I have a 60D but I want Full Frame for portrait and landscape. 6D or 5D iii?

Hi all,
I want to upgrade my stuff from a 60D to a Full Frame camera. I want to shoot portrait and landscapes. Should I buy a 6d or a 5d iii? Or should I wait for a 6D with better AF?
please help me...

I am in the same boat - need a FF mostly for portraits and landscape. AFAIK 6D AF is perfectly adequate for these tasks - no need to pay an extra grand for 5DIII. Save the money for more quality glass - a FF UWA, or a fast prime for portraits (Sigma 85mm f1.4, 135L, ...).

Thanks! I've just bought a 24-105L to replace my Sigma 17-70. its great! So i can save up now for a 50 1.2L

6D for the price right now not to mention the low noise at high ISO.

Wifi on the 6D gives it an advantage for landscape, I usually choose the 5D3 for portraits but 6D is just as capable unless the light is very poor.

If I was only ever shooting landscape and portraits, then I would choose a 6D, if I was going to shoot any sport or wildlife from time to time, I would buy a 5D3.

I was in the same boat as you a few months ago. I opted for the 6D because IQ-wise there is very little to no difference between a 6D and a 5D3 and I had no need for the sophisticated AF system that the 5D3 had (and commanded the 1K premium for).

I like the feel, build quality and button layout of the 5D Mark III as it compares more to the 7D. More robust. As you have a 60D, you may feel the 6D is for you.

Not sure why you would need better AF than 6D for portrait and landscapes.

You don't need a 6D to do portraits and landscapes. I am currently shooting a 60D and a 6D. The similarity of the controls is very nice to have.

If I had a spare $1,000 I would have gotten the 5D3, though.

Jessecoria wrote in post #16612645
Hi all,
I want to upgrade my stuff from a 60D to a Full Frame camera. I want to shoot portrait and landscapes. Should I buy a 6d or a 5d iii? Or should I wait for a 6D with better AF?
please help me...

Heya,

Why do you think you need full frame to do landscape/portrait?

I don't think a $3000 purchase into a 5D3 is going to make any difference for these two kinds of photographies. If you were trying to do really fast autofocus on moving objects, like birds in flight or something, I would be more inclined to say that the 5D3 is a great way to go because of it's absolutely robust autofocus system. But beyond that autofocus, it's not much better in the other departments, and subpar in some actually (ISO performance specifically). So you have to ask yourself, is it worth an extra $1500 for the autofocus capabilities of the 5D3 for your photography? Don't get me wrong, the 5D3 is an absolute beast of a camera, but I think it's overstated that everyone needs one in every thread, when they're just paying twice the price for the autofocus. If you don't need the latest & greatest autofocus, the 5D3 isn't really the best answer, and when there's no budget, well, there's better than the 5D3 to look at.

Landscape is generally manually focused.

Portraits are still, you can manually focus (and sometimes, it's best anyways). Basic autofocus on an ancient camera can focus on a face doing a portrait. You don't really need something super robust here.

Frankly, I wouldn't bother getting a new camera body based on what you are describing it's use for.

Instead, I would say, get a landscape lens, and get a portrait lens. Your 70-200 F2.8 is good for portrait. But you'd be surprised what an 85 F1.8 or F1.4 can do here too on your current camera. You don't have a wide enough lens for big landscape, at all. Even if you went full frame, 24mm would be your widest, and it's really not super wide there either (it's wide, but not ultra really). Look into a simple 10-22mm and you're set for landscape.

That's basically $800 in lenses if you get two specific lenses there. That does better for your future landscape/portrait. I would put another $300 in filters for landscape (ND filters, plate system). You'll get better results than simply changing the camera body.

And it costs less than a new camera body, but you get actual change for what you're looking to do.

That said, if you're absolutely mind-set on a new camera body, I'd get the 6D unless you have absolutely unlimited funds. A refurb 6D is a very good value. You don't need insane autofocus abilities. It's a very good camera. It's legendary for ISO handling (this is not important at all for landscape unless you do night land scapes or stars, then it's absolutely incredible there; and ISO handling is great for portrait depending on the kind of light you're using, or lack thereof actually). If you have $5000 to throw away, get the 5D3, and 2 new lenses, like the 21mm Zeis for landscape, and the 135L for portrait.

Very best,

I prefer MF for both portraits and landscapes since the subject isn't moving. That said, the 6D for me is actually the better camera thanks to the EG-S focusing screen

You just have to ask yourself if you need the advanced 5D AF, if you don't the 6D is the better camera for numerous reasons IMO.

6d and some nice glass. If you like shooting with more AF points and faster primes then 5dmk3.

I went from 60d to the 6d two months ago. Mainly for iso ability and the great price i got the 6d for and i was able to sell the 60d at no loss. The only dramatic change was the loss of length and the realisation I will have to get expensive glass to make up for it.

Anything over a 60d is an improvement, ff-wise.

Traded my 60D for a 5D classic. Never looked back.

Sold my 5Dc, kept the 60D. Right decision. Hey, we're all different.