# Canon 6D or 5D Mark III



## pgsdeepak (Jan 29, 2013)

I know this question has been asked over and over in this forum. But thought of clarifying a couple of things. My apologies if my questions are redundant.
About me - I am a photography hobbyist. I own a EOS 40D, 17-40mm F4L, 100MM Macro Non L, 70-300mm IS Non L and 28-135mm Kit lens. My 40D is close to 5yrs and I have taken a lot of photos with it while I learned. Its still in excellent condition, But It might very well be hitting its shutter life limit soon. Thinking of an upgrade soon.

The plan was to get the 7D (or 7D Mark II or whatever the next version is if it comes sooner). Waiting for the next version based on rumors does not make a whole lot of sense I guess. Also buying the old 7D when it is already 3yrs since launch also does not seem like a good idea for me. Also I kind of changed my mind in favor of a FF Camera. I like taking landscape photos and interested in low light photography. I also like to take stop action kind of photos like flying humming birds etc. My 40D IQ dips big time in low light. From what I understood FF cameras fare better in low light as far as IQ is considered. 

I initially thought of getting the 6D. But the lack of CF cards, low FPS, and Auto Focus is making me debate whether I should invest 1K extra for the 5D mark III. I love the fast frame rate of my 40D , But the AF makes me wanting for more. But I am confused, do I really spend 3.5K (with the kit lens) for a hobby. With the available lenses I have, does 5D mIII makes even sense. But then this would be an investment I make for atleast another 5-6 yrs or as long as the camera works. I am currently in US, buying these cameras in India will cost significantly higher.

Or settle down for the 6D and get a 70-200MM F4L IS for extra 1000$ I save.

Some of my photos are in the below link, please check and let me know if I should consider going for FF and if FF, should I go for the 5D MIII?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/page2/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/page12/


----------



## greger (Jan 29, 2013)

Maybe wait and see what 7D ll offers you. My 40D which I liked, began giving me Error 99! Which told me to turn off the camera and re and re the battery. I went for the 7D on August 3rd 2012 because I thought firmware Vs 2 that was coming out would keep this camera up to date for some time to come. Plus I could use all my Lenses and Compact Flash Cards. I could get really good BIF pics with my 40D, 70-200 F4 IS USM and 1.4 extender @ 3 frames per sec. I have yet to get a good BIF pic on the 7D. I'm the problem. I keep setting the camera to the wrong settings. I have been toying with the 2x ll Extender with the 70-200 for still pics and find if I use the Detail tab in ACR by adjusting the sharpening to 100 Radius to 0.5 Detail to 25,Masking to 100 Noise Reduction Luminance to 75 Luminance Detail and Luminance Contrast to 100 Colour to 50 Colour Detail to 0, I get a usable pic that I am happy with and can adjust in layers, sharpen and print from PS CS5. I'm a Happy Camper! The 7D Mark l will still be available for a short time after the 7Dll is announced and you can buy what fits your requirements whether it's APS-C or Full Frame 5D Mark lll which I think is the best one for you and me if I had the 
extra money for my (addiction) hobby. LOL


----------



## kkelis (Jan 29, 2013)

You shoot a lot of landscape so FF is definitely for you. Go for the 6D and pair it with that 17-40L and you will get a whole new perspective.


----------



## Efka76 (Jan 29, 2013)

I looked at your photos I really liked them! If you can afford, go for 5D Mark III as it better autofocus, higher FPS, etc. In my opinion, 6D ir cripled 5D Mark III. Currently I own 7D and tried 6D. For me even 7D is much better than 6D as it has very good autofocus and higher FPS.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 29, 2013)

While a new 6D and 5D3 will be excellent you may end up disappointed with your current glass selection. The FF sensors are extremely demanding and the bodies must be combined with good lenses to achieve optimum results. 

I would suggest that you should pick up a used 5D2 and invest the additional funds available in lenses. Despite all the bashing, the 5D2 remains an excellent camera and should suffice what you shoot. 

I would also suggest you retain the 40D as a back up body and for shooting the hummingbirds. 

Nice pictures BTW!


----------



## Vivid Color (Jan 29, 2013)

You mentioned you were interested in low-light photography. In that case, the 5D2 will not fit your needs, but the 6D would beautifully (as of course would the 5D3). I love my 6D for it's low light capabilities and while the 5DIII does more, you can put the money you save on buying a 6D rather than the 5D3 on or toward another lens. I guess it all comes down to whether you'd really get the use out of the extra features of the 5D3 more than you'd get from another lens.


----------



## bholliman (Jan 29, 2013)

Vivid Color said:


> You mentioned you were interested in low-light photography. In that case, the 5D2 will not fit your needs, but the 6D would beautifully (as of course would the 5D3). I love my 6D for it's low light capabilities and while the 5DIII does more, you can put the money you save on buying a 6D rather than the 5D3 on or toward another lens. I guess it all comes down to whether you'd really get the use out of the extra features of the 5D3 more than you'd get from another lens.



+1

I recommend the 6D based on your photo selection in Flicker. Excellent shots by the way! 

I shoot much of the same things you do. Lots of landscapes and shots of the kids with some wildlife and kids sports/dance/activity photography thrown in. I've found the 6D to be an excellent camera for what I shoot. I really don't need a frame rate faster than the 6D's 4.5 FPS (I almost never use the 8 FPS speed of my 7D), and prefer SD cards to CF cards for storage since they are more compatible with my computers and iPad. I've found the AF on the 6D to be fine 99% of the time.

If you pick up a FF camera, I agree with J.R. suggestion to upgrade your lenses in the wide to short tele range. I suggest selling your 28-135mm and picking up a 24-105L. The 24-105L is an excellent general purpose lens on a full frame camera and very reasonably priced. 

If you go with a 7D, I recommend either the excellent EF-S 15-85mm or EF-S 17-55 2.8. If you are happy with your current wide/normal lenses, adding the 70-200 4.0 IS would give you a faster/sharper lens option in that focal length range.


----------



## 7enderbender (Jan 29, 2013)

Vivid Color said:


> You mentioned you were interested in low-light photography. In that case, the 5D2 will not fit your needs, but the 6D would beautifully (as of course would the 5D3). I love my 6D for it's low light capabilities and while the 5DIII does more, you can put the money you save on buying a 6D rather than the 5D3 on or toward another lens. I guess it all comes down to whether you'd really get the use out of the extra features of the 5D3 more than you'd get from another lens.



Can you explain what you mean by low-light capabilities? And why would the 5DII not fit his needs for that? I never had any issues with my 5DII in low light settings. Quite the opposite actually. I'm not sure how the 6D is even better with that. But even if that is the case I doubt that that has more practical implications than the 6D's lower x-sync speed, missing 1/8000 and the small plasticky form factor.
The 5DII is not only a bargain at this point - at least for my needs I'd still consider it the better camera. The MarkIII of course solves all those issues pretty much but still comes in with a much higher price tag and I'd only shell that out if I'd really need the additional features and upgrades over the MarkII. I'm in no rush with that personally.


----------



## Jim K (Jan 29, 2013)

bholliman said:


> If you pick up a FF camera, I agree with J.R. suggestion to upgrade your lenses in the wide to short tele range. I suggest selling your 28-135mm and picking up a 24-105L. The 24-105L is an excellent general purpose lens on a full frame camera and very reasonably priced.


+1

If you go FF get the 24-105 f/4L IS with it at the same time as the "kit" lens. It comes at a considerable discount.


----------



## eldete (Jan 29, 2013)

Hate to butt in but I've been wondering this same thing for a while now however...I shot VIDEO. Pull the trigger on the m3 and have a great cam asap / keep waiting on the edge of my seat for the 7DII / or look more into a 6D. I've heard that 6D lacks in video but am unclear of the full specifics. The argument that getting a 6D and putting the extra $ towards glass seems compelling as well....any suggestions ?


----------



## bholliman (Jan 29, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> Can you explain what you mean by low-light capabilities? And why would the 5DII not fit his needs for that? I never had any issues with my 5DII in low light settings. Quite the opposite actually. I'm not sure how the 6D is even better with that. But even if that is the case I doubt that that has more practical implications than the 6D's lower x-sync speed, missing 1/8000 and the small plasticky form factor.
> The 5DII is not only a bargain at this point - at least for my needs I'd still consider it the better camera. The MarkIII of course solves all those issues pretty much but still comes in with a much higher price tag and I'd only shell that out if I'd really need the additional features and upgrades over the MarkII. I'm in no rush with that personally.



Almost all the reviews I've read of the 6D point out that is has better low-light/high ISO performance than the 5D2 and similar or slightly better IQ. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-6D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

The x-sync speed and missing 1/8000 are trivial features, things that will never be noticed by the vast majority of users. I checked my stats in Lightroom and with well over 50k pictures, I have zero taken with shutter speeds over 1/4000. The body is very solid and I appreciate somewhat the smaller size/weight. I also find the WiFi feature very handy and love the ability to remotely control my camera from my iPad or iPhone.

That said, the 5D2 is an excellent camera and you can save some money by purchasing it over the 6D. For me the 6D's brought enough to the table to justify the added expense.


----------



## steven kessel (Jan 29, 2013)

I recently asked myself the same question: 6D or Mark iii and after thinking about it I swallowed hard and bought the Mark iii. Boy, am I glad that I did. My primary interest is wildlife photography. I've shot thousands of pictures, mostly of birds, with my 7D and although I love that camera, my primary complaint about it was the slowness of the autofocus. I could never catch up with birds in flight with the 7D. My other complaint about the 7D is that the camera does not do a great job handling noise. The highest ISO I shoot wildlife with my 7D is 320 because if I do much cropping the background noise is instantly apparent at higher ISOs.

The Mark iii solved these problems. The autofocus on this camera is almost instantaneous and it is very, very accurate even in relatively low light. I recently did a series of photos of hawks in flight. The autofocus worked like a charm and almost all of my images were razor sharp, using the 100-400 F4.5-5.6 IS lens. The camera handles the noise issue brilliantly. I've been shooting at ISO 640 even in full daylight in order to take pictures at high shutter speeds and the background noise with these shots is virtually undetectable, even with significant cropping.

And, that brings up one final point. The camera allows a great deal of cropping without significant image degradation.

I'm sure that the 6D is a fine camera and the reviews I've read have been very positive. But, for what I do, lightning fast autofocus is a must, and I can't believe that anything out there tops the Mark iii.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 29, 2013)

steven kessel said:


> I recently asked myself the same question: 6D or Mark iii and after thinking about it I swallowed hard and bought the Mark iii. Boy, am I glad that I did. My primary interest is wildlife photography. I've shot thousands of pictures, mostly of birds, with my 7D and although I love that camera, my primary complaint about it was the slowness of the autofocus. I could never catch up with birds in flight with the 7D. My other complaint about the 7D is that the camera does not do a great job handling noise. The highest ISO I shoot wildlife with my 7D is 320 because if I do much cropping the background noise is instantly apparent at higher ISOs.
> 
> The Mark iii solved these problems. The autofocus on this camera is almost instantaneous and it is very, very accurate even in relatively low light. I recently did a series of photos of hawks in flight. The autofocus worked like a charm and almost all of my images were razor sharp, using the 100-400 F4.5-5.6 IS lens. The camera handles the noise issue brilliantly. I've been shooting at ISO 640 even in full daylight in order to take pictures at high shutter speeds and the background noise with these shots is virtually undetectable, even with significant cropping.
> 
> ...



+1 on the 5DIII vs 7D. The speed and accuracy of the 5DIII autofocus are awesome compared with the 7D. The 6D does have very good reviews for the accuracy of its autofocus and its ability to cope with low light, But, I do not know about its speed. It looks also a great camera.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 29, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> Vivid Color said:
> 
> 
> > You mentioned you were interested in low-light photography. In that case, the 5D2 will not fit your needs, but the 6D would beautifully (as of course would the 5D3). I love my 6D for it's low light capabilities and while the 5DIII does more, you can put the money you save on buying a 6D rather than the 5D3 on or toward another lens. I guess it all comes down to whether you'd really get the use out of the extra features of the 5D3 more than you'd get from another lens.
> ...



The advantages the 6D has over the 5DII in low light are considerably less noise (slightly less noise than the 5DIII too, for that matter) at high ISOs (though coming from any APS-C camera the 5DII will seem pretty amazing) and slightly better focusing in the dark (though the 5DII has usually impressed me there, too). Otherwise, the photos you take will look much the same whether it's 5DII or III or 6D - though of course, depending on what you shoot, focus accuracy may be higher with one vs the others. (It may seem a small detail, but I find the silent modes of the 6D and 5DIII a big improvement over the 5DII - I get embarrassed noisily clicking away with my 5DII in churches, museums and other quiet places.) While he's still in the US the original poster may want to rent these cameras and find out just which features he would(n't) miss. For my purposes a 5DIII doesn't have $1000 worth of advantages over the 6D, so I just bought one of those (currently $1900 at B&H).


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Jan 29, 2013)

There's no meaningful difference in image quality between the 6D and the 5DIII. For all intense porpoises, you can think of them as being loaded with the same "film."

But the bodies holding that film are quite different.

The 6D is a capable camera, but it's nothing to get excited about. (Except, as already noted, for the sensor.)

A decade ago, the 5DIII would have been the reigning champion amongst sports photographers. In the film era, there would have been no contest.

Sure, its frame rate isn't quite as high as some, but the autofocus performance more than makes up for it. Except for the 1Dx, you get more "keepers" per second of shooting than with any other camera.

That, and the price, is really all you need to know about when deciding which to get.

Basically, the 5DIII is a pro sports / wildlife / action version of the 6D.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 29, 2013)

I went through this debate myself, and decided to go with a 6D. I have been very happy with the camera so far.

P.S. I did some model "hair flinging" work with my wireless flash triggers (Yongnuo YN-622C E-TTL) and had no problem with syncing at 1/200th and even 1/250th.

Limiting the maximum shutter speed to 1/4000th was a chintzy move...even my 60D has 1/8000th. Still, as a previous poster said, this is rarely actually an issue in the field. I would only use 1/8000th when bracketing.

Finally, after shooting a few events professionally with both the 6D and 5DII in harness, I would gladly trade my 5DII for a second 6D.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 29, 2013)

The 6D is a microwaved 5D2, which was already a re-cooked 5D, which had its original serving as a 20D. (In terms of actual camera performance, not IQ  )

If you want a better performing camera, 5D3 is the best route. It won't limit you later on like the 6D could with its AF performance.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> The 6D is a microwaved 5D2, which was already a re-cooked 5D, which had its original serving as a 20D. (In terms of actual camera performance, not IQ  )
> 
> If you want a better performing camera, 5D3 is the best route. It won't limit you later on like the 6D could with its AF performance.



One question: are you making this judgment after having used both cameras, or just because you think this is true?

I can tell you from having used a MKII professionally extensively that in many ways the 6D is a big step upwards from the MKII. I have not owned or used a MKIII, although I have extensively researched it. The MKIII is without the superior camera overall, but even that is not straightforward. There is some give and take with both bodies, and, for me, I concluded that the "give" with the 6D right now was worth the "take".

The truth of the matter is that the 6D actually has more modern technology than any other Canon camera at the moment, even if the form factor and AF are not premium.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 29, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The 6D is a microwaved 5D2, which was already a re-cooked 5D, which had its original serving as a 20D. (In terms of actual camera performance, not IQ  )
> ...



Yes, I used the 6D for a day rental and found it's AF nothing particular special from my previous 5Dc or the MK2. I didn't have time to really test it's reported -3EV center point AF, but I could imagine its spectacular in low light as the 5Dc and MK2's we're pretty good. 

As for the other features, They're nice fluff but I know it's a camera that could be outgrown if any serious AF situations arrive. IE: off-centered subject approaching camera while shooting Sub-F/2.8.

Perhaps, the 7D spoiled me with these expectations but the MK3 is a camera I will not outgrow for awhile.


----------



## emag (Jan 29, 2013)

The operative pharase here is......"But I am confused, do I really spend 3.5K (with the kit lens) for a hobby." If you have to ask the question, then the answer is no. The 6D is not 'settling down'....it's a fine camera and should please any hobbyist. It may please a professional only as a backup body but you're not a professional. Get it. Enjoy it. Buy some nice glass.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 29, 2013)

pgsdeepak said:


> Some of my photos are in the below link, please check and let me know if I should consider going for FF and if FF, should I go for the 5D MIII?



For what you seem to shoot af performance doesn't seem to be critical, you can afford to refocus, take a 2nd shot and then pick the best one - in this case I'd advise the 6d, even as underspeced (or overpriced) as it is in comparison to the competition.

I recently compared 5d3/6d side by side for 2 hours, the 5d3 is clearly the more professional gear not only because of faster fps, higher shutter rating and a bit faster x-sync, but because the handling is faster (like double button layout, mfn button, firmware customization). But if you don't depend on this speed gain or the upcoming f8 af with Canon lenses+tc, the investment in glass will give you better results.



RLPhoto said:


> If you want a better performing camera, 5D3 is the best route. It won't limit you later on like the 6D could with its AF performance.



True, but what exactly is "later on"? Like 2014 when the 5d4 arrives with higher mp/dr and the 5d3 can be bought for $2000? Imho an advanced investment in lenses can be a good idea, but I'll get the camera body that fits my requirements as they are right now.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 29, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> Vivid Color said:
> 
> 
> > You mentioned you were interested in low-light photography. In that case, the 5D2 will not fit your needs, but the 6D would beautifully (as of course would the 5D3). I love my 6D for it's low light capabilities and while the 5DIII does more, you can put the money you save on buying a 6D rather than the 5D3 on or toward another lens. I guess it all comes down to whether you'd really get the use out of the extra features of the 5D3 more than you'd get from another lens.
> ...



The 6D gives you approximately 1 stop better high ISO performance than the 5D2. While that is the way it is, it doesn't make the 5d2 any less of a camera for the OP's needs. Just because a new model is out does not mean that the one of the best and most popular cameras of its age, is rendered useless.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 29, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> The truth of the matter is that the 6D actually has more modern technology than any other Canon camera at the moment, even if the form factor and AF are not premium.



-1

The technology that you cite mostly consists of the GPS and the WiFi ... Hardly any technological breakthrough. The 6D is also unnecessarily crippled because Canon wanted to put some distance between it and the 5D3.

IMHO, the AF of the 5D3 is a massive factor, leave aside the other modern technology that you mention - if you could get a good sharp shot in a single attempt with the 5D3, why would you want to focus, recompose, shoot and pray with a 6D?


----------



## J.R. (Jan 29, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > If you want a better performing camera, 5D3 is the best route. It won't limit you later on like the 6D could with its AF performance.
> ...



If I understand this correctly, RLPhoto could have been referring to a buyer's remorse over a $1K once they come to grips with the 6D. At one point you are bound to feel the pangs of having an outdated AF system. 

BTW Marsu42 ... Not everyone has your level of self-control, if I can call it that.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 29, 2013)

J.R. said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > The truth of the matter is that the 6D actually has more modern technology than any other Canon camera at the moment, even if the form factor and AF are not premium.
> ...



Wow, I hope that isn't what you think I am doing!


----------



## K-amps (Jan 29, 2013)

You know if you need the 5d3's AF capabilities or not. If you do then by all means buy it and be happy.

If you don't... then probably you have no need for it and in that case, save yourself some cash, and buy a nice L lens to go with your new 6D.

If the 6D was released in march 2012... I'd probably own that and not the 5D3 (which is overkill for a hobbyist like me).

So it boils down to what you are shooting.

I saw your portfolio (nice shots by the way) and you don't need a 5D3 to shoot those beautiful sunsets... a 6D will do just fine... hook it to your ipad and compose away!


----------



## J.R. (Jan 29, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Surely not because you are doing this professionally. But can you say that the AF of the 5d3 doesn't and won't make a difference?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 29, 2013)

J.R. said:


> If I understand this correctly, RLPhoto could have been referring to a buyer's remorse over a $1K once they come to grips with the 6D. At one point you are bound to feel the pangs of having an outdated AF system.



Well, all I can say it took me years to get to the limits of the 60d af system (and to be sure it's the camera's fault and not mine) - of course if using servo af a lot it's another story, but for general stills shooting the 6d af system might be outdated, but still perfectly usable. And we have to remember that the 5d3/1dx af has to be accompanied by the latest Canon lenses to really shine esp. concerning precision.



J.R. said:


> BTW Marsu42 ... Not everyone has your level of self-control, if I can call it that.



 you have to explain that one to me... but you managed to confuse me alright, which reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:
_
"If you can't convince them, confuse them." _ (Harry Truman)


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 29, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > If I understand this correctly, RLPhoto could have been referring to a buyer's remorse over a $1K once they come to grips with the 6D. At one point you are bound to feel the pangs of having an outdated AF system.
> ...



The 60D's AF is all cross-type, not too shabby. As for the 6D, Its little improvement over 5D2 /5Dc / 20D :|

Its disappointing when a Rebel series camera has better AF than the same generation FF mid-range camera.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> The 60D's AF is all cross-type, not too shabby. :|



Absolutely, and I'm quite happy with the 60d except for high iso and shadow noise - but I've learned that if taking shots of something important, it's a good idea to take 2-3 shots just to be on the safe side because (rough guess) every 1:20 shots the af is off looking @100% crop, even more when doing handheld macro.

So I wouldn't say I "trust" the 60d's af system, but I heard 5d3 users really trust theirs to be reliable.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 29, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Well, all I can say it took me years to get to the limits of the 60d af system (and to be sure it's the camera's fault and not mine) - of course if using servo af a lot it's another story, but for general stills shooting the 6d af system might be outdated, but still perfectly usable. And we have to remember that the 5d3/1dx af has to be accompanied by the latest Canon lenses to really shine esp. concerning precision.



Testing the limits of the 6D is fairly easy ... Try the outer AF points. The other way to test the limits of the AF is to try to shoot anything that moves ... I have jammed the AF to the centre point and was having fun this Sunday trying to shoot my kids who were running around. Every shot that was in focus was great but there was just too much wastage.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 29, 2013)

J.R. said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



I can't and I won't. The AF system is the one thing that I wish was more robust on the 6D. That being said, it is FAR from pray and spray. I find the AF (and all the tests also show) of 6D that it is MUCH more accurate than the 5DII - the camera that until a year ago almost everyone that was a serious hobbyist or professional was using. The 5DIII is one of the best AF systems out there right now, and so it was a big step up. The 6D's AF is a step back (other than the super center point), but it is far from a step back to 5dII or 5DC levels. It is very accurate; it just isn't as flexible as the 5DIII.

I just found your comment lacking nuance. If I as at least a part time professional find the AF system adequate and usable on the 6D, I suspect that a hobbyist will do just fine with it, too. In Canada (where I am), the difference in price between the 6D and 5DIII in real dollars (after taxes), is more like $1400. That is a BIG difference for many people, particularly when one considers that both of these cameras will be outdated by new technology in a few years.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 29, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Well my apologies if that came out wrong. I've learnt English as a foreign language so what I write may differ just a little bit from what I mean.

I guess part of my comment was borne out of my frustration with the 6Ds AF. For any subject that moves, this is a difficult camera.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 29, 2013)

On a side note, I wouldn't pay full price for a MK3. Mine were for 2499$ and the other for 2999$. 8)


----------



## skullyspice (Jan 29, 2013)

Since you mention you are looking for a camera you can use for the next 5-6 years I would suggest going with the best technology available which I think would be the 5D3. 
I upgraded from the 40D to the 5D3 a few months ago and it is fantastic. get the kit lens 24-105, you'll love it.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 29, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I guess part of my comment was borne out of my frustration with the 6Ds AF. For any subject that moves, this is a difficult camera.


This was inevitable since its basically a rehash of the 5Dmk2 AF with 2 more points and more sensetivity
the 5D2 AF suffered the same way


----------



## iaind (Jan 30, 2013)

Have handled both and prefer the more rugged 5D3.
Autofocus ia a massive improvement on 5D2. 6D seems to have an upgraded 5D2 set up.


----------



## pgsdeepak (Feb 2, 2013)

Thanks Everyone for the advice. I decided to wait a little longer save some more money and go for the 5D Mark 3.


----------



## iP337 (Feb 3, 2013)

pgsdeepak said:


> Thanks Everyone for the advice. I decided to wait a little longer save some more money and go for the 5D Mark 3.



In that case you should sell your EOS 40D, 70-300/4-5.6 IS(low grade USM micro motor) and 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS(basic kit lens). 

Keep the 17-40/4L and 100/2.8 macro (the 100/2.8 Macro is the same as the 100/2.8L macro except without IS) then get the 70-200/4L IS and the 50mm/1.4. 

That set up should cover you for most anything. The 100/2.8 macro should make an OK indoor sports and macro lens and if you have a 17-40/4 (for landscapes) and a 70-200/4(for portraits and outdoor sports) I'd get a fast prime over the 24-105/4L, because it's pointless to use anything between 40mm-50mm or 50mm-70mm so you just need to make up the gap with a 50mm and it looks like you need something for low light situations so the 50/1.4 is a more practical choice.


----------



## pgsdeepak (Mar 7, 2013)

Got to try the 5D MIII through CPS equipment evaluation. FIrst impression is "Jaw Dropped". I have not tried it outdoors or did not do anything which would test its AF system yet, So, waiting to see if it justifies me spending over 1K over the 6D. If if like its AF way over my 40Ds, then I am going to make the move sooner


----------



## Etienne (Mar 7, 2013)

I owned a 40D and a 5DII, now i have the 5DIII.

The 5DIII is the 40D speed + 5DII IQ combined + a whole lot of extras. It's worth the the $.
The 6D is lower build quality, poor ergonomics compared to 40D, and much worse than 5DIII

Get the 5DIII, and enjoy the full-frame goodness


----------



## fonts (Mar 7, 2013)

Etienne said:


> I owned a 40D and a 5DII, now i have the 5DIII.
> 
> The 5DIII is the 40D speed + 5DII IQ combined + a whole lot of extras. It's worth the the $.
> The 6D is lower build quality, poor ergonomics compared to 40D, and much worse than 5DIII
> ...



I think you have 6D mixed with the 60D.


To OP. I recently had the same question, and went with the 6D. I don't regret it one bit. I am not a professional, and I don't shoot sports nor wildlife. The 6D AF is more than adequate, seriously.

I just want to advise you that don't feel like its not good enough. It's a great camera. I don't think the 5D MIII is worth the $1000 that you can put in lens or accessories. But that's my opinion. 

It really comes down to whether you NEED the AF of the MIII. If not the 6D is more than practical. I love it. Honestly think about what your needs are. The 6D will still be around just as long as the MIII. So don't get thrown off by that comment.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 7, 2013)

Etienne said:


> The 6D is lower build quality, poor ergonomics compared to 40D, and much worse than 5DIII
> Get the 5DIII, and enjoy the full-frame goodness



No, don't - the 5d3 has lower build quality, poor ergonomics compared to the 1d4, and much worse than 1dx. Get the 1dx, and enjoy the *real* full-frame goodness - at least if you don't want to think about what you actually need.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Mar 7, 2013)

I liked the IQ of the 5dMk2 a lot. 
But the AF was awful not using the centre and/or moving subjects.

The 5dMk3 is an ideal allrounder, you would enjoy a lot taking picutres from erratic moving subjects like your kids.


----------



## azezal (Mar 7, 2013)

I'll tell u what we want, we want a camera with 5d3 ergonomics and af with the 6d sensor at the price of a 5d2


----------



## Mehmetski (Mar 7, 2013)

Coming from two Canon 5d MK II bodies and killing one, which I replaced with a mk III. I'm seriously considering selling my remaining mk II and getting a 6D as a second (walkaround and backup) body. The low light AF (dis)abilities of the mk II really bothered me since its release and reports of the 6D are very positive in this regard. I also have the cash for a second MK III but at this point I find it a little overkill to use a 3K camera as a walkaround body dangling over my shoulder or wrist wherever I go, but the 5D Mk III is a JOY to use and love the images I take with it. It is a fantastic camera and the images looks more "natural" to my eyes than the the 5d mk II ever did. And reports that the IQ of the 6D is at least as good as the 5d mk III gives me a reason to ditch the 5d II for one of these two bodies. I can't choose!!


----------



## SJ (Mar 7, 2013)

If you dont care about price, I suggest get 5dm3, its a great tools. I recently upgrade from 7d, and im very satisfied. but 6d great tool also. So its up to yyu my friend 8)


----------



## J.R. (Mar 7, 2013)

Mehmetski said:


> Coming from two Canon 5d MK II bodies and killing one, which I replaced with a mk III. I'm seriously considering selling my mk II and getting a 6D as a second (walkaround) body. The low light AF (dis)abilities of the mk II really bothered me since its release and reports of the 6D are very positive in this regard. I also have the cash for a second MK III but at this point I find it a little overkill to use a 3K camera as a walkaround body dangling over my shoulder or wrist wherever I go, but the 5D Mk III is a JOY to use and love the images I take with it. It is a fantastic camera and the images looks more "natural" to my eyes than the the 5d mk II ever did. And reports that the IQ of the 6D is at least as good as the 5d mk III gives me a reason to ditch the 5d II for one of these two bodies. I can't choose!!



I replaced the 6D for the 7D in my kit to go along as a second body with my 5D3. It makes a great combo with teles on the 5D3 and WAs on the 6D


----------



## fonts (Mar 7, 2013)

azezal said:


> I'll tell u what we want, we want a camera with 5d3 ergonomics and af with the 6d sensor at the price of a 5d2



I don't get it. I happen to like the ergonomics of the 6D better. Then again that is subjective. One thing is fact, the 6D is lighter. Don't underestimate that.


----------



## azezal (Mar 7, 2013)

fonts said:


> azezal said:
> 
> 
> > I'll tell u what we want, we want a camera with 5d3 ergonomics and af with the 6d sensor at the price of a 5d2
> ...



True, some like their cameras light, some like it heavy I should have used some of us instead of "we"


----------



## 7enderbender (Mar 7, 2013)

Mehmetski said:


> Coming from two Canon 5d MK II bodies and killing one, which I replaced with a mk III. I'm seriously considering selling my remaining mk II and getting a 6D as a second (walkaround and backup) body. The low light AF (dis)abilities of the mk II really bothered me since its release and reports of the 6D are very positive in this regard. I also have the cash for a second MK III but at this point I find it a little overkill to use a 3K camera as a walkaround body dangling over my shoulder or wrist wherever I go, but the 5D Mk III is a JOY to use and love the images I take with it. It is a fantastic camera and the images looks more "natural" to my eyes than the the 5d mk II ever did. And reports that the IQ of the 6D is at least as good as the 5d mk III gives me a reason to ditch the 5d II for one of these two bodies. I can't choose!!



That's probably the best case I've heard so far for a 6D. If it's really just a backup and for walkaround I see how a smaller lighter plastic camera makes sense and its limitations probably won't be too difficult to deal with since you still have the Mark III for the more serious stuff.

On the other hand I personally would keep the second 5DII until fails before spending more money. I still think that the MarkII beats the 6D overall - but then I was never concerned with the AF performance and find it plenty good even in difficult light.

How about something completely different for everyday use/walkaround? I'd consider a Fuji or Sony and keep the 5DII around as second SLR body.


----------



## Mehmetski (Mar 7, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> Mehmetski said:
> 
> 
> > Coming from two Canon 5d MK II bodies and killing one, which I replaced with a mk III. I'm seriously considering selling my remaining mk II and getting a 6D as a second (walkaround and backup) body. The low light AF (dis)abilities of the mk II really bothered me since its release and reports of the 6D are very positive in this regard. I also have the cash for a second MK III but at this point I find it a little overkill to use a 3K camera as a walkaround body dangling over my shoulder or wrist wherever I go, but the 5D Mk III is a JOY to use and love the images I take with it. It is a fantastic camera and the images looks more "natural" to my eyes than the the 5d mk II ever did. And reports that the IQ of the 6D is at least as good as the 5d mk III gives me a reason to ditch the 5d II for one of these two bodies. I can't choose!!
> ...



Thank you for your reply. That's is exactly the reason, 6D to play around with and the MK III to bring the money. My remaining 5D II is currently parked on 180 thousand actuations and I think it won't die in the near future. The truth is, I didn't touch it since I got the 5d mk III unless it was absolutely necessary because the IQ is not so appealing to me anymore, and it seems the 6D is on the same page with the mk III IQ wise. And that matters to me a lot.

I'm steering on all directions right now. How is the weather sealing on the 6D? Is it in the same level with the 5D II/III? This is important as I beat the crap out of my camera's on all kind of conditions.


----------



## fonts (Mar 8, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> Mehmetski said:
> 
> 
> > Coming from two Canon 5d MK II bodies and killing one, which I replaced with a mk III. I'm seriously considering selling my remaining mk II and getting a 6D as a second (walkaround and backup) body. The low light AF (dis)abilities of the mk II really bothered me since its release and reports of the 6D are very positive in this regard. I also have the cash for a second MK III but at this point I find it a little overkill to use a 3K camera as a walkaround body dangling over my shoulder or wrist wherever I go, but the 5D Mk III is a JOY to use and love the images I take with it. It is a fantastic camera and the images looks more "natural" to my eyes than the the 5d mk II ever did. And reports that the IQ of the 6D is at least as good as the 5d mk III gives me a reason to ditch the 5d II for one of these two bodies. I can't choose!!
> ...



The 5D MII is not better. 1/180 & 1/4000 max shutter is not much of a difference. The 6D is the better camera, especially in low light photography (concerts, clubs, night shots etc) it has 2 full stops of ISO advantage, plus it's a cleaner image. Faster FPS, less shutter lag, better screen, 2 more AF points and better AF in general. If you would list out the differences the advantages are clearly to the 6D. Also especially if you're in colder the states, like Minnesota, the Wifi is so useful. Frame your shot and go back into your car while taking pictures, that comes INCLUDED.


----------



## pgsdeepak (Mar 10, 2013)

Played around a little bit with the 5D MIII which I got as CPS loan. A huge step forward from my 40D, especially the AF and low light photos. Focus was amazingly fast indoors. this is the first time I am using a FF camera. The IQ difference is big. Some samples below. In have tried ISO up to 12800(first two images below) and still got decent pictures (better than my 40D at 1600). Have not tried 6D. I assume IQ would be more or less the same, but speed and AF would be something I would really like. Shutter life is another thing I consider as a differentiator, as I plan to keep the camera long term, as long as it works. The debate still continues, need to make a decision before the rebate ends. For now I am leaning towards 5D. I have to really stretch financially to accommodate it, hope I will be able to manage.
Thanks everyone for the valuable inputs.


----------

