6D & 5D3 Raw images @ 12,800

And gabe lets face the facts here

5D3 w/ 70-200 & 24-70

OR

6D w/ 24-70 and 70D w/ 70-200 A 24-320mm reach option on two cameras.

Talley wrote in post #16784758
Stalker Thank you.. your post is a quick summary of my feelings.

The 7D is more of a economical choice than the 70D but the 70D has cool video stuff along with newer silent shutter, W/T AF microadjustment, minimum shutter and such.

BUT it's a good choice also. I can find a decent body from $650-700 right now. This would fulfill my field sports/daytime cheer stuff needs.

I've owned the 7D since it came out new in 2009 and I've tried my best to kill it and I can't; video's pretty good on it too. It's been used, abused and put away wet and it keeps on going.

I have 4 kids. 11 months, 4.5yrs 6yrs and 12yrs.

My oldest does choir and not much anything else so I'm usually in low light venues in the back and 6D is amazing at this since there is no movement but 300mm will come in handy. 200 I have to crop some.

My 6yr does dance so again she's on stage and the moving around she does at this little age is not that much. She also started doing cheer which she stands there mostly too and all I need is reach when I want to get across the field and get a front shot. 300mm is decent but 400mm is better. I got the 300mm on the FF for this but 200mm on 70D would be fine but 300mm on 70D would be great too.

My 4.5yr old boy does hip hop right now but thats because he has to be because sports in our area you have to be 5. But when he starts he'll be on small fields where 300mm covers my needs plenty.

Then I have my baby girl.... she's several years down the road before starting anything.

So essentially for me I "Want" a 300mm 2.8 and I think although not as great as the Canon as a hobbyist the sigma 120-300 will be perfect.

For a camera the 5D3 is great. The 6D/70D gets me better higher ISO when needed and reach. But again the 5D3 is king of do all.

In the same vein as this thread (comparing 6D and 5D III), how does the 70D compare with 7D on image quality - especially at higher ISO? I've been having some interest in possible adding a 70D or 7D for reach as well - but I'm not sure which is best (cost being a non-factor).

David Arbogast wrote in post #16784817
In the same vein as this thread (comparing 6D and 5D III), how does the 70D compare with 7D on image quality - especially at higher ISO? I've been having some interest in possible adding a 70D or 7D for reach as well - but I'm not sure which is best (cost being a non-factor).

In RAW it's slightly better, maybe 1/3 stop better at high ISOs, and the shadows are cleaner, easier to clean up a high ISO RAW in my experience. I think the 70D is also not as sensitive to underexposure as my 7D was, gives you a little bit more headroom. The difference is not much though, not something that would make or break an image.
Jpeg IQ is significantly better at higher ISOs, but that's mainly due to better jpeg processing.

RedCatPhoto wrote in post #16784753
I shoot both the 5DIII and the 6D. The former is simply a superior camera.

Since this thread pertains to ISO noise, what specifically, makes the 5D3 superior?

UserM4 wrote in post #16784858
Since this thread pertains to ISO noise, what specifically, makes the 5D3 superior?

only AF system = camera flexibility i would say.
Having camera with slightly worse noise handling than 6D and much better AF means a lot for most people.
5DmkIII is quite old and will be probably replaced soon.
It´s not all about noise anyway.

palad1n wrote in post #16784876
only AF system = camera flexibility i would say.
Having camera with slightly worse noise handling than 6D and much better AF means a lot for most people.
5DmkIII is quite old and will be probably replaced soon.
It´s not all about noise anyway.

Sorry, not sure I understand this rational. It's Not about noise which will be noticed when shooting in low light by just about everyone but is about an AF system most people will probably never need?

UserM4 wrote in post #16784858
Since this thread pertains to ISO noise, what specifically, makes the 5D3 superior?

I can't see any difference when it comes to ISO noise, so it's a tie here. The 5DIII gets the edge in every other aspect.

Talley wrote in post #16784688
5D3 will be a 4 year old camera. This is my opinion and I feel very strongly about this.

They will milk it. The 7D was announced 9/1/09 and available shortly after. Seriously IF/when they do release a 7D2 it will be around that same time in 2014. 5 years on a camera.

5D4 will be Spring 2016.

again my opinion

If a 7D2 comes out, the 7D will be the longest running single model next to the 1Ds3, if you make the assumption that the 1DX is its replacement.

Btw, let's keep this topic on track and leave the AF out of the discussions, unless Talley wants to take this there. If we do, we might as well just merge this to one of the myriad others that went off the deep end.

Bakewell wrote in post #16784887
Sorry, not sure I understand this rational. It's Not about noise which will be noticed when shooting in low light by just about everyone but is about an AF system most people will probably never need?

I would say that most people buy 5dmkIII for AF + high ISO performance combo primarily... noise differences are negligible.

Simply there are no major obstacles 5dmkIII couldn´t handle thanks to superior AF system and almost as good low capabilities as 6D has.

RedCatPhoto wrote in post #16784890
I can't see any difference when it comes to ISO noise, so it's a tie here. The 5DIII gets the edge in every other aspect.

In fairness, there is a minor difference in favor of the 6D, especially at high ISOs (like 12,800, the ISO speed this thread is about), but to me the difference is minor.
However, to the OP, Talley, it is a bigger deal.

As for the other aspects, while I do agree that the 5DIII is better, no question, there are actually certain areas where the 6D is better, besides the cleaner high ISO files.

AF, -3 EV, might not matter to most people, but does matter to some; it is a more sensitive center AF point, I think nobody would argue that. Helps night photographers, people using ND filters, etc.

Banding. Even though Canon sensors in general are behind Sony's, there are still differences within the Canon brand itself. The 6D handles pushing shadows much better than the 5DIII. Again, to most people it may be a non-issue, they may never encounter the need for that in their shooting, but to some people it may matter.

GPS. I've seen many landscape photographers who actually prefer the 6D to the 5DIII because it has GPS.

Wifi. Same as above. I was saved by Wifi once, when on our trip to NYC I did not have a cable to transfer/see our photos. With Wifi, we were able to do that. Yes, Eye-Fi cards work in the 5DIII, but wireless tethering (controlling the camera via Wifi) does not.

So basically, there are some areas, besides high ISO, where the 6D is indeed a little better.
Now, does that make up for other areas that the 6D is behind the 5DIII, such as AF, fps, video IQ, etc.? Well, it's up to the individual to decide based on their needs and priorities, and obviously part of the decision is the budget too.

gabebalazs wrote in post #16784916
In fairness, there is a minor difference in favor of the 6D, especially at high ISOs (like 12,800, the ISO speed this thread is about), but to me the difference is minor.
However, to the OP, Talley, it is a bigger deal.

As for the other aspects, while I do agree that the 5DIII is better, no question, there are actually certain areas where the 6D is better, besides the cleaner high ISO files.

AF, -3 EV, might not matter to most people, but does matter to some; it is a more sensitive center AF point, I think nobody would argue that. Helps night photographers, people using ND filters, etc.

Banding. Even though Canon sensors in general are behind Sony's, there are still differences within the Canon brand itself. The 6D handles pushing shadows much better than the 5DIII. Again, to most people it may be a non-issue, they may never encounter the need for that in their shooting, but to some people it may matter.

GPS. I've seen many landscape photographers who actually prefer the 6D to the 5DIII because it has GPS.

Wifi. Same as above. I was saved by Wifi once, when on our trip to NYC I did not have a cable to transfer/see our photos. With Wifi, we were able to do that. Yes, Eye-Fi cards work in the 5DIII, but wireless tethering (controlling the camera via Wifi) does not.

So basically, there are some areas, besides high ISO, where the 6D is indeed a little better.
Now, does that make up for other areas that the 6D is behind the 5DIII, such as AF, fps, video IQ, etc.? Well, it's up to the individual to decide based on their needs and priorities, and obviously part of the decision is the budget too.

WOW! a politician in the raw. I could sure use you for family disputes! However, I see your primary camera is a 6D so...

gabebalazs wrote in post #16784916
In fairness, there is a minor difference in favor of the 6D, especially at high ISOs (like 12,800, the ISO speed this thread is about), but to me the difference is minor.
However, to the OP, Talley, it is a bigger deal.

As for the other aspects, while I do agree that the 5DIII is better, no question, there are actually certain areas where the 6D is better, besides the cleaner high ISO files.

AF, -3 EV, might not matter to most people, but does matter to some; it is a more sensitive center AF point, I think nobody would argue that. Helps night photographers, people using ND filters, etc.

Banding. Even though Canon sensors in general are behind Sony's, there are still differences within the Canon brand itself. The 6D handles pushing shadows much better than the 5DIII. Again, to most people it may be a non-issue, they may never encounter the need for that in their shooting, but to some people it may matter.

GPS. I've seen many landscape photographers who actually prefer the 6D to the 5DIII because it has GPS.

Wifi. Same as above. I was saved by Wifi once, when on our trip to NYC I did not have a cable to transfer/see our photos. With Wifi, we were able to do that. Yes, Eye-Fi cards work in the 5DIII, but wireless tethering (controlling the camera via Wifi) does not.

So basically, there are some areas, besides high ISO, where the 6D is indeed a little better.
Now, does that make up for other areas that the 6D is behind the 5DIII, such as AF, fps, video IQ, etc.? Well, it's up to the individual to decide based on their needs and priorities, and obviously part of the decision is the budget too.

You can add the EG-S screen to this list, for me that was a huge selling point of the 6D