# 5D II or 5D III or 6D?



## mhmcr (Dec 28, 2012)

Hi, I know that this topic has been well covered in the past but I am having a real hard time deciding what to do so I thought ask professional's opinion. 

I am currently shooting 5D(mark I) and have few L lenses(16-35,24-70,70-200,35). I did not think about upgrading to mark II in the past but now that price is reduced to $1600 or used ($1300ish?) I thought It might be a good buy. Although, 6D is now going for $2000 and I will not surprise it will go down to $1800 sometime soon. At same time, Mark III is still a little expensive for me but needless to day it is BY FAR the best choice(of course). 

I am NOT a pro photographer who makes living by shooting. I should not be spending more than $2000 but if you all suggest mark III then that would be a possibility. I have been wanting to get a 135L for a while so I am thinking about just getting a used mark II and get a used 135L (around $2000?) or get a 6D new for $2000 or just be smart and get a mark III(around $2800?). I have bought used lens but never a body, is it a bad idea? Would you choose used mark II($1300or less) or 6D or $2000? I love shooing in low light and I don not care about WI-FI or Video at all. In fact, I probably never will use those things. 

Thank you very much and I really appreciate your suggestions!


----------



## Albi86 (Dec 28, 2012)

The 6D was released this month, wait a bit and then buy that. Nikon D600 is a lot cheaper, it won't be long before the prices settle to similar levels.


----------



## Eli (Dec 28, 2012)

I say, don't get the 5d mkii. Either pay a few hundred extra for the 6d or save for a 5d mkiii.
Coming from a 5d mkii to 5d mkiii, the mkiii is just an amazing all around camera, my opinion is to save for that as it'll last you years. I'm just an enthusiast like you and I ended up getting a 5d mkiii, the low light performance is noticeably better, I can shoot at 12800 iso and have usable images with probably less or as much noise as 6400 on my 5d mkii, also the AF system is great, the camera is more customizable, and overall the mkiii feels nicer to shoot with.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 28, 2012)

The 6D has some significant improvements over the 5D Mk2 such as accurate auto focus, electronic correction of chromatic aberration , the "film" like quality of the mk3/1DX, brilliant high ISO performance. 

Like you I don't require video, wi fi, gps. 

If you're shooting static scenes at low ISO/s then improvement over 5D 2will be such less obvious, but IMO it would have to be much cheaper than 6D to justify new purchase. Also expect 5D 2 to depreciate much faster it that is important to you. 

I wouldn't take much notice of people knocking the 6D on this forum. You say the mk3 is the real deal but it's only advantage over 6D would be for action shooting - sports and such where the professional AF and speed would be an important advantage. 

And 6D will inevitably come down in price.........


----------



## Pixelsign (Dec 28, 2012)

Eli said:


> I can shoot at 12800 iso and have usable images with probably less or as much noise as 6400 on my 5d mkii



but only when shooting jpg files. there is no difference when shooting raw


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 28, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > The 6D has some significant improvements over the 5D Mk2 such as accurate auto focus,
> ...



Sorry I should have made myself more clear on the AF. Most cameras that I have come across are accurate on the centre AF point on a still subject. Where I was referring to the 6D being superior was moving subjects, AF Servo etc. In these situations the 5D could not cope reliably with f2 or 2.8, which could be frustrating when using exotic glass !

At least this is my experience, and judging by the howls of anguish - the experience of others too !


----------



## infared (Dec 28, 2012)

5DIII has bracketing features to support HDR...it is the only reason I sold my 5DII. I paid full price for the III because I was so frustrated that the II did not have $10 worth of software in it. Did I get ripped-off??? YES. Do I regret the purchase? No. (I WAS able to sell my 5 DII back then for $2100..so it kind of evens out).
The new camera is a joy to use. Truly.
Now you can pick up the body for $2600-$2800...It's a no-brainer!
In the end it is all about what you need for your style and involvement in photography. Photography means so much to me that I find a way to purchase what I need to keep improving and moving forward. I think that is called passion......


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 28, 2012)

At Building Panoramics we have both the mk1 and 2 5D's, and we have found, as Mikael Risedal says, the AF module seems identical.

When Canon produces a cheaper version of the 5D MK3 it's inevitable that some of the features left out cause different people different issues. For me I would have much rather had no GPS or Wi Fi, instead having a metal top cover. On our 5Ds the pentaprisms have had some knocks, especially the 7 year old mk1. However the top of the 6D does seem robust enough. Also I would have preferred the joystick for AF control, but then again we use manual focus most of the time, and the 6D at least accepts manual focusing screens. I don't like translucent LCD screens that Nikon and now Canon is using in the MK3 and 7D. I find it harder to focus manually. ( I suspect the 6D takes these mk2 screens as much of this part of the camera is straight from the mk2). 

"Crippling" the MK2 by using the MK1 AF didn't stop many pros from shunning the 1Ds MK3 in favour of the smaller cheaper 5Dmk2. To give Canon all credit they accepted this, listened to their customer base who demanded a more professional MK2 - and they delivered - the MK3.

The problem is that here in the UK all gear is much more expensive than in the US for example. As Infared says you can get a 5D mk3 body for $2600. In the UK these are down to about £2350. If you take the $/£ exchange rate your US price would be £1640 in the UK !  

Basically our friends in the US can get a 5D mk3 for the price we have to pay for the 6D


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 28, 2012)

Well here is my take and I know that some people very much disagree with that:

To me the 6D is a very second grade camera. All plasticky, too small, too light, degraded features (such as x sync time, shutter speed) and I wouldn't go near it even if it was half its price. Now is the last chance to still pick up a brand new 5DII which is still a pro level camera (depending on how you want to define it and what the application is). I personally would rather use a 5D classic than a 6D.

And yes, the 5DIII is the next logical step but I wouldn't buy it unless you are made of cash (nobody really is given that there is always opportunity cost involved), really need any of the newer features or the 5Dc is about to break down. By the time your classic stops working you may get the 5DIII a lot cheaper - or something else is out that interests you. If you buy the the 6D now (I would say: downgrade to...) you will always lust after the MarkIII and eventually end up with a pretty worthless camera body that (I predict) is going to be a pretty big failure for Canon and eventually turn into those cameras that people put up on ebay for a few hundred bucks - my prediction. Something like a full-frame 60D.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 28, 2012)

I would take 5D II out of the equation for one reason, fixed auto ISO @ 400 in "M" mode. 

*6D or 5D III*
A. Take 5D III if you want to have the best AF system
B. Take 6D if you plan to shoot center AF with slightly less precise

Goodlucks


----------



## Bearcat1 (Dec 28, 2012)

If you like viewing images on your IPad, go with the 6D. The Wifi replaces the need to upload everything to your computer and them try to find what images to store on you IPad. You can simply fire off a ton of photos and start enjoying them on your Retina Display immediately !!

It has completely changed my workflow, I can email friends as soon as I take them instead of waiting a couple of days until I get around to it. 

Because of the high iso ability, I feel the pictures have as good or better IQ than the 5D in low light. The only thing the MK III has is a better AF, but I haven't notice that as an issue with the 6D. I only need one SD card since I don't use it professionally. I suppose worst case scenario would be to just buy another card.

Happy shooting!


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 29, 2012)

I had the same choice on my lap. An aging 5Dc and either the 5D2 or 5D3?

I was never impressed enough with the 5D2 as an overall camera but the d700 felt like a complete package. The d700 had everything except video and resolution from my 5Dc and that it can't take EF lenses. 

So I skipped the mk2 cameras entirely and went straight into a mk3. It's all the camera I could ever need and won't be outgrowing it any time soon.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 29, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I would take 5D II out of the equation for one reason, fixed auto ISO @ 400 in "M" mode.
> ...


I understand 6D has -3EV, but we talking about "precise" single vs dual cross type @ center.


----------



## Meh (Dec 29, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I would take 5D II out of the equation for one reason, fixed auto ISO @ 400 in "M" mode.
> ...



He said "precise" not "sensitive". Two different words... you can tell because they use a different sequence of letters.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Dec 29, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I would take 5D II out of the equation for one reason, fixed auto ISO @ 400 in "M" mode.
> 
> *6D or 5D III*
> A. Take 5D III if you want to have the best AF system
> ...



+1 for not even considering the mk2. The fixed ISO...well, manual ISO in manual was annoying when I borrowed a friend's mk2. I'd prefer to at least have the option to set shutter and aperture while letting the camera decide on ISO. 

I vote for the 5d mkIII. no regrets here. no looking back thinking I could've/should've gotten something better. Save a little longer! 

As far as the more complicated AF system is concerned, it's got more options, yes, but that means more flexibility. It took a little reading, a little shooting, and a little tweaking to get used to the whole new AF system but it was worth it for me. You can dumb down the 61 points of AF by using AF "Zones" instead of AF "Spots" or AF "Areas" so that the AF selection acts more like the 9-pt AF system in my 60D. It really isn't that much info to read up on.


----------



## dude (Dec 30, 2012)

Not the 5D ii, that much I can tell you.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 30, 2012)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



It means under normal light or even with decent light, single-cross type is less accurate than dual-cross type. Especially when you shoot at moving subject(s) or in AI servo.


----------



## Krob78 (Dec 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I had the same choice on my lap. An aging 5Dc and either the 5D2 or 5D3?
> 
> I was never impressed enough with the 5D2 as an overall camera but the d700 felt like a complete package. The d700 had everything except video and resolution from my 5Dc and that it can't take EF lenses.
> 
> So I skipped the mk2 cameras entirely and went straight into a mk3. It's all the camera I could ever need and won't be outgrowing it any time soon.


I'm with you Rev. Decided to skip the 5d2 and the 7d2 and went straight to the 5D MK III. Very happy I did! Now, I still have my 7D, but unless it's a wicked crazy upgrade, 7D2 probably won't happen for me... I'm liking the 5D III!


----------

