Help! Upgrade conundrum: 70D vs 5D Mk III. Which way to go?!

J

jivemonkey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
16
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Hi. This is my first post on the Forum so apologies if it's not in the right area! I figure Equipment is appropriate!

Anyway, I'm now at the stage I need to upgrade from my 500D/ T3i, and as great a body it's been, it's beginning to frustrate me with features that I am starting to need, in particular the AF customisation, AF speed/ tracking performance, and low light/ high ISO performance. After thinking long and hard, I've ended up with two setups that I think should cover my needs adequately but still yet to decide. I shoot mostly wildlife including BIF, landscapes and some portraits.

Any thoughts or recommendations would be much appreciated!

The choice now lies with either the 5D Mark III or 70D in the below setups. (* denotes lenses I already own):

Canon 5D Mark III

EF 24-104mm F4L IS USM
EF 70-300mm F4-5.6L IS USM
*EF 50mm F1.8

Canon 70D

*EF-S 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM
*EF 70-200mm F4L
EF 28mm F1.8

I figure keeping the 70-200 F4 if the 70D were the way to go as the reach is just enough, but if the MKIII is a goer, then I think in order to maintain the reach I've come accustomed to on the APS-C body, I'd likely want opt for the 70-300 F4-5.6L, knowing the superior ISO performance will make up the lost stop of light at the tele end whilst maintaining IQ.

Both cameras have pros and cons which are starting to even up, which I've identified as a concoction of FPS, integrated flash, movie Servo-AF, size, weight, AF, weather sealing, sensor size and cost. After this I still can't decide which is the best route to go down!

The extra outlay for the MK3 (after selling on the T3i, APS-C lens and 70-200 F4) is approx. £1.5k so certainly a factor but not a deciding one.

Any pointers or suggestions/ advice very much appreciated.

Thanks!
 
It depends what you want, i will be frank in saying you can't compare the 70D to a 5D3, you just can't they arent in either the same price league or the same league at high iso.

High iso capabillities is a relative term to what the user deems acceptable, I shoot my 60D at 6400iso and have no problems in doing so.

Looking at the raw files from the 60D, 70D and the 7D it appears the 60D and 70D are nigh on identical so in theory you will be able to use 6400.

But then again 6400 on the 5D3 is in another league to 6400 on a crop body.

As far as cameras go the 5D3 is phenominal, I love my 60D bodies but if someone offered me a 5D3 or I could justify the extra outlay for a 5D3 would I get one?? Without doubt as the simple fact is they are better at high iso.

Low number iso figures I personally don't think there is much in it though everyone has varying opinions in that aspect.

If you have the money and you do more still shots and alot of low light then the 5D is obviously the winner.

Video or mainly under 1600iso then I think the 70D is easily up to hanging with it albiet not as good 90% of people wouldn't tell the difference
 
dalegt4 said:
It depends what you want, i will be frank in saying you can't compare the 70D to a 5D3, you just can't they arent in either the same price league or the same league at high iso.

High iso capabillities is a relative term to what the user deems acceptable, I shoot my 60D at 6400iso and have no problems in doing so.

Looking at the raw files from the 60D, 70D and the 7D it appears the 60D and 70D are nigh on identical so in theory you will be able to use 6400.

But then again 6400 on the 5D3 is in another league to 6400 on a crop body.

As far as cameras go the 5D3 is phenominal, I love my 60D bodies but if someone offered me a 5D3 or I could justify the extra outlay for a 5D3 would I get one?? Without doubt as the simple fact is they are better at high iso.

Low number iso figures I personally don't think there is much in it though everyone has varying opinions in that aspect.

If you have the money and you do more still shots and alot of low light then the 5D is obviously the winner.

Video or mainly under 1600iso then I think the 70D is easily up to hanging with it albiet not as good 90% of people wouldn't tell the difference
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts dalegt4, you've pretty much just confirmed what I thought in that it's just going to come down to low light performance at the end of the day. I know it's a terrible comparison, but the MKIII is the only FF I can think of with the AF performance I'm after (I don't think the 6D would cut it) with the better low light performance.

IQ wise I'm perfectly happy with the images that my 600D churns out when used correctly with good glass and good light, so as you say below ISO1600 the 70D could certainly hold it's own - with the added benefit of a lighter weight body and Movie AF. The only problem comes when shooting anything over the acceptable ISO limit for the APS-C which can be most overcast days or evening where fast paced wildlife makes an appearance!

Is the ISO performance really that different between varying crop cameras to justify upping the acceptable ISO limit? I appreciate this is a subjective measure, but between the rebels and xxD for instance?
 
Yeah the 5d3 af is superb by all accounts so if you want a good ff with good af then it certainly hits the nail there! :)

IQ wise the 70D and all the other crops with some good quality lenses on the front will give superb results as you already know. :)

The problem is it is all subjective as you say, I use 6400 on the 60D whenever i need too, others will say "whoa, what are you doing!"

But then the question is what is the shot you need?

If you see yourself shooting at over 1600 or 3200 on quite a fair occasion then without doubt then the 5d would be my choice.

If not then I really cant see how the extra money for the body is worth it, crop cameras can give superb results, yes not "quite" upto that of the ff but again, just think of all that extra lens quality you could get with the remaining money!

We all know lesser body better lens out does higher body lesser lens.

So its a 6 of 1 , half a dozen of the other situation.

But in short there are certainly differences`1 between even crop sensors on noise and detail performance but on normal print sizes if you would notice the difference in noise handling.... debatable.
 
If you can afford it get the 5diii. I winged on here about some stuff I didn't like about my full frame, and rightly took some stick. But you will be amazed how good they are at high iso. Can't comment on autofocus and tracking on the 70d or 5diii as I own neither, however according to the manual for the 1dx it's very dependent on lens. The group them a-h, from best to worst, you'd be surprised at how limited some very very good lenses are! However even with some of the lower ranked lenses the AF is very very quick and good. Can't see the 5diii being any worst.
 
TBH its not just about Iso performace, Af, Fps etc.
What the 5D3 (or any FF Camera) will give you is "colour", the colours and the gradation on a FF are just "nicer". Certainly my 3 handles solid red much better than any of mt previous crops and better than my old 5D1.
I have also shot all day in pouring rain with my 3, the water resitance is very good when added to a resistant lens, not sure if the 70/300 is. A 70/200 F4IS L plus a 1.4 converter is though if that's important to you.

I had a FF itch (having shot so many slides etc on 35mm film) and the 5D3 really has satisfied it (the mk1 was very good but the 3 is in a different league) and if you have the money I think you should do it as the 3 is a very versatile camera. If you are in two minds I think you may well always regret not going FF.
 
I remember this dilemma!! I went 5D3 and haven't regretted it once (lets face it, I didn't need both kidneys!).

I can't make a comparison as I've not even held a 7D but I do still use my 60D and enjoy it greatly. Clearly the 5D3 is better than the 60D but not because it's FF.

I prefer FF as I grew up in the time of film and FF just seems to feel right for me as I've never quite adapted to crop sensors. This is a failing in me not the cameras.

I don't believe crop cameras are lesser beasts, so you just need to figure out which one fits your hands, brain and your style. The benefits, strengths and weaknesses of most of the gear is well documented so a bit of a comparison should help clarify some of the issues (you cant beat a good old speadsheet for this sort of thing).
 
That's a very good point about the weather sealing. I'm going to be going to the Antarctic next year so whichever body I choose is going to be coming with me and subjected to the elements - something I don't think the 70D will appreciate. It would be all very well saving the outlay for the Mk3 and getting some nice glass for the 70D, but would it all be worth it come crunch time when it's -15C on a once in a lifetime experience on the Antarctic research ship about to head off on the zodiac? These are the shots I don't want to miss. This is when it needs to come through.

It's not so much the FF aspect that's drawing me to the Mk3, more the benefits it brings as a result, event the size of the T3i bugs be as far too small for my oversized hands and I just encompass the entire bloody thing. :bang:

As I was intrigued about the ISO performance, I used Imaging Resource's "Comparomter" and to me the 70D is pretty much on par with my T3i. If anything, the latter retains more detail. Mind you, this may be due to different sharpening/ noise reduction settings in the JPG as I'm sure this isn't what Canon was intending! :lol:

In terms of glass for the Mk3, I would likely ditch the 70-200 f/4 as this with a 1.4x is obviously going to drop the whole lot to 5.6, whereas a straight 70-300 I'm going to have the benefit of the extra 50% reach whilst maintaining, what I think, to be a good compromise with 300 at 5.6 plus the wide end at 4.

Thank you all for your assistance so far!:clap: That's going to be some spreadsheet D4rr3n!!
 
jivemonkey said:
That's a very good point about the weather sealing. In terms of glass for the Mk3, I would likely ditch the 70-200 f/4 as this with a 1.4x is obviously going to drop the whole lot to 5.6, whereas a straight 70-300 I'm going to have the benefit of the extra 50% reach whilst maintaining, what I think, to be a good compromise with 300 at 5.6 plus the wide end at 4.

Thank you all for your assistance so far!:clap: That's going to be some spreadsheet D4rr3n!!
Click to expand...

The weather sealing was a part of getting the Mk3 although I did have a 1DMk2N, which was obviously weather proof but I felt the 3 would replace both my 5D1 and the 1D, which it has. Just be careful about what glass you get e.g. the 70/200 F4 non IS isnt sealed (AFAIK), so not all L lenses are.
 
You're correct, the non-IS doesn't have the weather sealing. I have the IS so could possibly use it with the 1.4x, but again I'd probably edge away from this option in favour of the 70-300L...

I think even just based on this I'd be a fool not to consider these weatherproofing requirements as a fundamental need in my next body..decision made!

Next decision...where to buy the MkIII from?! Time to go scour the forum I think...
 
jivemonkey said:
You're correct, the non-IS doesn't have the weather sealing. I have the IS so could possibly use it with the 1.4x, but again I'd probably edge away from this option in favour of the 70-300L...

I think even just based on this I'd be a fool not to consider these weatherproofing requirements as a fundamental need in my next body..decision made!

Next decision...where to buy the MkIII from?! Time to go scour the forum I think...
Click to expand...

I got mine from Calumet, not the cheapest but when I had what I thought was a problem with my new camera they were superb.

Matt
 
If you do t go for the Mark3 you will be willing and upgrade very soon...my case, get Mark3 and you will be happy for a few 5 years my call.
 
I have the 5D MKIII and i could never go back to a crop sensor now, i simply love the full frame view point.
 
Ah, the perennial problem. Do I buy the slightly older model that does everything I need, or do I go for the new shiny thing and compromise?
 
Your trip to the Antartic is surely the decider. The 70D has a degree of weather protection but you won't have to think about it with the 5D-III. I guess that low temperatures affecting your batteries will be a greater concern in either case.

I have seen evidence that illustrates that the 70D's newer technology delivers exceptional quality at high ISO. This same technology will doubtless find its way into future versions of the xD body range.

If budget isn't the issue, then the 5D is mighty tempting and your post has even got me wondering about 5D vs 70D because after months of research I am (or was!) planning on a 70D. I like the bigger rear scroll wheel and direct ISO button on the 5D (I used to have an EOS-1 in the pre-digital age) but for me the 70D articulated screen is a major benefit (insect wildlife) and it's the best touch screen in ANY of the Canon EOS range bodies.

As always, it's horse-for-courses and you're the jockey!

Now, if the 5D had the 70D's same articulated touch screen....

The money doesn't matter and it's forgotten history once spent.... Life is for living and you should buy the one you think will suit you best. Like buying a high performance car, test drive both cameras. Ferrari vs Aston Martin. Hire them both if you can and you'll know very quickly which is for you.

Let us know which you buy and obviously share your Antartic pics in due course.
 
Okay..as I'm sure you're aware the 'new & shiny' aspect didn't come in to it. If I wanted that I'd go for an iPhone 5S/A/B/C/D or whatever it is these days. This was merely a comparison of two bodies which I felt were the two that could both adequately meet my needs with regards to my initial requirements and wanted to see what this community's thoughts were to help clarify.

Anyway, what I was after was a much better upgraded flexible AF system with better low light performance, and as it now appears, weather sealing for my trip next year. The 7D, whilst I'm sure is a cracking camera, was too old and expensive compared the 70D so didn't feel comfortable going that route given it's likely imminent replacement and it's similar AF to the 70D. The 60D lacked the great AF the 70D lacked so that was out. It also had the added bonus of being smaller and lighter than the Mk3, which turns out might not be right for my hands anyway, with Movie AF, which would have been a nice touch.

Okay the integrated flash isn't exactly used on a daily basis, if at all, and certainly not a deal breaker but it's nice to have sometimes, especially where it's not practical to carry even more kit and a bit of fill required.

As I realised that the weather sealing and FF ISO performance would be of significant advantage, the Mk3 is looking like the way to go :thumbs:
 
RedRobin said:
The money doesn't matter and it's forgotten history once spent.... Life is for living and you should buy the one you think will suit you best. Like buying a high performance car, test drive both cameras. Ferrari vs Aston Martin. Hire them both if you can and you'll know very quickly which is for you.

Let us know which you buy and obviously share your Antartic pics in due course.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. If I can't spoil myself on my own passions in life then what's the point?

Will be sure to let you know when the order has been made, whichever way that goes. No doubt more threads will arise from either route!

Andy
 
Can you elaborate on your trip to Antarctica? We were there 18 months ago on an 'expedition' cruise and it was dry and not as cold as most people expect. Weather sealing and low output from batteries didn't figure...
 
ALWAYS dependent on the photographer's needs and personal preferences, but....

70D vs 7D = Swings vs Roundabouts. My own personal preference is the 70D.

7D vs 5D-III = Winner 5D-III

70D vs 5D-III = Winner 5D-III on spec, BUT the 70D has some latest-state-of-the-art features and these are NOT exclusively of benefit to videography.

The perfect solution = 5D-IV which will undoubtedly embody some of the features introduced in the 70D. But there's ALWAYS a better spec product just over the horizon because technology never stands still.
 
hollis_f said:
Hmmmmm.
Click to expand...

Haha, I stepped right into that one, touché!

In all seriousness though I guess I saw the 70D as a smaller, just as abled version of the 7D, so begged the question why 7D? I appreciate it has the weather sealing/ slight FPS/ alloy body advantage but this, to me anyway, didn't do it for me.
 
woof woof said:
If considering something like that I think I'd want to know how robust the weather sealing is. Remember that trip to Antarctica that killed Canon's?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml
Click to expand...

....I notice that most of the failed Canons in that linked report were 5D-II and perhaps the Mk III has greatly improved weather protection? - I don't know.

I hate web sites like that which display pale text on black backgrounds!! :bang: - They leave you with stripes across your vision afterwards :bat:
 
RedRobin said:
The perfect solution = 5D-IV which will undoubtedly embody some of the features introduced in the 70D. But there's ALWAYS a better spec product just over the horizon because technology never stands still.
Click to expand...

But when will they release the 5D mark IV? Looking at previous history I think around 2 years - Time to start saving...
 
RedRobin said:
....I notice that most of the failed Canons in that linked report were 5D-II and perhaps the Mk III has greatly improved weather protection? - I don't know.
Click to expand...

As the Canon's seemed to suffer whilst no Nikon failed at all I'd want to research Canon's weather sealing before heading into camera hazardous regions and if not convinced I'd go for a Nikon... if I didn't have a bag full of Canon lenses.
 
woof woof said:
As the Canon's seemed to suffer whilst no Nikon failed at all I'd want to research Canon's weather sealing before heading into camera hazardous regions and if not convinced I'd go for a Nikon... if I didn't have a bag full of Canon lenses.
Click to expand...

....There was a time many moons ago in my day, that professionals wouldn't even consider anything other than a Nikon. They were used literally in front line war zones and were bomb proof. Canon were not acceptable or viewed as a serious rival for some time but Nikon's early poor efforts at autofocus and Canon's revolutionary EOS interface began to convert people (me included).

I don't know what percentage of professionals use Canon nowadays but you see them used a lot.
 
RedRobin said:
....I notice that most of the failed Canons in that linked report were 5D-II and perhaps the Mk III has greatly improved weather protection? - I don't know.
Click to expand...

The report said 'In all cases it appeared to be water or humidity damage. Of particular concern were two cameras which stopped working while completely protected within Kata rain covers during a light rain ashore'. If it was water then they would have failed even faster in the UK as Antarctica is 'dry' and classified as a desert. When we were there it didn't rain but was bright and dry with temperatures a few degrees either side of 0C. At the time I had a 600D and that 'survived' the trip without any issues...

IMHO weather sealing isn't a pre-requisite for Antarctica unless you intend finding a snow storm and taking your camera out in it!
 
digital said:
IMHO weather sealing isn't a pre-requisite for Antarctica unless you intend finding a snow storm and taking your camera out in it!
Click to expand...

....Having never been there I am ignorant of what it's really like and the public perception is that Antartica has harsh conditions. Humidity is certainly a killer.
 
I'm in the lucky position of having both the 5D3 and the 70D and as someone above says "it's horses for courses". When I'm shooting wildlife, aviation and birds in flight and, to some extent, birds in tress and shrubs and then I'd now go with the 70D and know I'm going to get great quality shots at a great focal length range with my lenses.

For everything else I go for the 5D3 and know I'm going to get great quality shots out of it all the time. I do also use the 5D3 for the same shots as the 70D as well and the only thing I'm missing is the reach. With the 70D you can fill the frame with the subject whereas with the 5D3 you can't. The IQ and the build quality of both cameras is excellent and maybe the weather sealing of the 5D3 is better but I really wouldn't know.

If I could only have 1 body it would be the 5D3 however as for me it's the most perfect camera I've ever used. The 70D is the best crop body I've used though so it would be a tough decision.

Andrew, if you're anywhere near Lincoln you'd be welcome to come and have a fiddle about with both bodies and might help you make your mind up. The offer is open to anyone else if you are in a similar position. PM me if you want to visit, I'm about most days.
 
modchild said:
I'm in the lucky position of having both the 5D3 and the 70D and as someone above says "it's horses for courses". When I'm shooting wildlife, aviation and birds in flight and, to some extent, birds in tress and shrubs and then I'd now go with the 70D and know I'm going to get great quality shots at a great focal length range with my lenses.
Click to expand...

....As someone who is seriously considering the 70D that's really good to hear the experience of a photographer who has both. I'm the guy who wrote "it's horses for courses" - I'm sure I'll be writing it again in various future posts here and there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top