New camera, replace 5D mkII or 6D

dannyjo22 · 2 May 2014 at 16:30

Nice, enjoy your purchase. Missed out on the deal to buy it in the uk for £1900 that was on hotukdeals. Regretting stalling now

mr tommo · 2 May 2014 at 17:28

That is a bloody good deal! Will be using a 5D3 and a 6D tomorrow so will be interesting to compare the two

Raymond Lin · 2 May 2014 at 17:31

£1900?! I think I paid around £2500 or £2700 for one of them. The cheaper one was still like £2300.

Paul11 · 2 May 2014 at 17:35

i not had a chance yet, will play over the weekend.... good luck tomorrow , insterested to hear your feedback comparing the two..

ChrisD. · 2 May 2014 at 18:47

You can get a 5D3 for £1999 with an offer that's running till the 7th. £150 off with a promo code and a further £150 off with Canon cash back.

dannyjo22 · 2 May 2014 at 22:39

I will look into that, I did have a look in my airports dixons tax free but it was higher than that.

Vertigo · 2 May 2014 at 23:11

It's actually a Canon promotion - double the usual cashback for the last week until 7th May, so £300 off a 5D3.

Paul11 · 3 May 2014 at 12:45

just tried the wireless on the PC , works very well .. takes a little while to transfer the files if they are full RAW, but i guess that is to be expected..

crinkleshoes · 5 May 2014 at 00:19

Currently struggling to choose between the 6D & 5DMK3... although I'm swaying towards the 6D for my amateur use.

Seems the primary differences are AF ability & simultaneous shot speed along with a couple of other bits and pieces.

With the 6D being a shade better at high ISOs, which will be great for astrophotography... sacrificing 2MP to get it, but 20MP is enough for me.

Image quality is what really matters to me...

From someone who's used both, quite frequently it seems, is there anything glaringly obvious I'm missing between the two? Especially in terms of IQ?

I will be able to spend the extra for the 5d3, but I'd rather put the money toward some extra glass or something else pretty if I don't need it over the 6D.

Any help appreciated, thank you

mr tommo · 5 May 2014 at 00:45

Paul11 said:
just tried the wireless on the PC , works very well .. takes a little while to transfer the files if they are full RAW, but i guess that is to be expected..

It's not the fastest, but neither are the proper canon wireless transmitters either. a lot of the stuff in the studio is taken on JPEG, anything that needs to be raw is wired as it just takes too long.

crinkleshoes said:
Currently struggling to choose between the 6D & 5DMK3... although I'm swaying towards the 6D for my amateur use.

Seems the primary differences are AF ability & simultaneous shot speed along with a couple of other bits and pieces.

With the 6D being a shade better at high ISOs, which will be great for astrophotography... sacrificing 2MP to get it, but 20MP is enough for me.

Image quality is what really matters to me...

From someone who's used both, quite frequently it seems, is there anything glaringly obvious I'm missing between the two? Especially in terms of IQ?

I will be able to spend the extra for the 5d3, but I'd rather put the money toward some extra glass or something else pretty if I don't need it over the 6D.

Any help appreciated, thank you

I doubt you will notice much difference if you don't need the extra AF.

Paul11 said:
i not had a chance yet, will play over the weekend.... good luck tomorrow , insterested to hear your feedback comparing the two..

Thanks, went well

actually treating myself to a weekend off for a change. Will be reviewing images on Tuesday. Both cameras were being used at the same time so hopefully we have some compatible shots.

crinkleshoes · 5 May 2014 at 00:50

Thanks for the tip

Paul11 · 5 May 2014 at 09:13

crinkleshoes said:
Currently struggling to choose between the 6D & 5DMK3... although I'm swaying towards the 6D for my amateur use.

Seems the primary differences are AF ability & simultaneous shot speed along with a couple of other bits and pieces.

With the 6D being a shade better at high ISOs, which will be great for astrophotography... sacrificing 2MP to get it, but 20MP is enough for me.

Image quality is what really matters to me...

From someone who's used both, quite frequently it seems, is there anything glaringly obvious I'm missing between the two? Especially in terms of IQ?

I will be able to spend the extra for the 5d3, but I'd rather put the money toward some extra glass or something else pretty if I don't need it over the 6D.

Any help appreciated, thank you

the 6D has surprised me with how good it is, unless you really need fast AF and extra AF points, i would go for the 6D.. i dont think you would tell the IQ apart

mr tommo said:
It's not the fastest, but neither are the proper canon wireless transmitters either. a lot of the stuff in the studio is taken on JPEG, anything that needs to be raw is wired as it just takes too long.

yes i guess for my purpose JPG would be fine too

mr tommo said:
Thanks, went well actually treating myself to a weekend off for a change. Will be reviewing images on Tuesday. Both cameras were being used at the same time so hopefully we have some compatible shots.

how did you find using the mk3 compared to the 6D ?

Vertigo · 5 May 2014 at 09:36

Not sure what the 6D is like but apparently the 5D3's JPG processing is less than stellar so, if you predominately shoot JPG, this could also be a consideration.

ChrisD. · 5 May 2014 at 11:06

Why would you buy a FF camera and shoot in JPG only (or any expensive body for that matter)?

Vertigo · 5 May 2014 at 11:12

I've often asked that myself. The only really valid reason I can think of is if you need instant results straight out of the camera without needing to process RAW files, for example press reporting or a photo-box set up producing instant prints.

However I do see quite a few people who shoot JPG all the time for no other reason than they can't be bothered processing RAW files or don't see the point or advantages of them. I guess that's down to each individual to decide but, with the higher-end kit, it does baffle me. It's one thing to shoot JPG with a lower-end xxxD body and kit lens but, when you've forked out a fortune for a high-end DSLR and lenses, why on earth would you shoot JPG and deny yourself the best possible results?

THC_SsSsSnake · 5 May 2014 at 11:23

Lol as a new FF convert and beginner enthusiast photographer,it's only now that I am shooting in RAW but was tempted just to use JPEG but PP seems so interesting and best used with raw so am now using it but if I hadn't got interested in pp I would probably have just kept it on Jpeg_

D.P. · 5 May 2014 at 13:30

MilanoChris said:
Why would you buy a FF camera and shoot in JPG only (or any expensive body for that matter)?

Sports togs do this a lot due to speed and buffer. Photojournalists do this because they need to quickly send in the photos to the editorial team for publishing.

ChrisD. · 5 May 2014 at 17:48

D.P. said:
Sports togs do this a lot due to speed and buffer. Photojournalists do this because they need to quickly send in the photos to the editorial team for publishing.

Neither of which are you typical hobbyist deciding between a 6D and 5D3. Using RAW gives you the chance to save an otherwise ruined photo opportunity.

crinkleshoes · 5 May 2014 at 18:01

Paul11 said:
the 6D has surprised me with how good it is, unless you really need fast AF and extra AF points, i would go for the 6D.. i dont think you would tell the IQ apart

Thanks, I've been reading that on many reviews - just nice to hear from end users too

Vertigo1 said:
Not sure what the 6D is like but apparently the 5D3's JPG processing is less than stellar so, if you predominately shoot JPG, this could also be a consideration.

Vertigo1 said:
I've often asked that myself. The only really valid reason I can think of is if you need instant results straight out of the camera without needing to process RAW files, for example press reporting or a photo-box set up producing instant prints.

However I do see quite a few people who shoot JPG all the time for no other reason than they can't be bothered processing RAW files or don't see the point or advantages of them. I guess that's down to each individual to decide but, with the higher-end kit, it does baffle me. It's one thing to shoot JPG with a lower-end xxxD body and kit lens but, when you've forked out a fortune for a high-end DSLR and lenses, why on earth would you shoot JPG and deny yourself the best possible results?

Thanks for the tip, but I don't plan on shooting in jpeg... I can see the massive difference between shooting in raw and processing manually. If it was for jpeg only, I don't think I'd be looking at full frame... seems pointless to go above crop for jpeg only... but that's only my opinion

crinkleshoes · 5 May 2014 at 18:18

D.P. said:
Sports togs do this a lot due to speed and buffer. Photojournalists do this because they need to quickly send in the photos to the editorial team for publishing.

But for that type of photography, wouldn't you be focused on the dual-card cameras that can write to one in jpeg & the other in raw or similar? Or choose the option that saves in both? Although I guess that may still eat buffer...

MilanoChris said:
Neither of which are you typical hobbyist deciding between a 6D and 5D3. Using RAW gives you the chance to save an otherwise ruined photo opportunity.

+ the built in wifi will be a reasonably useful gimmick for me (i know you can get other remote releases, just nice to have it built in).

I had both the 6D and 5D3 in my hands... surprised me quite how light the 6D is... I couldn't tell much difference in the build quality of them, I actually preferred the slightly lighter and smaller 6D... just felt more comfortable to me, although it was only a short comparison in a shop. I'd pick IQ over a small difference in comfort if there was much in it. I really like the finish compared to Nikon & I've always been a fan of Canon build quality.

The lack of moire filter in the 6D is the only thing really putting me off it, which I've only found mentioned in one comparison. I hadn't picked up on it in sample images, although I realise I may simply not have yet trained my eye to pick up on it... more prevalent in video perhaps, which is not a priority for me.

Relatively general use camera for me, arty, portraits, landscapes, night & later some astro when I pick up a telescope. I plan to pick up a couple of those amazing new Sigma art lenses (35, 50 & maybe 85 if/when they bring one out) + canon 70-200 f2.8... if you don't mind the cheeky question in here (can repost), is the kit lens 24-105 worth the #450GBP it'll cost me, or would I be better putting that money towards a "better" quality general range lens? It seems decent value for money & the reviews seem good, only I'm a quality whore and don't mind spending a bit more if there's a worthwhile alternative.

Thank you