6D or 5D3 (or wait for 7d2?)

[skitron]

no offense meant, but that post-production processing software may be fine for Facebook but nothing I would consider printing.
Getting it right "in camera" (fill flash/better low light performance of the sensor, proper metering, etc) should be the goal.

No offense taken and I totally agree with getting it right "in camera". The point is to show there are alternatives after the snap-shot is taken and the scene has been left behind. As for the software itself, it comes bundled with the Phase One medium format cameras. In this case I pretty much maxed what it could do with the given jpeg.

 

[Dylan777]

I'm not a big fan of flash photography.

Personally, I'm a big fan of flash photography, but in a way you cannot or can only barely see there was artificial light involved - and to let the background meld with the lit object high iso capability is important as well.

Here is my "super-skill" of PP when I need an object stands out under low light J.K

Most of my photos are just family moments - kids running around the house and family vacation etc... nothing special.

I did have a chance to play with the studio lighting few months back. Yes....it's very nice to have proper lighting when we serious about photography.

For now, I like FF plus my fav 24-70 + 70-200. I'm thinking about 50L this x-mas, since I have over $500 cash value with Crutchfiled.

This would look a lot better if you're using a fill-in flash. Scenes like these, I'll go full manual, meter on the background (most probably, requiring high ISO), and use an external fill-in flash to illuminate the foreground. Even a cheap third party flash will greatly improve these kind of shots. Just my 2 cents.

@ verysimplejason - I was playing with Marsu42 reply. I'm sure we can do better PP in LR.

This was taken when I was in China with my co-workers. It was raining and I didn't have a ext flash with me and of course 5D III doesn't have built in flash

 

[skitron]

I was playing with Marsu42 reply. I'm sure we can do better PP in LR.

This was taken when I was in China with my co-workers. It was raining and I didn't have a ext flash with me and of course 5D III doesn't have built-flash flash.

I figured as much . LOL, probably have too much time on my hands this morning and again, the point was nothing more than showing something that can be used in an extreme case.

 

[Dylan777]

Hope BH & Adoroma will have some deals on 5D III this coming X-mas. If the price is around $2500 - $2700, I get another one.

Dylan... if you have $2600 spare... perhaps you might consider the 7Dii (instead of a 5diii) as a second body... your 70-200 will get more reach.

Hi K-AMP,
How are you? Buying any new toys lately?

7D II, crop will help in reach and fps. However, I care more about IQ under low light. I'm not a big fan of flash photography.

Dylan

I might go with a 85mm f1.8 or maybe not... the 70-200 got that range covered. Nothing is very exciting at the moment apart from $7000+ lenses which I don't have.... Maybe the 50L.... not sure... :-\

You got the 5D3 for low light... if you want better low light/ High ISO... the 6D is very good isnt it?

K-amp,
I played with 6D for 2days at local camera shop(friend of mine is a store manger). Let just say this.....6D is not for me - lack of AF points, not enough x-cross type, size, no joy stick etc...

6D performs fine under low light. Center AF is only point that can get you precise focus, outer pts are almost worthless. Did I mention don't try 6D in AI servo?

I just pull trigger on 50L + B&W Clear filter yesterday. All items will be here this fri.

 

[skitron]

K-amp,
I played with 6D for 2days at local camera shop(friend of mine is a store manger). Let just say this.....6D is not for me - lack of AF points, not enough x-cross type, size, no joy stick etc...

Did you have any thoughts on how 6D rendered color and light dynamics? I actually sent mine back because of those and went for a 5D3 instead. But still wondering if I just got a dud since nobody else seems to be noticing anything along those lines.

 

[Dylan777]

K-amp,
I played with 6D for 2days at local camera shop(friend of mine is a store manger). Let just say this.....6D is not for me - lack of AF points, not enough x-cross type, size, no joy stick etc...

Did you have any thoughts on how 6D rendered color and light dynamics? I actually sent mine back because of those and went for a 5D3 instead. But still wondering if I just got a dud since nobody else seems to be noticing anything along those lines.

Hi skitron,
No comments on rendered color and light dynamics. I was more focus on AF system and low light/higher ISO. It's a great camera for those jump from Rebel to entry FF.

I prefer 5D III and will get another one as 2nd body. Hope B&H and adoroma will have some deals on 5D III this x-mas.

 

[sleepy]

Great topic, because I have a similar problem. If I'm taking pictures of my kids (ages 5 and 3), and they rarely sit still, wouldn't that be akin to sports photography (ie. fast moving subjects)? I do the portraits too, but when I'm outside with them, they're constantly running around.

I feel like I might be better off with a camera with a great AF system like the 7D or 7Dii (?). What do you think?

 

[dexstrose]

I know I'm late in the game for posting, but I went for the 6d. The image quality is super for what I like doing. Candid shots, event/fluff work, family and friends and everything else.

I upgraded cause I was tired of my old camera not doing what I wanted it to do and the image quality. Couldn't afford the 5dIII, I saw the deals and was tempted. I had to realize what I can afford. So I went for the 6d for the lighter body and low light capabilities.

I have big hands and don't have a problem with the 6d layout. I really like it. I can adjust the top settings and the back buttons with my index finger and thumb while looking through the view finder. The outer points are pretty good in my opinion, but I'm not a tester.

With the 70-200 2.8 non IS, the focusing is super fast. I'm really happy for what I can do with the camera. The 24-105 is my dedicated lens. Its a great combo for a lot of things I shoot.

What ever you decide, you can't go wrong.

Here is a sample from my 6d just walking around by the Berkeley Pier.

 

[skitron]

Great topic, because I have a similar problem. If I'm taking pictures of my kids (ages 5 and 3), and they rarely sit still, wouldn't that be akin to sports photography (ie. fast moving subjects)? I do the portraits too, but when I'm outside with them, they're constantly running around.

I feel like I might be better off with a camera with a great AF system like the 7D or 7Dii (?). What do you think?

I thought the 6D AF was decent enough in AI servo when doing a "kid test". I sent mine back due to color and dynamic rendering issues, but nobody else has noticed anything along those lines so mine was apparently just a dud in that respect. But imo, the AF passed the kid test...definite improvement over 5D2.

 

[wickidwombat]

Keep in mind I don't know what I'm talking about, but I have a sense that using the best lens(es) possible and constantly improving technique are more important than the body (as long as your body's at least pretty good) and that the main benefit might be high ISO performance.

It seems to me that you know exactly what you are talking about!
Although I love talking about gear as much as the next guy, in the end, what really matters is the talent of the photograph, and not how sophisticated is his camera. For instance, most of my favorite stills where taken before the invention of AF and DSLR, so it seems that it is always possible to take great pictures without perfect AF and high frame rates.

Also, as far as "technical quality" goes, the lens matters much more than the body; for me, you are far better with an low-end body and high-end lens than the opposite. Except for ISO performance, most of the low-end body problems can be overcome by the photograph with a bit more effort, and even for ISO, it is sometime possible to find a solution to use lower ISO and keep a good exposure. Of course, everyone has his own way of taking picture, which is affected by what he is shooting; I personally uses manual focus 99.99% of the time and manual exposure 100% of the time, so I might be bias in my opinion. It is always more about choosing the camera that feels right for you than the one with the biggest numbers in the specs.

Thanks for saying. I was fishing for that.
On a side note, I'm undecided between a 70-300L or 300 4.0 IS to complement my 100 2.0 and 200 2.8. The zoom or 300 prime would be for outdoor sports/events. The 100 and 200 are PERFECT beyond belief for indoor sports.
Much appreciated.

the 300 f4L IS is a great lens i love its handling on my 5D bodies older design with only 2 stop IS thats noisy but i picked mine up on ebay for $800 its a fantastic bang for buck lens and its sharp wide open

 

[scuba_steve]

I am struggling with the same decision. 90% of my shots are indoor sports...with fast moving action and poor lighting.

I have a 40D now...and my go to lens is a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II...and my walk around is the Canon 17-55 f2.8. I have a couple of other lenses, but these two are responsible for most of my shots.

A 7D Mk2 would let me keep the 17-55 and give me great sports photography. A 6D would give me the better low-light performance that I crave. I suppose if I had to do it today, I would go for the 7D Mk2...if it existed...and looked like it had decent specs...and the price was not ridiculous. I suppose the 7D's final specs and price will be the final decision maker for me.

 

[ScottyP]

I am struggling with the same decision. 90% of my shots are indoor sports...with fast moving action and poor lighting.

I have a 40D now...and my go to lens is a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II...and my walk around is the Canon 17-55 f2.8. I have a couple of other lenses, but these two are responsible for most of my shots.

A 7D Mk2 would let me keep the 17-55 and give me great sports photography. A 6D would give me the better low-light performance that I crave. I suppose if I had to do it today, I would go for the 7D Mk2...if it existed...and looked like it had decent specs...and the price was not ridiculous. I suppose the 7D's final specs and price will be the final decision maker for me.

Funny we have the same lenses, and the same thought process, although you are more seriously into the sports shooting. I would love to keep with crop (a 7D2) and my 17-55, but between the fact that it must be at least a year or more away, and the fact it probably won't gain more than 1/2 stop in ISO performance, I think I am deciding to go FF.