Canon 6D or 5DMKIII

Phal · 2 Jan 2013 at 14:24

An Exception said:
According to DXO, the ISO quality difference is 0.02 stops in favour of the 6D. This is basically nothing, or at least so small I wouldn't even factor it in the decision.

I was thinking more in relation to what he has at the moment

If you just want better low light and aren't too fussed about the better AF then you can save some cash by just getting the 6d. Then you can replace the kit lens

jonneymendoza · 2 Jan 2013 at 15:02

Phal said:
Yeah but it only does that straight to jpeg though no RAW files

lol do u know the definition of a raw image file?

King Damager · 2 Jan 2013 at 15:05

Phal said:
I was thinking more in relation to what he has at the moment If you just want better low light and aren't too fussed about the better AF then you can save some cash by just getting the 6d. Then you can replace the kit lens

The kit lens on the 6D is hardly shabby

kd

D.P. · 2 Jan 2013 at 15:05

Don't move to a FF and use sow glass lie the 24-105mm. Better off just buying a faster 17-50mm f/2.8 or better still faster primes.

9designs2 · 2 Jan 2013 at 15:12

D.P. said:
Don't move to a FF and use sow glass lie the 24-105mm. Better off just buying a faster 17-50mm f/2.8 or better still faster primes.

Huh...? Whats so wrong with the 24-105 ?.... F4 is fine, not everyone shoots wide open at F1.4..... For Landscapes it's fine and a great walk about....

2StepSteve · 2 Jan 2013 at 15:19

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with the 24-105. It's sharp, has decent IS and has a very useful focal range for walking about, it's one that you could easily have on the camera all day long. Believe it or not but there are times with a large aperture isn't needed or required.

Phal · 2 Jan 2013 at 16:17

King Damager said:
The kit lens on the 6D is hardly shabby

kd

Kit lens on his 500d I was talking about

The only one he can't use on a FF camera

Phal · 2 Jan 2013 at 16:18

jonneymendoza said:
lol do u know the definition of a raw image file?

Your point?

King Damager · 2 Jan 2013 at 16:22

Phal said:
Kit lens on his 500d I was talking about The only one he can't use on a FF camera

Oh, haha, yeah.

The 24-105 it's a bit harsh to call a kit... XD

kd

Phal · 2 Jan 2013 at 16:24

Call it an expensive kit lens

jonneymendoza · 2 Jan 2013 at 16:27

Phal said:
Your point?

google and read about RAW and u will know my point. wont spell it out for you. do some research

An Exception · 2 Jan 2013 at 16:50

^^^
I understand what a RAW file is, however I don't understand the point your making. Tbh I thought you would be a gentleman about it, and help the guy out. As it's not just him who doesn't understand, perhaps it is you who isn't being clear enough.

Phal · 2 Jan 2013 at 17:14

If I wanted to jpeg then I would. Unless you're saying that the HDR feature somehow makes magical jpegs that don't lose any quality/info with their compression then my point stands.

dannyjo22 · 2 Jan 2013 at 17:18

jonneymendoza said:
wont spell it out for you. do some research

Perhaps people should just sling that at you next time you want advise on here or TP? I didn't get your point, perhaps you could do me a favour and educate me, if you even understand what your point was in the first place.

londonbairn · 2 Jan 2013 at 17:20

D.P. said:
Don't move to a FF and use sow glass lie the 24-105mm. Better off just buying a faster 17-50mm f/2.8 or better still faster primes.

Nothing wrong with the 24-105mm, it's good value 2nd hand, I find it fine as a general purpose lens. Definately better on a FF than a crop.

9designs2 · 2 Jan 2013 at 17:33

Yep.... if I was allowed one lens from my bag it would be the 24-105, close call as for landscape and walk about I do use the 17-40L a lot, more than i ever expected. I like the angles you can create when walking up close..... oh it's F4 as well !!!....

....... 24-70 F2.8 would be nice, but that looks a little expensive new now for a 1 stop improvement in speed, and less reach.
FF is much nicer and easier to compose and frame up, with any lens attached, I would never go back as a main camera, even if that means using yesterdays tech.

D.P. · 2 Jan 2013 at 21:26

londonbairn said:
Nothing wrong with the 24-105mm, it's good value 2nd hand, I find it fine as a general purpose lens. Definately better on a FF than a crop.

My point is it is a relatively slow lens at f/4.0, you are as well served by a 2.8 or even better a faster prime on a crop body if low light work is important.
One of the most useless upgrades I see if people with a crop camera, a 17-5xmm f/2.8 lens and upgrade to a FF camera and use an f/4.0 lens completely removing any advantage you would have got getting a bigger sensor.

The OP has complained of noise at high ISOs. If noise in low light is an issue with your crop camera then moving to FF and buying a 24-105mm f/4.0 is the last thing you should do.

My comment was nothing to do with the IQ and optics of the Canon 24-105, which are OK but massively over-hyped (soft away from the center, absolutely massive distortion, mediocre rendition). The lens is popular because of price and convenience alone.

Richdog · 2 Jan 2013 at 21:33

jonneymendoza said:
google and read about RAW and u will know my point. wont spell it out for you. do some research

This section generally manages to be very civil and helpful, with people managing not to act like unnecessarily arrogant prats. Please don't try and change that.

I too am interested in your point because it's not as obvious as you seem to think it it, though i'm guessing your poor writing skills aren't helping you to express yourself clearly enough.

keasla · 2 Jan 2013 at 21:56

D.P. said:
The OP has complained of noise at high ISOs. If noise in low light is an issue with your crop camera then moving to FF and buying a 24-105mm f/4.0 is the last thing you should do.

i have a 50mm f1.8 and i still need to use it at f1.8 iso 800 and 1/30 sec as for me anything over 800 there is to much noise

King Damager · 2 Jan 2013 at 22:09

D.P. said:
My point is it is a relatively slow lens at f/4.0, you are as well served by a 2.8 or even better a faster prime on a crop body if low light work is important.
One of the most useless upgrades I see if people with a crop camera, a 17-5xmm f/2.8 lens and upgrade to a FF camera and use an f/4.0 lens completely removing any advantage you would have got getting a bigger sensor.

The OP has complained of noise at high ISOs. If noise in low light is an issue with your crop camera then moving to FF and buying a 24-105mm f/4.0 is the last thing you should do.

My comment was nothing to do with the IQ and optics of the Canon 24-105, which are OK but massively over-hyped (soft away from the center, absolutely massive distortion, mediocre rendition). The lens is popular because of price and convenience alone.

Price and convenience are relatively big factors though....

That said, wouldn't you say that moving to FF improves low light performance by more than the one stop lost going from 2.8 to 4...

kd