70d + 70-200 II vs. 5d III

[K-amps]

I have a 6D, and I'm very pleased with the AF system. I use the center point AF anyway, since at wide open, I need to make sure I nail the focus point. 

As a back up wedding photographer, you really want to make sure that you are focusing on the Bride's eyes.  No amount of fancy AF system can dictate that for you.  You have to do it yourself.  With the center point AF, focus is instant fast.  I just focus, recompose, and shoot.  Simple as pie .

The 6d certainly does look appealing. Potentially what I'll do is buy that kit B&H is currently selling and simply sell the printer and lens for a net of ~$800, giving me a $1200 6d.

+1                 No brainer.   

[wysiwtf]

I also think the 70-200 f2.8 II is a must-have.

... however ... i would not be too harsh on the body.

Having said that, here is another idea i'd like to suggest:

Keep the Tamron 24-70 and get a used 5D Mark II ... usually something in the area of 1100€ (maybe $1300?!) ...
The rest of the money should be good for the 70-200.

[sdsr]

I was actually considering the 6d + Tamron 70-200 combo for a while, but a couple things steered me away:

2. As with basically everybody else who has ever considered a 6d, that 11pt AF is a concern. Other than the center point, the point spread would be more of a step down from the t3i's AF. I should remark that I'm not shy about using the t3i's outer points at concerts, so I don't doubt that the 6d's outer points would be too slow or not sensitive enough, but the fact that both the 70d's and 5dIII's AF systems have both better point spread AND cross type sensors in the outer thirds of the frame is a huge consideration for me.

Depending on what you're photographing, you may well find that the differences between the AF systems of the 5DIII and 6D are exaggerated by fans of the 5DIII.  I won't dispute that the 5DIII is much better if you're tracking subjects that move across the viewfinder or towards/away from you (I have no first-hand experience), but I recently added a 5DIII to my 6D and spent some time the other night comparing the performance of their outer points in very dimly lit rooms, with no flash, in my apartment with the 70-300L attached, and the number of situations where the 5DIII succeeded and the 6D failed was remarkably small (both succeeded most of the time, so I'm not sure whether it would have made that much difference had I used a faster lens); somewhat to my surprise there were even a few instances where the 6D beat the 5DIII using extreme *outer* points.  Having just bought the 5DIII I was slightly disappointed that the difference wasn't bigger (but also impressed, as I had been before, by how well the 6D kept up).  I would be surprised if your Rebel proved better than the 6D, but you might as well find out first-hand by following your own advice and renting one - that's what I like to do, anyway. 

[Wildfire]

Having owned both the 70-200 MK II and the 6D I will say that it is an incredibly killer combo that will not disappoint you. Don't bother with the 5D3 if you can't afford a decent lens to go with it.

[silvestography]

Having owned both the 70-200 MK II and the 6D I will say that it is an incredibly killer combo that will not disappoint you. Don't bother with the 5D3 if you can't afford a decent lens to go with it.

My thought exactly.

Depending on what you're photographing, you may well find that the differences between the AF systems of the 5DIII and 6D are exaggerated by fans of the 5DIII.  I won't dispute that the 5DIII is much better if you're tracking subjects that move across the viewfinder or towards/away from you (I have no first-hand experience), but I recently added a 5DIII to my 6D and spent some time the other night comparing the performance of their outer points in very dimly lit rooms, with no flash, in my apartment with the 70-300L attached, and the number of situations where the 5DIII succeeded and the 6D failed was remarkably small (both succeeded most of the time, so I'm not sure whether it would have made that much difference had I used a faster lens); somewhat to my surprise there were even a few instances where the 6D beat the 5DIII using extreme *outer* points.  Having just bought the 5DIII I was slightly disappointed that the difference wasn't bigger (but also impressed, as I had been before, by how well the 6D kept up).  I would be surprised if your Rebel proved better than the 6D, but you might as well find out first-hand by following your own advice and renting one - that's what I like to do, anyway. 

Yeah, as previously mentioned, my only concern with the 6d's outer points is the fact that they're still quite central. I do have a festival coming up this weekend so I'll see about renting one, and hopefully prove myself wrong.

[silvestography]

Decided to bump this thread. A local photoshop has a 70-200 2.8 v2 in "EXC" condition, off of which they're willing to give me $100 for a final price of $1800 (USD). Obviously, I'll be stopping in to inspect the glass and make sure everything's up to snuff, but is this a good deal? Sure seems like one to me. As for the body, I've decided to hold off until I can afford a 5d3. I am a student but I have some paid work coming up which should help towards that.

[Ruined]

I am not a 20 year photography vet or anything, but I have highly analyzed Canon's line and I can tell you this:

Full Frame bodies are in the midst of a pretty significant transition that probably will be mostly complete by around 2015.

Let's look at a couple of areas:
* Price.  The 6D was one of the first "cheap" full frame cameras.  Will it be the last? No.  As one of the first cheap full frame cameras, there is a lot missing from the 5DMKIII that would be extremely useful - such as the autofocus system mentioned earlier.  Or, even for longevity purposes the weather sealing and some of the controls the 5DMKIII has.

* However, even the 5DMKIII has some key features missing that Canon is currently beta testing with the APS-C users.  Examples:

-Touch screen: Yeah, I know it is not 100% needed, but it allows you to INSTANTLY pinch zoom to EXACTLY where you want in image preview to see if you got a shot focused just as you wanted.  Scrolling through images is also more intuitive, and menus can be made more intuitive via touch as well. And if you do any video at all, without touch you lose the useful touch-to-focus system.

-Wifi: Nice for both remote trigger and could be used at some point for high speed realtime backup.  You don't need someone running SD cards to back 'em up if you have a laptop with an 802.11N/AC wireless router that the camera is streaming pics to for backup in the background.  Now the 6D does have WiFi (as does the 70D), but it is far from reaching its potential in the field.

-"L" lenses missing IS: Image Stabilization is useful for video, but it is also useful for camera shake, especially in low light/long focal length.  But, again here we are seeing a slow uptake as it is tested in the less expensive lenses (with some exceptions of course in the 100mm and over range), refined, and likely will eventually end up in the "L" lenses over time.  It is odd that there is an EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS, but there is literally no similar focal length zoom of equal speed aperature w/ IS in the Canon EF lens lineup.  Likewise we are seeing the introduction of consumer primes with IS across the board while this has not really happened in L lenses yet except in some of the lenses 100mm and longer; you might say IS is not needed, but it is nice to have the option of using.  I would bet in a couple of years much more the the L-lenses will offer it.

My strategy: So in summary, the 6D and even the 5DMKIII are missing some key features that it is very likely their successors will have - as things like touch and wifi mature & become an expected feature - while at the same time the price of entry will likely go down as well.

While waiting for that to occur, I would hold on to your T3i until next spring and see what the 7D MKII brings. From the rumors, it looks like it might have some of these features (touch, wifi, excellent autofocus) as well as a refined sensor that may deliver less noise than the 70D. You could also see things added like a headphone jack for audio monitoring that would be immensely useful if you shoot video.  In other words, it would be a nice fully featured upgrade to make while the full frame cameras continue to evolve and drop in price...

I've always heard the mantra that a wedding photographer needs at least one set of backup gear, including lenses.  It might be interesting to have a setup that is similar to your subject: an APS body, an APS-C body, and a set of lenses that go with each with perhaps some for both (like the 70-200IIL may be too costly to duplicate, but you could get something like a 70-300L for instance to supplement it).  Maybe keep your 24-70 for the APS, but buy an EF-s 17-55mm IS for the APS-C (the latter's FOV might be a little more workable with the 1.6x crop).  Or, keep the 70-200ii for both, and pop it on the APS-C when you want to make use of the 1.6x reach.  I would think it would be nicest to have both APS and APS-C because with Canon's implementations they are both strong in different categories (APS: detail/noise, APS-C: reach/speed).

While it is true you could spend forever waiting for the latest and greatest, I really do think touch, wifi, and the newer autofocus systems (if you were thinking 6D) are worth waiting for.  They are not only nice to have, but can significantly improve the end result through quicker target acquisition through improved AF, much faster QA through touch zoom, plus improved backup potential through wifi.  And they will most likely be available in all the full frame bodies in 2014-2015, but APS-C has 'em now.