mark 3 5d canon camera outdated?

[ph0toe]

is a mark 3 5d canon camera still a great camera for stills and videos? should i ditch it for the newer cameras from sony and other brands? or does it not matter and can still bring the same stunning images and video quality as the rest?

 

[Warfarin]

I’ve never used one or done video so can’t comment there. But if you have good glass there is no reason you can’t take good images with any camera. Pixel count could be an issue if you plan to crop a lot or go big on prints. I have been scouring ebay etc, for “bigger and better” and realized some of my best shots have come with a simple 6 MP P&S camera. Glass is where its at for getting better pictures.

 

[Space Face]

The MK 3 is still a decent body and a very capable camera albeit getting on a bit.

 

[ph0toe]

The MK 3 is still a decent body and a very capable camera albeit getting on a bit.

what do you mean getting on a bit?

is there truth to outdated camera not being able to perform as good in modern digital imagery. what if i dont plan on doing prints and just post pic to post online? what about making stunning videos like cinematic or just a head shot interview ?

 

[Space Face]

Getting on a bit as in it first came out in 2012.

Dunno about video as I don't shoot it. There are better, more modern cameras no doubt.

 

[ph0toe]

but does it matter? if we are always chasing newer camera, what is the point of investing in expensive body all the time?

 

[photoflyer]

I would ask a different question, "Are there shots I can't get with the 5D M III that I could get with the features available in the newer technology?". For me the answer was yes and so I upgraded. But that won't be true for everyone.

 

[ph0toe]

I would ask a different question, "Are there shots I can't get with the 5D M III that I could get with the features available in the newer technology?". For me the answer was yes and so I upgraded. But that won't be true for everyone.

can you provide examples?

 

[photoflyer]

can you provide examples?

Sure but these are specific to me and what I do.

I got the R6, in part, because:

1) IBIS - have a couple lenses that do not have IS but with the R6 it is like getting a lens upgrade. I think it may also improve the IS performance of an older 300 L that I have that has first gen IS.

2) Autofocus - I frequently shoot wildlife and sports. The dual pixel AF through the viewfinder is amazing. It can focus a lens with a max aperture of F16 and the people/animal/eye detection enables me to get shots that my 6D Mark II I would miss. My 100-400 4.5-5.6 becomes F11 with the 2x teleconverter and yet the R6 can still focus and eye detect.

3) Low light - I like the ability to shoot with ambient light in dark situations. The IBIS along with the sensor in the R6 is extraordinary. I have keepers that were shot at night, hand held at ISO 25600.

But, these are specific to me. I've never shot a wedding. So, put the 5D Mark III in the hands of someone who does and even with my R6, they'll do a better job...experience counts for a lot.

 

[petrochemist]

but does it matter? if we are always chasing newer camera, what is the point of investing in expensive body all the time?

I sometimes use APSC cameras designed in 2006. They still give good results & have unusual set-ups allowing them to produce images my newer models can't. Most people can't tell A4 (~10x8) prints from top of the range modern cameras.

You are the one who asked if it's outdated. Modern cameras have moved on and have abilities the 5Diii doesn't, but if those abilities are not used in your style of shooting it doesn't matter.

 

[ph0toe]

what exaxctly are these abilities is what i am trying to understand. it seems fundamental of shooting has always been the same. i cannot think of any other than touch screen capabilties which is just small gimmicks

 

[photoflyer]

what exaxctly are these abilities is what i am trying to understand. it seems fundamental of shooting has always been the same. i cannot think of any other than touch screen capabilties which is just small gimmicks

Did you not see my rather long winded reply earlier? IF to you something appears to be a gimmick then that tells you that you don't need it. For me, the list of features was rather long and enhance the value I had in lenses. Other features made it possible to get shots that I otherwise would not have. But not every shoots the same mission. Those features might be a waste to others.

Here is an example of a shot that I could only get with the R6 because of its incredible low light performance and IBIS. It was shot hand held at 1/30th of a second at 25600 ISO using a non-image stabilized lens:

For what I like to do this is no gimmick.