6D VS 5d3 - Hard Time Deciding

I've learned a long time ago to take the users' sample photo threads with a grain of salt. A similar thing happened to the 7D after being released. Due to it's reasonable price, it was affordable to a large range of people (including beginners) and suddenly the problems, issues, noise, bad photos etc. started piling up on the internet, while pros got excellent results. Generally, if a camera is $3K or more, or even $6K, people who aren't as skilled in photography usually will not buy it, leaving mostly those who are experts posting in those bodies' sample photo threads.
Yeah, let's pick 10 expert photographers from the 1DX thread and give them a 6D to post in the 6D thread. All of a sudden people would be talking about how awesome photos the 6D takes...

As for the off-brand glass comment, it is probably still true in general, but there are certain 3rd party lenses that actually outperform the Canon/Nikon ones (Sigma 35 1.4, Sigma 18-35 1.8 for example.) So the statement that "will never perform as well" is false (Even if you find one 3rd party lens that performs better makes this statement false.)

^^^ I actually feel the 1DX sample thread is by far one of the worst in here.

There are way too many ultimate gear snobs who simply wants the best because they have money to burn, not to mention all the circle jerking...

I can hardly see pro bifs or action shots there. Very disappointing.

MCAsan wrote in post #16696340
Once you shoot a 5D3, you won't go back to 6 or 7 series anything. I kept my 7D for the reach when shooting wildlife. But the 5D3 is what I always grab first.

I shot a 7D for about 3 years, but decided to buy a 5D3 and 24-70 II for Christmas. Wow what a difference good L glass makes . I sold the 7D and kept my 40D as a backup. I kind of miss the 7D, but I shoot mostly events so the high ISO and superb AF performance are most important to me. I also like the 7D/5D3 joy stick over the 6D's wheel operation.

Before I decided on the body and lenses, I rented the 6D and 5DIII and shot with both Tamron and Canon 24-70s and 70-200s. I'd suggest the OP do the same, in regards to the body.

Here are some links to photos by Per Inge östmoen in Norway.
These are taken with the same settings, one with a 5D Mark III, one with a 1DX.
Admittedly, it has nothing to do with 6D vs. 5D Mark III, but it does show that all full frame cameras with similar specifications aren't created equal.

5D Mark III, ISO 51200, 1/50 s, f/2.8
http://www.coldsiberia​.net/test3/test__5D917​3_cut.jpg

1DX, ISO 51200, 1/50 s, f/2.8
http://www.coldsiberia​.net/test3/test_1D_103​4_cut.jpg

gabebalazs wrote in post #16706033
As for the off-brand glass comment, it is probably still true in general, but there are certain 3rd party lenses that actually outperform the Canon/Nikon ones (Sigma 35 1.4,....

If you are comparing the Canon 35 to the Sigma 35, you've cited an excellent case to prove my point. Sigma has only just been able to to produce a lens that is of equal IQ to the Canon (and the actual winner is still debatable.) Remember, the Canon is a 1998 design lens, the Sigma 2012ish? So, Canon was producing Sigma quality images 14 years earlier.

jecottrell wrote in post #16706212
If you are comparing the Canon 35 to the Sigma 35, you've cited an excellent case to prove my point. Sigma has only just been able to to produce a lens that is of equal IQ to the Canon (and the actual winner is still debatable.) Remember, the Canon is a 1998 design lens, the Sigma 2012ish? So, Canon was producing Sigma quality images 14 years earlier.

And how is that relevant in the present? We can't just run out and buy a currently non-existent, updated Canon 35mm from the future.

I get your point though. Probably when Canon updates the 35mm, they set out to make it at least as good as the Sigma. The price may be twice the Sigma's though.

apersson850 wrote in post #16706085
Here are some links to photos by Per Inge östmoen in Norway.
These are taken with the same settings, one with a 5D Mark III, one with a 1DX.
Admittedly, it has nothing to do with 6D vs. 5D Mark III, but it does show that all full frame cameras with similar specifications aren't created equal.

5D Mark III, ISO 51200, 1/50 s, f/2.8
http://www.coldsiberia​.net/test3/test__5D917​3_cut.jpg

1DX, ISO 51200, 1/50 s, f/2.8
http://www.coldsiberia​.net/test3/test_1D_103​4_cut.jpg

1) Images are way too big! Did you mean to URL it instead of IMG it?

2) I can see where focus was different between the two, so it makes it easy to draw false conclusions based on detail, depending on where you look. I looked at the stick sitting on the rock on the left side. The 5D3 has more back focus vs the 1DX.

3) Were the focal lengths different, and if not, then the files were resized, which has an impact one way or another, either to the 5D3's detriment or advantage?

If I look at a section where it appears to be about equally in focus, they are pretty close. What I see more of is a difference in NR values either in camera or in the software that converted the raw. Does the photographer supply the raw files, and if so, can we see the resulting JPGs without any NR?

There is an improvement no doubt, but it is somewhat small if you look at the right areas. The other areas being in different focus or out of focus areas, makes it tough to compare. Maybe a 1/2 stop? Tough to say with these files though as processed as they are, either via camera or software.

Received my 6D w/24-105 f/4 IS L yesterday and did some impromptu low light shooting in my dark yard. I'm absolutely floored how easily I can take photos in such little light and handheld! I mean, who would've thought you can actually use 12800 ISO with double digit shutter speeds. This is going to open up so many doors for me. Coming from a 7D, this thing is unbelievable. OP, unless you need the sophisticated autofocus of the 5D MkIII, don't hesitate to buy a 6D. I mainly shoot center focus then recompose.

The whole time while justifying the purchase, I was fighting myself as to whether I should sell off my trusty 7D w/EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I figured that the extra stop of aperture alone will justify keeping it. After seeing the 6D shots, I don't care for the 7D and won't miss the lens at all. I really don't shoot action sports so I've hardly ever used high speed burst and AI Servo.

UserM4 wrote in post #16706443
Received my 6D w/24-105 f/4 IS L yesterday and did some impromptu low light shooting in my dark yard. I'm absolutely floored how easily I can take photos in such little light and handheld! I mean, who would've thought you can actually use 12800 ISO with double digit shutter speeds. This is going to open up so many doors for me. Coming from a 7D, this thing is unbelievable. OP, unless you need the sophisticated autofocus of the 5D MkIII, don't hesitate to buy a 6D. I mainly shoot center focus then recompose.

The whole time while justifying the purchase, I was fighting myself as to whether I should sell off my trusty 7D w/EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I figured that the extra stop of aperture alone will justify it. After seeing the 6D shots, I don't care for the 7D and won't miss the lens at all. I really don't shoot action sports so I've hardly ever used high speed burst and AI Servo.

OOC JPGs? If so, that is a big part of the improvement, the JPG and NR engine finally got a facelift a few models ago.

I don't know what you in the bolded section? Shutter speeds have nothing to do with your camera, are you saying that before you would shoot at f2.8 and faster shutter speeds, and now you can run at f4 at slower shutter speeds? Again, that wouldn't be a camera thing. The ISOs you run at would be camera-related.

I would use ISO 6400 on the 7D quite often, but 12800 required finesse with settings and post processing. I can do ISO 25600 on the 5D3 and get close to the same results now with almost the same kinds of post processing steps. Nice!

7D 6400

apersson850 wrote in post #16706085
Here are some links to photos by Per Inge östmoen in Norway.
These are taken with the same settings, one with a 5D Mark III, one with a 1DX.
Admittedly, it has nothing to do with 6D vs. 5D Mark III, but it does show that all full frame cameras with similar specifications aren't created equal.

5D Mark III, ISO 51200, 1/50 s, f/2.8
http://www.coldsiberia​.net/test3/test__5D917​3_cut.jpg

1DX, ISO 51200, 1/50 s, f/2.8
http://www.coldsiberia​.net/test3/test_1D_103​4_cut.jpg

I have converted your images to links as they are oversize. Please observe the image posting rules https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=179319.

Oh, sorry. The site where I found the links displayed them smaller, then allowed you to zoom in, so I didn't realize when I put in the image links.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #16706452
OOC JPGs? If so, that is a big part of the improvement, the JPG and NR engine finally got a facelift a few models ago.

I don't know what you in the bolded section? Shutter speeds have nothing to do with your camera, are you saying that before you would shoot at f2.8 and faster shutter speeds, and now you can run at f4 at slower shutter speeds? Again, that wouldn't be a camera thing. The ISOs you run at would be camera-related.

I would use ISO 6400 on the 7D quite often, but 12800 required finesse with settings and post processing. I can do ISO 25600 on the 5D3 and get close to the same results now with almost the same kinds of post processing steps. Nice!

7D 6400

5D3 25600

Sorry, what I meant was that with my 7D, it was a compromise of either high ISO noise or slow shutter speed blurs. Now, I'm not afraid to keep my shutter speeds in double digits and just crank on the ISO.

I've been watching this thread closely as it started shortly after I placed my order. For me, I went ahead and pulled the trigger on the 6D. Once you weed through all the negativity, everyone here has some good points and great understandings about both camera's. I've had my eye on both camera's for a couple of months and did a lot of digging before clicking the button. I feel I have a pretty good understanding about all the arguments for both camera's. I haven't had a chance to shoot anything yet as I just got the camera yesterday. So, if it doesn't meet my biggest requirement of low light, indoor sports shots, I will most likely return it. I know, I know, some of you are chuckling to yourselves right now about that last sentence. But after searching through the 6D shots on Flickr and on this forum, I decided it was worth a try. It also seems like a more natural evolution in my flow of cameras progressing up to the beast, the 5DIII.

So, here is my rationale:

• B&H has a really good deal right now for a package deal of the 6D, 24-105 lens, Pixma Pro 100 printer and 50 sheets of 13x19 photo paper. And, holy cow, this printer is HUGE!
  
• The DPReview camera comparison page (http://www.dpreview.co​m …-to-our-studio-test-scene) appears to show that the 6D has slightly less noise at higher ISO's. This was a big plus. And I hope its accurate.
  
• Snapsort comparison (http://snapsort.com …-Mark-III-vs-Canon-EOS-6D) barely gives the edge to the 6D, but not by much. And from what I gather, this is a highly untrusted comparator, but its good for quickly pointing out strengths and weaknesses in cameras spec's.
  
• The 6D is about $1500-$1800 less than the 5DIII (when purchased as a kit).
  
• The 6D has not been out nearly as long as the 5DIII and I fear the 5DIII may be Canon's rumored 3rd DSLR to be upgraded towards the end of this year. If this is the case, I may have enough saved up to buy it by the end of the year, or this time next year.
  
• Probably 99% of my shots are done with the center focus point. If not, and the 6D has problems with this, I'll have to hope its not low light and the 70D can handle it.
  
• The FPS is about the same as my T4i. This was fast enough for most everything I've been shooting. If I need faster, again, I'll have to hope I can rely on the 70D.
  
• The wifi on the 70D has shown to be a handy addition. Likewise, with the 6D with the added bonus of GPS capabilities.
  
• This was a great opportunity to sneak in the purchase of battery grips for both the 70D and the 6D without my significant other knowing any different.
  

Good call, Chris! You will have a wonderful camera. Go out and use it well!

chrisnosleep wrote in post #16707663
I've been watching this thread closely as it started shortly after I placed my order. For me, I went ahead and pulled the trigger on the 6D. Once you weed through all the negativity, everyone here has some good points and great understandings about both camera's. I've had my eye on both camera's for a couple of months and did a lot of digging before clicking the button. I feel I have a pretty good understanding about all the arguments for both camera's. I haven't had a chance to shoot anything yet as I just got the camera yesterday. So, if it doesn't meet my biggest requirement of low light, indoor sports shots, I will most likely return it. I know, I know, some of you are chuckling to yourselves right now about that last sentence. But after searching through the 6D shots on Flickr and on this forum, I decided it was worth a try. It also seems like a more natural evolution in my flow of cameras progressing up to the beast, the 5DIII.

So, here is my rationale:

• B&H has a really good deal right now for a package deal of the 6D, 24-105 lens, Pixma Pro 100 printer and 50 sheets of 13x19 photo paper. And, holy cow, this printer is HUGE!
  
• The DPReview camera comparison page (http://www.dpreview.co​m …-to-our-studio-test-scene) appears to show that the 6D has slightly less noise at higher ISO's. This was a big plus. And I hope its accurate.
  
• Snapsort comparison (http://snapsort.com …-Mark-III-vs-Canon-EOS-6D) barely gives the edge to the 6D, but not by much. And from what I gather, this is a highly untrusted comparator, but its good for quickly pointing out strengths and weaknesses in cameras spec's.
  
• The 6D is about $1500-$1800 less than the 5DIII (when purchased as a kit).
  
• The 6D has not been out nearly as long as the 5DIII and I fear the 5DIII may be Canon's rumored 3rd DSLR to be upgraded towards the end of this year. If this is the case, I may have enough saved up to buy it by the end of the year, or this time next year.
  
• Probably 99% of my shots are done with the center focus point. If not, and the 6D has problems with this, I'll have to hope its not low light and the 70D can handle it.
  
• The FPS is about the same as my T4i. This was fast enough for most everything I've been shooting. If I need faster, again, I'll have to hope I can rely on the 70D.
  
• The wifi on the 70D has shown to be a handy addition. Likewise, with the 6D with the added bonus of GPS capabilities.
  
• This was a great opportunity to sneak in the purchase of battery grips for both the 70D and the 6D without my significant other knowing any different.
  

I'm sure there are other things that I've forgotten, but either way, I'm excited to try a FF for the first time and see how I do. I'd also like to say, I'm not choosing sides here, this is just what worked out best for me and my own logic. If I had unlimited resources, would I go the same way? Prolly not. I'd buy the 5DIII and the 6D to go with the 70D in that case. Then I could give some great side by side comparisons to end all of this bickering!

Enjoy!!!

Remember to turn the GPS off in the menu when through shooting. Leaving it on will drain the battery even when the camera power switch is turned off.