Why I Chose a Canon EOS 6D over a 5D MKIII
- Thread starter TWI by Dustin Abbott
- Start date
- Status
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
I purchased the 5D3 last August. Still paid the premium, but as it was a brick and mortar store I didn't mind to support them. Coming from a 30D it was worth even that. Definitely saving up for a 16-35 instead of waiting for the 14-24 fantomas ;-) Just tested the 5D3 one night this week with the 50 f/1.4 wide open @ ISO 20k out in a soft snow storm. AF (I am using center point only) was incredibely snappy and accurate. Although lights were blurred a bit due to aperture. In comparison to a 30D the high ISOs are all I ever dreamed of. And I dare to say at its price tag it is the most versatile all round cam for serious amateurs and pro's who do not go for the 1Dx.As a high ISO geek I would have liked it to have the same MP count as the 6D or even as low as the 1Dx. But Canon won't eat into their PJ flagship. Recently took a picture of my cat at ISO 51k in an almost dark room:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/8370478680/#in/photostream
and here's another low light pic at ISO 25k
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guatitamasluz/8418826633/#in/photostream
No NR applied.
The 6D might even slightly surpass these in IQ due to the lower MP count and a new sensor. 8)
Cheers, Pedro.
Upvote
0
CarlTN, Dustin: Here's a review of it at photozone.de (german site in english)
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff
To make it short, here are their conclusions:
Verdict
The Tokina AF 16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro SD FX is a high-performance ultra-wide zoom lens that gives the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L II a run for the money - but it's not a lens without flaws. Its primary weakness is corner softness at f/2.8 but that's not unheard of in this class anyway. However, the center quality is great and the borders are generally sharp as well. The corners start to catch up at f/4 and they're very good from f/5.6 onward. Vignetting is, of course, visible at f/2.8, specifically at 16mm but the issue is better controlled than average. Lateral CAs, an old Tokina disease actually, are modest and not overly field-relevant when stopped down a little bit. Typical for such lens it shows some barrel distortions but they're, again, comparatively moderate even at the very wide end of the range. Technically the Tokina is superior to the current Canon EF zoom lenses in basically all the analysed image aspects!
Unfortunately there may be a hair spoiling the (optical) soup here - quality control. As mentioned we purchased three lens samples for testing, two in Nikon and one in Canon mount, and all three showed some centering issues. The initial Nikon variant was so poor that we had to cancel the testing procedure. We'd like to urge the manufacturers to take lens centering (alignment) more seriously - just a good or possibly even great base-design is simply not enough without proper manufacturing. We are pretty sure that consumers, especially in the mid-to-high end market, would be happily willing to pay a little more for better quality control. Especially ultra-wide and standard lenses show more outliers than desirable - not only among Tokinas but across the manufacturers (e.g. recently we tested 3 (three!) Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 in Nikon mount without success). We are probably seeing negative outliers in excess of 25%(!) in this segment which is, frankly, embarrassing and unacceptable!
That all said we'd like to end this review with some more positive aspects. The (outer) build quality of the Tokina is on a very high level. The lens body is only based on tightly assembled, high quality plastics rather than the "duraluminium" finish used in previous AT-X lenses. However, the quality is still up to pro standards with the exception of the missing weather sealing. Tokina has improved the AF quite a bit - it doesn't really operate "silently" as promised but it's both fast and accurate in phase-detection AF mode. Some users may not like the huge, bulb-like front element which prohibits the use of front filters. However, it seems as if only this design approach solves the performance issues that are usually associated with ultra-wide angle lenses. So setting aside potential sample variations the Tokina is definitely worth a deeper look!
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/595-tokina162828eosff
To make it short, here are their conclusions:
Verdict
The Tokina AF 16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro SD FX is a high-performance ultra-wide zoom lens that gives the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L II a run for the money - but it's not a lens without flaws. Its primary weakness is corner softness at f/2.8 but that's not unheard of in this class anyway. However, the center quality is great and the borders are generally sharp as well. The corners start to catch up at f/4 and they're very good from f/5.6 onward. Vignetting is, of course, visible at f/2.8, specifically at 16mm but the issue is better controlled than average. Lateral CAs, an old Tokina disease actually, are modest and not overly field-relevant when stopped down a little bit. Typical for such lens it shows some barrel distortions but they're, again, comparatively moderate even at the very wide end of the range. Technically the Tokina is superior to the current Canon EF zoom lenses in basically all the analysed image aspects!
Unfortunately there may be a hair spoiling the (optical) soup here - quality control. As mentioned we purchased three lens samples for testing, two in Nikon and one in Canon mount, and all three showed some centering issues. The initial Nikon variant was so poor that we had to cancel the testing procedure. We'd like to urge the manufacturers to take lens centering (alignment) more seriously - just a good or possibly even great base-design is simply not enough without proper manufacturing. We are pretty sure that consumers, especially in the mid-to-high end market, would be happily willing to pay a little more for better quality control. Especially ultra-wide and standard lenses show more outliers than desirable - not only among Tokinas but across the manufacturers (e.g. recently we tested 3 (three!) Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 in Nikon mount without success). We are probably seeing negative outliers in excess of 25%(!) in this segment which is, frankly, embarrassing and unacceptable!
That all said we'd like to end this review with some more positive aspects. The (outer) build quality of the Tokina is on a very high level. The lens body is only based on tightly assembled, high quality plastics rather than the "duraluminium" finish used in previous AT-X lenses. However, the quality is still up to pro standards with the exception of the missing weather sealing. Tokina has improved the AF quite a bit - it doesn't really operate "silently" as promised but it's both fast and accurate in phase-detection AF mode. Some users may not like the huge, bulb-like front element which prohibits the use of front filters. However, it seems as if only this design approach solves the performance issues that are usually associated with ultra-wide angle lenses. So setting aside potential sample variations the Tokina is definitely worth a deeper look!
Upvote
0
Dustin, not trying to hijack your thread, honest! I just want to reply to Pedro, and elaborate a bit.
Pedro, thanks very much! I do like Photozone a lot. I presume you own the Tokina?
Photozone's review convinced me to try the (Cosina) Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 (Nikon mount), about a year and a half ago. I bought a Canon adapter, and couldn't be happier (the adaptor's fit is of lesser quality but I made it work). I seriously think it is the sharpest 50mm lens in existence, although it has very noticeable longitudinal CA (bokeh fringing) at the wider f/stop end (which would likely count against its ultimate sharpness for many...not so much for me because I see what I see at 100% on the screen). Lateral CA is minimal, however.
I just can't believe how sharp it is on my crop camera. I believe it's significantly sharper than the 85 f/1.2L toward the wider end (I rented one once), and falls to almost as sharp by f/5.6 (which is saying something). It retains the sharpness to the extreme corners...wide open (again, on my crop camera). The Voigtlander also has no vignetting on the crop camera, wide open (I'm sure it has some on a full frame). By stark contrast, the 85 f1/.2, had very severe vignetting wider than f/2, on my crop camera. The adapter has a focus-confirm chip, it lights up my AF, and not only does it work...but it's as accurate as it could be (a lot more accurate than my eye/viewfinder interface is).
The fit, feel, and metal finish, seem close if not identical to Zeiss. Zeiss are also made in Japan now, or at least the ones I've rented are (most of you probably know this, just stating it for clarification).
I have no idea if it is as sharp as the new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 ii zoom, at 50mm. (The Voigtlander is spec'd at 58mm, but in reality I think it's more like 54mm. It also effectively magnifies the image a lot at the closest focus distance, so it's more like a 65mm up close.) One thing is certain: No one in the world would ever test and compare them, and even if they did, they would never admit the Voigtlander has similar sharpness. (I mention the Canon zoom because recently it has been tested to exceed the sharpness of the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro Planar...which previously was supposedly the sharpest 50mm lens.) If this Voigtlander had Canon's name on it and a red stripe, then maybe it would get compared in an honest way.
As for the bokeh, no it isn't perfect, a bit far from it. But it's also quite good...a bit of the ring-highlight effect, not all that noticable usually. It wouldn't compare to the 50 mm f/1.2L, but then, what does? Certainly the 50 1.2 is about as sharp as a baby's bottom...as in...it's soft.
Pedro, thanks very much! I do like Photozone a lot. I presume you own the Tokina?
Photozone's review convinced me to try the (Cosina) Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 (Nikon mount), about a year and a half ago. I bought a Canon adapter, and couldn't be happier (the adaptor's fit is of lesser quality but I made it work). I seriously think it is the sharpest 50mm lens in existence, although it has very noticeable longitudinal CA (bokeh fringing) at the wider f/stop end (which would likely count against its ultimate sharpness for many...not so much for me because I see what I see at 100% on the screen). Lateral CA is minimal, however.
I just can't believe how sharp it is on my crop camera. I believe it's significantly sharper than the 85 f/1.2L toward the wider end (I rented one once), and falls to almost as sharp by f/5.6 (which is saying something). It retains the sharpness to the extreme corners...wide open (again, on my crop camera). The Voigtlander also has no vignetting on the crop camera, wide open (I'm sure it has some on a full frame). By stark contrast, the 85 f1/.2, had very severe vignetting wider than f/2, on my crop camera. The adapter has a focus-confirm chip, it lights up my AF, and not only does it work...but it's as accurate as it could be (a lot more accurate than my eye/viewfinder interface is).
The fit, feel, and metal finish, seem close if not identical to Zeiss. Zeiss are also made in Japan now, or at least the ones I've rented are (most of you probably know this, just stating it for clarification).
I have no idea if it is as sharp as the new Canon 24-70 f/2.8 ii zoom, at 50mm. (The Voigtlander is spec'd at 58mm, but in reality I think it's more like 54mm. It also effectively magnifies the image a lot at the closest focus distance, so it's more like a 65mm up close.) One thing is certain: No one in the world would ever test and compare them, and even if they did, they would never admit the Voigtlander has similar sharpness. (I mention the Canon zoom because recently it has been tested to exceed the sharpness of the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro Planar...which previously was supposedly the sharpest 50mm lens.) If this Voigtlander had Canon's name on it and a red stripe, then maybe it would get compared in an honest way.
As for the bokeh, no it isn't perfect, a bit far from it. But it's also quite good...a bit of the ring-highlight effect, not all that noticable usually. It wouldn't compare to the 50 mm f/1.2L, but then, what does? Certainly the 50 1.2 is about as sharp as a baby's bottom...as in...it's soft.
Upvote
0
There is another reason for choosing the 6D over the 5D mkiii if you don't need AF and speed performance, and that's the screen used in the viewfinder.
With the 5D mkiii Canon moved to using a fixed screen with LCD overlay, similar to the 7D and what Nikon have been using for some time. For many photographic applications this just doesn't matter. The type of screen used - I think it was originally patented by Minolta - gives an artificially brighter image at 2.8 and brighter, so for many applications this is a benefit.
However for me, you can't beat the traditional ground glass type screen that get brighter with the faster lenses. It's brighter, crisper and depth of field is easier to read. The 6D uses the same interchangeable screens as the mkii, and has no LCD overlay.
So you can fit a "manual focus" screen and see the view through your f2 - 1.2 lens as it really is. For me that is the reason that when I come to change the mkii I will probably go for the 6D - if I can cope this the aesthetics of the polymer top plate
With the 5D mkiii Canon moved to using a fixed screen with LCD overlay, similar to the 7D and what Nikon have been using for some time. For many photographic applications this just doesn't matter. The type of screen used - I think it was originally patented by Minolta - gives an artificially brighter image at 2.8 and brighter, so for many applications this is a benefit.
However for me, you can't beat the traditional ground glass type screen that get brighter with the faster lenses. It's brighter, crisper and depth of field is easier to read. The 6D uses the same interchangeable screens as the mkii, and has no LCD overlay.
So you can fit a "manual focus" screen and see the view through your f2 - 1.2 lens as it really is. For me that is the reason that when I come to change the mkii I will probably go for the 6D - if I can cope this the aesthetics of the polymer top plate
Upvote
0
Radiating said:
So reviewers saying otherwise aren't qualified :-> ?
Personally I downloaded multiple 5d3/6d raw samples and had a look in LR, and imho like the recent traumflieger.de review the 6d has less chroma noise (i.e. more forced nr) but a little less sharpness, both facts probably are connected. So after downsizing the 5d3 images it's basically a wash, tough the 6d at original res maybe has up 1/3 stop less iso noise simply due to lower pixel density and Canon might have done some other minor tweaks.
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
Thanks for all your posts and the blog, this is really helpful
... for people deciding between the similar priced 5d2 & 6d here's the list of improvements (also see http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11309.45 for a more general comparison):- higher iso capability
- less banding
- higher dynamic range
- center-point af up to -3lv
- silent shutter
- faster fps
- longer battery life
- shorter release time
- better metering & auto-wb
- hi-res lcd
- small & light but good grip
- top wheel lock
- gps built-in
- wifi built-in
- newer firmware:
- full support for rt flashes,
- in-camera multishot/hdr
- in-camera ca correction
- 7x bracketing
- dual afma for zooms
- servo af customization
- flexible min/max auto-iso
- min shutter speed setting
- orientation-linked af point
Upvote
0
@Carl, Dustin: Don't want to hijack that thread either.
But no, I don't have the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. The risk of getting a "lemon" according to photozone kept from buying. Therefore I'll go for a 16-35 classic WA. Although, it doesn't get the best verdict quality/pricewise by photozone.
Verdict
The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L II may not be the greatest lens around in absolute terms but it delivers regarding its primary purpose - a very good performance at its ultra-wide to wide settings (16-26mm) from about f/4 onwards. This isn't all that simple as we've seen during the test of the EF 17-40mm f/4 USM L. On the downside the lens is rather mediocre at 35mm although still perfectly fine at medium apertures. A major weakness is the amount of vignetting at f/2.8 especially at 16mm but to be fair this is a general problem in this lens class when using a full format DSLR. The Canon lens suffers also from a typical degree of barrel distortions at 16mm whereas it's only a minor problem from 20-35mm. Lateral CAs are very well controlled throughout the range. The bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur) could be better but, again, few ultra-wides are really good here anyway. Flare wasn't a big issue during our field tests. The build quality of the lens is exceptional and the AF speed and accuracy is on a very high level. All-in-all a good offer although it will not knock your socks off.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d
BUT: you are able to mount a 10 ND filter to it and that is the icing on the cake for me. And yes, you'll get a 16-35 at a decent aperture, all in all as up to "five" lenses in one: 16, 20, 24, 28, 35. That's not bad, even at f/2.8 8) Online pice tag over here: US $ 1400.00
Whatever may happen to Canons body line up related to a rumored high MP 5DX, I could imagine to opt for a 6D II in case they screw the 5Ds towards 36+MP !
But no, I don't have the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. The risk of getting a "lemon" according to photozone kept from buying. Therefore I'll go for a 16-35 classic WA. Although, it doesn't get the best verdict quality/pricewise by photozone.
Verdict
The Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L II may not be the greatest lens around in absolute terms but it delivers regarding its primary purpose - a very good performance at its ultra-wide to wide settings (16-26mm) from about f/4 onwards. This isn't all that simple as we've seen during the test of the EF 17-40mm f/4 USM L. On the downside the lens is rather mediocre at 35mm although still perfectly fine at medium apertures. A major weakness is the amount of vignetting at f/2.8 especially at 16mm but to be fair this is a general problem in this lens class when using a full format DSLR. The Canon lens suffers also from a typical degree of barrel distortions at 16mm whereas it's only a minor problem from 20-35mm. Lateral CAs are very well controlled throughout the range. The bokeh (the quality of the out-of-focus blur) could be better but, again, few ultra-wides are really good here anyway. Flare wasn't a big issue during our field tests. The build quality of the lens is exceptional and the AF speed and accuracy is on a very high level. All-in-all a good offer although it will not knock your socks off.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d
BUT: you are able to mount a 10 ND filter to it and that is the icing on the cake for me. And yes, you'll get a 16-35 at a decent aperture, all in all as up to "five" lenses in one: 16, 20, 24, 28, 35. That's not bad, even at f/2.8 8) Online pice tag over here: US $ 1400.00
Whatever may happen to Canons body line up related to a rumored high MP 5DX, I could imagine to opt for a 6D II in case they screw the 5Ds towards 36+MP !
Upvote
0
Great review Dustin. You effectively articulated the reasons why the 6D is excellent purchase option for many photographers.
Upvote
0
Dustin,
I just wanted to say thank you for writing such a comprehensive review. I have been overthinking which body to purchase. I hunted around for a review like yours to help me get more context. I actually sold my 5DM2 & 5D to make room for Canon's 2012 bodies for a couple of additional reasons - I sometimes feel like all these technological advances actually get in the way of composing a beautiful shot, because the process of capture can be affected by so many more variables than whether you have composed and lit the shot correctly -- i.e., did you hit the right sequence of buttons on each different camera body/strobe set up, and make sure you did not accidentally switch your 600rts to optical from radio, etc So the idea of getting to control all my strobes in group mode from the back of my camera, and possibly having two identical bodies, is really attractive. Second, I was dismayed that my keeper rate with the 5DM2 actually got worse, when I expected/hoped for the opposite. In shallow DOF, low light situations, (using Canon's 50 mm 1.4) no tripod, real-world moving subjects, the M2 missed more often than I thought was acceptable.
So .. enter the MKIII/6D debate. I wondered if getting Canon's additional AF points in the MkIII would improve my keeper rate. At weddings, I like to drag the shutter and freeze action with a reduced power flash to keep everything natural, and keep the camera on center AF, although lately I've been experimenting with the "all/any" AF points option to see if that would make a difference. Based on your experience (and asking for input from any other 6D users out there) is the improved center AF point enough on the 6D enough to make up for the gap in other cross sensor points compared to the MKIII? I primarily shoot weddings and events.
Thank you! Tara
I just wanted to say thank you for writing such a comprehensive review. I have been overthinking which body to purchase. I hunted around for a review like yours to help me get more context. I actually sold my 5DM2 & 5D to make room for Canon's 2012 bodies for a couple of additional reasons - I sometimes feel like all these technological advances actually get in the way of composing a beautiful shot, because the process of capture can be affected by so many more variables than whether you have composed and lit the shot correctly -- i.e., did you hit the right sequence of buttons on each different camera body/strobe set up, and make sure you did not accidentally switch your 600rts to optical from radio, etc
So the idea of getting to control all my strobes in group mode from the back of my camera, and possibly having two identical bodies, is really attractive. Second, I was dismayed that my keeper rate with the 5DM2 actually got worse, when I expected/hoped for the opposite. In shallow DOF, low light situations, (using Canon's 50 mm 1.4) no tripod, real-world moving subjects, the M2 missed more often than I thought was acceptable. So .. enter the MKIII/6D debate. I wondered if getting Canon's additional AF points in the MkIII would improve my keeper rate. At weddings, I like to drag the shutter and freeze action with a reduced power flash to keep everything natural, and keep the camera on center AF, although lately I've been experimenting with the "all/any" AF points option to see if that would make a difference. Based on your experience (and asking for input from any other 6D users out there) is the improved center AF point enough on the 6D enough to make up for the gap in other cross sensor points compared to the MKIII? I primarily shoot weddings and events.
Thank you! Tara
Upvote
0
Dustin,
Another thanks for a review with real world implications. I wanted a FF and at the time it was only 5D Mk II or III, so I bought the Mk III, simply because there was no other choice I felt would fit my wants list. I have no regrets on the Mk III but I feel reviews like yours will help others make a better informed decision.
PS.
I really like the flying superman shots, it came across immediately what your vision was. A friend of mine is also a semi-pro, he has the eye, like you do, and I always encourage him to do more. Thankfully he has is getting more and more paid opportunities.
Another thanks for a review with real world implications. I wanted a FF and at the time it was only 5D Mk II or III, so I bought the Mk III, simply because there was no other choice I felt would fit my wants list. I have no regrets on the Mk III but I feel reviews like yours will help others make a better informed decision.
PS.
I really like the flying superman shots, it came across immediately what your vision was. A friend of mine is also a semi-pro, he has the eye, like you do, and I always encourage him to do more. Thankfully he has is getting more and more paid opportunities.
Upvote
0
Thank you for the review Dustin I'm struggling to disagree with any of that and to quote Tara I too "have been over thinking which body to purchase."
Anyone familiar with this set of comparisons? I’m looking at differences between the 5D3 and 6D and would like to know if these pics are valid i.e. not processed in some way or fixed to benefit one over the other.
http://www.etherpilot.com/photo/test/misc/6d_5d3_d600_colfix.jpg
Anyone familiar with this set of comparisons? I’m looking at differences between the 5D3 and 6D and would like to know if these pics are valid i.e. not processed in some way or fixed to benefit one over the other.
http://www.etherpilot.com/photo/test/misc/6d_5d3_d600_colfix.jpg
Upvote
0
I recently pulled the plug and bought a 6D - entering the FF world for the first time from Rebel Land. I had the cash to buy either the 6D or MK3 and spent quite a bit of time evaluating and researching both. Since all my glass is Canon (50/50 L/nonL), I didn't consider Nikon. I'm an advanced hobbyist (being generous ?) and don't play for pay or do fast action sports or birding. I enjoy using Lightroom and OnOne software on Raw photos to satisfy my desire for images that represent what I was feeling and seeing when I took the shots.
My primary decision triggers for the 6D were the lighter weight, familiar control set, ergonomics, simpler set of functionality (I don't need many of the higher end functions and liked the Q button) and the high ISO performance with arguably equivalent IQ. The GPS and WiFi functionality were bonus features I will use. With this set of Pluses, it was a no-brainer for me - I couldn't justify the extra $$ for the MK3 (the Boxster will suit me just fine for now, thank you !). I'm enjoying shooting with this camera and haven't looked back.
Tony M
My primary decision triggers for the 6D were the lighter weight, familiar control set, ergonomics, simpler set of functionality (I don't need many of the higher end functions and liked the Q button) and the high ISO performance with arguably equivalent IQ. The GPS and WiFi functionality were bonus features I will use. With this set of Pluses, it was a no-brainer for me - I couldn't justify the extra $$ for the MK3 (the Boxster will suit me just fine for now, thank you !). I'm enjoying shooting with this camera and haven't looked back.
Tony M
Upvote
0
Thanks to all of you who have given the nice comments regarding the review/analysis. And thank you to all the others who may not agree with my conclusions that have taken them in the spirit they were given and not turned this thread into a war. I try to be careful with my money, and I know that many of you are the same. I do believe that for many people who do not need the advanced functionality of the 5D3 they will find the 6D to be an excellent, competent camera. I have not heard of many disappointed users yet.
Upvote
0
Tara Copp said:Dustin,
I just wanted to say thank you for writing such a comprehensive review. I have been overthinking which body to purchase. I hunted around for a review like yours to help me get more context. I actually sold my 5DM2 & 5D to make room for Canon's 2012 bodies for a couple of additional reasons - I sometimes feel like all these technological advances actually get in the way of composing a beautiful shot, because the process of capture can be affected by so many more variables than whether you have composed and lit the shot correctly -- i.e., did you hit the right sequence of buttons on each different camera body/strobe set up, and make sure you did not accidentally switch your 600rts to optical from radio, etc
So .. enter the MKIII/6D debate. I wondered if getting Canon's additional AF points in the MkIII would improve my keeper rate. At weddings, I like to drag the shutter and freeze action with a reduced power flash to keep everything natural, and keep the camera on center AF, although lately I've been experimenting with the "all/any" AF points option to see if that would make a difference. Based on your experience (and asking for input from any other 6D users out there) is the improved center AF point enough on the 6D enough to make up for the gap in other cross sensor points compared to the MKIII? I primarily shoot weddings and events.
Thank you! Tara
Tara, the 5D3 has one of the best AF systems on the market. Will it improve your accuracy over the 5D2? Without question. Will the 6D? I have found the answer to be yes. I guess the bigger question has to do with how much time you spend on the outer points in your normal workflow. If you are doing a lot of outer point work, while the 6D is better than the 5D2 in that regard, the 5D3 will be better
Upvote
0
tphillips63 said:
Thanks a lot. I doubt that many 5D3 users will be selling their 5D3's to buy a 6D ;D But, I do think that there will be those who are looking for a camera body that will find reviews like this helpful in feeling a little more informed about making a decision.
P.S. Thanks for the kind words about the "superman" takes. I had been wanting to do a levitation theme, and started getting this concept in mind with the split lighting to make it a more cinematic/dramatic piece.
Upvote
0
zim said:
I don't think that I would make the decision based on image quality - either of these will produce stunning images. Part of the point that I am making is that spending the extra money will not improve your still image quality. The more advanced AF of the 5D3 might improve the KIND of images you can make (if you are shooting sports or birds), but, like some of the images I submitted, the 6D might also give you some other creative options because of being able to control the camera remotely. I got the 6D the day after I had been out shooting long exposures in -35F/-37C weather with my 5D2. I realized that if I had the 6D, I could have controlled those same exposures from my iPad while sitting in the car. Now that didn't sound so bad!!
I think I would make the decision based more on the feature set. What kind of photography are you going to do? Which camera offers the feature set that you need?
Upvote
0
Thanks for the great review. Your post has helped me make my mind on buying the 6D. I've been waiting and hoping too long that the 7DII would be announced soon (I currently own a 7D), but that doesn't look likely. Not that I intend on using the 6D for shots that I take with the 7D, but I've been using my 7D for 3 years and need an "upgrade" .
.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
