5D Mark lll or 1d X

EIngerson · Mar 13, 2014

Gavjenks said:
Yup. Not only is it overblown, but I would suggest turning them off before a portrait session even if you have them, and using a sparser mode, because it makes no sense to click the button 15 times between every time you frame up a new shot with the eye in a new place, instead of clicking 2-3 times. "Recomposing" halfway the distance between two 6D points is ridiculously insignificant, unless you're shooting from like 2 feet away with an f/0.5 lens. Where exactly did the OP even say he was making money at all? Much less a fulltime pro? If he truly shoots every day all day, he should actually get a 1DX in my opinion, not a 6D or a 5DIII, because even if he only gets a 1-2% margin of success out of a couple of its extra features, he'll probably earn the difference over its lifespan in his ownership. If however, he is not a pro, then spending $1500 extra on a camera that has no particularly useful features (except a card slot) for the intended purpose is preposterous. Especially when the 5DIII is actually worse on some features that might matter, depending on the type of portraiture. Like ISO noise (band portraits, for example) They're both rugged, and will both last way longer than you need them to shooting portraits. Yeah sure, maybe the 5DIII will last for 500,000 actuations and 40 years, instead of 350,000 actuations and 25 years. Nobody cares, because long before any of those things happen, both bodies will already be massively obsolete, worth like 2% of their original price, and if being used at all, it won't be by a person who buys cameras new like the OP. (And actually, according to the data on this site: http://www.olegkikin.com/shutterlife/ for what it's worth, smaller cheaper entry cameras seem to have significantly longer actual shutter lives than high end pro cameras, if anything, so I'm being generous in even assuming the 5DIII would last for more actuations at all. Maybe it's the different type of user. Maybe it's the higher FPS. Maybe the data is confounded and wrong somehow. Dunno, but it's the closest we have. For example, a Rebel XTi they estimate at a 50% survival rate around 10,000,000 actuations, whereas a 1DsMkIII they estimate at about a tenth of that, 1,000,000 50% survival)

I'm going to regret replying to this. Have you used the 5D MK III for any reasonable amount of time?

Gavjenks · Mar 13, 2014

EIngerson said:
I'm going to regret replying to this. Have you used the 5D MK III for any reasonable amount of time?

Who cares? Yes, I happen to have used one, but it makes no difference, since I'm not claiming anything controversial about the 5DIII. I agree it's tougher. It's just that for studio work, the 6D is already so much tougher than you need, it makes no difference how much more tough the other one is.

An M1 Abrams tank is not any more effective at driving through a piece of plywood than a Ford fiesta is.

DarkShadow · Mar 13, 2014

Stevepwns · Mar 13, 2014

Gavjenks said:
EIngerson said:

I'm going to regret replying to this. Have you used the 5D MK III for any reasonable amount of time?

Click to expand...

Who cares? Yes, I happen to have used one, but it makes no difference, since I'm not claiming anything controversial about the 5DIII. I agree it's tougher. It's just that for studio work, the 6D is already so much tougher than you need, it makes no difference how much more tough the other one is.

An M1 Abrams tank is not any more effective at driving through a piece of plywood than a Ford fiesta is.

I have no opinion about the cameras.. I use a Sony. But the Abrams has no where near the effectiveness of an Fiesta. Ive been around an Abrams more than a few times... and I have worked on countless Ford Fiestas. That little piece of crap car would have to be going at least 30 miles an hour to get though a sheet of 5/8ths plywood. The Abrams is entirely to big to drive through a single sheet of any plywood. They dont make plywood big enough. So in reality, the Fiesta in this situation would be the only effective tool to accomplish the task.

That being said. Since cameras and the technology involved with them is far more complicated than the physics involved in determining which of those 2 vehicles could more effectively pass through a piece of plywood. I am going to just assume you are wrong about the cameras in question.

tecboy · Mar 13, 2014

I wonder if someone can demonstrates a crash test on those cameras.

Gavjenks · Mar 13, 2014

tecboy said:
I wonder if someone can demonstrates a crash test on those cameras.

That would be really nice, but problem is you can't test the same camera for, for instance heat death and also moisture death, because the electronics are either fried after whichever one you try first. And you can't test dropping from different heights, because even if it survives 6 feet, you don't know if it sustained partial damage, and it's no longer a fair comparison at 10 feet, etc. And blah blah. It would take a dozen cameras to cover all of even the most basic sources of damage meaningfully.

I doubt the manufacturers even test much more than some basic stuff on a handful of bodies. And different ones would likely have non-standardized tests. And there are no government required benchmarks or coordination (unlike with, say, fireproofing on infant clothing or whatever)

Gavjenks · Mar 13, 2014

I think this is pretty instructive:

Those are entry level cheapo DSLRs, and they still work after being dropped multiple times, used as shoes, closed in elevator doors, blowtorched, having 20 pound objects dropped on them from the roof of a building, thrown down stairs, hammering nails, having coffee spilled all over them...

If you're doing more than that in your portrait studio, then uh... I kinda would like to visit your studio. Sounds pretty fun, actually.

EIngerson · Mar 13, 2014

Gavjenks said:
Who cares? Yes, I happen to have used one, but it makes no difference, since I'm not claiming anything controversial about the 5DIII. I agree it's tougher. It's just that for studio work, the 6D is already so much tougher than you need, it makes no difference how much more tough the other one is. An M1 Abrams tank is not any more effective at driving through a piece of plywood than a Ford fiesta is.

You should care. It adds weight to any argument you might have. I asked you if you had used the 5D MK III for a "reasonable amount of time" as in enough time to become familiar and comfortable with it. Obviously you haven't because you tap danced around the question with some M1 Abrams crap thinking that would somehow be relevant.

You dismissed the importance of the auto focus system claiming that it should be turned off. That was an ignorant statement. Having used both systems I can tell you 5D focusing system destroys that of the 6D. Which is why I chose the 5D MK III over the 6D.

You also dismissed the extra memory card slot. I guess the insurance of automatic back up is worthless to you. Maybe you've never had a memory card fail. I don't know your reasoning for saying that, it will only take once to change your mind.

So I guess your statement of "I'm not claiming anything controversial about the 5DIII." Is false.

Gavjenks · Mar 13, 2014

I can tell you 5D focusing system destroys that of the 6D.

Considering my 6D never misses focus in a simple straightforward portrait studio environment with controlled lighting, this is not possible.
You can't blow perfect performance for the task out of the water, it doesn't make any sense.

You also dismissed the extra memory card slot.

I have acknowledged that is an advantage all along. But for a non-pro (assuming he is one), who is unlikely to often have a memory card with anything close to $1500 worth of photos on it, it is not logical to pay an extra $1500 for memory card insurance.
And if he is a pro, I already suggested he get the more expensive cameras.

It adds weight to any argument you might have.

No it doesn't. If a given camera already performs better than you need in a given task, it makes no difference how much better another one is. Therefore it is irrelevant how much you do or do not have experience with it either way. If they sold a camera that cost $3000 more, and was able to track fast moving objects 12x faster, and had 250 AF cross points up to f/8, and transformed into a pontoon bridge when needed? It wouldn't matter if I only shoot portraits, and I could confidently decide not to buy it, even if I had never touched one.

Just like I don't buy bank vault doors for my apartment, or titanium disc brakes and shocks for my bike that I only use to commute 15 minutes to work with, or liquid helium cooling for my desktop computer, or whatever. Even though I've never tested any of those things.

Derrel · Mar 13, 2014

Does anybody in this thread wonder what it might be like living in a world in which there were no hypothetical questions?

EIngerson · Mar 13, 2014

Derrel said:
Does anybody in this thread wonder what it might be like living in a world in which there were no hypothetical questions?

Every time I read a post like The one above yours.

Gavjenks · Mar 13, 2014

Omniscience sounds really boring. What would you do all day long if you knew everything?

EIngerson · Mar 13, 2014

Gavjenks said:
Considering my 6D never misses focus in a simple straightforward portrait studio environment with controlled lighting, this is not possible. You can't blow perfect performance for the task out of the water, it doesn't make any sense. I have acknowledged that is an advantage all along. But for a non-pro (assuming he is one), who is unlikely to often have a memory card with anything close to $1500 worth of photos on it, it is not logical to pay an extra $1500 for memory card insurance. And if he is a pro, I already suggested he get the more expensive cameras. No it doesn't. If a given camera already performs better than you need in a given task, it makes no difference how much better another one is. Therefore it is irrelevant how much you do or do not have experience with it either way. If they sold a camera that cost $3000 more, and was able to track fast moving objects 12x faster, and had 250 AF cross points up to f/8, and transformed into a pontoon bridge when needed? It wouldn't matter if I only shoot portraits, and I could confidently decide not to buy it, even if I had never touched one. Just like I don't buy bank vault doors for my apartment, or titanium disc brakes and shocks for my bike that I only use to commute 15 minutes to work with, or liquid helium cooling for my desktop computer, or whatever. Even though I've never tested any of those things.

So adding stipulations to nicely fit your statements somehow makes them correct? Let's back track even further to the OPs original question of 5D MK III or 1Dx? To which your response was go all 6D fan boy ignoring the question.