RosiArt

I have both the original Canon 7D and the 6D, but I'm considering selling them(trading) for a new 5D III. All my lenses are EF L's so that's not an issue. It will cost about $1000 differential. I don't care about the WiFi feature on the 6D. My thoughts are I eliminate 1 camera, get one that's more capable in every way except the 8 fps of the 7D.
Thoughts??

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Yes, 5D III - unless you need a backup camera, if shooting for "clients".

RosiArt

Thanks, Richard,

No, I'm just a middle of the road amateur that's always trying to get better. Yes, I know equipment won't necessarily help, but it won't hurt either.

cmc65

I would wait and see what the new 5d IV is before you make the decision. The price in the 5d III mighta b even lower if that's your final decision.

RosiArt

Good point. I've heard rumors that that could be next Oct., or even towards the Christmas season.

cmc65

I think more like next month. Time will tell.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The 5DIII is a wonderful camera. But, there's no reason to pay a new price for a camera pending for a IV replacement. Look at KEH for pricing on a modestly used copy.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Rosie, for me it depends on what and how you shoot it. The 6 has a very poor focus system but fine for general shooting. The 7 has a better focus system but but less mp and getting a bit dated.
You might also look at the 70 which is a good mix of both.
The 5lll is an outstanding camera. If you wait for the 5lV you will not only pay more but will definately pay full retail. There will not be refurbs until at least 6 months or more after the camera hits the streets and no reductions until the refurbs come out.
The 5lll has the advantage of handling action quite well at a few less fps.
New tech will also yield you the best photo IQ possible at that time.
I never suggest a back-up body unless you're getting paid to shoot. It's a waste of money. Worry about that when you need it. Better have 2 cars in case one breaks down, 2 houses in case one burns down and be having an affair on the side in case your spouse suddenly leaves you....., can you see where I'm going with this?!?! :lol:
Good luck
SS

RosiArt

I've got the 2 houses and the 2 cars, so I'm thinking about getting rid of the 2nd camera. The last thing I need is a 2nd wife, I mean girlfriend. All of these options are costly, one way or another!
I absolutely see where you're going with this!!

tramsey Loc: Texas

This sounds like a very bad case of G.A.S. to me.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Oh. So if I have all those things you are saying I should have a back up camera? :)

RosiArt

I wasn't sure if SS meant a back-up camera or "wife."

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I have just faced your exact dilemma and traded a pristine 7D + cash for an equally nice 5D MkIII. It was a carefully thought out decision, and after owning the 5D MkIII for a month, I could not be more pleased. I did consider keeping the 7D and purchasing a 6D for FF, but the less rugged build, much slower fps and inferior autofocus (I shoot lots of candida/sports) convinced me to go with the 5D instead. I did consider a 7D MK II, which is a great action/ sports camera with pro construction like the 7D or 5D III, and I may add one when I have the $ (for reach), but the fps of the 5D is not that much slower, the autofocus is as good for my use, and the FF noise/high ISO capabilities are superior (as you know from owning a 6D). The big upside of the 5D is the same as the 6D (or any FF camera) lower noise at high ISO, higher usable ISO and better dynamic range, but with much superior autofocus and build quality compared to the 6D. There are also some nice added features of the 5D, including autofocus micro adjustment at both ends of a zoom's range, HDR, etc.

I compared the dynamic range charts and noise performance of the 7D, 6D, 7D MkII and 5D, MKIII, and the 5 was worth 2 - 2-1/2 stops of ISO performance over my 7D, and the quality of anything beyond ISO 1600 was very noticeable which you know as the 5 and 6D are almost identical in that respect. I had been shooting high school wrestling matches with the 7D with a 70-200 F2.8L IS and needed to shoot at ISO 3200 with a less than optimum shutter speed. The resulting noise was apparent and limited my cropping abilities. With the 5D, I'm able to shoot at ISO 12,800 and still crop without obvious noise allowing me to shoot at the higher shutter speed I needed compared to the 7D. The only downside of the change is the shorter reach of the FF using long lenses, but the attendant upside is that my wide angle zoom (17-40) now has a field of view that's really equivalent to 17mm instead of the equivalent of ~27mm with an APC. To get that FOV with the APC, I'd need to be at 10-11mm with the attendant distortion of an ultra wide. I do intend to add a Canon 1.4x Tele extender to regain some of the reach. I will lose some effective aperture (and perhaps IQ), but I believe that will be more than compensated by the higher usable ISO.

My opinion (which is certainly open to debate) is that modern FF cameras with their lower noise and higher usable ISO allow you to use slower lenses than an APC, which translates into lower cost and less weight for all your lenses for equivalent performance (with the exception of fast lenses specifically chosen for shallow DOF and creamy bokkeh for portraiture). Finally, if you ever intend to shoot professionally, FF will be a requirement for many applications. Just my personal decision for my type of photography - yours may be different.

RosiArt

TriX, thanks for your very well thought-out reply. Of course, I especially like it because it conforms with the decision I'm likely to make, but you given me added reason to go forward.

heyjoe Loc: cincinnati ohio

some side by side comparisons pic the 6d over the m3,
or switch, to the nikon d750 it beats them all,haha
the canon L lens are great,