-4

I want to upgrade from my rebel T6I crop to a full frame DSLR. I've been eyeing the Canon Mark 5D MK III for awhile now. Would it be a particularly smart choice to upgrade from a newer crop camera to a older full frame or would it be wiser to upgrade to the newer MK IV model? It basically boils down to features right? My only gripe with the MK IV with a kit lens is it's price. It's very expensive. especially going from the rebel line. even with buying the sigma art and a few other lenses it doesn't amount to near the cost of the MKIV. The dual pixel raw feature on the MK IV is pretty neat but I use lightroom/photoshop so I don't think I would utilize it anyways. But I do like the 1080p 60fps video and the 4k video options on the MK IV.

There's a few reasons why I want to upgrade to a full frame.

Bigger sensor = more light = higher shutter speed.

The RAW's seem to be able to dish out more details and higher sharpness than my rebel.

More accessible buttons and controls

The rebel T6i has only 19 AF points, where the 5D MK III has 61 AF points.

The Higher ISO on full frames seem to have less noise in the RAW files in lower light than my rebel camera.

I can use much more professional lenses like the L series lenses with their intended sharpness like the 70mm to 200 mm and the 24 to 70 mm 2.8. I like to shoot with a wide aperture.

Most Full frames have the Autofocus Microadjustment for lenses as opposed to the Rebel line. Which is huge for me and one of the primary reasons why I hate my rebel.

Weather sealing, i'm not a person who takes their camera out in the rain but some added protection would make me feel much better. even if I did I would buy a rain cover before hand either way.

I would like to hear your thoughts and opinions. Thank you for taking the time reading this.

closed as off-topic by scottbb, StephenG, Caleb, inkista, Olivier Jan 13 '18 at 1:07

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions seeking specific product or service recommendations, where the answer is likely to be either entirely personal or short-lived as a result of changing markets, are off topic here. Please rephrase your question to describe the problem you're trying to solve or what you do not understand that prevents you from determining the answer yourself." – StephenG, inkista
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    This is not a place for "thoughts and opinions", but for reasonably objectively answerable questions. – user29608 Jan 8 '18 at 1:30
  • 1
    Bigger sensor = more light = higher shutter speed - I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. – flolilo Jan 8 '18 at 1:32
  • 2
    I can use much more professional lenses like the L series lenses - you can use those with any EF-S mount camera - and even with EF-M ones if you buy an adapter. – flolilo Jan 8 '18 at 1:42
  • Possible duplicate of When should I upgrade my camera body? – scottbb Jan 8 '18 at 13:12
  • I would like to hear your thoughts and opinions == "Please close my question as primarily opinion based." – Caleb Jan 9 '18 at 17:53
3

Upgrading to a Full Frame Camera, is the Canon 5D Mark III still a viable choice?

The 5D Mark III is the same camera it has always been. At the current selling price for new examples, it's a lot of camera for the money. But the more current EOS 6D Mark II is selling for about the same amount and, other than a few minor differences that may or may not be important to you, is more or less in the same league as the 5D Mark III.

If I were looking for another FF Canon camera today and couldn't stomach the price of the 5D Mark IV, I'd take a serious look at the 6D Mark II. As it is, I've been shooting with a 5D Mark III for several years now and plan to continue using it (and my 5D Mark II as a "wide" body along with a 7D Mark II as a "long/action" body) for the foreseeable future. Sure, there are a few things the 5D Mark IV offers that I would like to have, but the 6D Mark II offers most of them. Neither offers enough to me for what I shoot to spend the money, (though the flicker reduction feature of the 6DII comes awful close, and I may eventually bite). What you shoot now or plan to shoot in the future may differ significantly in this regard.

Moving from an APS-C camera released in 2015 to a full frame camera released in 2012 should give you some improvement in terms of noise when shooting at high ISO in low light situations. Moving to the 6D Mark II released in 2017 should give you a little more.

I find that I can use my FF cameras at about one stop faster ISO than my APS-C bodies with the same generation sensor technology and get about the same signal-to-noise ratio in low light.

If your fastest lens has a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or f/4, though, you're still going to be hamstrung by the speed of your lens a bit. A FF sensor is not a magic bullet. There will still be times when you will get noisy and blurry pictures using a FF camera with any lens.

Look into an f/1.4, f/1.8, or f/2 prime lens along with a larger sensor if you really want to be able to shoot in low light. Of course the narrower depth of field you'll get from using a wider aperture will be compounded by using a camera with a larger sensor - so you'll really need to up your game in terms of shooting technique and controlling autofocus.

As to whether the 5D Mark IV is worth the premium over the 6D Mark II or the 5D Mark III all depends on how useful the extra features offered by the higher priced camera are to you. You might find this comparison of the 6D Mark II and 5D Mark IV from The-Digital-Picture useful. Here's The-Digital-Picture's comparison between the 5D Mark III and the 6D Mark II. Just for completeness, here's the 5D Mark IV vs. 5D Mark III comparison.


Before we wrap it up, let's look at a few things included in the question that aren't exactly so.

Bigger sensor = more light = higher shutter speed.

Not unless you are willing to increase the ISO. We measure exposure in terms of light per unit area. At the same aperture and shutter speed, the "extra" light a FF sensor collects is distributed over an equally larger sensor area. The exposure is the same. It is true that most FF cameras demonstrate about the same noise level shooting the same scene at one stop higher ISO than their APS-C counterparts with the same generation of technology. But to shoot at a faster Tv you still need to open the aperture or increase the ISO.

The Higher ISO on full frames seem to have less noise in the RAW files in lower light than my rebel camera.

There's no real way to know for sure, because you can't really view a "raw" file. When you open a raw file in any raw conversion applications you're looking at one of two things:

  • A jpeg preview generated in-camera and attached to the raw file at the time the photo was taken
  • A conversion of the raw data by the application to a jpeg-like preview that is sent to your 8-bit or 10-bit monitor.

In either case, some noise reduction is likely being applied before you see what you see on your monitor. Even though you can't really see a raw file, though, you can see that under similar shooting conditions and processing choices FF cameras will demonstrate less noise than cropped sensor cameras when both have the same technology in them.

I can use much more professional lenses like the L series lenses with their intended sharpness like the 70mm to 200 mm and the 24 to 70 mm 2.8. I like to shoot with a wide aperture.

You can use those same lenses with any EOS camera. Assuming the resolution of the lens rather than the resolution of the sensor is the limiting factor, larger sensors do tend to give higher resolution with the same lens because the larger sensor means less enlargement for the same display size compared to an APS-C camera. But it also means you need a longer focal length to get the same field of view. That can work in your favor for wide angle lenses, it can work against you for longer focal length lenses.

Most Full frames have the Autofocus Microadjustment for lenses as opposed to the Rebel line. Which is huge for me and one of the primary reasons why I hate my rebel.

Other than the 77D, which is the successor to the Rebel T6s/760D and could just as easily have been named the Rebel T7s/810D, much of the x0D series (50D, 70D, 80D) and the 7D series also have AFMA. Those are all APS-C cameras. A FF camera is not required to join the AFMA club.

But I do like the 1080p 60fps video and the 4k video options on the MK IV.

Keep in mind that 4K video with the 5D Mark IV is highly cropped. It only uses the part of the sensor in the middle, for a 1.74X crop factor, that is slightly smaller than Canon's APS-C sensors. So for 4K video you're not gaining anything in terms of total light gathering over the 80D. 1080p video does use the full sensor of the 5D Mark IV.

  • "Moving from an APS-C camera [T6I] released in 2015 to a [5DMKIII] released in 2012 should give you some improvement in terms of noise when shooting at high ISO in low light situations. Moving to the 6D Mark II released in 2017 should give you a little more." Actually, no, the 6DMKII and 5DMKIII have very similar sensor performance with the 6DMKII being very slightly worse. – Aram Hăvărneanu Jan 8 '18 at 11:44
  • Dynamic range is exactly the same. Input referred read noise is slightly worse in 6DMKII. Photon transfer curve comparison for 5DMKIII and 6DMKII. – Aram Hăvărneanu Jan 8 '18 at 11:44
  • There may be reasons to chose 6DMKII over 5DMKIII, but the sensor performance is not one of them. Just for reference, if you plot 5DMKIV in those charts you'll see there's a profound performance difference compared to 5DMKIII. – Aram Hăvărneanu Jan 8 '18 at 11:46
  • @AramHăvărneanu The DR chart you link fails to account for the differences between the set ISO value and the actual ISO value used by the camera at that setting as well as differences in resolution. When that is taken into account, the 6D Mark II shows slightly better DR across the board compared to the 5D Mark III. DxO Mark 5D3 vs 6D2 As usual, click measurements→Dynamic range→screen to get uninterpolated results instead of normalized print size results (print). – Michael C Jan 8 '18 at 14:41
  • @AramHăvărneanu From the notes for your 'Input referred read noise' link: "The conversion is for analog gain only. Digital gain and other signal processing are supressed. These raw values are not appropriate for comparing camera models because they are not adjusted for area." – Michael C Jan 8 '18 at 14:55

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.