# Need Advice on Moving to a FF Sensor



## awrhodes84 (Jun 26, 2013)

Hello all and thank you for reading my first post on the forum.  I have been an avid photo-hobbyist for over 10 years now, with my jump to the world of DSLRs coming about 2.5 years ago when I purchased the Rebel T3i that I still use today.  Since then, my work has gradually improved to the point that I have placed or won some amateur photo contests and regularly sell medium-to-large size prints online.  My primary lens is the 24-70 f/2.8L (not the new IS version) and I only shoot in RAW.  I only have one EF-S lens I would need to sell.

I primarily focus on landscape/travel photography... i.e. lighthouses in Maine, monuments of DC (where I live), waterfalls (long exposure), fall foliage, astrophotogrpahy, and dramatic sunrise/sunset landscape scenes.  Some of my work is HDR using photomatix.  I have yet to dive deep into the world of portrait/event photography, but I do enjoy shooting stationary shots of family and recently purchased a 600EX speedlite to boost that endeavor.  I also have fun with action shots of my black lab.  Bottom line: I like to dabble in everything, but landscape and HDR are my sweet spot.

At this point, I feel that I've mastered my crop sensor T3i and am being limited by its drawbacks.  Primarily, I want a wider angle in my landscape shots (especially as my interest in star shots grows).  Second, I think I'm in for a huge treat with the upgrade in high ISO/low noise capabilities that the current Canon FFs offer.  I currently try to stick with ISO 100 as much as possible (on Gitzo tripod/RRS ballhead) for low light shots to compensate.  But getting something usable at ISO 12,800 or greater? Wow.  I'm giddy thinking of how this can help my night/star scenes.  I'm heading to Iceland for a week in September, so this upgrade should pay some immediate benefits.

So what shall it be.  The 6D, the MK3, or is there something else?  I'm a thorough purchaser and have been trying to do a really assess the value of the extra $1,500 that a MK3 would cost over the 6D.  It seems like picture quality is going to be identical, with the AF being the primary comparison here.  Coming from a T3i, I have no idea what an AF like the MK3 is even like.  Differences that are meaningless to me: 1/4000 vs 1/800 shutter, 1/180 vs 1/200 flash sync, 2 card slots, and the built-in HDR JPG vs RAW issue (I'll still do HDR in PP).  Things that interest me with the 6D... the WiFi/Android camera control would be awesome for setting up vacation shots with both my fiancee and I in them.  Would also be neat to direct upload the occasional shot to social media and use GPS location tagging.

I'd appreciate any advice on upgrading to FF, the sacrifices or benefits of either camera, or any additional Canon cameras you would recommend instead.  Thanks a ton!

Andrew
Flickr: awrhodes84's Photostream


----------



## ronlane (Jun 26, 2013)

There's the 5D Mk2, which would be cheaper than the 5D Mk3.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 26, 2013)

I voted Nikon... lol!


----------



## awrhodes84 (Jun 26, 2013)

ronlane said:


> There's the 5D Mk2, which would be cheaper than the 5D Mk3.



Thanks, Ron. The MK2 seems like a pretty big step back from the 6D in terms of ISO sensitivity. Also a slightly worse autofocus and no WiFi or GPS.  I don't see the benefit (feature or cost) in getting that over the 6D, especially since I want to buy new.  Thoughts?


----------



## awrhodes84 (Jun 26, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> I voted Nikon... lol!



Helpful.


----------



## Tony S (Jun 26, 2013)

1D X all the way.   Who needs money anyways?


----------



## ronlane (Jun 26, 2013)

if the wifi and gps are important to you, then the 6D is the only choice really with it's build-in features. That stuff doesn't mean anything to me, and the Mk3 is way out of my price range (I have the T3i as well).

I know that I want to go FF with my upgrade and at this point I am going with the Mk2. Of course, there could be something else come out before I buy that could change my mind.

Charlie, I would have to consider the Nikon full frame at this point, since I have not invested in L glass yet.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 26, 2013)

awrhodes84 said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > There's the 5D Mk2, which would be cheaper than the 5D Mk3.
> ...



Andrew... are you familiar with DXOMark? Probably one of the best sources for body and sensor comparison.  DPReview also...


----------



## ronlane (Jun 26, 2013)

Tony S said:


> 1D X all the way.  Who needs money anyways?



Hard to argue with that selection, but you could get any of the others and a possible L glass for the price of that body.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 26, 2013)

awrhodes84 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I voted Nikon... lol!
> ...



Sorry... sense of humor?


----------



## awrhodes84 (Jun 26, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> awrhodes84 said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Just a little sarcasm back   Thanks for the advice!


----------



## awrhodes84 (Jun 26, 2013)

ronlane said:


> if the wifi and gps are important to you, then the 6D is the only choice really with it's build-in features. That stuff doesn't mean anything to me, and the Mk3 is way out of my price range (I have the T3i as well).
> 
> I know that I want to go FF with my upgrade and at this point I am going with the Mk2. Of course, there could be something else come out before I buy that could change my mind.
> 
> Charlie, I would have to consider the Nikon full frame at this point, since I have not invested in L glass yet.



Thanks again, Ron.  Just wondering why you would choose the Mark II over the 6D (unless you see a drastic price difference)?  Seems like the 6D is better all around except for the max shooting speed (1/4000 on 6D vs 1/8000 on Mk2).  On light sensitivity, the 6D blows the Mk2 out of the water, unless I'm missing something.

I see a new 6D body for around 1,600 on ebay.  Not sure on Mk2.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 26, 2013)

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side 6D, 5D MkIII, 5D MkII


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 26, 2013)

the most important thing is...what canon FF cameras that meet your criteria/needs are within your budget?
if the 6D has the features you want/need, and you cant afford the 5DIII, and  you dont like/want the older 5dII, then you dont really need a poll to tell you which one to get. the only other canon FX bodies are the 1Dx (waaay more expensive) or bodies even older than the 5DlII. 
I cant really see anyone being disappointed with the 6D. the 5DIII is a great body if you have the cash for it, but if the 6D will fit your needs, the extra money you save can go into good glass for it.


----------



## awrhodes84 (Jun 26, 2013)

Wow, thanks cgipson. Was just surfing the site.  Supposing that's a value comparison as well, then 6D seems to be a pretty clear choice.  If it really only comes down to a better Autofocus on the Mk3, then I think I could live without it for $1,500.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 26, 2013)

awrhodes84 said:


> Wow, thanks cgipson. Was just surfing the site.  Supposing that's a value comparison as well, then 6D seems to be a pretty clear choice.  If it really only comes down to a better Autofocus on the Mk3, then I think I could live without it for $1,500.



That is strictly sensor ratings... something to base some opinions on. AF is important too, and sometimes having the latest tech is a big advantage. But it all comes down to what you need, and what you can afford (and yes.. what you want, also! lol!)


----------



## awrhodes84 (Jun 26, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> the most important thing is...what canon FF cameras that meet your criteria/needs are within your budget?
> if the 6D has the features you want/need, and you cant afford the 5DIII, and  you dont like/want the older 5dII, then you dont really need a poll to tell you which one to get. the only other canon FX bodies are the 1Dx (waaay more expensive) or bodies even older than the 5DlII.
> I cant really see anyone being disappointed with the 6D. the 5DIII is a great body if you have the cash for it, but if the 6D will fit your needs, the extra money you save can go into good glass for it.



Thanks for the response.  The 6D would obviously be a nice upgrade for me over my T3i, so the point of the post was to see if the Mk3 offered anything that I would be really missing based on my interests.  If photo quality is approximately the same on the two (if anyone can confirm), then it seems to come down to the AF differences, unless you can think of anything else.  Thanks again.  I could afford the MK3 if I had to, but yes, would prefer to spend the difference in money on better glass.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 26, 2013)

Used Nikon D800 at walk-in retail in smaller cities across the USA, selling for $2,000. Get a much better sensor, better HDR potential, and better lenses. The 6D is okay, but it's a 20 MP camera competing in a 36 MP arena. The overall dynamic range the Nikon sensors can give, as well as the HORRIBLE shadow chroma noise and the shadow pattern noise the Canons suffer from makes this an easy call. Take a look at the head-to-head comparison that Fred Miranda himself did...5D III versus D800...

In a field of photography where dynamic range, and actual USEFUL shadow detail is so highly prized, why handicap your work by going with a second-rate sensor made on outdated,archaic .5 micron technology when Nikon has already moved on to .18 micro sensor technology *and* far,far better signal processing? Canon is fine at the T3i and Rebel level. Now you want to move up to the big-boy level.

See for yourself: Part II - Controlled tests


----------



## ronlane (Jun 26, 2013)

awrhodes84 said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > if the wifi and gps are important to you, then the 6D is the only choice really with it's build-in features. That stuff doesn't mean anything to me, and the Mk3 is way out of my price range (I have the T3i as well).
> ...



I've been looking at used Mk2's that are cheaper than the 6D new. I could be wrong, but seem to remember reading about the Mk2 AF and the fact that it was still better than 6D (I could totally be wrong with this). The 6D may be the way to go by the time I get ready to make the switch, we will see.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 26, 2013)

awrhodes84 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > the most important thing is...what canon FF cameras that meet your criteria/needs are within your budget?
> ...



Canon 5D Mark III vs 6D - Our Analysis

now, that comparison isnt to be taken as the gospel....however, it DOES list and compare some of the important features of both cameras. you can always look up the official specs of each camera and do a side by side technical comparison yourself just to see which features each has that you would prefer.


----------



## awrhodes84 (Jun 26, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Used Nikon D800 at walk-in retail in smaller cities across the USA, selling for $2,000. Get a much better sensor, better HDR potential, and better lenses. The 6D is okay, but it's a 20 MP camera competing in a 36 MP arena. The overall dynamic range the Nikon sensors can give, as well as the HORRIBLE shadow chroma noise and the shadow pattern noise the Canons suffer from makes this an easy call. Take a look at the head-to-head comparison that Fred Miranda himself did...5D III versus D800...
> 
> In a field of photography where dynamic range, and actual USEFUL shadow detail is so highly prized, why handicap your work by going with a second-rate sensor made on outdated,archaic .5 micron technology when Nikon has already moved on to .18 micro sensor technology *and* far,far better signal processing? Canon is fine at the T3i and Rebel level. Now you want to move up to the big-boy level.
> 
> See for yourself: Part II - Controlled tests



Definitely good points in that comparison, but if you read the whole thing, he says he ends up using the Mk3 more as he couldn't get the D800's live view to function well in low light.  As a frequent photographer at dawn/night/dusk, that is a huge consideration.  Also, 36mp vs 22mp is not as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.  You would need to be looking at 60" wide prints from a foot away to notice a significant difference.  I do agree that the D800 has superior dynamic range, which is great for landscapes, but using HDR negates that benefit.  Overall, I have seen the Mark III win it's fair share (if not most) of side-by-sides.  Certainly not enough reason to have to switch my lenses all over to Nikon.


----------



## brunerww (Jun 26, 2013)

awrhodes84 said:


> ...I see a new 6D body for around 1,600 on ebay...






awrhodes84 said:


> ...If it really only comes down to a better Autofocus on the Mk3, then I think I could live without it for $1,500.



Hi Andrew, you can get a new 5D Mark III body for $2918 from BigValue via eBay, so the difference is a little over $1300.  I would get the 5D3 for the resolution as well as the AF speed, but that's just me (plus, I'm a video guy, so the lack of a headphone jack on the 6D is a huge deal).

Good luck with your decision!

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution


----------



## marc.christoffel (Jun 26, 2013)

I just purchased a 6D to replace our old 5D and it is great. We currently have a 5D Mark II also. The 6D is a fantastic camera at a very reasonable price. It blows the 5D Mark II out of the water in almost everything. I do wish there was a dedicated wb button on the 6D, but other than that. It is the perfect camera. I use it for weddings and am not afraid to push the ISO to 12,800. One would be crazy to get a 5D Mark II over it, regardless of price.
I personally find the GPS to be pointless, more of a gimmick. But for reviewing pictures the wifi is great, it's nicer to view the photos from an iPad or iPhone rather than hold a camera.


----------



## sharjeel10 (Jun 27, 2013)

i also voted Nikon


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 27, 2013)

The 5DIII is a flat out joke compared to the 6d in my opinion, in terms of cost effectiveness.  *I'm not even sure it's $1 better*, much less $1500. Yes it has better AF (and a handful of other trivial bells and whistles like a dimming LCD screen and 1/8000th shutter).  But it's also much larger and heavier and has no wifi/GPS--features which you already said you would use. These all I think pretty much cancel out for average shooters with no special hardcore needs for any particular feature.  Making the 6D vastly superior when you then take into account price.

The Nikon lower level full frames have better specs on paper for their sensors, but worse handling ergonomics and slightly worse ISO performance than the Canon equivalents (by about 1 stop).  Also, they seem to be plagued with pretty bad quality control issues recently. The d800 has dozens of people on Amazon reporting that the lateral AF points are terribly mis-calibrated, and the d600 apparently flings oil from the mirror right onto your sensor for the first 500 shots or so. My intuition is that they're scrambling a bit too fast to try and be the better innovators at the moment, and are slipping up a bit on some details.

Again, (assuming those rather serious quality flaws are fixed soon), I think that overall, the pros and cons pretty much cancel out there, for any comparison between Canons and Nikons currently in the same price class. Sticking with what you already have lenses for is the clear choice with such a lack of any blatantly obvious frontrunner.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 27, 2013)

I laugh that Nikons have "worse ergonomics"...that's hilarious Gavjenks.  Canon's ideas about ergonomics are pretty laughable. Ya' gotta love a camera that alternates control functions based on metering mode!! Canon's dumbest idea ever...but then, they decided their ergonomics and control layouts back in the mid-1980's when they dumped all their users and went EOS, and they have stuck with a system on tiny buttons that have two features per button, so the user is often left guessing, "What is this button actually going to DO when I move the wheel?"

Canon has better ergonomics than Nikon. zOMG..sorry, but I've just gotta laugh about that one!

Canon Car: Gas pedal, brake pedal--let's ALTERNATE the function of those two controls, depending on which GEAR the car is in--that is Canon's control system in a nutshell. Ridiculous. Buuut, it's all they could come up with in the mid-1980's.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 27, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I laugh that Nikons have "worse ergonomics"...that's hilarious Gavjenks.  Canon's ideas about ergonomics are pretty laughable. Ya' gotta love a camera that alternates control functions based on metering mode!! Canon's dumbest idea ever...but then, they decided their ergonomics and control layouts back in the mid-1980's when they dumped all their users and went EOS, and they have stuck with a system on tiny buttons that have two features per button, so the user is often left guessing, "What is this button actually going to DO when I move the wheel?"
> 
> Canon has better ergonomics than Nikon. zOMG..sorry, but I've just gotta laugh about that one!
> 
> Canon Car: Gas pedal, brake pedal--let's ALTERNATE the function of those two controls, depending on which GEAR the car is in--that is Canon's control system in a nutshell. Ridiculous. Buuut, it's all they could come up with in the mid-1980's.



This is something that doesn't really matter after shooting with either system for a week, tops.  Simple contingencies are easy to make second nature, because it doesn't actually require more actions.  It just requires different intuition, which you can learn rapidly.

I refer primarily to the much more crippling lack of custom settings modes that are not nearly as good as Canon's. On many Nikon cameras, you have to go into menus to call up the custom memory settings, and even then, they don't work as well.  Having to go into a menu with multiple clicks, taking your whole head away from the camera, and then also having to change 3 or 4 other settings in OTHER menus (since it doesn't remember everything that it should) is not something you can ever "get used to" or make second nature, compared to just clicking one dial to the mode you need. It will always be slower, because it is many more physical actions, not just a different habit.

AFAIK the D7000 is the only camera to have finally borrowed this crucial feature from Canon, done correctly, on the dial, with full recall. Hopefully this will spread to future models in general.

Similarly, but more generally, Nikon menus tend to be much more nested and require more clicks. Unlike wheel behavior, this is not something you can ever "get used to."  More button clicking is more button clicking. It will always take that much longer.




Anyway, even if you disregard ergonomics completely, the cameras are currently fairly comparable with better sensor dynamic range and such in the Nikons and better ISO performance in the Canons. Nikons offer slightly more ancillary features (like FPS) at similar price points, but then again, you have a 20% chance of having your sensor slathered in oil or your left AF points not working...  Pretty much all washes out.

Obvious solution still = buy whatever you have lenses for.


----------



## awrhodes84 (Jun 27, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I laugh that Nikons have "worse ergonomics"...that's hilarious Gavjenks.  Canon's ideas about ergonomics are pretty laughable. Ya' gotta love a camera that alternates control functions based on metering mode!! Canon's dumbest idea ever...but then, they decided their ergonomics and control layouts back in the mid-1980's when they dumped all their users and went EOS, and they have stuck with a system on tiny buttons that have two features per button, so the user is often left guessing, "What is this button actually going to DO when I move the wheel?"
> ...



Thanks for all the advice.  I pulled the trigger on the 6D kit last night from Amazon.  The 24-105 f/4 L "kit" lens is reselling for around $800, so that brings the total cost down to around $1,600.  Pretty great deal for a camera that, as you said, is every bit as good as the 5D3 save for the auto-focus.  As a landscape photographer first and foremost, a mind-blowing AF is not worth much to me, especially not $1,500.

Also, while I keep seeing people refer to the WiFi and GPS in the 6D as "gimmicks," I think the practical application of these features is a lot greater than people think.  To be able to specifically geo-tag where a picture was shot is a great help for a landscape photographer, if nothing else to help guide you back to the same spot for shooting under different conditions.  Also, I can already see the WiFi link to the smartphone app being incredibly useful to compose weird angle shots where I can't see the screen, or to compose quality portraits on vacation that I'm in as well.  It's highly annoying to try to compose a picture and then run to be in it, while hoping it's properly focused on you.  Call these 2 features what you want, but I will be using them constantly.

Thanks again for all the advice!


----------



## TCampbell (Jun 27, 2013)

I own a 5D III and that's certainly the most capable body, but upon reading what you shoot I realized you'd get everything you need from a 6D body.  The performance and focus system on the 5D III are amazing... I mean _REALLY_ amazing (no... more amazing than that!)

Having owned a 5D II with a ho-hum focus system (people bash it... it's not that it was "bad" per se... it's that it was absolutely no better than the focus system that came with all the Rebel bodies and even the 50D and 60D had better systems... to say nothing of the 7D.)  It's as though Canon had this notion that if you shoot full-frame you're probably shooting subjects where it's ok to take all day to get the shot... so why would you need a good focus system?  <sigh>

After Canon received a thorough (and I do mean thorough) brow beating over that oversight they absolutely crushed it when they released the 5D III.  Canon has a 47 page document just dedicated to the focus system alone.  It's highly configurable and offers a ton of control.  The 5D II had other benefits and people loved it for video (although I never shot video.  The last time someone asked me about video I had to go figure out how to enable the mode because it's not on the mode dial like it is for most other models.)

Based on YOUR needs -- where you really do a type of shooting where you can take your time to get the shot -- I'd go with the 6D (it'll even tag your images with GPS coords) and then use that extra money to buy a nice Lee filter system with some grad ND and reverse grad NDs (you might need to look at Singh-Ray filters as well because I don't think Lee makes reverse grad NDs.)


----------



## goodguy (Jun 27, 2013)

If you can afford the 5D III then that's the one I would go for.


----------



## TCampbell (Jun 27, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side 6D, 5D MkIII, 5D MkII



For those who subscribe to DxO...

Be aware that DxO considers their scoring system to be "secret sauce".  They absolutely will not disclose what factors go into that score.  But what's more, they also don't fully disclose their testing methods (they describe it at a high level, but with enough ambiguity that you don't quite know what exactly they mean by "we test the sensor".)

They do perform some things to images which you'd probably rather wished they would disclose to you before you accept the scores at face value.  For example... when they test noise, they don't feel it's fair that small micron sensors tend have more noise than large micron sensors even though the smaller micron size sensor might be providing more resolution... so they resample the images to reduce high res images to the same res as low res cameras before scoring them.  Unfortunately it's not possible to resample an image without smoothing out noise... so you're sort of invalidating a test.  It's largely accepted that there's a bit of a trade off between resolution and noise, but DxO's testing doesn't accurately reflect that.  What's worse... they don't actually DISCLOSE that.

DxO is probably a rough indicator but don't put too much stock in their results.


----------



## stevensondrive (Jun 27, 2013)

I love my 6D.  and I highly endorse it.


----------



## MarshallG (Jun 27, 2013)

awrhodes84 said:


> I pulled the trigger on the 6D kit last night from Amazon.  The 24-105 f/4 L "kit" lens is reselling for around $800, so that brings the total cost down to around $1,600.  Pretty great deal for a camera that, as you said, is every bit as good as the 5D3 save for the auto-focus.  As a landscape photographer first and foremost, a mind-blowing AF is not worth much to me, especially not $1,500.
> 
> Also, while I keep seeing people refer to the WiFi and GPS in the 6D as "gimmicks," I think the practical application of these features is a lot greater than people think.


You definitely made the best choice for you, and that's the only thing that matters. Enjoy, and let us know how it goes!


----------

