The Unthinkable: Swapped out 5D3 for 6D

[CarlTN]

So over the Thanksgiving weekend, I finally gathered the nerve to just let go of my 5D3 as I was offered a fair price for it. That, in conjunction with the deal for the 6D at $1400 pushed me into pulling the trigger on the swap out. Done and done.

Some things I'm struggling with, some not so much. Either way, I think the decision was the right one for me (for now).

Wondering if anyone else has given the same move some thought.

Bravo!  I took a less costly route and just bought the 6D to begin with, having tried my cousin's 5D3 a few times.

John, just keep in mind, that in the eyes of the 5D3 lovers, you are no longer a serious photographer.  You have taken a step down in your photographic station in life!

I wouldn't say this at all. Based on his explanation, it sounds like he made an ideal decision. The 5D III was sitting on a shelf, the Fuji was getting more use, but he had a big investment in EF glass. Sounds like John and the 6D are a match made in heaven...

Well apparently it's just me who isn't a serious photographer then...

[ishdakuteb]

Again, I don't understand WHY people complaining about 5D III can't focus in the dark.

dylan, that is not strange at all though.  there are some using it in the wrong way and think that it cannot focus in the dark.  well, i have to say that i have not used my canon 5d mark iii much in the complete dim lit situation.  however, i still confidently say that i will not have any problem with using my 5d mark iii in the dim lit situation based on following image...

candid shot with canon 30d with 50mm f/1.4 at f/2, iso 800, available light, outer focus point, light in the room was all out, subject (my daughter) was lit by just the candle light (note:  this image was post on fb and took down for post process with noise was added to the image a while ago.)

[Robert Welch]

I don't see a problem with going from a 5Dmk3 to a 6D. I own both, and they both have great features.

If you don't need the sturdier build, the more versatile AF, the dual card slots and slightly better flash sync speed, then by all means save the money and use the 6D. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a snob, IMO.

In truth, I can take a photo with either camera, and without knowing which one was used I'd defy anyone to be able to guess.

[MichaelHodges]

The controversy is kept alive because the 6D just has the better sensor, period. And these days, "better camera" IMHO means "better sensor". You can add all the peripheral items, but in the end that's what counts.


And in terms of lowlight performance, the 6D *smacks* down the 5D III:

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/13/canon-6d-and-5dmk3-noise-comparison-for-high-iso-long-exposures/

[JohnDizzo15]

Putting aside all the battling about which one is better than the other in which way...

At the end of the day, I think the biggest takeaway from the whole experience for me was the self-assessment aspect. I think that many of us suffer from a compulsion centered on acquiring more and/or better gear which is what has led me to owning as much as I do. Going through the thought process and truly evaluating what my needs are was really eye-opening and valuable. I think it will be easier for me to let go of some of the gear that I kept around merely because I thought there "may be" a chance I'll need it. Coming to grips with need vs. want or potential need will ultimately help me to triage what will remain in the collection. Consolidating and downsizing not only lets me get rid of the unnecessary stuff, but will allow me to save up money for a single high dollar item that I'll use all the time i.e. the new ff body/bodies to come.

[jrista]

@MichaelHodges: I wouldn't say the 6D smacks down the 5D III. It's better, but not massively better.

Here are some visual comparisons of the 1D X vs. 5D III noise levels at each ISO setting. At higher ISO, it is clear the 1D X has much better noise performance:

http://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluation-canon-1dx/index.html
http://clarkvision.com/articles/evaluation-canon-5diii/index.html

From ISO 1600 on, the 1DX has a much smoother noise, a lower STDev. This makes hot pixels stand out a little more, but hot pixels are easy to eliminate. The 6D sits somewhere between these two cameras (sadly, Roger Clark hasn't tested the 6D yet.)

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Putting aside all the battling about which one is better than the other in which way...

At the end of the day, I think the biggest takeaway from the whole experience for me was the self-assessment aspect. I think that many of us suffer from a compulsion centered on acquiring more and/or better gear which is what has led me to owning as much as I do. Going through the thought process and truly evaluating what my needs are was really eye-opening and valuable. I think it will be easier for me to let go of some of the gear that I kept around merely because I thought there "may be" a chance I'll need it. Coming to grips with need vs. want or potential need will ultimately help me to triage what will remain in the collection. Consolidating and downsizing not only lets me get rid of the unnecessary stuff, but will allow me to save up money for a single high dollar item that I'll use all the time i.e. the new ff body/bodies to come.

That's a great point, John.  Ego is undoubtedly a part of our profession/hobby.  I have learned the hard way that I don't have to have everything, and I have reached a point where I don't add anything to my kit without subtracting something.  I'm in the process of selling one of my cheapest pieces (85mm f/1. and am replacing it in my bag with the new 35mm f/2 IS.  I have a great zoom covering the focal length (70-300L), and I also have the 100L and the 135L.  I decided that I don't really need the 85mm, and a friend is very happily buying it off me.

P.S.  I've also learned that there are some very good lenses out there that don't have a red ring on them.  I've actually replaced two red rings with other branded lenses.

[jrista]

Putting aside all the battling about which one is better than the other in which way...

At the end of the day, I think the biggest takeaway from the whole experience for me was the self-assessment aspect. I think that many of us suffer from a compulsion centered on acquiring more and/or better gear which is what has led me to owning as much as I do. Going through the thought process and truly evaluating what my needs are was really eye-opening and valuable. I think it will be easier for me to let go of some of the gear that I kept around merely because I thought there "may be" a chance I'll need it. Coming to grips with need vs. want or potential need will ultimately help me to triage what will remain in the collection. Consolidating and downsizing not only lets me get rid of the unnecessary stuff, but will allow me to save up money for a single high dollar item that I'll use all the time i.e. the new ff body/bodies to come.

That's a great point, John.  Ego is undoubtedly a part of our profession/hobby.  I have learned the hard way that I don't have to have everything, and I have reached a point where I don't add anything to my kit without subtracting something.  I'm in the process of selling one of my cheapest pieces (85mm f/1. and am replacing it in my bag with the new 35mm f/2 IS.  I have a great zoom covering the focal length (70-300L), and I also have the 100L and the 135L.  I decided that I don't really need the 85mm, and a friend is very happily buying it off me.

P.S.  I've also learned that there are some very good lenses out there that don't have a red ring on them.  I've actually replaced two red rings with other branded lenses.

Good points, true.

However, it isn't necessarily all about ego. I spent over ten grand on a lens this year, a $12,800 lens to be exact. While I believe there may be a very few people who have egos so large that they might actually drop that kind of money on a lens "just to have it so they can brag it"...I think such individuals are VERY, VERY few and far between.

I bought the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II lens because I needed it. I'd been shooting with the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L lens for a while. The 100-400 is an excellent lens, it produces wonderful shots that can be very sharp. Don't get me wrong, I love my 100-400. That said, it wasn't letting me realize the kind of results I really wanted. A 71mm entrance pupil at 400mm just wasn't large enough to produce the kind of soft, creamy boke that I felt was necessary for my work. Not only that, the lens only performed ideally when stopped down to f/7.1...anything wider and the image softened, visibly (even with AFMA and a trip to Canon for calibration.)

The 600/4 L lens has a 150mm entrance pupil, which does WONDERS for background boke. The lens is razor sharp wide open, so I can get more light and use lower ISO settings. Combined with a TC, it gets me 840mm of significantly greater reach (subject size in the frame is relative to the ratio of focal lengths squared...(840/400)^2...my subjects increased in the frame by a factor of 4.4x!) Overall, between brighter and larger subjects with blurrier backgrounds, I have more detailed photos with more isolated birds and wildlife. I'm able to start realizing the kind of results in my work that I have worked for for years.

I currently own a 7D. The 7D is a great camera. I got it for an incredible deal ($1200 in 2011!) It has a fast frame rate, and does reasonably well at high ISO. However, similar to my 100-400mm lens, it has become the primary limiting factor. It does not do all that well, relatively speaking, at any ISO above 1600. Even ISO 1600 is lacking by todays standards, and can be too noisy in sunrise or sunset light (even with an f/4 lens). The AF system, while certainly better than the 9pt systems I started out with, has it's issues (namely, the constant inter-frame jitter that results in some frames being tack sharp and others being just the smallest degree too much out of focus that they can't be keepers.)

My only two options, given the expenditure of thousands of dollars on the 600mm lens, are the 1D X and 5D III. The 1D X would certainly be my ideal choice...but the 5D III is absolutely no slouch. It's AF system is blazing fast and extremely consistent compared to the 7D, and it supports f/8 AF, meaning I don't necessarily have to give up my reach (1200mm f/8 vs. an effective 1344 f/5.6...given equivalence, the f/8 on a FF sensor is actually just as good, from a total light gathering standpoint, as f/5.6 on APS-C). If I had the money, I'd buy the 1D X. It has absolutely amazing quality at unheard of ISO settings, and at every ISO setting from 400 up, it performs visibly better than any other camera I know of, including the 6D. Since I cannot afford the 1D X, the 5D III is my choice.

My desire to own the 5D III and 600mm f/4 L II lens has nothing to do with ego. It has everything to do with achieving my goals in my work. I am fairly humble about my work as well...personally, I am never quite satisfied with it...there is ALWAYS something I can do better, something I can improve. I hope someday I'll have developed the skill to achieve exactly what I want when I point my lens and press the shutter button, but I know quite thouroughly that day hasn't arrived yet, and won't arrive for some time still.

@John, I applaud your decision to step down to the 6D. For your needs and goals, it sounded like the ideal decision. It got rid of a camera you were rarely using, replaced it with a camera you use more, allowed you to continue to gain value from your collection of EF lenses, and gave you some extra funds to put towards a future camera that you will use even more. I can't think of a better reason to make the decision you did.

That said, @TWI, not everyone who uses or wants something better than the 6D is only out for an ego trip. There are legitimate reasons to NEED the 5D III, to even NEED something much better than the 5D III. Sometimes debating the minutia of technical details helps people figure out what they truly need, and make the appropriate decisions to buy the gear that best fits their goals. I need the 1D X for my birds and wildlife photography, and I'll "settle" for the 5D III. For my astrophotography, the 6D's lower high ISO noise levels actually make it the better camera, and a lens like the new Samyang 10mm f/2.8 manual focus lens would be ideal.

Different needs demand different things. It's ok if all you need is a 6D. I think where the debate enters in is when you get people saying the 6D is a superior camera to the 5D III, simply because it has a "better" sensor. While it may have some superior attributes, it is by no means a superior camera.

[JohnDizzo15]

Putting aside all the battling about which one is better than the other in which way...

At the end of the day, I think the biggest takeaway from the whole experience for me was the self-assessment aspect. I think that many of us suffer from a compulsion centered on acquiring more and/or better gear which is what has led me to owning as much as I do. Going through the thought process and truly evaluating what my needs are was really eye-opening and valuable. I think it will be easier for me to let go of some of the gear that I kept around merely because I thought there "may be" a chance I'll need it. Coming to grips with need vs. want or potential need will ultimately help me to triage what will remain in the collection. Consolidating and downsizing not only lets me get rid of the unnecessary stuff, but will allow me to save up money for a single high dollar item that I'll use all the time i.e. the new ff body/bodies to come.

That's a great point, John.  Ego is undoubtedly a part of our profession/hobby.  I have learned the hard way that I don't have to have everything, and I have reached a point where I don't add anything to my kit without subtracting something.  I'm in the process of selling one of my cheapest pieces (85mm f/1. and am replacing it in my bag with the new 35mm f/2 IS.  I have a great zoom covering the focal length (70-300L), and I also have the 100L and the 135L.  I decided that I don't really need the 85mm, and a friend is very happily buying it off me.

P.S.  I've also learned that there are some very good lenses out there that don't have a red ring on them.  I've actually replaced two red rings with other branded lenses.

Good points, true.

However, it isn't necessarily all about ego. I spent over ten grand on a lens this year, a $12,800 lens to be exact. While I believe there may be a very few people who have egos so large that they might actually drop that kind of money on a lens "just to have it so they can brag it"...I think such individuals are VERY, VERY few and far between.

I bought the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II lens because I needed it. I'd been shooting with the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L lens for a while. The 100-400 is an excellent lens, it produces wonderful shots that can be very sharp. Don't get me wrong, I love my 100-400. That said, it wasn't letting me realize the kind of results I really wanted. A 71mm entrance pupil at 400mm just wasn't large enough to produce the kind of soft, creamy boke that I felt was necessary for my work. Not only that, the lens only performed ideally when stopped down to f/7.1...anything wider and the image softened, visibly (even with AFMA and a trip to Canon for calibration.)

The 600/4 L lens has a 150mm entrance pupil, which does WONDERS for background boke. The lens is razor sharp wide open, so I can get more light and use lower ISO settings. Combined with a TC, it gets me 840mm of significantly greater reach (subject size in the frame is relative to the ratio of focal lengths squared...(840/400)^2...my subjects increased in the frame by a factor of 4.4x!) Overall, between brighter and larger subjects with blurrier backgrounds, I have more detailed photos with more isolated birds and wildlife. I'm able to start realizing the kind of results in my work that I have worked for for years.

I currently own a 7D. The 7D is a great camera. I got it for an incredible deal ($1200 in 2011!) It has a fast frame rate, and does reasonably well at high ISO. However, similar to my 100-400mm lens, it has become the primary limiting factor. It does not do all that well, relatively speaking, at any ISO above 1600. Even ISO 1600 is lacking by todays standards, and can be too noisy in sunrise or sunset light (even with an f/4 lens). The AF system, while certainly better than the 9pt systems I started out with, has it's issues (namely, the constant inter-frame jitter that results in some frames being tack sharp and others being just the smallest degree too much out of focus that they can't be keepers.)

My only two options, given the expenditure of thousands of dollars on the 600mm lens, are the 1D X and 5D III. The 1D X would certainly be my ideal choice...but the 5D III is absolutely no slouch. It's AF system is blazing fast and extremely consistent compared to the 7D, and it supports f/8 AF, meaning I don't necessarily have to give up my reach (1200mm f/8 vs. an effective 1344 f/5.6...given equivalence, the f/8 on a FF sensor is actually just as good, from a total light gathering standpoint, as f/5.6 on APS-C). If I had the money, I'd buy the 1D X. It has absolutely amazing quality at unheard of ISO settings, and at every ISO setting from 400 up, it performs visibly better than any other camera I know of, including the 6D. Since I cannot afford the 1D X, the 5D III is my choice.

My desire to own the 5D III and 600mm f/4 L II lens has nothing to do with ego. It has everything to do with achieving my goals in my work. I am fairly humble about my work as well...personally, I am never quite satisfied with it...there is ALWAYS something I can do better, something I can improve. I hope someday I'll have developed the skill to achieve exactly what I want when I point my lens and press the shutter button, but I know quite thouroughly that day hasn't arrived yet, and won't arrive for some time still.

@John, I applaud your decision to step down to the 6D. For your needs and goals, it sounded like the ideal decision. It got rid of a camera you were rarely using, replaced it with a camera you use more, allowed you to continue to gain value from your collection of EF lenses, and gave you some extra funds to put towards a future camera that you will use even more. I can't think of a better reason to make the decision you did.

That said, @TWI, not everyone who uses or wants something better than the 6D is only out for an ego trip. There are legitimate reasons to NEED the 5D III, to even NEED something much better than the 5D III. Sometimes debating the minutia of technical details helps people figure out what they truly need, and make the appropriate decisions to buy the gear that best fits their goals. I need the 1D X for my birds and wildlife photography, and I'll "settle" for the 5D III. For my astrophotography, the 6D's lower high ISO noise levels actually make it the better camera, and a lens like the new Samyang 10mm f/2.8 manual focus lens would be ideal.

Different needs demand different things. It's ok if all you need is a 6D. I think where the debate enters in is when you get people saying the 6D is a superior camera to the 5D III, simply because it has a "better" sensor. While it may have some superior attributes, it is by no means a superior camera.

Well said.

It was like going through rehab to come to realizations about what is needed to "get it done."  There are countless variances in need. The difficulty lies in drawing that line between want and what is necessary to get your job done. I wish all here the best of luck in finding the strength to make the decisions that serve them best. I know I needed it.

[CarlTN]

The controversy is kept alive because the 6D just has the better sensor, period. And these days, "better camera" IMHO means "better sensor". You can add all the peripheral items, but in the end that's what counts.


And in terms of lowlight performance, the 6D *smacks* down the 5D III:

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/13/canon-6d-and-5dmk3-noise-comparison-for-high-iso-long-exposures/

Agree, but I also agree with those who hound me whenever I speak of liking the 6D and what it can do...the image has to be in relatively sharp focus for the IQ to be as good or "better".  In the end its due to technique, patience, ability, and choice.  The outer AF points hold the 6D back, and generally the whole AF sensor and computing power hold it back.  But then, that's by design.  Right now it's less than half the cost of the 5D3 (but I've seen the D800 at a lower new price than the 5D3 discounted price also).  At $1415, the 6D is simply a screaming bargain if there ever was one (at least for stills photography...the 70D seems like a bargain for video).  If money is no object, the 1DX is the first choice, and the 5D3 is the price cutting compromise.  But the smart money would wait to see what 2014 or 2015 have in store, where 1 series bodies are concerned.

As for ego, well...I will try to keep my fingers from typing anything further on that. 

There was a similar link on *********.com a couple of days ago, but this one is also interesting, thanks Michael for posting it.

[Etienne]

I have the 5DIII and have used the 6D.

The only thing I prefer about the 6D is the weight and size. The 5DIII has better ergonomics, better button implementation, better menu structure, better HDR implementation (RAWs + HDR saved), better AF, far superior video performance, ... basically better everything.

[CarlTN]

I have the 5DIII and have used the 6D.

The only thing I prefer about the 6D is the weight and size. The 5DIII has better ergonomics, better button implementation, better menu structure, better HDR implementation (RAWs + HDR saved), better AF, far superior video performance, ... basically better everything.

Not better everything, but I'll concede most of what you mention.  I prefer the ergonomics of the 6D, myself.  It could use a few more buttons, but definitely the shutter button has a better feel on the 6D, than the 5D3 to me...it's mushy and vague.

However, again...the 6D is now half the cost of a 5D3.  The sheer fact that they're mentioned in the same sentence, says a lot about what you get for the money spent on a 6D.  To compare them as if they're in the same category by presuming that $1400 and $2800 are basically similar sums invested (because lenses and everything else cost so much anyway), is wrong. 

[Etienne]

I have the 5DIII and have used the 6D.

The only thing I prefer about the 6D is the weight and size. The 5DIII has better ergonomics, better button implementation, better menu structure, better HDR implementation (RAWs + HDR saved), better AF, far superior video performance, ... basically better everything.

Not better everything, but I'll concede most of what you mention.  I prefer the ergonomics of the 6D, myself.  It could use a few more buttons, but definitely the shutter button has a better feel on the 6D, than the 5D3 to me...it's mushy and vague.

However, again...the 6D is now half the cost of a 5D3.  The sheer fact that they're mentioned in the same sentence, says a lot about what you get for the money spent on a 6D.

I agree the 5DIII shutter button feel could be better. I found it odd at first but  I guess I've gotten used to it. No question the 6D can take every bit as good a photo in many situations, especially portrait and landscape. But I use my camera as a general purpose everything machine, including some sports and video.

The 6D video performance is the fatal flaw for me. I hated the moire and aliasing on the 5DII. The 6D performs about the same as the 5DII in video, but on the 5DIII Moire is almost completely absent, and that is a big deal! There's also audio in and headphones out and audio levels while recording, soft shutter, silent mode for video, and quite a few other nice touches.

If I only wanted landscape and portraits I would get the 6D and save some money for sure. But the 5DIII is a pretty awesome general purpose tool, with no major shortcomings.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Putting aside all the battling about which one is better than the other in which way...

At the end of the day, I think the biggest takeaway from the whole experience for me was the self-assessment aspect. I think that many of us suffer from a compulsion centered on acquiring more and/or better gear which is what has led me to owning as much as I do. Going through the thought process and truly evaluating what my needs are was really eye-opening and valuable. I think it will be easier for me to let go of some of the gear that I kept around merely because I thought there "may be" a chance I'll need it. Coming to grips with need vs. want or potential need will ultimately help me to triage what will remain in the collection. Consolidating and downsizing not only lets me get rid of the unnecessary stuff, but will allow me to save up money for a single high dollar item that I'll use all the time i.e. the new ff body/bodies to come.

That's a great point, John.  Ego is undoubtedly a part of our profession/hobby.  I have learned the hard way that I don't have to have everything, and I have reached a point where I don't add anything to my kit without subtracting something.  I'm in the process of selling one of my cheapest pieces (85mm f/1. and am replacing it in my bag with the new 35mm f/2 IS.  I have a great zoom covering the focal length (70-300L), and I also have the 100L and the 135L.  I decided that I don't really need the 85mm, and a friend is very happily buying it off me.

P.S.  I've also learned that there are some very good lenses out there that don't have a red ring on them.  I've actually replaced two red rings with other branded lenses.

Good points, true.

However, it isn't necessarily all about ego. I spent over ten grand on a lens this year, a $12,800 lens to be exact. While I believe there may be a very few people who have egos so large that they might actually drop that kind of money on a lens "just to have it so they can brag it"...I think such individuals are VERY, VERY few and far between.

I bought the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II lens because I needed it. I'd been shooting with the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L lens for a while. The 100-400 is an excellent lens, it produces wonderful shots that can be very sharp. Don't get me wrong, I love my 100-400. That said, it wasn't letting me realize the kind of results I really wanted. A 71mm entrance pupil at 400mm just wasn't large enough to produce the kind of soft, creamy boke that I felt was necessary for my work. Not only that, the lens only performed ideally when stopped down to f/7.1...anything wider and the image softened, visibly (even with AFMA and a trip to Canon for calibration.)

The 600/4 L lens has a 150mm entrance pupil, which does WONDERS for background boke. The lens is razor sharp wide open, so I can get more light and use lower ISO settings. Combined with a TC, it gets me 840mm of significantly greater reach (subject size in the frame is relative to the ratio of focal lengths squared...(840/400)^2...my subjects increased in the frame by a factor of 4.4x!) Overall, between brighter and larger subjects with blurrier backgrounds, I have more detailed photos with more isolated birds and wildlife. I'm able to start realizing the kind of results in my work that I have worked for for years.

I currently own a 7D. The 7D is a great camera. I got it for an incredible deal ($1200 in 2011!) It has a fast frame rate, and does reasonably well at high ISO. However, similar to my 100-400mm lens, it has become the primary limiting factor. It does not do all that well, relatively speaking, at any ISO above 1600. Even ISO 1600 is lacking by todays standards, and can be too noisy in sunrise or sunset light (even with an f/4 lens). The AF system, while certainly better than the 9pt systems I started out with, has it's issues (namely, the constant inter-frame jitter that results in some frames being tack sharp and others being just the smallest degree too much out of focus that they can't be keepers.)

My only two options, given the expenditure of thousands of dollars on the 600mm lens, are the 1D X and 5D III. The 1D X would certainly be my ideal choice...but the 5D III is absolutely no slouch. It's AF system is blazing fast and extremely consistent compared to the 7D, and it supports f/8 AF, meaning I don't necessarily have to give up my reach (1200mm f/8 vs. an effective 1344 f/5.6...given equivalence, the f/8 on a FF sensor is actually just as good, from a total light gathering standpoint, as f/5.6 on APS-C). If I had the money, I'd buy the 1D X. It has absolutely amazing quality at unheard of ISO settings, and at every ISO setting from 400 up, it performs visibly better than any other camera I know of, including the 6D. Since I cannot afford the 1D X, the 5D III is my choice.

My desire to own the 5D III and 600mm f/4 L II lens has nothing to do with ego. It has everything to do with achieving my goals in my work. I am fairly humble about my work as well...personally, I am never quite satisfied with it...there is ALWAYS something I can do better, something I can improve. I hope someday I'll have developed the skill to achieve exactly what I want when I point my lens and press the shutter button, but I know quite thouroughly that day hasn't arrived yet, and won't arrive for some time still.

@John, I applaud your decision to step down to the 6D. For your needs and goals, it sounded like the ideal decision. It got rid of a camera you were rarely using, replaced it with a camera you use more, allowed you to continue to gain value from your collection of EF lenses, and gave you some extra funds to put towards a future camera that you will use even more. I can't think of a better reason to make the decision you did.

That said, @TWI, not everyone who uses or wants something better than the 6D is only out for an ego trip. There are legitimate reasons to NEED the 5D III, to even NEED something much better than the 5D III. Sometimes debating the minutia of technical details helps people figure out what they truly need, and make the appropriate decisions to buy the gear that best fits their goals. I need the 1D X for my birds and wildlife photography, and I'll "settle" for the 5D III. For my astrophotography, the 6D's lower high ISO noise levels actually make it the better camera, and a lens like the new Samyang 10mm f/2.8 manual focus lens would be ideal.

Different needs demand different things. It's ok if all you need is a 6D. I think where the debate enters in is when you get people saying the 6D is a superior camera to the 5D III, simply because it has a "better" sensor. While it may have some superior attributes, it is by no means a superior camera.

I think you may have missed my point.  I certainly think that in many cases high end gear is needed, and I can see perfectly where you are coming from.  I was simply commending John for having the maturity to take assessment of his needs and adjusting his kit accordingly.  I don't think the 6D is a better camera than the 5DIII.  I do think for certain applications the 6D is better, and for other applications the 5DIII is far superior.

[CarlTN]

I have the 5DIII and have used the 6D.

The only thing I prefer about the 6D is the weight and size. The 5DIII has better ergonomics, better button implementation, better menu structure, better HDR implementation (RAWs + HDR saved), better AF, far superior video performance, ... basically better everything.

Not better everything, but I'll concede most of what you mention.  I prefer the ergonomics of the 6D, myself.  It could use a few more buttons, but definitely the shutter button has a better feel on the 6D, than the 5D3 to me...it's mushy and vague.

However, again...the 6D is now half the cost of a 5D3.  The sheer fact that they're mentioned in the same sentence, says a lot about what you get for the money spent on a 6D.

I agree the 5DIII shutter button feel could be better. I found it odd at first but  I guess I've gotten used to it. No question the 6D can take every bit as good a photo in many situations, especially portrait and landscape. But I use my camera as a general purpose everything machine, including some sports and video.

The 6D video performance is the fatal flaw for me. I hated the moire and aliasing on the 5DII. The 6D performs about the same as the 5DII in video, but on the 5DIII Moire is almost completely absent, and that is a big deal! There's also audio in and headphones out and audio levels while recording, soft shutter, silent mode for video, and quite a few other nice touches.

If I only wanted landscape and portraits I would get the 6D and save some money for sure. But the 5DIII is a pretty awesome general purpose tool, with no major shortcomings.

At its pricepoint the 6D is, I would argue a better general purpose tool.  The 5D3 is really more of a specialized , or rather "enhanced and advanced" tool, specifically because of its computing power, AF sensor, speed, (and obviously video as you mention) etc.  It does sound like you made the right choice with the 5D3, without a doubt.

However, I've done plenty of wildlife shots with my 6D.  I could do sports work with it too, but haven't needed to do any sports photography lately.  Not saying it's comparable to the 5D3 in that category, but it can be used for it.  Several other people have posted sports shots done with the 6D, in the "anything shot with a 6D" thread.

As for the "soft shutter" that you say is lacking in the 6D...if you mean "silent shutter"...you're in error, the 6D definitely has it and it works great.