MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Canon... 5D mk iii vs. 5d mk ii vs. 6D  (Read 12333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Donvanstaden

« on: August 03, 2013, 04:18 »
0
I want to invest in a full frame camera especially for getting into MS video. I have made enough 'Pocket money' to by a 5D mk iii but not sure if it is worth the price? I could get a 5D mk ii or 6D and have some change for a new lens. So is the 5D mk iii worth the extra cash? If not then would you recomend a second hand 5D mkii or new 6D?

Regards,

Confused


Ron

« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2013, 05:13 »
0
I was in the same boat as you.

I have been asking questions, and following threads about this, and reading up on the 3 models you mention. I am going for a 6D.

I am sure the hardcore fans will tell you 5DMKII but I believe the 6D has a better img quality, especially in low light.

But since I dont know the 2 models from experience, I cannot add any real value to the discussion.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2013, 06:17 »
0
If you're going for price you could probably pick up a used 5DMII for under $1500US. Great camera. I have one. But the 6D is around $2,000 and has a lot more newer features. IMO the 5DMIII is nice but seems overpriced for what you're getting.

I'd probably lean toward a 6D. One thing with the 6D though is at 20MP it may be just shy of the largest XXXL size on some sites.

Ron

« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2013, 06:21 »
0

« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2013, 07:13 »
-2
have you considered a nikon D7100 ? 1200$ body only ... 1/8000 shutter, dual SD-card, 24MP, 51 points AF, low-ISO on par with D600.

all this talk about low light is getting boring ... i've yet to see a camera doing a GOOD night shots in ISO 3200 for instance, and even at 1600 they're all still noisy and grainy no matter if shot with a 2000$ F1.4 prime.





Donvanstaden

« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2013, 07:18 »
+1
have you considered a nikon D7100 ? 1200$ body only ... 1/8000 shutter, dual SD-card, 24MP, 51 points AF, low-ISO on par with D600.

all this talk about low light is getting boring ... i've yet to see a camera doing a GOOD night shots in ISO 3200 for instance, and even at 1600 they're all still noisy and grainy no matter if shot with a 2000$ F1.4 prime.

I am afraid I have too many Canon lenses to jump ship to Nikon... would be too expensive!

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2013, 09:02 »
0
have you considered a nikon D7100 ? 1200$ body only ... 1/8000 shutter, dual SD-card, 24MP, 51 points AF, low-ISO on par with D600.

all this talk about low light is getting boring ... i've yet to see a camera doing a GOOD night shots in ISO 3200 for instance, and even at 1600 they're all still noisy and grainy no matter if shot with a 2000$ F1.4 prime.

I am afraid I have too many Canon lenses to jump ship to Nikon... would be too expensive!

How many of those lenses do you really use? Unless you shoot other types of work, for micro an 18-200/28-300 would probably cover just about everything.

« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2013, 09:44 »
0
How many of those lenses do you really use? Unless you shoot other types of work, for micro an 18-200/28-300 would probably cover just about everything.

at least in daytime, yes, they're great, but forget about indoors or low lights.





« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2013, 09:47 »
0
there's too much talk about canon/nikon in my opinion ... they're both almost on par especially regarding lenses.

once you've a 20-24MP sensor you've more than enough for pretty much any normal use required in agencies and even fine-art prints, and actually there's still plenty of famous photographers shooting in 12MP with old D700 and D3s !

what we need are faster lenses, hope that Sigma is working on that as canon/nikon are sleeping.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2013, 09:50 »
0
Switching can be VERY expensive.  I tried going from Nikon to Canon after nearly 40 years of dedicated Nikonism.  Desire to shoot Video convinced me to go with Canon T2i.  I love the camera but never followed through on the Video.  Now, I'm stuck wanting (and buying) lenses for Nikon AND Canon.

Also, bought the Nikon D7000 since "switching" to Canon.   ;D
And, I love my new Canon 400mm f5.6.   :-\

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2013, 09:56 »
0
How many of those lenses do you really use? Unless you shoot other types of work, for micro an 18-200/28-300 would probably cover just about everything.

at least in daytime, yes, they're great, but forget about indoors or low lights.

Depends on what you shoot. Happy smiley people with strobes could be any lens. Inside sports at night would need fast glass.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2013, 10:14 »
0
Switching can be VERY expensive.  I tried going from Nikon to Canon after nearly 40 years of dedicated Nikonism.  Desire to shoot Video convinced me to go with Canon T2i.  I love the camera but never followed through on the Video.  Now, I'm stuck wanting (and buying) lenses for Nikon AND Canon.

Also, bought the Nikon D7000 since "switching" to Canon.   ;D
And, I love my new Canon 400mm f5.6.   :-\

Switching can be very expensive for people who really truly need a bunch of lens or are just equipment hoarders. I doubt the majority of micro shoots really need a studio full of pro equipment.

I have a 5DMII and a bag full of lenses. I love my 70-200mm f/2.8 II but rarely use it. I'm a recovering equipment hoarder and am probably going to start scaling back at some point.

I bought a D800 and the 28-300mm covers almost everything I shoot. I just picked up a 50mm f/1.8 for creative and low light shots. Are those pro lenses? No. Will micro buyers or any other buyers notice? Probably not.

For travel I picked up an NEX-7 and 18-200mm. I use that more than the other two combined.

So I haven't switched. I have multiple brands and if you don't go crazy buying stuff you don't need it probably really isn't that expensive. The people that buy $5,000 lenses to shoot subjects that sell low volume/cost in micro may want to re-evaluate their business. Need vs want.


Donvanstaden

« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2013, 12:01 »
0
Switching can be VERY expensive.  I tried going from Nikon to Canon after nearly 40 years of dedicated Nikonism.  Desire to shoot Video convinced me to go with Canon T2i.  I love the camera but never followed through on the Video.  Now, I'm stuck wanting (and buying) lenses for Nikon AND Canon.

Also, bought the Nikon D7000 since "switching" to Canon.   ;D
And, I love my new Canon 400mm f5.6.   :-\

Switching can be very expensive for people who really truly need a bunch of lens or are just equipment hoarders. I doubt the majority of micro shoots really need a studio full of pro equipment.

I have a 5DMII and a bag full of lenses. I love my 70-200mm f/2.8 II but rarely use it. I'm a recovering equipment hoarder and am probably going to start scaling back at some point.

I bought a D800 and the 28-300mm covers almost everything I shoot. I just picked up a 50mm f/1.8 for creative and low light shots. Are those pro lenses? No. Will micro buyers or any other buyers notice? Probably not.

For travel I picked up an NEX-7 and 18-200mm. I use that more than the other two combined.

So I haven't switched. I have multiple brands and if you don't go crazy buying stuff you don't need it probably really isn't that expensive. The people that buy $5,000 lenses to shoot subjects that sell low volume/cost in micro may want to re-evaluate their business. Need vs want.

I have a 17-35 mm 2.8 L mk ii for landscapes.... 50 mm 1.8 for food and portraits... 100mm 2.8 for portraits and macro and a fixed 300mm 2.8 for wildlife... I am perfectly happy with what I have and use all my lenses on a regular basis... The reason why I am considering the 5d iii is for the better AF and Frame rate... just don't know how it would compare to the 6D?

« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2013, 13:49 »
0
5dIII worth every penny :) love it

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2013, 14:39 »
0
Switching can be VERY expensive.  I tried going from Nikon to Canon after nearly 40 years of dedicated Nikonism.  Desire to shoot Video convinced me to go with Canon T2i.  I love the camera but never followed through on the Video.  Now, I'm stuck wanting (and buying) lenses for Nikon AND Canon.

Also, bought the Nikon D7000 since "switching" to Canon.   ;D
And, I love my new Canon 400mm f5.6.   :-\

Switching can be very expensive for people who really truly need a bunch of lens or are just equipment hoarders. I doubt the majority of micro shoots really need a studio full of pro equipment.

I have a 5DMII and a bag full of lenses. I love my 70-200mm f/2.8 II but rarely use it. I'm a recovering equipment hoarder and am probably going to start scaling back at some point.

I bought a D800 and the 28-300mm covers almost everything I shoot. I just picked up a 50mm f/1.8 for creative and low light shots. Are those pro lenses? No. Will micro buyers or any other buyers notice? Probably not.

For travel I picked up an NEX-7 and 18-200mm. I use that more than the other two combined.

So I haven't switched. I have multiple brands and if you don't go crazy buying stuff you don't need it probably really isn't that expensive. The people that buy $5,000 lenses to shoot subjects that sell low volume/cost in micro may want to re-evaluate their business. Need vs want.

I have a 17-35 mm 2.8 L mk ii for landscapes.... 50 mm 1.8 for food and portraits... 100mm 2.8 for portraits and macro and a fixed 300mm 2.8 for wildlife... I am perfectly happy with what I have and use all my lenses on a regular basis... The reason why I am considering the 5d iii is for the better AF and Frame rate... just don't know how it would compare to the 6D?

I you're going for frame rate and focus a 5DIII would be great. So would a 7D at 8FPS. Or the new 70D at 7FPS looks pretty interesting with the new focus system. I'm not sure I'd get hung up on full frame vs crop. Crop sensors these days are have come a long way.

« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2013, 15:07 »
0
Crop sensors these days are have come a long way.

indeed.

i can't see any big difference between a D600 and a D7100 for instance, and same in daytime with ISO 200 between a D3 and a D90/D300s.

i'm so focking tired of all this mumbo jumbo against DX and APS-C just because it's cheaper so "it must be cr-ap".

have these guys ever done a comparison between DX and FX cameras with the same prime lens for instance ? i did and can't see where's the big fuss about it .. it's all about marketing and BS, the reality is you can make GREAT daytime shots in ISO 100-800 even with a 500$ D3200 !

throw some 2-300$ more for a nikon 50mm F1.4 and you can also make some decent shots by night (handheld at 1/60 and maybe iso 800-1600) with very low noise.

edit carefully the whole stuff and these will be images that SELL, not snapshots.

now, why there must be always this snobbery among stockers, i don't know ... all that matters is getting value for money and producing decent saleable images.

i tried all the recent nikon and canon full frame cameras and i'm not so impressed by their low light performance.
they're great on high iso when there's a decent light but try shooting in a dark street and you'll still need a F1.4 prime, same in disco and bars and the results are far from the "noiseless" fairy tales so many talking about, there's no way these cameras are noiseless above iso 800 and grain is quite visible above iso 1600 !

in the end the best option might be a D800 so you can denoise a bit and downsize to 24MP, the final output will smoke the 5DmkIII in any field and no need for sharpening too.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2013, 15:27 »
0
I want to invest in a full frame camera especially for getting into MS video. I have made enough 'Pocket money' to by a 5D mk iii but not sure if it is worth the price? I could get a 5D mk ii or 6D and have some change for a new lens. So is the 5D mk iii worth the extra cash? If not then would you recomend a second hand 5D mkii or new 6D?

Regards,

Confused
I'm not sure if you can get a 5D Mk2 new nowadays, but you might find one. I got a great second-hand one which I'm really pleased with. So you could have even more money for lenses or upgrading a lens.
I'm led to believe that the 5D3 is much better for video, particularly for micro submissions. I'm also envious of its faster autofocus, some rich bird photographer colleagues rave about it, but I couldn't justify it for myself.
I know nothing about the 6D first or even second hand.

Ed

« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2013, 18:47 »
0
Purely my opinion based purely on my experience.

I sold both my 5D MK II bodies and upgraded them both to 5D MK III bodies.  I've kicked myself ever since.

The reason I switched?  Everyone told me there was a better focus system.  The reason I'm kicking myself?  I like the old focus system.

I do like the weather sealing and the faster frame rate but for the first time ever, I find myself sharpening images in Lightroom after shooting RAW.

tab62

« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2013, 19:09 »
+2
We all know the Nokia 808 PureView 41-megapixel camera is the correct answer  8)




« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2013, 22:01 »
0
Purely my opinion based purely on my experience.

I sold both my 5D MK II bodies and upgraded them both to 5D MK III bodies.  I've kicked myself ever since.

The reason I switched?  Everyone told me there was a better focus system.  The reason I'm kicking myself?  I like the old focus system.

I do like the weather sealing and the faster frame rate but for the first time ever, I find myself sharpening images in Lightroom after shooting RAW.

i would blame the new AF for that, i noticed (and it's also agreed by nikon) that these new 51 points AFs  + 3D tracking work well with sport/action images but for anything else a simple 21 or 9 or 5 points AF will suffice and is more reliable, i'm using the AF with 5 points and no problems so far, for moving people i use 3D tracking and AF-C but sometimes it's hit or miss especially in low lights while in daytime it works like a charm.

« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2013, 22:04 »
0
We all know the Nokia 808 PureView 41-megapixel camera is the correct answer  8)

yeah what could ever go wrong with a webcam stuffed into a phone and what about all those fingerprints.

« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2013, 22:09 »
0
Quote
...and what about all those fingerprints

They add to the so much asked authenticity of mobile snaps  ;D

« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2013, 23:40 »
+2
Quote
...and what about all those fingerprints

They add to the so much asked authenticity of mobile snaps  ;D

that's a great idea .. who needs watermarks when you can use your own fingerprint ? :)

Donvanstaden

« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2013, 01:22 »
0
Switching can be VERY expensive.  I tried going from Nikon to Canon after nearly 40 years of dedicated Nikonism.  Desire to shoot Video convinced me to go with Canon T2i.  I love the camera but never followed through on the Video.  Now, I'm stuck wanting (and buying) lenses for Nikon AND Canon.

Also, bought the Nikon D7000 since "switching" to Canon.   ;D
And, I love my new Canon 400mm f5.6.   :-\

Switching can be very expensive for people who really truly need a bunch of lens or are just equipment hoarders. I doubt the majority of micro shoots really need a studio full of pro equipment.

I have a 5DMII and a bag full of lenses. I love my 70-200mm f/2.8 II but rarely use it. I'm a recovering equipment hoarder and am probably going to start scaling back at some point.

I bought a D800 and the 28-300mm covers almost everything I shoot. I just picked up a 50mm f/1.8 for creative and low light shots. Are those pro lenses? No. Will micro buyers or any other buyers notice? Probably not.

For travel I picked up an NEX-7 and 18-200mm. I use that more than the other two combined.

So I haven't switched. I have multiple brands and if you don't go crazy buying stuff you don't need it probably really isn't that expensive. The people that buy $5,000 lenses to shoot subjects that sell low volume/cost in micro may want to re-evaluate their business. Need vs want.

I have a 17-35 mm 2.8 L mk ii for landscapes.... 50 mm 1.8 for food and portraits... 100mm 2.8 for portraits and macro and a fixed 300mm 2.8 for wildlife... I am perfectly happy with what I have and use all my lenses on a regular basis... The reason why I am considering the 5d iii is for the better AF and Frame rate... just don't know how it would compare to the 6D?

I you're going for frame rate and focus a 5DIII would be great. So would a 7D at 8FPS. Or the new 70D at 7FPS looks pretty interesting with the new focus system. I'm not sure I'd get hung up on full frame vs crop. Crop sensors these days are have come a long way.

I have just looked up the 70D and 'interesting' indeed... especially at a 3rd of the price of the mk iii ... way to confuse a guy!

Donvanstaden

« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2013, 02:42 »
0
Does anyone know when the 7D mk ii is coming out? might be worth waiting for if it is a 24mp???


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
11181 Views
Last post February 22, 2007, 06:48
by CJPhoto
2 Replies
3571 Views
Last post April 30, 2008, 16:52
by GeoPappas
15 Replies
23328 Views
Last post May 20, 2008, 08:17
by RASimon
3 Replies
3751 Views
Last post June 17, 2008, 14:46
by j2k
16 Replies
12449 Views
Last post August 12, 2012, 05:46
by Robic

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors