would it be better to use a 5d mark 3 for manual focus rather than a 6d?

[Sebring5]

Would it make any difference?

[Sporgon]

Would it make any difference?

Personaly if I was going to use manual focus lenses and not be always shooting from a tripod and using live view, I would choose the 6D due to its lack of translucent LCD screen, and the ability to fit a proper manual focus one.

[neuroanatomist]

Depends on the lens, and what you mean by manual focus.  If you mean through the viewfinder, the stock focus screen in both is the same, and is not very good for lenses faster than f/2.8 (because you'll see the DoF of ~f/2.8 even with faster lenses). The 6D has a user-replaceable focus screen, so you can easily install the Canon Eg-S, which will show you the true DoF of a fast prime (and conversely, f/4 and f/5.6 lenses will give you a pretty dark viewfinder).  Canon doesn't consider the 5DIII's focus screen to be user replaceable.  There are 3rd party options, installation can be easy, but also easy to screw up (misalignment resulting from improper shimming), and metering may be affected (the 6D has settings to compensate for other Canon focus screens).

If you mean manual focus via Live View, there's no difference between the two cameras. If you're going to rely on focus confirmation from the AF system, the 5DIII has an edge.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Would it make any difference?

Well 5D2 takes replacement screens easily and has exposure adjustments built-in. Not sure about the 6D, can't be worse than the 5D3 for MF.

Liveview is the best way to MF, if you can.

[Artifex]

Would it make any difference?

Well 5D2 takes replacement screens easily and has exposure adjustments built-in. Not sure about the 6D, can't be worse than the 5D3 for MF.

Liveview is the best way to MF, if you can.

I personally remplace the stock focussing screen of my 6D with a custom Ec-B screen, which has a split-screen. It really works well, especially for macro, and it was easy to install.

[Harry Muff]

The lens makes a lot of difference. MF is a pleasure on the 100 2.8L IS.

[Sebring5]

Lens are Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 ZE and  Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L. 6d has Eg-S focus screen installed. This could also be installed on 5d Mark 3.

[mrsfotografie]

Would it make any difference?

Well 5D2 takes replacement screens easily and has exposure adjustments built-in. Not sure about the 6D, can't be worse than the 5D3 for MF.

Liveview is the best way to MF, if you can.

My 5D2 has the precision matte screen which really helps with MF lenses and focus confirmation and DOF preview.

This is a critical issue for me, and one of the main reasons why I'm not interested in 'upgrading' my 5DMkII to a 5DMkIII. I also do not consider the 6D an upgrade to the MkII; the controls and build are definitely not of the same standard even though it does accept different focus screens.

So my suggestion is to use a 5D MkII !!

[Mr Bean]

Depends on the lens, and what you mean by manual focus.  If you mean through the viewfinder, the stock focus screen in both is the same, and is not very good for lenses faster than f/2.8 (because you'll see the DoF of ~f/2.8 even with faster lenses). The 6D has a user-replaceable focus screen, so you can easily install the Canon Eg-S, which will show you the true DoF of a fast prime (and conversely, f/4 and f/5.6 lenses will give you a pretty dark viewfinder).  Canon doesn't consider the 5DIII's focus screen to be user replaceable.  There are 3rd party options, installation can be easy, but also easy to screw up (misalignment resulting from improper shimming), and metering may be affected (the 6D has settings to compensate for other Canon focus screens).

If you mean manual focus via Live View, there's no difference between the two cameras. If you're going to rely on focus confirmation from the AF system, the 5DIII has an edge.

+1.
I can't speak about the 6D, but after using my Zeiss 15mm on the 5D3 for the past month or so (yes, I know, there's a bit of latitude in the 15mm ), the focus confirmation light (bottom right in the view finder) makes a MF lens very easy to use. No need for focus screen replacements, IMHO. It does take a bit of getting used to, but it's become second nature now. I'm very tempted to get a Zeiss 85 / 1.4 (at least hire first).

[Wildfire]

I also do not consider the 6D an upgrade to the MkII; the controls and build are definitely not of the same standard even though it does accept different focus screens.

So my suggestion is to use a 5D MkII !!

Sounds like you've never handled a 6D in person. I upgraded from a 5D2 to the 6D and have no regrets. It is nice having the joystick being right next to my thumb for AF point selection but if you do MF it doesn't matter anyway (the d-pad on the 6D works just fine for everything else).

Also, the build quality of the 6D is definitely of the same standard as the 5D2. Made out of the exact same magnesium alloy and feels every bit as tough and solid.

And let's not forget the fact that the 6D can produce useable images at 12800 ISO. Try that with a 5D2. ISO performance is worth the additional cost alone (if there even is any additional cost to the 6D at this point).

FWIW, the 6D does have a few weaknesses (1/4000 max shutter speed, 1/180s flash sync speed, no PC port) but it's still better than the 5D2 in almost every way.

[mrsfotografie]

I also do not consider the 6D an upgrade to the MkII; the controls and build are definitely not of the same standard even though it does accept different focus screens.

So my suggestion is to use a 5D MkII !!

Sounds like you've never handled a 6D in person. I upgraded from a 5D2 to the 6D and have no regrets. It is nice having the joystick being right next to my thumb for AF point selection but if you do MF it doesn't matter anyway (the d-pad on the 6D works just fine for everything else).

Also, the build quality of the 6D is definitely of the same standard as the 5D2. Made out of the exact same magnesium alloy and feels every bit as tough and solid.

And let's not forget the fact that the 6D can produce useable images at 12800 ISO. Try that with a 5D2. ISO performance is worth the additional cost alone (if there even is any additional cost to the 6D at this point).

FWIW, the 6D does have a few weaknesses (1/4000 max shutter speed, 1/180s flash sync speed, no PC port) but it's still better than the 5D2 in almost every way.

I handled one last weekend, and sorry but I disagree strongly - the buttons feel a lot less sturdy and I dislike the controls being in the wheel on the back. The body is an all together cheaper affair IMHO despite the more ergonomic shape. I prefer the build of a 5DMkII, 7D or 5D MkIII.

ISO performance-wise you may be right, but I rarely exceed ISO 3200

[titokane]

I also do not consider the 6D an upgrade to the MkII; the controls and build are definitely not of the same standard even though it does accept different focus screens.

So my suggestion is to use a 5D MkII !!

Sounds like you've never handled a 6D in person. I upgraded from a 5D2 to the 6D and have no regrets. It is nice having the joystick being right next to my thumb for AF point selection but if you do MF it doesn't matter anyway (the d-pad on the 6D works just fine for everything else).

Also, the build quality of the 6D is definitely of the same standard as the 5D2. Made out of the exact same magnesium alloy and feels every bit as tough and solid.

And let's not forget the fact that the 6D can produce useable images at 12800 ISO. Try that with a 5D2. ISO performance is worth the additional cost alone (if there even is any additional cost to the 6D at this point).

FWIW, the 6D does have a few weaknesses (1/4000 max shutter speed, 1/180s flash sync speed, no PC port) but it's still better than the 5D2 in almost every way.

I handled one last weekend, and sorry but I disagree strongly - the buttons feel a lot less sturdy and I dislike the controls being in the wheel on the back. The body is an all together cheaper affair IMHO despite the more ergonomic shape. I prefer the build of a 5DMkII, 7D or 5D MkIII.

ISO performance-wise you may be right, but I rarely exceed ISO 3200

+1. I have a 5D2 and a 6D in my bag, and I never mistake one for the other. The 5D is a brick; I very much believe it could take more punishment than the 6D. The 6D doesn't feel cheap or weak, but it certainly isn't as much of a beast as the 5D2. That being said, the weight difference makes it easier to use on long shoots.

Wildfire is spot on as far as IQ though. I prefer the 6D and only bring out the 5D2 for a backup camera, especially in low light!

[RLPhoto]

No. I still miss my EGs screen from my 5Dc. It's the one thing I liked over my MK3.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Would it make any difference?

Well 5D2 takes replacement screens easily and has exposure adjustments built-in. Not sure about the 6D, can't be worse than the 5D3 for MF.

Liveview is the best way to MF, if you can.

I personally remplace the stock focussing screen of my 6D with a custom Ec-B screen, which has a split-screen. It really works well, especially for macro, and it was easy to install.

Cool they went back to that for the 6D. I hate the 5D3 screen. That is the one bad thing about the 5D3 compared to all of the other Canon FF bodies.

[mrsfotografie]

Would it make any difference?

Well 5D2 takes replacement screens easily and has exposure adjustments built-in. Not sure about the 6D, can't be worse than the 5D3 for MF.

Liveview is the best way to MF, if you can.

I personally remplace the stock focussing screen of my 6D with a custom Ec-B screen, which has a split-screen. It really works well, especially for macro, and it was easy to install.

Cool they went back to that for the 6D. I hate the 5D3 screen. That is the one bad thing about the 5D3 compared to all of the other Canon FF bodies.

The 7D also has a translucent-LCD screen and for my purposes (almost strictly use with long AF lenses) it's fine. I still argue that a combination of 7D and 5DII beats owning a single 5DIII. What little may be lost on image quality is gained through versatility and battery + memory card compatibility