INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 61 Posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3790 times:
I'm in the market for a smaller, lighter DSLR than my current one, and somehow seem to be stuck between the 5D3 and the 6D.
I've read all the specs and done the research, and while the 6D has a few disadvantages over the 5 (less focus points, less fps, ...) otherwise it seems to be pretty much at the same level with the mark III.
I have heard tons of great stuff about the 5D3, but basically nothing about the 6... does anyone have any first-hand experiences about shooting with it, image quality, noise levels, etc. around here? After all it's almost 30% cheaper than the 5D3.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 1, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3780 times:
I have the 5D3 an have briefly toyed with the 6D - it seems to be a fine camera, and I don't think there are any (practical, real world) IQ issues when compared to the 5D3.
For me the big difference is the AF - I find the AF point coverage a big issue on full frame cameras (on my old 5D I was always wanting to focus on something outside the point coverage!). Point selection is also much easier on the 5D3, and the AF performance is fast and accurate across all points - static or tracking.
It is, of course, perfectly possible to work without such a good AF - I did for years with the original 5D, but for action, my 1D3 was camera of choice. The 5D3 gives me a better AF than the 1D3 and all the full frame goodness.
I'm seriously considering the 6D as a 2nd body, but for my shooting where AF speed and accuracy is paramount, it has to be the 5D3 as camera of choice. I've shot all day in challenging conditions and not lost a frame to failure of the camera's AF. For me, when working professionally, that's worth the premium.
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6109 posts, RR: 40 Reply 2, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3774 times:
I think the 6D has been talked about as having better high ISO noise control (still wondering if that could be fixed in a firmware update sometime) but the video (don't know how important it is to you) has obvious moire compared to the 5D3 (http://www.petapixel.com/2013/01/04/test-shows-the-canon-6d-suffers-from-way-more-moire-than-the-5d-mark-iii/). Video aside, there could be other aspects such as the lack of joystick on the 6D (that's integrated into the back scroll wheel), single SD slot vs CF+SD and the more advanced AF system (which is said to be the same as the 1DX) in the 5D3 which might sway you towards the 5D3.
Sorry, got no more info on the 6D! I only know one other person with it but know a handful more with the 5D3. I haven't had time to test mine out properly yet either. Anyway, I managed to grab a bargain for my 5D3 (USD2500)..
Either way, you're going to be taking awesome shots. Hope someone is able to give you more of an insight!
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 3, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3761 times:
Quoting NZ107 (Reply 2): I think the 6D has been talked about as having better high ISO noise control
That is true - but I wonder if this is meaningful? I wonder if this is simply Canon applying more aggressive noise management to essentially the same source data in order to gain kudos on the various pixel peeping sites. Could the same final results be acheived with the 5D in post processing? I expect so. Of course Canon is targeting the 6D at those perhaps less inclined to spend time in post processing.
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6109 posts, RR: 40 Reply 4, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3745 times:
Quoting ckw (Reply 3): That is true - but I wonder if this is meaningful?
Hard to say.. If the 6D's ISO 51,200 was the equivalent of the 5D3's 26500, then it could well be. Though I don't know to what extent this so called improvement in noise reduction is and I'd still expect a firmware update in the future to bring The 5D3 up to the level of the 6D anyway. Shooting at ISO 20,000 isn't something everyone would use all the time so if you put it into practicality, I suppose it's not really meaningful. It is nice to have such good quality images at high ISOs though - the 40D I had before this one was limited to 3200 and even then, it was touch and go whether the photos were usable.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 5, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3717 times:
I should have made clearer - its quite possible that some photographers (including myself!) would prefer a less processed image provided the file was amenable to post processing (possibly selectively). There is always a penalty to noise reduction techniques, and I generally prefer to "roll my own" rather than rely on the manufacturer. It may be that Canon is recognising this in the different output of the 5D3 and 6D