# 6D vs mark iii



## CorrieMichael (Sep 6, 2013)

I am looking to upgrade my body and want some real input on these two cameras! Thanks in advance!


----------



## Juga (Sep 6, 2013)

6D is a fantastic camera. What type of shooting do you primarily do?


----------



## CorrieMichael (Sep 6, 2013)

Juga said:


> 6D is a fantastic camera. What type of shooting do you primarily do?



 A lot of family and portraiture....newborns etc.  in studio and on location......mainly natural light photography.


----------



## Auburnfan04 (Sep 6, 2013)

If you can afford the mark iii its unbeatable. Next in line is the 6d. I  looking to get one myself. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Juga (Sep 7, 2013)

The 5DIII is an incredible camera but if you really got justify the cost the 6D is a really nice fall back. The high ISO performance is really incredible.


----------



## Bulb (Sep 7, 2013)

Neither is better than the other. Take your pick:

Canon 6D:


Built in GPS / Wi-Fi
Focuses in very low light / high ISO capabilities
Lighter / Smaller
Much cheaper

Canon 5D3:


Low-moire video
2 Extra megapixels
Amazing autofocus system
1/8000 Second max shutter speed


----------



## goodguy (Sep 7, 2013)

The 5D III is one of the best cameras in the world but you will pay for it, if you can afford it then get it!!!
Do you need the 5D III ?
Probably not , the 5D III is an awesome tool but probably an overkill for a non pro user.
The 6D is more focused at the serious enthusiast photography user, its an amazing full frame camera and probably will be more then you will ever need, its low light performance is very impressive and overall its a wonderful camera.

So to sum it up if you can afford the 5D III then get it but to be honest the 6D will be just perfect for you and unless you plan on going pro or doing serious sport shooting you will not need anything more then the 6D.


----------



## kathyt (Sep 7, 2013)

Bulb said:


> Neither is better than the other. Take your pick:
> 
> Canon 6D:
> 
> ...


Neither is better then the other? BS. If you can swing the Mark, do it. I :heart: my Mark. He is sooooo handsome. Oh, and the 9 focal points vs. 61? (Something like that) You do the math!


----------



## OLaA (Sep 7, 2013)

It really depends what you need/want.  If you want the best than obviously go with the Mark III.  If you just want a great camera and get the bang for your buck get the 6D.  The IQ is indistinguishable.  If you're seriously considering the Mark III but could use the extra funds to fund lighting and or lenses make sure what you're getting extra you're going to use.  Do you need 1/8000 shutter speed, 5 millioin auto focus points, headphone jack, negligibly higher flash sync speed or better handling of moire?  In your situation it really seems like you don't.  If you're shooting studio/posed shots, and not interested in video I really don't see you gaining anything from making the leap to the 5D.  If you're considering video and or action/sports in the future then give it a strong consideration.  

I have both cameras and they're both AWESOME.  I honestly probably end up reaching for my 6D more often because I typically work in studio and the smaller size comes in handy as well as wifi screen viewing.  I usually only back the 5D when I'm doing a video session or out trying to capture motion.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 7, 2013)

Bulb said:


> Neither is better than the other. Take your pick:
> 
> Canon 6D:
> 
> ...


This.  "Best" is not the same thing as "most expensive."  They're pretty much *equally good cameras *in slightly different ways. 6D has a better sensor, 5D has better focusing, FPS, sports stuff.

Considering that the Mark III costs over twice as much though, I don't think there's ever a reason for anybody to spend that much more for a slightly different flavor, unless you primarily shoot sports all the time (in which case, are you a professional? If so, maybe consider a 1DX instead?).  If not, get the 6D for the massive advantage of cost.

If on the other hand you mostly shoot low light concerts and such, then get the 6D no matter what.  Even if you have 8,000,000 dollars to blow on cameras (and think the 1DX is too expensive), the 6D will still be a better performer if that's what you shoot.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 7, 2013)

Check out the dPreview side-by-side camera comparison tool... Side by Side Comparison: Digital Photography Review

As you can see, specification-wise the 5D Mark III and the 6D are close, or identical, on MANY features and specifications. The number of focusing points is an advantage for the 5D-III, but it seems like 99% of all Canon shooters turn off all the peripheral AF points, thus reducing both high-tech AF systems to parity. The 100% viewfinder of the 5D III is a nice advantage over the 97% of the 6D, at least for those who want their pictures NOT to always show a little bit more once the files are downloaded. Neither have a built-in flash, so there's no built-in remote multi-flash commander without adding an awkward, expensive accessory from Canon, or expensive triggers that can do TTL multi-flash firing or control. I see the 6D as their "value proposition" full-frame, and their 5D III as their "pro generalist body". I think the 5D-III is priced too high, as in $703 above the Nikon D800, and more or less $1500 above the 6D. Either the 5D-III or the 6D are going to offer better technical image quality than just about any other Canon camera that you might be using these days, and both have the wonderful full-frame goodness things going on.


----------



## raventepes (Sep 7, 2013)

The best camera is whichever you can afford and is in your hands. 

In all seriousness, various cameras capture different markets. It really is a question, not of which camera is higher spec, but what is suited to your needs. Lets face it. You don't exactly need that Nikon D3X, or Canon 1DX if all you do is capture little league games. Yes, they may be among the best that one could buy, but really, a Nikon D7100 or Canon 7D would be just fine. That's just an example though. 

Think about what your needs are, look at both camera's spec lists, go play with them in a shop or best buy, and make a decision. It's equally important to keep a plan of which will get you by until there comes a time where you can get exactly what you need. 

One question I have though, is why do you feel you need an upgrade?


----------



## underemployed (Sep 8, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> This. "Best" is not the same thing as "most expensive." They're pretty much *equally good cameras *in slightly different ways. 6D has a better sensor, 5D has better focusing, FPS, sports stuff.
> 
> Considering that the Mark III costs over twice as much though, I don't think there's ever a reason for anybody to spend that much more for a slightly different flavor, unless you primarily shoot sports all the time (in which case, are you a professional? If so, maybe consider a 1DX instead?). If not, get the 6D for the massive advantage of cost.
> 
> If on the other hand you mostly shoot low light concerts and such, then get the 6D no matter what. Even if you have 8,000,000 dollars to blow on cameras (and think the 1DX is too expensive), the 6D will still be a better performer if that's what you shoot.



I'm into concert photography, if you don't mind could you give me a good breakdown of why the 6D is better than the 5DIII for me?  I'm admittedly a noob and looking to upgrade from my 40D (first DSLR about a year ago) and could use some guidance.  Thanks!


----------



## goodguy (Sep 8, 2013)

underemployed said:


> I'm into concert photography, if you don't mind could you give me a good breakdown of why the 6D is better than the 5DIII for me? I'm admittedly a noob and looking to upgrade from my 40D (first DSLR about a year ago) and could use some guidance. Thanks!



A good break down the advantages of the 6D vs 5D III ?

Easy, I can sum it up in 2 words

It's cheaper!


----------



## brunerww (Sep 8, 2013)

For most types of still photography, I agree with what seems to be the majority view - my vote is for the 6D.

If you ever plan on shooting video, though, you may miss the Mark III's headphone jack, clean HDMI out and moire-free images.

Good luck with your decision!

Bill


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 8, 2013)

> I'm into concert photography, if you don't mind could you give me a good breakdown of why the 6D is better than the 5DIII for me? I'm admittedly a noob and looking to upgrade from my 40D (first DSLR about a year ago) and could use some guidance. Thanks!


Well, the main advantage of the Mark III is continuous and automatic peripheral autofocus fanciness, which you have no need for in concerts (the band generally you know, stays put).
The main advantage of the 6D is much lower noise at high ISOs than the Mark III, more dynamic range, etc., which is going to be front and center for your needs in a dark performance venue.

So it will actually do a better job of photographing the event, in addition to costing like half as much.


----------



## iolair (Sep 9, 2013)

Another big advantage of the mark III is the dual card slots - you can record onto two cards at once, which for one-off events is a good insurance against card loss or failure - especially if you're being paid for the images.


----------



## mmaria (Sep 9, 2013)

The same thing is bugging me for a while. I decided to go with 5dmk3 but I&#8217;ve just had some unplanned expenses and it seems to me that I&#8217;ll be buying a 6d J
I shoot portraits and kids primarily and the most important for me is low light performance. 
From the place I&#8217;m standing either one will be a huge upgrade.


----------

