Hi, I am an avid hobbiest photographer. I enjoy shooting landscapes and portraits, but increasingly I am shooting birds, horses, and other fast moving subjects as well. I currently have a T2i, 15-85, 50 f/1.8, 70-200 f/4 IS, and 100-400. I am looking to upgrade bodies, but I need a little bit of advice. Obviously the 5D3 would satisfy all of these shooting requirements with only two downsides, the price and loss of "reach" that I have a with a crop. The other avenue I am thinking about going is two bodies. Sell the T2i, get a 7D as they are becoming cheaper everyday and get a 5D2 or 6D. Now you may add up the prices and say a 7D + 6D (or 5D2) is about the same price as a 5D3. I am looking for opinions on which way to go. Pros/Cons of having two bodies. For some reason I am just a bit apprehensive to get one camera for ~$2500 since I have not yet spent that much on any one piece of equipment. I might add that I currently do not get paid for any photos, but I may start picking up some paying equine photography gigs as I have quite a few friends who ride and want to set me up with some clients, but this would just be occasional "on the side" work. Thanks for you help in advance!
5D3 vs 7D AND 6D
- Thread starter chasinglight
- Start date
- Status
It's ALWAYS better to buy ONE camera that does everything you need, than to buy TWO cameras that each do a portion of what you want. You can only take one photo at a time. The 5D3 will be a much better investment for you than having two camera bodies. Just about everything on the 5D3 is better than the 7D.
Upvote
0
I had the 7D + 5DII combo, I would have happily replaced them both with a 5DIII (but I did so with the 1D X instead). Depending on your intended output, you're probably not giving up 'reach'. At low ISO (800 or less), cropping the 5DIII image to the 7D's FoV will have equivalent IQ, and the 8.6 MP image will be fine up to 16x24" prints. At higher ISO or with less cropping, the 5DIII will deliver better IQ, and the better AF will compensate for the loss of 2 fps.
I'd say just get the 5DIII.
I'd say just get the 5DIII.
Upvote
0
So if I go with the 5D3, if I wait for a Canon to get another refurb in stock, with my discount I can get it for $2350. Then I could sell my T2i, battery grip, and 15-85 which would fetch about $1000 and either pickup a 24-105 (total cost camera + lens = $2000) or 24-70 version 1 (total cost $2300). This just requires some waiting for either canon to get more refurbs or for one of those $2500 ebay specials.
So no one thinks there is any benefit to having two bodies? No benefit to being able to have a WA or standard lens on one camera and a telephoto or super telephoto on the other other camera? Is it nice in theory, but too cumbersome in reality?
So no one thinks there is any benefit to having two bodies? No benefit to being able to have a WA or standard lens on one camera and a telephoto or super telephoto on the other other camera? Is it nice in theory, but too cumbersome in reality?
Upvote
0
chasinglight said:
Yes and no. I have three bodies. However, I didn't buy all 3 to sum up to the features, combined, that I want. They all have the features I want. Only reason I shoot sports with 2 1DX's is because they are the same camera system, and I can simply pick up the other one and it's the exact same system I'm shooting with, versus two different camera systems. I never liked the 1DX/1D4 combo I used to have, b/c the 1D4 was different and had a 1.3x crop factor for which I had to account. If you're doing it to have 2 camera bodies, then by all means have a 7D and 6D (or 5D2). But if it's just to have super AF performance AND to have FF, better to get one that has both.
Upvote
0
If you can afford 5D3, then it's 5D3. You'll just be confused thinking of 6D. 6D is for people like me who can't afford to buy (or to anger his wife) to buy a 5D3. I'll just rely on my luck and skill for tracking fast moving objects...
Upvote
0
I have a 7D and a 5D iii. The 7D is an excellent camera. The 5D iii is superb. It does things that one cannot dream of doing with the 7D. Here are the primary advantages. (1) much superior autofocus. The 7D's autofocus is so-so, and not really all that good in low light. The 5D iii, by comparison, is superb. I'm primarily a nature photographer and I strive to capture nature in action. With the 7D I've had innumerable missed shots. That has dramatically improved with the 5D iii, so much so that I'm now surprised when the camera fails to deliver a shot. (2) Much less noise. The 7D produces fairly noisy photos beginning at ISO 400 and it only gets worse. The 5D iii is far, far better at noise suppression. My "go to" ISO with the 7D is 320 and it's 640 with the 5D iii. I've gotten shots at ISO 1200 with the 5Diii that are less noisy than what I've been able to get at 400 with the 7D. (3) Better dynamic range. The 5D iii does a much better job of picking up details in shadows and highlights than the 7D.
I still use my 7D. Its crop format makes it a good camera for wildlife photography, especially when coupled with the 100-400 F4-5.6 L. But, most of the time, I'm out in the field with the 5D iii. It's just a much more reliable camera.
I still use my 7D. Its crop format makes it a good camera for wildlife photography, especially when coupled with the 100-400 F4-5.6 L. But, most of the time, I'm out in the field with the 5D iii. It's just a much more reliable camera.
Upvote
0
Steven, thanks for your 7D to 5D3 comparison. You bring up a good point about the noise. As I shoot with the 550d, which has the same sensor (and supposedly slightly better noise handling) as the 7D, I am familiar with the noise already prevalent at ISO 400. Having better noise handling would be very beneficial.
Upvote
0
Having 2 bodies is good, short lens on one while you use long on the other can be handy. But it's more important to get quality. IMHO.
I've had a 7D, the 5D3 is so much more capable. You won't lose reach because you can crop the 5d3 much more and keep better quality.
When I had the 7d as a back up to the 1Dx I hardly ever used the 7D. Now the 5D3 gets used as much or maybe more than the 1Dx.
I've had a 7D, the 5D3 is so much more capable. You won't lose reach because you can crop the 5d3 much more and keep better quality.
When I had the 7d as a back up to the 1Dx I hardly ever used the 7D. Now the 5D3 gets used as much or maybe more than the 1Dx.
Upvote
0
here you can see the difference
http://camerarumors.blogspot.in/2012/09/canon-eos-6d-vs-5d-mark-ii-vs-7d-specs.html
http://camerarumors.blogspot.in/2012/09/canon-eos-6d-vs-5d-mark-ii-vs-7d-specs.html
Upvote
0
I have all 3 of those bodies. I would go with the 7D or 5D3 and would not get 2 bodies. The 7D is still a great camera and great for sports/wildlife in so many ways. Of course the focus system on the 5D3 is amazing for that as well though you will not get the reach of the crop and it does cost more. I would go with either of those. The 6D for me lacks in many areas of the body and features although straight picture quality was on par with the 5D3.
I do have a comparison of the 6D and 5D3 if you want to take a look: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/92-canon-6d-vs-5d-mark-iii
The 7D is amazing for the price for wildlife. You may purchase that while you save for the 5D3 or just get the 5D3 now. You will be happy with either of those. Skip the 6D and 5D2, both which will let you down for what you are shooting.
Canon 6D Vs. 5D Mark III Hands On Review
I do have a comparison of the 6D and 5D3 if you want to take a look: http://learningcameras.com/reviews/4-dslrs/92-canon-6d-vs-5d-mark-iii
The 7D is amazing for the price for wildlife. You may purchase that while you save for the 5D3 or just get the 5D3 now. You will be happy with either of those. Skip the 6D and 5D2, both which will let you down for what you are shooting.
Canon 6D Vs. 5D Mark III Hands On Review
Upvote
0
- Status
