5D3 or 6D

ROCKMORE

ROCKMORE

Veteran
I'm renting the 5D3 more all the time and although I only pay $50 a day with a 24-102mm it still adds up. I think I need to get one, but the 6D has a few features the 5D doesn't. I'm planning to use the camera on an 8 meter crane and the WiFi could be good. Right now I'm using my 60D on it but connected to a laptop with a USB and controlling the camera with Canon Utilities. I know the 5D3 quite well but with a price tag $1,500 more I'm not sure it's worth it. I only use the camera for HD video and a few still. All focusing is manual or quick focus between camera roll. ML Raw is good but not necessary for now plus the CF cards and an external Ninja will drive the price up another $1,000. Moire is better controlled on the 5D but really hasn't been an issue for me in 4 years using Canon DSLRs.
I saw this test on low light comparison and they are pretty close
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F2_45guVck

Anybody have hands on with both camera or seen additional comparisons would be helpful.
Thanks
 
Last edited:
I would say the 5D3 is worth the difference, but I always put image quality first, I know you put a lot more weight on usability than I do...
 
Samuel H said:
I would say the 5D3 is worth the difference, but I always put image quality first, I know you put a lot more weight on usability than I do...
Click to expand...
It's also about economics. I need it for 3 projects where I have $500 in camera rentals on the 5D3. I can get the 6D for about $2100 with the 24-105 lens package. that lens lists for $1,149 at B&H right now which I'd gladly have that lens in my bag. So it brings the 6D body to $950. There are many other cameras I want to upgrade to like a BMCC or 4K BMCC so Canon lenses will fit right in the plan.
 
If you dont have ML RAW in mind, I dont think there is a reason to pay the extra cash for the 5D3. With stock firmware and if you exclude the moire, which you re familiar with, I think the 6D is a much better option. Unless you absolutely need FF, another good and cheaper choice, especially for crane use, would be the 70D. Wi-Fi and super AF...
 
Just keep in mind that while the 24-105 lists for $1,149 it will loose a lot of its value the second you buy it. Optically it has it's share of problems and the used market it flooded with it. You can buy the whitebox version of the lens new on amazon for $757 currently and you can buy the lens practically new condition for $600. Bottom line, don't buy a kit with this lens, better to just buy whichever body you like separately.
 
I have a 5D3 and a 6D, I prefer the 5D image and I also like the little extras the 5D has such as being able to monitor audio through the camera in real time, which you can't on a 6D. It sounds like for what you are doing you will probably get away fine with a 6D though.
 
I posted this on a different thread, but I'm pretty sure that the 6D wifi doesn't work in video mode. I don't have one anymore, but that is something I remember.
 
Samuel H said:
I would say the 5D3 is worth the difference, but I always put image quality first, I know you put a lot more weight on usability than I do...
Click to expand...
It's also about economics. I need it for 3 projects where I have $500 in camera rentals on the 5D3. I can get the 6D for about $2100 with the 24-105 lens package. that lens lists for $1,149 at B&H right now which I'd gladly have that lens in my bag. So it brings the 6D body to $950. There are many other cameras I want to upgrade to like a BMCC or 4K BMCC so Canon lenses will fit right in the plan.
From what I've seen the 2 cameras have about the same picture quality in video, but the price gap is much more. Since this is not the last camera I will ever buy maybe even this year I have to think smart about the money. This is a business after all.
 
cpreston said:
I posted this on a different thread, but I'm pretty sure that the 6D wifi doesn't work in video mode. I don't have one anymore, but that is something I remember.
Click to expand...
That's good to know, thanks I'll have to check.

Yes you are right, the HD video is disabled when WiFi is on. Looking at the WiFi demo it looks a little busy operating the camera with an iphone specially on a shoot. Canon Utilities runs the camera more directly from a notebook hard wired with a USB cable. I have my notebook mounted on the crane where I work already. So I guess this softens up 6D deal a bit.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to encourage you to take risks that you aren't comfortable with. I just wanted to chime in pricing.

Many, many people buy 5D3 or 6D kits with the 24-105 and strip out and sell the new lens. The "going" price is in the low $600 range for a new USA lens.

The best price that I have seen on the 6D body stripped of the lens was about $1,450. That may be grey market. It is certainly available in the $1,600 range.

With the lens was about $1,950. To $2,100 for USA model.

The best 5D3 price has been about $2,550 new. You can buy a new grey market on eBay now for $2,559.

You are in as an excellent position as you also want the 24-105.

You can watch fredmiranda. com Canon forum and canonrumors.com for notice of sales.

You can also look at canonpricewatch.com to get alerts, see recent prices, and track refurbished prices.



Personally, I am quite interested to see where Canon goes with the Dual Pixel Auto Focus on new releases in August. Many 70D and C100 users are very happy with that as a creative tool, although I understand that rt right now you don't use autofocus much at all.

We are also expecting a new sensor on the 7DII that will hopefully- finally- have better DR. I know that some of the performance of the 70D sensor is better than previous sensors, although it is not really the new sensor we have been waiting for.

So, I think it makes a lot of sense to invest the $500 in rental fees into buying. But you might consider it a tactical purchase while you wait to see what comes next, rather than a long term keeper. Just in case.....

Or you could add a 6Ti if it- hopefully- gets DPAF too.


Cheers! Good luck.
 
cpreston said:
I posted this on a different thread, but I'm pretty sure that the 6D wifi doesn't work in video mode. I don't have one anymore, but that is something I remember.
Click to expand...

Yep...thats correct...I had forgotten about that since I never tried to use it...just checked it now...does not work. When u enable wi-fi movie recording is disabled:(
 
Hey people,
this is interesting cause I'm in the very same boat but having just purchased a 6D I'm still curious about the actual differences. I get the moire aliasing issues and that doesn't concern me really, I already do things to avoid it and it's always there occasionally with DSLRs so it's just what it is.
I like it as a second cam for being FF and occasionally my mate and I split off and shoot separately. I left town and shot 5D3 while he used the 6D for the first time and he told me that it looks sharper (deeper depth of field), or generaly different somehow that he didn't like as much. He's not great with camera tech stuff so I don't know what he means yet (depth shouldn't be affected, that's ridiculous) but is the sensor really that different? Is it an entirely new sensor or the same without the moire filter? Anyone have experience using them side by side or as a b-cam together yet?
I'm glad I got one but curious how different they look after more use than I've had. (also I got a great deal with Canon refurb, do that or use the 'canon loyalty program')
 
I'm going with a Black Magic camera with my Canon lenses. There is just nothing to gain to invest in another Canon DSLR body. I've had 4 and rented all the rest and they were great, but now outdated and I've taken them as far as they can go.
 
ROCKMORE said:
I'm going with a Black Magic camera with my Canon lenses. There is just nothing to gain to invest in another Canon DSLR body. I've had 4 and rented all the rest and they were great, but now outdated and I've taken them as far as they can go.
Click to expand...

Are you thinking about the 4K version? Have you thought about the Sony A7s? Sorry to ask...Im just very interested about that Sony and I m collecting opinions:-)
I think Canon glass can work normally with some adapter.
 
6D with a Mosaic filter and moire and aliasing issues aren't a problem. Though the added price gets you closer to the 5d3 territory. Reviewers have pointed out you can sharpen 5d3 footage in post but 6D not so much- I haven't had any issues.
What I am getting disappointed in is the 24-105. When I first got it I thought it was great but the more I use it, especially for stills, the more I'm coming to dislike it. Extremely soft.
 
ddp said:
What I am getting disappointed in is the 24-105. When I first got it I thought it was great but the more I use it, especially for stills, the more I'm coming to dislike it. Extremely soft.
Click to expand...

Many people are happy with the lens. You could do some quick tests to see if it is decentered, etc.

This isn't exactly the article I am looking for, but this has some tips on how to test a lens. You can look for other advice on the same blog that doesn't involve a test chart:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/02/setting-up-an-optical-testing-station


That said, I had the Canon 24-70 2.8 since about 2004 and loved it. The 24-70 2.8 II is a rare zoom that is as sharp as the best primes, like the 24 mm TS-E. A good price with sales is $1,800.

You could also try the 24-70 4.0 IS. That is available for about $900 on good sales. It is supposed to be a very good lens.

I have both the 24-70 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 II. Once you use those two lenses, it is hard to use any other zoom for important work.

I also have the 17-40 4.0 L. If I used that more, I would replace it with the newer 16-35 4.0 IS, which looks to be a much better lens than either the 17-40 or current 16-35 2.8.II. Although it may take 6 months to 1 year to find any discount on the 16-35 4.0.

The good thing about Canon L glass is that it holds it's value quite well, so the net cost to own it is small. If you can buy at good prices, either new or a lightly used lens.

The only other lens that I really use right now is the 18-135 mm STM. That is a decent "kit" lens that I use because of the STM for lower end "camcorder" type stuff.

Good luck!
 
Thanks for the link unadog. I've got the 70-200 2.8 and it's my favorite lens. I'm waiting on more news on the new 16-35 as I could use the extra width for stills. The 24-105 is a fine walking around lens but to my eyes just doesn't have the sharp detail the 70-200 has. I do a lot of catalog work for an exterior company and as mundane as it sounds, the fine detail in roofing shingles and siding materials just doesn't pop with the 24-105. My sigma 24-70 2.8 seems shaper to me in the 5.6 to 8 range.
I'm going to do the test to make sure it's not in my head......
 
ddp said:
the fine detail in roofing shingles and siding materials just doesn't pop with the 24-105. My sigma 24-70 2.8 seems shaper to me in the 5.6 to 8 range.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean! I sold my 24-70 2.8 version I lens in anticipation of buying the newer 24-70 II. Then I tried to do without it for quite a while, as I am not doing much professional work right now.

I had a copy of the 24-105 for a while and it seemed like a nice lens. Then I tried to get by with just the 17-40 and the 70-200, as many people seem to do. Eventually I just had to buy the new 24-70, I wasnb't happy with anything that didn't have the same quality as that 70-200! :)

My wife gets irritated, as my recent lower end clients would be happy with just about anything, yet I insist on shooting like a professional. Hauling lighting gear, doing larger set-ups, only using the best lenses. It is so hard to go backwards once you know and can see the difference.

Let us know what you find out with your testing.

If it is still under warrenty, you can send it to Canon for testing and adjustment. Otherwise you could become a Canon Professional Services (CPS) member and get some coupons for free Clean, Lube, and Adjusts, then send it in.

When my 8 year ild 17-40 had some focusing proeblems, I sent it in for a CLA, Then performed about $250-$300 worth of service to teh lens, didn't charge me for it, and I got it back in 3-4 days. CPS is an incrediuble service if you can justify it, They have just changed the levels recently, I don; know the current costs & benefits,

Let us know what you find out with the 24-105!!

Cheers,
Michael
 
Biggest issue with the 24-105 is the vignetting and really bad barrel distortion(two things that are more important that sharpness.) The level of sharpness from the 24-105 is to be expected from most zoom lenses. 24-70 II is sharp for a zoom lens, it still doesn't compare to the optically superior prime lenses such as th 100 2.8, 135 f2, 300 2.8 or most 50mm primes.
 
Here is Roger Cicala's optical test of the 24-70 4.0 IS. I had not read it previously:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

A quick summary would be:

"About half way in sharpness between the 24-105 4.0 and the 24-70 2.8 II, which is the best zoom there is."

He was a little hesitant about the 24-70 4.0 at $1,500, versus the 24-70 2.8 Tamron at $1,295.

The Street price now on the 24-70 4.0 is about $900 "best case", while the Tamron is still $1,250+, so the Canon 4.0 looks more attractive at those prices. The 24-105 at $600+ also looks appropriately priced for the performance.

He did have 2 of the 24-70 4.0 showing lower numbers due to decentered elements....


Also, FWIW, here is his review of the 24-70 2.8 II

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests

Here is his summary:


"This is short, sweet, and simple. The resolution absolutely, positively kicks butt and takes names. It is way better than the lens it replaces. It’s better at 70mm than the best Canon zoom I know of, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. It’s even better at 24mm than the sharpest 24mm prime we have, the Canon 24 TS-E. In the center, in the corners, it doesn’t care. We only had 5 copies to test, but they were all very similar with little copy-to-copy variation.

Resolution is not everything, of course. But it’s certainly an important thing. Unless the real lens reviewers find some dramatic problems with this lens, I’d have to lean towards worth-the-money on this one. I can’t believe I’m saying that a $2,300 standard zoom is worth the money. But then again, I can’t believe I’m seeing a zoom lens out resolve a $2,000 world-class prime, either."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top