Advice on new body: 5DMKIV or 5DMKIII?

I’m trying to make a camera buying decision with the choice between the 5D MKIV and the MKIII and I would love to have some advice.

First, expense in not an issue so it is not part of the equation.

I’m primarily a fine arts automobile photographer and currently use the 5DMK II which is very capable for the type of work I do. It’s just time for an additional body. I’d love to have the new 5D MK IV but I’m looking at the pros and cons of it and the MKIII for my situation.

MKIII Pros: Improvement over my current body.

MKIV Pros: All the latest and greatest bells and whistles and newest camera fun-factor.

MKIII Cons: Does not have all the bells and whistles of the MKIV.

MKIV Cons: I use Photoshop CS6 which does everything I need. It does not have MKIV ACR support. This is a pretty big deal for me. I assume I’d have to use the DNG converter, and also assume that you bypass and lose all ACR functionally and that would be quite a loss. If some of you are using the DNG/Photoshop work-flow, I’d love to hear your opinion.

I know I could buy a new Photoshop CC subscription, which is a reluctant option. I have been with Photoshop since Version One and like a lot of other older users, I resent Adobe’s attitude and direction.

I guess that common sense should suggest that the MKIII was the no-brainer choice, but maybe I’m overlooking something. Love to hear your opinions.

Thank you for your help.

Your photography is very different to mine - but just a thought? I like to have a go at photographing vintage and veteran cars and it seems to me that the camera is the least important part of the chain, once you have a decent/good camera - which you have.

Depending on your style I, personally, would be looking at lenses. I changed from the 24-105 F4L IS + 17-40 F4 L combination to the 16-35 F4 L IS and 24-70 F2.8 L V2 and found a marked improvement in IQ. Also your existing lenses could be sold to offset some of the cost - just a thought?

If you really want to improve your camera body then a 5DsR might well be worth a look? You don't seem to need speed or high frame rates, I would guess that high ISO performance is not your main concern either so the 5DsR will give the ultimate in resolution (with the right lenses) as well as lots of AF points for composition.

When I (occasionally) go to car shows I take my 1DX, 16-35 F4 L IS and 24-70 F2.8 V2 and this setup works very well for me but for this sort of thing I believe a 5DsR would be better.

Just mt thoughts.

Johnf3f gave you very sound advice. If you can control the iso and stabilise the camera, the 50 mega-pixel route is the way to go. However the lenses may also need upgrading .... that was good advice too

I'm with johnf3f on this as well

John's suggestion is a good one: glass may well be the better upgrade. The difference between the 24-105 and the 24-70II, or the 17-40 and the 16-35 f/4 IS, is pretty substantial.

For the cameras, I never shot with the 5DII, but used the MkIII for several years, and now have the MkIV. The AF system on the MkIII is obviously in a totally different league to the MkII, but the MkIV is a significant (and somewhat unexpected) step up from the MkIII when it comes to tracking moving objects. I'm assuming "fine arts automobile" shooting usually means showroom type shots, so that may not be particularly relevant.

What might be relevant is the massive improvement in low ISO dynamic range of the MkIV vs the previous 5D models. You can recover far more in the way of shadow detail, and with the extra resolution (with good glass) I'm seeing more detail in like-for-like shots vs the MkIII.

If you don't tend to need to lift shadows (and/or can control your lighting when shooting) then the 5DsR might well be a better choice - especially if you want to print big.

EDIT: I forgot to mention; you can use the latest standalone version of Lightroom (it supports the MkIV), do basic edits and management, and for shots that need more work you can then export to Photoshop CS6. That's what I do - no CC subscription required.

As I said this is not my field but even on my 1DX "Pixel Desert" I have found that these two lenses show a marked improvement in IQ and, apparently, they were designed with resolution to match the 5DsR.

johnf3f wrote in post #18270755
As I said this is not my field but even on my 1DX "Pixel Desert" I have found that these two lenses show a marked improvement in IQ and, apparently, they were designed with resolution to match the 5DsR.

The 24-70II is, frankly, offensively good. The "bag of primes" cliche is not unwarranted. Sure it's not a "sexy" lens in terms of ultra focal lengths or razor thin DOF, but for me it gets the job done again and again.

I really like the 16-35 f/4 IS too. OK, I understand the new f/2.8 version is as sharp at f/2.8 as the f/4 is at f/4, but I appreciate having the IS for dimly lit interior scenes (where tripods aren't practical/permitted). Plus it was a lot more affordable than the f/2.8!

I always loved the way that my 17-40 rendered colours - it just had more "Life" than most other L Lenses for me. The colour rendition on my 24-105 F4 L IS was pretty good too. However these two newer lenses really bring colours alive (just like the 17-40) but greatly improve sharpness and reduce distortions.

Just my opinion but they seem to give more of a 3D effect as well. I know that is totally illogical, but my subjects seem to stand out more with the newer lenses at the same fl andaperture. This is purely subjective but it does make me look like I have some idea of what I am doing

I agree the 16-35 F2.8 Mk3 looks lovely but I rarely go wider than F5.6 so it offers little to me except for the lack of IS. Sorry I hate IS on long lenses and can't find a use for it on short ones

johnf3f wrote in post #18270776
I always loved the way that my 17-40 rendered colours - it just had more "Life" than most other L Lenses for me. The colour rendition on my 24-105 F4 L IS was pretty good too. However these two newer lenses really bring colours alive (just like the 17-40) but greatly improve sharpness and reduce distortions.

Just my opinion but they seem to give more of a 3D effect as well. I know that is totally illogical, but my subjects seem to stand out more with the newer lenses at the same fl andaperture. This is purely subjective but it does make me look like I have some idea of what I am doing

I agree the 16-35 F2.8 Mk3 looks lovely but I rarely go wider than F5.6 so it offers little to me except for the lack of IS. Sorry I hate IS on long lenses and can't find a use for it on short ones

My assumption is that, as out of focus areas are, well, out of focus; the sharper the lens the more "3D" the look, because any objects within the DOF will be sharper (i.e. the contrast between sharp and blurred will be stronger with a sharper lens). Obviously this ignores the look/quality of those out of focus areas (bokeh); which could make or break a shot.

I bought the 16-35 f/4 IS before the f/2.8 III was launched. Had I been making the decision after the Mk III was out I would have been torn - my pixel peeping geek side would have lusted after the extra sharpness, and well, f/2.8 is "better" than f/4, no . But, having compared the f/4 against the 24-70II across equivalent focal lengths I'm very happy with it, and it's certainly a big step up from the previous 16-35 and 17-40 models.

For an astro shooter, the f/2.8 III certainly makes sense; but for dark (handheld) interiors I'd much rather shoot at f/4 or f/5.6 for more DOF, and use IS to slow the shutter down and thus permit a lower ISO setting. Obviously an architectural shooter who could always use a tripod wouldn't need IS, and would benefit from the extra sharpness of the f/2.8 III. All horses for courses I guess!

Thank you all for your replies, but lens are not an issue. I use the 24-105 as a workhorse lens and it performs very nicely for me. In fact I will buy another with the new body. The 24-105 and the 70-200 f 2.8 are a great combination for my work.

Daammmmnnn that's farkin sweet, dawg. How do you get it rendered like that? Looks like you could use any body you want with results like that.

The 16-35 F2.8 certainly has it's place and appears to be an excellent lens with no IS (YIPEE!). However , for my uses, the F4 is just fine.

As to the 3D look? As I said it is illogical as at F5.6+ and a short focal length pretty much everything is in focus! But my subjects do seem to stand out more - I have no idea why but I am happy! Moving from the 17-40 to the 16-35 F4 was the best bang for buck upgrade that I have, yet, made

If you are happy with the 24-105 that is fine - just don't try the 24-70 F2.8 V2!

A 5D3/4 or 5DsR will help with IQ, but the 24-70 F2.8 V2 will give you more (in my experience) and it is a cheaper upgrade too!

When I tried out the 24-70 F2.8 V2 and compared the files to my (rather good) 24-105 F4 it was a simple choice. Either be dissatisfied or hit the credit card - the credit card suffered!

Only you can decide, but having owned them, I found the 24-70 F2.8 V2 to be a cheaper (better?) upgrade than changing cameras for my Landscape/Automotive/g​eneral etc uses.

As to the camera bodies? Glass first! I have a 1DX and a 7D2 and their value is fairly insignificant compared to my lenses and I only have 6 lenses.

Pinto wrote in post #18270657
I’m trying to make a camera buying decision with the choice between the 5D MKIV and the MKIII and I would love to have some advice.

First, expense in not an issue so it is not part of the equation.

I’m primarily a fine arts automobile photographer and currently use the 5DMK II which is very capable for the type of work I do. It’s just time for an additional body. I’d love to have the new 5D MK IV but I’m looking at the pros and cons of it and the MKIII for my situation.

If money is no concern why even put a 5Dmk3 in the equation. I would compare a 5dMk4 with a 5DSR as the second alternative. Then you get some interesting feature set comparisons especially as you said you mainly did fine art automobile. Im assuming by that your talking a need for detail......And thats where the two would be good to compare especially given 5DS/R's huge detail /resolution advantage

Chet wrote in post #18270882
Daammmmnnn that's farkin sweet, dawg. How do you get it rendered like that? Looks like you could use any body you want with results like that.

Thank you for the kind words.