# Rebel T4i vs 5D Mark III - $850 vs $3499 - Is it really worth 4 times the price?



## vjlex (Jun 11, 2012)

I've been shooting with a Rebel XTi for as many years as it's been out now and have been quite happy with it. I've somewhat outgrown it however and have been itching to dive into full-frame for some time. I withheld grabbing a 5D Mark II in anticipation of the Mark III. Now the Mark III is here. It looks like a wonderful camera- definitely an upgrade from the Mark II. But I'm still finding it hard to get past the sticker shock of $3500.

I know the Mark III is a class ahead of the Rebel line, but I'm curious as to just how much. Is it really 4 times better than the Rebel? Is there a huge difference in IQ between L-glass on a Mark III and L-glass on a 4Ti? What are the main, must-have features that would make the Mark III outclass the 4Ti? I know it comes down to what your specific camera needs are, but I'd really like to hear some ideas. Thanks!


----------



## JerryKnight (Jun 11, 2012)

Simply put, I don't think they are designed or intended to be compared to each other. They are intended for two very different types of photographers. I would argue that the 5D3 is at least two, if not three, classes ahead of the T4i. Rebel series, 60D, 7D, 5D3, 1D series.. Although, the differences between the 60D and rebel seem to be shrinking..

(I won't comment on the subjective differences in image quality. Huge can of worms.)

First, the sensor is entirely different, so the sensor debate ultimately boils down to the age-old full-frame vs crop, which has been hashed out endlessly in every online forum on the Internet. The main thing is that full frame sensors simply cost more than crop sensors.

Then there's the build - materials, quality, weather resistance, etc. Magnesium alloys cost a lot more than plastic, and it costs more to shape magnesium alloy than injection-molded plastic.. More has been spent in design and testing (although maybe not enough?), and they're making far fewer 5D's than rebels.

There are countless other upgrades from the rebel line to the 5D line, but those are the main two in my mind. The sensor, build quality, materials, and manufacturing scale, mixed with complex economics, all combine to get the prices we see.

Bottom line, yes - it's well worth the price difference for those who need it. Should everyone go buy a 5D3 instead of a T4i? No way. If all you need is a rebel, get a rebel. If you need better construction and fast performance, get a 7D. If you need a full frame sensor, get a 5D. If you need the absolute best Canon offers, get a 1D or 1Ds series.

Of course, if you have the money to burn, by all means - get a 5D3 or better, whether you really "need" it or not. If you can't justify the cost, then there's nothing wrong with going with the rebel. It's still a superb camera, and it will give you great images, but it simply cannot do everything that some photographers need, which is why the 5D3 was made and priced as it is.


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 11, 2012)

My friend bought a Samsung 60" 8000 series TV. The price is 3x of my 6000 series. I can see the different *only* when I go to the BustBuy and compare them side by side. *I feel my TV is great when I watch it at home.* My friend and I have different value for a TV.
Compared to your XTi, T4i has better AF and better IQ. Do you think that's good for you? Do you see the benefits from FF?
My idea is simple. Do you really need / want a 5D3? If so, are you willing to pay 3.5K for it? Now you should have an answer, right?
I have 5D2 and had 7D. For me I want 5D3 because of the AF system. However, 5D3 is overpriced FOR ME. I will not upgrade my 5D2 to it for now.
If you have budget and think 5D3 is what you need/want, go for it. Otherwise, T4i may good for you already.


----------



## Kernuak (Jun 11, 2012)

When he still used Canons, Ole Liodden once wrote on his blog about people using different cameras on some of his Arctic/Antarctic trips. He didn't mention Rebels, but he did say that he'd had a number of clients using 40D's and 5D MkII's, that had failed due to the weather conditions, yet the 7D (and of course the 1D's) kept on working. The build quality and sealing of the 5D MkIII is supposed to be the same as the 7D, so if you are in less than prime weather conditions, then it could be the cost of getting the shot or not. If you're a hobbyist, then it may not matter, unless you're on the trip of a lifetime, but you can imagine the cost to a pro who is trying to earn a living. Reputations are easily lost and difficult to regain. So basically, whether it is worth four times the cost is as much down to your circumstances as the needs for the type of photography.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 12, 2012)

JerryKnight said:


> Simply put, I don't think they are designed or intended to be compared to each other. They are intended for two very different types of photographers. I would argue that the 5D3 is at least two, if not three, classes ahead of the T4i. Rebel series, 60D, 7D, 5D3, 1D series.. Although, the differences between the 60D and rebel seem to be shrinking..
> 
> (I won't comment on the subjective differences in image quality. Huge can of worms.)



Thanks very much for your thoughts. I am curious though and apologize in advance if it is a can of worms, but what are people's thoughts on the difference in image quality? Right now, there is no other full-frame option and I'm pretty determined to upgrade on that level. But as far as image quality, dynamic range, not so much high ISO ability, but image quality in general- what's the difference between an L-lens on an 4Ti and an L-lens on the Mark III? Any thoughts?


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 12, 2012)

shunsai said:


> Thanks very much for your thoughts. I am curious though and apologize in advance if it is a can of worms, but what are people's thoughts on the difference in image quality? Right now, there is no other full-frame option and I'm pretty determined to upgrade on that level. But as far as image quality, dynamic range, not so much high ISO ability, but image quality in general- what's the difference between an L-lens on an 4Ti and an L-lens on the Mark III? Any thoughts?


I am using 5D2 and I used to use T2i and 7D which have same sensor. T2i, 7D, 5D2 have similar IQ for outdoor and low ISO shoots. However, I really see the difference from ISO 400+. T4i has newer sensor, so I guess ISO 400 and 800 might be okay. For me it will still be about 2 to 3 stop difference.
By the way you will also have better DoF and wider angle on FF.


----------



## AdamJ (Jun 12, 2012)

shunsai said:


> I've been shooting with a Rebel XTi for as many years as it's been out now and have been quite happy with it. I've somewhat outgrown it however and have been itching to dive into full-frame for some time. I withheld grabbing a 5D Mark II in anticipation of the Mark III. Now the Mark III is here. It looks like a wonderful camera- definitely an upgrade from the Mark II. But I'm still finding it hard to get past the sticker shock of $3500.
> 
> I know the Mark III is a class ahead of the Rebel line, but I'm curious as to just how much. Is it really 4 times better than the Rebel? Is there a huge difference in IQ between L-glass on a Mark III and L-glass on a 4Ti? What are the main, must-have features that would make the Mark III outclass the 4Ti? I know it comes down to what your specific camera needs are, but I'd really like to hear some ideas. Thanks!



The 5D II has considerably less sticker shock. You mention that the 5D III is definitely an upgrade from the 5D III, should we infer from this that there is something troubling you about the 5D II's IQ?


----------



## vjlex (Jun 12, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> I am using 5D2 and I used to use T2i and 7D which have same sensor. T2i, 7D, 5D2 have similar IQ for outdoor and low ISO shoots. However, I really see the difference from ISO 400+. T4i has newer sensor, so I guess ISO 400 and 800 might be okay. For me it will still be about 2 to 3 stop difference.
> By the way you will also have better DoF and wider angle on FF.


Thanks for your thoughts!

Better DoF is a major plus for me. So far, the bokeh I've been able to get has been nothing to write home about.

You said they have similar IQ for outdoor- is there a big difference when shooting indoor with studio lighting? 

Historically, I've held back from shooting anything above 400 ISO. I know ISO performance has improved dramatically since the XTi. I've only used the 5D Mark II a few times, but I did notice a big difference. And the Mark III seems to be an even bigger difference.

Basically, coming from an XTi, pretty much any Canon offering within the last 2 years will be a major improvement for me. Since I don't upgrade very frequently, I'm hoping to get something that won't easily make me envious within 2 or 3 years.

I was considering upgrading to a 5D Mark III with a 4Ti as a backup, but that's edging pretty close to $5000, which is a bit more than I'm willing to part with at this time. Maybe a 5D Mark II with a 4Ti as a backup would be more appropriate? I'm curious to see what the high ISO performance and autofocus improvement will be like on the new Rebel compared to the Mark II. Any thoughts on that?


----------



## vjlex (Jun 12, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> The 5D II has considerably less sticker shock. You mention that the 5D III is definitely an upgrade from the 5D III, should we infer from this that there is something troubling you about the 5D II's IQ?



No, I don't think it was the image quality of the 5D Mark II that made me hesitate. As far as I can tell, the 5D Mark II IQ is still impressive. I don't have much experience with the Mark II, but for years I heard people complaining about the unimpressive autofocus, and that kinda made me hold off for the Mark III. Granted, since I don't have much experience with the Mark II, I haven't personally run into the autofocus annoyance, but given the not-so-great autofocus of the Rebel series I've shot with, I figure that autofocus improvement is something I would like to have in my next EOS body.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 12, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> When he still used Canons, Ole Liodden once wrote on his blog about people using different cameras on some of his Arctic/Antarctic trips. He didn't mention Rebels, but he did say that he'd had a number of clients using 40D's and 5D MkII's, that had failed due to the weather conditions, yet the 7D (and of course the 1D's) kept on working. The build quality and sealing of the 5D MkIII is supposed to be the same as the 7D, so if you are in less than prime weather conditions, then it could be the cost of getting the shot or not. If you're a hobbyist, then it may not matter, unless you're on the trip of a lifetime, but you can imagine the cost to a pro who is trying to earn a living. Reputations are easily lost and difficult to regain. So basically, whether it is worth four times the cost is as much down to your circumstances as the needs for the type of photography.



I mostly use my camera for travel photography. The most extreme climate I've taken it through was a glacier hike in Argentina where it was freezing cold, and lots of drizzle and light rain. It held up pretty well for a camera that's not weather-sealed or anything. Other than that though, I use it for studio portraits, weddings or in moderate outdoor climates. Nothing too extreme.

I am contemplating a trip to a few African countries by the end of the year, but weather-sealing is not a major concern for me. I've missed shots before, but not so much because of climate as much as autofocus and ISO limitations. That's something for me to think about. Thanks for your thoughts!


----------



## chrisdeckard (Jun 12, 2012)

As others have said, you can't really compare the two. If you are shooting once in a lifetime moments (weddings, newborns, etc.) then having the backup of dual memory cards makes it worth the money. Are you going to shoot in potentially wet situations? The Rebel may not hold up. Do you need spot on AF in almost every area of the view finder, or will 9 points meet your needs? Do you need lens microadjustments, or are you fine with a lens being slightly off? There are a billion questions you need to ask yourself. Maybe sit down and put dollar amounts to them.

Would it be cool to have a 1DX? Yes. Do I need to shoot 12 fps? No, at least not yet. Same types of questions for completely different classes of cameras.

If you need full frame, then go with the 5DIII. If not, and you don't need a camera right away, maybe holding out for the 70D is a better option. But again, you have to ask yourself all the same questions.

I didn't have to justify the need for a 5DIII, nor did I have to justify the need for two of them. The work we do requires it, and it has paid off.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jun 12, 2012)

You know the saying about opinions being like...... well you know. Rent one, or even a mkII and see for yourself. For me, the low light shooting is enough to win my heart over.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 12, 2012)

...And yet a lot of pro's still shoot APS-C. Some even micro 4/3. Ultimately, it depends on what you need it for.

For studio portraits where you can control the lighting or general photography in good, available light, you're unlikely to see much difference - especially if you are using good lenses. In fact, I often see portrait photographers using rebels and it doesn't seem to affect their business. (Hey, if you can keep costs down and customers are happy - its more profit for you). But you also mention weddings. Here you are relying on the prevailing conditions on the day. I agree with the above comments that the 5Diii will give you a greater chance of better shots in deteriorating light. And ultimately, that's what being a professional is about - having the skills, knowledge and equipment to get the results you are paid to get. The 5Diii is more capable. By how much? Its difficult to really tell. In my opinion, the 5Diii has two benefits - slightly more background blurring capability and the ability to use higher ISO's and maintain good image quality. Whether this is worth 4 times more is a question that you have to answer yourself.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 12, 2012)

These are some really good and useful replies! Thanks so much.

I'm starting to form my conclusions and am leaning towards the 5D Mark II + Rebel 4Ti combo. There's a good chance I'll take the full frame plunge before the end of this week. I'm still eager to hear more input. Thanks for all the good input so far!


----------



## Wilmark (Jun 12, 2012)

If you would like to see the 5D3 performance in low light look at this gallery. It was shot at a Nissan Launch under very poor lighting (basically street lighting) most of the pictures are shot at ISO5000 and up. While they are less than optimal for Weddings and more discerning uses, they are OK for photo journalism etc. There were 5 other photographers there and all of them were using flash, none of these pictures used a flash.

http://www.wilmark.johnatty.com/ariapita


----------



## JerryKnight (Jun 12, 2012)

shunsai said:


> JerryKnight said:
> 
> 
> > Simply put, I don't think they are designed or intended to be compared to each other. They are intended for two very different types of photographers. I would argue that the 5D3 is at least two, if not three, classes ahead of the T4i. Rebel series, 60D, 7D, 5D3, 1D series.. Although, the differences between the 60D and rebel seem to be shrinking..
> ...



It's hard for me to compare the difference in image quality from a crop sensor body to a full frame body. Once I went to full frame with the classic 5D, I've never looked back, so I really don't know how the rebel cameras perform. I can guess that the "good" crop bodies (ie. 7D) have "good" image quality, and I can say that the 5D bodies have "better" image quality, but by how much? That's entirely subjective. You start getting very hand-wavy, hard-to-quantify answers.

Honestly, the T4i seems to have a great sensor and a great autofocus system (the same 9-cross-type on the 7d?). It looks like a great little camera, so it's entirely possible that the subjective image quality could be comparable to the 7D and any other Canon crop sensor. I think the big questions you have to answer is whether full frame is what you need and whether the build quality is important to you. 

You've heard the other benefits of full frame: bokeh, wide angle coverage, etc. Since the "pixels" (or photosites) on the 5D3 sensor are bigger (6.25 micron) than the T3i (4.3 micron, and I assume the T4i has about the same 18MP APS-C sensor), the noise will tend to be better on the 5D3. Sure, the DIGIC 5 will alleviate a lot of that noise, but it will have to work harder on the T4i, giving the 5D3 more opportunity to give you better low light images. Another thing you might be surprised by (I certainly was) is how much brighter and wider the 5D3 viewfinder is. For me, it was a night & day difference when I first looked through my 5D classic's viewfinder. A word of warning, if you decide to go with a combo 5D2+T4i: You might start to feel very cramped by the smaller T4i viewfinder.

If full-frame turns out to be less important to you, I would think the 7D would be a strong consideration, since you want to keep this next camera a while. The materials and construction of the 7D are far better than any plastic rebel, so it will certainly last longer. If you decide you need full frame, you'll automatically get a durable camera, either in the 5D2 or 5D3.


----------



## sovietdoc (Jun 12, 2012)

> Rebel T4i vs 5D Mark III - $850 vs $3499 - Is it really worth 4 times the price?



If you have to ask that question, no it doesn't worth the price.

It does worth the price to you if you don't need to ask this because you already know what it can do.


----------



## Wilmark (Jun 12, 2012)

There is an important value in having an expensive camera in photography that has almost nothing to do with taking pictures and i hardly hear anyone speak about it. I do work for clients that have large budgets (large companies). When you have a camera with the hype of the 5Dmk3 and the 1Dx it makes for great conversation pieces. Fortunately those two bodies are quite well known even outside professional photography, especially when many 'enthusiasts' can go out and buy them and talk about them (dare say stay up all night before a release on canon-rumors hitting the refresh button, and being in the first day to preorder) many of the persons you deal with have rebels. When they see you carrying the real mccoy, they and you strike up a conversation about the new 61 point auto focus, or bokeh you are almost certain to get the job. And that by it self can land you a project that will pay for your 'overpriced' body. And this is not limited to commercial photography, but will apply to Wedding photography. The most important way to get wedding business is by word of mouth, and not just in the wedding parties camp, there are going to be at least half a dozen rebels at any wedding - and they will be all photo buffs, how will they feel about hiring you when you have equipment just like them? Hardly likely. Those guys with the rebels will be looking at you very closely and the next bride to be in the audience will be looking to them for recommendation.


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 12, 2012)

shunsai said:


> You said they have similar IQ for outdoor- is there a big difference when shooting indoor with studio lighting?


I have two studio lights(about 1000W each). When I used them in my loft(about 16x16), I still can have ISO 200. The IQ for both 7D & 5D2 are similar. 5D2 might be a little bit better, but not much. However, I don't use studio lights now because the photos with studio lighting are not natural for me. Without good light source, you will see the benefit from FF(my 5D2).



shunsai said:


> Historically, I've held back from shooting anything above 400 ISO. I know ISO performance has improved dramatically since the XTi. I've only used the 5D Mark II a few times, but I did notice a big difference. And the Mark III seems to be an even bigger difference.


XTi uses very old sensor, ISO 400 may not as good as ISO 1600 or even 3200 on 5D2. Also 5D2 has much more MP, that will make you feel better IQ.
The 5D3 may have only one stop better IQ than 5D2 in RAW file. However, 5D3 has much better AF system.



sovietdoc said:


> If you have to ask that question, no it doesn't worth the price.
> 
> It does worth the price to you if you don't need to ask this because you already know what it can do.


Agree the second one, but not the first one. That why shunsai comes here to get ideas from us.

Everyone has their own value for performance, features, and IQ. All of them can be traded off. Thus, don't believe anyone when they go with 5D3 or go with T4i. That's their choice, not yours. You only need to know what's good on 5D3 and T4i, and make your decisions.


----------



## cdang (Jun 12, 2012)

4x the price does not mean 4x the camera. Im a bit of an audiophile having headphones ranging from $300 to $1400. Is the $1400 headphone 4x better sounding than the $300 ? More like 20% max. Obviously they're many features in a camera. That being said, the mark III is a joy to use. My mark II has become a very expensive lens holder. 

My 2 cents. 

Once you go FF, you'd never go back.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 12, 2012)

I think what I was looking forward to most in the release of the Mark III was improved video capabilities and improved autofocus. Autofocus is said to be greatly improved, but since I haven't used a Mark II extensively, I have no real frame of reference on its improvement. My biggest worry in getting the 5D Mark II is that I might soon come to understand why so many people complained about it's autofocus. But I'm hopeful that since I'm coming from a Rebel XTi, that even the Mark II will be a significant improvement.

With video, while I don't use it very much, I think I was most looking forward to RAW video output and video autofocus in the release of the Mark III. While I've read that there were some improvements, neither of the specific ones I was looking for were incorporated, so the right decision for me still isn't so clear cut.

I'm wondering if the autofocus of the Mark II is really as bad as I've heard. And even if it is, it's still a big step up from my Rebel, right?


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 12, 2012)

shunsai said:


> I'm wondering if the autofocus of the Mark II is really as bad as I've heard. And even if it is, it's still a big step up from my Rebel, right?


AF on 5D2 is really NOT good. The new AF on T4i is even better than AF on 5D2. I think T2i might be even better than 5D2. However, what's the subject you shoot most? Do you need a good AF system?
You buy 5D2 for benefits from FF.
You buy 5D3 for better AF system.

my 2 cents


----------



## vjlex (Jun 12, 2012)

Wilmark said:


> If you would like to see the 5D3 performance in low light look at this gallery. It was shot at a Nissan Launch under very poor lighting (basically street lighting) most of the pictures are shot at ISO5000 and up. While they are less than optimal for Weddings and more discerning uses, they are OK for photo journalism etc. There were 5 other photographers there and all of them were using flash, none of these pictures used a flash.
> 
> http://www.wilmark.johnatty.com/p504616586


Wow, I have to say I'm pretty impressed! They look really good for ISO5000 and no flash, albeit I'm looking at downsized photos.




cliffwang said:


> AF on 5D2 is really NOT good. The new AF on T4i is even better than AF on 5D2. I think T2i might be even better than 5D2. However, what's the subject you shoot most? Do you need a good AF system?
> You buy 5D2 for benefits from FF.
> You buy 5D3 for better AF system.
> 
> my 2 cents



Your 2 cents is much appreciated. I mostly shoot landscapes and portaits, but I have been doing the odd wedding here and there. I'm sure improved autofocus would be very useful in wedding photography, but I'm not sure I'm at that point yet.

Although they're both dated cameras now, I would be curious to find out how the autofocus of the Mark II compares to that of the Rebel XTi. I can tell the XTi's isn't great, but for what I shoot, I haven't really had any complaints. I think if the Mark II was even marginally better than the XTi I might be okay with it.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 12, 2012)

Wilmark said:


> ... there are going to be at least half a dozen rebels at any wedding - and they will be all photo buffs, how will they feel about hiring you when you have equipment just like them? Hardly likely. Those guys with the rebels will be looking at you very closely and the next bride to be in the audience will be looking to them for recommendation.



You could just add a cheap battery grip and tape over the logo and model name. That'll keep people guessing. They might think you're packing a 1 series. If you mate this with a battered and scratched 70-200 f/2.8, 600ex and photo vest, your credibility will soar. You'll be booked out for the next two years!


----------



## kalmiya (Jun 12, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> shunsai said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering if the autofocus of the Mark II is really as bad as I've heard. And even if it is, it's still a big step up from my Rebel, right?
> ...



Actually, from a previous discussion started on this forum, it looks like the 550D (t2i) and 5d2 have identical autofocus - with the 5D2 having a disadvantage that the AF-points are not on thirds (as in, they are more 'centered' compared to a crop-camera)... 

And since I don't like AF on my 550, I'm not jumping on the 5D2 even though the price is okay ( and I'd really like to have an *affordable* FF - for which the 5D3 does NOT qualify ^^ )


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 12, 2012)

Doesn't matter what kind of backup camera you might have, the *MOST* important thing is can your main camera delivers the IQ that you looking for - under low light of course?

With 61pts AF from 1D series and ISO 6400 -12800 on 5D III looks better than ISO800 on crop - *I say YES, is it worth it.*

I started with 40D, 60D, 7D, 5D II and now 5D III....mrk III has all features that I'm looking for in FF.

I have 5D II for less than 3 months, I couldn't stand AF. Unless you doing still shooting, otherwise...it sucks.


----------



## D_Rochat (Jun 12, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> shunsai said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering if the autofocus of the Mark II is really as bad as I've heard. And even if it is, it's still a big step up from my Rebel, right?
> ...



The T4i sounds like it has better AF than the 5D mk II, but how do you figure the T2i might have better AF than the 5D? At worst, they are the same. I don't know if the T2i has the extra invisible AF points but if it doesn't, then the 5D mk II would have a slight edge. 

The mk II AF may not be a stellar performer with the exception of the center point, but the 9 point is still capable if used properly. I've shot lots of action with the 9 point and I've come out with some great shots. I might have more keepers with a better AF system, but it's still better than what most will give it credit for.


----------



## Razor2012 (Jun 12, 2012)

cdang said:


> 4x the price does not mean 4x the camera. Im a bit of an audiophile having headphones ranging from $300 to $1400. Is the $1400 headphone 4x better sounding than the $300 ? More like 20% max. Obviously they're many features in a camera. That being said, the mark III is a joy to use. My mark II has become a very expensive lens holder.
> 
> My 2 cents.
> 
> Once you go FF, you'd never go back.



You need to sell that puppy then, maybe some new L glass?


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 12, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> The T4i sounds like it has better AF than the 5D mk II, but how do you figure the T2i might have better AF than the 5D? At worst, they are the same. I don't know if the T2i has the extra invisible AF points but if it doesn't, then the 5D mk II would have a slight edge.
> 
> The mk II AF may not be a stellar performer with the exception of the center point, but the 9 point is still capable if used properly. I've shot lots of action with the 9 point and I've come out with some great shots. I might have more keepers with a better AF system, but it's still better than what most will give it credit for.


That's just my feeling. I upgraded my T2i to 7D for a while, so I cannot recall why I felt the AF on T2i is better than 5D2. What I can remember is AF on T2i was faster than 5D2. That might be some exception, but I really felt that. By the way, I only use the center point.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 13, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> I have a 60D and I just got a 5D Mark II yesterday. With only 15 minutes of shots of birds and flowers with the 5D, I can immediately tell a difference in the images. With the 5D, the light rolloff is smoother, the depth of field is more isolating and almost three-dimensional, and the shots are more enticing to look at. This probably sounds excessively flowery, but it's difficult to describe the differences unless you shoot with both full-frame and crop. If the 60D shots look good, the 5D shots look great.



Thanks for your impressions. Actually, your description sounds spot on. I actually went ahead and picked up a 5D Mark II last night as well. Since it was already dark by the time I got back home, I didn't get much of a chance to test it out, but what you say about smoother light roll-off, and what others have said about the brightness of the viewfinder I've found to be true.

Actually, I feel I got a pretty good deal here in Japan. A brand new Mark II is selling for 162,000 yen (at today's exchange rate it works out to about $2000 USD; but I still prefer thinking of it as a 1:100 ratio, ie. $1620). The 5D Mark III just isn't what I want for the price I want. So to answer the question posed in the title of this thread: *Nope, not for me.*

I don't know if I will go back to APS-C and get the Rebel T4i at this point. But with the rumors of 4 more DSLRs on the way this year, maybe there will be a genuine successor to the Mark II, both in capabilities and price. But for now, I'll try to get the hang of my new camera and find out it's limits for myself. Hopefully, by the time I do, I'll have more options to upgrade to.

Thanks again for all your helpful thoughts and insights!


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm not sure the t4i is worth the 850$. If I had to start again, Id jump straight to a full frame 5Dc and a 50mm 1.4.


----------



## sleepnever (Jun 13, 2012)

I have a T2i and I'm pondering going 7D or FF all the way to a 5Dmk3. The one thing I've been enjoying on my crop 1.6x is the extra reach in my lenses and I haven't seen that brought up at all here (unless I missed a post?). That is something that I will lose on the long end, but then I will gain wide angle on the short. I have a 24-70L and love it, but its not wide enough...however I have that extra reach at 112mm. Anyone that has converted from crop to FF, do you miss that extra reach?


----------



## D_Rochat (Jun 13, 2012)

sleepnever said:


> I have a T2i and I'm pondering going 7D or FF all the way to a 5Dmk3. The one thing I've been enjoying on my crop 1.6x is the extra reach in my lenses and I haven't seen that brought up at all here (unless I missed a post?). That is something that I will lose on the long end, but then I will gain wide angle on the short. I have a 24-70L and love it, but its not wide enough...however I have that extra reach at 112mm. Anyone that has converted from crop to FF, do you miss that extra reach?



Do you remember what the focal length looked like with your kit lens? It will be the same as the 24-70, only much much nicer on a FF. Lose some length, gain some width. Everything else a FF offers makes losing "reach" worth it IMHO.


----------



## vjlex (Jun 13, 2012)

sleepnever said:


> I have a T2i and I'm pondering going 7D or FF all the way to a 5Dmk3. The one thing I've been enjoying on my crop 1.6x is the extra reach in my lenses and I haven't seen that brought up at all here (unless I missed a post?). That is something that I will lose on the long end, but then I will gain wide angle on the short. I have a 24-70L and love it, but its not wide enough...however I have that extra reach at 112mm. Anyone that has converted from crop to FF, do you miss that extra reach?



Newly converted (as of yesterday), so a bit too early to say. But my first impressions are that I do miss the extra reach just a bit. I'm not quite sure why. But it is nice not having to multiply by 1.6 to figure out what the equivalent range is. A Canon full frame with a crop mode would be nice.


----------



## Vossie (Jun 13, 2012)

shunsai said:


> A Canon full frame with a crop mode would be nice.



You can always crop in post..... I don't see a value in having a "crop mode".


----------



## pwp (Jun 13, 2012)

It's a little like discussing the pros & cons of a 5D3 vs 1 Series. They're going to suit some shooters but not others. The T4i really does look like a significant upgrade, and shows all the signs of being an extremely competent camera. On face value it does make the 5D3 look expensive, just as the 5D3 makes a 1-Series look expensive. 

I know I could do a great deal of my work with a T4i, but there are daily moments where the 5D3 pushes a good result across the line for a winning result. Also, there are frequent situations where the 1D4 achieves results where the 5D3 would have fallen short. They have different strong points and abilities.

You could push the argument back the other way too. A great deal of published work could be adequately shot on a G12 or S100, or even an iPhone in some cases, provided that tool is in the right hands. It's a blurry scenario isn't it? 

Whether it's in business or seeking a creative or technical edge, there are enough times when the advantages of a 5D3 or 1-Series are so completely unambiguous. You quickly get to know your own required level, whether that be an S100 or a 1DX.

PW


----------



## dpedro (Sep 10, 2012)

I am seriously considering either a second T4i or buying the D Mark III for my main and keeping my T4i as a back up. I am currently shooting families and models, but some day, I'd like to shoot weddings. If I stay clear of weddings, would you just stick with good glass on a T4i? You can see what I am able to accomplish with just my t41 and various lenses. (link below) Primarily, I shoot with my 35 L 1.4 and my 17-55 2.8. Every so often, I also use the 85 1.8. How much better can my images improve with the D Mark III?

http://www.facebook.com/AFlashInTimePhotographyByDonPedro


----------



## KurtStevens (Sep 10, 2012)

I've gotten shots otherwise impossible of capturing, so yes. Worth the price difference.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 10, 2012)

More like $2900.00 or $3100.00 according to recent sightings on the 5D3.

Anyhoo, that is still 4x the price of the T4i. 
Your shots look very nice. You could certainly live without the more expensive camera.

I have the T3i, and I do wish I had better AF with more points, like the T4i or 7D or the 5D3. 

The one thing I would be tempted by on the 5D3 is the low noise at high ISO. Frankly, I am sort of pissed that I cannot shoot at 800 ISO without what I consider unacceptable noise when shooting people. On the T3i, 800 would be fine for a dim-light cityscape or something intricate like that that hides the noise a little.

I look at what the pros say about shooting indoor basketball and such, and they say they routinely shoot at 6400 ISO to allow for fast enough shutter speed for moving targets, which is just a crazy dream on my camera. That is where you would see the value. If you are shooting posed stills, and if you have lighting, then maybe that is not worth the extra bucks.


----------



## Policar (Sep 10, 2012)

The returns are diminishing, but if you need the better AF and better low light performance that's pretty significant.

The finder is GREAT on the Mark III.

The low light for video is much better.

The look of fast, sharp, wide primes wide open can be really striking on full frame, but the differences in IQ at normal ISOs are not that startling otherwise.


----------



## jondave (Sep 10, 2012)

Simply put, the answer lies in the spec list. If the spec list doesn't convince you that the 5D3 is worth 4x the price, then go with your guts and buy the T4i and slap L glass on it. It's a much better use of money than buying a 5D3 and using mediocre glass.

I'm speaking in terms of practicality. This forum will go on and on telling you how the IQ is worlds apart, but if you don't know that already then you most likely don't have a need for it. No offense, but most people I know who've asked this question actually need to upgrade their photography skills, not their camera body. Skilled photographers don't even ask this question IMHO, because if they don't have the budget for it they either make do with the equipment they have or sell an arm and a leg to come up with the money.

The best solution for your question? Rent one so you can make a more informed decision. Or just buy the 5D3 if you have the money.


----------



## jondave (Sep 10, 2012)

shunsai said:


> A Canon full frame with a crop mode would be nice.



Crop mode at full resolution! I wish some engineering genius can do that.


----------



## jondave (Sep 10, 2012)

dpedro said:


> How much better can my images improve with the D Mark III?



That's a very ambiguous question. The photgrapher makes the images, not the camera.

Maybe you should rephrase your question to mean what aspects of your photos will be different with the 5D3.


----------



## canon816 (Sep 10, 2012)

I'd say it is worth 10 times the price. That's just my opinion though...


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 10, 2012)

canon816 said:


> I'd say it is worth 10 times the price. That's just my opinion though...



+1....... ;D


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 10, 2012)

When people buy diamond, the price between 1.1g/grade B and 0.9g/grade B can be 40% different.
Everyone has its own value for an item. Only you can decide if the price is right value for you or not. I also think if you are asking this question, 5D3 may be not worth for you.
I think 5D3 is for:
1. Many photographers
2. Some hobbyists
3. Few people don't care about money

my 2 cents.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Sep 10, 2012)

It depends...

Do you plan on making money with your camera? If so, then yes. I bought a 5D3 a couple months ago and my gigs have almost completely paid it off so far (I only do paid gigs to pay for my camera gear). These are things that a Rebel wouldn't have worked for. Heck, even my 50D wouldn't have cut it.

If you're a casual photographer, then a Rebel is a great camera. If you're looking for something amazing that will allow you to get shots that many other cameras simply can't do, then a 5D3 is more than worth it.


----------



## awinphoto (Sep 10, 2012)

For me it's worth every pennie, but this will change from photog to photog.


----------



## dpedro (Sep 22, 2012)

Well now we have a new player in the mix. 6D vs. 5DM3. I shoot events, families and models mostly. I currently own the T4i and get amazing results and paid pretty well. I have an eye for the job, I have done well in LR4 and I have really good L glass. I know I can improve with time and with a FF, but I am now wondering with FF will be best for me. I'd hate to get the 6D and regret not grabbing the 5D3. I wish they did a little more with the 6D, but it is what it is. The wifi on the 6D sounds great, but they didn't impress me with the rest of the specs. Well, I take that back, the low light focusing would probably be nice when shooting the school plays that don't allow flash.


----------

