# 6D or 5Dm3?



## matt4p (Feb 26, 2014)

Hi Everyone 

Here is my question. 
What do i purchase, the 6D or the 5DM3?

I've been using a 7D for the last 2 years and am now ready to go full frame. One of the reasons for this is because i shoot gigs and want to benefit from a lot less noise at high iso's.

My main concerns though are the price difference and the difference in auto focus.

I understand that the 6D is cheaper and has a great centre focus point which is great for low light. My main issue with that though is i dont like to focus and then recompose.

On the 7D with 19 foucs points (all cross-type) i always shoot with one focus point moving around the screen.

If im shooting in portait i usually stick the top point on the performers face. (far right in landscape)

Or sometimes if i want to get the full band in, i would again use one of the side focus points in landscape.

So i know that the 6D doesn't have cross type points on the outside, so would they work well enough in low light?
All anyone seems to talk about and test is the centre point.

I really dont want to upgrade model to then realise i've downgraded in features.


My other question is 

I have spent the last 5 years using a Canon ef-s 10-22mm so going full-frame means I lose the ultra wide.
Now I might sound like a complete Biff here but how is this compared to my 24-70mm on a fullframe?
Is the 24mm end as wide as say 15mm on a crop using my 10-22?

Crop factor does confuse me 

Anyway thanks for taking a look and if you can understand this waffle, please let me know what you think.

Thanks for looking 

Matt


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 26, 2014)

If you like everything about your 7D, you'll hate the 6D. The 5D3 is everything the 7D is but better.

I had a 10-22mm before making the switch and I replaced it with the 17-40L. It's not as distortion free like the 10-22mm but it's close enough.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 26, 2014)

The 5DIII would be a better choice for you than the 6D, given the parameters you've outlined. 

15mm on APS-C gives the same FoV as 24mm on FF, so if that's wide enough you don't need another lens. If you need wider, the 17-40L or 16-35L II. I went with the latter - the advantages are that it's sharper wide open and a stop faster if you shoot ultrawide in low light. If you'll mainly use the ultra wide stopped down to f/8, the 17-40 is a good choice.


----------



## matt4p (Feb 26, 2014)

Thanks guys.

The reason i was also concerned about the wide angle coverage is because i hike a lot and take loads of photos of mountain scenery. I'm sure the equivalent 15mm (crop range) is good enough for a while. 

I was considering a 6d and a 17-40L to cover my landscape efforts but the way I focus and the gig work has me leaning more to the 5DmIII.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 26, 2014)

matt4p said:


> I was considering a 6d and a 17-40L to cover my landscape efforts but the way I focus and the gig work has me leaning more to the 5DmIII.



For landscape it's fine, but completely forget about the 6d if you think about using the outer points and nail the af on a significant amount of shots, esp. with fast lenses.


----------



## sjschall (Feb 27, 2014)

matt4p said:


> Crop factor does confuse me



Hi Matt - If you're comparing APS-C to full-frame, such as 7D to 6D, you can always multiply the focal length of a lens by 1.6 to get the equivalent focal length when on a cropped sensor. Example: 15mm x 1.6 = 24mm. Good luck with your upgrade.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 28, 2014)

Hi Matt

I have the Canon 7d and the 6d, Ive also used the 5d MKIII at work. The simply answer is the 5d MKIII is the best match to the 7d for your concert photography, for sports and for wild life. The 6d is a great travel & landscape camera as its lighter, doesnt require 19 cross point AF but does benefit from Wi-Fi (great with the iPhone remote app.) and GPS. In Landscape I do a lot of manual focusing because I use NDs, ND grads and polarisers and I find I get sharper consistent results. The IQ between the two is virtually identical and the 6d is slightly better in low light where the centre cross point also works really well. 
Lastly the cost is much greater for the 5d MKIII but it is built to last, has 50K better shutter count over the 6d and more comprehensive menu structure. I also prefer the jog wheel on the 5D MKIII which is like the 7d.


----------



## gigabellone (Feb 28, 2014)

Given your needs, i think that the 5D3 is the best choice. I have a 6D, and i must admit that when using the outer points the AF is not quick: it usually takes a run across the whole focal range to achieve focus. It is clearly not suited for fast moving subjects. The central focus point is a whole different story it is very accurate, and, when coupled with lens that feature an ultrasonic focus motor, lightning fast. Coming from a 7D you might find it is a little lackluster.


----------



## rocksubculture (Feb 28, 2014)

Based on what you are saying, I would suggest the 5DIII over the 6D, even though it is more.

I have two of each, as I do concert photography and don't want to waste time changing lenses. So I'm shooting side by side by side by side all the time. Frequently, there is not a great deal of difference between the 6Ds and the 5DIIIs, but there is the occasional show where the 5DIIIs autofocus fine and the 6Ds struggle, even set up the same and using fast lenses on all of them (f/1.2-f/2.8).

Based on that, and other things others here have already addressed, I would recommend the 5DIII if you are ever shooting in any challenging light.

Jason


----------



## Badger (Feb 28, 2014)

Noticed you didn't mention price so I assume its not an object. I also have the 6D and love it, but think you would be better off with the 5DIII. I do use the GPS on the 6D for just about all shots, but I almost never use the WiFi. It did come in handy over ThanksGiving at my brother's how when he wanted the family pictures I had just taken. I downloaded them to my iPhone, uploaded them to DropBox, and just like that, he had them


----------



## captainkanji (Feb 28, 2014)

The 6D is a great low light camera, but at low light, it becomes a 1 point auto focus camera. The outer points are basically useless for low light or contrast areas. I figured it would be this way when I looked over the specs and have adapted to the cameras limitations. I agree that the 5d3 would better suit you. I'd love to own one, but I guess I really don't need the AF for what I'm shooting (would love to have it though )


----------



## FTb-n (Mar 1, 2014)

I went from the 7D to the 5D3, mostly for shooting sports and events. If you are accustomed to moving the focus point around or action is of a concern, you will love the 5D3. After getting use to the benefits of the 7D's focusing system, the 6D may be a disappointment. But, the 5D3 will be a real joy to work with.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Mar 1, 2014)

Suggest you read why Dustin Abbott chose the 6D over the 5D3 here:

http://dustinabbott.net/2013/02/why-i-chose-a-canon-eos-6d-over-a-5d-mkiii/


----------



## JumboShrimp (Mar 1, 2014)

You can also read Ken Rockwell's comparison here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/6d/vs-5d-mark-iii.htm


----------



## albron00 (Mar 1, 2014)

After 5 years using 10-22 and crop factor still confuses you... 
In this case I'd definitely go with 5Dm3.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Mar 1, 2014)

matt4p said:


> Hi Everyone
> 
> Here is my question.
> What do i purchase, the 6D or the 5DM3?
> ...



The 16-35mm f2.8 will give you the same view in FF as you had with the 10-22mm in your 7D. I moved from 7D to 5D3 basically because I didn't want to loss some of the features I have with the 7D but many more. 6D is a logical improvement if you move from revel or XXD Series since configuration of its operation is much similar.


----------



## matt4p (Mar 4, 2014)

Hi All

Thanks for all the replies and your comments. I went to a camera store a couple of days ago and compared the two. My big hands felt better around the 5DMIII, the focus points impressed me and the similar layout to the 7D was also appealing. I'm not interested in GPS or wifi and I cant see how I will cope using centre focus all the time. I think the 5DMIII is the one for me. I've got one on order and hopefully I will have it before next wednesday's gig.
Thanks again for your help
Matt


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 5, 2014)

matt4p said:


> Hi Everyone
> 
> Here is my question.
> What do i purchase, the 6D or the 5DM3?
> ...



5Dmk3 and 16-35 f2.8L mk2 will directly replace the focal length of your 10-22 but its also alot faster aperture so much better fro gigs and decently sharp wide open for these events


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 5, 2014)

It always amazes me as to how users think that AF is such a big issue with modern cameras, I guess that they somehow don't wonder how photos were taken for 100+ years without any autofocus at all, and yet fantastic images were captured of sporting events, bif, and other demanding events. Certainly, good AF is nice, but hardly a big issue for me. I did just as well with my Argus C3, my Yashica TLR, my Canon FTQL, any number of P&S cameras, and several early DSLR's. I have had several 1 series DSLR bodies as well as Rebels, all the 5D series, even a D800! I've had no issues capturing sports with any of them, its just a matter of paying attention and learning timing. There were probably a billion supurb images captured with those old Graphlex 4X5 cameras where you had to slide in the film carrier, then pull out the film cover, and capture the image as quickly as possible. Then reverse the process, flip the carrier over and take a image using the film on the other side. They could do that in a second or maybe two.

I recently discovered some old pre 1920's National Geographic issues in my attic, and, sure enough, there were great photos of sporting events, wildlife, and birds in flight from the early 1900's using primitive cameras, the photographer just learned to deal with what he had..

Get as good of a camera as you can afford, and learn to use it. You will do fine.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 5, 2014)

I am sorry but that is bunkum. 

Yes we made fine images when we shot manual focus, but keeper rates were dramatically lower, even for top end pros. When I shot sports in the '80's I was happy with 3 critically sharp images per 36 roll, an 8% critical keeper rate and I was average at the time and in the best of health and eyesight, nowadays keeper rates are in the order of 90-95% critically sharp.

AF is huge, that is why after a comparatively short introductory period they achieved universal acceptance, way quicker than practically any other major feature of SLR's. Universal acceptance of TTL metering and Auto exposure modes both took much longer.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 5, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It always amazes me as to how users think that AF is such a big issue with modern cameras, I guess that they somehow don't wonder how photos were taken for 100+ years without any autofocus at all, and yet fantastic images were captured of sporting events, bif, and other demanding events. Certainly, good AF is nice, but hardly a big issue for me. I did just as well with my Argus C3, my Yashica TLR, my Canon FTQL, any number of P&S cameras, and several early DSLR's. I have had several 1 series DSLR bodies as well as Rebels, all the 5D series, even a D800! I've had no issues capturing sports with any of them, its just a matter of paying attention and learning timing. There were probably a billion supurb images captured with those old Graphlex 4X5 cameras where you had to slide in the film carrier, then pull out the film cover, and capture the image as quickly as possible. Then reverse the process, flip the carrier over and take a image using the film on the other side. They could do that in a second or maybe two.
> 
> I recently discovered some old pre 1920's National Geographic issues in my attic, and, sure enough, there were great photos of sporting events, wildlife, and birds in flight from the early 1900's using primitive cameras, the photographer just learned to deal with what he had..
> 
> Get as good of a camera as you can afford, and learn to use it. You will do fine.



This. +1


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 5, 2014)

Just to mirror the high standard of argumentation and further elaborate the topic 



RLPhoto said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > It always amazes me as to how users think that AF is such a big issue with modern cameras, I guess that they somehow don't wonder how photos were taken for 100+ years without any autofocus at all, and yet fantastic images were captured of sporting events, bif, and other demanding events. Certainly, good AF is nice, but hardly a big issue for me. I did just as well with my Argus C3, my Yashica TLR, my Canon FTQL, any number of P&S cameras, and several early DSLR's. I have had several 1 series DSLR bodies as well as Rebels, all the 5D series, even a D800! I've had no issues capturing sports with any of them, its just a matter of paying attention and learning timing. There were probably a billion supurb images captured with those old Graphlex 4X5 cameras where you had to slide in the film carrier, then pull out the film cover, and capture the image as quickly as possible. Then reverse the process, flip the carrier over and take a image using the film on the other side. They could do that in a second or maybe two.
> ...



This -1



privatebydesign said:


> I am sorry but that is bunkum.
> 
> Yes we made fine images when we shot manual focus, but keeper rates were dramatically lower, even for top end pros. When I shot sports in the '80's I was happy with 3 critically sharp images per 36 roll, an 8% critical keeper rate and I was average at the time and in the best of health and eyesight, nowadays keeper rates are in the order of 90-95% critically sharp.
> 
> AF is huge, that is why after a comparatively short introductory period they achieved universal acceptance, way quicker than practically any other major feature of SLR's. Universal acceptance of TTL metering and Auto exposure modes both took much longer.



This +1


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 5, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> It always amazes me as to how users think that AF is such a big issue with modern cameras, I guess that they somehow don't wonder how photos were taken for 100+ years without any autofocus at all, and yet fantastic images were captured of sporting events, bif, and other demanding events. Certainly, good AF is nice, but hardly a big issue for me. I did just as well with my Argus C3, my Yashica TLR, my Canon FTQL, any number of P&S cameras, and several early DSLR's. I have had several 1 series DSLR bodies as well as Rebels, all the 5D series, even a D800! I've had no issues capturing sports with any of them, its just a matter of paying attention and learning timing. There were probably a billion supurb images captured with those old Graphlex 4X5 cameras where you had to slide in the film carrier, then pull out the film cover, and capture the image as quickly as possible. Then reverse the process, flip the carrier over and take a image using the film on the other side. They could do that in a second or maybe two.
> 
> I recently discovered some old pre 1920's National Geographic issues in my attic, and, sure enough, there were great photos of sporting events, wildlife, and birds in flight from the early 1900's using primitive cameras, the photographer just learned to deal with what he had..
> 
> Get as good of a camera as you can afford, and learn to use it. You will do fine.



Sorry, but as a sports photog that is a load of crap. Rare photos back then are very commonplace and expected now, due solely to accurate/better AF.


----------



## ejenner (Mar 16, 2014)

T1i was the first camera that I owned with AF and I was amazed. Then when I had a 5DII I wondered about all these people going on about AF. I mean even with the T1i I could do better taking shots of my kids playing sports than I could with my A1.

Then I got a 7D used for $800. Oh boy, another eye-opener. Not just AF, but responsiveness and speed. Then I started rationalizing that I could get rid of noise and for anything but landscapes and portraits the 7D would come out instead of the 5DII.

So I had to get a 5DIII. I had told myself for over a year that I didn't really need it, the 5DII and then the 5DII + 7D combo was fine. I lied. Trying to shoot my kids running around indoors with the 5DII during the Christmas break and knowing that my 7D would get all the shots I was missing with the 5DII (but with ISO6400 noise) I finally pulled the trigger. The 7D also got me fed up with focus-recompose that I was doing with the 5DII.


----------

