5D mk III vs IV - Which one to go for in 2020?

B

biertje

Messages
6
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently own a 60D and a 760D, but I'm looking to make a move into Full frame when I sell my 60D. I've narrowed it down to the 5D Mk III or IV and I was looking for a bit of advice on whether the mk III is still "relevant" in 2020. I've watched a lot of videos about the two cameras, but given the age of the camera's many of them are a good 3+ years old now which means they may not be as relevant today as they were then.
I'm not looking to purchase for another few months, but it's good to get an idea now. Part of me is also waiting in hope that a mk V will be released to lower the price of the used market :) I can afford both, but with the mk IV being about 3x the price of a mk III is it worth justifying? My main concern is that I'd buy the mk III and then quickly want to move up to the mk IV. That and finding a mk III in good enough condition with low enough shutter count.
They both seem like pretty good cameras even now after 8 years. I suppose it probably comes down to if there are any major red flags for the mk III.

A few points to note for me:
I only shoot stills and not video.
I shoot mostly wildlife and some landscapes, but never fire off 20 shots in a row so don't think I'd need the extra speed and buffer.
I do often use touch screen and the wifi on my 760D and do miss it on the 60D. I know that you can buy a card to enable wifi for the mk III though.
 
I have a friend who still shoots on older iterations of the Canon lines. I have had the 5 series throughout and find the 5D4 fabulous. I suspect, with the release of the EOS R models, there will be better used prices. Also, it's worth bearing in mind the loss of reach that you will experience on your lenses when you go full frame - this may not be an issue for you. I am not up with the road map - is there another 5D coming on that? I would be surprised if there is but there you go; I have been a Canon user for a long time and sometimes the logic. of what they do escapes me. I wonder, given that most R+D is now going on mirrorless models, whether you have thought about an R6? A former Canon user on here used his lenses with an adapter on the EOS R along side a 1dx2 and he thought they performed as well if not better so you wouldn't necessarily need to buy into the expensive R glass just yet; hard to know without knowing what your current kit list is. In terms of burst, I do find the 5s slow cf with my !DX2 but then that is absolutely to be expected.
 
Go with the IV. I've got a III and have used the IV and youget better dynamic range and ISO handling with the IV... plus its got wifi so you can use live view in cramped conditions
 
The step down from the 5dIV is the 6DII IMHO (unless you need the 2 card slots).

But if you can afford the IV, I don't understand why you'd consider the III.
 
Thanks for all the replies. Apologies I forgot to add equipment list:
Canon 18-55 "kit lens"
Canon 15-85
Tamron 70-300
Sigma 150-600 "C"
If going FF I'd look to add a 24-105 or 24-70, as obviously wouldn't be able to use the canon lenses on a FF.
The 5d5 was something that I was reading about on several rumour sites, unsubstantiated of course. Hopefully with the release of the R5 and 6 it will start bringing down the price anyway. I hadn't thought of going mirrorless just yet. Not sure of the reasons just feels a bit like cheating on the older SLR which I've been shooting with for 15 years. I will look into it, but I suspect that new prices of the R5 and 6 will be out of my range.

Actually one of my reasons for switching to FF is the focal length of lenses. At the moment for wildlife I use the 150-600 as my main lens and have the 15-85 on the 60D as backup. Not only does this leave a gap, but the 15-85 doesn't become that useful until around 40-45mm. Which unless I've made a massive error in my maths and logic is ~70mm on a FF. This would allow me to have a nice overlap from 70-300 and then (equivalent) 240-960. Initially I thought maybe I should look at buying a superzoom such as 18-300 or similar, but for not much more there is the option of a 5d III.
The other reason was better low light performance which would be useful for me. And then I just feel that the lens choices at FF are better and faster. I know you can fit them to a crop body, but from my reading it seems to be that they are more "optimised" for FF, and of course you get the focal length that you're supposed to.
I did look at the 6D as an option too,but preferred the ergonomics of the 5D. Might be worth some more digging there too.
My understanding was that the 2nd card slot on the III could be used with a wifi card to give it wifi capability.

Whilst I can afford the IV there is a £1300 difference between the two, which then doesn't leave much room for other purchases. I suppose my question is, is the V £1300 better than the III. Is the III still a good camera or is it really that obsolete in 2020? There are still people using them and getting great pics from them. Not easy questions, but just looking for opinions.

The other option is go for a III now to get an idea of the FF market and then upgrade to the IV or mirrorless in a few years and split the difference.
 
At the risk of being controversial look at the price of Mk 4 on one of the grey import sites. The main canon dealers are still selling the Mk4 at close to the price it was introduced at whereas you can tell that the trade price has reduced quite considerably by looking at the importer's prices.

eg https://www.hdewcameras.co.uk/

Cue howls of protest!
 
Any way you look at it even mkIII will be a big upgrade. It's a great tool but now there are greater. It is your call how much you want to spend and what expect in return. But there is nothing from stopping you using the mkIII, or even your existing ones to make large prints and generate some considerable returns from it.
Mine can happily be printed at 24"36" and I presume more.
 
I absolutely love my 5d3, but I’m looking to upgrade to the r6 at some point in the next couple of months. Mainly for the video features. The mk3 makes lovely footage but I’m just after something with great autofocus.
 
I don’t think the WiFi card works in the 5Diii, if you mean the W-E1.

Based on what you have written, I expect you will always be questioning your decision if you go for the mark iii even if it is a fine camera.
 
twist said:
R6
Click to expand...

It would make sense primarily because it is now no longer financially sensible to invest into brand new expensive EF lenses. R6 + 24-105 f/4 would do the job nicely. If you play the ebay game well then why not... All depends on your budget. My primary focus would be getting premium top tier glass either way you go.

R6 is "only" 20MP that's the only thing. I know that's nearly same as 5D3 and that's just fine; it just would be so much nicer to get more, like at least 30.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
It would make sense primarily because it is now no longer financially sensible to invest into brand new expensive EF lenses. R6 + 24-105 f/4 would do the job nicely. If you play the ebay game well then why not... All depends on your budget. My primary focus would be getting premium top tier glass either way you go.

R6 is "only" 20MP that's the only thing. I know that's nearly same as 5D3 and that's just fine; it just would be so much nicer to get more, like at least 30.
Click to expand...

20 and 30 are close, but there's no canon with the R6 advantage with 30mp... Except the R, which is still a capable camera and not exactly expensive.
 
Last edited:
I've taken a lot of images with the Mk3 and Mk4 and I would go Mk4 every day of the week. The files from the Mk4 are a big step up from the Mk3. The files can be pushed/pulled a lot more without them falling apart.

Don't rule out a 2nd hand Mk4. With the 5R/6R about to hit the streets there could be a lot of Mk4's hitting the market. Looking at the way you say you shoot it might be worthwhile taking a look at the EOS R. It's a lot nicer camera than a lot of people (who probably don't actually own the camera) would have you believe.

Gary
 
Thanks all.
I think I'd say the opposite I'm looking for a reason not to buy the III rather than wanting to buy the IV. That way money can be put towards glass. Other than the poster above there haven't been any major red flags against the III. Not many seem to be saying definitely don't go for the III.
Especially with the new launches of mirrorless cameras it might make sense to get a III and then wait a while to jump into the mirrorless market once the second hand options are available. Unfortunately the R is still looking a bit too pricey at the moment and R5 and 6 way out of range. But I'm not looking to get anything until the end of this year so a lot can change. Perhaps there will be an amazing "black Friday" sale on that I can take advantage of.
On that note where are the best places to buy used? I'm not sure that I trust ebay, but got stung on a second hand camera from wex too.
 
If you look at places like e-infinty and Panamoz you might be pleasantly surprised at the prices. The EOS R + 24-105 RF can be had for a very good price. There will be a lot of mk4's and R's hitting the 2nd hand market in the next few weeks when the R5/R6 starts to ship. I will be replacing my R and 7Dmk2 with a R6 to add to the R5 already pre-ordered. I imagine lots of others will be trading in too. A very good time to be in the market for an older generation camera. BTW, I absolutely loved my Mk3 but the Mk4 blew it away. I actually prefer the files out of the Mk4 to the files out of my Nikon D850.
Gary
 
I went from Mk II to a Mk IV which was obviously a bigger jump. My decision was based on a number of things:-

a. The mkIV had significantly higher dynamic range
b. The Mk IV had a significantly improved low noise performance
c. The Mk IV had built in GPS
d. The MK IV had WiFi
e. The Mk IV had the much improved focusing system used in the 7D2.

All of the above were important to me. Having used the 5D4 for 3 years now I can say that it was really worth it. For landscapes I always had to take multiple exposures to enable later HDR. Since having the 5D4, I have no need for multiple exposures for landscapes any more with its higher dynamic range. It became very obvious when I took some photos of Motocross against the sun which would not have been feasible with the 5D2. Recently I have been out shooting butterflies and to ensure fast shutter speeds and small apertures, I use ISO 3200 routinely. I also use the WiFi to control my camera from an iPad which can be handy for birds in my garden. The new focusing is excellent and now birds in flight are much easier.

So you need to consider how each camera would match your photography. I cannot comment in detail on the MK III as I never had one. I never considered the upgrade from a 5D2 to 5D3 sufficient improvement whereas the 5D4 was a big step up.

Dave
 
twist said:
20 and 30 are close, but there's no canon with the R6 advantage with 30mp... Except the R, which is still a capable camera and not exactly expensive.
Click to expand...

I've been looking at dpreview studio samples in RAW, presuming R6 = 1DXIII sensor https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1-d-x-iii-review/6
From the sharpness and details point of view I can't notice much meaningful difference between my mk3. I'm sure DR and high ISO will be noticeably better. 20 and 30 (I used mkIV) are indeed closer than I anticipated. It's an improvement but not a game changer. Then I looked into 5Ds and 5DsR. From the ISO100 detail point of view these were in a different league. Between them I incidentally prefer the simple S model. This is again not taking into account DR or high ISO performance. While very desirable, I can get plenty of DR back by bracketing exposures; I suspect in most cases this procedure would still have to apply. Now of course the R5 appears to have the best of both worlds except only my pocket appears to be missing something crucially important :(
Of course best case option is to buy both - one for high res and video and the other for general stuff and lower light action.

Maybe I'll get 5Ds from HDEW as a stop gap to replace one of the mkIIIs and wait for the Rx prices to go down. These are now absolute steals.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I've been looking at dpreview studio samples in RAW, presuming R6 = 1DXIII sensor https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1-d-x-iii-review/6
From the sharpness and details point of view I can't notice much meaningful difference between my mk3. I'm sure DR and high ISO will be noticeably better. 20 and 30 (I used mkIV) are indeed closer than I anticipated. It's an improvement but not a game changer. Then I looked into 5Ds and 5DsR. From the ISO100 detail point of view these were in a different league. Between them I incidentally prefer the simple S model. This is again not taking into account DR or high ISO performance. While very desirable, I can get plenty of DR back by bracketing exposures; I suspect in most cases this procedure would still have to apply. Now of course the R5 appears to have the best of both worlds except only my pocket appears to be missing something crucially important :(
Of course best case option is to buy both - one for high res and video and the other for general stuff and lower light action.

Maybe I'll get 5Ds from HDEW as a stop gap to replace one of the mkIIIs and wait for the Rx prices to go down. These are now absolute steals.
Click to expand...

IF the R6 uses the same sensor as the 1DXiii heres the DR in stops at various ISO (1dxiii in black / 5diii in blue). Its a good improvement at base ISO, from around ISO600 theres little / no difference so depends on where in the ISO range you need to push your file in post.

Capture.JPG
 
twist said:
IF the R6 uses the same sensor as the 1DXiii heres the DR in stops at various ISO (1dxiii in black / 5diii in blue). Its a good improvement at base ISO, from around ISO600 theres little / no difference so depends on where in the ISO range you need to push your file in post.

View attachment 286911
Click to expand...

interesting, I never imagined 160 would be better than 100. I'll have to test it. There must be very little between it. 2 full stops advantage would in many cases negate the need to bracket when it is sort of marginal, but in most cases would perhaps reduce the number of shots from 3 to 2 so you still have to go through HDR or manual blend routine.

One area where R6 would absolutely kill anything earlier would be longer non-stabilised lenses. My 400/5.6L is amazingly sharp but demands either tripod + mirror lock or over 1/800s. Even if it goes down to only 1/200s would be a massive win. Something like 135mm f/2L would also benefit; the good old 24-70mm f/2.8 II a bit less so but still very welcome. That's a big usability upgrade.

I think I'm sold on R6 as body #2 eventually, but I also primarily want something with ability to print ridiculous sizes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top