Canon 6D or 5D Mark III

[pgsdeepak]

I know this question has been asked over and over in this forum. But thought of clarifying a couple of things. My apologies if my questions are redundant.
About me - I am a photography hobbyist. I own a EOS 40D, 17-40mm F4L, 100MM Macro Non L, 70-300mm IS Non L and 28-135mm Kit lens. My 40D is close to 5yrs and I have taken a lot of photos with it while I learned. Its still in excellent condition, But It might very well be hitting its shutter life limit soon. Thinking of an upgrade soon.

The plan was to get the 7D (or 7D Mark II or whatever the next version is if it comes sooner). Waiting for the next version based on rumors does not make a whole lot of sense I guess. Also buying the old 7D when it is already 3yrs since launch also does not seem like a good idea for me. Also I kind of changed my mind in favor of a FF Camera. I like taking landscape photos and interested in low light photography. I also like to take stop action kind of photos like flying humming birds etc. My 40D IQ dips big time in low light. From what I understood FF cameras fare better in low light as far as IQ is considered.

I initially thought of getting the 6D. But the lack of CF cards, low FPS, and Auto Focus is making me debate whether I should invest 1K extra for the 5D mark III. I love the fast frame rate of my 40D , But the AF makes me wanting for more. But I am confused, do I really spend 3.5K (with the kit lens) for a hobby. With the available lenses I have, does 5D mIII makes even sense. But then this would be an investment I make for atleast another 5-6 yrs or as long as the camera works. I am currently in US, buying these cameras in India will cost significantly higher.

Or settle down for the 6D and get a 70-200MM F4L IS for extra 1000$ I save.

Some of my photos are in the below link, please check and let me know if I should consider going for FF and if FF, should I go for the 5D MIII?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/98679084@N00/page2/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/98679084@N00/page12/

 

[greger]

Maybe wait and see what 7D ll offers you. My 40D which I liked, began giving me Error 99! Which told me to turn off the camera and re and re the battery. I went for the 7D on August 3rd 2012 because I thought firmware Vs 2 that was coming out would keep this camera up to date for some time to come. Plus I could use all my Lenses and Compact Flash Cards. I could get really good BIF pics with my 40D, 70-200 F4 IS USM and 1.4 extender @ 3 frames per sec. I have yet to get a good BIF pic on the 7D. I'm the problem. I keep setting the camera to the wrong settings. I have been toying with the 2x ll Extender with the 70-200 for still pics and find if I use the Detail tab in ACR by adjusting the sharpening to 100 Radius to 0.5 Detail to 25,Masking to 100 Noise Reduction Luminance to 75 Luminance Detail and Luminance Contrast to 100 Colour to 50 Colour Detail to 0, I get a usable pic that I am happy with and can adjust in layers, sharpen and print from PS CS5. I'm a Happy Camper! The 7D Mark l will still be available for a short time after the 7Dll is announced and you can buy what fits your requirements whether it's APS-C or Full Frame 5D Mark lll which I think is the best one for you and me if I had the
extra money for my (addiction) hobby. LOL

 

[kkelis]

You shoot a lot of landscape so FF is definitely for you. Go for the 6D and pair it with that 17-40L and you will get a whole new perspective.

 

[Efka76]

I looked at your photos I really liked them! If you can afford, go for 5D Mark III as it better autofocus, higher FPS, etc. In my opinion, 6D ir cripled 5D Mark III. Currently I own 7D and tried 6D. For me even 7D is much better than 6D as it has very good autofocus and higher FPS.

 

[J.R.]

While a new 6D and 5D3 will be excellent you may end up disappointed with your current glass selection. The FF sensors are extremely demanding and the bodies must be combined with good lenses to achieve optimum results.

I would suggest that you should pick up a used 5D2 and invest the additional funds available in lenses. Despite all the bashing, the 5D2 remains an excellent camera and should suffice what you shoot.

I would also suggest you retain the 40D as a back up body and for shooting the hummingbirds.

Nice pictures BTW!

 

[Vivid Color]

You mentioned you were interested in low-light photography. In that case, the 5D2 will not fit your needs, but the 6D would beautifully (as of course would the 5D3). I love my 6D for it's low light capabilities and while the 5DIII does more, you can put the money you save on buying a 6D rather than the 5D3 on or toward another lens. I guess it all comes down to whether you'd really get the use out of the extra features of the 5D3 more than you'd get from another lens.

 

[bholliman]

You mentioned you were interested in low-light photography. In that case, the 5D2 will not fit your needs, but the 6D would beautifully (as of course would the 5D3). I love my 6D for it's low light capabilities and while the 5DIII does more, you can put the money you save on buying a 6D rather than the 5D3 on or toward another lens. I guess it all comes down to whether you'd really get the use out of the extra features of the 5D3 more than you'd get from another lens.

+1

I recommend the 6D based on your photo selection in Flicker. Excellent shots by the way!

I shoot much of the same things you do. Lots of landscapes and shots of the kids with some wildlife and kids sports/dance/activity photography thrown in. I've found the 6D to be an excellent camera for what I shoot. I really don't need a frame rate faster than the 6D's 4.5 FPS (I almost never use the 8 FPS speed of my 7D), and prefer SD cards to CF cards for storage since they are more compatible with my computers and iPad. I've found the AF on the 6D to be fine 99% of the time.

If you pick up a FF camera, I agree with J.R. suggestion to upgrade your lenses in the wide to short tele range. I suggest selling your 28-135mm and picking up a 24-105L. The 24-105L is an excellent general purpose lens on a full frame camera and very reasonably priced.

If you go with a 7D, I recommend either the excellent EF-S 15-85mm or EF-S 17-55 2.8. If you are happy with your current wide/normal lenses, adding the 70-200 4.0 IS would give you a faster/sharper lens option in that focal length range.

 

[7enderbender]

You mentioned you were interested in low-light photography. In that case, the 5D2 will not fit your needs, but the 6D would beautifully (as of course would the 5D3). I love my 6D for it's low light capabilities and while the 5DIII does more, you can put the money you save on buying a 6D rather than the 5D3 on or toward another lens. I guess it all comes down to whether you'd really get the use out of the extra features of the 5D3 more than you'd get from another lens.

Can you explain what you mean by low-light capabilities? And why would the 5DII not fit his needs for that? I never had any issues with my 5DII in low light settings. Quite the opposite actually. I'm not sure how the 6D is even better with that. But even if that is the case I doubt that that has more practical implications than the 6D's lower x-sync speed, missing 1/8000 and the small plasticky form factor.
The 5DII is not only a bargain at this point - at least for my needs I'd still consider it the better camera. The MarkIII of course solves all those issues pretty much but still comes in with a much higher price tag and I'd only shell that out if I'd really need the additional features and upgrades over the MarkII. I'm in no rush with that personally.

 

[Jim K]

If you pick up a FF camera, I agree with J.R. suggestion to upgrade your lenses in the wide to short tele range. I suggest selling your 28-135mm and picking up a 24-105L. The 24-105L is an excellent general purpose lens on a full frame camera and very reasonably priced.

+1

If you go FF get the 24-105 f/4L IS with it at the same time as the "kit" lens. It comes at a considerable discount.

 

[eldete]

Hate to butt in but I've been wondering this same thing for a while now however...I shot VIDEO. Pull the trigger on the m3 and have a great cam asap / keep waiting on the edge of my seat for the 7DII / or look more into a 6D. I've heard that 6D lacks in video but am unclear of the full specifics. The argument that getting a 6D and putting the extra $ towards glass seems compelling as well....any suggestions ?

 

[bholliman]

Can you explain what you mean by low-light capabilities? And why would the 5DII not fit his needs for that? I never had any issues with my 5DII in low light settings. Quite the opposite actually. I'm not sure how the 6D is even better with that. But even if that is the case I doubt that that has more practical implications than the 6D's lower x-sync speed, missing 1/8000 and the small plasticky form factor.
The 5DII is not only a bargain at this point - at least for my needs I'd still consider it the better camera. The MarkIII of course solves all those issues pretty much but still comes in with a much higher price tag and I'd only shell that out if I'd really need the additional features and upgrades over the MarkII. I'm in no rush with that personally.

Almost all the reviews I've read of the 6D point out that is has better low-light/high ISO performance than the 5D2 and similar or slightly better IQ.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

The x-sync speed and missing 1/8000 are trivial features, things that will never be noticed by the vast majority of users. I checked my stats in Lightroom and with well over 50k pictures, I have zero taken with shutter speeds over 1/4000. The body is very solid and I appreciate somewhat the smaller size/weight. I also find the WiFi feature very handy and love the ability to remotely control my camera from my iPad or iPhone.

That said, the 5D2 is an excellent camera and you can save some money by purchasing it over the 6D. For me the 6D's brought enough to the table to justify the added expense.

 

[steven kessel]

I recently asked myself the same question: 6D or Mark iii and after thinking about it I swallowed hard and bought the Mark iii. Boy, am I glad that I did. My primary interest is wildlife photography. I've shot thousands of pictures, mostly of birds, with my 7D and although I love that camera, my primary complaint about it was the slowness of the autofocus. I could never catch up with birds in flight with the 7D. My other complaint about the 7D is that the camera does not do a great job handling noise. The highest ISO I shoot wildlife with my 7D is 320 because if I do much cropping the background noise is instantly apparent at higher ISOs.

The Mark iii solved these problems. The autofocus on this camera is almost instantaneous and it is very, very accurate even in relatively low light. I recently did a series of photos of hawks in flight. The autofocus worked like a charm and almost all of my images were razor sharp, using the 100-400 F4.5-5.6 IS lens. The camera handles the noise issue brilliantly. I've been shooting at ISO 640 even in full daylight in order to take pictures at high shutter speeds and the background noise with these shots is virtually undetectable, even with significant cropping.

And, that brings up one final point. The camera allows a great deal of cropping without significant image degradation.

I'm sure that the 6D is a fine camera and the reviews I've read have been very positive. But, for what I do, lightning fast autofocus is a must, and I can't believe that anything out there tops the Mark iii.

 

[AlanF]

I recently asked myself the same question: 6D or Mark iii and after thinking about it I swallowed hard and bought the Mark iii. Boy, am I glad that I did. My primary interest is wildlife photography. I've shot thousands of pictures, mostly of birds, with my 7D and although I love that camera, my primary complaint about it was the slowness of the autofocus. I could never catch up with birds in flight with the 7D. My other complaint about the 7D is that the camera does not do a great job handling noise. The highest ISO I shoot wildlife with my 7D is 320 because if I do much cropping the background noise is instantly apparent at higher ISOs.

The Mark iii solved these problems. The autofocus on this camera is almost instantaneous and it is very, very accurate even in relatively low light. I recently did a series of photos of hawks in flight. The autofocus worked like a charm and almost all of my images were razor sharp, using the 100-400 F4.5-5.6 IS lens. The camera handles the noise issue brilliantly. I've been shooting at ISO 640 even in full daylight in order to take pictures at high shutter speeds and the background noise with these shots is virtually undetectable, even with significant cropping.

And, that brings up one final point. The camera allows a great deal of cropping without significant image degradation.

I'm sure that the 6D is a fine camera and the reviews I've read have been very positive. But, for what I do, lightning fast autofocus is a must, and I can't believe that anything out there tops the Mark iii.

+1 on the 5DIII vs 7D. The speed and accuracy of the 5DIII autofocus are awesome compared with the 7D. The 6D does have very good reviews for the accuracy of its autofocus and its ability to cope with low light, But, I do not know about its speed. It looks also a great camera.

 

[sdsr]

You mentioned you were interested in low-light photography. In that case, the 5D2 will not fit your needs, but the 6D would beautifully (as of course would the 5D3). I love my 6D for it's low light capabilities and while the 5DIII does more, you can put the money you save on buying a 6D rather than the 5D3 on or toward another lens. I guess it all comes down to whether you'd really get the use out of the extra features of the 5D3 more than you'd get from another lens.

Can you explain what you mean by low-light capabilities? And why would the 5DII not fit his needs for that? I never had any issues with my 5DII in low light settings. Quite the opposite actually. I'm not sure how the 6D is even better with that. But even if that is the case I doubt that that has more practical implications than the 6D's lower x-sync speed, missing 1/8000 and the small plasticky form factor.
The 5DII is not only a bargain at this point - at least for my needs I'd still consider it the better camera. The MarkIII of course solves all those issues pretty much but still comes in with a much higher price tag and I'd only shell that out if I'd really need the additional features and upgrades over the MarkII. I'm in no rush with that personally.

The advantages the 6D has over the 5DII in low light are considerably less noise (slightly less noise than the 5DIII too, for that matter) at high ISOs (though coming from any APS-C camera the 5DII will seem pretty amazing) and slightly better focusing in the dark (though the 5DII has usually impressed me there, too). Otherwise, the photos you take will look much the same whether it's 5DII or III or 6D - though of course, depending on what you shoot, focus accuracy may be higher with one vs the others. (It may seem a small detail, but I find the silent modes of the 6D and 5DIII a big improvement over the 5DII - I get embarrassed noisily clicking away with my 5DII in churches, museums and other quiet places.) While he's still in the US the original poster may want to rent these cameras and find out just which features he would(n't) miss. For my purposes a 5DIII doesn't have $1000 worth of advantages over the 6D, so I just bought one of those (currently $1900 at B&H).

 

[TrumpetPower!]

There's no meaningful difference in image quality between the 6D and the 5DIII. For all intense porpoises, you can think of them as being loaded with the same "film."

But the bodies holding that film are quite different.

The 6D is a capable camera, but it's nothing to get excited about. (Except, as already noted, for the sensor.)

A decade ago, the 5DIII would have been the reigning champion amongst sports photographers. In the film era, there would have been no contest.

Sure, its frame rate isn't quite as high as some, but the autofocus performance more than makes up for it. Except for the 1Dx, you get more "keepers" per second of shooting than with any other camera.

That, and the price, is really all you need to know about when deciding which to get.

Basically, the 5DIII is a pro sports / wildlife / action version of the 6D.

Cheers,

b&

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I went through this debate myself, and decided to go with a 6D. I have been very happy with the camera so far.

P.S. I did some model "hair flinging" work with my wireless flash triggers (Yongnuo YN-622C E-TTL) and had no problem with syncing at 1/200th and even 1/250th.

Limiting the maximum shutter speed to 1/4000th was a chintzy move...even my 60D has 1/8000th. Still, as a previous poster said, this is rarely actually an issue in the field. I would only use 1/8000th when bracketing.

Finally, after shooting a few events professionally with both the 6D and 5DII in harness, I would gladly trade my 5DII for a second 6D.

 

[RLPhoto]

The 6D is a microwaved 5D2, which was already a re-cooked 5D, which had its original serving as a 20D. (In terms of actual camera performance, not IQ )

If you want a better performing camera, 5D3 is the best route. It won't limit you later on like the 6D could with its AF performance.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

The 6D is a microwaved 5D2, which was already a re-cooked 5D, which had its original serving as a 20D. (In terms of actual camera performance, not IQ )

If you want a better performing camera, 5D3 is the best route. It won't limit you later on like the 6D could with its AF performance.

One question: are you making this judgment after having used both cameras, or just because you think this is true?

I can tell you from having used a MKII professionally extensively that in many ways the 6D is a big step upwards from the MKII. I have not owned or used a MKIII, although I have extensively researched it. The MKIII is without the superior camera overall, but even that is not straightforward. There is some give and take with both bodies, and, for me, I concluded that the "give" with the 6D right now was worth the "take".

The truth of the matter is that the 6D actually has more modern technology than any other Canon camera at the moment, even if the form factor and AF are not premium.

 

[RLPhoto]

The 6D is a microwaved 5D2, which was already a re-cooked 5D, which had its original serving as a 20D. (In terms of actual camera performance, not IQ )

If you want a better performing camera, 5D3 is the best route. It won't limit you later on like the 6D could with its AF performance.

One question: are you making this judgment after having used both cameras, or just because you think this is true?

I can tell you from having used a MKII professionally extensively that in many ways the 6D is a big step upwards from the MKII. I have not owned or used a MKIII, although I have extensively researched it. The MKIII is without the superior camera overall, but even that is not straightforward. There is some give and take with both bodies, and, for me, I concluded that the "give" with the 6D right now was worth the "take".

The truth of the matter is that the 6D actually has more modern technology than any other Canon camera at the moment, even if the form factor and AF are not premium.

Yes, I used the 6D for a day rental and found it's AF nothing particular special from my previous 5Dc or the MK2. I didn't have time to really test it's reported -3EV center point AF, but I could imagine its spectacular in low light as the 5Dc and MK2's we're pretty good.

As for the other features, They're nice fluff but I know it's a camera that could be outgrown if any serious AF situations arrive. IE: off-centered subject approaching camera while shooting Sub-F/2.8.

Perhaps, the 7D spoiled me with these expectations but the MK3 is a camera I will not outgrow for awhile.

 

[emag]

The operative pharase here is......"But I am confused, do I really spend 3.5K (with the kit lens) for a hobby." If you have to ask the question, then the answer is no. The 6D is not 'settling down'....it's a fine camera and should please any hobbyist. It may please a professional only as a backup body but you're not a professional. Get it. Enjoy it. Buy some nice glass.