Rebel T4i vs 5D Mark III - $850 vs $3499 - Is it really worth 4 times the price?

[vjlex]

I think what I was looking forward to most in the release of the Mark III was improved video capabilities and improved autofocus. Autofocus is said to be greatly improved, but since I haven't used a Mark II extensively, I have no real frame of reference on its improvement. My biggest worry in getting the 5D Mark II is that I might soon come to understand why so many people complained about it's autofocus. But I'm hopeful that since I'm coming from a Rebel XTi, that even the Mark II will be a significant improvement.

With video, while I don't use it very much, I think I was most looking forward to RAW video output and video autofocus in the release of the Mark III. While I've read that there were some improvements, neither of the specific ones I was looking for were incorporated, so the right decision for me still isn't so clear cut.

I'm wondering if the autofocus of the Mark II is really as bad as I've heard. And even if it is, it's still a big step up from my Rebel, right?

 

[cliffwang]

I'm wondering if the autofocus of the Mark II is really as bad as I've heard. And even if it is, it's still a big step up from my Rebel, right?

AF on 5D2 is really NOT good. The new AF on T4i is even better than AF on 5D2. I think T2i might be even better than 5D2. However, what's the subject you shoot most? Do you need a good AF system?
You buy 5D2 for benefits from FF.
You buy 5D3 for better AF system.

my 2 cents

 

[vjlex]

If you would like to see the 5D3 performance in low light look at this gallery. It was shot at a Nissan Launch under very poor lighting (basically street lighting) most of the pictures are shot at ISO5000 and up. While they are less than optimal for Weddings and more discerning uses, they are OK for photo journalism etc. There were 5 other photographers there and all of them were using flash, none of these pictures used a flash.

http://www.wilmark.johnatty.com/p504616586

Wow, I have to say I'm pretty impressed! They look really good for ISO5000 and no flash, albeit I'm looking at downsized photos.

AF on 5D2 is really NOT good. The new AF on T4i is even better than AF on 5D2. I think T2i might be even better than 5D2. However, what's the subject you shoot most? Do you need a good AF system?
You buy 5D2 for benefits from FF.
You buy 5D3 for better AF system.

my 2 cents

Your 2 cents is much appreciated. I mostly shoot landscapes and portaits, but I have been doing the odd wedding here and there. I'm sure improved autofocus would be very useful in wedding photography, but I'm not sure I'm at that point yet.

Although they're both dated cameras now, I would be curious to find out how the autofocus of the Mark II compares to that of the Rebel XTi. I can tell the XTi's isn't great, but for what I shoot, I haven't really had any complaints. I think if the Mark II was even marginally better than the XTi I might be okay with it.

 

[Hillsilly]

... there are going to be at least half a dozen rebels at any wedding - and they will be all photo buffs, how will they feel about hiring you when you have equipment just like them? Hardly likely. Those guys with the rebels will be looking at you very closely and the next bride to be in the audience will be looking to them for recommendation.

You could just add a cheap battery grip and tape over the logo and model name. That'll keep people guessing. They might think you're packing a 1 series. If you mate this with a battered and scratched 70-200 f/2.8, 600ex and photo vest, your credibility will soar. You'll be booked out for the next two years!

 

[kalmiya]

I'm wondering if the autofocus of the Mark II is really as bad as I've heard. And even if it is, it's still a big step up from my Rebel, right?

AF on 5D2 is really NOT good. The new AF on T4i is even better than AF on 5D2. I think T2i might be even better than 5D2.

my 2 cents

Actually, from a previous discussion started on this forum, it looks like the 550D (t2i) and 5d2 have identical autofocus - with the 5D2 having a disadvantage that the AF-points are not on thirds (as in, they are more 'centered' compared to a crop-camera)...

And since I don't like AF on my 550, I'm not jumping on the 5D2 even though the price is okay ( and I'd really like to have an *affordable* FF - for which the 5D3 does NOT qualify ^^ )

 

[Dylan777]

Doesn't matter what kind of backup camera you might have, the MOST important thing is can your main camera delivers the IQ that you looking for - under low light of course?

With 61pts AF from 1D series and ISO 6400 -12800 on 5D III looks better than ISO800 on crop - I say YES, is it worth it.

I started with 40D, 60D, 7D, 5D II and now 5D III....mrk III has all features that I'm looking for in FF.

I have 5D II for less than 3 months, I couldn't stand AF. Unless you doing still shooting, otherwise...it sucks.

 

[D_Rochat]

I'm wondering if the autofocus of the Mark II is really as bad as I've heard. And even if it is, it's still a big step up from my Rebel, right?

AF on 5D2 is really NOT good. The new AF on T4i is even better than AF on 5D2. I think T2i might be even better than 5D2. However, what's the subject you shoot most? Do you need a good AF system?
You buy 5D2 for benefits from FF.
You buy 5D3 for better AF system.

my 2 cents

The T4i sounds like it has better AF than the 5D mk II, but how do you figure the T2i might have better AF than the 5D? At worst, they are the same. I don't know if the T2i has the extra invisible AF points but if it doesn't, then the 5D mk II would have a slight edge.

The mk II AF may not be a stellar performer with the exception of the center point, but the 9 point is still capable if used properly. I've shot lots of action with the 9 point and I've come out with some great shots. I might have more keepers with a better AF system, but it's still better than what most will give it credit for.

 

[Razor2012]

4x the price does not mean 4x the camera. Im a bit of an audiophile having headphones ranging from $300 to $1400. Is the $1400 headphone 4x better sounding than the $300 ? More like 20% max. Obviously they're many features in a camera. That being said, the mark III is a joy to use. My mark II has become a very expensive lens holder.

My 2 cents.

Once you go FF, you'd never go back.

You need to sell that puppy then, maybe some new L glass?

 

[cliffwang]

The T4i sounds like it has better AF than the 5D mk II, but how do you figure the T2i might have better AF than the 5D? At worst, they are the same. I don't know if the T2i has the extra invisible AF points but if it doesn't, then the 5D mk II would have a slight edge.

The mk II AF may not be a stellar performer with the exception of the center point, but the 9 point is still capable if used properly. I've shot lots of action with the 9 point and I've come out with some great shots. I might have more keepers with a better AF system, but it's still better than what most will give it credit for.

That's just my feeling. I upgraded my T2i to 7D for a while, so I cannot recall why I felt the AF on T2i is better than 5D2. What I can remember is AF on T2i was faster than 5D2. That might be some exception, but I really felt that. By the way, I only use the center point.

 

[vjlex]

I have a 60D and I just got a 5D Mark II yesterday. With only 15 minutes of shots of birds and flowers with the 5D, I can immediately tell a difference in the images. With the 5D, the light rolloff is smoother, the depth of field is more isolating and almost three-dimensional, and the shots are more enticing to look at. This probably sounds excessively flowery, but it's difficult to describe the differences unless you shoot with both full-frame and crop. If the 60D shots look good, the 5D shots look great.

Thanks for your impressions. Actually, your description sounds spot on. I actually went ahead and picked up a 5D Mark II last night as well. Since it was already dark by the time I got back home, I didn't get much of a chance to test it out, but what you say about smoother light roll-off, and what others have said about the brightness of the viewfinder I've found to be true.

Actually, I feel I got a pretty good deal here in Japan. A brand new Mark II is selling for 162,000 yen (at today's exchange rate it works out to about $2000 USD; but I still prefer thinking of it as a 1:100 ratio, ie. $1620). The 5D Mark III just isn't what I want for the price I want. So to answer the question posed in the title of this thread: Nope, not for me.

I don't know if I will go back to APS-C and get the Rebel T4i at this point. But with the rumors of 4 more DSLRs on the way this year, maybe there will be a genuine successor to the Mark II, both in capabilities and price. But for now, I'll try to get the hang of my new camera and find out it's limits for myself. Hopefully, by the time I do, I'll have more options to upgrade to.

Thanks again for all your helpful thoughts and insights!

 

[RLPhoto]

I'm not sure the t4i is worth the 850$. If I had to start again, Id jump straight to a full frame 5Dc and a 50mm 1.4.

 

[sleepnever]

I have a T2i and I'm pondering going 7D or FF all the way to a 5Dmk3. The one thing I've been enjoying on my crop 1.6x is the extra reach in my lenses and I haven't seen that brought up at all here (unless I missed a post?). That is something that I will lose on the long end, but then I will gain wide angle on the short. I have a 24-70L and love it, but its not wide enough...however I have that extra reach at 112mm. Anyone that has converted from crop to FF, do you miss that extra reach?

 

[D_Rochat]

I have a T2i and I'm pondering going 7D or FF all the way to a 5Dmk3. The one thing I've been enjoying on my crop 1.6x is the extra reach in my lenses and I haven't seen that brought up at all here (unless I missed a post?). That is something that I will lose on the long end, but then I will gain wide angle on the short. I have a 24-70L and love it, but its not wide enough...however I have that extra reach at 112mm. Anyone that has converted from crop to FF, do you miss that extra reach?

Do you remember what the focal length looked like with your kit lens? It will be the same as the 24-70, only much much nicer on a FF. Lose some length, gain some width. Everything else a FF offers makes losing "reach" worth it IMHO.

 

[vjlex]

I have a T2i and I'm pondering going 7D or FF all the way to a 5Dmk3. The one thing I've been enjoying on my crop 1.6x is the extra reach in my lenses and I haven't seen that brought up at all here (unless I missed a post?). That is something that I will lose on the long end, but then I will gain wide angle on the short. I have a 24-70L and love it, but its not wide enough...however I have that extra reach at 112mm. Anyone that has converted from crop to FF, do you miss that extra reach?

Newly converted (as of yesterday), so a bit too early to say. But my first impressions are that I do miss the extra reach just a bit. I'm not quite sure why. But it is nice not having to multiply by 1.6 to figure out what the equivalent range is. A Canon full frame with a crop mode would be nice.

 

[Vossie]

A Canon full frame with a crop mode would be nice.

You can always crop in post..... I don't see a value in having a "crop mode".

 

[pwp]

It's a little like discussing the pros & cons of a 5D3 vs 1 Series. They're going to suit some shooters but not others. The T4i really does look like a significant upgrade, and shows all the signs of being an extremely competent camera. On face value it does make the 5D3 look expensive, just as the 5D3 makes a 1-Series look expensive.

I know I could do a great deal of my work with a T4i, but there are daily moments where the 5D3 pushes a good result across the line for a winning result. Also, there are frequent situations where the 1D4 achieves results where the 5D3 would have fallen short. They have different strong points and abilities.

You could push the argument back the other way too. A great deal of published work could be adequately shot on a G12 or S100, or even an iPhone in some cases, provided that tool is in the right hands. It's a blurry scenario isn't it?

Whether it's in business or seeking a creative or technical edge, there are enough times when the advantages of a 5D3 or 1-Series are so completely unambiguous. You quickly get to know your own required level, whether that be an S100 or a 1DX.

PW

 

[dpedro]

I am seriously considering either a second T4i or buying the D Mark III for my main and keeping my T4i as a back up. I am currently shooting families and models, but some day, I'd like to shoot weddings. If I stay clear of weddings, would you just stick with good glass on a T4i? You can see what I am able to accomplish with just my t41 and various lenses. (link below) Primarily, I shoot with my 35 L 1.4 and my 17-55 2.8. Every so often, I also use the 85 1.8. How much better can my images improve with the D Mark III?

http://www.facebook.com/AFlashInTimePhotographyByDonPedro

 

[KurtStevens]

I've gotten shots otherwise impossible of capturing, so yes. Worth the price difference.

 

[ScottyP]

More like $2900.00 or $3100.00 according to recent sightings on the 5D3.

Anyhoo, that is still 4x the price of the T4i.
Your shots look very nice. You could certainly live without the more expensive camera.

I have the T3i, and I do wish I had better AF with more points, like the T4i or 7D or the 5D3.

The one thing I would be tempted by on the 5D3 is the low noise at high ISO. Frankly, I am sort of pissed that I cannot shoot at 800 ISO without what I consider unacceptable noise when shooting people. On the T3i, 800 would be fine for a dim-light cityscape or something intricate like that that hides the noise a little.

I look at what the pros say about shooting indoor basketball and such, and they say they routinely shoot at 6400 ISO to allow for fast enough shutter speed for moving targets, which is just a crazy dream on my camera. That is where you would see the value. If you are shooting posed stills, and if you have lighting, then maybe that is not worth the extra bucks.

 

[Policar]

The returns are diminishing, but if you need the better AF and better low light performance that's pretty significant.

The finder is GREAT on the Mark III.

The low light for video is much better.

The look of fast, sharp, wide primes wide open can be really striking on full frame, but the differences in IQ at normal ISOs are not that startling otherwise.