# Have most now forsaken the 5dMk3 and jumped on to the Mk4?



## Baba_HT (Sep 29, 2016)

Am I the only one still Mk3 user? All I see on here now are threads regarding the Mk4. 
To me the MK 3 is still an amazing camera. Maybe cause the 4k in the Mk4 sucks and I am not too fussy about touch screen. But that's me been me I guess. 

I am very much still in love with my Mk3. I never leave home without her. ;D


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 30, 2016)

Baba_HT said:


> Am I the only one still Mk3 user?


Nope! Me, too.



> All I see on here now are threads regarding the Mk4.


New toys, new excitement, new fun. 
I think we should show a little bit more sympathy with the others, as this is a gear headed forum 



> To me the MK 3 is still an amazing camera.


Of course it is. As well as the Mk2. 



> I am very much still in love with my Mk3.


Ditto. And it still delivers great pictures if I am able to use it - although with new tools they might become a little bit greater  



> I never leave home without her. ;D


Aehm... nope. And I also don't take her with me to bed - at least most of the time 

I enjoy the gear that I have. And I'll try to make as wonderful pictures as I can. And I don't feel the urge to change anything. But maybe another bright prime lens... :-X


----------



## Baba_HT (Sep 30, 2016)

Ditto on all points. 

It works wonders when attached to my Prime 35mm 1.4 L/ 50mm 1.2 L and soon to get the monstrous 85mm 1.2 L (where L = Helluva lens)

;D


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 30, 2016)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 30, 2016)

:


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 1, 2016)

Hey, shut up already- I want everyone to think their Mark III's are useless now so they sell them (to me) cheap


----------



## docsmith (Oct 1, 2016)

Checked the day after the 5DIV was announced and my 5D3 worked same as it always has. 

I'll upgrade someday, but that day i months if not years away. 

5D3 is a great camera


----------



## monkey44 (Oct 1, 2016)

I like my MK3 just fine - no problems. Why buy another camera if this one does everything I ask of it.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Oct 1, 2016)

The 5D3 is as close to perfect as a camera can be IMO. It will be my only DSLR (not counting the used IR camera I picked up) for a long, long time. Absolutely no need for a mk4 for me.


----------



## axtstern (Oct 1, 2016)

Yep... I think the people on The upgrade train boarded with 5DII i. Their hands


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 1, 2016)

Another completely satisfied 5DIII owner here. In fact, I have a notification set up on canonpricewatch.com to get a message if/when new III's become available below $2K from an authorized dealer.

No doubt the 5DIV is an even better piece of gear, but I have no need for any higher resolution, nor video, nor touch screens. Wider DR and improved image quality are always welcome, but the III's capabilities rarely leave me wanting under the conditions I shoot.

I'm probably more of a candidate for the 6DII now than the 5DIV. In the meantime, I'll soldier on with my 5DIII, 5D and 20D (which is still a excellent body, and -- now that it's worth virtually $0 in the market -- a great "throwaway" camera when paired with an inexpensive prime, in hazardous (for camera gear) environments).


----------



## rcarca (Oct 1, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> In the meantime, I'll soldier on with ... and 20D (which is still a excellent body, and -- now that it's worth virtually $0 in the market -- a great "throwaway" camera when paired with an inexpensive prime, in hazardous (for camera gear) environments).



I like that thinking. I hate trading gear in - I still miss my Pentax ME Super from my twenties! 

That said, when the tooth fairy leaves enough £££ under the pillow, I am sure that I will splash out for a iv, although given the rate the tooth fairy pays, I will probably need dentures first...


----------



## Baba_HT (Oct 3, 2016)

MrFotoFool said:


> The 5D3 is as close to perfect as a camera can be IMO.



No truer words has been said about any DSLR
8)


----------



## arthurbikemad (Oct 3, 2016)

Just don't try a Mk4 or 1DX2 :-*


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Oct 3, 2016)

I sold my Mark III to a local friend when the Mark IV was enroute.
I have visitation rights, so all is good.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 3, 2016)

arthurbikemad said:


> Just don't try a Mk4 or 1DX2 :-*



I did try a 5D4...yet I still have and use my 5D3.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 3, 2016)

While I'd love to have a MK IV, I just don't feel that I'd want to pay that much to get a MK IV when my MK III does the job.

The simple reason that MK IV's are already in stock everywhere is that the supply is exceeding the demand.


----------



## Drum (Oct 4, 2016)

Got a second Mkiii a couple weeks ago- brand new for half the price I bought my original. I know the iv has better resolution and a few nice features but I don't use live view or shoot video so there wasn't the desire for me to upgrade.( well actually there was but it soon passed when I thought it over!!)


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 4, 2016)

Got a 1DX mark II two months ago and my 5D Mark III is still as amazing as it ever was! Although the new sensor tech is great and I love the 14 FPS on the 1DX2, the 5D mark III still makes incredible images for me as a second body and I'm glad I have access to both my 24-70 and 70-200 at any given time.

That said, the little plastic cap on the mode dial fell off around the time the 5D mark IV was released, so it did kinda get a little worse when the Mark IV came out.


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 4, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The simple reason that MK IV's are already in stock everywhere is that the supply is exceeding the demand.



I think that the list price of the Mark IV will drop from its launch price faster than it did for the Mark III, simply because the III was more of a leap over the II than the IV is over the III.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 4, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The simple reason that MK IV's are already in stock everywhere is that the supply is exceeding the demand.
> ...



The selling price of the MK III dropped very fast, I paid $2750 for my 2nd one less that 6 months after it came out on a Adorama one day special. I really doubt that I'll see a deal like that. What we will see is bundled items, but Canon will not let the advertised price drop below MAP.

It is possible to get deals using Greentoe or Canon Price Watch street price, those will get better if the supply exceeds demand and dealers are stuck with too much inventory, or Canon dumps inventory to boost year end sales figures.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Oct 4, 2016)

H. Jones said:


> Got a 1DX mark II two months ago and my 5D Mark III is still as amazing as it ever was! Although the new sensor tech is great and I love the 14 FPS on the 1DX2, the 5D mark III still makes incredible images for me as a second body and I'm glad I have access to both my 24-70 and 70-200 at any given time.
> 
> That said, the little plastic cap on the mode dial fell off around the time the 5D mark IV was released, so it did kinda get a little worse when the Mark IV came out.



The Mk3 is an amazing camera, and those who buy now surly get the best value for money DSLR ever! I have a 1DX2 and no doubt the sensor is amazing, but yes, the Mk3 makes buitiful images. Use my 1DX2 and Mk3 yesterday side by side, love the old  Mk3 even up against Canons best.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 4, 2016)

don't see any reason to replace my 5D3 with yet another boring iteration of a marginally improved big fat and way too expensive mirrorslapper. i am done with SLRs, my next camera will be mirrorless. Canon or not Canon.

actually my 5D3 and assorted L lenses are sotting in their pelicase at home most of the time, while my EOS M 1st gen and those small EF-M lenses are with me, every time i expect and encounter something of visual interest to me. i may buy EOS M5, because of built-in viewfinder, although M5 is too big for my taste with the cludgy hump and its bulky "mini-DSLR" design. would have greatly preferred a super-compact "rangefinder"-style design with pop-up EVF ... ideally as small as Sony RX1R-II ... only with Canon EF-M lens mount ...but ... stupid, Canon!


----------



## Josh Denver (Oct 5, 2016)

Video Guy: Nope still on the MK3 here. Simply because it has Magic Lantern which gives me all the video features available on any camera possible, plus the more important 2K 14bit RAW recording, which is something NO other camera can do! 

I prioritize FF look and Colour over more resolution (4k): 


1- FF look meaning the shallow depth of field, and the use of the whole lens image circle to see the edges of the lens, the beautiful light fall off, softness, bokeh swirl, etc. We like that in video.

2- Colours at 14bit Raw vs MJPEGs on the MK4 give the exact same difference you get in shooting 14bit raw stills vs 8bit JPEGs. Just much richer colour and tonality. 

3- The 5D Raw is incredibly sharp. As sharp as HD/2K gets. C300 sharp, and I don't need anymore than that. (but if I had it I wouldn't mind, just never felt a need during post-processing for more resolution) 

4- The 5D3 FAAAR exceeds a filmmaker's passion for photography (which we all have). I shoot the MK3 at Small (1920x1280) or Medium MAXIMUM. Jpeg, with Monochrome picture style (only shoot B&W) with sharpness +7 and contrast at zero. Giving PERFECT results. So the 5D3 really does exceed my needs by a large margin! 

5- To be clear, I am sure the 5DIV can make amazing videos, the MJPEG 500Mbps 422 is far beyond any other codec in the ILC market, and the crop is S35ish image aesthetic, the cinema standard. So not hating on it. Just like the FF RAW more.


----------



## Baba_HT (Oct 6, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I sold my Mark III to a local friend when the Mark IV was enroute.
> I have visitation rights, so all is good.



wow you got cake and ice cream... lucky you. ;D


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 7, 2016)

My two 5D3's are great for shooting events where the silent shutter is a must and I have no intention of upgrading to the 5D4. Sure, the resolution and AF upgrades are solid improvements that I know I would enjoy. But, I don't flirt with the limits of the 5D3's resolution and AF enough to warrant an upgrade.

The 1Dx2 is a different story. Action under challenging lighting is my staple and I have pushed the limits of my 1Dx to the point where the 1Dx2 would increase my keeper rate. For me, the 1Dx2 is far more tempting. Someday...


----------



## Dick (Oct 14, 2016)

Still using my Mark III. Really waited for the Mark IV to get some of the minor Mark III issues fixed, but the 4200€ price tag now has me considering switching to Nikon. Too bad there's no Nikon 85 mm f/1.2.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 14, 2016)

well, I just got mine today. went from a SL1/100D to a 5D3! crazy and awesome. haha I got it for a decent price too. All thanks to the mark 4. 

now whether to keep or sell my SL1.. I also have a eos M.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 14, 2016)

cellomaster27 said:


> well, I just got mine today. went from a SL1/100D to a 5D3! crazy and awesome. haha I got it for a decent price too. All thanks to the mark 4.
> 
> now whether to keep or sell my SL1.. I also have a eos M.


Congrats! 

Up to your decision:
It depends on how happy you are with your M.
I have the same combo 5D3/100D (but no M) and when I'm on vacation I wouldn't want to go without a viewfinder, esp. on the beach or skiing in snow.
And when you look at the prices for a new 100D/SL1 and make your guess what you'll get for a used one I'd keep it.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Oct 14, 2016)

I too awaited the 5d4 for a while and when it came the high price and feature list was just not enough to sway me , so I opted for a second 5D3 like many others as its still one hell of a camera and can easily stand up to most of what the 5d4 will do or what i need it for and i got the 5D3 for £1500 with a 3yr guarantee so it was a no brainer.

Wedding Photographers North East


----------



## DomTomLondon (Oct 14, 2016)

Still have my 5D3. it's an awesome camera and I don't have any intention of upgrading it any time soon.
I will most likely buy a new Canon 50mm 1.4 markII or 1.2 markII lens before I upgrade the camera.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Oct 14, 2016)

Well I actually had £3,000 saved up long before the 5D mark 4 was announced and I could not wait until the end of August when finally it was available to pre-order. However after more than 4 years to me it is really just a very minor upgrade to the 5D mark 3 and it is simply not worth £3,600. At a push I might have gone up to £3,200 or even higher if it had some compelling feature that I really wanted, but there is nothing in the new camera that I really need or want.
With the pound dropping like a stone it is likely the price will go up before it comes down, so I have given up all ideas of upgrading and I will stick with my 5D mk 3 for another 4 years.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 14, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > well, I just got mine today. went from a SL1/100D to a 5D3! crazy and awesome. haha I got it for a decent price too. All thanks to the mark 4.
> ...



Thanks! I was going between a 6D and 5D3 but I definitely wanted the AF system of the 5D3 and better build. I guess I should keep my SL1. It is a snappy camera that really doesn't have much value now. Especially with the use it has seen with me. the eos m, I'll definitely be keeping that. I don't shoot much with it but I got that for so cheap, it isn't worth selling. I gave that to my parents to use... but they rather use their iphones. ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 14, 2016)

Still (happily) with my 5D3. I'd rather buy glass this cycle.

- A


----------



## turtle (Oct 14, 2016)

There seems to be a pattern here: the IV may be improved, but people a large number of users are very reluctant to upgrade with the Mk IV costing what it does (at the moment). I suspect I will pick up a Mk IV, keep my III and sell my II. At a later date I may replace the III with another IV, but at current prices nothing will be happening.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 14, 2016)

turtle said:


> There seems to be a pattern here: the IV may be improved, but people a large number of users are very reluctant to upgrade with the Mk IV costing what it does (at the moment). I suspect I will pick up a Mk IV, keep my III and sell my II. At a later date I may replace the III with another IV, but at current prices nothing will be happening.



You are jumping to conclusions. Many with agree with the price being high, but others may feel the 5D3 more than adequately suits their needs.

Two things to consider:


A camera getting all-around better by 20% isn't necessarily what people want. I wanted spot-metering at a non-center AF point. Canon continues to withhold this feature -- which is on your cell phone, by the way -- to the 1D line.


The quality of my photography is limited by hardware / sensor / AF limitations only a fraction as much as my own skill / discipline / patience as a photographer. When I look at my *non*-keepers from a trip, they overwhelmingly are due to my not taking the time to methodically frame and reel in the shot -- not because the sensor clipped the highlights or because the AF whiffed. So a 5D4 will not benefit me nearly that much.

So I've come to the conclusion that I just need to shoot more and perhaps pick up a lens or two during this cycle. Until I am regularly exceeding the limits of my rig, a new rig will not take my photography to new heights.

- A


----------



## JPAZ (Oct 14, 2016)

My 5diii is still a remarkable device. It has been to multiple continents, in extremes of cold / wind / dust / heat (with precautions and care) and remains reliable. What "limitations" it may have do not keep me from creating some decent photos. And I fully agree that those images that are not keepers are usually due to the skills of the photographer and not the camera. 

While some increased DR, a little better high ISO performance, a touch screen, a little less weight, GPS, Wifi and a camera body with controls that are almost identical to what I now have seems very enticing, I have no need to jump.........yet 

Down the road, when the prices come down and if my 5diii starts to fade away like an old soldier, I'll make the change. I am reading reviews and listening to what others have to say about the new product but that does not mean I don't appreciate what I am using now.


----------



## Refurb7 (Oct 15, 2016)

Baba_HT said:


> Am I the only one still Mk3 user? All I see on here now are threads regarding the Mk4.
> To me the MK 3 is still an amazing camera. Maybe cause the 4k in the Mk4 sucks and I am not too fussy about touch screen. But that's me been me I guess.
> 
> I am very much still in love with my Mk3. I never leave home without her. ;D



I'm still using the 5D3 and 6D. I would love to have a 5D4 but can't afford it.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Oct 15, 2016)

I like my 5dIII had a rented a 5dSr which I really liked a bit more. So I am waiting for that update. Thought I am hoping that the 6D update is mirrorless, I would swap my III for it.


----------



## drjlo (Oct 15, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> don't see any reason to replace my 5D3 with yet another boring iteration of a marginally improved big fat and way too expensive mirrorslapper. i am done with SLRs, my next camera will be mirrorless. Canon or not Canon.
> 
> actually my 5D3 and assorted L lenses are sotting in their pelicase at home most of the time, while my EOS M 1st gen and those small EF-M lenses are with me, every time i expect and encounter something of visual interest to me. i may buy EOS M5, because of built-in viewfinder, although M5 is too big for my taste with the cludgy hump and its bulky "mini-DSLR" design. would have greatly preferred a super-compact "rangefinder"-style design with pop-up EVF ... ideally as small as Sony RX1R-II ... only with Canon EF-M lens mount ...but ... stupid, Canon!



This is exactly what I was thinking, except I gave away my EOS M to family as gift and got a Sony A7R, not Mk II, which I regret got larger in size..


----------



## KWSW (Oct 22, 2016)

Have always been following this web for a long time but this thread prompted me to make an account to post:

Still going fine with my 5D3 + 7D2 combo. 5D3 has crossed the 50K shutter count but looking at the last event i covered, looks good for another year. Sure I do wish it could give me one more stop of iso performance for shooting concerts, sure I do wish I had one more stop of DR for crazy stage lighting but other than that, cant say I got any complains.

While the 5D4 is sure tempting and I have had 2nd thoughts about upgrading, somehow the overall package seems a bit lacking to make me want to take out my card and head to my favorite camera shop.

Thought I will admit I do wonder if the 1Dx2 would be a better upgrade for the things I shoot...


----------



## pwp (Oct 22, 2016)

Are you kidding? The 5D Mark 3 is a sensational camera and I'm as happy with it today as the day I bought it, right after they first shipped. The 5D Mark 4 looks impressive and I'll probably pick one up in the first quarter of next year. 

Too bad the 5D Mark 4 didn't deliver the anticipated upgrades for video. Not to worry, it will be a great workhorse stills camera and I'll continue with Panasonic GH4 for video. 

-pw


----------



## tron (Oct 22, 2016)

KWSW said:


> Have always been following this web for a long time but this thread prompted me to make an account to post:
> 
> Still going fine with my 5D3 + 7D2 combo. 5D3 has crossed the 50K shutter count but looking at the last event i covered, looks good for another year. Sure I do wish it could give me one more stop of iso performance for shooting concerts, sure I do wish I had one more stop of DR for crazy stage lighting but other than that, cant say I got any complains.
> 
> ...


1Dx2 seemed a very good upgrade for my 5D3 (low and high iso noise, fps, AF) but for size, weight, shutter noise and the compatibility in batteries,chargers and memory cards with my other cameras (5D3 x 2 + 7D2). So I got a 5D4. I have not tested yet due to much work (even in this weekend). As soon as I verify it is OK I will put a 5D3 for sale.


----------



## dpc (Oct 22, 2016)

Still have a 5DMII and am completely happy with it. I've no plans to upgrade to either a MIII or MIV.


----------



## pwp (Oct 23, 2016)

tron said:


> 1Dx2 seemed a very good upgrade for my 5D3 (low and high iso noise, fps, AF) but for size, weight, shutter noise and the compatibility in batteries,chargers and memory cards with my other cameras (5D3 x 2 + 7D2). So I got a 5D4.



My feelings are much the same. I could never have anticipated the inestimable value of the Silent Shutter on the 5D MkIII when I first got it. The hugely reduced intrusiveness of the smack-bang of a shutter/mirror opens doors to shots that would previously been impolite or plain impossible to attempt. A good photographer will have well evolved skills in invisibility, notably in corporate, wedding and event work. 

CPS offered me a two day test drive of the 1DX MkII and unsurprisingly it is in most respects an absolute knockout of a camera. But it's loud. Even in it's silent-mode. 

My next two body purchases will be 5D MkIV and Panasonic GH5 when it ships next year. My current GH4 is primarily for video projects, but is sometimes rolled out on stills projects when 100% silent shutter will deliver an advantage. 

-pw


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 23, 2016)

JonAustin said:


> Another completely satisfied 5DIII owner here. In fact, I have a notification set up on canonpricewatch.com to get a message if/when new III's become available below $2K from an authorized dealer.
> 
> No doubt the 5DIV is an even better piece of gear, but I have no need for any higher resolution, nor video, nor touch screens. Wider DR and improved image quality are always welcome, but the III's capabilities rarely leave me wanting under the conditions I shoot.
> 
> I'm probably more of a candidate for the 6DII now than the 5DIV. In the meantime, I'll soldier on with my 5DIII, 5D and 20D (which is still a excellent body, and -- now that it's worth virtually $0 in the market -- a great "throwaway" camera when paired with an inexpensive prime, in hazardous (for camera gear) environments).


I'm very happy owner of my 5D3 and because I am a hobbiest, I am not planning to upgrade and spend $3K


----------



## Mr Bean (Oct 23, 2016)

I'm still happy with the 5D3. The upgrade cost down here in Australia is around $5,000 so, as a hobby, I won't be upgrading just yet. In some respects, if I did buy another body, it would be along the lines of a high mp body such as the 5DR for landscape/macro work.


----------



## Maiaibing (Oct 23, 2016)

Never got the 5DIII myself but stuck with the 5DII (which turned out to be the perfect decision), so I can see why some may want to stay with the 5DIII.

However, the 5DIII sensor was barely better than the 5DII sensor - and sensor quality is what counts the most to me. Here the 5DIV offer much more of an upgrade over the 5DIII than the 5DIII ever did over the 5DII.

If I had a 5DIII I'd probably wait and see what the 6DII brings to the table (an even better sensor than the 5DIV just as the 6D sensor was somewhat better than the 5DIII?) as well as possibly the rumoured 5DS/R II upgrade (which i personally do not believe in however).


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 23, 2016)

I bought a 5DSR just before Christmas last year expecting that I would keep the 5D III as my generalist camera and simply use the 5DSR for studio/macro photography and anything else that needed higher resolution - but since I bought the 5DSR I found that I used the 5D III only a handful of times. Now my brother has the 5D III on long-term loan and I haven't really missed it.

I was very excited waiting for the 5D IV, and once it was announced I took a long, hard look at the specs and decided it wasn't the camera that I needed. 30mpx is a good resolution, nothing wrong with that, and the DPAF stuff looks great. But I really doubt that it would really offer enough of a difference to make it work having alongside my 5DSR (which I have no intention of parting with.)

So - after the 5D IV was announced I instead ordered the Sony A7R II - which I am very happy with as it gives me a completely different photographic tool to my 5DSR. The two complement each other far better than the 5DIV would have. 

Now, if the 5DIV had been fitted with the hybrid electronic/optical viewfinder which was long rumored I almost certainly would have gone for that instead.

I wish the EOS M5 had been available a month earlier as that, with the 18-150 lens, may have been "good enough" as a stop-gap for me to keep holding on for a Canon FF mirrorless camera. But I can't see that happening for a while now, unless Canon decide to replace the 6D with a mirrorless FF (although I can imagine a lot of people will hate that idea.)


----------



## rpiotr01 (Oct 23, 2016)

Since I bought the 5DIII I've gradually moved almost exclusively to MF lenses, so with that in mind I'm waiting to see what the 6DII (with replaceable focus screens) offers. 

I have not reviewed new sensor stress tests since 2012 when I bought the Mark III (can't say Ive missed it  ), and I know the sensor itself wasn't a huge upgrade over the Mark II - is the Mark IV much better than the III?


----------



## meywd (Oct 23, 2016)

Would love to get the 5DIV, but my 5D3 is still in its prime and no budget for the upgrade, plus there are so many lenses that I want, 100-400 II, 35mm f/1.4 II, 85mm 1.2, 100mm f/2.8L IS.


----------



## SteveM (Oct 23, 2016)

No, and I won't be replacing my mklll's. The mkll to Mklll was a big upgrade; 3-6 fps; state of the art AF system with 61 pts with 41 cross type - up from the very basic system the mkll inherited from the 5D (9 pts and 1 cross type); high ISO up by 2/3 of stop if not slightly more; and much improved weather sealing.
With the MklV fps goes up from 6 to 7 .....no comment. No improvement on high ISO that I can see - looks better at first glance but the fine detail looks smudged on the reviews I've seen; 22.3 to 30 MP bump....ok, but if I need more mp I would buy a 5DR; HDR increase, good, but over the last 5 yrs, coupling the Mklll with photoshop, I don't really have an HDR problem. So what would £3600 give me?
So, in my opinion Canon made a mistake with the Mklll - they made it too good. I'll upgrade when my clients complain about the image quality, certainly not from pixel peeping at 100% crops. 
If there were a better general purpose/ low light camera out there, from Nikon, Sony, I'd buy it.....but there isn't in my opinion.
I was saving my money for the new 24-105, but that looks to have bombed. I hope later reviews are better. This is a lens that, despite it being half the price of any of my other L series lenses, rarely leaves the Mklll it is attached to.


----------



## JoeDavid (Oct 23, 2016)

I find myself with a 5D3, 5D4, and 5DS since I haven't sold off the 5D3 yet. Here's an unscientific, real world test of the three bodies. I took them out and shot a scene with the same 24-70/2.8L II lens at f8 and approximately 45mm. I used the live view histogram to set the exposure with each camera to make sure the highlights were just inside. I then used DPP to open each image setting the white balance to Cloudy, the Picture Style to Neutral, and then the Auto Gamma function to let Canon adjust the overall look of the image. Visually, on a 4K corrected monitor (DataColor Spyder) with the image scaled to fit, they looked identical except for a slight registration difference caused by mounting the different cameras onto the tripod. I then transferred all three to Photoshop where I cut out a 100% 900x600 shadow section and did a 100% Shadow and Highlight correction to the shadows. I also had Costco print all three originals at 20x30". You have to examine them very close to find a difference in the prints. I could see a slight resolution advantage in the 5DS image but not a great amount at that print size (might have something to do with their print process). Anyway, here's the resulting comparison. BTW, I see uglier false color in the 5D3 and 5DS with a similar test using ACR which means that Canon must be looking for it and taking some measures to reduce it.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Oct 23, 2016)

JoeDavid said:


> I find myself with a 5D3, 5D4, and 5DS since I haven't sold off the 5D3 yet. Here's an unscientific, real world test of the three bodies. I took them out and shot a scene with the same 24-70/2.8L II lens at f8 and approximately 45mm. I used the live view histogram to set the exposure with each camera to make sure the highlights were just inside. I then used DPP to open each image setting the white balance to Cloudy, the Picture Style to Neutral, and then the Auto Gamma function to let Canon adjust the overall look of the image. Visually, on a 4K corrected monitor (DataColor Spyder) with the image scaled to fit, they looked identical except for a slight registration difference caused by mounting the different cameras onto the tripod. I then transferred all three to Photoshop where I cut out a 100% 900x600 shadow section and did a 100% Shadow and Highlight correction to the shadows. I also had Costco print all three originals at 20x30". You have to examine them very close to find a difference in the prints. I could see a slight resolution advantage in the 5DS image but not a great amount at that print size (might have something to do with their print process). Anyway, here's the resulting comparison. BTW, I see uglier false color in the 5D3 and 5DS with a similar test using ACR which means that Canon must be looking for it and taking some measures to reduce it.



Thanks for the work here JoeDavid. 
I have the 5D IV and 5DS. Sold my 5D III.
The 5DS is still king for big prints when using low ISO's. I assume your shots were around ISO 100.
I see a noticeable improvement in the 5D IV when working shadow detail and in your sample, I see lower noise in your shadows in the 5D IV.
When it all boils down, it really depends on editing skills and the viewing distance of the print. Like you said,
the enlargements were hard to tell apart.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Oct 23, 2016)

I'm planning to keep using my 5D3 for at least two or three more years. These cameras have a very long life span if not abused. If it does get damaged beyond reasonable repair, I would probably pick up a refurbished 5D3 rather than a new 5D4. Hopefully it will last until the Mark 5 comes out. Maybe by then the improvement in dynamic range and high-ISO performance will be enough for me to upgrade.

I thought about picking up another 5D3 as a backup, but I prefer a Rebel body as a backup due to the smaller size and weight. I'm actually more excited to see which sensor shows up in the next Rebel body than I am about the 5D4.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 23, 2016)

drmikeinpdx said:


> ...I thought about picking up another 5D3 as a backup, but I prefer a Rebel body as a backup due to the smaller size and weight. I'm actually more excited to see which sensor shows up in the next Rebel body than I am about the 5D4.


Heresy! ???
How dare you to consider the Rebel cameras to be worthy of good pictures? 
You do not know that only full frame cameras with the latest technology are able to make good pictures? :-X

I also wish a Rebel with 80D sensor... :


----------



## Maiaibing (Oct 27, 2016)

JoeDavid said:


> I find myself with a 5D3, 5D4, and 5DS since I haven't sold off the 5D3 yet. Here's an unscientific, real world test of the three bodies. I took them out and shot a scene with the same 24-70/2.8L II lens at f8 and approximately 45mm. I used the live view histogram to set the exposure with each camera to make sure the highlights were just inside. I then used DPP to open each image setting the white balance to Cloudy, the Picture Style to Neutral, and then the Auto Gamma function to let Canon adjust the overall look of the image. Visually, on a 4K corrected monitor (DataColor Spyder) with the image scaled to fit, they looked identical except for a slight registration difference caused by mounting the different cameras onto the tripod. I then transferred all three to Photoshop where I cut out a 100% 900x600 shadow section and did a 100% Shadow and Highlight correction to the shadows. I also had Costco print all three originals at 20x30". You have to examine them very close to find a difference in the prints. I could see a slight resolution advantage in the 5DS image but not a great amount at that print size (might have something to do with their print process). Anyway, here's the resulting comparison. BTW, I see uglier false color in the 5D3 and 5DS with a similar test using ACR which means that Canon must be looking for it and taking some measures to reduce it.



Very useful samples.

I generally feel the colors of the 5DS/R (and 5DIV) are somewhat improved from the 5DII/5DIII. That's however not very obvious in your samples. 

I note that you used DPP - which normally works well (I'm consistently weary of Adobe's profiles for the 5DS/R). I use a custom color profile that I built myself for my own 5DS/R processing which may be important for my improved color results. There is no doubt my color profiles are better than DPP, however, I'm sure you can process DPP files in RAW to practically match my custom profiles.

I recently took the 5DIV for a test run. Its a great photographic tool for stills. Reliable and familiar. Have not had time to work through the few thousand shots yet. Also, time did not allow me to use it together with the 5DS/R (or the 5DIII) as you did here. 

For my own test run I find it very difficult to see any differences in the 5DIV colors compared to the 5DS/R.

The AF is better on the 5DIV than the 5DS/R - but marginally so. My take is that the difference between the 5DIV and the 5DS/R AF is less than the 5DS/R and 5DIII (as we should expect). Low light AF is still the biggest difference between the 5DS/R/5DIV models and 5DIII for my use. Interestingly I found that the smallest focus point works better on the 5DS/R than the 5DIV - and I stopped using it with the 5DIV after a while. And the 5DIV single focus point works well enough anyway.

The "expanded" AF area was a disappointment to me. I was suspicious when I saw the viewfinder-overlay in advance and in real life use this was confirmed. Shooting style and motives may make it more helpful for others. I would surely welcome a significant increase in Canon's AF spread one day.

On resolution (very important to me) the 30 MPIX of the 5DIV certainly helps a lot compared to the 5DIII. But its still somewhat less than the 5DS/R and makes the 5DIV less attractive as a back-up at the current price point. If I was using a 5DIII I would probably upgrade just for the improved sensor. Its a bigger jump from the 5DIII to 5DIV than the 5DII to the 5DIII. 

Final note: I thought I set the GPS - but there's nothing to prove it on my RAW files even if the GPS signal was blinking on the 5DIV...  Of course user error cannot be excluded


----------



## Act444 (Oct 27, 2016)

I think blinking GPS means it's trying to find a signal. Solid GPS means it's locked on and stamping data. Worked nicely for an outdoor festival, but not so much for an indoor signing...


----------



## bholliman (Oct 27, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> ...I'm consistently weary of Adobe's profiles for the 5DS/R...



_Off topic_

Adobe LR CC now has a Standard v2 color profile for the 5Ds(R) which is a huge improvement over the crushed shadows of Standard v1. Still not quite up to DPP or custom profiles however.


----------



## davidmurray (Oct 28, 2016)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I'm planning to keep using my 5D3 for at least two or three more years. These cameras have a very long life span if not abused.
> [snip]
> Hopefully it will last until the Mark 5 comes out. Maybe by then the improvement in dynamic range and high-ISO performance will be enough for me to upgrade.



+1


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 28, 2016)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > Another completely satisfied 5DIII owner here. In fact, I have a notification set up on canonpricewatch.com to get a message if/when new III's become available below $2K from an authorized dealer.
> ...



For me, I wanted a IV for a trip. It was important that I get the best images (I'm not a pro). I had a 5D II and 5DIII. Long story short, the 1DXII came out in time, so I got it. I too all 3 bodies on the trip. Only problem is weight and bulk. Frankly two bodies were the main ones used, with the 1D ~ 90%.
Anyway, for me, I was intimidated by the 1D because of price and because I felt like a fraud! I found the 1DX easy to upgrade to, don't notice weight or size. 
If the 5DIV came out first, I would have gotten it. In retrospect, that would not have been a good choice, as I am "growing into the camera" .
Sorry for rambling.
Scott


----------



## ashmadux (Oct 28, 2016)

Baba_HT said:


> Am I the only one still Mk3 user? All I see on here now are threads regarding the Mk4.
> To me the MK 3 is still an amazing camera. Maybe cause the 4k in the Mk4 sucks and I am not too fussy about touch screen. But that's me been me I guess.
> 
> I am very much still in love with my Mk3. I never leave home without her. ;D



What does "most" mean?

Anywho, you can try prying my 5d3 from my cold dead hands.

PS- 5d4 FEEEELS fantastic in the hands. Definitely an upgrade...but, for later later


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 28, 2016)

From a slightly different angle I was considering the 5D MKIV to replace my 6D and compliment my 5DS. Price not specification has put me off for now I cannot justify £ 3600 that it costs in the UK (after paying £ 2800 for the 5DS in 2015 & £ 1800 for the 100-400 L lens). 

The colors I feel from the 5DS are an improvement over the 5D MKIII and the 6D and the resolution boost definitely is noticeable. The 5D MIV is a nice camera (we have one now at work), with IQ improvements over the MKIII and similar improved features that showed up in the 5DS and is definitely better in low light but I go back to the huge price bump from the MKIII.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> ...but I go back to the huge price bump from the MKIII.



What is the at-launch price difference? In the US, the 5DIII and 5DIV launched at the same price (US$3499). Obviously, there's a significant difference if you compare the price of both at the time of the 5DIV launch, but the price of a four year old camera is not exactly an apples to apples comparison.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 28, 2016)

Every new camera seems to drop in price when you consider inflation. Prices are not rising on new models (yet) to keep up with inflation or the higher value of the Yen.

I'm still waiting for prices to drop, but strongly considering adding a M5 as a second camera to my 5D MK III and selling my G1X II which has been good, but seems to struggle with getting even colors across the frame in poor light. This seems to happen more as sensors get smaller, my 5D MK III does much better when used side by side. I'
I've noticed the issue but never actually tried to do any definitive tests, and probably won't.

If a full frame replacement compact P&S comes out, it could easily replace my G1X as well.


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (Oct 29, 2016)

Dear friends,
from what i've seen in the reviews until now, i think i'm definitely not giving up my 5D3s for mk4! Especially when taking photos like this, became a piece of cake through practicing...i'll think about 1Dx Mk2.

Here's the link at flickr for those thinking to ditch their Mk3s in favor of Mk4...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/30012638204/in/dateposted-public/


----------



## Click (Oct 29, 2016)

Great shot, Yiannis.


----------



## fon-foto (Dec 3, 2016)

Well you'll be pleased to know, I've finally decided to upgrade... from my mark ii to a mark iii... I got a great deal and can't wait for my delivery early next week!


----------



## CowGummy (Dec 3, 2016)

Still happily shooting with a MkII myself.
That being said, the IV does look appealing after skipping a generation.


----------



## gwflauto (Dec 3, 2016)

I am very happy with my 5D Mk IV since September. I have seen lots of them in the last few days.


----------



## slclick (Dec 4, 2016)

My 3 works great so theres no reason to replace it.


----------



## ooF Fighters (Dec 4, 2016)

I just upgraded from the 5DIII to the 5DIV a week ago. No issue with the old body, but it was stolen out of my rental car & I was well insured, so I upgraded and I love it. 
Would I have bought the new body outright?? No. Not without a tilt screen. My neck, back and knees aint what they used to be!


----------



## Zeidora (Dec 4, 2016)

CowGummy said:


> Still happily shooting with a MkII myself.
> That being said, the IV does look appealing after skipping a generation.



My first dSLR was the 5D2 (just converted to full spectrum), skipped 5D3, was eager to pick up a 5DsR, see no reason for a 5D4. Will wait to see whether a 5DsR2 is coming out, may pick that up, if it has features I want (GPS, easier focusing screen change).


----------



## scyrene (Dec 4, 2016)

I must admit I've taken no more than a handful of shots with my 5D3 since I got the 5Ds. I imagine I'd be the same with the mark IV - not that the 5D3 isn't still awesome, just I don't want to carry two cameras at once.

I would sell it, but it's pretty beaten up.


----------



## dpc (Dec 4, 2016)

Still with the 5DMII with no need to upgrade...


----------



## SteveM (Dec 5, 2016)

I have 2 mklll's, and as cameras are so good now I see little reason to upgrade unless I am specialising. The Mklll is a very very good general purpose camera, it does everything quite well. Were I looking to buy a new body, it would be to specialise, the small increase from a lll to a lV isn't worth it for me. Were I heavily into sport, I'd buy the 1DX mkll; were I heavily into landscapes, I'd buy the 5Ds; always keeping the Mklll as a walkabout camera.
I want something tangible to upgrade; super AF system and high frame rate for sport on the 1DX mkll, high MP for landscape with the 5Ds; if I can't tell the difference between 2 A3 prints, one with the Mklll and one the MklV....why would I upgrade to the MklV?
What I'm saying is, if you really need a better AF performance and higher frame rate than the Mklll, buy the 1DX mkll. If you need the high MP, do it in style with the 5Ds.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 5, 2016)

Autofocus improvement is HUGE with the 5DIV. Just incredible, especially for action! So, for somebody who gave up MF long ago, wow, very, very glad I got the 5DIV.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 5, 2016)

I lost my 5DIII to the wild Atlantic Ocean so I was forced into the 5DIV.
My first imoressions is that it's no great improvement over the 5DIII.
Shadow recovery is slightly better. I don't find the focusing system much better. 
Image quality is more or less the same. 
The 5DIII I still believe is a great camera. Well worth buying if you are upgrading to full frame on a tight budget 
The 5DIV is an incremental improvement.
There is no new wow with it. It's just slightly better.
I think myself a fully flippy screen would have been a major addition if they had added it.

As cameras both are good.
The 5D3 is probably better value for money


----------



## scyrene (Dec 5, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> The 5D3 is probably better value for money



A brand new camera is worse value for money than one that's been out over four years? Who would ever have thought!


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 5, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> The 5D3 is probably better value for money



Understatement of the century. 

Cameras can only make (generally) small advancements over time with current tech at this point, i.e. the days of 'it's 2 full stops better at high ISO' are clearly over. So the value proposition of a new rig is 'what glaring deficiencies in the last model have been corrected' or 'what new features were added that are gamechangers'.

From the 5D2 to 5D3, you got a world class AF upgrade (#1 reason to choose the 5D3 over the 5D2), two card slots, some fluffy in-camera HDR / dual exposure modes, some thoughtful video stuff (headphone jack) and a _slightly_ better sensor (high ISO was better, but not dramatically so). +1 fps, larger buffer, etc. as well. But by any measure other than sensor quality, it was a comprehensive upgrade.

But the reason people jumped out of their seats for it was you could get a near 1D level AF experience at a 5D price point. It was, to many forms of photography, a flagship camera south of $7000. That was its biggest selling point, and it sold well.

Now from the 5D3 to 5D4, the problem lies in the fact that the 5D3 had only one clear 'weakness' (I giggle that people can't get good results with that sensor, but yes, it is outperformed by competitors in testing). So the 5D4 has less problems to fix than with the glaring AF deficiencies of the 5D2. So the 5D4 improvement/gamechanger is the sensor this time (and, for some, 4K) -- more resolution and on-chip ADC for more latitude with your files. If you shoot through the viewfinder, DPAF doesn't do anything for you. So the rest of the value proposition comes in predictable though important upgrades (VF layout, Wifi, GPS, anti-flicker mode, touch screen) or clever but lesser things (touch screen AF point selection, DP RAW).

Also consider that the FF lineup is much more crowded now, so it's harder for the 5D4 to justify its existence in the light of quality of the 6D brand (which has many folks waiting-and-seeing for what the 6D2 brings to the table before buying a 5D4) and great resolving power of the 5DS rigs.

So I think the 5D4 was one key feature away from being a blockbuster. Either give it the processing bandwidth of a 5DS and give it 9 fps or so, or give it a tilty-flippy screen. Both of those unlock some sexy 'new' into the brand in a way that (I think) would have a lot more people getting in on day one rather than waiting for what the 6D2 might bring.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ...
> So I think the 5D4 was one key feature away from being a blockbuster. Either give it the processing bandwidth of a 5DS and give it 9 fps or so, or give it a tilty-flippy screen. Both of those unlock some sexy 'new' into the brand in a way that (I think) would have a lot more people getting in on day one rather than waiting for what the 6D2 might bring.
> ...



For me it would have been "Eye Control Autofocus v2.0". A massive USP feature no other manufacturer ever matched or could quickly match. No idea, why Canon does not pull it out of its bag. STUPID! 


PS: fully articulated LCD - not only flip-flop - should have been included without even thinking about it. It's a glaring omission. Now the CDL will likely respond that it is "prone to break off" and much more importantly that "it might hurt Canon's profits" in some way or other ... and we customers should never let that happen ... yada yada yada ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> PS: fully articulated LCD - not only flip-flop - should have been included without even thinking about it. It's a glaring omission. Now the CDL will likely respond that it is "prone to break off" and much more importantly that "it might hurt Canon's profits" in some way or other ... and we customers should never let that happen ... yada yada yada ;D



Even card carrying members of the CDL like me would readily admit that not offering either an articulating screen was a miss. They should have offered it or offered a full blown second SKU variant of the 5D4 -- one with a rigid screen, one with articulating -- so people could choose. If you can get a 2nd camera body built and marketed for things like...


Standard sensor vs. astro sensor
AA filter / no AA filter
Memory card A vs. Memory card B

...then you can offer a camera body with both options for the LCD. It's 2016 -- they can find a way to give the field a better answer than: (a) try Nikon or Sony, (b) try a much lower price point product that has a tilty screen or (c) cross your fingers again in 4 years when we refresh this line.

- A


----------



## tron (Dec 6, 2016)

The only things that I find missing is just a notch better IQ in shadows and even better high iso performance as well as a bigger buffer. Nothing else! Well in 5 years... ;D


----------



## scyrene (Dec 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > PS: fully articulated LCD - not only flip-flop - should have been included without even thinking about it. It's a glaring omission. Now the CDL will likely respond that it is "prone to break off" and much more importantly that "it might hurt Canon's profits" in some way or other ... and we customers should never let that happen ... yada yada yada ;D
> ...



I'm gonna be picky and suggest that, only if enough people wanted it that the extra cost (whatever that may be, it's surely more than a fixed screen) was exceeded by the extra sales it generated, would it be a no-brainer (two lines or one).

And if that makes me a member of the CDL, then entry rules are pretty relaxed.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2016)

of course you are one of the key CDL members, scyrene. I know all of you.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D3 is probably better value for money
> ...



I think the 6DII's biggest rival will be a S/H 5DIII. So Canon need to raid the sales of the S/H 5DIII market by launching a similar product but lighter and cheaper to nuke the 5DIII's S/H sales. So my prediction, the 6DII will have very similar specs to the 5DIII with maybe one added feature (like a flippy screen) and a 6D price point.


----------



## tron (Dec 6, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...


6DII will have a much better sensor than 5DIII. Even the 6D has a better sensor than 5DIII...


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 6, 2016)

tron said:


> 6DII will have a much better sensor than 5DIII. Even the 6D has a better sensor than 5DIII...



Maybe (although resolution is lower). But the key winning factor of the 5DIII over the 6D is the focusing. We can hope that the 6D II will match the 5D III in this regard.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think the 6DII's biggest rival will be a S/H 5DIII. So Canon need to raid the sales of the S/H 5DIII market by launching a similar product but lighter and cheaper to nuke the 5DIII's S/H sales. So my prediction, the 6DII will have very similar specs to the 5DIII with maybe one added feature (like a flippy screen) and a 6D price point.



My guess:

Where I agree with you: (Roughly) the same resolution and fps, both probably getting a 1/8000 max shutter and similar sync speed. 

Where the 6D2 will outperform the 5D3: Better sensor DR-wise (on chip ADC), Tilty-flippy, DPAF, anti-flicker, WiFi, GPS

Where the 5D3 will outperform the 6D2: AF for sure, build quality, and they may not give the 6D2 dual cards.

But I fully expect the 'newness' and punchy feature-set to see the 6D2 steamroll the 5D3 for even second-hand sales. The 6D2 advantages list above is in sexy areas people care about.

- A


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D3 is probably better value for money
> ...



No. According to Canon, 5DIII users had three key complaints regarding the 5DIII: lack of MPIX, DR and the need for better AF. All three were therefore (successfully) targeted for improvement in the 5DIV development.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 6, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I think the 6DII's biggest rival will be a S/H 5DIII. So Canon need to raid the sales of the S/H 5DIII market by launching a similar product but lighter and cheaper to nuke the 5DIII's S/H sales. So my prediction, the 6DII will have very similar specs to the 5DIII with maybe one added feature (like a flippy screen) and a 6D price point.



6D sensor is better than the 5DIII sensor. 6DII will hopefully also be better than the 5DIV sensor - and if so presumably blow the 5DIII sensor out of the water.

Even today I'd have to have a specific need to pick up a 5DIII before going with (just) a 6D.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> No. According to Canon, 5DIII users had three key complaints regarding the 5DIII: lack of MPIX, DR and the need for better AF. All three were therefore (successfully) targeted for improvement in the 5DIV development.



Better _LiveView AF_, certainly, but I'm sorry, anyone bashing the 5D3 main AF setup...

(a) Has forgotten what an interstellar jump the 5D2 --> 5D3 was on that front.

(b) Apparently thought the 1DX AF setup on every sports sideline also had problems. The two AF setups are nearly identical.

The 5D3 had nearly the best AF on the planet until the 1DX2 arrived, so I _welcome_ the +5% better AF hit-rate study that shows the 5D4 made great strides here. (Ain't happening.)

I think the 5D4 main AF setup addressed more niche needs like broader teleconverter support for wildlifers and better 'events in dark rooms' AF locking (-3 EV, -4 EV). Those are wonderful adds, don't get me wrong, but the idea that the 5D3 AF was regularly swinging and missing in general use is farcical. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> 6D sensor is better than the 5DIII sensor. 6DII will hopefully also be better than the 5DIV sensor - and if so presumably blow the 5DIII sensor out of the water.
> 
> Even today I'd have to have a specific need to pick up a 5DIII before going with (just) a 6D.



Regarding your first point: see screenshot below. Sensors don't get dramatically better anymore. Forget aggregate scores and look at what these metrics mean -- the ass-kicking 5D4 sensor only gathers high ISO a fraction of a stop better than a 5D3, and the DR improvement (which is nice, sure) isn't going let you leave your ND grads or tripod at home for high contrast scenes. These are small improvements only, but if they matter to you, the camera industry thanks you for your frequent capital expenditures.

Regarding your second point: That 'specific need' just might include shooting at 1/8000s, shooting at 33% faster burst, hitting a moving target, AF points in places other than where a Rebel can cover, a second card slot, much tougher build quality, video without moire, etc.

The notion that the 6D eeks out a slightly better sensor score means leaving a far far far better camera at home is insanity to me. Unless you need WiFi/GPS or are shooting in a dark room (for the 6D's -3 EV center point), I'm taking the 5D3 every single time.

- A


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > 6D sensor is better than the 5DIII sensor. 6DII will hopefully also be better than the 5DIV sensor - and if so presumably blow the 5DIII sensor out of the water.
> ...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 6, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 6, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D3 is probably better value for money
> ...


Any person thinking of upgrading from an APS-C camera or a 6D might be balancing between a 5DIII and a 5DIV.
When the 5DIII came out it was worth the premium price over the 5DII as it corrected a number of issues.
The 5DIV is just an incremental improvement that is no great leap forward in terms of getting better photographs out of a camera. I was just trying to be helpful to people who might be in that position.
I would think that its a smart enough decision to go with a 5DIII as its still a good camera and good value for money.
Unfortunately there are people like you on this site who's only contribution is sarcasm which is the lowest form of wit.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> No one would choose a 6D over a 5DIII for the slight iso noise improvement over the slightly reduced MP count on the 6D....or the slightly better in very low light single AF point or the slightly better shadow DR. The only reason some one chooses a 6D (and it's a great camera) is because it's cheaper than a 5DIII and it's in their price bracket.
> The center AF point is only better in very low light. The 5DIII's vertical center array of AF sensors are equal the the single center AF point on the 6D in every other measurable metric. The 6D is certainly not faster or more accurate in it's AF.



Agree. You'd think sanity would prevail, but Maiaibing's not alone in owning both cameras and preferring the 6D -- there are others on the forum who have said the same (principally lower-AF-intensive needs like landscapers and astro folks from what I recall). 

It shocks me that someone would own both and prefer the 6D, but some folks buy a lot of gear and have nutty priorities. To each their own, of course.

- A


----------



## Eldar (Dec 6, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...


Here in Norway you can get a new 5DIII about $1.500 cheaper than the (now reduced) price for a 5DIV. For the average photographer, I would agree with Hector, that a 5DIII is better value for money. If you are willing to get a mint condition second hand 5DIII, you will be below half price of a 5DIV.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > No one would choose a 6D over a 5DIII for the slight iso noise improvement over the slightly reduced MP count on the 6D....or the slightly better in very low light single AF point or the slightly better shadow DR. The only reason some one chooses a 6D (and it's a great camera) is because it's cheaper than a 5DIII and it's in their price bracket.
> ...


The 6D supports interchangeable focusing screens. Big plus for Zeissoholics!


----------



## AlanF (Dec 6, 2016)

Eldar said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



"Better value" depends on for what you use it. The old Mk III is still a very good camera and for many people it still makes an excellent buy. But, for me, the ability to focus with all points at f/8 and the better focus in general has transformed my keeper rate for BIF with my f/8 lenses and so the Mk IV is much better value.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

Eldar said:


> The 6D supports interchangeable focusing screens. Big plus for Zeissoholics!



Fair point. I won't touch manual focusing lenses on my 5D3 without a focusing screen unless it's on a tripod with Liveview, so I'd love MF screen functionality.

But aren't manual focusing screens getting relegated to 1D level only? Did the 5D4 or 5DS rigs get them? Are we still going to see them in the 6D2?

- A


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Dec 6, 2016)

LOVING MY 5D4 since sept/oct my iamges from my 5d3 too 5d4 are not 1 and 1a
still good for my needs just having better 1080p video and stm/dpaf for stills and video is great too hae anlong with lower noise at all iso's

been great for sports/action and fashion for me


9H6A3494-1 by Big Ant TV Media LLC, on Flickr



9H6A3434-1 by Big Ant TV Media LLC, on Flickr


----------



## Eldar (Dec 6, 2016)

AlanF said:


> "Better value" depends on for what you use it. The old Mk III is still a very good camera and for many people it still makes an excellent buy. But, for me, the ability to focus with all points at f/8 and the better focus in general has transformed my keeper rate for BIF with my f/8 lenses and so the Mk IV is much better value.


I agree, that´s why I included an "average user". If you´re into f/8.0 territory, BIF and other things that move fast, want more dynamic range and better high ISO noise performance, it is clear that the 5DIV is a better camera (that´s why I decided to get one), but it comes with a cost penalty.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > The 6D supports interchangeable focusing screens. Big plus for Zeissoholics!
> ...



The 6D got interchangable screens because it's based on a 5DII mirror box and shutter. The idea from Canon was to raid the S/H sales of the 5DII by launching the 6D, which was basically a 5DII in new frock...sure it was a new sensor...but there is a lot of the spec and components which are straight from a 5DII. 
Going back to my earlier point...the 6DII will probably be a re-worked 5DIII to raid the S/h sales of the 5DIII. Canon doesn't make any money on S/H cameras. So it's pretty smart of them to nuke the S/H sales of the old camera by making the new 2nd tier camera pretty much the same. 

I never saw the point of a 6D myself....but then again, I'm still using a 5DII every now and again. While my main cameras are a pair of 5DIII's.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...




Uh huh. Feel free to check around for my contributions : Sometimes, however, sarcasm is warranted. When someone states the obvious like it's some amazing discovery, for instance.

I happen to agree the 5D3 would be a step up for those upgraders you mentioned, mostly. As for the 5D4 being 'only incremental', well isn't that what lots of people say/said about the 5D3? Newsflash: mark II, III, IV of a product will always be an incremental upgrade. And overall, as others have said, the rate of change is slowing. DSLRs are a mature technology. Until and unless something radical is developed, all future iterations will be incremental. That doesn't make them bad, or even bad value (but that entirely depends on one's means and perspective).


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 7, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


----------



## justaCanonuser (Dec 7, 2016)

Baba_HT said:


> Am I the only one still Mk3 user? All I see on here now are threads regarding the Mk4.
> To me the MK 3 is still an amazing camera. Maybe cause the 4k in the Mk4 sucks and I am not too fussy about touch screen. But that's me been me I guess.
> 
> I am very much still in love with my Mk3. I never leave home without her. ;D



I am another happy 5D3 user, love to lug it around, hope my copy with 120.000 actuations so far will still do for a while. This camera really proved to be a totally reliable workhorse, in particular in rugged environments when shooting wildlife, but also in available light photog, street, portrait, etc. It still is a great allrounder. Besides some weaknesses like color banding in pulled shadows, non-competitive DR at low ISOs and a mediocre metering system, the 5D3 is capable of producing very good images, with great colors just out of the camera (try that with a Nikon, we have an extended Nikon gear so I know what I am talking about). Its AF system still is gorgeous, with my EF 85mm f/1.2 it opened up shooting even slow action wide open! 

Plus, 20-24 MP is a golden rule for 35 mm sensors IMO, good enough for fine A3 prints, nice crisp per-pixel-sharpness, robust against micro-movements of vivid objects, you can shoot landscapes at f >= 10 like in the old analogue times without caring too much about diffraction softening (and getting big files with not so great optical information). I know all downsides of smaller pixels from my 7D/ 7D II just too well.

If Canon would have kept the Mk IV at 24 MP, I'd loved to upgrade. 30 MP already makes my frowning. Obviously there was too much pressure by all those megapixel fetishists on Canon. I don't understand why they resigned to this pressure, since they already offer the 5DS/R as record setting MP beasts to those people. Personally, if I'd need more MP, I'd go for mid format cameras with bigger sensors - or film. Actually, I grab my beloved New Mamiya 6 and shoot fine grained film. You can get very good analogue MF cameras and lenses for a fraction of the price of a 5D IV or 5DS/R.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 8, 2016)

justaCanonuser said:


> Plus, 20-24 MP is a golden rule for 35 mm sensors IMO, good enough for fine A3 prints, nice crisp per-pixel-sharpness, robust against micro-movements of vivid objects, you can shoot landscapes at f >= 10 like in the old analogue times without caring too much about diffraction softening (and getting big files with not so great optical information). I know all downsides of smaller pixels from my 7D/ 7D II just too well.



It bears repeating because this appears to be a widely-held misconception: if your output/viewing size is fixed, an increase in resolution will *NOT* increase the effects of diffraction. If you shoot at 20MP and 50MP, same format, lens, settings etc, and output to e.g. A3, diffraction (and camera shake etc) will be *identical*. It is only a *potential* problem viewing 100%, crop more on the higher res file, or if you output the higher res file to a larger size.

Increased file size is a completely legitimate concern with higher resolution sensors, however.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 9, 2016)

scyrene said:


> justaCanonuser said:
> 
> 
> > Plus, 20-24 MP is a golden rule for 35 mm sensors IMO, good enough for fine A3 prints, nice crisp per-pixel-sharpness, robust against micro-movements of vivid objects, you can shoot landscapes at f >= 10 like in the old analogue times without caring too much about diffraction softening (and getting big files with not so great optical information). I know all downsides of smaller pixels from my 7D/ 7D II just too well.
> ...


All agreed however sticking to the A3 print size because that's what I do the level of detail from that 50MP camera as opposed to the 20MP is very noticeable. Shooting with a 6D & 5DS and identical set-ups thats the main reason I would chose the 5DS over the 6D.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Dec 9, 2016)

I've been making some 16x24 inch prints, comparing prints from my SL1 and 5D3. I kind of cringed at making sizes larger than 16x24 with my rebel. Though the SL1 is a snappy camera, the 5D3 is winning in many ways. I am not so much a pixel peeper as wanting more details in large prints. The 5D3 may be a few years old now, but its still a great camera for me. 

In the future, I could see myself owning two bodies.. one to make high quality/detailed prints and one for the everyday shooting/web posts. Who knows, by then, it'll be a 80+MP canon.


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 9, 2016)

cellomaster27 said:


> I've been making some 16x24 inch prints, comparing prints from my SL1 and 5D3. I kind of cringed at making sizes larger than 16x24 with my rebel. Though the SL1 is a snappy camera, the 5D3 is winning in many ways. I am not so much a pixel peeper as wanting more details in large prints. The 5D3 may be a few years old now, but its still a great camera for me.
> 
> In the future, I could see myself owning two bodies.. one to make high quality/detailed prints and one for the everyday shooting/web posts. Who knows, by then, it'll be a 80+MP canon.



That's awesome =) This time last year, a client came in and we did a photoshoot in which he ended up buying 12 20x30 prints from us... it was a very good Christmas for us last year =) It took a little upsizing in PS, but prints came out great! I would love to jump to the mk4, but I think as far as a business goes, that wont happen until either the mk4 drops in price or my mk3 and or backup cam takes a dump on me... then I will have no other choice =)


----------



## atlcroc (Dec 13, 2016)

I switched to the 5 D Mark IV from the 5 D Mark III recently. After ordering the new camera, I took many test shots with both cameras and since my main interest was to improve sharpness, I took the leap. I could see a noticeable difference when using a tripod and same settings and just swapping out bodies. I also had purchased the 70 d for the auto focus in video and so by selling my Mark IV and 70 D was able to cut down on my upgrade costs. Now plodding through the manual, have found something that might make a big difference in others' decisions if I understand this correctly. Buried in the settings is an in camera Digital Lens Optimizer that can be applied to raw files. The manual states that it corrects "the deterioration of resolution caused by the low pass filter." It will slow down continuous shooting, but does this feature basically offer the option people were looking for of having a body without the low pass filter? I think this feature might be worth its own topic, but since I still don't have enough posts, have to add it here.


----------



## atlcroc (Dec 13, 2016)

Never mind last post. Just read Ken Rockwell's review and he says this feature locks up the camera for about 3 seconds and therefore is not worth it.


----------



## Jayjohnson541 (Dec 18, 2016)

Great Camera!!!


----------



## justaCanonuser (Dec 22, 2016)

scyrene said:


> It bears repeating because this appears to be a widely-held misconception: if your output/viewing size is fixed, an increase in resolution will *NOT* increase the effects of diffraction. If you shoot at 20MP and 50MP, same format, lens, settings etc, and output to e.g. A3, diffraction (and camera shake etc) will be *identical*. It is only a *potential* problem viewing 100%, crop more on the higher res file, or if you output the higher res file to a larger size.
> 
> Increased file size is a completely legitimate concern with higher resolution sensors, however.



I know what you mean, I studied physics and it's therefore pretty sure that I just by training know more about optics than you (sorry, I don't want to be arrogant). But I do not want to talk about wave optics & diffraction basics, Airy discs, and pixel sizes. I made my statement just from the perspective of real life usability, from a non-studio photographer's perspective. A 22-24 MP 35 mm sensor is for many settings the best choice because you simply don't have to make up your mind about diffraction, micro movements etc. that quickly degrade the real optical information you get out of your high MP beast with such a small sensor, if the setting isn't optimum (optimum means studio with big flash system delivering a lot of light, or a tripod and a pretty static motif or long enough exposures). And the 5D series originally was intended by Canon to be reportage cameras, so they were designed for use in non-optimum settings. 

So it's simply about what 35 mm photography is made for, and when it gets too pimped IMO. If I need 50 MP I go for mid format, because then I can get non-crippled high resolution images even with closed apertures and large DOF. In fact I do this frequently with my Mamiya 6 system. 50 MP scans with a good film scanner (if I don't want chemical prints) from a fine grained film are pretty amazing, even at f > 10, simply because the 60 mm x 60 mm image area collects a lot of optical information without being too prone to diffraction softening. This size is about 4 times bigger than those tiny 35 mm images! It even dwarfs the new Hasselblad X1D's 50 MP sensor size (43.8 mm × 32.9 mm) that already makes much more sense in terms of photographic versatility than a 50 MP 35 mm sensor.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 22, 2016)

justaCanonuser said:


> And the 5D series originally was intended by Canon to be reportage cameras, so they were designed for use in non-optimum settings.


What a totally absurd claim. Please substantiate.


----------



## deleteme (Dec 22, 2016)

Baba_HT said:


> Am I the only one still Mk3 user? All I see on here now are threads regarding the Mk4.
> To me the MK 3 is still an amazing camera. Maybe cause the 4k in the Mk4 sucks and I am not too fussy about touch screen. But that's me been me I guess.
> 
> I am very much still in love with my Mk3. I never leave home without her. ;D



I still use my mk3s every day.

In my work I cannot justify ditching excellent gear with a good remaining service life for new gear that (in my work) offers invisible benefit to my clients. I shoot architecture and studio work with zero video.

The mk4 is a fine camera but when it comes time to replace old gear I am sure there will be options that will be even better.


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 22, 2016)

atlcroc said:


> I switched to the 5 D Mark IV from the 5 D Mark III recently. After ordering the new camera, I took many test shots with both cameras and since my main interest was to improve sharpness, I took the leap. I could see a noticeable difference when using a tripod and same settings and just swapping out bodies. I also had purchased the 70 d for the auto focus in video and so by selling my Mark IV and 70 D was able to cut down on my upgrade costs. Now plodding through the manual, have found something that might make a big difference in others' decisions if I understand this correctly. Buried in the settings is an in camera Digital Lens Optimizer that can be applied to raw files. The manual states that it corrects "the deterioration of resolution caused by the low pass filter." It will slow down continuous shooting, but does this feature basically offer the option people were looking for of having a body without the low pass filter? I think this feature might be worth its own topic, but since I still don't have enough posts, have to add it here.



Afaik, it is also only Applied if you Record JPEGs. If you shoot raw you can correct later on Computer...


----------



## scyrene (Dec 23, 2016)

justaCanonuser said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > It bears repeating because this appears to be a widely-held misconception: if your output/viewing size is fixed, an increase in resolution will *NOT* increase the effects of diffraction. If you shoot at 20MP and 50MP, same format, lens, settings etc, and output to e.g. A3, diffraction (and camera shake etc) will be *identical*. It is only a *potential* problem viewing 100%, crop more on the higher res file, or if you output the higher res file to a larger size.
> ...



You may well know more about physics than me; my comment stands. If you're saying that adding extra MP may not be of a practical benefit to a given user, in some circumstances, then that's another matter.

I don't think the 5Ds/R are 'crippled' (in almost every aspect their specifications equal the 5D3, and that camera is not 'crippled'). Clearly, medium format offers certain aspects of image quality that full frame doesn't, but everything is a compromise, and in this case that is price (and perhaps also things like frame rate and autofocus speed). I can't afford medium format, and even if I could, it doesn't offer the focal lengths that suit much of what I shoot.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 23, 2016)

Spock said:


> I have not forsaken the 5D2 yet.


Loved mine too. 

Jumped the 5DIII since it offered nothing in improved IQ. However, happy I got myself a 5DS/R. Having shot with all four my verdict is that the 5DS/R and 5DIV both are worthy upgrades from the 5DII/5DIII - with the single caveat that the 5DIV current high price counts against it.

Of course if the 5DII still delivers what you need, keeping it can't be beat...


----------



## Curmudgeon (Dec 24, 2016)

For people like me--primarily but not exclusively landscape shooters--it was the 5D3 that wasn't worth the upgrade price, because although autofocus and high-ISO performance were significantly upgraded, image quality was no better shooting relatively static subjects, and sensor-technology/dynamic range issues were not addressed. But I can see that for many types of photography you could say the same regarding the 5D3 vs. the 5D4. And I would imagine that for video shooters the crop 4K of the 5D4 is a step backward in many situations.
In short, for photographers doing other kinds of work the upgrades of the 5D4 over the 5D3 no doubt equally fail to justify the price tag.

But with the 5D4 I get the autofocus/high-ISO upgrades of the 5D3--with a couple of cherries on top--including the wider distribution and increased sensitivity of AF points. And I get the improved resolution and a two-stop bump in DR that often are useful in landscape work. For 5D2 holdouts like me, I can say with assurance that the cumulative improvements of the past eight years make the 5D4 an almost compulsory upgrade. I am constantly thrilled by the ergonomic refinements of the 5D4. (You can get used to the intuitive shortcuts provide by that touch screen in a New York minute.) And the improvements in image quality--especially under more trying conditions--are palpable as well. If you're at 5D2 and holding, trust me, the only questions about the 5D4 are budgetary.


----------



## Act444 (Dec 24, 2016)

Having shot with both cameras more extensively (as well as the 5DSR), the improvements of the 4 over the 3 are more "nice to have" than anything else. If I had even a slightly tighter budget I would have definitely skipped. The bump in resolution is nice as well, but thing is, if I REALLY want resolution, I'll pick up the R. 

I think for me, the most noticeable benefit has come from indoor available light shooting - in general the 5D4 files clean up just a bit better than the 3, reminding me more of the 6D I used to have prior. However, the 3 still has great output and I still make use of it from time to time. This is the R's biggest weakness by far. And I've seem to have done a LOT of this type of shooting lately...

Especially after testing the new M5 today inside the store, it's clear how much better the FF cameras are - even the older ones! - in handling indoor environments.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 24, 2016)

Act444 said:


> This is the R's biggest weakness by far.



What? High ISO? Certainly better than the 5DIII at that.


----------



## sherif (Dec 26, 2016)

moving from sony a7rii and will go for canon 5dmk IV


----------

