From 6D --> D750 for Wedding Photography

I've been a part-time wedding photographer for a few years now and I'm looking at going full-time for next year. Having recently sold one of my two 6D bodies, I'm in the market for a second camera. I prefer to shoot with two bodies and primes. In an ideal world, I would have two bodies with dual SD card slots. As I'm looking at the 5D3, I'm doing some math:

What I have:

6D
17-40L
35mm ART
50 STM
85 1.8
135L
Twist 60

I only ever use the lenses in bold, especially when it comes to weddings. It would be cheaper for me to sell all of this (for an estimated $3,220) and pick up the following than it would be to buy a 5D3 (used market value of $1,600):

D750
D750
24 f1.8G
35mm f1.4G
85mm f1.8G

Estimated cost: $4,075
Net loss: $855

Some considerations: This would be a big camera upgrade in terms of auto-focus performance and a smaller, but existent one in dynamic range. I would also have two matching cameras with dual SD card slots. Granted, I would be replacing 6 lenses with 3, but simplifying isn't the worst thing in the world. Correct me if I'm wrong -- the 17-40L replacement is an upgrade, the 35 ART replacement is either an upgrade or an even replacement, and the 85mm f1.8 replacement is an upgrade. I'd be surrendering my 135mm focal length, but I only ever pull this thing out for 5-10 shots a wedding during the ceremony. I can get by without it and maybe eventually replace it with something like the 105mm macro, which would serve as a dual purpose lens for weddings.

TL;DR I can replace and upgrade all of my gear for less money than it would cost me to simply add a 5D3 to my kit. Am I crazy? Any thoughts are appreciated!

EDIT: Upon further research, I may be sold on the 35mm f1.8G, to save another $600 or so. At that point, I'm nearly breaking even for what feels like an overall upgrade.

What is it about the 6D that you did not like? I would think it’s ability to focus in near dark would be great for a wedding photographer.

medd63 wrote in post #18506238
What is it about the 6D that you did not like? I would think it’s ability to focus in near dark would be great for a wedding photographer.

+1

Ya if every picture you wanted was center framed otherwise trying to focus anywhere but center you have the pleasure of watching the outer af points go in and out of focus in good light, bad light any light.

elitejp wrote in post #18506340
Ya if every picture you wanted was center framed otherwise trying to focus anywhere but center you have the pleasure of watching the outer af points go in and out of focus in good light, bad light any light.

I never had an issue with focus and recompose. For me, it's even faster than using side focus points in other cameras.

eddieb1 wrote in post #18506536
I never had an issue with focus and recompose. For me, it's even faster than using side focus points in other cameras.

Focus/recompose works ok when your aperture is small and dof is large but when shooting at large apertures, the problem can manifest quite noticeably.

I would say if you have handled the d750 and like the ergonomics, then it looks like a decision that will work for you.

Thats why i never understood why you would focus on an object only to then change the focus plane. Whatever i focus on is what i want to be in critical focus. Else why even bother making cameras with outer focus points. The 6d outer points plain suck. Even in good daylight they can hunt on what should be a contrasty point. I like my 6d but the spread of the af points and lack of cross type did not do this camera any favors.

As for the op i dont really think getting a nikon with a new set of lenses is going to be advantageous. I would either stick with canon or sony with metabones

Sounds reasonable. One question though... have you tried a Nikon body? Reason I ask is that you may not like the ergonomics.

Personally I’d go for a 5D3 and sell those lenses you do not use. Keep the 135L though, you’ll regret letting it go.

elitejp wrote in post #18506554
Thats why i never understood why you would focus on an object only to then change the focus plane.

Back in the days of manual focus, focus recompose was really your best option. The only focusing aid (albeit a good one) was the split prism and that's in the centre of the frame. So your options are: focus and recompose but be careful about it; focus without using the focusing aids and probably mis-focus as a result; settle for a composition with the subject in centre frame and crop your way out of the problem later (if possible). Focus and recompose was usually the best option ... and very quick.

Even with all the outer points that are available, focus and recompose may still be the best option for opportunistic shots. It's a great deal quicker than first setting a preferred focus point before shooting ... and the chance may be gone before you have taken the shot if you rely on that. There's a risk of mis-focus using focus and recompose at open apertures but (since the change in focus plane is actually usually very slight in practice) I think the bigger risk is camera shake ... so shoot with IS or set a faster shutter speed to compensate for that or stop down a little to adjust.

Im not saying its never works but i would hate shooting weddings like that.

elitejp wrote in post #18506772
Im not saying its never works but i would hate shooting weddings like that.

I don't know ... every choice requires compromise. The advantage of focus and recompose is that it is by far the fastest way of shooting a photograph with strong composition but little premeditation ... basically, 'on the fly'.

To get reliably in-focus and sharp shots shooting that way, the trade-off is that you will have to select an aperture that gives a little more depth of field and a shutter speed that is a little faster. That maybe adds up to using up a couple of stops of extra ISO by way of sacrifice. So, whereas you might have been shooting at 400 ISO, say, you are going to be shooting at 1,600 ISO instead. But a good modern sensor is going to eat that up for breakfast and come back for seconds ... easy-peasy. And the return that you are going to get for that sacrifice is the ability to pick targets and shoot them properly framed far, far more quickly than if you were trying to shift the focus point around using the joy-stick. You are going to get shots that you would otherwise have missed completely.

Focus and recompose is a perfectly usable way of shooting ...and, in some circumstances, the best.

And hence eye focus is one of the greatest reasons i recommend sony

elitejp wrote in post #18506820
And hence eye focus is one of the greatest reasons i recommend sony

Well ... like with everything else ... sometimes ... But still a lot slower than focus and recompose. Fantastic, if you know who your target is in the first place, I agree. But that's not 'without premeditation'.

A really useful combination would be Canon's old-school version of 'eye-focus' (not actually called that) where the view-finder could track the motion of the photographer's eyeball and would focus the camera where he/she was looking and Sony's current version, that locks onto the eye of the subject. That would be just amazing.

Yes that would