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

[vjlex]

I've been shooting with a Rebel XTi for as many years as it's been out now and have been quite happy with it. I've somewhat outgrown it however and have been itching to dive into full-frame for some time. I withheld grabbing a 5D Mark II in anticipation of the Mark III. Now the Mark III is here. It looks like a wonderful camera- definitely an upgrade from the Mark II. But I'm still finding it hard to get past the sticker shock of $3500.

I know the Mark III is a class ahead of the Rebel line, but I'm curious as to just how much. Is it really 4 times better than the Rebel? Is there a huge difference in IQ between L-glass on a Mark III and L-glass on a 4Ti? What are the main, must-have features that would make the Mark III outclass the 4Ti? I know it comes down to what your specific camera needs are, but I'd really like to hear some ideas. Thanks!

 

[JerryKnight]

Simply put, I don't think they are designed or intended to be compared to each other. They are intended for two very different types of photographers. I would argue that the 5D3 is at least two, if not three, classes ahead of the T4i. Rebel series, 60D, 7D, 5D3, 1D series.. Although, the differences between the 60D and rebel seem to be shrinking..

(I won't comment on the subjective differences in image quality. Huge can of worms.)

First, the sensor is entirely different, so the sensor debate ultimately boils down to the age-old full-frame vs crop, which has been hashed out endlessly in every online forum on the Internet. The main thing is that full frame sensors simply cost more than crop sensors.

Then there's the build - materials, quality, weather resistance, etc. Magnesium alloys cost a lot more than plastic, and it costs more to shape magnesium alloy than injection-molded plastic.. More has been spent in design and testing (although maybe not enough?), and they're making far fewer 5D's than rebels.

There are countless other upgrades from the rebel line to the 5D line, but those are the main two in my mind. The sensor, build quality, materials, and manufacturing scale, mixed with complex economics, all combine to get the prices we see.

Bottom line, yes - it's well worth the price difference for those who need it. Should everyone go buy a 5D3 instead of a T4i? No way. If all you need is a rebel, get a rebel. If you need better construction and fast performance, get a 7D. If you need a full frame sensor, get a 5D. If you need the absolute best Canon offers, get a 1D or 1Ds series.

Of course, if you have the money to burn, by all means - get a 5D3 or better, whether you really "need" it or not. If you can't justify the cost, then there's nothing wrong with going with the rebel. It's still a superb camera, and it will give you great images, but it simply cannot do everything that some photographers need, which is why the 5D3 was made and priced as it is.

 

[cliffwang]

My friend bought a Samsung 60" 8000 series TV. The price is 3x of my 6000 series. I can see the different only when I go to the BustBuy and compare them side by side. I feel my TV is great when I watch it at home. My friend and I have different value for a TV.
Compared to your XTi, T4i has better AF and better IQ. Do you think that's good for you? Do you see the benefits from FF?
My idea is simple. Do you really need / want a 5D3? If so, are you willing to pay 3.5K for it? Now you should have an answer, right?
I have 5D2 and had 7D. For me I want 5D3 because of the AF system. However, 5D3 is overpriced FOR ME. I will not upgrade my 5D2 to it for now.
If you have budget and think 5D3 is what you need/want, go for it. Otherwise, T4i may good for you already.

 

[Kernuak]

When he still used Canons, Ole Liodden once wrote on his blog about people using different cameras on some of his Arctic/Antarctic trips. He didn't mention Rebels, but he did say that he'd had a number of clients using 40D's and 5D MkII's, that had failed due to the weather conditions, yet the 7D (and of course the 1D's) kept on working. The build quality and sealing of the 5D MkIII is supposed to be the same as the 7D, so if you are in less than prime weather conditions, then it could be the cost of getting the shot or not. If you're a hobbyist, then it may not matter, unless you're on the trip of a lifetime, but you can imagine the cost to a pro who is trying to earn a living. Reputations are easily lost and difficult to regain. So basically, whether it is worth four times the cost is as much down to your circumstances as the needs for the type of photography.

 

[vjlex]

Simply put, I don't think they are designed or intended to be compared to each other. They are intended for two very different types of photographers. I would argue that the 5D3 is at least two, if not three, classes ahead of the T4i. Rebel series, 60D, 7D, 5D3, 1D series.. Although, the differences between the 60D and rebel seem to be shrinking..

(I won't comment on the subjective differences in image quality. Huge can of worms.)

Thanks very much for your thoughts. I am curious though and apologize in advance if it is a can of worms, but what are people's thoughts on the difference in image quality? Right now, there is no other full-frame option and I'm pretty determined to upgrade on that level. But as far as image quality, dynamic range, not so much high ISO ability, but image quality in general- what's the difference between an L-lens on an 4Ti and an L-lens on the Mark III? Any thoughts?

 

[cliffwang]

Thanks very much for your thoughts. I am curious though and apologize in advance if it is a can of worms, but what are people's thoughts on the difference in image quality? Right now, there is no other full-frame option and I'm pretty determined to upgrade on that level. But as far as image quality, dynamic range, not so much high ISO ability, but image quality in general- what's the difference between an L-lens on an 4Ti and an L-lens on the Mark III? Any thoughts?

I am using 5D2 and I used to use T2i and 7D which have same sensor. T2i, 7D, 5D2 have similar IQ for outdoor and low ISO shoots. However, I really see the difference from ISO 400+. T4i has newer sensor, so I guess ISO 400 and 800 might be okay. For me it will still be about 2 to 3 stop difference.
By the way you will also have better DoF and wider angle on FF.

 

[AdamJ]

I've been shooting with a Rebel XTi for as many years as it's been out now and have been quite happy with it. I've somewhat outgrown it however and have been itching to dive into full-frame for some time. I withheld grabbing a 5D Mark II in anticipation of the Mark III. Now the Mark III is here. It looks like a wonderful camera- definitely an upgrade from the Mark II. But I'm still finding it hard to get past the sticker shock of $3500.

I know the Mark III is a class ahead of the Rebel line, but I'm curious as to just how much. Is it really 4 times better than the Rebel? Is there a huge difference in IQ between L-glass on a Mark III and L-glass on a 4Ti? What are the main, must-have features that would make the Mark III outclass the 4Ti? I know it comes down to what your specific camera needs are, but I'd really like to hear some ideas. Thanks!

The 5D II has considerably less sticker shock. You mention that the 5D III is definitely an upgrade from the 5D III, should we infer from this that there is something troubling you about the 5D II's IQ?

 

[vjlex]

I am using 5D2 and I used to use T2i and 7D which have same sensor. T2i, 7D, 5D2 have similar IQ for outdoor and low ISO shoots. However, I really see the difference from ISO 400+. T4i has newer sensor, so I guess ISO 400 and 800 might be okay. For me it will still be about 2 to 3 stop difference.
By the way you will also have better DoF and wider angle on FF.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Better DoF is a major plus for me. So far, the bokeh I've been able to get has been nothing to write home about.

You said they have similar IQ for outdoor- is there a big difference when shooting indoor with studio lighting?

Historically, I've held back from shooting anything above 400 ISO. I know ISO performance has improved dramatically since the XTi. I've only used the 5D Mark II a few times, but I did notice a big difference. And the Mark III seems to be an even bigger difference.

Basically, coming from an XTi, pretty much any Canon offering within the last 2 years will be a major improvement for me. Since I don't upgrade very frequently, I'm hoping to get something that won't easily make me envious within 2 or 3 years.

I was considering upgrading to a 5D Mark III with a 4Ti as a backup, but that's edging pretty close to $5000, which is a bit more than I'm willing to part with at this time. Maybe a 5D Mark II with a 4Ti as a backup would be more appropriate? I'm curious to see what the high ISO performance and autofocus improvement will be like on the new Rebel compared to the Mark II. Any thoughts on that?

 

[vjlex]

The 5D II has considerably less sticker shock. You mention that the 5D III is definitely an upgrade from the 5D III, should we infer from this that there is something troubling you about the 5D II's IQ?

No, I don't think it was the image quality of the 5D Mark II that made me hesitate. As far as I can tell, the 5D Mark II IQ is still impressive. I don't have much experience with the Mark II, but for years I heard people complaining about the unimpressive autofocus, and that kinda made me hold off for the Mark III. Granted, since I don't have much experience with the Mark II, I haven't personally run into the autofocus annoyance, but given the not-so-great autofocus of the Rebel series I've shot with, I figure that autofocus improvement is something I would like to have in my next EOS body.

 

[vjlex]

When he still used Canons, Ole Liodden once wrote on his blog about people using different cameras on some of his Arctic/Antarctic trips. He didn't mention Rebels, but he did say that he'd had a number of clients using 40D's and 5D MkII's, that had failed due to the weather conditions, yet the 7D (and of course the 1D's) kept on working. The build quality and sealing of the 5D MkIII is supposed to be the same as the 7D, so if you are in less than prime weather conditions, then it could be the cost of getting the shot or not. If you're a hobbyist, then it may not matter, unless you're on the trip of a lifetime, but you can imagine the cost to a pro who is trying to earn a living. Reputations are easily lost and difficult to regain. So basically, whether it is worth four times the cost is as much down to your circumstances as the needs for the type of photography.

I mostly use my camera for travel photography. The most extreme climate I've taken it through was a glacier hike in Argentina where it was freezing cold, and lots of drizzle and light rain. It held up pretty well for a camera that's not weather-sealed or anything. Other than that though, I use it for studio portraits, weddings or in moderate outdoor climates. Nothing too extreme.

I am contemplating a trip to a few African countries by the end of the year, but weather-sealing is not a major concern for me. I've missed shots before, but not so much because of climate as much as autofocus and ISO limitations. That's something for me to think about. Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[chrisdeckard]

As others have said, you can't really compare the two. If you are shooting once in a lifetime moments (weddings, newborns, etc.) then having the backup of dual memory cards makes it worth the money. Are you going to shoot in potentially wet situations? The Rebel may not hold up. Do you need spot on AF in almost every area of the view finder, or will 9 points meet your needs? Do you need lens microadjustments, or are you fine with a lens being slightly off? There are a billion questions you need to ask yourself. Maybe sit down and put dollar amounts to them.

Would it be cool to have a 1DX? Yes. Do I need to shoot 12 fps? No, at least not yet. Same types of questions for completely different classes of cameras.

If you need full frame, then go with the 5DIII. If not, and you don't need a camera right away, maybe holding out for the 70D is a better option. But again, you have to ask yourself all the same questions.

I didn't have to justify the need for a 5DIII, nor did I have to justify the need for two of them. The work we do requires it, and it has paid off.

 

[D_Rochat]

You know the saying about opinions being like...... well you know. Rent one, or even a mkII and see for yourself. For me, the low light shooting is enough to win my heart over.

 

[Hillsilly]

...And yet a lot of pro's still shoot APS-C. Some even micro 4/3. Ultimately, it depends on what you need it for.

For studio portraits where you can control the lighting or general photography in good, available light, you're unlikely to see much difference - especially if you are using good lenses. In fact, I often see portrait photographers using rebels and it doesn't seem to affect their business. (Hey, if you can keep costs down and customers are happy - its more profit for you). But you also mention weddings. Here you are relying on the prevailing conditions on the day. I agree with the above comments that the 5Diii will give you a greater chance of better shots in deteriorating light. And ultimately, that's what being a professional is about - having the skills, knowledge and equipment to get the results you are paid to get. The 5Diii is more capable. By how much? Its difficult to really tell. In my opinion, the 5Diii has two benefits - slightly more background blurring capability and the ability to use higher ISO's and maintain good image quality. Whether this is worth 4 times more is a question that you have to answer yourself.

 

[vjlex]

These are some really good and useful replies! Thanks so much.

I'm starting to form my conclusions and am leaning towards the 5D Mark II + Rebel 4Ti combo. There's a good chance I'll take the full frame plunge before the end of this week. I'm still eager to hear more input. Thanks for all the good input so far!

 

[Wilmark]

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/ariapita

 

[JerryKnight]

Simply put, I don't think they are designed or intended to be compared to each other. They are intended for two very different types of photographers. I would argue that the 5D3 is at least two, if not three, classes ahead of the T4i. Rebel series, 60D, 7D, 5D3, 1D series.. Although, the differences between the 60D and rebel seem to be shrinking..

(I won't comment on the subjective differences in image quality. Huge can of worms.)

Thanks very much for your thoughts. I am curious though and apologize in advance if it is a can of worms, but what are people's thoughts on the difference in image quality? Right now, there is no other full-frame option and I'm pretty determined to upgrade on that level. But as far as image quality, dynamic range, not so much high ISO ability, but image quality in general- what's the difference between an L-lens on an 4Ti and an L-lens on the Mark III? Any thoughts?

It's hard for me to compare the difference in image quality from a crop sensor body to a full frame body. Once I went to full frame with the classic 5D, I've never looked back, so I really don't know how the rebel cameras perform. I can guess that the "good" crop bodies (ie. 7D) have "good" image quality, and I can say that the 5D bodies have "better" image quality, but by how much? That's entirely subjective. You start getting very hand-wavy, hard-to-quantify answers.

Honestly, the T4i seems to have a great sensor and a great autofocus system (the same 9-cross-type on the 7d?). It looks like a great little camera, so it's entirely possible that the subjective image quality could be comparable to the 7D and any other Canon crop sensor. I think the big questions you have to answer is whether full frame is what you need and whether the build quality is important to you.

You've heard the other benefits of full frame: bokeh, wide angle coverage, etc. Since the "pixels" (or photosites) on the 5D3 sensor are bigger (6.25 micron) than the T3i (4.3 micron, and I assume the T4i has about the same 18MP APS-C sensor), the noise will tend to be better on the 5D3. Sure, the DIGIC 5 will alleviate a lot of that noise, but it will have to work harder on the T4i, giving the 5D3 more opportunity to give you better low light images. Another thing you might be surprised by (I certainly was) is how much brighter and wider the 5D3 viewfinder is. For me, it was a night & day difference when I first looked through my 5D classic's viewfinder. A word of warning, if you decide to go with a combo 5D2+T4i: You might start to feel very cramped by the smaller T4i viewfinder.

If full-frame turns out to be less important to you, I would think the 7D would be a strong consideration, since you want to keep this next camera a while. The materials and construction of the 7D are far better than any plastic rebel, so it will certainly last longer. If you decide you need full frame, you'll automatically get a durable camera, either in the 5D2 or 5D3.

 

[sovietdoc]

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

If you have to ask that question, no it doesn't worth the price.

It does worth the price to you if you don't need to ask this because you already know what it can do.

 

[Wilmark]

There is an important value in having an expensive camera in photography that has almost nothing to do with taking pictures and i hardly hear anyone speak about it. I do work for clients that have large budgets (large companies). When you have a camera with the hype of the 5Dmk3 and the 1Dx it makes for great conversation pieces. Fortunately those two bodies are quite well known even outside professional photography, especially when many 'enthusiasts' can go out and buy them and talk about them (dare say stay up all night before a release on canon-rumors hitting the refresh button, and being in the first day to preorder) many of the persons you deal with have rebels. When they see you carrying the real mccoy, they and you strike up a conversation about the new 61 point auto focus, or bokeh you are almost certain to get the job. And that by it self can land you a project that will pay for your 'overpriced' body. And this is not limited to commercial photography, but will apply to Wedding photography. The most important way to get wedding business is by word of mouth, and not just in the wedding parties camp, 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.

 

[cliffwang]

You said they have similar IQ for outdoor- is there a big difference when shooting indoor with studio lighting?

I have two studio lights(about 1000W each). When I used them in my loft(about 16x16), I still can have ISO 200. The IQ for both 7D & 5D2 are similar. 5D2 might be a little bit better, but not much. However, I don't use studio lights now because the photos with studio lighting are not natural for me. Without good light source, you will see the benefit from FF(my 5D2).

Historically, I've held back from shooting anything above 400 ISO. I know ISO performance has improved dramatically since the XTi. I've only used the 5D Mark II a few times, but I did notice a big difference. And the Mark III seems to be an even bigger difference.

XTi uses very old sensor, ISO 400 may not as good as ISO 1600 or even 3200 on 5D2. Also 5D2 has much more MP, that will make you feel better IQ.
The 5D3 may have only one stop better IQ than 5D2 in RAW file. However, 5D3 has much better AF system.

If you have to ask that question, no it doesn't worth the price.

It does worth the price to you if you don't need to ask this because you already know what it can do.

Agree the second one, but not the first one. That why shunsai comes here to get ideas from us.

Everyone has their own value for performance, features, and IQ. All of them can be traded off. Thus, don't believe anyone when they go with 5D3 or go with T4i. That's their choice, not yours. You only need to know what's good on 5D3 and T4i, and make your decisions.

 

[cdang]

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.