# 5D2 / 5D3 / 6D Which one do you use for weddings ?



## steliosk (May 31, 2013)

Hi,
i'm making a beginning to the wedding industry on my own. I've been quite experienced with the 5D and 5D2 and a bunch of crop bodies.

The one i love in FF is the adorable DOF they create which is the best way to isolate your subject in front of the chaotic background.

I'll keep my crop camera (600D) for landscapes which is light, and has the less noisy sensor (according to dpreview) camera studio tool.

However, i'm about to buy a new FF camera exclusively for weddings and i wonder if the 6D is best value for money over the overpriced and noisy 5D3. (i mean that camera completely failed me when i compared it with 5D 2. They walk side by side until ISO 12.800 of course in RAW mode)

The 6D delivers better RAW quality either because its 2 megapixel less from 5D3 or canon designed a better sensor for it.

I don't know about the AF system, i've read the specs and know all about it, but how does it work in real life?

And the million dollar question is.. Should i prefer the 5D3 AF system over the 6D better better IQ (plus the +1000 euros extra cost which is a nice L glass instead), or should the 6D AF system is more than enough in ceremonies in which case 6D will satisfy me completely!

I know 5D3 is a great camera and many people will support that, however i'm not interested in video and a non-plastic body. All i care about is RAW IQ and a reliable focus system in a descend budget.

any comments from people who worked with them both would be really helpful and much appreciated 

many thanks in advance!


----------



## privatebydesign (May 31, 2013)

5D MkIII, AF is king, queen and bishops. A slightly smoother RAW file is not worth a damn if the AF fails you. I still shoot weddings at 800iso max, so not being able to go past 12,800, I see, is a complete non issue. But a great AF system can get you images that stand out from the crowd.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 31, 2013)

I don't consider the 5D3 over-priced (for what I got them for) nor noisy at all. I liked the 1D series AF but It never came on cheaper camera's until the 5D3. It's AF is the best I've ever used on any camera and It's AF has helped me where the 6D/5D2/5Dc AF would have been darn difficult to pull off. 

As for IQ, It's a wash between 5D3/6D and even 1DX. They're all excellent at 12,800 and with careful technique usable 25,600 shots.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2013)

steliosk said:


> However, i'm about to buy a new FF camera exclusively for weddings and i wonder if the 6D is best value for money over the overpriced and noisy 5D3. (i mean that camera completely failed me when i compared it with 5D 2. They walk side by side until ISO 12.800 of course in RAW mode)



The 5DII image quality was (and remains) excellent. The 5DIII fixes pretty much everything else that was 'wrong' with the 5DII...notably the AF system. 

I'd pick the 5DIII over the 6D in a heartbeat for any situation with moving subjects.


----------



## awinphoto (May 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> steliosk said:
> 
> 
> > However, i'm about to buy a new FF camera exclusively for weddings and i wonder if the 6D is best value for money over the overpriced and noisy 5D3. (i mean that camera completely failed me when i compared it with 5D 2. They walk side by side until ISO 12.800 of course in RAW mode)
> ...



Agreed. 5d2 was good but you couldn't AF to save your life in a crutch situation. 6d is good for extreme low light detail photos, but 5d3 is better in just about everything else...


----------



## steliosk (May 31, 2013)

hmm so you're saying that the 5D3 AF system worth the extra cash, and focus is everything, where i agree on that.

I haven't been experienced with 1D series AF systems, and a when i played a bit with 5D3 it confused me a lot. I found it so complicated that i said "do i really need that" ???, where the simpler AF settings of the 6D with the -3ev sensitivity in the center point is tempting, making me ask myself and you of course.

However you're saying 5D3 AF system is more reliable and tested from the one of 6D.

another +1 about the 5D3 is the second slot card used as a backup for weddings something 6D lacks off 
i don't know if the wireless function of the 6d permits backup


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 31, 2013)

steliosk said:


> hmm so you're saying that the 5D3 AF system worth the extra cash, and focus is everything, where i agree on that.
> 
> I haven't been experienced with 1D series AF systems, and a when i played a bit with 5D3 it confused me a lot. I found it so complicated that i said "do i really need that" ???, where the simpler AF settings of the 6D with the -3ev sensitivity in the center point is tempting, making me ask myself and you of course.
> 
> ...




2 cents

I own a 5d3 and have rented a 6d (I may end up buying one as backup in the next few weeks), and I shoot mostly weddings and portraits. Unless $$$ is really tight, I'd opt for the 5d3 now then fill in your glass needs later (hard to say though because I do not know what glass you have). 

The 6d is a fine camera, but I would be leary of depending on it too heavily as a primary body because it just didn't feel as sturdy as the mk3 (mind you, I'm not saying the 6d felt like junk, just that the mk3 does for sure have better build). 

The 6d AF system isn't all that bad...just limited as the light gets lower (depending on the ceremony sight it would be center point only, where the mk3 will use all points flawlessly). 

either way, I'd go mk3 over 6d.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 31, 2013)

The 1/180s flash sync on the 6D bothters me. I think that would give me some trouble at a wedding.


----------



## steliosk (May 31, 2013)

hmm i see!

well the lenses i have are
- 24-105L
- 70-200 f/4 IS L
- 100mm f/2.8 macro L

Also an ef-s 10-22 and a samyang 8mm fisheye for my 600D which i'll use for a second camera which performs quite well in 1600-3200 iso and these lenses doesn't need fast speeds. f/5.6 and 1/60 are ok even for a large print 30x40cm

i'll buy an ef 50mm f/1.4 along the the FF camera. (i love the creamy 1.2 but it goes way beyond my tight budget 


The way i'm thinking of it.
my FF will play with the 50 1.4 and the 24-105 for start
and the 600D with 10-22, fisheye, and the 100L which is ideal for head portraits as it becomes like 160mm


----------



## awinphoto (May 31, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> steliosk said:
> 
> 
> > hmm so you're saying that the 5D3 AF system worth the extra cash, and focus is everything, where i agree on that.
> ...



The tracking capability of the 5d3 on moving subjects like walking down the isle, first dance, dressing room, etc... Too many situations where AF is crucial. Also good point about durability... At a event I was hired to do a photobooth/candid photographer for Union Pacific, my second assistant tripped over a cord and knocked my 5d3 which fell 3-4 feet onto concrete... It has a paint scuff on the bottom corner, but other than that, it is in perfect condition... even my 24-105 suffered little to no damage... Cant say enough about the durability.


----------



## Krob78 (May 31, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > steliosk said:
> ...


Absolutely agree! I recall reading several articles, even on CR before I got mine, stating emphatically that the 5D Mk III was a wedding photographers perfect tool... It's an excellent choice. And I agree with others regarding the AF, it's really second to none in the sub $3,000 price bracket for Canon bodies...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 1, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > steliosk said:
> ...



That's why I say snag the 5d3! If you already have one and are in need of a backup, then the 6d is a fine choice (of course, if funds allow it, a second 5d3 would be better). But if your making the move to a FF primary body for weddings, 5d3 wins that battle hands down.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 1, 2013)

steliosk said:


> hmm i see!
> 
> well the lenses i have are
> - 24-105L
> ...



Your 10-22 won't work on a FF body (you may know that already though). I'm not sure if the 8mm is FF capable, but that would be almost tooo wide for wedding work

Also, I was on a 7d before upgrading to the mk3 (I also had the 10-22). I tried my best to use both side by side at weddings. But, I found that the 7d became a very heavy lens holder...It did great at outdoor ceremonies, but the difference in IQ above ISO 1600, that is a game changer and yeah, led to my 7d just sitting in the bag all day, then not even in the bag at all, then sold to a friend who was going to africa and wanted more than a P&S. So, be ready for your 600D to become a dust collector!

Also, after you snag your mk3, you could sell the 600d with 10-22 and then the 8 mm and snag yourself a 6d as backup body.

Lastly, I see your hot to trot for the 50 1.4, but, take a good look at the 85mm 1.8...same price basically but IMO a much more useful lens!

either way, be ready for the 600d to become a paper weight!


----------



## ecka (Jun 1, 2013)

5D3, period!


----------



## steliosk (Jun 1, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> steliosk said:
> 
> 
> > hmm i see!
> ...




i see your point.
if i'd sell the 600D + 10-22 i'd go for the 16-35 2.8, i was thinking to keep the 600D with the 10-22 for the wide angle shots and also as a backup camera and put some money on primes.

the EF 85mm 1.8 is an excellent lens no doubt, better in everything than 50mm 1.4 (sharpness, bokeh)
However, the 50mm range is more "all around" than the 85mm and the churches here are a bit tight.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 1, 2013)

steliosk said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > steliosk said:
> ...



I had thought the same thing ---re: " i was thinking to keep the 600D with the 10-22 for the wide angle shots and also as a backup camera and put some money on primes."...But your 24-70 will actually cover the wide end on a FF body! It was startling to me, my 24-70 was a whole new lens on FF vs crop. And the quality at 24mm on FF vs the 10-22mm,...yeah, I quickly decided that its just better to take a few more steps back and use the 24-70 on the mk3 than to use the 10-22mm on the 7d. That really ended up being the final nail in my 7d's coffin. That and the reach factor with crop vs cropping the FF image...cropped FF was superior.

LOL --- the primes I have now, I bought them thinking - OK, lets see if maybe using the 7d with the 50mm and 85mm would get me to use it more. What ended up happening? I used the primes on the mk3. Seriously, I was fighting to find a way to make the 7d relevant, but in all cases the mk3 outshined it by so much that I just stopped using the 7d. So yeah, be ready for that (and the 7d is a bteer body than your 600d!!!!).


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 28, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> steliosk said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...





> Also, I was on a 7d before upgrading to the mk3 (I also had the 10-22). I tried my best to use both side by side at weddings. But, I found that the 7d became a very heavy lens holder...It did great at outdoor ceremonies, but the difference in IQ above ISO 1600, that is a game changer and yeah, led to my 7d just sitting in the bag all day, then not even in the bag at all


Sounds pretty much like what my experience was! Lot of noisy shadows with my 7D. I just finally sold it about a week ago. Something I never thought would ever happen, six months ago!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 28, 2013)

I'd go 5d3 over 6d if your only snagging 1 FF body. I am currently using both the 5d3 and the 6d for wedding work and the files from both look pretty damn close (its odd, I do find some situations where I like the colors for the 6d better, then vice versa).

For weddings though, reliability is a huge factor to consider. And on that level, the 5d3 wins hands down. I would not buy a 6d as my main body, though I do truly like the camera, there are some shortcomings to it that are hard to move past.

Here are 2 images - both unedited, one from the 6d and one from the 5d3, same setting, can any of tell which one is from which camera?


----------



## Zv (Jun 28, 2013)

Wow lots of 7D bashing going on. I disagree, the crop body has a place in my bag for weddings. I pretty much shot an entire wedding with the 7D & 17-55 and 5D2 & 135L. Of course theh 5D combo rocked it but you know what the 7D was no slouch! (And when the bride wants a shot of 11 people jumping in the air - 8fps makes it a cake walk) AF is crucial at a wedding and your subject is rarely in the center. And if it is then your shots will look crappy and average. 

Now, my point is not to go out and buy a 7D but that AF is important and if you are choosing a camera for weddings, the the 5D3 is the clear choice. You have the speed, the IQ and the higher res file for cropping. There will be cropping! 

Oh and when you go from indoors to outdoors in 1second. Good luck changing your WB on the 6D.


----------



## hamada (Jun 28, 2013)

thank god i don´t shoot weddings.....


----------



## Krob78 (Jun 28, 2013)

Zv said:


> Wow lots of 7D bashing going on. I disagree, the crop body has a place in my bag for weddings. I pretty much shot an entire wedding with the 7D & 17-55 and 5D2 & 135L. Of course theh 5D combo rocked it but you know what the 7D was no slouch! (And when the bride wants a shot of 11 people jumping in the air - 8fps makes it a cake walk) AF is crucial at a wedding and your subject is rarely in the center. And if it is then your shots will look crappy and average.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed, the 7d is still a relevant body and it has been the APS-C flagship for Canon since it's inception. It's still relevant and I think will remain so, until the 7D MkII is announced and makes it way into camera bags across the globe... 

I think a lot of current 7d owners want the new one, just because the original is such a great camera! They may be thinking that if this one is this good, how much greater is the next one going to be, especially after the number of years it's been holding it's own. 

I used my 7D in weddings and it got the job done but I can't honestly say it "rocked". But it got me through... often times with a lot of work in post with regard to the noise in the shadows and darker areas. It's high iso usage is limited at best, especially compared to the 5d MkIII.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 28, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I'd go 5d3 over 6d if your only snagging 1 FF body. I am currently using both the 5d3 and the 6d for wedding work and the files from both look pretty damn close (its odd, I do find some situations where I like the colors for the 6d better, then vice versa).
> 
> For weddings though, reliability is a huge factor to consider. And on that level, the 5d3 wins hands down. I would not buy a 6d as my main body, though I do truly like the camera, there are some shortcomings to it that are hard to move past.
> 
> Here are 2 images - both unedited, one from the 6d and one from the 5d3, *same setting*, can any of tell which one is from which camera?



On what planet are different lenses, focal lengths, iso's, apertures, shutter speeds, white balance and tint values considered "*same setting*"?

I would suggest getting some camera calibration software, Adobe have a great free one, and a colour card to sort out your WB and tint issues.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 28, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > I'd go 5d3 over 6d if your only snagging 1 FF body. I am currently using both the 5d3 and the 6d for wedding work and the files from both look pretty damn close (its odd, I do find some situations where I like the colors for the 6d better, then vice versa).
> ...




note...same setting was meant as ---same location (IE the setting of the image, not the settings of the cameras!)

PS...lens one camera had 70-200, the other had the 85 1.8...And to give more perspoective...it was a path with a bit of a windy curve to it, so i hadthe walk away from me, shooting, at the apex of the curve, stop pose, walk towards me, stop, pose, walk towards me....also I chose these 2 because the framing is similar.


----------



## Wildfire (Jun 28, 2013)

I use the 6D for weddings and on-location portraits and it's fantastic, especially in low-light where it shines.

It's true, capturing moving subjects is difficult with the AF, but not impossible. I have the Depth of Field Preview button set up to change the AF to AI Servo mode when I hold it down and I use that + continuous burst to get those photos where movement is a problem (bride walking down the aisle, etc). Most of the shots from such a scene are slightly out of focus, but a lot of them are still useable and there are usually 2 or 3 in perfect focus as well.

It's no 1D-series AF but I do believe it's slightly improved over the 5D2 which a lot of wedding shooters (including me) were using before the 5D3 even existed. Now that the 6D is out, and cheap, I would never recommend the 5D2... The 6D is superior in every way (except it's missing a flash PC sync port!) Oh, and don't get me started on the center AF point. I've used it to get accurate focus in situations that were so I dark I could barely see the subject. This is one of the few cameras on the planet that can focus in nothing but moonlight.

I say get the 6D and use the extra money on lenses/flashes.


----------



## comsense (Jun 28, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> note...same setting was meant as ---same location (IE the setting of the image, not the settings of the cameras!


Have you heard the phrase 'comparing apples with oranges'?
You can actually control those 'settings of the camera' and make photo of either kind from both of them!

And even the scene can change a lot even though you think they are 'same setting'. Cloud, some stray light or reflection entering the scene and changing metering, to name a few.


----------



## Mort (Jun 28, 2013)

I also have the same question, but the one thing that hasn't really been addressed so far is the price difference. As of a couple of days ago, you can find a 6d body for less than $1600 while the 5dmkiii is still just under $3000. That's almost half the price. Is the autofocus worth that nearly $1500 jump or would that money be better spent in say a 24-70? (I have a 550D that is starting to showing it's age)


----------



## Niki (Jun 28, 2013)

5d marklll


----------



## Wildfire (Jun 28, 2013)

Mort said:


> I also have the same question, but the one thing that hasn't really been addressed so far is the price difference. As of a couple of days ago, you can find a 6d body for less than $1600 while the 5dmkiii is still just under $3000. That's almost half the price. Is the autofocus worth that nearly $1500 jump or would that money be better spent in say a 24-70? (I have a 550D that is starting to showing it's age)



The autofocus IS worth the extra $1500, but only if you need it. As I said above, I shoot weddings and I get by without the 5D3's AF just fine. I spent the extra money on lenses and flashes.


----------



## Lloyd (Jun 28, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> The autofocus IS worth the extra $1500, but only if you need it. As I said above, I shoot weddings and I get by without the 5D3's AF just fine. I spent the extra money on lenses and flashes.


 In this regard, I noted that two of the three lenses used by the OP were f4 lenses. Would putting money into a 24-70 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8 be of more value than moving from a 6D to 5D3 in the context of shooting weddings? I have only taken photos at weddings as a backup to a pro and I relied a lot on flash so I don't know if 2.8 would be a significant gain to a wedding photographer other than bokeh.


----------



## Wildfire (Jun 28, 2013)

Lloyd said:


> Would putting money into a 24-70 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8 be of more value than moving from a 6D to 5D3 in the context of shooting weddings? I have only taken photos at weddings as a backup to a pro and I relied a lot on flash so I don't know if 2.8 would be a significant gain to a wedding photographer other than bokeh.



In my opinion, yes. You can never have too much light at a wedding reception, plus clients love the look of f/2.8 and larger aperture images.

Of course, it all depends on your shooting style, too. I go for the high-end wedding photography look, but if you just do shoot 'n burns for cheap clients then you can get away with a 24-105.

I use flash almost the entire wedding day but most of the time it is off camera. Having the 6D lets me shoot at higher ISOs to both blend flash with ambient light (and avoid the dark cave look) as well as save flash batteries -- I usually go the entire wedding day without changing a single battery.


----------



## gbchriste (Jun 28, 2013)

5D3 is the hands down winner. AF is superb. Not only does this make the AF shortcomings of the 5D2 a distant memory in general, but the servo AF tracking quality and plethora of options makes getting all of the those moving moments, even in sub-optimal light, a breeze.

I've been through the 40D, 5D2 and 5D3. I would go up to ISO 1600 on the 5D3 but alway cringed when I neede to. Rarely went to 3200, only when there was absolutely no other way to get the shot. On the 5D3, I routinely go up to ISO 6400 without a second thought. Is there noise? Of course. But it cleans up nicely in LR and can't really be seen at all in images of normal viewing size.


----------



## var1abl3 (Jun 28, 2013)

Mort said:


> I also have the same question, but the one thing that hasn't really been addressed so far is the price difference. As of a couple of days ago, you can find a 6d body for less than $1600 while the 5dmkiii is still just under $3000. That's almost half the price. Is the autofocus worth that nearly $1500 jump or would that money be better spent in say a 24-70? (I have a 550D that is starting to showing it's age)



Where is the 5Dmkiii selling for under $3000?


----------



## Wildfire (Jun 28, 2013)

var1abl3 said:


> Mort said:
> 
> 
> > I also have the same question, but the one thing that hasn't really been addressed so far is the price difference. As of a couple of days ago, you can find a 6d body for less than $1600 while the 5dmkiii is still just under $3000. That's almost half the price. Is the autofocus worth that nearly $1500 jump or would that money be better spent in say a 24-70? (I have a 550D that is starting to showing it's age)
> ...


http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=151070124973&item=151070124973&lgeo=1&vectorid=229466

Canon authorized USA dealer, new with warranty


----------



## var1abl3 (Jun 28, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> var1abl3 said:
> 
> 
> > Where is the 5Dmkiii selling for under $3000?
> ...



So they are splitting up kits and selling the body and lens separately. That seems a little odd. Has anyone purchased from these guys and had warranty work approved by Canon? I would be hesitant that there would be some type of technicality with the warranty since they are not selling the "kit" as expected by Canon.


----------



## dexstrose (Jun 28, 2013)

I would just do with what I have until I exhausted the camera's capabilities.

Then I would move on, it will take another month or so to understand the new camera.


----------



## bleephotography (Jun 28, 2013)

var1abl3 said:


> Wildfire said:
> 
> 
> > var1abl3 said:
> ...



I haven't purchased from them per se, but I have purchased from another seller who also resells partial kits (PMI Digital). Both are listed on Canon's website as authorized dealers and so long as you have the original receipt, there is no detriment to purchasing such items. As far as warranty is concerned, Canon doesn't care if you have the original box or not; for all they know, you could have purchased the whole kit and simply sold off the lens or body, and Canon would have made a profit nonetheless.

Trying to return or exchange equipment without the box/whole kit is a different story, for obvious reasons...


----------



## docholliday (Jun 28, 2013)

Sounds like me, don't care for video, no plastic bodies and I don't go above ISO400 - so, for everything, including weddings, it's still a 1DsMk3 and 1DMkIV. 24-70 on the Ds and 16-35 on the D. 70-200 II in a pouch carried by my assistant. All external lighting, carried by assistants, fired for PW TT1 and TT5s. 

If you want no plastic and reliability, go get a used 1D/Ds camera - the AF is great in low light, even with the 24-70/2.8L on...


----------



## Mort (Jun 29, 2013)

var1abl3 said:


> Mort said:
> 
> 
> > I also have the same question, but the one thing that hasn't really been addressed so far is the price difference. As of a couple of days ago, you can find a 6d body for less than $1600 while the 5dmkiii is still just under $3000. That's almost half the price. Is the autofocus worth that nearly $1500 jump or would that money be better spent in say a 24-70? (I have a 550D that is starting to showing it's age)
> ...



Here is one example http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=221116170557&item=221116170557&lgeo=1&vectorid=229466
I also don't mind refurbs, which are also down to $2800 right now


----------



## spinworkxroy (Jun 29, 2013)

Firstly, i'm not sure about the 6D at 12800iso vs the 5ds..i've never actually shot that high for a paid gig.
Especially for weddings, i don't think any couple would want photos taken at iso12800 with any camera to be used as an official photo.
To me, the high ISO is just a bonus for times when you need it for general shooting and personal use..i wouldn't use it for an official photo of any sorts. Personally, i try not to go above 1600 if i can help it.

I would go for faster and better glass IMO….there is a difference between a good 2.8 zoom vs an F4 one besides just the aperture…there's alot more to it than that.

My favourite combo for almost anything…the 5D3 with the 24-70mk2


----------

