# 5D MKIII or 6D...



## Steve5D (May 16, 2014)

Taking the price out of the discussion, which one do you choose, and why?


----------



## Overread (May 16, 2014)

5DMIII because of its superior AF system - honestly consider how much you can crop with that camera its really making crop sensor like the 7D start to feel like its not the be all and end all for wildlife/sports.


----------



## pixmedic (May 16, 2014)

5DIII because its more expensive. 
and if there's anything ive learned here, its more $$$ = better.


----------



## Derrel (May 16, 2014)

Last time I needed a new camera was in 2012. I demo'd the 5D-III, the Nikon D700, the Nikon D3x, and the Nikon D800, and the Nikon D4, and briefly the Canon 1Dx. I shot the D4 and the 5D-III at all ISO's, on the same day and came home with a few hundred files. In terms of "feel in the hand", the 5D-III feels great, and has wonderful ergonomics. The D800 does not, and neither does the D4...the shutter button and the main control in the D800 and D4 are not like they were in the D1,D1h,and D2x that I have been used to for over a decade. The 5D Classic I had used for six years had an entirely different "feel" than the 5D-III; the 5D-III has been designed so that, in my opinion, if "feels like a professional Nikon" body...they even re-positioned the depth of field button from the decades-long LEFT side, to the right,middle finger area...Canon now has an AF-ON and an AE-Lock button located in the traditional Nikon pro-body locations.

To me, the Canon 5D-III fits and feels a LOT like a mid-2000's professional Nikon 1-digit body. It no longer has the feel of the 5D or the 5D-II...it's a wholly different degree of build quality than those two bodies...it's just sooooo responsive, and soooo ergonomically, well...modern. It feels more like a Nikon D2x or D3x than it does a Canon 5D or a Nikon D700, and I think it's really more of a full-fledged flagship-grade body in all ways than the 5D Classic or the 5D-II were. It is so different in fit,finish,responsiveness, and hand feel, *they COULD have named it the "Eight D". *The $389 EOS Elan sub-structure of the first two 5D iterations has been replaced, entirely.

I've picked up and handled the Canon 6D a couple of times...it's like the Nikon D600...not as expensive, and you can tell it's "stripped down", or "simplified". The 5D Mark III on the other hand, is a professional-grade body...it has superb ergonomics, awesome viewfinder, the focusing is amazing, the silent shutter mode is sooooo quiet. I liked the 5D-III's files more than the Nikon D4 files that I shot, and I liked the "feel" and the "fit" of the 5D-III over the D4, which has all-new ergonomics compared to the older pro Nikon bodies. I went with an older pro Nikon body, a used D3x, over the 5D-III because, for "me", I could wear my eyeglasses and SEE best through those two cameras and I have more Nikon lenses. I cannot see through the smaller-type "consumer" viewfinders that some of the lower-tier cameras have. I preferred the fit, feel, and everything about the 5D-III over the Nikon D800 as well. The 5D-III viewfinder was GREAT with my eyeglasses on!!! So was the D3x and D4 too.

I tend to use a camera 5,6,7 years or more. To me, the 5D-III is one of the finest camera designs ever made. Out of the six top cameras on the market, I thought the 5D-III was first or second in overall total fit, feel, and just "sex appeal" or "desirability" or "*want it!*" factor. The 6D is not cut from the same cloth as the 5D-III.


----------



## TinySquid (May 16, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> Taking the price out of the discussion, which one do you choose, and why?


I'd argue that you can't remove price from the equation. Are they both great camera bodies? Yes. Do they offer comparable image quality? Yes. Are there differences between the two? Yes, but whether or not the differences matter depends on your use case. So if someone's use case doesn't significantly take advantage of the differences, then it comes down to whether the differences are worth the price delta.

I couldn't justify the price difference given my use case and other equipment. Yes, the 6D's focusing system is pretty simplistic but it gets the job done, the center focus point really is amazing in low light, and the control layout is better for single handed operation (granted, I don't like how Canon puts the power switch on the left...I prefer the Nikon-style power switch around the shutter release). The 6D/70D combo that I went with offers me more capability and flexibility than a single 5D Mk.III body ever could and the two bodies together cost less than a single 5D Mk.III. The Mk.III does _feel _more refined, but a camera is a utilitarian thing to me so that perception of additional refinement doesn't add value.

But what do I know... I'm crazy. :lmao:


----------



## jaomul (May 16, 2014)

5d3 because of build and feel, speed and quality.


----------



## ronlane (May 16, 2014)

5Diii for me. Probably the biggest reason would be for the burst rate and the other, just cause I want it.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 16, 2014)

I've been using a 5D mklll for a year and it`s a great camera. I just bought a 1Dx and it`s really similar to the 5D, other than 12 fps and an extra $3000. I looked at getting another 5D, but decided to bite the bullet and go with the Dx, the only reason was the speed of the camera.


----------



## runnah (May 16, 2014)

I like the 100% viewfinder and the heft of the body. Seems like all the buttons are in the exact right spot.

My favorite part is the video capabilities. I know a lot aren't interested but it's amazing. A professional grade camera and video camera in one!


----------



## PinkDoor (May 16, 2014)

Looks like I'm the only 6D'er in the group. I've used both, and love the 6D so much more! The Mark's body seems to be so much heavier, and I'm not a fan of the extra weight. 6D shot from today, 50mm - 1.8 - 1/160 - 640 ISO


----------



## runnah (May 16, 2014)

PinkDoor said:


> Looks like I'm the only 6D'er in the group. I've used both, and love the 6D so much more! The Mark's body seems to be so much heavier, and I'm not a fan of the extra weight. 6D shot from today, 50mm - 1.8 - 1/160 - 640 ISO  <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=74058"/>



I don't mean to brag but I can bench many 5d's.


----------



## DarkShadow (May 16, 2014)

Price is out then the 5DIII for the following. Focus system,FPS,2 Card Slots,Build quality.That said, I am Extremely happy with the 6D and the focus is much better then one might think.Gets the birds IF pretty well to.



IMG_0559 by DarkShadow191145, on Flickr


----------



## shaylou (May 16, 2014)

TinySquid said:


> I'd argue that you can't remove price from the equation. Are they both great camera bodies? Yes. Do they offer comparable image quality? Yes. Are there differences between the two? Yes, but whether or not the differences matter depends on your use case. So if someone's use case doesn't significantly take advantage of the differences, then it comes down to whether the differences are worth the price delta.  I couldn't justify the price difference given my use case and other equipment. Yes, the 6D's focusing system is pretty simplistic but it gets the job done, the center focus point really is amazing in low light, and the control layout is better for single handed operation (granted, I don't like how Canon puts the power switch on the left...I prefer the Nikon-style power switch around the shutter release). The 6D/70D combo that I went with offers me more capability and flexibility than a single 5D Mk.III body ever could and the two bodies together cost less than a single 5D Mk.III. The Mk.III does feel more refined, but a camera is a utilitarian thing to me so that perception of additional refinement doesn't add value.  But what do I know... I'm crazy. :lmao:



How can you argue the price when the op question clearly stated take that out of the equation?


----------



## shaylou (May 16, 2014)

5DIII for the AF system alone. This is the best AF system canon has ever had. It is so customizable. There are other things that separate it but no need to get into that. The AF system is enough.


----------



## TinySquid (May 17, 2014)

shaylou said:


> TinySquid said:
> 
> 
> > I'd argue that you can't remove price from the equation. Are they both great camera bodies? Yes. Do they offer comparable image quality? Yes. Are there differences between the two? Yes, but whether or not the differences matter depends on your use case. So if someone's use case doesn't significantly take advantage of the differences, then it comes down to whether the differences are worth the price delta.  I couldn't justify the price difference given my use case and other equipment. Yes, the 6D's focusing system is pretty simplistic but it gets the job done, the center focus point really is amazing in low light, and the control layout is better for single handed operation (granted, I don't like how Canon puts the power switch on the left...I prefer the Nikon-style power switch around the shutter release). The 6D/70D combo that I went with offers me more capability and flexibility than a single 5D Mk.III body ever could and the two bodies together cost less than a single 5D Mk.III. The Mk.III does feel more refined, but a camera is a utilitarian thing to me so that perception of additional refinement doesn't add value.  But what do I know... I'm crazy. :lmao:
> ...



Easy, the idea of simply ignoring price is silly given that the cameras are all built to a price point with a different use case in mind--5D and 1D included. It's no different than ridiculous tech customers who pull the 'money is no object, I want the best' BS. In the realm of reality, everything has cost and use case constraints as well as functional trade-offs.


----------



## bribrius (May 17, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> Taking the price out of the discussion, which one do you choose, and why?


the one that felt best in my hands.


----------



## jaomul (May 17, 2014)

Easy, the idea of simply ignoring price is silly given that the cameras are all built to a price point with a different use case in mind--5D and 1D included. It's no different than ridiculous tech customers who pull the 'money is no object, I want the best' BS. In the realm of reality, everything has cost and use case constraints as well as functional trade-offs.[/QUOTE]

Depends. If one could afford either but wants to make their own informed decision whether one is worth more than the other to them.


----------



## bribrius (May 17, 2014)

My opinion was based solely on steve doing this for a business and using the camera a good portion of the time. Assuming this is the use. I believe if you are using something to that extent you should like it and the feel of it. Why make your job more dislikable than you have to..


----------



## Designer (May 17, 2014)

I understand why Steve said "taking the price out of the discussion"; because as a professional, he is willing to invest more if necessary to get the one he wants.


----------



## Steve5D (May 17, 2014)

I expected the 5D MKIII to come out ahead, but I don't know that I expected it to be so overwhelming...


----------



## Derrel (May 17, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> I expected the 5D MKIII to come out ahead, but I don't know that I expected it to be so overwhelming...



Well, the 5D-III is the third iteration of the model...due to Nikon's success with the D700 and D3 and D3s, Canon realized they truly had serious competition, and they needed to address the focus system issues the first two models took so much "heat" for, AND they needed to solidify the video capability that made the 5D-II such a big hit.And they needed a knockout punch, or at least a massive roundhouse right, planted right in Nikon's face. It is the third of its kind...this one was Canon's "home run swing". The 5D-III was Canon's effort to stave off Nikon's inroads into market share, and again, it's the third attempt, and one made in the face of encroaching competition in an ever-tougher market, and it was built with plenty of MSRP to ensure that there was no need to skimp. *The 6D on the other hand is Version 1.0*. I see the 5D-III as being a LOT like the Leica M3 was; a design that came out a number of models and a number of years into the "game", but a design so well-conceived that it is *recognized as an instant classic*. Over the decades there have been a few cameras like that. Linhof Technika IV; Leica M-3; Nikon F; Nikon FE-2; Rolleiflex 2.8F; Hasselblad 500C; Canon 5D-III.


----------



## Steve5D (May 17, 2014)

Derrel said:


> AND they needed to solidify the *video capability* that made the 5D-II such a big hit...



That's the one thing I wish it _didn't_ have. I have exactly zero interest in shooting video. I know that capability is strong with the MKIII, but it's something I would never use beyond the "let's goof with it" phase. If I want to shoot video, I'll use my phone or my G12...


----------



## bribrius (May 17, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > AND they needed to solidify the *video capability* that made the 5D-II such a big hit...
> ...


not sure if I would be so quick to jump on the anti video bandwagon. Video is not only very popular and useful it can give a photographer a added option to offer clients. You can deliver stills AND video. Someone would be crazy to not want at least a decent level of video capability to. jmo.


----------



## Overread (May 17, 2014)

Thing is when you remove price the 6D just doesn't offer much that the 5DMIII doesn't already do or does better. It's got a few features and I think it might have  few additional video functions, but otherwise its designed to be the cheaper, less well featured baby to the 5DMIII in the Canon line up. 

So when price isn't an issue the 5DMIII is nearly always going to win. 

That's not a knock on the 6D, its a fantastic body and at a very good price; its just not as good as the MIII.


----------



## Steve5D (May 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> not sure if I would be so quick to jump on the anti video bandwagon. Video is not only very popular and useful it can give a photographer a added option to offer clients. You can deliver stills AND video. Someone would be crazy to not want at least a decent level of video capability to. jmo.



Well, I've certainly been called "crazy" on occasion.

Video is something that simply doesn't interest me in the least. It's like shooting weddings. You could say "Someone would be crazy to not to want to shoot weddings, because that's where the big money is!"

Well, that might be correct. But that, in and of itself, shouldn't compel someone to shoot weddings.

If I were a wedding shooter, I would certainly consider it. But weddings just ain't my gig.

I'm not on any "bandwagon". The word "bandwagon" suggests that I don't want to do video because it's popular to not to want to do video. I don't want to do video because I don't want to do video; it simply doesn't interest me. I suppose that could change at some point but, if I'm not going to allow a remote possibility (and, trust me, it's remote) to dictate a gear purchase. Also, my lack of appropriate video equipment doesn't seem to have hurt my business.

Now, this isn't to say I wouldn't buy the 5D MKIII because of the video capability; it's a great camera. But I would likely never use the feature...


----------



## bribrius (May 17, 2014)

lot of stuff is getting video too now steve.....

I know you don't like change no one does.

some weddings are going video and stills for example.

I doubt this is only weddings too.

If I was in your position, business to run, might want to be something you throw on the table for a added service. 
just sayn.........

putting it up on a tripod for a second body doing video a few times while you nail the stills with your other one might pay for the camera price difference.

I know you are very business oriented.


----------



## Derrel (May 17, 2014)

Video is a big sales feature; a "check-box" feature for some people; an absolutely essential feature for some people and for some business buyers. I've seen the comparisons between the lower-tier Canon bodies and the 5D-III and it seems like the lower models have substandard video (not in a huge way, but its definitely clear that the 5D-III has the better-performing video capabilities).

I dunno...my camera does not shoot video either. I shoot what little video I shoot with my iPhone. But the thing is, to me the 5D-III's image quality is better than the Nikon D4 at high ISO values, and the AF system seemed to me to be as good as the D4 system. I really think the 5D-III is the Leica M-3 of its era, which is high, high praise. The silent shooting mode to me is the one most-amazing thing, along with the great viewfinder and very powerful focus module. I LIKED the 5D-III...I was very lukewarm on the D800 and D4...the 5D-III is a sweeeeeet design, video or no video, it's a flagship-level camera for half the cost.


----------



## Mach0 (May 17, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Video is a big sales feature; a "check-box" feature for some people; an absolutely essential feature for some people and for some business buyers. I've seen the comparisons between the lower-tier Canon bodies and the 5D-III and it seems like the lower models have substandard video (not in a huge way, but its definitely clear that the 5D-III has the better-performing video capabilities).  I dunno...my camera does not shoot video either. I shoot what little video I shoot with my iPhone. But the thing is, to me the 5D-III's image quality is better than the Nikon D4 at high ISO values, and the AF system seemed to me to be as good as the D4 system. I really think the 5D-III is the Leica M-3 of its era, which is high, high praise. The silent shooting mode to me is the one most-amazing thing, along with the great viewfinder and very powerful focus module. I LIKED the 5D-III...I was very lukewarm on the D800 and D4...the 5D-III is a sweeeeeet design, video or no video, it's a flagship-level camera for half the cost.



It's the only canon I would love to get


----------



## jsecordphoto (May 17, 2014)

If price was no issue then the 5dIII obviously takes it. I just bought the 6D this week because price was an issue, but I don't feel like I missed out on that much. I don't really need a crazy good autofocus system because I shoot landscapes primarily, and the low light/high iso performance of the 6D is incredible. If I had the money to pick up the 5dIII though I would've picked it up over the 6D


----------



## Steve5D (May 17, 2014)

jsecordphoto said:


> but I don't feel like I missed out on that much.



What _do _you think you missed out on by going with the 6D?


----------



## runnah (May 17, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> That's the one thing I wish it didn't have. I have exactly zero interest in shooting video. I know that capability is strong with the MKIII, but it's something I would never use beyond the "let's goof with it" phase. If I want to shoot video, I'll use my phone or my G12...



I think you are thinking of it as "just another feature"  when in fact it's a huge deal. Like I said before it's not just a cell phone quality video it's a full on production quality video camera. The quality blows most video only cameras out of the water.

I dare say it's revolutionized the industry.


----------



## Steve5D (May 17, 2014)

runnah said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > That's the one thing I wish it didn't have. I have exactly zero interest in shooting video. I know that capability is strong with the MKIII, but it's something I would never use beyond the "let's goof with it" phase. If I want to shoot video, I'll use my phone or my G12...
> ...



I'm not saying it's not a quality feature. I'm not saying it's not revolutionized the industry (which, I suppose, could be debated). I _have_, however, said it's something that I simply would not use. I'm not at all interested in producing video. If someone doesn't want to hire me because I don't do video (and that's already happened), I'm completely cool with that. When I played music for a living, I lost out on gigs because I didn't  play reggae. That was fine. Playing reggae didn't interest me in the  least.

So, while video may be a huge deal to some, it's pretty meaningless to me. It's simply something else that can break. I fully acknowledge that the likelihood of buying a new body without video capability is going to be slim, its mere presence isn't going to suddenly compel me to buy one.

I can say this unequivocally: If I buy a MkIII, it's not going to be because of the video capabilities...


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 17, 2014)

Have to agree with Steve on the Video feature.  I would rather have a straight up camera that doesn't do anything but what I want it to do, and that is shoot stills.  If I wanted to shoot video I would rather buy a video camera.


----------



## TinySquid (May 17, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> I can say this unequivocally: If I buy a MkIII, it's not going to be because of the video capabilities...



That's good, because I'd argue that the 70D's auto focusing system (that actually works) makes it much better suited for most video work. If you're in a controlled environment and are used to and practiced in manually focusing video equipment, then the 5D is great but the quality difference is negligible unless you start shooting RAW video through ML and you don't have the option of auto focus.

With that out of the way, it sounds like this is really going to come down to a few feature differences which are covered here: Canon 5D Mark III vs. 6D

There's some give-and-take here as the 6D has some features that the Mk.III doesn't and the Mk.III can do some stuff that the 6D can't... it all depends on which of these features/differences _you_ value.

Side note: don't immediately write features like GPS off as a gimmick, since it can actually be pretty useful for location scouting (I recently started a photo session location folder with this--scroll through the folder in Bridge, find a location that looks right for what I want to do, punch the GPS info from Exif into Google Maps, and off I go).


----------



## minicoop1985 (May 17, 2014)

PinkDoor said:


> Looks like I'm the only 6D'er in the group. I've used both, and love the 6D so much more! The Mark's body seems to be so much heavier, and I'm not a fan of the extra weight. 6D shot from today, 50mm - 1.8 - 1/160 - 640 ISO
> 
> View attachment 74058



I'd do a 6D too. The controls look VERY similar to my 7D, so I have a feeling using it wouldn't be much different. As much as I want to throw a 5D mk III in people's faces and tell them I MUST BE BETTER BECAUSE I HAVE A 5D HAAAAHAHAHAHA that's not going to help as I prove how someone CAN be horrible with a full frame camera.


Edit: Oh crap, I confused them. It's the 5D mk III that has the similar controls. Son of a...


----------



## shaylou (May 18, 2014)

TinySquid said:


> shaylou said:
> 
> 
> > TinySquid said:
> ...



Once again the op took price out of the equation. He could be a gazillionaire for all you know. Silly is thinking that you understand everyone's situation. When I am looking for equipment I always take price out of the equation at first and look at a quality comparison. Once I have a clear understanding of how the product compares I add price back in. It's only at that point I can make a sound decision about what to buy. Sometimes I find that what I really should buy is out of my price range so I have to wait to buy it. Other times I find that the extra price is not worth the features. If you are a salesman and your customers tell you that price doesn't matter (like I would) and you are dismissing that statement you are doing a disservice to your customers.


----------



## Steve5D (May 18, 2014)

TinySquid said:


> Easy, the idea of simply ignoring price is silly given that the cameras are all built to a price point with a different use case in mind--5D and 1D included. It's no different than ridiculous tech customers who pull the 'money is no object, I want the best' BS. In the realm of reality, everything has cost and use case constraints as well as functional trade-offs.



It's not silly. I wanted to hear input based solely on features. Given  the fact that some actually chose the 6D, I wasn't off base.

If you can't bring yourself to address the question asked, really, you won't offend me if you don't respond.

The question can be discussed without a discussion of price, and that's kinda' what I'm going for, thanks...


----------



## Steve5D (May 18, 2014)

shaylou said:


> He could be a gazillionaire for all you know.



LOL! Man, I wish!



> Silly is thinking that you understand everyone's situation. When I am looking for equipment I always take price out of the equation at first and look at a quality comparison. Once I have a clear understanding of how the product compares I add price back in. It's only at that point I can make a sound decision about what to buy. Sometimes I find that what I really should buy is out of my price range so I have to wait to buy it. Other times I find that the extra price is not worth the features. If you are a salesman and your customers tell you that price doesn't matter (like I would) and you are dismissing that statement you are doing a disservice to your customers.



Either body will fit into my budget. I'm far more interested in the capabilities of each than I am with the price of each...


----------



## tevo (May 18, 2014)

5D3 so you don't have to change your TPF username.


----------



## Steve5D (May 19, 2014)

tevo said:


> 5D3 so you don't have to change your TPF username.


----------



## kathyt (May 19, 2014)

Mark III because it has so many focal points.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 19, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> Well, I've certainly been called "crazy" on occasion.



Ahh.. crap. Was that out loud? Sorry Steve. Lol



> ideo is something that simply doesn't interest me in the least. It's like shooting weddings. You could say "Someone would be crazy to not to want to shoot weddings, because that's where the big money is!"



No interest in video or shooting weddings here either. In fact I think shooting a video at a wedding would fall under the "fate worse than death" category.



> I'm not on any "bandwagon". The word "bandwagon" suggests that I don't want to do video because it's popular to not to want to do video. I don't want to do video because I don't want to do video; it simply doesn't interest me. I suppose that could change at some point but, if I'm not going to allow a remote possibility (and, trust me, it's remote) to dictate a gear purchase. Also, my lack of appropriate video equipment doesn't seem to have hurt my business.



Funny thing is the expression "jump on the bandwagon" actually got started when a guy who used to be a famous circus clown ran for president back in the late 1800's. Considering how many clowns get elected today I guess the phrase still works.. lol.


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2014)

Maybe its because none of you shoot video on a regular basis but to just disregard it completely is a crime. I am constantly blown away by how good the video is on a little dslr body.


----------



## ronlane (May 19, 2014)

kathyt said:


> Mark III because it has so many focal points.



I thought you only need one, as long as it's focused on you. huh?


----------



## bribrius (May 19, 2014)

I love video. Don't know enough about it but I have the old camcorders still kicking around put it that way. Use my cameras for video now. Granted not on a pro level. I like it for family home movies, martial arts competitions, considering coming up with a play right now for the kids to perform for fun make a little movie out of it. Works for music recitals...
I have definitely found a use for video. 
save them to a laptop, plug the laptop into the tv and we sit around eating popcorn watching them.  kids really get a kick out of seeing themselves on tv.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 19, 2014)

runnah said:


> Maybe its because none of you shoot video on a regular basis but to just disregard it completely is a crime. I am constantly blown away by how good the video is on a little dslr body.



Nobody ever said video was a crime.  That's just silly.  Ok, granted it is evil and you will eventually roast in the eternal fires of damnation for its use.

But illegal?  Nahh.. 

Lol


----------



## wyogirl (May 19, 2014)

Steve, I understand why you want to take price out of it.  I'm saving for my next camera body and price isn't the deciding factor for me.  The 6D and 5Diii are the same camera with a few differences.

What the 5Diii has that the 6D doesn't:  Superior auto focus, 2 card slots, 1/8000 ss VS 1/4000, Flash sync at 1/200 vs 1/180, a couple more buttons outside of the menu and is heavier.  Also the 5Diii has 100% view finder coverage vs the 6D at 97%.

What the 6D has that the 5Diii doesn't:  WiFi, GPS

Those are the only differences that I can see.  IMO the auto focus and the dual card slots are the only "up-sells" to the 5Diii.  For me it will be a 6D just because I don't really think that the auto focus system will help me all that much.  I think I will get pissed scrolling through all of those focus points, but maybe not.


----------



## bribrius (May 19, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe its because none of you shoot video on a regular basis but to just disregard it completely is a crime. I am constantly blown away by how good the video is on a little dslr body.
> ...


Not that im trolling...:mrgreen:
But I sometimes wonder if video is a step up from still photography. Doing video "correctly" and with artistic value has its own learning curve (most of which is far beyond simple me). And the editing in video for effects seems real high league. Again, out of the range of simple me.


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Not that im trolling...:mrgreen:
> But I sometimes wonder if video is a step up from still photography. Doing video "correctly" and with artistic value has its own learning curve (most of which is far beyond simple me). And the editing in video for effects seems real high league. Again, out of the range of simple me.



Video is much, much harder. I do photography to relax, I don't shoot video.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 19, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Not that im trolling...:mrgreen:
> But I sometimes wonder if video is a step up from still photography. Doing video "correctly" and with artistic value has its own learning curve (most of which is far beyond simple me). And the editing in video for effects seems real high league. Again, out of the range of simple me.



Hmm.. Lets see here:

Migrant Mother by Lange: Still Picture.  Ishtar : Video.
Yosemite Valley Thunderstorm by Adams : Still picture.  Battlefield Earth - Video
Afghan Girl by McCurry : Still Picture.   Gigli - Video
Oklahoma City Bombing by Almon: Still Picture.  That's my Boy - Video

Special section in hell?  Oh yes, it's reserved.  Lol


----------



## snerd (May 19, 2014)

5DIII only because people telling me how much better it is, is similar to this poll's results. And I'm another one that has no interest in the video. Like others, if I wanted to shoot video, I would probably buy a dedicated, top-quality prosumer unit.


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2014)

snerd said:


> I would probably buy a dedicated, top-quality prosumer unit.



Those cost more and are no better. In many cases worse.


----------



## Steve5D (May 19, 2014)

Any video feature will only be used to shoot the cat chasing the laser pointer around the living room.

I.

Will.

Not.

Do.

Video.

It doesn't matter what the learning curve is, or how badly some clients want it, or how revolutionary it is or how much more I can add on to the bottom line by offering it.

If I thought it would be possible for me to be able to give less of a rat's ass about doing video, I would...


----------



## snerd (May 19, 2014)

runnah said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > I would probably buy a dedicated, top-quality prosumer unit.
> ...


Really? I did not know that.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 19, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> Any video feature will only be used to shoot the cat chasing the laser pointer around the living room.
> 
> I.
> 
> ...



Ok, so put Steve down for a "maybe".  Anybody else?  Lol


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2014)

snerd said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...



I have a few sony cams that were $5k new a few years ago that are blown out of the water by the mk3. Even the brand new $3k sony i got is in the same boat.

it goes like this

Good: $300-$1,000
Better $2000-$5000
Best $10k and up.

There really is a sizable gap between prosumer and "pro". The 5d is damn near the "Pro" level of things. For $3500 you get an amazing still camera _*and*_ an amazing video camera. It really is the best thing.


----------



## bribrius (May 19, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> Any video feature will only be used to shoot the cat chasing the laser pointer around the living room.
> 
> I.
> 
> ...


I totally understand this . Its one of those things. you hate it, then one day you are bored and try it. Then you try it again. suddenly you are a closet video freak with a smile on your face. course you may never admit it. :mrgreen: Once you cross that line into video....
The part I put in bold kind of surprises me. I thought you were all business and you keep saying the only opinion you give a rats azz about is your clients.

understood. To each their own.


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2014)

bribrius said:


> The part I put in bold kind of surprises me. I thought you were all business and you keep saying the only opinion you give a rats azz about is your clients.



Whoa pump the brakes there fella. farting around with the video on your camera is one thing but doing video production is another kettle of fish entirely. I can see why most folks here would not want to do it. I would never want to shoot a wedding video because the difference between photographing a wedding and filming a wedding is vast, time consuming and expensive.

One of these days I will have to take a shot of my production bag(s).


----------



## snerd (May 19, 2014)

runnah said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



I learned something new today. Again. This site is an incredible wealth of knowledge! Thanks.

ETA: Maybe I'll just play around some with the video on my 7D. I've learned to never say never!


----------



## bribrius (May 19, 2014)

runnah said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > The part I put in bold kind of surprises me. I thought you were all business and you keep saying the only opinion you give a rats azz about is your clients.
> ...


not saying it isn't. But with a business mindset im surprised it isn't at least thrown on the table for consideration.


----------



## runnah (May 19, 2014)

bribrius said:


> not saying it isn't. But with a business mindset im surprised it isn't at least thrown on the table for consideration.



It's tough. Weddings that are willing to pay for it are few and far between.


----------



## shaylou (May 19, 2014)

runnah said:


> Maybe its because none of you shoot video on a regular basis but to just disregard it completely is a crime. I am constantly blown away by how good the video is on a little dslr body.



I shoot my first camera for a year before I sold it and never even turned on the video. I bought my 5d3 over a year ago and have not tried video on it either. To state the obvious, I have no interest in video.


----------



## shaylou (May 19, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Taking the price out of the discussion, which one do you choose, and why?
> ...



I know we all have our opinions but I do not understand how one can pick a camera for how it fits in your hand vs the features. Call me crazy but I will never even consider that.


----------



## imagemaker46 (May 19, 2014)

runnah said:


> Maybe its because none of you shoot video on a regular basis but to just disregard it completely is a crime. I am constantly blown away by how good the video is on a little dslr body.



I shot a lot of video back in the 80's, I used a video camera, I shot stills with a stills camera.  If I want to shoot video again I will use a dedicated video camera, regardless of how great the video is from my 5D lll or my Dx.  It's just not something I have any desire to do. It has nothing to do with it not being a good system, it's just not what I bought the cameras for.


----------



## bribrius (May 19, 2014)

shaylou said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...


im not saying totally disreguard features. I do think it is important to have something you like to shoot that feels good to you. More critical even if you do a lot of photography. I wouldn't buy a car based on just features that I couldn't stand driving.


----------



## shaylou (May 19, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > Any video feature will only be used to shoot the cat chasing the laser pointer around the living room.
> ...



So you say there is a chance! :lmao::lmao:


----------



## shaylou (May 19, 2014)

I don't really think that the auto focus system will help me all that much.  I think I will get pissed scrolling through all of those focus points, but maybe not.[/QUOTE]

With all do respect I do not think you are grasping the full extent of the focus system. The amount of focus points is a very small part of the focus systems power. The system is fully adjustable to any situation. The control it gives the user is second to none. I would suggest going to Canons website and watching some of their videos explaining what you can do with this system before dismissing it. It really is "all that and a bag of chips"!


----------



## Steve5D (May 20, 2014)

runnah said:


> Maybe its because none of you shoot video on a regular basis but to just disregard it completely is a crime. I am constantly blown away by how good the video is on a little dslr body.



I don't shoot it because it doesn't interest me. It's really no more complicated than that. I don't see it as a "crime"; that's kinda' silly, and I certainly don't "hate" it. 

It could be the finest quality video that man could ever hope to devise, and it wouldn't interest me...


----------



## bribrius (May 20, 2014)

well. which one did you get?


----------



## Steve5D (May 20, 2014)

bribrius said:


> The part I put in bold kind of surprises me. I thought you were all business and you keep saying the only opinion you give a rats azz about is your clients.



There are limits; there have to be. With regards to video, if a client wants video, he's requesting a product that I do not provide. Could I do it? Sure, I suppose. If I wanted to invest the time, money and energy into learning how to produce video, I could. But I don't want to do that. I want to shoot photographs; that's what I do. That's the product I offer to my clients. 

At some point, you have to decide what you will and will not offer to every potential client. Not offering video has cost me a few jobs, and I'm fine with that. Not being a piano player has also cost me jobs, and I'm fine with that, too.

You can't do everything...


----------



## Steve5D (May 20, 2014)

bribrius said:


> well. which one did you get?



Oh, I haven't yet. A purchase is likely at least two or three months away. The "new gear" coffers should be about full by then...


----------



## DaninMD (May 20, 2014)

first let me say that I voted 5Diii in the poll.  I own a 6D and honestly don't feel like I am missing anything.  a lot of critique is made about the 6Ds auto focus system.  personally I haven't had any issues with it.  for my uses it has performed very well and I rarely get a missed focus.  I have shot flying birds, etc and it does a very good job.  the 6D has a few features that are better than the 5Diii.  it has a newer sensor that performs better at low light.  it also has built in wifi.  I wasn't expecting to really need the wifi but it is really damn handy.   its really nice to be able to pull the image onto my phone right there onsite and email it people.  I have done this a number of times.  the wifi enabled app is also really handy.  its great for doing macro work as you can focus the camera from your phone/tablet and take the picture along with changing most of the settings.   I have also used it for remote shooting of wildlife.  I have set up my camera outside on a tripod close to a bird bath.  from inside I was able to see what the camera saw, focus on the birds and get great shots.  

none of this is available on the 5Diii.


----------



## Steve5D (May 20, 2014)

DaninMD said:


> first let me say that I voted 5Diii in the poll.  I own a 6D and honestly don't feel like I am missing anything.  a lot of critique is made about the 6Ds auto focus system.  personally I haven't had any issues with it.  for my uses it has performed very well and I rarely get a missed focus.  I have shot flying birds, etc and it does a very good job.  the 6D has a few features that are better than the 5Diii.  it has a newer sensor that performs better at low light.  it also has built in wifi.  I wasn't expecting to really need the wifi but it is really damn handy.   its really nice to be able to pull the image onto my phone right there onsite and email it people.  I have done this a number of times.  the wifi enabled app is also really handy.  its great for doing macro work as you can focus the camera from your phone/tablet and take the picture along with changing most of the settings.   I have also used it for remote shooting of wildlife.  I have set up my camera outside on a tripod close to a bird bath.  from inside I was able to see what the camera saw, focus on the birds and get great shots.
> 
> none of this is available on the 5Diii.



Hmmmm... I like the idea of being able to focus and shoot remotely. Not sure how often I'd actually use it, but it'd probably be a lot more often than I'd use the video feature!


----------



## DaninMD (May 20, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> DaninMD said:
> 
> 
> > first let me say that I voted 5Diii in the poll. I own a 6D and honestly don't feel like I am missing anything. a lot of critique is made about the 6Ds auto focus system. personally I haven't had any issues with it. for my uses it has performed very well and I rarely get a missed focus. I have shot flying birds, etc and it does a very good job. the 6D has a few features that are better than the 5Diii. it has a newer sensor that performs better at low light. it also has built in wifi. I wasn't expecting to really need the wifi but it is really damn handy. its really nice to be able to pull the image onto my phone right there onsite and email it people. I have done this a number of times. the wifi enabled app is also really handy. its great for doing macro work as you can focus the camera from your phone/tablet and take the picture along with changing most of the settings. I have also used it for remote shooting of wildlife. I have set up my camera outside on a tripod close to a bird bath. from inside I was able to see what the camera saw, focus on the birds and get great shots.
> ...



and the best part??? its disabled during video.  no temptation


----------



## robbins.photo (May 20, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > The part I put in bold kind of surprises me. I thought you were all business and you keep saying the only opinion you give a rats azz about is your clients.
> ...



Wow.. think about the diversification and the marketing bonus though.  You could  start with, "Shine Mister?", then go to "Photograph Mister?", and finally "Video Mister?"

Lol.. ok, ya, time for me to stop helping I think.  I don't shoot professionally of course but like you I don't have much interest in shooting video.  If I did shoot professionally I wouldn't probably want to invest in it either, to do it right is an expensive proposition in both money for the software/hardware you really need and the time it takes to learn video production and editing.  There are some pretty good linux packages out there that would probably help defray the cost a bit, but still the time invested not only in learning the skills needed but in actually editing the video, eh - not for me considering how little interest I'd have in the final product.


----------



## robbins.photo (May 20, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> DaninMD said:
> 
> 
> > first let me say that I voted 5Diii in the poll. I own a 6D and honestly don't feel like I am missing anything. a lot of critique is made about the 6Ds auto focus system. personally I haven't had any issues with it. for my uses it has performed very well and I rarely get a missed focus. I have shot flying birds, etc and it does a very good job. the 6D has a few features that are better than the 5Diii. it has a newer sensor that performs better at low light. it also has built in wifi. I wasn't expecting to really need the wifi but it is really damn handy. its really nice to be able to pull the image onto my phone right there onsite and email it people. I have done this a number of times. the wifi enabled app is also really handy. its great for doing macro work as you can focus the camera from your phone/tablet and take the picture along with changing most of the settings. I have also used it for remote shooting of wildlife. I have set up my camera outside on a tripod close to a bird bath. from inside I was able to see what the camera saw, focus on the birds and get great shots.
> ...



I picked up a wi-fi adaptor for my D5200 that allows me to shoot remotely as well as preview pictures on my tablet.  Works pretty well, I don't use it much but for long exposure tripod shots it's a nice feature to have, mostly I use it to preview stuff while I'm on site so I can see it on a bigger screen and see if there's anything that I really should go back and try to reshoot before I leave.  A lot of times it's too hard for me to see things like a missed focus point on the tiny LCD the camera has - not sure if the make a Canon equivalent for the wi-fi adaptor but I'm guessing they probably do.


----------



## shaylou (May 20, 2014)

DaninMD said:


> first let me say that I voted 5Diii in the poll.  I own a 6D and honestly don't feel like I am missing anything.  a lot of critique is made about the 6Ds auto focus system.  personally I haven't had any issues with it.  for my uses it has performed very well and I rarely get a missed focus.  I have shot flying birds, etc and it does a very good job.  the 6D has a few features that are better than the 5Diii.  it has a newer sensor that performs better at low light.  it also has built in wifi.  I wasn't expecting to really need the wifi but it is really damn handy.   its really nice to be able to pull the image onto my phone right there onsite and email it people.  I have done this a number of times.  the wifi enabled app is also really handy.  its great for doing macro work as you can focus the camera from your phone/tablet and take the picture along with changing most of the settings.   I have also used it for remote shooting of wildlife.  I have set up my camera outside on a tripod close to a bird bath.  from inside I was able to see what the camera saw, focus on the birds and get great shots.
> 
> none of this is available on the 5Diii.



The 6D is a perfectly good camera with a great price for what you get. In regards to the focus system, in all fairness you can not really miss something that you never had. IMO a big goof that Canon made when making the 6D was not giving it a 100 view finder, that's a big deal for me. As far as remotely controlling the camera I went with the Cam Ranger. Yes it is an added expense but not only can I control my camera from a long distance (as you are doing) and I can use it to show my clients their pictures as I'm taking them. They love that and it gives me a nice way of reviewing my shoots wireless on location. Either way you really can't go wrong with the 6D or the 5DIII.


----------



## DaninMD (May 22, 2014)

shaylou said:


> The 6D is a perfectly good camera with a great price for what you get. In regards to the focus system, in all fairness you can not really miss something that you never had. IMO a big goof that Canon made when making the 6D was not giving it a 100 view finder, that's a big deal for me. As far as remotely controlling the camera I went with the Cam Ranger. Yes it is an added expense but not only can I control my camera from a long distance (as you are doing) and I can use it to show my clients their pictures as I'm taking them. They love that and it gives me a nice way of reviewing my shoots wireless on location. Either way you really can't go wrong with the 6D or the 5DIII.



well I guess I should amend my statement on the AF system of the 6D.  its not that I miss not having the 5Diii's AF system, its that I don't get hardly any missed focus.  the focus system has been very good and accurate.  usually if I have something out of focus its due to my error, not the camera's AF system.  

FYI the built in wifi and app they have does the same thing you are talking about.   how much did the aftermarket system cost?  just curious.


----------



## nicholaskong (May 23, 2014)

I used to own both and kept the 5diii. The AF system in 5diii is much better. 6d i will always require to recompose and dual card slots.


----------



## elizpage (Jun 6, 2014)

5D Mark III... Well, just.. because.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 6, 2014)

I've never understood a weight or size argument when talking about DSLRs. Particularly when people often put 6lb lenses on them.


----------



## runnah (Jun 6, 2014)

manaheim said:


> I've never understood a weight or size argument when talking about DSLRs. Particularly when people often put 6lb lenses on them.



Not all are fine specimens of rugged manliness like you and I.


----------



## CAP (Jun 8, 2014)

5D Mark III All the way.

But Both of those DSLR Bodies are amazing cameras, And no matter witch you go with i am confident you wont be let down.  its Canon after all haha .


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 10, 2014)

When I do the upgrade (hopefully within the next month or so), I'll be going with the 5D Mk III.

And a 7D.

And grips.

And a 17-40mm L.

And a 100-400mm L.

My 40D will go to my daughter and my 5D will go to my brother, who wants to start shooting full frame.

It's been a really long time since I've gone shopping, so I figure I'm due...


----------



## snerd (Jun 10, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> When I do the upgrade (hopefully within the next month or so), I'll be going with the 5D Mk III.
> 
> And a 7D.
> 
> ...



Dude, don't forget the unboxing pics!!!


----------



## bribrius (Jun 10, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > DaninMD said:
> ...


I have one of them. never figured out how it worked. plugged it in. nothing. got me.
maybe I should have read the directions or something.....
I think It lit up, about it.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 10, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> When I do the upgrade (hopefully within the next month or so), I'll be going with the 5D Mk III.
> 
> And a 7D.
> 
> ...


you ever find it disturbing that all these soccer moms, superdads, and hobbyists are running around with better cameras than you and you are a photographer?


----------



## snerd (Jun 10, 2014)

bribrius said:


> ....... you ever find it disturbing that all these soccer moms, superdads, and hobbyists are running around with better cameras than you and you are a photographer?



Doubt it. It's the photographer, not the camera.


----------



## kathyt (Jun 10, 2014)

I now own the 6d and I can say I like my Mark 3 much better.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 10, 2014)

snerd said:


> Dude, don't forget the unboxing pics!!!



In all honesty, I never understood the point of those...


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 10, 2014)

bribrius said:


> you ever find it disturbing that all these soccer moms, superdads, and hobbyists are running around with better cameras than you and you are a photographer?



Not in the least. I never let myself waste time worrying about what other people are using...


----------



## ronlane (Jun 10, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > you ever find it disturbing that all these soccer moms, superdads, and hobbyists are running around with better cameras than you and you are a photographer?
> ...



Why should he? Chances are, his photos over all are way better than their's anyway. I only say chances because as they say around here "even a blind sow finds and acorn every now and then".


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 10, 2014)

ronlane said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



One thing I learned a long time ago is that there's always someone better.

Always...


----------



## fooby (Jun 13, 2014)

I own the 6D and have shot with both extensively. The 5DIII does feel like it's much more of a pro camera than the 6D. It is better built. The 6D is basically a full frame 60D with the 5DII focusing system. For the price, it really can't be beaten and if you can deal with the cheap feeling buttons within the circle wheel and the fact that choosing focus points with the slightly awkward pad as against a joy stick doesn't bother you then it's easily worth it just for the price. If you shoot sports or wildlife, or maybe you're just a perfectionist when it comes to build, get the 5DIII.

Another thing I like about the 5DIII is the independent rate button. It makes it very easy when working with assistants to mark images to send as a preview to clients and such.


----------



## b19ddw (Jun 14, 2014)

I voted for the 5DIII but price is very much an issue hence why I'm shooting with the 6D. That said, the 6D is a great camera body and won't disappoint.


----------



## PropilotBW (Jun 14, 2014)

I'm just a casual photographer.  I enjoy pro-consumer grade, since $3000 for a body is a little outrageous.


----------



## fooby (Jun 14, 2014)

Another thing to note is that the 6D is pretty much a 5DII with slightly newer technology and slightly lesser build quality, so if you have shot with a 5DII, you pretty much know what a 6D will be like.


----------



## kathyt (Jun 14, 2014)

fooby said:


> Another thing to note is that the 6D is pretty much a 5DII with slightly newer technology and slightly lesser build quality, so if you have shot with a 5DII, you pretty much know what a 6D will be like.


I wouldn't compare the Mark II to the 6D. The performance of the 6D far exceeds the old Mark. Mainly because of the ISO and focusing systems.


----------



## fooby (Jun 25, 2014)

kathyt said:


> fooby said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing to note is that the 6D is pretty much a 5DII with slightly newer technology and slightly lesser build quality, so if you have shot with a 5DII, you pretty much know what a 6D will be like.
> ...


I'm fairly sure the focusing system is exactly the same, apart from the middle point being more sensitive in low light. Personally, that's quite important as I shoot in low light with strobes often. Compared to the MkIII, it's pretty crap. It's also a crop sensor focus system, so all the points are in the middle of the viewfinder. More than adequate for anything apart from action though. There are better focus systems on the entry level Canon cameras.


----------



## GerryDavid (Jun 25, 2014)

If money wasnt an issue Id buy a few Canon 1DX's, but since most use this for business and you have to justify the expense I bought the Canon 6D and im loving it.  I had a 5D classic before that and the 6d was a huge step up for me.  I use center point focusing so the 200 focus points doesnt really matter to me.  I do wish the 6d had dual cf card slots but thats my only complaint.

I think people tend to forget that a camera is just a tool, its the photographer behind it that makes the difference.


----------

