You cant compare the 6D to the mark3 both are in different leagues the mk3 is by far a much better camera for landscape shots, night shots and especially for shooting video, the auto-focus on it is insane, and the quality is really good.

According to OP, you are looking for a landscape camera, you will need something that will give you pretty much all the detail you want in a picture.

But if you go do more research on Nikon you will find out that the Nikon D800E completely dominates the mk3 with landscape and portrait shots and night shots, absolutely flawless with little to no noise compared to the mk3, just think a d800e with 36MP vs the 22MP mk3, which one would perform better? Don't forget that the d800e and the mk3 almost cost the same.

Ditch the Canon and get the Nikon D800e with some precious glass, you won't get the most out of these cameras without getting an expensive lens, so you also need to put that into consideration aswell, a great camera needs a greater lens. You will find lenses which are double the price of your camera so don't be shocked about that.

Nikon 1 - 0 Canon

I've had my 5D3 for a little over a year now, I shoot a ton of low light stuff and I couldn't be happier with it. Every ISO is completely usable, I just set it to auto up to 25,600 and shoot. Plus the AF is a dream to work with. It's still a far more capable camera than I am as a shooter.

X5M Badass wrote

You cant compare the 6D to the mark3 both are in different leagues the mk3 is by far a much better camera for landscape shots, night shots and especially for shooting video, the auto-focus on it is insane, and the quality is really good.

According to OP, you are looking for a landscape camera, you will need something that will give you pretty much all the detail you want in a picture.

But if you go do more research on Nikon you will find out that the Nikon D800E completely dominates the mk3 with landscape and portrait shots and night shots, absolutely flawless with little to no noise compared to the mk3, just think a d800e with 36MP vs the 22MP mk3, which one would perform better? Don't forget that the d800e and the mk3 almost cost the same.

Ditch the Canon and get the Nikon D800e with some precious glass, you won't get the most out of these cameras without getting an expensive lens, so you also need to put that into consideration aswell, a great camera needs a greater lens. You will find lenses which are double the price of your camera so don't be shocked about that.

Nikon 1 - 0 Canon

I'm not sure what kind of information you're getting here. The 6D and 5D3 are very very similar in IQ range. The 5d3 is also better in low natural light than the d800 is, due to the lower mp count. The D800e outresolves the canons for fine detail, but does not perform better in low light.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_noise.shtml


If video is what you want here, a D800 > D800e (no AA filter on the e model means significant aliasing and moire). The same is also true for video, the d800 outresolves the 5d3 but the 5d3 is better when light is lacking (the differences are close, but the 5d3 slightly edges it out especially in post, see philip bloom's video compare)

Their prices are comparable, but it is rare that you will buy a lens that is double in cost to a 3k camera body outside of high end telephoto primes.

In any case the OP's original question was 6D or 5D3 for the money, which indicates an investment in canon glass and a conflict whether to buy a 6D or 5D3 which means those 3-12k lenses are probably out of the question as is switching to Nikon.

Oh, come on now, everyone knows that all you have to is count pixels to determine which camera is "best."

I shot with a D800E owner on Saturday morning. Blew him away. His buffer was constantly locked up while I shot away with my 5D MkIII. If you take one shot per hour, then get a Large Format camera made out of wood and steel and shoot film for the best IQ. Otherwise, forget about pixel count and look at actual images.

Here's just one of the shots that my friend missed, as he stood right next to me and cursed his buffer:


Sub-adult by dcstep, on Flickr

dcstep wrote

Oh, come on now, everyone knows that all you have to is count pixels to determine which camera is "best."

In that case, Nokia Lumia Pureview > D800 > canon 5d3 haha.

druu wrote

In that case, Nokia Lumia Pureview > D800 > canon 5d3 haha.

Absolutely. There's no choice.

druu wrote

I'm not sure what kind of information you're getting here. The 6D and 5D3 are very very similar in IQ range. The 5d3 is also better in low natural light than the d800 is, due to the lower mp count. The D800e outresolves the canons for fine detail, but does not perform better in low light.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_III/Canon_5D3_vs_Nikon_D800_noise.shtml


If video is what you want here, a D800 > D800e (no AA filter on the e model means significant aliasing and moire). The same is also true for video, the d800 outresolves the 5d3 but the 5d3 is better when light is lacking (the differences are close, but the 5d3 slightly edges it out especially in post, see philip bloom's video compare)

Their prices are comparable, but it is rare that you will buy a lens that is double in cost to a 3k camera body outside of high end telephoto primes.

In any case the OP's original question was 6D or 5D3 for the money, which indicates an investment in canon glass and a conflict whether to buy a 6D or 5D3 which means those 3-12k lenses are probably out of the question as is switching to Nikon.

Sorry to break it to you my friend. But the D800e is better than the D800 and better than the MK3.

Stop living in denial and truth be told that d800e is the mighty of all cameras of this century

TO OP: To see the difference you have to go check the camera in person and take some shots of your own.

I personally have a d800e, and before I purchased it I went to a camera rental shop where they let me try out both the mk3 and d800e free of charge and used them with different types of lenses.

and for op stating if they should get the mk3 or the 6d, I posted in some feedback from what I already have, if op is considering the mk3 then I don't see why he shouldn't have a 3rd option which is the d800e/d800 what ever.

Yes the mk3 is good in low light but its also noisy and the d800e aint that bad in lowlight, if there's a certain discoloration in a picture then you can fix it by software.

Its as simple and as easy as that don't get ripped off by the mk3's lowlight abilities, everything can be enhanced with photoshop

dcstep wrote

Oh, come on now, everyone knows that all you have to is count pixels to determine which camera is "best."

He wanted a camera which is suitable for landscape shots thus d800e being the best of all cameras for detailed shots. Don't even get me started mate

dcstep wrote

I shot with a D800E owner on Saturday morning. Blew him away. His buffer was constantly locked up while I shot away with my 5D MkIII. If you take one shot per hour, then get a Large Format camera made out of wood and steel and shoot film for the best IQ. Otherwise, forget about pixel count and look at actual images.

Here's just one of the shots that my friend missed, as he stood right next to me and cursed his buffer:


Sub-adult by dcstep, on Flickr

I see where you're coming from, when I was a hardcore canon fan I always hated Nikon but now Nikon deserves damn respect for work like this. Stop hating and accept the fact that the d800e is far better than your shitty mk3, why didn't you include the pics from the d800e ? Next time stop bashing on the mighty d800e without even showing sample pictures from both.

X5M Badass wrote

He wanted a camera which is suitable for landscape shots thus d800e being the best of all cameras for detailed shots. Don't even get me started mate

Let's compare, Nikon fanboy. Here's one that's sold for $800 in a 50" print:


Grand Canyon Snow by dcstep, on Flickr

"Best of all cameras" is a tall order.

Dave

X5M Badass wrote

I see where you're coming from, when I was a hardcore canon fan I always hated Nikon but now Nikon deserves damn respect for work like this. Stop hating and accept the fact that the d800e is far better than your shitty mk3, why didn't you include the pics from the d800e ? Next time stop bashing on the mighty d800e without even showing sample pictures from both.

Not to derail the thread here, but I actually said that the D800 has better Image Quality than the canons do, nobody here is bashing one or the other, just pointing out where one is better than the other. We notice that you rather like your D800e, and it's an excellent camera.

DC said that the buffer on the D800 caused his friend to miss a shot, which is a combination of FPS (4 vs 6 is significant) and file size not quality. Nobody here is disputing image quality or not giving Nikon 'damn respect', (actually in the first place, Sony makes the sensor in the D800).

Anyway, this thread is 8 months old and the OP probably already got a Camera by now. So hang out, enjoy the photography forum and try hard to be brand neutral since everyone has their own brand preference.

Cheers.

BTW, OP, tell us what you bought and how you like it.

I have used both, while the 5d mkiii is an insane camera, the 6d is so great for the price. Low light is noise(less?) up to 12k iso, the 24-105 is more than just a "kit lens" it could stand its own against numerous non "kit lenses", and the feel of the body is very comfortable, being both light and durable at the same time

jascanfield wrote

I have used both, while the 5d mkiii is an insane camera, the 6d is so great for the price. Low light is noise(less?) up to 12k iso, the 24-105 is more than just a "kit lens" it could stand its own against numerous non "kit lenses", and the feel of the body is very comfortable, being both light and durable at the same time

I haven't used the 6D, but I just sold my 5D Mark II and upgraded to the 5D Mark III. You're right, it's an insane camera. Took me a whole day to figure out the advanced autofocus system, which is simply incredible.

I've seen the specs and sample images of the ISO sensitivity of both the 6D and 5D Mark III, both are virtually identical. I think the Mark III might show a tad more noise simply because it has a higher resolution sensor (23.3 MP vs 20.3 MP). If you go into Photoshop/Lightroom and resample the Mark III's images down to 20.3 MP the images/noise are virtually identical.

In my opinion, the 6D beats the Mark III in two areas. First is price. There is no question that the 6D is more economical. Second is that the 6D's center AF point is more sensitive than the Mark III's center point (-3 EV vs -2 EV), but the other AF points on the 6D are pretty much useless.

And that's the reason that I sold my 5D Mark II. I shoot a lot in portrait mode, and I use the far right AF point (top center in portrait orientation) so that I can properly frame my subjects and focus on their faces. This was a disaster in low light since none of those AF points were cross-type (the models were walking toward me, so I couldn't use the center AF point then recompose). The 6D has a similar AF system to the Mark II.

I've been playing with my Mark III for a few weeks now and all I can saw is that it's simply amazing. I'm getting great focus in low light, the 6 FPS shutter is incredible, I love how I can set a group/zone of AF points, in short, there's nothing not to like about the Mark III except for it's price.

I hear there's rumor of a 5D Mark IV being announced this year. I can't wait to see the specs on that baby!!

I wouldn't bet on a 5D MkIV this year. I'd be surprised if the five year old 7D isn't replaced by next fall, but I suspect that the full-frame Canons (6D, 5D3 and 1D X) will ride into 2015.

dcstep wrote

I wouldn't bet on a 5D MkIV this year. I'd be surprised if the five year old 7D isn't replaced by next fall, but I suspect that the full-frame Canons (6D, 5D3 and 1D X) will ride into 2015.

This.

The big cameras of 2012 are Still better than new cameras coming out today. Since the current generation is still selling well, I would doubt that they would announce a mark 4 anytime soon

bluecrab wrote

I haven't used the 6D, but I just sold my 5D Mark II and upgraded to the 5D Mark III. You're right, it's an insane camera. Took me a whole day to figure out the advanced autofocus system, which is simply incredible

I just picked up a 6D, but I'm a dslr noob... I have zero other experience, but I did about a years research into this new hobby and i considered just about every camera in every form factor.

I narrowed down to the 6d because:
1.) full frame
2.) no existing glass, so I bought 3 lenses
3.) I do landscapes, some portraits, and of course, cars!

It's the perfect camera for me and I can always buy a new body later - canon knows their market.

And, not that my opinion counts, but I'm not sure why anyone would compare it to the 5D3 other than for academic fun. Pros are going to have a mk3, the 6d is for a cheaper second body or for new ff users.

GrussGott wrote

...
And, not that my opinion counts, but I'm not sure why anyone would compare it to the 5D3 other than for academic fun. Pros are going to have a mk3, the 6d is for a cheaper second body or for new ff users.

You don't need to be a pro to "need" the superior AF of the 5D3 vs. the 6D. However, most people do not need that better AF and should be very happy with a 6D.

I posted an eagle in flight shot earlier in the thread, using an EF 2.0x TC-III on a 500mm lens. The 6D couldn't take that shot, since it's AF would come to a total halt.

Dave

dcstep wrote

I posted an eagle in flight shot earlier in the thread, using an EF 2.0x TC-III on a 500mm lens. The 6D couldn't take that shot, since it's AF would come to a total halt

I dunno, I'm just a noob, but I take a lot of pictures of sea gulls and airplanes as my deck overlooks the approach to SJC, and points straight south into silicon valley ... using an ef 300mm lens with "2" lens stabilization (panning) I get some pretty damn awesome shots during super fast pan - you can almost see the pilots faces (600mm would show their haircuts!). Seagulls coming cruising straight up past my deck and I can catch them in perfect focus as they fly by with no blur. I also caught a hawk in the Santa Cruz mountains right after he popped up through the trees - I just happened to be panning for a shot, saw it and snapped it. Also I got a motorcycle going past at ~80 mph coming from behind me.

Again, I"m a noob, but given my experiences with 1/2 second opps for a shot and getting every one in perfect focus, I haven't found the event yet where I lose a shot.

GrussGott wrote

I dunno, I'm just a noob, but I take a lot of pictures of sea gulls and airplanes as my deck overlooks the approach to SJC, and points straight south into silicon valley ... using an ef 300mm lens with "2" lens stabilization (panning) I get some pretty damn awesome shots during super fast pan - you can almost see the pilots faces (600mm would show their haircuts!). Seagulls coming cruising straight up past my deck and I can catch them in perfect focus as they fly by with no blur. I also caught a hawk in the Santa Cruz mountains right after he popped up through the trees - I just happened to be panning for a shot, saw it and snapped it. Also I got a motorcycle going past at ~80 mph coming from behind me.

Again, I"m a noob, but given my experiences with 1/2 second opps for a shot and getting every one in perfect focus, I haven't found the event yet where I lose a shot.

Reading between the lines, I think you said that you used a 6D with a 300/f2.8 and a 2x TC to shoot gulls. That's to be expected, because the native maximum aperture is f/5.6, which the 6D can handle. With f/4 lenses, like the 500 and 600mm, the native aperture would go to f/8 and the 6D would either slow in a big way, or come to a complete halt.

I have no idea what you're saying about "1/2 second opps".

Dave

dcstep wrote

With f/4 lenses, like the 500 and 600mm, the native aperture would go to f/8

I hear ya, my lenses are a canon 70-300 4-5.6, a canon L 24-105, and a 40 mm prime for walkin around - I run hoya UV filters on both and always have IS on, but no lens hoods. By "1/2 second opps" I meant when you suddenly see something shoot or you lose the opportunity.

But I'm sure you're right, that at small apetures the 6D might not be able to keep up. I've also read it sucks for sports photography too.

On a side note, I read all of Michael Andrew's stuff and his videos are awesome - I bought them and they're worth it, especially for Noobs. I have no relationship to him other than a very happy customer:

6D vs 5DIII - Focus Locks

The video is awesome: