6D or 5DMk3 or ...
chrisjohnson
Registered Users Posts: 772 Major grins
I hope you all can give me some help to make up my mind.
Photography has been my hobby for many years but I am not really a gear-head - I only just noticed Canon has released the 6D. I am currently shooting with the 40D. My most used lens in the last 12 months is the 50mm f1.4, second is the 100mm f2.8 macro with USM (not for macro, much), third is the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM zoom, and lastly the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM zoom.
The most important aspect of my gear is probably the image quality - hence my preference for primes. I do take pics of travel, friends and family, club events but this is not my reason for spending money on equipment. My main motivation for my hobby is to reflect natural beauty and especially light situations.
I think the bigger sensor will deliver more possibilities for image quality and in this sense the 6D would fit. I even went to my camera store intending to buy a 6D with the 24-105 which is on special offer here - the lens is about half normal price. The store owner - who I know for over twenty years - deliberately failed to close an easy sale and over coffee with different lenses and bodies on the table started me thinking about my needs. Hence my appeal to dgrinners!
When I entered the store to buy my 6D I was not concerned by the focus system. When I got home I looked through my last few hundred shots and realised that I had missed focus much too often as a consequence, I think, of my centre-point focus and recompose technique, actually got the exposure wrong too. Perhaps I don't need a new body before I rethink my technique?
The 5D-3 has a wondrous array of focus possibilities. I had thought that these are only valuable for fast moving sports or birding. But in my analysis everything is moving: the grass in the wind, the playing child, or the photographer inclined to recompose. Perhaps the 5D3 focus system is more essential than I thought?
Finally, when it comes to image quality perhaps FF is not the bridge I should be trying to cross. There is also medium format. Neither do I own any L-glass. The Canon 135mm L has always been on my wish list and could be bought for the difference in price between a 5D and a 6D.
Any help to clarify my thinking is very welcome.
Photography has been my hobby for many years but I am not really a gear-head - I only just noticed Canon has released the 6D. I am currently shooting with the 40D. My most used lens in the last 12 months is the 50mm f1.4, second is the 100mm f2.8 macro with USM (not for macro, much), third is the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM zoom, and lastly the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM zoom.
The most important aspect of my gear is probably the image quality - hence my preference for primes. I do take pics of travel, friends and family, club events but this is not my reason for spending money on equipment. My main motivation for my hobby is to reflect natural beauty and especially light situations.
I think the bigger sensor will deliver more possibilities for image quality and in this sense the 6D would fit. I even went to my camera store intending to buy a 6D with the 24-105 which is on special offer here - the lens is about half normal price. The store owner - who I know for over twenty years - deliberately failed to close an easy sale and over coffee with different lenses and bodies on the table started me thinking about my needs. Hence my appeal to dgrinners!
When I entered the store to buy my 6D I was not concerned by the focus system. When I got home I looked through my last few hundred shots and realised that I had missed focus much too often as a consequence, I think, of my centre-point focus and recompose technique, actually got the exposure wrong too. Perhaps I don't need a new body before I rethink my technique?
The 5D-3 has a wondrous array of focus possibilities. I had thought that these are only valuable for fast moving sports or birding. But in my analysis everything is moving: the grass in the wind, the playing child, or the photographer inclined to recompose. Perhaps the 5D3 focus system is more essential than I thought?
Finally, when it comes to image quality perhaps FF is not the bridge I should be trying to cross. There is also medium format. Neither do I own any L-glass. The Canon 135mm L has always been on my wish list and could be bought for the difference in price between a 5D and a 6D.
Any help to clarify my thinking is very welcome.
0
Comments
The user reviews of the Canon 6D AF seem to indicate that it is similar to the 5D MKII in good light, but better in low light. The 5D MKIII should be better still.
A child in motion really can have a closing rate which exceeds an Indy race car, when you account for proximity. If you keep the 40D for its faster AF and choose the 6D for the "natural beauty" images, that would make an excellent kit.
Yes, I have the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM and yes, it is wonderful on a FF body. I can highly recommend that combination.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
You alert me to something I had not considered or perhaps misunderstand.
The focus points on 40D are 9 cross-type sensors with the centre being extra-sensitive to f2.8 or wider lenses - of which I have three out of four. This is why I prefer the centre point on 40D unless there is a special reason to move but even then the other points are cross-type and seem to work effectively and quickly. On 6D only the centre point is a cross type. The other points on 6D are either horizontal or vertical and tuned to f5.6 for which I only have one lens and then only when fully extended. At least, so it seems. On 6D I will be advised to become even more centre point focussed...
Probably I keep the 40D and 17-55 anyway. The 40D body is not worth much on the market and while the 17-55 has some value it is not going to depreciate overnight. It is a safer bet to have a good lens on the shelf than cash in the bank these days. Still I was not anticipating valuing the 40D combinations for the "faster AF". I was more thinking of a second body with a zoom on-board, or something to use on the beach, or maybe I can make a newbie happy one day.
Maybe I misunderstand, but it sounds like you are suggesting that 40D has better AF than 6D.
Most Canon dSLR bodies have an AF sensitivity rating of f5.6. This means that they will AF with any lens with a maximum effective aperture of f5.6. This does indeed include your Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS to the long end of the zoom (where it has an effective maximum aperture of f5.6.)
Additionally, most modern Canon bodies have a high-precision center AF region for those lenses with a maximum effective aperture of f2.8 or larger. Yes, it is my understanding that it is also the most light sensitive of the AF sensor array, by virtue of its position within the array. (It is the only AF point to be signal balanced.)
The fact that all of the AF points of the 40D are cross-type, means that all of the AF points are sensitive to subject edges at either vertical or horizontal orientation (with respect to the sensor). For this reason, yes, the 40D autofocus is overall better that the AF section of the 6D.
The 40D also has a better "spread" of the AF points within the image frame.
The 6D does have additional light sensitivity, so in "very" low lighting conditions it may be better (faster to acquire AF) than the 40D.
I believe that with the latest 5D MKIII firmware it is now capable of autofocus with lenses, and lens/converter combinations, with an effective aperture of f8. While this should not affect you now, if, for instance, you should use a Canon EF 400mm, f5.6L USM with a 1.4x teleconverter, it may autofocus correctly.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sounds like the 6D could be a disappointment. I don't feel the pressing need for better low-light performance and probably will want to focus quickly on occasion for people on the move or children playing. Difficult to explain why a very expensive camera cannot take sharp pictures unless people stand still.
Do you think the 24-105 on 5/6D is equivalent to 17-55 EF-S on the 40D?
The 6d is actually considered the "budget" full frame camera, and the AF is one of the main things that distinguishes it from the much pricier 5dIII.
That wouldn't be consistent with my experience. I went from a 40D to a 5D2, then added a 7D, then sold both for a 5D3. I would put the performance of the 5D2's center point ahead of the 40D's, and it's actually quite capable for sports in servo mode. I haven't used the 6D, but it's got to be at least as good as the 5D2. If you have an extra $1500 lying around, sure, go for the 5D3, but I haven't had many problems with focus-recompose, Pythagoras be damned. Shooting a portrait with the 50/1.4 at f/2.8 from about 4 feet away using focus-recompose is just fine. Shooting a frame-filler face closeup can be problematic though.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Budget wise I calculate my Canon gear has cost me 40 Euros per month over the last 5 years. From now on it will not cost anything much as it is fully depreciated. Curiously my calculations tell that a 5D3 body will likely cost almost exactly 40 Euros per month too over a five year period, but that is not including any new lenses. So 45 when I include flipping the 17-55 for a 24-105L. 50 per month if I include my desired 135mm L. This amount is exactly what it costs here to join a fitness club, so easily justifiable on hobby grounds. For those wanting to check my math I am assuming a 5D3 will go for 400 Euro in 5 years time like a 5D today and that a good lens will go for half the new price. So 5D3 it is?? Thanks Divamum.
Looking at the market I wish I was a Nikon shooter. The D600 looks to be exactly what I need and goes here for about half the price of the 5D3. Perhaps I should think of switching my brand loyalty.
The 5d classic first appeared in (I believe) 2005, and that is the one which you can usually pick up for well under $1000 (or 400 euros); it's a much older camera.
While I realis that empirical assessment of depreciation is important to some, I think it leaves out too many variables to tell the whole story with digital cameras where features are constantly changing. Personally, I'd have thought from what you say about your shooting that you are pretty much the target market for a 6d in that you want the IQ but not the high price tag; if you are correct that your out of focus shots are as much due to technique as the camera, then the 5d3 won't help you out. It's worth really figuring that out before proceeding, I suspect.
I will say that I own both a 7d and 5dII - yes, the 5dII's focus can be annoying... but not to the point of making the camera unusable; far from it - it is capable of making outstanding photos. The increased sensitivity of the 6d's center point probably improves things quite a bit too.
One other thing: if you are not married to the idea of a full frame sensor, why not consider the 60d or 70d, which are direct upgrades from the 40d? They both offer more pixels and increased low-light sensitivity, as well as other features which have trickled down from the higher end models (as well as a few tricks of their own). And are much less expensive, and will give you the extra $ for the glass you want. In your position, not entirely convinced you want to go FF, that's probably what I would do, especially since you already have great glass in the form of the 17-55 (considered by many to be L image quality).
Well if you are seriously tempted this is probably your best chance to do it. You will *have* to sell your 17-55 either way, and the rest of your lenses are relatively not very expensive. The 50/1.4 and 100/2.8 macro are desirable so you won't have trouble selling them. You might take a bath on the 70-300, because the 55-250 is so much better, but someone will take it off your hands.
The D600 does look more compelling on paper, especially in the AF department. I'd definitely research it and handle one if I were you. Trying one in person is very important; I find Nikon controls to be utterly confounding, but others like them better. I would also make sure to get one hot off the assembly line that hasn't been sitting around in stock for months. I have to assume Nikon has been silently fixing the oil and dust issues. I just wish Nikon would put either the D600 chip or the D4 chip into a true D700 replacement.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I am still happy with the 40D as crop camera. There have been several "upgrades" since but none I really care about - if my 40D broke today I would immediately look for another 40D on the second-hand market. It was the last of the xxD still cameras and is a classic of its kind.
There is a trade-off between number of pixels and sensor size and more pixels does not necessarily equal more image quality as you are well aware. By all accounts the 5D Classic has great image quality too despite 11MP. I am looking for one within convenient driving distance while making up my mind.
The 6D is the camera I ought be excited about buying - you are right! Instead I fear I will be regularly irritated by Canon's disrespectful marketing. A good company makes product to delight customers and what on earth possessed Canon to forget a headphone jack, remove the joystick, and especially cripple the focus system, etc, etc. People like me expect to be all-round capable when we spend thousands of euros/dollars on camera kit. I don't want to have two or three different bodies depending on whether I am shooting portraits, landscapes, or sports. 6D shows Canon has lost the plot, and I don't at the moment feel at all inclined to be part of the 6D show. So far no-one here has stood up and said 6D is the best thing since sliced bread and that speaks volumes!
5D3 on the other hand looks like a product to be genuinely excited about. Canon has made best efforts to produce the best they can. It costs a lot - like my Apple kit - but it promises to delight me every time I use it. The only thing holding me back is the feeling that I am being incredibly self-indulgent to spend that amount of cash on what, for me, amounts to personal luxury. I don't have the excuse of using it to earn money.
Today things are drifting in the direction of keeping the 40D as my main system and buying a 5D for some FF fun.
Missed your remarks on Nikon, sorry.
I am researching the Nikon option. My only experience of Nikon is working with a D7000 which was very positive. The "oil" story has driven Nikon D600 pricing here well below Canon - until a few days ago some 20%. Canon seems to have reacted by trimming 6D prices. I like the feel of the Nikon in my hands but for me renting will NOT take me much further - it takes me weeks to learn a new system. I am very reliant on opinions that I respect - such as here on Dgrin.
PS. Afterthought. Bit surprised by your remark on 55-250. I spent some time with this lens and while it is great value for money the EF 70-300 IS USM is well worth the additional cost imo and has delivered some great images in good light. My quick scan of the second hand market here indicates that the 70-300 is holding its value better than any of my other lenses.
Seems to me like in your heart you've made your choice! If you want that, you will have to find the extra $. I don't disagree with you about the 5d3, but - even though I do earn money with my camera - I simply couldn't justify the dollars involved much though I wanted to. I just don't HAVE the $3k, and even selling my 7d and 5dII couldn't get me close enough. The crunch for me will come this autumn when (shoot me now - what was I thinking?!) I have taken on two weddings for friends, but unless there's a significant price drop I see myself renting instead of buying.
And yes, I adore the IQ on my 5dII. For me, this is as much related to high ISO as anything else, however - while I can use the 7d up to about 2000, for portraits I prefer the results at 800 and under. With the 5dII, I regularly shoot portrait sessions at 1600 or even 2000 and am entirely happy. I am also a shallow depth of field junkie; I CAN shoot the kind of shallow dof portraits I love on the 7d, but the full frame sensor makes it easier, and I don't have to think about it as much.
Last thing: i don't know that I would call the AF on the 5dII "crippled", it's simply not as responsive as the 7d and 5d3. Yes, I wish they'd made the outer points more useable and that there were more of them, but with a few small modifications to my shooting style, I don't find it hampers me for portraits and general shooting. I took it with me on my recent trip to France (mainly for the high ISO capability - I had my s95 for "general" shooting) and it performed admirably with everything I threw at it.
PS I am another one who finds handling Nikon baffling. Their focusing and flash systems have attracted me more than once, but when I pick one up I can barely figure out how to turn it on. I guess I've been shooting Canon for too long and/or just don't "think" the way the Nikon interface does. To each his own.....
ETA: If you jump to the 5d3 (or any full-frame for that matter), be sure your computer is ready for it too; it will be VERY different from uploading and manipulating 40d files as they are BIG and they do want more processing power and memory. I thought there would be little difference between the 7d and 5dII as far as computer-power/ram etc, but I was wrong - the machine takes much longer with the 5dII files than those from the 7d. Also, Lots.Of.Compact.Flash.Cards. If you shoot raw (as I do), you will want 8g and 16g cards.
I think you would find that you'd stop using your 40D once you got a 5D or 5D2. And I do think that between the 5D and 5D2 you should go for the latter. Prices are low and 21mp is so nice. More mp means bigger prints but it also pays benefits for smaller prints - you have more room for cropping, and more latitude for noise reduction. Besides, the original 5D is just, well, old. Who knows what old-age ailments would pop up with one, perhaps shutter failure.
I don't think you can go wrong with either the D600 or 6D for image quality. If you enjoy underexposing and then pushing your images, or shooting very wide DR scenes and aggressively pushing shadows, and then pixel peeping the results, you might like the D600 better.
Huh, interesting, good news. I've never used either lens, but the superiority of the 55-250 seems to be the online consensus as far as I can tell.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I think that Jack must be thinking of another product. The Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is held in fairly high esteem in many circles. Canon USA ranks the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM with the same CPS product points as the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM, for instance.
From PhotoZone.de (emphasis mine):
"Verdict
The performance of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS came as a total surprise. Unlike its predecessor the lens is capable to produce a very high performance throughout the zoom range without the significant drop in quality at 300mm typical for most consumer grade lenses in this range. It seems as if the new UD element helps to lift the optical quality significantly. Distortions, CAs as well as vignetting are also very respectable. So in terms of optical quality the EF 70-300mm IS can be almost described as a hidden Canon L lens."
The Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS is not a horrible lens, by any means, but I have to give the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM higher marks in more measures of image quality and build quality.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thanks for confirming the image quality of FF. No point for me to look for a new crop camera.
My intention in coming years is to shoot more in JPEG out-of-camera. Today I keep the RAW just in case but generally do not transfer to the computer. Were I to buy an FF I would experiment with S-Raw too. As someone who tends to choose the lowest ISO possible this intended way of working also makes me want to take a serious look at Nikon because the reports tell that D600 has much superior image quality out of camera in JPEG at ISO 100. I never shot above 800 ISO in my life, so I cannot imagine what horizons open at ISO 6400 or above - actually I am not interested to focus on black duct tape on grey carpet under a desk with the lights off (hopefully you get my reference). Shooting in the dark is not my thing.
Budgeting is a question of perspective and much easier when you have cash. If you have no cash then your horizon is constricted, bokeh shots only. I am fortunate to have cash but I still need to explain to myself and 4 children struggling in the current economy why Daddy finds it necessary to spend thousands of Euros on a new camera. When you have cash and/or run a proper photography business then it is relatively easy on financial calculations to justify buying a 5D3, say, and as I indicated earlier. Were I a serious professional I would go further, the 1D series - sometimes in the next five years I will get paid to shoot in the pouring rain. Cash is king when it comes to budgeting...
My paper study indicates:
- D600 has better image quality at lower ISO
- D600 has more flexible AF
- D600 is 20% cheaper
- D600 does NOT see in the dark, but then nor do I
I do not want to rely on pushing things in post. I have better things to do with my time, do not have the skills, and it often results in artificial looking images. Don't really understand your remarks though....
The main objection to D600 seems to me to be the quality issues around sensor contamination. I agree with your earlier remark that Nikon should have fixed this by now in production and when this is realised by the market I expect the D600 will have a premium versus the 6D instead of today's hefty discount because it seems to meet the needs of the target market better.
If I move to Nikon I will have to rethink my lens collection but then that could be fun.
Ah, maybe I was thinking of the non IS version. Doh.
They were halfway sarcastic, and no, I don't use my camera like that either. Any debate over Nikon vs. Canon IQ typically devolves to the point where someone trots out this ability as proof of Nikon's superiority. They will turn off all the lights in their bedroom and take a shot of the interior. The shot will include a window with daylight outside, and they will meter the shot for the window, or close to it. Then they will push the underexposed interior to basically create a single-shot HDR. Then they will post a 100% crop of the pushed area showing less noise than a similar Canon image and claim victory. While this is meaningful for some applications like shooting dimly lit wedding receptions, the DR of my 5D3 is plenty for me, YMMV.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Anyway, sounds like your mind is made up to go for the 5d3, but just throwing out the other options as food for thought!
Unfortunately for my peace of mind, Nikon D600 is significantly better than any of the Canon family. I wish I knew someone who has used one.
I think for my needs the 5D3 is not going to make enough of a difference to justify the cash so thanks for throwing out the options. I looked a bit at 7D today and there are some great deals. Also looked at medium format which is a complete new world for me - makes the idea of moving from Canon to Nikon look simple.
Keep coming back to Jack's suggestion of picking up a used 5D2 so I can see the difference for myself.
The 5D2 is still quite relevant now as a less expensive alternative to the 6D. So you could pick one up and then if it didn't float your boat you could easily sell it for little or no loss.
Really though, the 5D2's center AF point with 6 invisible helper points doesn't get enough credit...
(ISO 800, f/4, 1/1600. Green cast on the hair is hairspray)
(ISO 200, f/4, 1/2000)
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I couldn't care less about a joystick.
The low light capability of the 6D is absolutely amazing. It has Canon's most sensitive sensor, as far as I know. Go take a look a comparison shots on dpreview.com. Compare the 6D to the 5DIII, the 5DII, the D800, and the D600. The 6D clearly wins. I never worry about, say, ISO 6400 anymore. It is also sharper than the 5DIII, probably because they didn't take as much care reducing moire issues. This can obviously be a problem with video, but the 5DII has the same issues, and that camera has been used far and wide, in productions with budgets large and small.
·Facebook·
The AF "helper points" are not user configurable, not visible, and only engage during continuous AF (AI Servo mode).
More information about the "Assist AF" points is on page 32 of this document:
http://media.the-digital-picture.com/White-Papers/Canon-EOS-50D-and-5D-Mark-II-White-Paper.pdf
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
IIRC, you enable or disable them in the custom functions. When enabled, they will come on when you use Servo AF, but not when you use single shot.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
All photo are taken with the EF 70-300mm IS USM lens we were discussing (handheld, walk around) and the 40D.
I hope you enjoy - lawnmower racing is becoming very popular around here.
Want to thank Ziggy explicitly for this advice. What I also learned in the last 10 days is that having the camera propose focus points is no bad thing either. Relying on "center point - recompose" is a bad habit to have gotten into, for me at least.
Thanks for the "thanks".
There are still times when it's proper and useful to use the center focus dot and focus/recompose, but at very large shooting apertures and at close proximity it will definitely give you negative results. Longer focal lengths are typically also more critical than shorter focal lengths, in using correct AF dot.
Live view with 100% zoom-in on the critical focus region is very effective for some situations. Live view with focus peaking highlights is also valuable, for those cameras which allow that method.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums