowledge that your focus will not change until you use the AF-ON button again.
2. Sports photography. Sports photographers typically have AI Servo (continuous autofocus) enabled so that the camera tracks the object they are photographing and keeps it in focus. However, what if you suddenly need to take a shot of a non-moving subject, or disable focus tracking for another reason? It's fiddly to switch from AI Servo to One-shot mode, but the AF-ON button can be used to temporarily disable focus tracking with a single button push, allowing sports photographers to get the shot quickly and without having to peer at camera settings.
There are various other uses for back-button focusing, but these are two of the most common. Many people simply use it because it gives a higher level of control, but there is a learning curve -- if you disable autofocus on the shutter button, expect to have a fair few unfocused shots while you remember to hit the AF-ON button every time you need to focus.
There's an article from Canon here that goes into it in much more detail, and explains how to activate it (by default, the AF-ON button is just a secondary focus button and doesn't offer any benefits -- you need to explicitly decide how you want to use it and enable it in the camera's menu):
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/backbutton_af_article.shtml
Note that only higher-end models have an AF-ON button, but that (I think) all Canon DSLRs can perform this function (it just gets assigned to a different button on the back of the camera).
I will definitely be hanging onto my f/1.4 - it's just a question of which other lens I will purchase to complete the further end of the focal range. I think for budget's sake I will stick to the Sigma 70-300 for now, until I can afford something better :) (the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is just way to pricey for me at the moment).
I think I will be going for the 6D, if only because the controls look and feel more intuitive to me (coming from a lower-end DSLR), and I do have access to a Mk II if I ever need it, and the 6D is just a bit more modern.
I bought my 6D a week ago. I researched the 5D Mark II, 5D Mark III, D600, D800 and the 7D. Actually, initially I was only going to get the 7D because it was less money. I researched for 3 months and drove my girlfriend crazy! haha
You will have so much fun with this camera like I am having. The WiFi with iPhone app makes it so easy to share my photos on facebook, twitter or instagram and email them right after I took a photo! And the really cool thing is, only ppl with this feature can do it, but on a FF DSLR, you and other 6D owners in town are likely the only ppl that can do this... unless 5D Mark III users buy the $600 WiFi adapter.
I like the menu system; less buttons and eventhough ppl talk about the WB menu because it takes a couple more steps to change it, but I just leave my WB on auto because its actually really accurate.
The Low Light capabilities still amaze me... really, really amazing.
Have fun with it!