Have most now forsaken the 5dMk3 and jumped on to the Mk4?

[ahsanford]

The 6D supports interchangeable focusing screens. Big plus for Zeissoholics!

Fair point. I won't touch manual focusing lenses on my 5D3 without a focusing screen unless it's on a tripod with Liveview, so I'd love MF screen functionality.

But aren't manual focusing screens getting relegated to 1D level only? Did the 5D4 or 5DS rigs get them? Are we still going to see them in the 6D2?

- A

 

[Big_Ant_TV_Media]

LOVING MY 5D4 since sept/oct my iamges from my 5d3 too 5d4 are not 1 and 1a
still good for my needs just having better 1080p video and stm/dpaf for stills and video is great too hae anlong with lower noise at all iso's

been great for sports/action and fashion for me
9H6A3494-1 by Big Ant TV Media LLC, on Flickr

9H6A3434-1 by Big Ant TV Media LLC, on Flickr

 

[Eldar]

"Better value" depends on for what you use it. The old Mk III is still a very good camera and for many people it still makes an excellent buy. But, for me, the ability to focus with all points at f/8 and the better focus in general has transformed my keeper rate for BIF with my f/8 lenses and so the Mk IV is much better value.

I agree, that´s why I included an "average user". If you´re into f/8.0 territory, BIF and other things that move fast, want more dynamic range and better high ISO noise performance, it is clear that the 5DIV is a better camera (that´s why I decided to get one), but it comes with a cost penalty.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The 6D supports interchangeable focusing screens. Big plus for Zeissoholics!

Fair point. I won't touch manual focusing lenses on my 5D3 without a focusing screen unless it's on a tripod with Liveview, so I'd love MF screen functionality.

But aren't manual focusing screens getting relegated to 1D level only? Did the 5D4 or 5DS rigs get them? Are we still going to see them in the 6D2?

- A

The 6D got interchangable screens because it's based on a 5DII mirror box and shutter. The idea from Canon was to raid the S/H sales of the 5DII by launching the 6D, which was basically a 5DII in new frock...sure it was a new sensor...but there is a lot of the spec and components which are straight from a 5DII.
Going back to my earlier point...the 6DII will probably be a re-worked 5DIII to raid the S/h sales of the 5DIII. Canon doesn't make any money on S/H cameras. So it's pretty smart of them to nuke the S/H sales of the old camera by making the new 2nd tier camera pretty much the same.

I never saw the point of a 6D myself....but then again, I'm still using a 5DII every now and again. While my main cameras are a pair of 5DIII's.

 

[scyrene]

The 5D3 is probably better value for money

A brand new camera is worse value for money than one that's been out over four years? Who would ever have thought!

Any person thinking of upgrading from an APS-C camera or a 6D might be balancing between a 5DIII and a 5DIV.
When the 5DIII came out it was worth the premium price over the 5DII as it corrected a number of issues.
The 5DIV is just an incremental improvement that is no great leap forward in terms of getting better photographs out of a camera. I was just trying to be helpful to people who might be in that position.
I would think that its a smart enough decision to go with a 5DIII as its still a good camera and good value for money.
Unfortunately there are people like you on this site who's only contribution is sarcasm which is the lowest form of wit.

Uh huh. Feel free to check around for my contributions : Sometimes, however, sarcasm is warranted. When someone states the obvious like it's some amazing discovery, for instance.

I happen to agree the 5D3 would be a step up for those upgraders you mentioned, mostly. As for the 5D4 being 'only incremental', well isn't that what lots of people say/said about the 5D3? Newsflash: mark II, III, IV of a product will always be an incremental upgrade. And overall, as others have said, the rate of change is slowing. DSLRs are a mature technology. Until and unless something radical is developed, all future iterations will be incremental. That doesn't make them bad, or even bad value (but that entirely depends on one's means and perspective).

 

[Maiaibing]

6D sensor is better than the 5DIII sensor. 6DII will hopefully also be better than the 5DIV sensor - and if so presumably blow the 5DIII sensor out of the water.

Even today I'd have to have a specific need to pick up a 5DIII before going with (just) a 6D.

Regarding your second[/color] point: That 'specific need' just might include shooting at 1/8000s, shooting at 33% faster burst,
- indeed

hitting a moving target, -
no, because 6D centre point is faster, more accurate and can shoot in lower light than any 5DIII point.

AF points in places other than where a Rebel can cover, -????

a second card slot, much tougher build quality, video without moire, etc. -
Never had any use for any of these myself, so nothing to me, and btw 5DIII speed sufferes terribly if you used both slots...

The notion that the 6D eeks out a slightly better sensor score means leaving a far far far better camera at home is insanity to me.
???? - I was specific on that 6D has a better sensor. That's very important to me. What you write above in a seemingly fit of insanity, has nothing to do with my claim or choice.

Unless you need WiFi/GPS or are shooting in a dark room (for the 6D's -3 EV center point), I'm taking the 5D3 every single time.
- Good luck with your choice, I prefer to go for the better quality pictures.

No one would choose a 6D over a 5DIII for the slight iso noise improvement over the slightly reduced MP count on the 6D....or the slightly better in very low light single AF point or the slightly better shadow DR.

I did (and do). That you think your choices should be everyone's just shows a narrow-minded approach to photography. No banding and low light AF are the two key issues for me. Poor low-light AF was the key reason I dropped the 5DIII. As I said, picture IQ counts the most for me. If you can live with a little less IQ for a little more of something else - go for it.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Am I the only one still Mk3 user? All I see on here now are threads regarding the Mk4.
To me the MK 3 is still an amazing camera. Maybe cause the 4k in the Mk4 sucks and I am not too fussy about touch screen. But that's me been me I guess.

I am very much still in love with my Mk3. I never leave home without her. ;D

I am another happy 5D3 user, love to lug it around, hope my copy with 120.000 actuations so far will still do for a while. This camera really proved to be a totally reliable workhorse, in particular in rugged environments when shooting wildlife, but also in available light photog, street, portrait, etc. It still is a great allrounder. Besides some weaknesses like color banding in pulled shadows, non-competitive DR at low ISOs and a mediocre metering system, the 5D3 is capable of producing very good images, with great colors just out of the camera (try that with a Nikon, we have an extended Nikon gear so I know what I am talking about). Its AF system still is gorgeous, with my EF 85mm f/1.2 it opened up shooting even slow action wide open!

Plus, 20-24 MP is a golden rule for 35 mm sensors IMO, good enough for fine A3 prints, nice crisp per-pixel-sharpness, robust against micro-movements of vivid objects, you can shoot landscapes at f >= 10 like in the old analogue times without caring too much about diffraction softening (and getting big files with not so great optical information). I know all downsides of smaller pixels from my 7D/ 7D II just too well.

If Canon would have kept the Mk IV at 24 MP, I'd loved to upgrade. 30 MP already makes my frowning. Obviously there was too much pressure by all those megapixel fetishists on Canon. I don't understand why they resigned to this pressure, since they already offer the 5DS/R as record setting MP beasts to those people. Personally, if I'd need more MP, I'd go for mid format cameras with bigger sensors - or film. Actually, I grab my beloved New Mamiya 6 and shoot fine grained film. You can get very good analogue MF cameras and lenses for a fraction of the price of a 5D IV or 5DS/R.

 

[scyrene]

Plus, 20-24 MP is a golden rule for 35 mm sensors IMO, good enough for fine A3 prints, nice crisp per-pixel-sharpness, robust against micro-movements of vivid objects, you can shoot landscapes at f >= 10 like in the old analogue times without caring too much about diffraction softening (and getting big files with not so great optical information). I know all downsides of smaller pixels from my 7D/ 7D II just too well.

It bears repeating because this appears to be a widely-held misconception: if your output/viewing size is fixed, an increase in resolution will *NOT* increase the effects of diffraction. If you shoot at 20MP and 50MP, same format, lens, settings etc, and output to e.g. A3, diffraction (and camera shake etc) will be *identical*. It is only a *potential* problem viewing 100%, crop more on the higher res file, or if you output the higher res file to a larger size.

Increased file size is a completely legitimate concern with higher resolution sensors, however.

 

[jeffa4444]

Plus, 20-24 MP is a golden rule for 35 mm sensors IMO, good enough for fine A3 prints, nice crisp per-pixel-sharpness, robust against micro-movements of vivid objects, you can shoot landscapes at f >= 10 like in the old analogue times without caring too much about diffraction softening (and getting big files with not so great optical information). I know all downsides of smaller pixels from my 7D/ 7D II just too well.

It bears repeating because this appears to be a widely-held misconception: if your output/viewing size is fixed, an increase in resolution will *NOT* increase the effects of diffraction. If you shoot at 20MP and 50MP, same format, lens, settings etc, and output to e.g. A3, diffraction (and camera shake etc) will be *identical*. It is only a *potential* problem viewing 100%, crop more on the higher res file, or if you output the higher res file to a larger size.

Increased file size is a completely legitimate concern with higher resolution sensors, however.

All agreed however sticking to the A3 print size because that's what I do the level of detail from that 50MP camera as opposed to the 20MP is very noticeable. Shooting with a 6D & 5DS and identical set-ups thats the main reason I would chose the 5DS over the 6D.

 

[cellomaster27]

I've been making some 16x24 inch prints, comparing prints from my SL1 and 5D3. I kind of cringed at making sizes larger than 16x24 with my rebel. Though the SL1 is a snappy camera, the 5D3 is winning in many ways. I am not so much a pixel peeper as wanting more details in large prints. The 5D3 may be a few years old now, but its still a great camera for me.

In the future, I could see myself owning two bodies.. one to make high quality/detailed prints and one for the everyday shooting/web posts. Who knows, by then, it'll be a 80+MP canon.

 

[awinphoto]

I've been making some 16x24 inch prints, comparing prints from my SL1 and 5D3. I kind of cringed at making sizes larger than 16x24 with my rebel. Though the SL1 is a snappy camera, the 5D3 is winning in many ways. I am not so much a pixel peeper as wanting more details in large prints. The 5D3 may be a few years old now, but its still a great camera for me.

In the future, I could see myself owning two bodies.. one to make high quality/detailed prints and one for the everyday shooting/web posts. Who knows, by then, it'll be a 80+MP canon.

That's awesome =) This time last year, a client came in and we did a photoshoot in which he ended up buying 12 20x30 prints from us... it was a very good Christmas for us last year =) It took a little upsizing in PS, but prints came out great! I would love to jump to the mk4, but I think as far as a business goes, that wont happen until either the mk4 drops in price or my mk3 and or backup cam takes a dump on me... then I will have no other choice =)

 

[atlcroc]

I switched to the 5 D Mark IV from the 5 D Mark III recently. After ordering the new camera, I took many test shots with both cameras and since my main interest was to improve sharpness, I took the leap. I could see a noticeable difference when using a tripod and same settings and just swapping out bodies. I also had purchased the 70 d for the auto focus in video and so by selling my Mark IV and 70 D was able to cut down on my upgrade costs. Now plodding through the manual, have found something that might make a big difference in others' decisions if I understand this correctly. Buried in the settings is an in camera Digital Lens Optimizer that can be applied to raw files. The manual states that it corrects "the deterioration of resolution caused by the low pass filter." It will slow down continuous shooting, but does this feature basically offer the option people were looking for of having a body without the low pass filter? I think this feature might be worth its own topic, but since I still don't have enough posts, have to add it here.

 

[atlcroc]

Never mind last post. Just read Ken Rockwell's review and he says this feature locks up the camera for about 3 seconds and therefore is not worth it.

 

[Jayjohnson541]

Great Camera!!!

 

[justaCanonuser]

It bears repeating because this appears to be a widely-held misconception: if your output/viewing size is fixed, an increase in resolution will *NOT* increase the effects of diffraction. If you shoot at 20MP and 50MP, same format, lens, settings etc, and output to e.g. A3, diffraction (and camera shake etc) will be *identical*. It is only a *potential* problem viewing 100%, crop more on the higher res file, or if you output the higher res file to a larger size.

Increased file size is a completely legitimate concern with higher resolution sensors, however.

I know what you mean, I studied physics and it's therefore pretty sure that I just by training know more about optics than you (sorry, I don't want to be arrogant). But I do not want to talk about wave optics & diffraction basics, Airy discs, and pixel sizes. I made my statement just from the perspective of real life usability, from a non-studio photographer's perspective. A 22-24 MP 35 mm sensor is for many settings the best choice because you simply don't have to make up your mind about diffraction, micro movements etc. that quickly degrade the real optical information you get out of your high MP beast with such a small sensor, if the setting isn't optimum (optimum means studio with big flash system delivering a lot of light, or a tripod and a pretty static motif or long enough exposures). And the 5D series originally was intended by Canon to be reportage cameras, so they were designed for use in non-optimum settings.

So it's simply about what 35 mm photography is made for, and when it gets too pimped IMO. If I need 50 MP I go for mid format, because then I can get non-crippled high resolution images even with closed apertures and large DOF. In fact I do this frequently with my Mamiya 6 system. 50 MP scans with a good film scanner (if I don't want chemical prints) from a fine grained film are pretty amazing, even at f > 10, simply because the 60 mm x 60 mm image area collects a lot of optical information without being too prone to diffraction softening. This size is about 4 times bigger than those tiny 35 mm images! It even dwarfs the new Hasselblad X1D's 50 MP sensor size (43.8 mm × 32.9 mm) that already makes much more sense in terms of photographic versatility than a 50 MP 35 mm sensor.

 

[Maiaibing]

And the 5D series originally was intended by Canon to be reportage cameras, so they were designed for use in non-optimum settings.

What a totally absurd claim. Please substantiate.

 

[deleteme]

Am I the only one still Mk3 user? All I see on here now are threads regarding the Mk4.
To me the MK 3 is still an amazing camera. Maybe cause the 4k in the Mk4 sucks and I am not too fussy about touch screen. But that's me been me I guess.

I am very much still in love with my Mk3. I never leave home without her. ;D

I still use my mk3s every day.

In my work I cannot justify ditching excellent gear with a good remaining service life for new gear that (in my work) offers invisible benefit to my clients. I shoot architecture and studio work with zero video.

The mk4 is a fine camera but when it comes time to replace old gear I am sure there will be options that will be even better.

 

[LordofTackle]

I switched to the 5 D Mark IV from the 5 D Mark III recently. After ordering the new camera, I took many test shots with both cameras and since my main interest was to improve sharpness, I took the leap. I could see a noticeable difference when using a tripod and same settings and just swapping out bodies. I also had purchased the 70 d for the auto focus in video and so by selling my Mark IV and 70 D was able to cut down on my upgrade costs. Now plodding through the manual, have found something that might make a big difference in others' decisions if I understand this correctly. Buried in the settings is an in camera Digital Lens Optimizer that can be applied to raw files. The manual states that it corrects "the deterioration of resolution caused by the low pass filter." It will slow down continuous shooting, but does this feature basically offer the option people were looking for of having a body without the low pass filter? I think this feature might be worth its own topic, but since I still don't have enough posts, have to add it here.

Afaik, it is also only Applied if you Record JPEGs. If you shoot raw you can correct later on Computer...

 

[scyrene]

It bears repeating because this appears to be a widely-held misconception: if your output/viewing size is fixed, an increase in resolution will *NOT* increase the effects of diffraction. If you shoot at 20MP and 50MP, same format, lens, settings etc, and output to e.g. A3, diffraction (and camera shake etc) will be *identical*. It is only a *potential* problem viewing 100%, crop more on the higher res file, or if you output the higher res file to a larger size.

Increased file size is a completely legitimate concern with higher resolution sensors, however.

I know what you mean, I studied physics and it's therefore pretty sure that I just by training know more about optics than you (sorry, I don't want to be arrogant). But I do not want to talk about wave optics & diffraction basics, Airy discs, and pixel sizes. I made my statement just from the perspective of real life usability, from a non-studio photographer's perspective. A 22-24 MP 35 mm sensor is for many settings the best choice because you simply don't have to make up your mind about diffraction, micro movements etc. that quickly degrade the real optical information you get out of your high MP beast with such a small sensor, if the setting isn't optimum (optimum means studio with big flash system delivering a lot of light, or a tripod and a pretty static motif or long enough exposures). And the 5D series originally was intended by Canon to be reportage cameras, so they were designed for use in non-optimum settings.

So it's simply about what 35 mm photography is made for, and when it gets too pimped IMO. If I need 50 MP I go for mid format, because then I can get non-crippled high resolution images even with closed apertures and large DOF. In fact I do this frequently with my Mamiya 6 system. 50 MP scans with a good film scanner (if I don't want chemical prints) from a fine grained film are pretty amazing, even at f > 10, simply because the 60 mm x 60 mm image area collects a lot of optical information without being too prone to diffraction softening. This size is about 4 times bigger than those tiny 35 mm images! It even dwarfs the new Hasselblad X1D's 50 MP sensor size (43.8 mm × 32.9 mm) that already makes much more sense in terms of photographic versatility than a 50 MP 35 mm sensor.

You may well know more about physics than me; my comment stands. If you're saying that adding extra MP may not be of a practical benefit to a given user, in some circumstances, then that's another matter.

I don't think the 5Ds/R are 'crippled' (in almost every aspect their specifications equal the 5D3, and that camera is not 'crippled'). Clearly, medium format offers certain aspects of image quality that full frame doesn't, but everything is a compromise, and in this case that is price (and perhaps also things like frame rate and autofocus speed). I can't afford medium format, and even if I could, it doesn't offer the focal lengths that suit much of what I shoot.

 

[Maiaibing]

I have not forsaken the 5D2 yet.

Loved mine too.

Jumped the 5DIII since it offered nothing in improved IQ. However, happy I got myself a 5DS/R. Having shot with all four my verdict is that the 5DS/R and 5DIV both are worthy upgrades from the 5DII/5DIII - with the single caveat that the 5DIV current high price counts against it.

Of course if the 5DII still delivers what you need, keeping it can't be beat...