5d mk iii or 6d

[n8dow]

Okay im upgrading to either the 5d mk iii or 6d but cant decide which one. I currently shoot pretty much strictly photos no video, Landscape and urban is what i do mostly, decent amount of night shooting so low light is important. The plan is to start doing more portrait and event shooting (weddings, etc.) Price is a factor, I plan on buying canon 14mm 2.8 along with body and if i went with cheaper 6d i would probably buy another L lens at same time with money im saving. But i dont want to get the 6d and then regret not spending the extra 1000 on 5d mk ii...just trying to figure out whats worth it...thoughts??

[RobertTheFat]

---

@n8dow wrote:

Okay im upgrading to either the 5d mk iii or 6d but cant decide which one. I currently shoot pretty much strictly photos no video, Landscape and urban is what i do mostly, decent amount of night shooting so low light is important. The plan is to start doing more portrait and event shooting (weddings, etc.) Price is a factor, I plan on buying canon 14mm 2.8 along with body and if i went with cheaper 6d i would probably buy another L lens at same time with money im saving. But i dont want to get the 6d and then regret not spending the extra 1000 on 5d mk ii...just trying to figure out whats worth it...thoughts??

---

Given your constraints, I'd be inclined to buy the 6D and leave more money to spend on lenses. The worst that can happen is that you decide you can't live without the 5D3 after all, in which case the 6D will be a serviceable backup.

But I wouldn't buy the 14mm f/2.8. It's neither a portrait lens nor an event lens, and it's probably too wide to use indoors with flash. (The flash won't cover its FOV.) If you really want/need a WA lens, consider one of the 16-35's, either the f/4 or the f/2.8. Ignore (politely, of course) those who tell you that you need prime lenses because they're better than zooms. Only a compulsive pixel peeper would ever care, and for portrait and event photography, there's no discernible advantage.

[n8dow]

appreciate the feedback...the 14mm wouldnt be for events or portraits...I have a 50mm 1.8 and plan on getting a macro...either 85 or 100. the 14mm would be primarily for much of the landscape and urban shooting i do. Interested to hear feedback on that as well. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@n8dow wrote:

appreciate the feedback...the 14mm wouldnt be for events or portraits...I have a 50mm 1.8 and plan on getting a macro...either 85 or 100. the 14mm would be primarily for much of the landscape and urban shooting i do. Interested to hear feedback on that as well. 

---

A 14mm would not be a good choice for portraits, not unless we're talking about group photos.  A 14mm may not be a good lens for events, not unless the event is a BIG one, and you wanted to capture the mood and atmosphere.  I did not spend large money on a 14mm prime.  Instead I purchased a fully manual operated 14mm by Rokinon, which is great for landscapes and astrophotography, for about 1/6 the cost of the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM. 

I felt I didn't need the auto-focus of the Canon lens that much, especially one without IS, which really isn't needed at that focal length.  Most of my landscape photos are shot from a tripod, so LiveView manual focusing was a natural fit with a manual lens.  I don't have the image quality of the Canon 14mm prime, but those details are only visible on a computer screen.  I later purchased an auto-focusing EF 16-35mm, for more urban shooting on the "run and gun" pace of city life, which is the lens I would suggest [or the 17-40mm] for double duty shooting either of landscapes or cityscapes.

On a full frame camera body, something between 50-100mm would be ideal for portraits, with an 85mm falling into what most consider nearly the ideal portrait focal length because of the depth of field you can get.  There are some photographers who like to go outside of that range of focal lengths for portraits, so don't think of it as a hard rule, just as a guideline. 

A standard zoom lens, such as the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, or one of the 24-70mm "L" lenses, could serve double duty as both a portrait lens, and a wide angle lens.  I think one of thesse standard zooms would be your best choice for an initial purchase with a full frame body.

[ebiggs1]

I totally disagree with the two above as I would get the 5D Mk III in a heartbeat. Not even considering the 6D. The 6D is not a 5D Mk III by any means.  Just because the 6D may have 'a better' spec than a 5D3 doesn't make it a better camera.

5D Mk III all the way.

But I do agree on the 14mm lens. That is a very limited specialized lens. Even its speciality is pretty limited.  The suggestion of the ef 16-35mm f2.8L or even the f4 version is a far better. A way more versatile choice.  But neither of those is or can be a good portrait lens.  The best strictly portrait lenses are in the 70 to 90mm range.  The ef 85mm being the choice of most people.  But there again it will be a pretty specialized purpose lens.  A 70-200mm zoom is probably a better choice.

[TTMartin]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

Given your constraints, I'd be inclined to buy the 6D and leave more money to spend on lenses. The worst that can happen is that you decide you can't live without the 5D3 after all, in which case the 6D will be a serviceable backup.

But I wouldn't buy the 14mm f/2.8. It's neither a portrait lens nor an event lens, and it's probably too wide to use indoors with flash. (The flash won't cover its FOV.) If you really want/need a WA lens, consider one of the 16-35's, either the f/4 or the f/2.8. Ignore (politely, of course) those who tell you that you need prime lenses because they're better than zooms. Only a compulsive pixel peeper would ever care, and for portrait and event photography, there's no discernible advantage.

---

I agree, the limitations of the 6D won't impact your type of photography. You are much better off picking up a second L lens, and flash than you are spending the extra money on the 5D Mk III. The only real negative to the 6D is frames per second. 

[diverhank]

For landscapes and urban work you will be better off with a 6D.  The 6D being newer actually has equal IQ to the 5DIII and it actually has better low ISO performance.

You will be better off with a 5DIII if these are important to you:

* 61 point AF  system - better suited for action and (moving) wildlife photography. Slightly better low light focus

* 6 fps versus 4.5 - again better for action

* slightly better high ISO performance ( on paper = 1 stop better)

* 1/8000 speed versus the 6D 1/4000 - better if you have very fast lens you want to use during day time

* a bit more rugged and weather resistant build

Again for landscape work and urban, I don't think those above are that important.

[Peter]

---

@diverhank wrote:

You will be better off with a 5DIII if these are important to you:

* Slightly better low light focus

* 6 fps versus 4.5 - again better for action

* slightly better high ISO performance ( on paper = 1 stop better)

* 1/8000 speed versus the 6D 1/4000 - better if you have very fast lens you want to use during day time

* a bit more rugged and weather resistant build

Again for landscape work and urban, I don't think those above are that important.

---

6D can use autofocus down to EV-3 that is moonlight (with center point). 5DIII EV-2.

About high ISO performance it is possible to check at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/28 or search for high iso 5DIII vs 6d.

[Waddizzle]

"Okay im upgrading to either the 5d mk iii or 6d but cant decide which one. I currently shoot pretty much strictly photos no video, Landscape and urban is what i do mostly, decent amount of night shooting so low light is important.  ...  "  

That is exactly the type of shooting that I expected to do when I purchased a 6D, over either the 5DmkIII or the 7DmkII.  I had quickly ruled out the 7DmkII because i wanted a full frame body.  I have always shot mostly stills, with the occasional social event like family gatherings, both indoors and out.  I had no intention of shooting video, which is a task that I would give the 6D low marks, compared to the 5DmkII or the 7DmkII.

The 5DmkIII offered a better build than a 6D, with its' weather sealing.  But, a 6D is probably more robust against bad and inclement weather than I am.  Weather sealing was not a big selling point for me.  The 5DmkIII offered better AF for action photography, which again was something that I did not anticipate doing, not at all. 

The 5DmkIII had a shutter rated with twice as many operations, 200,000 vs. 100,000, than a 6D.  But, I looked at how many pictures that I had shot over the past year, 4000, and realized I would probably buy a more advanced camera before I would wear the shutter out. 

All inidications pointed me towards the 6D, over the 5DmkIII, which would allow me to get a better initial lens.  As it turns out, I wound up with a "standard" EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, mainly because I realized that I needed a general purpose, standard zoom.  My EF-S standard kit zooms were not going to work with a 6D.

As it turns out, my estimates of how I would use the camera were off the mark.  I have taken nearly 12,000 shots since buying the 6D, and the first year is not even up until August.  I loved the images from the camera so much, that I just went on a shooting binge, and haven't looked back. 

I have made bucket lists for myself, of sights and places that I want to photograph.  One such bucket list, photographing a set of locations with a common theme, has paid for the camera and a couple of "L" lenses.  I never had any intention of ever selling photographs, but a little bit of exposure in my doctor's office has begun ballooning almost into a part time business.

Yes, a 6D is a great camera, but it is not a 5DmkII.  The 6D is a great, entry level, "prosumer"  model into the world of full frame camera bodies.  It can do a whole lot, so don't let anyone convince you otherwise.  The images it creates are excellent, especially if  use quality lenses.  You will get the best results if you take the time to learn how to use a camera thoughtfully,  

I think the 6D is at the top of the heap for consumer cameras, along with the 7DmkII.  Both cameras fill a certain niche, and you have identified the correct niche for the 6D.  On the other hand, the 5DmkIII is what I would consider to be an entry level, professional camera.  It can do most all of what a 6D can do, and quite a bit more. 

The 5DmkIII is probably more versatile than a 6D, but I, for one, didn't think I needed those professional grade features.  With the sudden growth in interest, and demand for my photographic skills, one year later I find myself missing out, and wanting, some of the professional features of the 5DmkIII.  However, I have no buyer's remorse with the 6D.  It is an excelentl camera for amateur photo enthusiasts, who are looking for "bang for the buck" value out of their camera purchases.

[ScottyP]

If you had said anything, anything at all about sports of pets or anything fast I might see it differently but you did not. The 6d plus a lens from the savings is better than a 5d without the other lens.

The 6d has red focus points that stay illuminated. The 5d3's af points do not and people say it is sometimes hard to tell what AF points are active when shooting weddings in dim light. There is something irritating about 5d3 to counterbalance the less sophisticated AF irritation in 6d. 😉