Poll: (6D and 35L) or (5D III and 40mm stm)

Charlie wrote in post #16606714
way too easy. More fair would be 6D + 35L vs 5D3 + 35F2 IS.

The goal was to give options based on similar costs and focal lengths. To travel light and not worry about additional gear or variables.
While the 5D III and 40mm stm are still more expensive to buy than the 6D and 35L About ($3600 vs $3,000 US)
Replacing the 40mm stm with the 35 IS would be a $1,000 difference. The 6D has better low light, while the 5D III as better focusing system.

If traveling light is the goal, neither of your options is very good. I can put an SX260HS in my pocket. I can wear an SX50HS around my neck all day.

I don't buy your argument about the 6D being better in low-light and the 5D3 having better AF. Yes, I realize both statements are true. Still, the difference in low-light ability is quite negligible and the difference in AF is hardly relevant for taking photos of Paris at night, or an Aztec temple.

EOS5DC wrote in post #16606790
If traveling light is the goal, neither of your options is very good. I can put an SX260HS in my pocket. I can wear an SX50HS around my neck all day.

I don't buy your argument about the 6D being better in low-light and the 5D3 having better AF. Yes, I realize both statements are true. Still, the difference in low-light ability is quite negligible and the difference in AF is hardly relevant for taking photos of Paris at night, or an Aztec temple.

You're right, and I agree, the differences in each camera is marginal at best. Traveling light would mean not having a bag full of optional gear.
I often hear avid users of each camera toting those two statements as absolute truth in ones' superiority. When in real-world shooting, they are marginal at best. It is not about having the perfect camera for one situation, it's about choosing between the options, several have voted in favor of the 5D III choice.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16606820
You're right, and I agree, the differences in each camera is marginal at best. Traveling light would mean not having a bag full of optional gear.
I often hear avid users of each camera toting those two statements as absolute truth in ones' superiority. When in real-world shooting, they are marginal at best. It is not about having the perfect camera for one situation, it's about choosing between the options, several have voted in favor of the 5D III choice.

Granted. If I were taking an SLR and lens on such an excursion, which I personally would not do, I'd take my 6D and 35 IS. Lots of variables here.

EOS5DC wrote in post #16606790
If traveling light is the goal, neither of your options is very good. I can put an SX260HS in my pocket. I can wear an SX50HS around my neck all day.

different folks have different tolerances. I can wear a 5D2 + 24-70 F2.8 all day, and have in SE asia. Worked well, but a little on the heavy side, a 6D + 35L should be manageable for most DSLR shooters.

the 35F2 IS does seem like an ok alternative, but that extra stop is to die for lol. I had the 35F2 non IS, and optics were good, but a lot of times, the background blur left me wanting more.

I am amazed that nobody popped up with the Sigma 35 Art!...

The EF 35L according to the reviews in B&H is a stellar lens. Price is meh... The EF 35 f2 IS seems interesting, for me, if I were to go for a prime would be 1.4.

Poll is 65% to 35%. Perhaps the gear is 65% lens 35% camera.