Canon 1d mkIV or canon 5D mkiii?

StewartR said:
I'm sure I once saw somebody here say something like "Beginners think it's all about the camera". Any idea who that might have been, Phil? ;)

Seriously though, I'm not going to disagree with your assessment of the D750 as the best value all-rounder. But if you were to compare the Nikon ecosystem with the Canon ecosystem, instead of concentrating on just the cameras, I don't think the answer would be so clear cut. For example, off the top of my head I would suggest that compared to Canon, the Nikon ecosystem has:
* significantly slower autofocus
* poorer ergonomics and user interface
* poorer connectivity (WiFi, SnapBridge, etc)
* more incompatibility issues
* more expensive lenses, like-for-like
* significantly less reliable lenses
* poorer quality control
* significantly worse customer support

Obviously many of these won't be important to any given person. But some might be. I just think it's not necessarily right to focus on the cameras to the detriment of the other issues.
Click to expand...
See I haven't really used one, I wouldn't swap.

But as far as 'cameras aren't important' I think my posts here aren't too far from my general line.

I did suggest that a beginners camera would be fine. ;)
 
draiman said:
Hands up with the a3 print! I've got a 1diii print in my Hall which is a3 and looks stunning. I'll amend that to "pixel peeping screen monkey". My point though is that for most people there won't be much difference unless they print massive sizes or zoom in an insane amount.

The 7d and 700d are about the same price. They have ups and downs but I'd still choose the 6d over the 700d for build and usability.
Click to expand...
Your A3 print looks like a pixel peeping screen monkey...?
 
StewartR said:
I'm sure I once saw somebody here say something like "Beginners think it's all about the camera". Any idea who that might have been, Phil? ;)

Seriously though, I'm not going to disagree with your assessment of the D750 as the best value all-rounder. But if you were to compare the Nikon ecosystem with the Canon ecosystem, instead of concentrating on just the cameras, I don't think the answer would be so clear cut. For example, off the top of my head I would suggest that compared to Canon, the Nikon ecosystem has:
* significantly slower autofocus
* poorer ergonomics and user interface
* poorer connectivity (WiFi, SnapBridge, etc)
* more incompatibility issues
* more expensive lenses, like-for-like
* significantly less reliable lenses
* poorer quality control
* significantly worse customer support

Obviously many of these won't be important to any given person. But some might be. I just think it's not necessarily right to focus on the cameras to the detriment of the other issues.
Click to expand...

I agree with the ergonomics on the better Canon`s. It is a massive pity though that the 60D onwards went completely down hill. The older ones were similar to a 7D or 5D with the 8 way control and large quality aperture ring and large set button. Now they are much grade below along with the 6D range
 
GTG said:
I agree with the ergonomics on the better Canon`s. It is a massive pity though that the 60D onwards went completely down hill. The older ones were similar to a 7D or 5D with the 8 way control and large quality aperture ring and large set button. Now they are much grade below along with the 6D range
Click to expand...

I've got a few older bodies, including the 50d, with the joystick. IMO it's only the loss of the joystick that's changed on the newer xxd models (and the 6d that never had one), not much else ergonomically so I think "completely down hill" is a slight exaggeration [emoji3]

The pad is a piece of p1ss to use.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I've got a few older bodies, including the 50d, with the joystick. IMO it's only the loss of the joystick that's changed on the newer xxd models (and the 6d that never had one), not much else ergonomically so I think "completely down hill" is a slight exaggeration
emoji3.png


The pad is a piece of p1ss to use.
Click to expand...

My reaction when I first used a 40d was, holy hell its an absolute tank. It feels all metal ( I know it is not ) the joystick is amazing, the aperture ring and set button are just the right size for a mans hand.

My reaction to the newer model, oh dear the factory has had cost cutting introduced and it is very obvious to me.
 
GTG said:
My reaction when I first used a 40d was, holy hell its an absolute tank. It feels all metal ( I know it is not ) the joystick is amazing, the aperture ring and set button are just the right size for a mans hand.

My reaction to the newer model, oh dear the factory has had cost cutting introduced and it is very obvious to me.
Click to expand...
The 40d was metal, as was the 50d (mag alloy body). From the 60d onwards they were plastic (well, fancy polycarbonate).

But build is different to ergonomics.
 
Last edited:
Looking at the Canon 80d its a lot cheaper ( not complaining ) then the 6d, Surely it would be more expensive if a better camera?
Like the 5dmkiii is much more.
 
friesianfan69 said:
Looking at the Canon 80d its a lot cheaper ( not complaining ) then the 6d, Surely it would be more expensive if a better camera?
Like the 5dmkiii is much more.
Click to expand...

No because the full frame sensors are much more expensive to manufacture and they have to pass the cost on to the customers. I found this explanation that I think sounds realistic and reasonable :

The cost of manufacturing the larger chips is not simply the difference in the surface area of the two sensor sizes. This is the case due to the rejection rates of each for the same number of defects on a wafer from which the chips are cut.

Assuming an APS-C sensor is 44% the surface area of a FF chip (Nikon, Sony, etc. Canon APS-C is slightly smaller at 39%), if you could get 10 FF chips from a specific sized wafer, you could get 23+ APS-C chips from the same sized wafer. Now consider that the wafer has eight defects. That potentially knocks out all but two of the FF chips (10-8=2), but at most eliminates 8 of 23 of the APS-C chips. So in reality you are getting a yield of 15 APS-C chips or 2 FF chips from a wafer with only eight defects out of room for enough sites for several hundred million transistors!
 
GTG said:
No because the full frame sensors are much more expensive to manufacture and they have to pass the cost on to the customers. I found this explanation that I think sounds realistic and reasonable :

The cost of manufacturing the larger chips is not simply the difference in the surface area of the two sensor sizes. This is the case due to the rejection rates of each for the same number of defects on a wafer from which the chips are cut.

Assuming an APS-C sensor is 44% the surface area of a FF chip (Nikon, Sony, etc. Canon APS-C is slightly smaller at 39%), if you could get 10 FF chips from a specific sized wafer, you could get 23+ APS-C chips from the same sized wafer. Now consider that the wafer has eight defects. That potentially knocks out all but two of the FF chips (10-8=2), but at most eliminates 8 of 23 of the APS-C chips. So in reality you are getting a yield of 15 APS-C chips or 2 FF chips from a wafer with only eight defects out of room for enough sites for several hundred million transistors!
Click to expand...
I see, thankyou for explaining
 
GTG said:
No because the full frame sensors are much more expensive to manufacture and they have to pass the cost on to the customers. I found this explanation that I think sounds realistic and reasonable :

The cost of manufacturing the larger chips is not simply the difference in the surface area of the two sensor sizes. This is the case due to the rejection rates of each for the same number of defects on a wafer from which the chips are cut.

Assuming an APS-C sensor is 44% the surface area of a FF chip (Nikon, Sony, etc. Canon APS-C is slightly smaller at 39%), if you could get 10 FF chips from a specific sized wafer, you could get 23+ APS-C chips from the same sized wafer. Now consider that the wafer has eight defects. That potentially knocks out all but two of the FF chips (10-8=2), but at most eliminates 8 of 23 of the APS-C chips. So in reality you are getting a yield of 15 APS-C chips or 2 FF chips from a wafer with only eight defects out of room for enough sites for several hundred million transistors!
Click to expand...

Hope that answers your question OP...
 
friesianfan69 said:
Looking at the Canon 80d its a lot cheaper ( not complaining ) then the 6d, Surely it would be more expensive if a better camera?
Like the 5dmkiii is much more.
Click to expand...
Its not that simple. The 80d isn't a better camera than the 6d. Both have areas that they are better at than the other (80d is better at fast AF, FPS and tracking, the 6d is better at image quality, low light focusing and a few other bits and bobs).

Its about selecting the camera more suited to your needs, hense why I think a 1d series or 5d3 is OTT for what you need :)
 
GTG said:
Nice dog, to be fair they are fast agile dogs if that is a German Shepherd ?
They won loads of Army and Police trails all over the world
Click to expand...
Yes shes german shepherd, shes only just a year old, Ive got two
 
friesianfan69 said:
Looking at the Canon 80d its a lot cheaper ( not complaining ) then the 6d, Surely it would be more expensive if a better camera?
Like the 5dmkiii is much more.
Click to expand...
As I said before, it's not as simple as 'better' a Lamborghini is a lot more expensive than a Suzuki Vitara, and is 'better' in many ways, but if you lived up a cart track in the Yorkshire dales, a Lamborghini is useless.

The 6d is great (I've got 2) but if my primary concern was shooting dogs for fun, an 80d is a better choice of camera.

And if I had no camera gear at all, I'd seriously look at Nikon, (try one and see how it feels)

If your needs were different, I'd suggest a mirrorless system instead.
 
Without trying to hijack the thread,I am in a similar situation where I want to upgrade my 60D but not sure which route to take.I was quite keen on the 6D or 5d3 but then the mk2 came along.and the 80D has great reviews so I'm swayed that way too.I only use my camera as a hobby and it's used mostly for fishing trophy pics,landscapes/travel,Astro here and there and the dogs too but I can't decide which route to take. With regards to the fishing I do think something with good low light capabilities would be handy as fish do tend to want a picture at dusk and the flash really destroys the colours of the fish.I have EF 17-40mm and 50mm lenses currently.
 
DemiLion said:
OUCH!! When did you start working for Canon? :D
Click to expand...
I was just trying to provide a bit of balance. Phil was suggesting to the OP that she might switch from Canon to Nikon based on the virtues of the D750, but as he himself admits he doesn't really know anything about Nikons. (And I couldn't resist a little dig at him because of the irony - he's so fond of saying "Beginners think it's all about the camera".)

I don't think any of the points I made about the Nikon ecosystem are particularly controversial, are they? Though I appreciate most people don't have enough kit to be able to make meaningful assessments of the reliability.

If somebody had suggested switching from Nikon to Canon based on just one criterion, I'm sure I could come up with a list of reasons why that wasn't necessarily a good idea. But that's not what we're talking about here.
 
I think you're taking my comment a bit too seriously!

Personally I'd say that your comment was accurate and impartial (unlike Rockwell or DXO).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top