6D w/24-105 and the MPE-65, or 5DMKIII w/24-105?

I'm looking to upgrade to a full frame camera. I see the 5d3 with a 24-105 for $3,600 or so, or the 6d with the same lens for $2,400, and an MPE-65 for $1,000 or so.

I know how good the MPE-65 is, compared to my 100mm macro. But is getting the 5D3 leaps and bounds above the 6D? I shoot everything, from macro, sports, stars, landscapes, portraits, etc... Which would be the 'better' way to go? The cost would be close either way, so money isn't the issue.

Thanks for looking!!

~Ace

the MP-e 65 is an incredible lens but I"m not sure I'd consider it much in a choice between two bodies. It takes a fair bit of learning to master.

If you find yourself regularly working right at 1:1 with your macro work and always find yourself wanting/needing more (i.e. you crop that 1:1 image ALOT) then the MPE is for you. Otherwise, stick with a regular macro lens and maybe some extension tubes or something. With the MP-e you will also probably want a focus rail and some specialized lighting if you don't alreay have them.

However, either way, you will end up with a good bit of kit.

I'm doing ok with my 100mm macro, but I feel like I want to be closer, and achieve even more detail. The cameras are the big deal, and if the difference between the two isn't huge, I'd grab the MPE & the 6d. But if the 5D3 is a noticeably better camera, the 65 can go on the back burner.

Here are a few of my 100mm shots...

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I suggest that you take the 6D path. You clearly have a bent for macro, and if you take the time to climb the MP-E 65 learning path it is sure to reward you. You'll need to think about macro lighting too. (Just to be sure, you are aware that this lens is macro only and cannot be used for general photography?)

As for your list of subjects, the only one where the 6D may struggle to deliver is with sports, where the better focus system of the 5DIII may have an advantage. I see "stars" too though, and by this I assume that you mean celestial ones. The high ISO low noise capabilities of the 6D are becoming legendary.

Based on the shots I've seen from you Ace, I'd go the 6D route

Do you feel the AF of your Rebel is lacking? The 6D's AF will be better, but similar to that.

Ace, I remember you from the time you joined. You are a prolific photographer and you seem to move from one genre to another with success. Right now you are doing macro, but in your Flickr I see all kinds of action photos as well.

Why limit yourself?

The high ISO capabilities of the 6D may be 'legendary' but they are hardly better than the 5DIII. 1/3 of a stop in RAW? 1/2 stop? That's variation between shots...

It's more a question, how badly do you want the MPE-65 now?

Im not a macro photographer, but I'm not sure the 5D3 offers any benefit over the 6D other than may be slight resolution.
The 6D offers wifi, I feel this could be very handy for composing, I know it is for me in some nature shots where the camera is mounted low to the ground, in water etc.
I assume you mainly MF with macro, if this is the case then the 5D3 focus system isn't going to be a benefit.

Your work is great, I feel the MPE-65 will give you more gain than the difference between bodies

Thanks for the replies, everyone!

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16593081
Do you feel the AF of your Rebel is lacking? The 6D's AF will be better, but similar to that.

I should've said this in the original post...I love my T3i, and will still use it as a second camera, but my main reason for wanting to upgrade is the ISO of the T3i scares me when over 800, and sometimes even at 800. I try to handle ISO noise in post, but I'd rather not have to worry about it in the camera settings when I'm dialing them in.

I also should've mentioned, while I do LOVE shooting macro, I live in Pittsburgh, so I'm pretty limited to about 6 months of insects. The '65 was next on my list of lenses to get, but I'm not a dedicated macro shooter. I use the 15-85 constantly, but it's an EF-S, so I hope the 24-105 will be a good replacement as my workhorse lens on a FF camera. I was possibly even considering something like a 17-40mm instead of a '65 since I'm going to lose my 15-24mm capabilities (Unless I still shoot the 15-85 on my T3i), but then do I really NEED the 24-105mm if I get a 17-40mm? I LOVE shooting the 15-85 on it's low-end, and love the results I've been getting with it, and think I may really miss the low-end range I'd be lacking up to 24mm. I'm not sure how the crop conversion works, is the 15-85 truly shooting at 15mm on my T3i?

Thanks for the help so far!!

~Ace

Ace and Deuce wrote in post #16593243
I'm not sure how the crop conversion works, is the 15-85 truly shooting at 15mm on my T3i?

Yes. Focal length is focal length. There is no crop conversion of FL. Heresy, I know, but it's true. It's a CROP factor. It tells you by how much an image taken by a FF body would be cropped by a smaller sensor.

Where it CAN be sensibly applied to FL is in comparing the captured fields of view attained by sensors of different sizes with different lenses. Thus, an APS-C sensor with a 15 mm lens would capture the same image as a FF body would capture with a 24 mm lens, this being 15 mm x 1.6.

All bets are off with macro though where it is the scale of the image on the sensor that counts. A 100/2.8 will give a maximum magnification of 1:1 regardless of the sensor size. Of course, you may choose to enlarge the smaller image from the crop body by a greater amount than you would the image from the FF body, thereby implementing the greater "reach" many attribute directly to the smaller sensor. The fallacy of this logic is readily understood when one considers whether the view of a distant landscape can be magnified by looking through a smaller window.