Canon 5D Mark III Vs. Canon 6D..

ImagenEstilo

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

What I'm wondering is, would it be better for me to buy the 6D and invest the extra cash in some good lenses or just go and buy the Canon 5D Mark III?

Lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses, lenses. It is always best to invest more money in the lenses. Always. Your 6D or 5D mark 3 will be obsolete in 5 years time. Your 70-200 f/2.8 IS will certainly not be.

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

In regards to what I'll be shooting, I guess I'm a fan of all things. I partcularly like Wildlife and Nature, but I'm also a fan of portrait and sports..

This is a strange one. Wildlife, Nature and Sport would pull me more towards a cropped frame camera. Portraits and landscapes would be pulling me more towards full frame.

Why are you jumping over to Canon as a matter of interest. You can pick up a full frame D600 reasonably cheap. The next stop then would be the D700 or D800.

Either way, all of the above are fairly serious cameras for a person going on a photoghraphy course!

dirtyghettokid

i would have thought a 7D would have been what you'd want for sports and nature (if you are staying the canon route)
7D+ lots of lovely glass would be what i'd choose, if i were predominantly taking nature/sports pics!

ImagenEstilo

I would agree with dirtyghettokid, cropped sensor and good lenses. Even splash out on a nice vertical grip. It is the best for that style of photography (portrait excluded).

Just think, on your 7D, a 200mm lens will end up being 320mm. Can't beat that. To get the same zoom on a full frame you would need to fork out big time for a similarly fast lens.

If Nikon then go the D7000 route or its successor.
Dave

MarkyMark22

What about the 6D then? If I got the 6D with 24-105 it would be $1300 dollars cheaper than the 5D MK iii with the 25-105. I could then use that to get a top quality lens? I'd be willing to throw a bit extra toward it if need be.

I was also planning on buying the 50mm 1/8 and 85mm.

The main difference seems to be the ISO and less Autofocus points, but image quality seems to be the same as the 5D MK III.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/eos6d/pool/

I noticed someone here mentioned the 6D has no flash sync socket?

Is this true? I can't seem to find anything else on that..

MarkyMark22

After doing a bit of research.

For about an extra €300 euro I could get the 6D,24-105L and 70-200 f2.8L instead of the 5D Markiii and 24-105L...

dirtyghettokid

the 6D is also full frame, like the 5d2 & 3. you would be better off with a crop sensor camera for the type of photography you are interested in. 7d is a crop camera. better AF system than in the 5d2.

Rew

ImagenEstilo wrote: »

Just think, on your 7D, a 200mm lens will end up being 320mm. Can't beat that. To get the same zoom on a full frame you would need to fork out big time for a similarly fast lens.

This argument never really stacked up to me. 7d is 18mp, 5D II 21.1, MkII 22.3. So you have 2-3 megapixels of crop on a full frame without loss of quality verus the crop give you a similar enough net zoom

condra

I would always be inclined to go for the FF camera. After that it comes down to features, value for money etc. I think the 6D has a lot to offer for most photographers in that particular price bracket.

Also, while good glass will dramatically improve the quality of shots from "modest" sensors, I would still prefer a FF camera with a mediocre lens. You can get a used 5d mk1 for about 500 quid now. For what I do, I would choose that over a 7d without hesitation.

Ken Rockwell compared the results of a great lens on a crop camera, with a mediocre lens on a FF camera here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm
.. and the FF camera won.

I would only encourage someone to buy a 7d over a FF camera if they really, REALLY needed the 8fps shooting.

Is the 6d worth the extra bit over the 5d2?
I would say most definitely.. (and I own and love a 5d2)
5d2 has been discontinued anyway, though I know some shops still have a handful left. Used 5d2s are running for around 1200 on adverts.ie.. gotta be tempting!

Is the 5d3 worth the extra big lump of cash over the 6d?
For me, no.
Wifi and compact size are more appealing to me than the extra focussing power and 6fps burst. Image quality should be very similar. (brilliant)

flyingsnail

condra wrote: »

I would always be inclined to go for the FF camera. After that it comes down to features, value for money etc. I think the 6D has a lot to offer for most photographers in that particular price bracket.

Also, while good glass will dramatically improve the quality of shots from "modest" sensors, I would still prefer a FF camera with a mediocre lens. You can get a used 5d mk1 for about 500 quid now. For what I do, I would choose that over a 7d without hesitation.

Ken Rockwell compared the results of a great lens on a crop camera, with a mediocre lens on a FF camera here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm
.. and the FF camera won.

I would only encourage someone to buy a 7d over a FF camera if they really, REALLY needed the 8fps shooting.

Is the 6d worth the extra bit over the 5d2?
I would say most definitely.. (and I own and love a 5d2)
5d2 has been discontinued anyway, though I know some shops still have a handful left. Used 5d2s are running for around 1200 on adverts.ie.. gotta be tempting!

Is the 5d3 worth the extra big lump of cash over the 6d?
For me, no.
Wifi and compact size are more appealing to me than the extra focussing power and 6fps burst. Image quality should be very similar. (brilliant)

That was an interesting read, thanks for posting.

ImagenEstilo

Rew wrote: »

This argument never really stacked up to me. 7d is 18mp, 5D II 21.1, MkII 22.3. So you have 2-3 megapixels of crop on a full frame without loss of quality verus the crop give you a similar enough net zoom

A cropped frame camera is always better than a full frame camera when zoom is required. Looking at the 7D at 18MP with a 1.6 crop compared to a 5d Mk II at 22MP, cropping the 5d to provide the same zoom as the 7D means you reduce the effective MP to 13.75.

So you are paying over the odds for a full frame camera only to reduce the quality of your photos. Why, would you do it? Post processing workflow becomes a bit of a chore too.

Look at nat geo photographers out on safari, almost all will use cropped sensors.

Dave

ImagenEstilo

condra wrote: »

I would always be inclined to go for the FF camera. After that it comes down to features, value for money etc. I think the 6D has a lot to offer for most photographers in that particular price bracket.

Also, while good glass will dramatically improve the quality of shots from "modest" sensors, I would still prefer a FF camera with a mediocre lens. You can get a used 5d mk1 for about 500 quid now. For what I do, I would choose that over a 7d without hesitation.

Ken Rockwell compared the results of a great lens on a crop camera, with a mediocre lens on a FF camera here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm
.. and the FF camera won.

I would only encourage someone to buy a 7d over a FF camera if they really, REALLY needed the 8fps shooting.

Is the 6d worth the extra bit over the 5d2?
I would say most definitely.. (and I own and love a 5d2)
5d2 has been discontinued anyway, though I know some shops still have a handful left. Used 5d2s are running for around 1200 on adverts.ie.. gotta be tempting!

Is the 5d3 worth the extra big lump of cash over the 6d?
For me, no.
Wifi and compact size are more appealing to me than the extra focussing power and 6fps burst. Image quality should be very similar. (brilliant)

I would tend to disagree on the full frame as the holy grail of cameras. It all comes down to what it is you want from a camera and your shooting style.

Admittedly, I use full frame myself, but only becuase it suits my style of photography.

In terms of putting a good lens on a crop and a bad lens on FF this is not the original comparison. We were originally comparing both FF cameras and their costs and the idea of buying the cheaper FF and getting better optics. I would always advise people do this. In 10 years your 5d Mk III will be an antique, your 70-200 IS will not.

Cropped frame is a genuine choice as a photographer, the thing is you need to understand when a cropped frame is really for you. The original poster seems to fit the bill in my opinion (bar the portrait stuff).

I've just finished an article on my website on this very topic (Cropped Versus Full Frame Sensors). It's missing a few pictures which I will add tomorrow if I get a chance but the text is all there. Its a long article but it may help people wade through the crop frame/full frame argument a bit more sure-footedly.

Dave

dirtyghettokid

not saying that anyone here is like this, but what i am seeing a lot lately with guys i know that are into photography -- is it seems like buying FF is the next bandwagon. people seem to just buy one cos someone else has one, without really knowing the differences between crop & ff, and all the different specs.

it took me six months to decide on what camera i really needed that suited what i wanted to do, when i was upgrading. whereas most people just buy something cos someone else has it and it's the "in" thing.

best advice is just to definitely do your research and learn to know what you NEED a camera to do for you. find out it's limitations. borrow gear, rent gear, try it out.

Effects

condra wrote: »

Ken Rockwell compared the results of a great lens on a crop camera, with a mediocre lens on a FF camera here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm
.. and the FF camera won.

He talks tons of BS though. I wouldn't listen to much of his opinions and take them as fact. Example, "A frame of 35mm film, scanned cheaply at a good photo lab to a CD, is about equal to the resolution of a 25MP DSLR."

ronanc15

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

not saying that anyone here is like this, but what i am seeing a lot lately with guys i know that are into photography -- is it seems like buying FF is the next bandwagon. people seem to just buy one cos someone else has one, without really knowing the differences between crop & ff, and all the different specs.

it took me six months to decide on what camera i really needed that suited what i wanted to do, when i was upgrading. whereas most people just buy something cos someone else has it and it's the "in" thing.

best advice is just to definitely do your research and learn to know what you NEED a camera to do for you. find out it's limitations. borrow gear, rent gear, try it out.

I'd have to agree wholeheartedly with this JB.

As someone who suffers badly from a common disease known as "spec creep", I constantly battle urges to buy all types of upgrades (regardless of the fact that they might be costly).

I can definitely think of a few people I know who have bought FF recently without actually realising/researching the fact that they were shooting themselves in the foot as they required the crop for the increased zoom.

I'm in a tricky one with my current upgrade but ultimately I enjoy shooting landscapes the most so I'm going to go for the 6d for those (and hopefully try some portraits) and keep my 500d for the drifting and any zoom heavy types. Picking up some L glass which will be interchangeable anyway so if for example I pick up a 70-200 2.8 it can go on the 500d for the drifting.

Then again I have to prioritise which lens I'll buy and make sure that the first L lens I pick up will match my most frequent use.

/firstworldproblems

dirtyghettokid

ronanc15 wrote: »

I'm in a tricky one with my current upgrade but ultimately I enjoy shooting landscapes the most so I'm going to go for the 6d for those (and hopefully try some portraits) and keep my 500d for the drifting and any zoom heavy types. Picking up some L glass which will be interchangeable anyway so if for example I pick up a 70-200 2.8 it can go on the 500d for the drifting.

this is exactly the thing to do. at least you know what each format does; it's strengths & weaknesses. i find having a crop cam as well as FF with interchangeable lenses is the best way forward, if you can afford it.

ronanc15

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

this is exactly the thing to do. at least you know what each format does; it's strengths & weaknesses. i find having a crop cam as well as FF with interchangeable lenses is the best way forward, if you can afford it.

That's a big if

delexical

I'm looking at the 6D myself. I think it's important not to get hung up on the megapixel count or assume that a pixel in one sensor is mathematically convertible into another camera. Sensors are constantly improving. The sensor in the 6D appears to have a positive effect on the camera's ability to focus in low light and the lower noise in images in higher ISO compared to the 5DmIII. This is what attracts me. Though I wish it had a greater array of AF points I'm guessing it will suit low light portraiture & events better (eg concerts, theatre, weddings, etc), even than the pricier 5DmIII ultimately. Ideally I'd like to have both bodies, but that's gear greed. Farther down the line perhaps! The absence of sync line & CF cards are off set by the wifi which I'd be able to use with my android phone. I'd be planning on spending the difference on glass myself as others have advised, choose well and it's a good investment.

Here's something else to consider besides the zoom. If you have a lens that you want to get pin sharp pictures out of it will have a sweet spot where sharpness is best throughout the frame. Say a Sigma 35mm f1.4: It is sharpest at f4 but you lose some depth of field. That lens will have a shallower depth of field on a full frame than a cropped frame at f4. So if you want shallower depths of field with better sharpness throughout the image, full frames will give you that depending on your lens. Another reason a full frame might suit your style better or the lenses you have or plan to acquire.

Anyone have any opinions on using a converter to mimic the crop on a full frame when you want to push your 200 or 300mm a bit further?

delexical

By lost some depth of field at f4 versus f1.4 I clearly meant gain some! And lose some shallow depth of field effect, more of which that full frame offers you.

ImagenEstilo

delexical wrote: »

I'm looking at the 6D myself. I think it's important not to get hung up on the megapixel count or assume that a pixel in one sensor is mathematically convertible into another camera. Sensors are constantly improving. The sensor in the 6D appears to have a positive effect on the camera's ability to focus in low light and the lower noise in images in higher ISO compared to the 5DmIII. This is what attracts me. Though I wish it had a greater array of AF points I'm guessing it will suit low light portraiture & events better (eg concerts, theatre, weddings, etc), even than the pricier 5DmIII ultimately. Ideally I'd like to have both bodies, but that's gear greed. Farther down the line perhaps! The absence of sync line & CF cards are off set by the wifi which I'd be able to use with my android phone. I'd be planning on spending the difference on glass myself as others have advised, choose well and it's a good investment.

Here's something else to consider besides the zoom. If you have a lens that you want to get pin sharp pictures out of it will have a sweet spot where sharpness is best throughout the frame. Say a Sigma 35mm f1.4: It is sharpest at f4 but you lose some depth of field. That lens will have a shallower depth of field on a full frame than a cropped frame at f4. So if you want shallower depths of field with better sharpness throughout the image, full frames will give you that depending on your lens. Another reason a full frame might suit your style better or the lenses you have or plan to acquire.

Anyone have any opinions on using a converter to mimic the crop on a full frame when you want to push your 200 or 300mm a bit further?

Yep, agree wholeheartedly.

In terms of cropping your full frame, normally I wouldn't do it as I would have no need, but I did do it to take a few photos the weekend for an article I mentioned earlier in this post. I didn't use a converter, just the internal camera size selection on the D800. The added zoom you get is significant. Or the flip side to that is the cropping you end up with is a pain!!