Seriously thinking about moving to nikon

I dont know. Its hard to disagree with powers post. From my understanding if you want better DR then the 5d3 really isnt the best option, it seems the 5d4 and 80d have improved alot but they still arent sony sensors.
Personally it gets annoying how often people try to disregard the usefulness of more DR

Then explain the usefulness in your opinion... what would a stop (or two) better DR do for you? Is it worth switching your entire system? Sorry, I just don't get it. I've never felt restricted by the DR in my 6D.

Just my opinion of course. Sorry if I annoyed you.

And ive never felt restricted with the fps of the 6d but for others it isnt enough and i wouldnt be against having more

elitejp wrote in post #18309546
And ive never felt restricted with the fps of the 6d but for others it isnt enough and i wouldnt be against having more

That's why I bought a 7D2. ߘ

But we were talking about DR.

And the more the better.

elitejp wrote in post #18309528
I dont know. Its hard to disagree with powers post. From my understanding if you want better DR then the 5d3 really isnt the best option, it seems the 5d4 and 80d have improved alot but they still arent sony sensors.
Personally it gets annoying how often people try to disregard the usefulness of more DR

Please post examples of 'the usefulness of more DR'.

I would be most interested to see the tremendous difference a Sony sensor would offer over Canon's comparable offerings.

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18304598
Forget about DR and just go get a used 5D3.

power shot wrote in post #18309468
nice, the OP specifically wants better DR and the best you can come up with is for them to ignore what they want because you say so

But just because the OP wants better DR does not necessarily mean that better DR is the path that he/she should take. Dynamic range is greatly overvalued by many photographers - they think that better DR will help them solve some of their problems, and it often doesn't. Many times here on POTN, thread starters are misguided in what they want, and posts that seek to guide them in another direction altogether are sometimes the best advice of all.

power shot wrote in post #18309468
what a stupid post

Farmer's post isn't stupid, but it is shallow. Honestly, even though I agree with his advice, I don't see how his post is helpful, because he takes no time to explain why he advises against increased dynamic range. Helpful posts explain the "why" behind the advice, and seek to educate others........I do not see that level of helpfulness in Farmer's post.

.

I was in a hurry.

The OP stated in his first post he owned a 6D which I thought had slightly better DR than the mark iii, I might be wrong on that point. However he also stated he wanted a "Far better in DR" camera, the mark iii obviously isn't what he wants and he has decided that for himself. For me personally I think higher ISO and noise control is more important than low ISO DR, The whole question here is should he sell off all his Canon gear at a huge loss (whichever way you look at it) and buy Nikon or Sony gear that will possibly give him up to 2.5EV of latitude in a limited set of circumstances at ISO 100, and which will also be the previous generation model.... probably fairly soon.

I agree with FarmerTed's post to a degree, although I think a 5D3 would be a side step at best in terms of DR. Features and usability would be greatly improved however, and I think that where he was coming from.

You think correctly.

Shadow recovery along with dynamic range is what swayed me over to the Nikon camp. Never liked the noise that showed up in any of the Canon dslr's I owned and it was like a night and day difference when comparing my 1Ds miii files to the files from the D800.

Have to admit though I am looking at switching to Sony, specifically the a7r II and am looking forward to that 42mp sensor.

Thorrulz wrote in post #18310986
Have to admit though I am looking at switching to Sony, specifically the a7r II and am looking forward to that 42mp sensor.

Whatever you do, please keep one of the 200f2 lenses to adapt onto the a7rii. I really enjoy your work with that lens.

Good example would be when I used to use a 5DIII at the beach here in California. The position of of the sun at the beaches I'm usually at always ends up behind the model over the water, so I'm typically shooting backlit basically. With the 5DIII, 5DII, 70D, and 7D I always had to deal with either blown out water behind the model if I exposed for the model, or ended up with noisy shadows/midtones if I underexposed for the water and tried to recover everything else in post. Ergo...limited DR could only capture so much detail in such a high contrast situation.

Once I switched to Sony (A7) and later on Nikon (D610 and D800e) there was a very noticeable difference in my ability to capture more detail in those scenes just straight out of camera...and with a little tweaking in LR or ACR I could do things I was never able to do with Canon. So yeah...there's reasons why someone might want more DR. Just like some need 11fps, or AF down to -3ev. Just because some people are content with what their brand or camera can do, doesn't mean it's for everyone, nor does it change the fact that Canon quite simply is lagging behind in DR. It is what it is.

As it seems the highest dynamic range from Canon lineup has new 5DmkIV. By the way; it has the same dynamic range as Nikon D5100 from 2011. If DR is the most important thing for you there is nothing else but to change brands.
I have a feeling that your question doesn't sound right in Canon biased forum.