If the sample prep for EBSD is sufficient ECCI should definitely work since EBSD describes channeling out whereas ECCI is channeling in. Therefore, the information depth of ECCI is very likely a bit deeper than the signal described by EBSD patterns.

The trick of ECCI is that you need a specific crystallographic direction parallel to the electron beam which you have to optimize. For this optimization you can use EBSD patterns since they describe you quite accurate the position of a strong band edge which you have to rotateparallel to the beam. You can try it also by trial and error until you see some contrast but the better way is using a program which simulates the position of bands and calculates possible sample rotations and tilt in order to align a suitable direction parallel to the incomming beam. Since EBSD and maybe also the mechanics is not that accurate as required some minor rotations and tilts will increase the contrast of the displayed contrast. 

As detection you can actually use any BSE detector which is able to see the signal after rotation/tilt. 

BTW: The above described technice is called controlled ECCI (S. Zaefferer, MPIE Duesseldorf). He also developed a program which calculates the respective sample rotation and perhaps tilt. A further technique is called "accurate ECCI" and introduced by N. Geys group (Uni Metz, France). The commonly used ECCI is more the arbitrary ECCI which does not enable a simple characterization of the dislocation type visible. 

If the sample prep for EBSD is sufficient ECCI should definitely work since EBSD describes channeling out whereas ECCI is channeling in. Therefore, the information depth of ECCI is very likely a bit deeper than the signal described by EBSD patterns.

The trick of ECCI is that you need a specific crystallographic direction parallel to the electron beam which you have to optimize. For this optimization you can use EBSD patterns since they describe you quite accurate the position of a strong band edge which you have to rotateparallel to the beam. You can try it also by trial and error until you see some contrast but the better way is using a program which simulates the position of bands and calculates possible sample rotations and tilt in order to align a suitable direction parallel to the incomming beam. Since EBSD and maybe also the mechanics is not that accurate as required some minor rotations and tilts will increase the contrast of the displayed contrast. 

As detection you can actually use any BSE detector which is able to see the signal after rotation/tilt. 

BTW: The above described technice is called controlled ECCI (S. Zaefferer, MPIE Duesseldorf). He also developed a program which calculates the respective sample rotation and perhaps tilt. A further technique is called "accurate ECCI" and introduced by N. Geys group (Uni Metz, France). The commonly used ECCI is more the arbitrary ECCI which does not enable a simple characterization of the dislocation type visible. 

Thank you for your kind answer Dr. Nolze. :)

I recommend reading the overview paper by S. Zaefferer (S. Zaefferer, N.-N. Elhami, Acta Materialia 75 (2014) 20–50); the theory and application of the ECCI technique is discussed there in detail.

Regarding the sample preparation, we mostly get the best results after mechanical polishing, final polishing in colloidal silica suspension, ensuring a deformation-free surface. The electro-polishing is not recommended as it might lead to some surface artifacts such as pitting.

Thank you ms tarzimoghadam i will read recommended article

ECC is improved at low kV, high beam current and short working distances. On our FEI QuantaFEG we use 4- 5 kV, 10 nA  (spot size 2 in analytical mode) and 5 - 6 mm WD. You need a BSE detector that is suitable for low kV's. On our QuantaFEG this is the vCD detector.

For sample preparation read the paper by Zaefferer and Elhami, but you don't need the very long times (30 min) for colloidal silica: 5 -10 minutes is enough. Sometimes we use broad Ar milling, but this step adds some unwanted topography.