5D MKIII or 6D...

[bribrius]

Taking the price out of the discussion, which one do you choose, and why?

the one that felt best in my hands.

 

[jaomul]

Easy, the idea of simply ignoring price is silly given that the cameras are all built to a price point with a different use case in mind--5D and 1D included. It's no different than ridiculous tech customers who pull the 'money is no object, I want the best' BS. In the realm of reality, everything has cost and use case constraints as well as functional trade-offs.[/QUOTE]

Depends. If one could afford either but wants to make their own informed decision whether one is worth more than the other to them.

 

[bribrius]

My opinion was based solely on steve doing this for a business and using the camera a good portion of the time. Assuming this is the use. I believe if you are using something to that extent you should like it and the feel of it. Why make your job more dislikable than you have to..

 

[Designer]

I understand why Steve said "taking the price out of the discussion"; because as a professional, he is willing to invest more if necessary to get the one he wants.

 

[Steve5D]

I expected the 5D MKIII to come out ahead, but I don't know that I expected it to be so overwhelming...

 

[Derrel]

I expected the 5D MKIII to come out ahead, but I don't know that I expected it to be so overwhelming...

Well, the 5D-III is the third iteration of the model...due to Nikon's success with the D700 and D3 and D3s, Canon realized they truly had serious competition, and they needed to address the focus system issues the first two models took so much "heat" for, AND they needed to solidify the video capability that made the 5D-II such a big hit.And they needed a knockout punch, or at least a massive roundhouse right, planted right in Nikon's face. It is the third of its kind...this one was Canon's "home run swing". The 5D-III was Canon's effort to stave off Nikon's inroads into market share, and again, it's the third attempt, and one made in the face of encroaching competition in an ever-tougher market, and it was built with plenty of MSRP to ensure that there was no need to skimp. The 6D on the other hand is Version 1.0. I see the 5D-III as being a LOT like the Leica M3 was; a design that came out a number of models and a number of years into the "game", but a design so well-conceived that it is recognized as an instant classic. Over the decades there have been a few cameras like that. Linhof Technika IV; Leica M-3; Nikon F; Nikon FE-2; Rolleiflex 2.8F; Hasselblad 500C; Canon 5D-III.

 

[Steve5D]

AND they needed to solidify the video capability that made the 5D-II such a big hit...

That's the one thing I wish it didn't have. I have exactly zero interest in shooting video. I know that capability is strong with the MKIII, but it's something I would never use beyond the "let's goof with it" phase. If I want to shoot video, I'll use my phone or my G12...

 

[bribrius]

AND they needed to solidify the video capability that made the 5D-II such a big hit...

That's the one thing I wish it didn't have. I have exactly zero interest in shooting video. I know that capability is strong with the MKIII, but it's something I would never use beyond the "let's goof with it" phase. If I want to shoot video, I'll use my phone or my G12...

not sure if I would be so quick to jump on the anti video bandwagon. Video is not only very popular and useful it can give a photographer a added option to offer clients. You can deliver stills AND video. Someone would be crazy to not want at least a decent level of video capability to. jmo.

 

[Overread19 7]

Thing is when you remove price the 6D just doesn't offer much that the 5DMIII doesn't already do or does better. It's got a few features and I think it might have few additional video functions, but otherwise its designed to be the cheaper, less well featured baby to the 5DMIII in the Canon line up.

So when price isn't an issue the 5DMIII is nearly always going to win.

That's not a knock on the 6D, its a fantastic body and at a very good price; its just not as good as the MIII.

 

[Steve5D]

not sure if I would be so quick to jump on the anti video bandwagon. Video is not only very popular and useful it can give a photographer a added option to offer clients. You can deliver stills AND video. Someone would be crazy to not want at least a decent level of video capability to. jmo.

Well, I've certainly been called "crazy" on occasion.

Video is something that simply doesn't interest me in the least. It's like shooting weddings. You could say "Someone would be crazy to not to want to shoot weddings, because that's where the big money is!"

Well, that might be correct. But that, in and of itself, shouldn't compel someone to shoot weddings.

If I were a wedding shooter, I would certainly consider it. But weddings just ain't my gig.

I'm not on any "bandwagon". The word "bandwagon" suggests that I don't want to do video because it's popular to not to want to do video. I don't want to do video because I don't want to do video; it simply doesn't interest me. I suppose that could change at some point but, if I'm not going to allow a remote possibility (and, trust me, it's remote) to dictate a gear purchase. Also, my lack of appropriate video equipment doesn't seem to have hurt my business.

Now, this isn't to say I wouldn't buy the 5D MKIII because of the video capability; it's a great camera. But I would likely never use the feature...

 

[bribrius]

lot of stuff is getting video too now steve.....

I know you don't like change no one does.

some weddings are going video and stills for example.

I doubt this is only weddings too.

If I was in your position, business to run, might want to be something you throw on the table for a added service.
just sayn.........

putting it up on a tripod for a second body doing video a few times while you nail the stills with your other one might pay for the camera price difference.

I know you are very business oriented.

 

[Derrel]

Video is a big sales feature; a "check-box" feature for some people; an absolutely essential feature for some people and for some business buyers. I've seen the comparisons between the lower-tier Canon bodies and the 5D-III and it seems like the lower models have substandard video (not in a huge way, but its definitely clear that the 5D-III has the better-performing video capabilities).

I dunno...my camera does not shoot video either. I shoot what little video I shoot with my iPhone. But the thing is, to me the 5D-III's image quality is better than the Nikon D4 at high ISO values, and the AF system seemed to me to be as good as the D4 system. I really think the 5D-III is the Leica M-3 of its era, which is high, high praise. The silent shooting mode to me is the one most-amazing thing, along with the great viewfinder and very powerful focus module. I LIKED the 5D-III...I was very lukewarm on the D800 and D4...the 5D-III is a sweeeeeet design, video or no video, it's a flagship-level camera for half the cost.

 

[Mach0]

Video is a big sales feature; a "check-box" feature for some people; an absolutely essential feature for some people and for some business buyers. I've seen the comparisons between the lower-tier Canon bodies and the 5D-III and it seems like the lower models have substandard video (not in a huge way, but its definitely clear that the 5D-III has the better-performing video capabilities). I dunno...my camera does not shoot video either. I shoot what little video I shoot with my iPhone. But the thing is, to me the 5D-III's image quality is better than the Nikon D4 at high ISO values, and the AF system seemed to me to be as good as the D4 system. I really think the 5D-III is the Leica M-3 of its era, which is high, high praise. The silent shooting mode to me is the one most-amazing thing, along with the great viewfinder and very powerful focus module. I LIKED the 5D-III...I was very lukewarm on the D800 and D4...the 5D-III is a sweeeeeet design, video or no video, it's a flagship-level camera for half the cost.

It's the only canon I would love to get

 

[jsecordphoto]

If price was no issue then the 5dIII obviously takes it. I just bought the 6D this week because price was an issue, but I don't feel like I missed out on that much. I don't really need a crazy good autofocus system because I shoot landscapes primarily, and the low light/high iso performance of the 6D is incredible. If I had the money to pick up the 5dIII though I would've picked it up over the 6D

 

[Steve5D]

but I don't feel like I missed out on that much.

What do you think you missed out on by going with the 6D?