New camera, replace 5D mkII or 6D

ChrisD. · 5 May 2014 at 18:32

You could get a Mk1 24-70 f/2.8 for kit lens money, I'd go with that. Iv'e gone with the MkII, but I wanted to invest in something I won't have to replace for a while.

Saying that the 24-105 is no bad lens. Depends if you shoot a lot below f/4.

crinkleshoes · 5 May 2014 at 21:15

I like <f4, that's what has me questioning whether to go for the kit lens or not, it's effectively half price when it comes with kit and it seems like a decent lens, however I'm not sure how much I'll use it.

The 24-70 2.8 is the one tempting me... but with a 35, 50 and 70-200... I may well have enough for what I want... for starters, at least.

Just had a look at other markets, seems you can get the lens for the same price as part of the kit quite easily, so maybe I'll leave it for now and just pick up the 3 main lenses I'd like.

ChrisD. · 5 May 2014 at 21:34

Are you going from crop to FF? As f/2.8 on crop is roughly the same as f/4 on FF.

crinkleshoes · 6 May 2014 at 14:44

No, from point and shoot!!

I do have history with film however, just haven't been wanting to play much for a few years & now I'm getting the itch again wanting to commit more of my time to artistic pursuits. My uncle is a professional photographer and I have spent time working with him, plus I'm rather picky about IQ, hence wanting FF RAW to play with

I'm coming "from" one of these - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd900

Good tip though, thank you.

mr tommo · 6 May 2014 at 22:43

Paul11 said:
how did you find using the mk3 compared to the 6D ?

Weirdly I've still not reviewed last weeks Wedding photos! Had a quick 5 min flick through today but just not had time at all to look through. From a quick look, honestly can't see any difference on screen.

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

I'd say 80% of our stuff is shot in JPEG. Studio portraits are shot in JPEG on a 1ds mkIII, so too is a catalogue we shoot for and we photograph at 150+ nurseries twice a year with basic 60D's. That accounts for around 180,000 images per year that need to be stored for 2 years.

Advantages of Jpeg for us are storage space, the studio stuff doesn't need lots of fancy editing on a white/grey/black background. We print in house up to around 48" x 36" from JPEG and the quality is never in question. The nursery stuff is pretty routine with the same lighting setup, white balance and exposure. The catalogue shots we take also goes straight to web at 2000px high so no need for large files/editing.

All commercial jobs and weddings are done by myself in RAW. Weddings speak for themselves and location commercial shoots don't have all the constants of studio work and often require editing effects/looks dependent on brief.

If time and storage wasn't an issue, everything would be in RAW but quite frankly the majority of our stuff doesn't require RAW.

On a personal level I use RAW exclusively for holidays and general photography.

dannyjo22 · 9 May 2014 at 09:27

Vertigo1 said:
It's actually a Canon promotion - double the usual cashback for the last week until 7th May, so £300 off a 5D3.

Got to wait for the next promotion now

Sold some shares on the 7th so have the funds now to pay for it, but won't get the funds until the 12th

Even tax free at the airport they want £2200

Just need to wait a bit longer I guess. I still need to decide if I'm going primes or 24-70 to start with.

mr tommo · 10 May 2014 at 16:26

Paul11 said:
how did you find using the mk3 compared to the 6D ?

Since reviewing the photos and getting the wedding blog online, I've got to say I'm very impressed with the 6d.

We go with 2 photographers, one of using a 5D3 now and the other the 6D. The main thing is the focus and number of focussing points on the 5D3 is just superb. I can pretty much take any shot I want now without recomposing, which is also a bit of a necessity when shooting at f1.4 in certain situations.

As for image quality, I genuinely cant tell which is taken with which camera. We will print up to around 30x20 inches on some wedding photos and it really isn't noticeable which camera they are taken with.

Here's a link to the last wedding : http://kandlphotography.co.uk/keele-hall/laura-dom/

Granted they are only 900px wide but there's no way of telling which was shot with which camera. As always, it's all about the lens. In the above link, it's a 60/40 split between the 5D3 and the 6D.

SAM81 · 10 May 2014 at 16:43

mr tommo said:
Since reviewing the photos and getting the wedding blog online, I've got to say I'm very impressed with the 6d.

We go with 2 photographers, one of using a 5D3 now and the other the 6D. The main thing is the focus and number of focussing points on the 5D3 is just superb. I can pretty much take any shot I want now without recomposing, which is also a bit of a necessity when shooting at f1.4 in certain situations.

As for image quality, I genuinely cant tell which is taken with which camera. We will print up to around 30x20 inches on some wedding photos and it really isn't noticeable which camera they are taken with.

Here's a link to the last wedding : http://kandlphotography.co.uk/keele-hall/laura-dom/

Granted they are only 900px wide but there's no way of telling which was shot with which camera. As always, it's all about the lens. In the above link, it's a 60/40 split between the 5D3 and the 6D.

Nice set. Keele Hall? Went to uni there and been to a few weddings there too

mr tommo · 10 May 2014 at 17:04

Thanks

the ceremony and reception was there, it's a nice place when the weather is good. Done quite a few there now, bit of a pain that it's open to the public and students during weddings but not too much of a problem usually.

THC_SsSsSnake · 10 May 2014 at 17:45

mr tommo said:
Since reviewing the photos and getting the wedding blog online, I've got to say I'm very impressed with the 6d.

We go with 2 photographers, one of using a 5D3 now and the other the 6D. The main thing is the focus and number of focussing points on the 5D3 is just superb. I can pretty much take any shot I want now without recomposing, which is also a bit of a necessity when shooting at f1.4 in certain situations.

As for image quality, I genuinely cant tell which is taken with which camera. We will print up to around 30x20 inches on some wedding photos and it really isn't noticeable which camera they are taken with.

Here's a link to the last wedding : http://kandlphotography.co.uk/keele-hall/laura-dom/

Granted they are only 900px wide but there's no way of telling which was shot with which camera. As always, it's all about the lens. In the above link, it's a 60/40 split between the 5D3 and the 6D.

Nice photos Mr Tom.
re not knowing which is which,don't they have the same sensor? would a few more pixels make a difference?
thanks for posting

Vertigo · 10 May 2014 at 19:11

No different sensors. The 6D is slightly lower resolution and has slightly better high-ISO noise performance but there's very little between them.

Paul11 · 10 May 2014 at 19:46

nice work mr tommo

i agree, the image quality between the two is hard to tell apart, though the auto focus system is noticeably different

i tried my 6D on a sports type day and it couldn't touch the 5D

though for still work , portraits etc it is fantastic

ChrisD. · 11 May 2014 at 12:57

Yeah that's the reason I went for the 5D3 over the 6D, the performance of the AF for motorsports is sublime.

crinkleshoes · 12 May 2014 at 21:03

Nice photos, thank you for sharing, along with your opinion

mr tommo · 13 May 2014 at 16:34

THC_SsSsSnake said:
Nice photos Mr Tom.
re not knowing which is which,don't they have the same sensor? would a few more pixels make a difference?
thanks for posting

Vertigo1 said:
No different sensors. The 6D is slightly lower resolution and has slightly better high-ISO noise performance but there's very little between them.

Thanks

At a wedding I'd say the difference is probably not noticeable. I like the weightier feel of the 5D3 and we didn't really need to replace the 5D2. The better ISO performance and one hugely important feature for me (Auto ISO shutter speed settings) was enough reason.

That one feature alone has been worth the upgrade. I can literally see something happening, pick the camera up, click the shutter and it's going to be spot on with the minimum shutter speed set to 1/125. It wasn't ever that much of a problem with the 5D2 but there would be the odd time you'd see something unexpected happen and miss it due to having the ISO wrong. Those fractions of a setting at a wedding can be the difference between total missing a natural shot.

Paul11 said:
nice work mr tommo

i agree, the image quality between the two is hard to tell apart, though the auto focus system is noticeably different

i tried my 6D on a sports type day and it couldn't touch the 5D

though for still work , portraits etc it is fantastic

Thanks

How are you finding your 6D?

Here is another Wedding that was shot 4 weeks ago with the old 5D2 & 6D : http://kandlphotography.co.uk/the-ashes/lucy-dan/ I'd guess around 70% of those shots are from the 6D though. I think sometimes bodies are given too much credit.

crinkleshoes said:
Nice photos, thank you for sharing, along with your opinion

Thanks

crinkleshoes · 29 May 2014 at 00:56

Had a proper play with both 6D and 5D today... I'm sold on the extra features of the 5D, noticed the difference in seconds in side by side use

oops...