Need Advice on Moving to a FF Sensor

[awrhodes84]

Hello all and thank you for reading my first post on the forum. I have been an avid photo-hobbyist for over 10 years now, with my jump to the world of DSLRs coming about 2.5 years ago when I purchased the Rebel T3i that I still use today. Since then, my work has gradually improved to the point that I have placed or won some amateur photo contests and regularly sell medium-to-large size prints online. My primary lens is the 24-70 f/2.8L (not the new IS version) and I only shoot in RAW. I only have one EF-S lens I would need to sell.

I primarily focus on landscape/travel photography... i.e. lighthouses in Maine, monuments of DC (where I live), waterfalls (long exposure), fall foliage, astrophotogrpahy, and dramatic sunrise/sunset landscape scenes. Some of my work is HDR using photomatix. I have yet to dive deep into the world of portrait/event photography, but I do enjoy shooting stationary shots of family and recently purchased a 600EX speedlite to boost that endeavor. I also have fun with action shots of my black lab. Bottom line: I like to dabble in everything, but landscape and HDR are my sweet spot.

At this point, I feel that I've mastered my crop sensor T3i and am being limited by its drawbacks. Primarily, I want a wider angle in my landscape shots (especially as my interest in star shots grows). Second, I think I'm in for a huge treat with the upgrade in high ISO/low noise capabilities that the current Canon FFs offer. I currently try to stick with ISO 100 as much as possible (on Gitzo tripod/RRS ballhead) for low light shots to compensate. But getting something usable at ISO 12,800 or greater? Wow. I'm giddy thinking of how this can help my night/star scenes. I'm heading to Iceland for a week in September, so this upgrade should pay some immediate benefits.

So what shall it be. The 6D, the MK3, or is there something else? I'm a thorough purchaser and have been trying to do a really assess the value of the extra $1,500 that a MK3 would cost over the 6D. It seems like picture quality is going to be identical, with the AF being the primary comparison here. Coming from a T3i, I have no idea what an AF like the MK3 is even like. Differences that are meaningless to me: 1/4000 vs 1/800 shutter, 1/180 vs 1/200 flash sync, 2 card slots, and the built-in HDR JPG vs RAW issue (I'll still do HDR in PP). Things that interest me with the 6D... the WiFi/Android camera control would be awesome for setting up vacation shots with both my fiancee and I in them. Would also be neat to direct upload the occasional shot to social media and use GPS location tagging.

I'd appreciate any advice on upgrading to FF, the sacrifices or benefits of either camera, or any additional Canon cameras you would recommend instead. Thanks a ton!

Andrew
Flickr: awrhodes84's Photostream

 

[ronlane]

There's the 5D Mk2, which would be cheaper than the 5D Mk3.

 

[cgipson1]

I voted Nikon... lol!

 

[awrhodes84]

There's the 5D Mk2, which would be cheaper than the 5D Mk3.

Thanks, Ron. The MK2 seems like a pretty big step back from the 6D in terms of ISO sensitivity. Also a slightly worse autofocus and no WiFi or GPS. I don't see the benefit (feature or cost) in getting that over the 6D, especially since I want to buy new. Thoughts?

 

[awrhodes84]

I voted Nikon... lol!

Helpful.

 

[Tony S]

1D X all the way. Who needs money anyways?

 

[ronlane]

if the wifi and gps are important to you, then the 6D is the only choice really with it's build-in features. That stuff doesn't mean anything to me, and the Mk3 is way out of my price range (I have the T3i as well).

I know that I want to go FF with my upgrade and at this point I am going with the Mk2. Of course, there could be something else come out before I buy that could change my mind.

Charlie, I would have to consider the Nikon full frame at this point, since I have not invested in L glass yet.

 

[cgipson1]

There's the 5D Mk2, which would be cheaper than the 5D Mk3.

Thanks, Ron. The MK2 seems like a pretty big step back from the 6D in terms of ISO sensitivity. Also a slightly worse autofocus and no WiFi or GPS. I don't see the benefit (feature or cost) in getting that over the 6D, especially since I want to buy new. Thoughts?

Andrew... are you familiar with DXOMark? Probably one of the best sources for body and sensor comparison. DPReview also...

 

[ronlane]

1D X all the way. Who needs money anyways?

Hard to argue with that selection, but you could get any of the others and a possible L glass for the price of that body.

 

[cgipson1]

I voted Nikon... lol!

Helpful.

Sorry... sense of humor?

 

[awrhodes84]

I voted Nikon... lol!

Helpful.

Sorry... sense of humor?

Just a little sarcasm back Thanks for the advice!

 

[awrhodes84]

if the wifi and gps are important to you, then the 6D is the only choice really with it's build-in features. That stuff doesn't mean anything to me, and the Mk3 is way out of my price range (I have the T3i as well).

I know that I want to go FF with my upgrade and at this point I am going with the Mk2. Of course, there could be something else come out before I buy that could change my mind.

Charlie, I would have to consider the Nikon full frame at this point, since I have not invested in L glass yet.

Thanks again, Ron. Just wondering why you would choose the Mark II over the 6D (unless you see a drastic price difference)? Seems like the 6D is better all around except for the max shooting speed (1/4000 on 6D vs 1/8000 on Mk2). On light sensitivity, the 6D blows the Mk2 out of the water, unless I'm missing something.

I see a new 6D body for around 1,600 on ebay. Not sure on Mk2.

 

[cgipson1]

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side 6D, 5D MkIII, 5D MkII

 

[pixmedic]

the most important thing is...what canon FF cameras that meet your criteria/needs are within your budget?
if the 6D has the features you want/need, and you cant afford the 5DIII, and you dont like/want the older 5dII, then you dont really need a poll to tell you which one to get. the only other canon FX bodies are the 1Dx (waaay more expensive) or bodies even older than the 5DlII.
I cant really see anyone being disappointed with the 6D. the 5DIII is a great body if you have the cash for it, but if the 6D will fit your needs, the extra money you save can go into good glass for it.

 

[awrhodes84]

Wow, thanks cgipson. Was just surfing the site. Supposing that's a value comparison as well, then 6D seems to be a pretty clear choice. If it really only comes down to a better Autofocus on the Mk3, then I think I could live without it for $1,500.